February 19, 2004 Alberta Hansard 47 Legislative Assembly of Alberta Title: Thursday, February 19, 2004 1:30 p.m. Date: 2004/02/19 [The Speaker in the chair] head: Prayers The Speaker: Good afternoon. Let us pray . Grant that we the me mbers of our pr ovince’s Legislature may fulfill our office with honesty and integrity. May our first co ncern be for the g ood of all of the people. Let us be guided by our deliberations this day. Amen. Please be seated. head: Introduction of G uests The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Community Development. Mr. Zwozdesky: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

It is indeed with great pleasure that I rise today to introduce to you and through you some very special members of our community who are working with the Canadian National Institute for the Blind. I would ask them to rise as their names are called, and then perhaps we can salute them all at the end of my introduction. Mr. Bryan O’Donnell, chair of the board for CNIB; Mr. Bill McKeown, the executive director of CNIB; Ellie Shuster, dire ctor of c ommunications for CNIB; Dia ne Bergeron, who is here with her daughter Summer Satre, and I think Diane has brought her other special friend, Polar. Is Polar with you?

Where is Polar? There he is, Polar the dog. Diane worked with the city of Edmonton as a co -ordinato r on the adv isory boa rd on Services to Persons with Disabilities, and she’s a board member of CNIB. They are accompanied by a member of my staff, Mr. Andrew Turzansky, who has worked extensively on the revisions to the Blind Persons’ Rights Act, which is before us for debate today, and they are here to witness that. I might just add quickly, Mr.

Speaker, that this was the group that also put together the f irst ever Vision awards, which occurred yesterday at the lov ely W inspear Ce ntre wit h the Edm onton Symphony and Ian Tyson and George Blondheim and all those superstars, and present ed our P remier with the first e ver Vision award. Thank you for that, and welcome to the Legislature. The Speaker: The hon. Solicitor General. Mrs. Forsyth: Well, thank you, Mr . Speaker. It is m y pleasure today to rise and introduce to you and through you to the members of the Leg islature t hree members of A lberta’s law enf orcement community.

These three men are members of C ops f or Cancer. Cops for Cancer started in Alberta in 1994 when Edmonton Police Service then Sergeant Gary Goulet became friends with a young boy suffering from cancer. Over the past 10 years Cops for Cancer has raised more than $15 million for the Canadian Cancer Society. Yesterday I had the honour of pa rticipating in one of the ir fundraising events by riding with them as part of their cross-country Canada and back stationary bike ride set up at West Edmonton Mall. I would like to thank everyone who sponsored my ride.

Donations are still coming in today, and I sincerely thank all of my colleagues and Legislature staff who were so thoughtful in contributing to this worthy cause. I am very pleased to ask Edmonton Police Service Inspector John Ratcliff and EPS Sta ff Sergeant Kerry Nisbet and Sta ff Sergeant Gary Goulet to please stand and accept the warm traditional welcome of the Assembly. The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Gaming. Mr. Stevens: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

It’s my pleasure to introduce to you and through you to the House this afternoon two people whose company is responsible for some of the best a ds on television. Ferg Devins and Jeff Gaulin of Molson Canada are with us today . In addition to being vice-president of corpora te affairs, Ferg is also one of the very best im personators that I’ve h ad the opportunity to be entertained by. I’d ask both Ferg and Jeff to rise and receive the acknowledgment of the House. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Lacombe-Stettler. Mrs. Gordon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to introduce to you and thr ough you to m embers of this A ssembly 18 y oung students in grade 6 from Clive school. With them today is teacher Mr. Robert MacKinnon, who’s just the best and one of my all-time favourites; parent helpers Mr. Keith Knight, Mr. Jake Tolsma, Mrs. Monica Catellier, Mrs. Debbie Wagner, Mr. Dav e Rainforth, Mrs. Colleen Rainforth, Mr. Scott Clark; bus driver Mrs. Deanne Rowley. Today is o ne o f the stu dents’ 12t h bi rthday. Happ y bir thday, Carmen. Would you please stand, and would the Assembly please award them the warm welcome of the House. The Speaker: The hon.

Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark. Mr. Maskell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It gives me pleasure today to rise and introduce to you and through you to the members of this Assembly a constituent of mine, a young man we’re very proud of, Dave Arcand. Dave has recently graduated with honours from the business administration program at NAIT and is looking forward to a career in finan ce. Dave is also ge tting mar ried in Septe mber. Many of the members in this A ssembly know Dave’s mother, Deb Arcand, who is the legisla tive as sistant to t he hon. Mem ber for Banff-Cochrane. Dave ha s risen.

W ould you please give h im a warm welcome from this Assembly. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Mountain View. Mr. Hlady: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me great pleasure to introduce to you and through you to members of the Assembly four guests: the firs t is Joe F ardell, who is the president of Tourism Calgary; George Morrison, the president of Leap Sports Incorporated and also the A lberta Classic golf tourna ment; Mi ke Stevens, the vice-president of the PGA tour, who was here ye sterday to launch the Alberta Classic, being held at Redwood Meadows this year in August; and also the president of the Edmonton Golf Association, Pat Carrigan, who is touring them around here in the city today.

I’d ask them all to please stand and receive the warm welcome of th e Assembly. The Speaker: I think that at this point it’s probably appropriate for a point of trivia, seeing as we have golfers from across the country. Very few people know that the first golf course built in Canada was actually built right on the site of this building. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview. Dr. Taft: Thank you, M r. Sp eaker. I alwa ys apprecia te your wisdom. Almost always.

As I’m sure many MLAs have noticed, there have been people in the gallery , parents a nd ot her people connec ted to educa tion, watching our debates closely and following progress on education

Alberta Hansard February 19, 200448 issues. Today I’d like to introduce one of those people in the public gallery, Susan O’Neil. Susan is a parent with kids in the Edmonton public system. She is editor of CommissionWatch and with Educa- tion Watch a nd as such w ill be wa tching us v ery carefully as we debate in the Legislature today. Please give her a warm welcome. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona. Dr. Pannu: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m pleased to rise today and introduce to you and through you to the Ass embly tw o student leaders w ho are he re to observ e today ’s proceedings.

The y are Melanee Thomas, executi ve directo r of t he Council of A lberta University Students, and Br ett Bergie , provincia l director of the Alberta College and Technical Institute Students’ Executive Council. They are seate d in the public g allery. I’ll ask them to r ise and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands. Mr. Mason: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I’m pleased to rise today and introduce to you and t hrough you t o members of the Assembly two postsecondary students.

M elissa Stephen is a first- year social work student who is working in my constituency office at Edmonton-Highlands for the practicum portion of the social work program she is enrolled in at Grant MacEwan College. She is doing a very good job of handling the large volume of casework that comes to my office, and I’m very happy that she could join us today. Erin Lindon is a sec ond-year student at Grant MacEwan in the correc- tional services program. She hopes to continue with her education following th is program with a crim inal justice degree, and her ultimate goal is to work with the RCMP.

I’m very pleased that they could join us today, a nd I would as k them to rise a nd receive the warm welcome of this Assembly. head: Oral Quest ion Peri od The Speaker: First Official Opposi tion main question. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. Government Expense Claims Mr. MacDonald: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday the Premier tried to justify his government’s travel expenses by saying that it was necessary to promote and sell A lberta abr oad. Well , I’m s ure Albertans would like to know what this government is doing with their money in the provinc e. My f irst question is to t he Premier.

What was the government selling when the Premier and the execu- tive director of his southern Alberta office spent $750 of tax money for a meal at Caesar’s restaurant in Calgary? Mr. Klein: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know and the hon. member has not said when, and I don’t know who might have been at that meeting, but obvious ly there was more than one, more than two, more than three, perhaps mor e than four , perhaps five, perhaps si x, perhaps seven, perhaps eight people at that particular meeting. 1:40 Mr.

Speaker, I can’t tell you how frustrated I am with the Liberals, who have FOIPed, as they have the right to do, and have put literally dozens and dozen s of publi c service employees to work at gr eat expense. They have spent countless hours investigating these matters. Countless hours. I would guess that once the tab has been tallied – and I plan to table it in this Legislature – it far exceeds the expenses incurred by my office over the past three years, and I will table that. I’m frustrated and I’m disappointed that the Liberals would not be honest enough.

You alluded to honesty and integrity in your prayer today, Mr. Sp eaker, and it’s something that is des perately lacking within the Liberal Party: honesty and integrity. I read the headline in the Edmonton Sun today that a glass of o range juice cost $27. That is not true, Mr. Speaker. It is not true, and they didn’t go out of their way to say that that was not true. As a matter of f act, what cost $27 Canadian was three ju gs of orange juice. Three jugs of orange juice. At £12 that was roughly $27 Canadian, and that works out to appro ximately $2.70 a glass.

That wasn’t in the Edmonton Sun, and the Liberals did not go out of their way to explain the situation. They did not go out of their way. That to me s peaks to t he lack of honesty and the lac k of inte grity within that party. Mr. Speaker, yesterday they tabled information relative t o th e amount spent on transportation in New York. I will have to give credit to some of the media outlets who phoned New York and said that at that pri ce, my delegation and my self got a bargain, an absolute bargain.

Again, this speaks to their la ck of integrity and honesty, not standing up and telling the public what the cost of doing business in New York actually is. They raised the matter of $1,100 spent on tips to hotel staff in Mexico City and others. Mr. Speaker, they lacked hones ty and integrity when they failed to explain that this is not a discretionary expenditure. It is p art of the way Mexican hotels and othe rs bill customers. That fee covered the service costs of six people for four days and also included costs for meeting room use. They did not say that. They didn’t go out o f their way to exp lain that.

That to me says that they are not honest and that they lack integrity. The Speaker: The hon. member has been recognized. Mr. MacDon ald: Thank you, Mr. Speaker . Sp eaking of being frustrated and disappointed by a government, it’s the citizens of this province who are on AISH and SFI. They have not had a raise. Now, how do es thi s Pre mier justify spending almost th e same amount on a meal at Caesar’s restaurant in Calgary as some Alber- tans on AISH receive from this government to live on for an entire month? Mr.

Klein: Again I speak to honesty and integrity, and this man, this person, lacks both tremendously, because he is implying that I spent personally $750 on a meal for me. That, Mr. Speaker, is dishonest, and he knows it. Mr. MacDonald: I’m tempted to ask if there’s tuna fish on the menu at Caesar’s. My next question, Mr. Speaker, is: why are no details provided by the Premier’s office on the di nners and hote l expenses charged to taxpayers by members of Executive Council? Why not? Mr. Klein: Mr.

Speaker, Executive Council is gran ted cer tain privileges by virtue of the oaths we take as ministers, oaths, by the way, that are not required of the opposition, not that they would keep them anyway. Mr. Speaker, in many cases there are sensitive meetings that take place between members of Executive Council and individuals. That is the reas on that some business meetings, whether they ’re over dinner or otherwise, are kept secret and the names of the clients or guests are not disclosed. Dr. Taft: Mr.

Speaker, at a time when a thousand teachers are laid off in Alberta, when tuition fees soar, and when seniors are left in

February 19, 2004 Alberta Hansard 49 jeopardy, this Tory government found plenty of money for travel and communications. In 1998 annual reports show that this government spent an amazing $89 million for travel an d communications. By last year that huge amount had soared an unbelievable 47 per cent to $131 million. To the Premier: why has this government’s travel and communications spending soared 47 per cent since 1998 to a mind- boggling $131 million a year? Mr. Klein: Mr. Speaker, I’ll attempt to get that information for the hon. member.

I understand that he has a request for a written answer to that particular question on the Order Paper, and I’m sure that he’ll be provided with that information. In addition, I’ve agreed to appear at Public Accounts at a time that will be suitable to the Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar , who I understand is chair of the Public Accounts Committee. We’ll try to arrange a time. Be glad to answer those questions, and I’m sure there are detailed explanations for all of the expenditures. Mr.

Speaker, I’d like to point out to the hon. member that for the disabled alone I think we sp end in excess of 1.7 billion – billion – dollars. Even this person can understand $1.7 bill ion for disabled services in this province. The Speaker: The hon. member. Dr. Taft: Thank you. Can the Premier tell us if he himself i s ultimately responsible for expense claims filed by staff in his office? Mr. Klein: Am I responsible? I really don’t know. I haven’t given it any thought. But if he wants to know what I had for lunch today, I had a bowl of mushroom soup and an egg salad sandwich. Dr. Taft: Mr.

Speaker, in the interest of openness can the Premier explain why his chief of staff spent over $1,500 of taxpayer money on hotel rooms in Edmonton when he lives in metro Edmonton? Mr. Klein: I really don’t know, but I’ll ask him about that. I really don’t know. If the hon. member will provide me with the documen- tation, I’ll look int o it. Perhaps – and I say pe rhaps – he ha d to secure those ho tel rooms for o ut-of-town visitors , Mr. Spe aker, visitors who had been invited to do business at our expense, various consultants.

We have numerous people, literally hundreds of people, coming to Edmonton e ach and ev ery day who d o bus iness, who require my office to give them help in securing transportation and securing accommodation, and we do that as a matter of courtesy. Mr. Speaker, I guess these people don’t understand, thank God, what government is all about and how government runs.

If they look to their Liberal cousins in Ottawa, as an example, I would remind the Liberal Party that the total expenses they’re talking about don’t equal over three years the am ount spent on one t rip by the Gover nor General – one trip, $5.3 million – and that was sanctioned by their Liberal cousins in Ottawa, and they think it’s okay. 1:50 The Speaker: Third Official Opposition main question. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. Ms Blakeman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday th e Premier claimed that his government was open and transparent.

However, when one loo ks at the reco rd of this go vernment, that claim rings hollow. My questions are to the Premier. Why has the Premier and his executive staff not appeared before the Public Accounts Commit- tee in over e ight yea rs despite ha ving bee n issued inv itations to appear? Eight years. Mr. Klein: Very interesting. I said that I would. It’s not normal for Premiers to appear before public accounts committees. As a matter of fact, I was the first Premier to appear before the Public Accounts Committee in almost 30 years, Mr. Spea ker.

No ot her Premier in this country, as I understand it – as I understand it – appears before Public Accounts. Now, I have agreed to do that. The Speaker: The hon. member. Ms Blakem an: Thank you. Again to the Prem ier: why is the Premier and his Exe cutive Council provided s pecial privileges to withhold information under the freedom of information act? Mr. Smith: They signed off on the act. Mr. Klein: On the FOIP Act. Mr. Smith: Yes. They signed off on that. Mr. Klein: Well, I’m advised by the hon.

Minister of Energy that they signed off on the FOIP Act, which provides certain exemptions for members of Executive Council due to the somet imes sensitive nature of the discussions we have with our citizens. Ms Blakeman: Okay. Then to the Premier again: will the Premier bring in amendments to the freedom of information act to drop the special exemptions for Executive Council around travel details? Mr. Klein: Mr. Spea ker, we are as o pen an d tran sparent as we possibly can be. We don’t sneak around. We don’t hire operatives like the hon. Mem ber for E dmonton-Riverview to find out what we’re doing in London.

If he wants to know or if the Liberals want to know, then get on a plane and go. Find out; don’t sneak around. Mr. Speaker, the Energy minister will be representing me in New York. He has issued this news release, and to me it’s quite satisfac- tory because he ’ll be repr esenting me in Ne w York City. “ The estimated cos t of th e trip for Mi nister Smit h and hi s executive assistant is $9,500.” Estimated cost. It could be $10,000; it c ould be $9,000. We don’t know. The full itinerary is listed, what he’s going to be doing.

I’m sure that he doesn’t know everyone who’s going to be there, because I’ve attended these conferences before and usually there are 150 to 200, sometimes 2 50 peopl e. But he w ill travel to New York; he will attend the East Coast Canadian Energy Conference. There w ill be pres entations by compani es wit h operations in Alberta. Minister Smith will be the keynote speaker at that meeting. There will be media availability. Now, if you think this is all wrong, you stand up and say so. You stand up and say so, that it’s wrong. On Thursday he will attend the Fi rstEnergy resear ch trust overview.

He wi ll do an inter view with Petroleum Int elligence Weekly. He w ill attend a presentation by Henry Groppe, who’s a well-known analyst in th e oil and gas business. He will attend the FirstEnergy research update on oil s ands evolut ion. He w ill do another media availability. He will attend presentations by compa- nies with operations in Alberta on Friday. Then he will depart the conference for Edmonton or Calgary. What is wrong with that ? If the opposition fe els t hat there i s something wrong with this mission, stand up and say so. Be honest. Show integrity.

Stand up and s ay that they don’t agree with these missions to sell Alberta. Stand up and say it. Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I do want to supplement that. As a matter of fact, on the topic of yesterday and today, the trips to New York,

Alberta Hansard February 19, 200450 the last time the Premier and I were in New York, while the Kyoto- loving Liberals were sucking lattes down in the United Nations, we were downtown defending Alberta’s interest and the destruction of the Alberta economy throu gh the Kyoto protocol that those guys caused. So, boy, we’ll continue to do that. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands. Cattle Prices Mr. Mason: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. According to the most recent weekly survey done by the agriculture ministry, Alberta cattle prices are in free f all.

In f act, cow-calf producers are only getting about half as much for their feeder calves as they were one year ago. With the news that the border for live cattle could remain slammed shut until nex t yea r, it’s bec ome pre tty cle ar that this government’s strategy of barbecues and pleading with their pals in the Bush administration just doesn’t cut it. My question i s to t he Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. Why is the government turning its back on rural Alberta by refusing to even consider getting a floor price for cattle in this province? Mrs. McClellan: Mr.

Speaker, I have had a lot of questions in this House over a period of many years, and I have never heard one that was as off base as this one. I would invite this hon. member to go out to ru ral Alberta, to get out of the city and go sit in a n auction market, to go stand before 1,200 people and discuss this industry, to spend nine and a half months meeting almost daily with them, and ask them how they feel about this government’s support to agricul- ture. I’ll tell you that it’ll be not this member that has stood up for agriculture. I think two questions in the last session.

I have listened for two days to the opposit ion benc hes questioning trips on tr ade missions for this province of ours while these important issues sit out there. Mr. Speaker, we have provided support programs that have carried this industry , th at wer e des igned b y thi s in dustry i n it s to tality. Every member of every organization in agriculture, in beef produc- tion, including processors and retailers and truckers, has been at a round-table designing those progr ams. I f he does n’t believe it’s worked, tell the indus try tha t because they de signed t hem.

We supported them to the tune of $400 million, which is more than any province in Canada has provided and double what the federal government has provided to date. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Mason: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, given that only cattle producers are being devastated while the profit margins of supermar- kets and packing plants are on the r ise, why is this gov ernment letting th e cow-calf producers bear the brunt of this crisis? Why don’t they share the pain at least? Mrs. McClellan: Well, Mr.

S peaker, if we had time, I would give the hon. member a littl e lesson in market, but we don’t have tha t kind of time in the House. It again displays his lack of knowledge of the industry. Through the programs that were provided last year that supported the chain of beef production, which is how it works, cow-calf producers received as good or better prices in the fall for their calves. No question; the evidence is there, and I can provide tapes from a sale one year ago to last fall. That is fact, a nd it’s a simple matter. Pick it up on the web site. They’re all there.

Yes, you will find some fee der cattle today at half price, but generally, Mr. Speaker, 800-pound steers, if they’re good cattle, are up to 65 cents. That is not satisfactory. It is not half. It’s probably 25 cents off, 15 cents off what it should be. 2:00 Mr. Speaker, we do have in place, if we can convince the rest of the provinces to sign, a disaster assista nce progra m call ed the Canada agriculture income stabilization program. If he could write to some of his NDP governments on either side of us , that would help, and then that support would be available to the prod ucers of this province. We’ve signed.

Mr. Mason: Mr. Speaker, why is it that while cattle ranchers and feedlot owners a re losing t heir land, los ing their he rds, all this minister can do is flip burgers and go on bended knee to Washing- ton? [interjections] The Speaker: The hon. Deputy Premier has been recognized. Mrs. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I must confess that I probably only flipped o ne or t wo burgers, and it w as at a school in Edm onton where the teacher of that school had the foresight and wisdom to take his grade 4 class – and I wish he’d have invited the hon. member to attend – to do a study on BSE.

He f elt it was important that the students understood this issue thoroughly, to recognize this, and a special young lady in that school stylized the I Love A lberta Beef slogan by writing “still” – I Still Love Alberta Beef – on it. We did attend that school. I was proud to do that with the hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods and recognize that grade 4 students take an interest in the struggles that our beef industry are going through right now. So I did; I flipped a burger there. That’s the extent of it.

What I have done and what the hon. member has not done is sit down with this industry on almost a daily basis to tr y to work our way through what is a very complex and difficult situation that is no fault of theirs, and we continue to do that. I do not have to, I think, defend my work w ith this indu stry to tha t hon. mem ber. The industry will determine that. The Speak er: The hon. Minister of Economic De velopment to supplement? Mr. Norris: Mr. Speaker, I think it ’s very important, if the ho n. members want to ask questions, that they at least get their questions and facts right.

There are, indeed, trips to promote beef. They’re in conjunction with the CBEF a nd BI C. The hon. M ember for Wainwright has gone on one; the hon. Member for Spruce Grove- Sturgeon-St. Albert is going on one. But this particular minister of agriculture has led the nation in defending this industry, and I can tell you as minister of industry that they’re very proud of what she has done. For him to comment that she’s out flipping burgers is not only incorrect; it’s wrong. I want to say in front of the House that the industry is incredibly proud of what this particular ministry has done. The Speaker: The hon.

Member for Highwood. Aldersyde Interchange Mr. Tannas: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Last weekend there was yet another fatal collision at the intersection of highways 2, 7, and 547 near Aldersyde in my constituency. Toda y my question is t o the Minister of Transpor tation. My constitu ents want to kn ow ho w many collisions have to occur at this dangerous intersection before the Department of Transportation takes the initiative and builds an interchange.

February 19, 2004 Alberta Hansard 51 Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, the Aldersyde interchange is a priority for the department. Present ly, to date all of the pr eliminary func- tional planning has been com plete. T he land acqui sition is in progress. In fac t, a fair amount of the par cels of land require d to accommodate the interchange have been purchased, and we will be now issuing an RFP for the very detailed engineering plan to be put in effect at that particular location. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Tann as: Thank y ou, Mr. Speaker.

My only supplemental question, then, is again to the Minister of Transportation. Recogniz- ing the minister’s comments that it t akes time to build road infra- structure like that interchange, when can Albertans and my constitu- ents expect to see construction at the intersection of highways 2, 7, and 547? When? Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, the interchange in question is not in the 2003-2006 capital plan.

However, with Budget 2004, which will be announced soon, and with every budget we always update our capital plan, always go back to it, revise it, add another year to that three- year plan, and given this location, the traffic counts, and all the work that’s been done to da te, I’m looking f orward to the capital plan being tabled in this House in the very near future. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark. Lieutenant Governor’s Residence Ms Blakeman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It’s been discovered that next week the government is going to be tearing down the official residence of the Lieutenant Governor of Alberta and selling off one- third of the land. This residence has been s ignificant in term s of architectural style as well as for the heads of state and other officials, including Princess Diana and Grant MacEwan, who have lived or been entertained there. The government has provided no concrete plan to rebuild this public asset. My questions are t o the Premier.

Is allowing an asset to deteriorate to the point where it will cost $400,000 to repair it the government’s version of good stewardship? Mr. Klein: Mr. Speaker, unlike the h on. member I’ve been in the home, and it was a nice home. Ms Blakeman: How do you know? Mr. Klein: If she has been in the home, then stand up and say so. Maybe she will do it whe n she, you know, gets up t o question. If you’ve been in the house, I will apologize. Ms Blakeman: Answer the question. Mr. Klein: I’m going to answer the question. You haven’t been in the house; have you? I have been in the house, Mr.

Speaker, and it was maintained as best as it possibly could be. We spent, I understand, about $25,000 a year on the bungalow, which is a considerable amount of money, but as that old song says, This Old House, you know, there are things that go wrong with a house: the heating systems, the wiring systems, the kinds of things that you can’t see.

It was the opinion of the Department of Infrastructure that rather than spend $400,000 to renovate the home and completely overhaul it, it would be better to s ell one of the lots at a very good price – because it is prime real estate – and develop the other two lots, and it seems to me that you can build a very, very nice home on two lots in Glenora, a ver y nice home indeed.

I’m sure once the architects have the plans prepared, the hon. minister would be prepared to table those plans, and I can assure you that whatever is built there will be most appropriate for a head of state, the Lieutenant Governor, and anyone who might want to visit her or him in the future. The Speaker: The hon. member. Ms Blakeman: Thank you. Aga in to the Prem ier: why did the government not consult w ith Alber tans and par ticularly with the neighbours in Glenora before de ciding t o demolis h this historic building? Mr. Klein: Mr.

Speaker, relative to the proce ss I’ll have the hon. minister respond. 2:10 Mr. Lund: Mr. Speaker, I did tour the house on two occasions, and of course the hon. member has admitted that she did not. We also toured the h ouse wi th Her Honour the Lieutena nt Gover nor. If you’ve been in the hous e, you would q uickly see that it’s built in three

section s. Eve n the dining room is not rea lly conduc ive to having royalty live in it. So we, in fact, assessed the condition of the home in many areas, and the Premier has talked about the various things that were a problem. We discussed it with Her Honour, and she also agreed that the house needed to be replaced an d not to try to just simply repair it. The Speaker: The hon. member. Ms Blakeman: Thank you very much. To the Minister of Infrastruc- ture then: as th e people’s steward for this Lie utenant Governor’s residence, under what authority did the minister decide to destroy the building? Mr.

Lund: Well, Mr. Speaker, she said that we’re responsible for it, so I would as sume that that giv es us the a uthority to manage the property the way that we see fit to spend money wisely, because they are Albertans’ dollars. The Speak er: The hon. Mem ber for Edm onton-Meadowlark, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Glengarry. Education Policy Mr. Maskell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Alberta students continue to be top achie vers nationally and at the inte rnational level, and I know th at ever yone in thi s Asse mbly is proud of how well our students are do ing.

However , we mu st continue to maintain that momentum, and that doe sn’t happen easily. There must be a continuous plan for improvement. What I hear from teachers is that they want to be able to do the ir very best i n tea ching for all their students. What I hear from parents is that they want their children to learn to their potential. Teacher s and parents be lieve that their children must be able to learn and s ucceed in a relatively pleasant environment.

To the Minister of Learning: in the Learning depart- ment’s planning what assistance will there be to ensure tha t every child, wher ever the y res ide in the prov ince, wi ll learn to their potential? The Speaker: Okay. With in the confines of the que stion period, please.

Alberta Hansard February 19, 200452 Dr. Oberg: Thank you very much, M r. Speaker. Wh at the hon . member has just asked me is basically the essence of the Department of Learning. Our wish and our mandate is to ensure that every child succeeds so that every child can live to its full potential within th e education system. I will say quite simply in one very short, succinct answer that that is exactly what we do in the Department of Learn- ing. Mr. Maskell: My second question is also to the same minister.

Of the total Learning budget what percentage stays in the department and what k inds – and I sa y kind s – of support from the money retained is used to s upport schools a nd teachers and, as a result, students? Dr. Oberg: Mr. Speaker, in the K to 12 system we presently spend about $3.8 billion per year. Of that $3.8 billion roughly $72 million is kept within the department for such things as curriculum, such things as assessments, such things as s chool b oard and teacher supports. Again a succinct answer to the hon. member is that every dollar of that $72 million is aimed to support teachers and students. Mr.

Maskell: My final question to the same minister. The Learning Commission recognized that working with ESL students and early intervention with high-needs students must happen as early as possible. What is the Learning department doing to ensure that these students’ needs are met? Dr. Oberg: Mr.

Speaker, we do a lot when it comes to ESL, but in direct refer ence to the hon. mem ber’s question there were some interesting concepts raised in the Learning Commission about full- day kindergarten, about juni or kindergarten, and we a re currently looking at how we can best utilize those recommendations to ensure that the kids at a n even younger age ca n do even bet ter. ESL is incredibly important . We w ill be incre asing our g rants to ES L. Obviously, people i n Alberta have to le arn English if they are to succeed in the Alberta environment and the Alberta economy.

Those two elements that the hon. m ember has mentioned are i ncredibly important to us, and it’s something that the thousand people in my department work a t continually to ensure t hat the bes t possible supports for ESL, the best possible supports for the teachers, the best possible supports for the stude nts ar e out there and are looked at each and every day. Municipal Financing Mr. Bonner: Mr. Speaker, aside fro m implementing a few short- term financing measures, the m inister’s council o n three Rs has failed to deliver long-term, stable financial solutions for municipali- ties.

To the Mini ster of Municipal A ffairs: when i s this counc il going to imple ment re liable, pre dictable, l ong-term funding f or municipalities? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Boutilier: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I want to say that this minister’s council is the only council of its kind in Canada, and I’m very proud of that initiative. Second of all, I want to say that the mayors of Edmonton and Calgary, our two biggest cities, but also every one of our 360 municipalities, are represented through the president of the AUMA as well as the president of the AAMD and C.

What I’m really particularly proud of is – one of the initiatives was ME First. It’s a hundred million dollars that goes to municipalities interest-free in terms of promoting energy efficiency in the province. Second of all, we’ve been working very closely with the initiative of the issue of the p olice report that is coming o ut. It ’s going to be reflected in the budget when it’s released in March. We’ve worked very closely with the Solicitor General because policing issues have been ones that have been identified by municipal leaders across this great province. Mr. Bonner: To the same minister, Mr.

Speaker: will this govern- ment show its commitm ent to a new deal for munici palities by matching the funding provided by the federal government? Mr. Boutilier: Mr. Speaker, the short answer is yes, but I would like to elaborate even f urther. T he P rime Minister ha s appointed a representative, the form er Premier of Br itish Columbia, who was also a former city mayor, Mike H arcourt. T he first province he ’s visited is the province of Alberta. We met with him last week here in the Legislature office in Edmonton. I’m really pleased to see that both the mayors of Edmonton and Calgary participated.

One of the things he said, a nd I quote: w e want t o follow the example tha t Alberta has shown to other cities across all of Canada. Mr. Bonner: To the sa me minister, Mr. Speaker: given t hat th e federal government has al ready formed a committee to w ork on a new deal for municipalities, will this ministry work with the feds to ensure that our municipalities are getting the best possible deal? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Boutilier: Thank you. Mr.

Speaker, let me elaborate, and I’ll also ask the Minister of Transportation, responsible for the only deal of any province in Canada where the province of Alberta gives our cities, in fact, 5 cents a litre of the 9 ce nts that’s collected by the provincial governm ent. In ac tual fac t, of the 9 cents tha t th e province of Albe rta colle cts, we contribute ba ck to roads across Alberta something like 16 cents, so I’m very proud of the fact.

This is the first initiative that we’d like to see t he feder al government follow in terms of helping a new deal for Alberta cities and also rural cities, because we have a subsequent meeting with the presidents of both the rural and urban associations. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Fort, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. Gasoline Taxes Mr. Cao: Well, thank you, Mr . Speaker.

Give n that our A lberta government collects 9 cents per litre of gasoline and returns 5 cents to the municipalities of Calgary and Edmonton and also given that the fe deral gov ernment currently collects 10 cents pe r litre of gasoline, that translates to lots of dollars from Alberta, but none of this money is allocated and returned directly to our municipal ities. They’re now talking about increasing the gasoline tax in the name of the Kyoto agreement commitment. So reflecting the concerns from my constituents, my question today is to the minister of municipali- ties.

What has the minister been doing to hel p Al berta cities convince the fede ral g overnment to do t he sam e as our A lberta government for our fast-growing Alberta municipalities? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Boutilie r: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, of the 10 cents that Albertans pay to the federal government, the Minister of Transporta-

February 19, 2004 Alberta Hansard 53 tion has informed us t hat the amount of money sent to the federal government over the last 10 years was $7 billion. What we said is: we do not need to create a bureaucracy. We have a system in place that works very, very well. So rather than creating another bureau- cracy – and I want to say that I applaud the federal government and the Prime Minister for saying that they want to help municipalities. That’s positive, but why create another bureaucracy? Mr. Harcourt said that he would like to see a deal quick ly and t o follow the Alberta way of d oing it.

I t’s my hope that tha t will be nefit al l motorists in Alberta and that that money can go directly. I know that mayors across this province want to put that money back into roads, and certainly I know that the Minister of Transportation would agree with that statement. 2:20 Mr. Cao: Well, my last supplemental question is, i n fact, to the Minister of Transportation. What is the minist er doing now to facilitate or expedite the federal transfer of gasoline sales tax to the pressing needs of the cities of Calgary and Edmonton? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Stelmach: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We’re also privileged in the province of Alberta to have the president of the AAMD and C as a member of the committee that was put to gether by the Prime Minister to review some m ethod, some proce ss of pr oviding all municipalities with some of the revenue that goes to Ottawa in the form of a gas tax, so we have a good strong voice at the table. He is there as a citizen of rural Canada, not in his official capacity, but he is bringing forward, of course, the Alberta position.

Next week we w ill be in Ott awa with our firs t meeting of the provincial ministers of transportat ion and actuall y me eting the federal minister for the first time. This will be a topic of discussion. There are certainly musings from Ottawa. The committee has been put together, but we w ant to see the mone y, and we also ar e very adamant, Mr. Speaker, that we feel that all dollars from the federal government in terms of gas tax have to flow through to the province, and then we will sit down with our municipalities and decide how then that money will go to every municipality in this province.

The Speaker: The hon. Mem ber for Edm onton-Mill Woods , the Interim Leader of the Official Opposition. School Construction Dr. Massey: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Schools in Devon are badly overcrowded. A new separate school was approved in 1999, and in 2000 a budget was establish ed. The board pl anned to open the school in September of this year. My questions are to the Minister of Infrastructure. With a budget within approximately 5 per cent of the planned cost, why has the government not proceeded with this badly needed project? Mr. Lund: Mr.

Spea ker, it w ould have be en very helpful if the member would have told me what school it is that he’s talking about; I’m not sure. Ce rtainly, within the city of Edmonton, in both th e public and the separate boards, their utilization is still well below the 85 if you take it over the whole jurisdiction. There are some sectors that are somewhat higher, particularly in the separate board, and we, of course, have facilitated.

As a matter of fact, since I was appointed Minister of Infrastructure, I have been present at the opening and/or the modernization of four separate schools and one public within the city of Edmonton, so over the last couple, three years. I think that if we look at what has happened province-wide, in fact since the year 2000 we’ve spent some $1.1 billion on schools within the province, some 774 projects. So it’s not as though this govern- ment hasn’t been spending money on new schools and moderniza- tion within the province. The Speaker: The hon. member. Dr. Massey: Thank y ou. I ’m sorr y, Mr.

Spe aker; I think the minister misunder stood. The s chool has bee n appr oved, a nd a budget of $4 million was established in 2000. So my question is: how can boards be expected to plan for student ac commodation when four years after they have the approval for a building, they’re still not allowed to go to tender? Mr. Lund: Well, Mr. Speaker, once again the member has not told me what school it is or what area. As I just indicated, just in schools alone we hav e some 774 projects, so if he comes to me and asks about one specific school, how am I supposed to k now all 774 projects?

I’m sorry, but I just don’t have that information right at my fingertips, especially when he does not even have the courtesy to tell me what the name of the school is. Dr. Mass ey: Well, I’m sure there are a number of schools being built in Devon. It’s Evergreen Catholic separate regional. My third question, then, is again to the minister. What does getting approval for a school mean if the school is never built? Mr. Lund: Mr. Speaker, there’s a whole process that we go through, and the process starts off with the boards giving us their capital plan. They have to priorize the plan.

Then we take all of those from all of the jurisdictions within the province and priorize them on a provin- cial basis. A school may get an approval but not with funding. Very often what happe ns afte r that p rocess is that the next y ear or subsequent year s th e b oards ma y ver y we ll have c hanged thei r capital plan and hav e raised another school to a priority . He’s suggesting that it w as in the y ear 2000.

W e’ll try to research and find out exactly what has happened and give an answer, but it’s very, very interesting that he raise s that here because I have met, as a matter of fact two weeks ago, with the separate board here in the city of Edmonton and they’ve never mentioned it, so I’m at a bit of a loss as to exactly what the problem is. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona, followed by the hon. Member for Innisfail-Sylvan Lake. Health Care Funding and Revenue Generation Dr. Pannu: Thank you. Mr.

Speak er, after gouging Albertans on electricity, after forcing drivers to pay the highest car insurance in western Canada, after jacking up health premiums and 70 other user fees and taxes, apparently this government wants more. Apparently, it wants more out of the pockets of Albertans, for the Premier now says that the G raydon report, which called for user fees for health care, is still under active consideration.

Apparently, this government now thinks that parents rus hing childre n to th e eme rgency room should have to worry about receiving a bill, as if any parent wants to think about that when their child is running a 104-degree tempera- ture. My ques tion is to the Minister of Health and Wellness. On January 22 the mini ster rule d out accepting the Gray don report recommendations. Why? Mr. Mar: Mr. Speaker, I want to say that we have a g ood health

Alberta Hansard February 19, 200454 care system. We have a good health care system in Canada, but the reality is – and Albertans and Can adians need to know this – that health care expenditures have risen between 8 and 10 per cent each year over the last 10 years and government revenues over the same period of time have only gone up 2 to 4 per cent a year. So that’s the reason why a province like Nova Scotia now spends more than 50 per cent of its entire budget on one budget item, health care. They spend more on he alth care tha n every thing else that they do put together. Mr.

Speaker , in thi s pro vince w e have t he good for tune of resources that have assisted us, but the reality remains the same here. In 1993 roughly 24 per cent of our budget was spent on health care. That compares interestingly with 1971 when it was only about 10 per cent, and this year we’ll spend about 36 pe r cent of our budget on health care, and in its curren t track w e’ll spend over 50 per cent within the medium-term future. So, Mr. S peaker, we need to look at di fferent ways of financing our health care system. We look for ev ery efficiency that we can.

We try our very best to pay for those things that make a difference to the health outcomes for individuals. We try our best not to waste our money. We try our very best t o gear down o ur administrative costs, but we have to look at other jurisdictions around the world and ask: what is it that they’re doing in their jurisdictions? 2:30 Now, let me say this, Mr. Speaker. In Canada we believe in values of sharing and caring as it relates to some of our social services, and one of our great soci al se rvices in th is count ry is medicare.

We don’t want to do a nything to impair medicare, but unless we start looking at other w ays of dealing w ith th e ongoing c osts and expenditures of our health care system, what will ultimately end up happening is that a duality in our health care system will accrue. That means that there will be physicians who start to opt out of the Canada health system, and they will set up an entirely private system of health care. We will have at that point a two-tiered health care system, Mr.

Speaker, something that we are very much committed to trying to avoid in the sense that our own provincial legislation adopts the principles of the Canada Health Act. But duality is inevitable, and it will be forced upon us by circumstances instead of by choice. So, Mr. Spe aker, we need to be open minded and looking at jurisdictions around the world, places that also have long traditions of social democracy and slightly left-of-centre perspectives when it comes to things like health care. We need to look at places like New Zealand.

We need to look at Australia, we need to look at the U.K., we need to look at Sweden, and we need to l ook at France, all of which have elements of private and public del ivery of health care service and all of which have elements where patients need to make a contribution to ensure that the health care system that they treasure is, in fact, sustainable. The Speaker: The hon. member. Dr. Pannu: Thank you, Mr. Spea ker. On January 22 the minister gave reasons for not implementing the Graydon report, and they are as follows.

He said that people in Alberta have not been clamouring for health care user fees, and therefore he wouldn’t implement the Graydon report. What has changed from January 22 to today? Mr. Mar: Mr. Speaker, the whole issue of the Graydon report is not so much interesting from the point of view that it suggests that there is a single sol ution to this re morselessness of a rithmetic of healt h care costs goi ng up at 8 per cent and re venues going up b y 4 pe r cent. The most important part of the Graydon report, in my opinion, is that it helps define the issue.

There are many Albertans who will talk about the issue in health care being one of access. But that’s not the core issue, Mr. Speaker. The core issue is sustainability, and unless we come to grips with the fact, until Albertans and Canadians come to realize that something has got to give when you’ve got 8 per cent growth in expenditures and 4 per cent growth in revenues, we don’t have a hope of ever dealing with the issues that precipitate from that, such as problems with access. This, Mr. Speaker, is the reason why Mr.

Romanow wonders out loud right now why a yea r after the Ro manow report no body has implemented his report. The reason is because Mr. Romanow, who I have a great deal of respect for, presented, frankly, a false picture of the choices that Canadians have. He suggested that your choice is between an Ame rican system that has 50 m illion uninsured Americans and tens of millions more underinsured or the Canadian system. The fact is, Mr. Speak er, that if one lo oks at the World Health Organization’s review of health care systems throughout the world, Canada is ranked somewhere around number 27.

France is marked as number 1. I think that means that there are many choices along this cont inuum between the Ca nadian syst em and the American system th at we s hould be respons ible in looking at in order to determine: are there things that are being done in other jurisdictions in the world that can help make our health care system sustainable? The Speaker: The hon. member. Dr. Pannu: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Given the minister’s flip-flop on this issue and given that the government is now actively consider- ing the recom mendations of the G raydon re port, why won’t the minister release the report a nd let Albe rtans hav e a say in the process? Mr. Mar: Mr. Speaker, we are going through that process right now. The hon. member doesn’t know, having had no experience, how the process works for the release of reports.

It goes through a process of going to our Ag enda and Prio rities Com mittee, it goes to our standing policy committees, it goes to our caucus, and it goes to our cabinet, all of which have the opportunity to vet it at each and every point before a repor t is rele ased. T hat would be our intention, in fact, that if a fter going through tha t proc ess, it’s deemed that this report should be released, it will be. The Speaker: The hon. Mem ber for Edm onton-Strathcona inter- jected at least six times in that last response. Is that really the way your students dealt with you in the classroom?

Thirty seconds f rom now we’ll call on the first of the hon. members to participate in Members’ Statements. Well, hon. members, I can remember when I turned 40, so happy birthday to the hon. Member for Lacombe-Stettler. head: Members’ Statements The Speaker: The hon. Member for Peace River. Alberta Winter Games Mr. Friedel: I wish it was me. Thank you, Mr. Spe aker. L ast week the e ntire Peace country livened up to the sounds of excitement as several thousand young athletes, coaches, supervisors converged on the region for the 2004 Alberta Winter Games.

For the first time in its history the gam es were hosted by multiple communities; in fact, 19 communities came together to sponsor and host the event. In spite of the logistical

February 19, 2004 Alberta Hansard 55 challenges of splitting the event venues among the communities, it worked out remarkably w ell, and al l the reports t hat I hear d were extremely positive. On top of it all, the games coincided with the St. Isidore Winter Carnival, which is a major annual cultural event in the region. The two events gave our visitors an even broad er pe rspective of the Peace country notwithstanding the added challenges to the volunteer pool.

It’s hard for m e to put int o words the p ride that I felt for the organizers when thousands of spectators converged, along with the athletes, for the spectacular opening event. Our Premier along with a number of my colleagues and the mayors, reeves, and chiefs were there to show how proud we are of our province and our communi- ties. I salute those who participated in the games and congratulate the winners of the various events. The Peace country is renowned for its hospitality, but this one has to stand out as the mother of all co-operative events.

It has opened the doors for other smaller communities to work together and host games of this stature in the future. To all the organizers, the volunteers, the coaches and parents, and especially the athletes, we couldn’t be prouder of you than we are right now. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-North Hill. Society for Treatment of Autism Mr. Magnus: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to bring to the attention of this House a growing problem for children and families in Alberta but also a message of hope. Autism is becoming one of the greatest threats to Canadian children today.

It’s now agreed that autism affects at least one in 300 c hildren across C anada. Autism impairs communication and l earning. Often children with autism don’t understand the world around them, and there is nothing more crushing for a family than to receive the diagnosis of autism and to hear the words “there is no cure.” But there is hope. Early intensive treatm ent is remarka bly effective in improv ing the liv es of c hildren with autism . This treatment can take children away from the path of institutionalization and reintegrate them with families and into schools. It is a miracle, but it needs our help.

In Calgary the Society for Treatment of Autism needs desperately to expand. A North American leader in autism treatment, the society needs the support of all Albertans to end w aiting lists and provide treatment. Their dr eam of cons truction of a facili ty w here all children with autism can receive treatment quickly and effectively is a dream shared by families across Alberta who have children with autism. Built on land the y a lready own, opening in Albert a’s centennial year of 2005, the new facility will create a critical mass of staff and expertise.

It will allow the society to ensure that now and in the future children w ith autism never ha ve to w ait for much - needed treatment. The society is working hard to raise private funds, but autism is a quiet affl iction, one tha t does not ge nerate headlines. For the families of children with autism there is no greater hope than f or society to realize that they deserve help and that hel p makes a difference, and I call on this House today and on Albertans to lend a hand. We can’t cure autism, but we can make a huge difference in the lives of hundreds of Albertans.

L et’s r ecognize the need, respond to that need, and give hope. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 2:40 Government Travel Expenses Dr. Taft: Mr. Speaker, the people of Alberta expect this government to be responsi ble stew ards of t he pub lic pur se. How ever, thi s government provides very few details on its entertainment and travel expenses, and we be lieve Albertans deserve to know w here their hard-earned tax dollars are going. First, let’s talk about the trips. Bet ween the last ele ction and January 2004 the government has released information on 122 out- of-province trips taken by ministers and MLAs .

While the total reported cost of all trips was over a million dollars, the government did not publicly provide costs for 26 of those trips, so the actual total is probably considerab ly higher. T he gover nment al so faile d to provide itineraries for 79 of the trips. That means that taxpayers do not know spec ifically what business w as conducted during these trips. Now let’s look at what those trips cost.

W hen the Premier, the Minister of Econom ic Development, and the Ministe r of Ener gy went to New York in December 2002, taxpayers paid $8,320 for four days of car service s, eno ugh for ov er 250 trips f rom LaGuardia Airport to downtown Manhattan. During the same trip a senior staff member for Executive Council spent almost $6,000 in just four days on accommodation, food, and the m ini-bar at t he Sheraton H otel.

During the Team Canada mission to the U.K. and Ukraine in May 2002 the ma naging dir ector of Al berta’s trade off ice in London charged $15,720 to taxpayers, including $4,922 for accommodation, $4,511 for car servic e, and $1,451 on one lunc h at the L ondon Marriott Hotel, a lunch worth two weeks of an average Albertan’s earnings. Mr. Speaker, it’s time this government came clean with Albertans and opened their books. This issue is not just about w hat t he government spent but what they have not told us or refuse to tell us about what they spent. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar.

Government Travel Expenses Mr. MacDonald: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today many Albertans are questioning why the Premier and his entourage dumped taxpay- ers with an $8,320 bill for car service in New York City. Albertans want to know why they should have to foot such an outrageous bill. The following are th e gover nment’s top eight re asons why Albertans s hould p ay $8 ,320 fo r th em to rid e aro und in l uxury, according to their own document that we have obtained by a freedom of in formation and priva cy request. Rea son number one: it w as holiday season in New York.

Reason number two: at least five cabs to each ev ent would ha ve been r equired. R eason n umber three: travel times are longer in New York. Reason number four: they needed security when they were leaving the New York Yacht Club. Number five: briefing. Reason number six: the lines for taxis are too long. Reason num ber seven: meetings and dinne rs are too late at night. The number eight reason why the government is ch arging Albertans $8,320 for ca r service: they didn’t want to go onto the street to capture taxis in New York City. I would like to conclude, Mr.

Speaker, by saying that a minimum- wage earner i n Alberta would hav e to work 1,410 hours to make what the Premier and his entourage spent in four days on car services alone. Thank you. head: Present ing Pet itions The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. Ms Blakeman: Thank you. I’d like to present a petition signed by a numb er o f ind ividuals. It lo oks like the y’re most ly living in

Alberta Hansard February 19, 200456 Edmonton and St. Albert. They’re asking the Legislative Assembly to urge the government to honour senior Albertans by “adopting the guidelines for rent increases pursuant to

Section 14 of the Residen- tial Tenancies Act” and “limit increases to no more than ten percent in any twelve month period” for long-term care. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. Ms Carlson: Thank you very much. Mr. Speaker, today I’ll present a petition signed by approximately 150 people throughout Alberta who petition the L egislative Assembly to urge the government of Alberta “to support the establish ment of Bighorn Country as a legislated protected area.” head: Notices of Motions The Speaker: The hon. Deputy Government House Leader. Mr. Zwozde sky: Thank you. Mr. Spe aker, I rise pursua nt to Standing Order 34(2)(

a) to give notice that on Monday I will move that written questions appearing on the Or der Paper do sta nd and retain their places. I’m also giving notice that on Monday I will move that motions for returns appe aring on the Order Paper do also sta nd and retain their places. head: Intro duc tion o f Bills The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Lougheed. Bill 8 Blue Cross Statutes Amendment Act, 2004 Ms Graha m: Yes. T hank you, Mr. Speak er. This afternoon I request leave to introduce Bi ll 8, being the Blue Cross Statutes Amendment Act, 2004. This bill, Mr.

Speaker, will have the effect of m odernizing the duty of care to be exercised by directors and officers of Alberta Blue Cross and the duties of the board as a whole, and it will also go a fair distance to create fair competition between Alberta Blue Cross and other private insurance companies in the area of private insurance. Under the amendments the Alberta Blue Cross Benefits Corporation will start paying a 2 per cent premium tax and a payment in lieu of federal and provincial tax on its private insurance programs. To be clear, thes e latter changes only affect private insurance programs offered by Blue Cross.

They do not a ffect government-sponsored insurance programs. [Motion carried; Bill 8 read a first time] The Speaker: The hon. Deputy Government House Leader. Mr. Zwozdesky: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would move that Bill 8, the Blue Cross Statutes Amendment Act, 2004, be moved under Government Bills and Orders. [Motion carried] The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Lougheed. Bill 9 Prevention of Youth Tobacco Use Amendment Act, 2004 Ms Graham: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I also reques t leave to introduce Bill 9, being the Prevention of Youth Tobacco Use Amendment Act, 2004.

The original act, the Prevention of Youth Tobacco Use Act, was brought into force April 1, 2003, making it illegal for anyone under 18 to use or po ssess tobacco in a public place. Bill 9 will provide amendments that will clarify how the original act should be enforced to reduce tobacco use among youth and includes valid exemptions for tobacco use and possession by youth, such as allowing young sales clerks to sell tobacco in the workplace, permitting aboriginal youth the ceremonial use of tobacco, and allowing young people to be used in tobacco enforcement.

There will also be amendments to provide a broader definition of public places where the act can be enforced, such as in school buildings, streets, shopping malls, and parks. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. [Motion carried; Bill 9 read a first time] The Speaker: The hon. Deputy Government House Leader. Mr. Zwozdesky: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would move that Bill 9, Prevention of Youth Tobac co Use A mendment Act, 2004, be placed on the Order Paper under Government Bills and Orders. [Motion carried] The Speaker: The hon. Member for Lac La Biche-St. Paul. 2:50 Bill 11 Alberta Personal Income Tax Amendment Act, 2004 Mr.

Danyluk: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I request leave to introduce a bill being Bill 11, the Alberta Personal Income Tax Amendment Act, 2004. Mr. Speaker, Bill 11 will i ntroduce amendments that will make technical and clarification changes to ensure that provincial legisla- tion rema ins consiste nt with fede ral legi slation, w ith current administration, and with other parts of the act. Thank you very much. [Motion carried; Bill 11 read a first time] The Speaker: The hon. Deputy Government House Leader. Mr. Zwozdesky: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would move that Bill 11, the Albe rta Personal Income Tax A mendment Act, 2004, be placed on the Order Paper under Government Bills and Orders. [Motion carried] Bill 201 Safety Codes (Barrier-free Design and Access) Amendment Act, 2004 Mr. Lougheed: Mr. Speaker, I request leave to introduce Bill 201, the Safety Codes (Barrier-free Design and Access) Amendment Act, 2004. This bill will enable the creation of a new barrier-free design and access council as part of the Safety Codes Council, and it will also provide a greater op portunity for input rega rding safety codes for persons with disabilities.

Thank you. [Motion carried; Bill 201 read a first time]

February 19, 2004 Alberta Hansard 57 The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Norwood. Bill 202 Environmental Protection and Enhancement (Vapour Control Equipment) Amendment Act, 2004 Mr. Masyk: Thanks, Mr. Speake r. I r ise a nd request le ave to introduce a b ill being Bi ll 202, the Env ironmental Protection and Enhancement (Vapour Control Equipment) Amendment Act, 2004.

The purpose of Bill 202 is to reduce emiss ions of VOCs , or volatile organic compounds, during fuel storage and distribution by requiring all service stations, gasoline fuel cargo trucks, terminals to install stage 1 vapour recovery by the year of our Lord 2014. Thank you. [Motion carried; Bill 202 read a first time] head: Tabling R eturns and R eports The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona. Dr. Pannu: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’ve got one document to table today.

It’s appropr iate copie s of the ne ws release issued by t he Minister of Health and Wellness dated January 22, 2004, in which the minister rejects the findings of the MLA Task Force on Health Care Funding and Re venue Generation becaus e “most Albert ans would not accept [the] recommendations.” Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands. Mr. Ma son: Thank y ou very much, Mr. Speaker . I have one document as well to table, and it is the appropriate number of copies of the Weekly Livestock Market Review dated February 13, 2004.

The review shows the distressing plummet of cattle prices in Alberta, with sales of livestock such as feeder heifers bringing in as little as 50 per cent of what they did a year ago. head: Pro jected G over nmen t Busin ess The Speaker: The hon. Official Opposition House Leader. Ms Blakeman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Under Standing Order 7(5) I would ask the Government House Leader to please share the projected government business for the week of February 23 to 26. The Speaker: The hon. Deputy Government House Leader. Mr. Zwozdesky: Thank you, Mr. Speak er. It’s my privilege to respond.

On Monday, February 23, in the afternoon we will have private mem bers’ business, Writ ten Questi ons, and Motions f or Returns, followed by Public Bi lls and O rders Other than Govern- ment Bills and Orders including Bill 201, Safety Codes (Barrier-free Design and Access) Amendment Act, 2004, and Bill 202, Environ- mental Protection and E nhancement (Vapour Contr ol Equipment) Amendment Act, 2004.

In the evening under Motions Other than Government Motions we will dea l with m otions 501 and 502, thereafter under Government Bills and Orders addresses in reply to the Sp eech from the Throne and then sec ond reading, perhaps Committee of the Whole as well depending on progress, on Bill 1, Alberta Centennial Education Savings Plan Act; Bill 2, Black Creek Heritage Rangeland T rails Act; and Bill 4, Blind Persons’ Rights Amendment Act, 2004; and otherwise as per the Order Paper.

On Tuesday in the afternoon under Government Bills and Orders we will continue with addresses in reply to the S peech from the Throne, followed by second reading of Bill 5, the Family Support for Children With Disabilities Amendment Act, 2004, and Bill 11, t he Alberta Personal Income Tax Amendment Act, 2004, then Commit- tee of the Whole for bills 5 and 11 and otherwise as per the Order Paper.

On Tuesday evening under Government Bills and Orders we will begin with second read ing of B ill 6, the Income and Employ- ment Supports Amendment Act, 2004, followed by Committee of the Whole for bills 5, 11, and 6 and otherwise as per the Order Paper. On Wednesday aftern oon un der Government Bills a nd Orders supplementary supply m essages may be present ed.

Gov ernment motions may also be presented referring to Committee of Supply and the number of days required for Committee of Supply, followed by second reading of Bill 7, Sena torial S election Ame ndment A ct, 2004; Bill 8, Blue Cross Statutes Amendment Act, 2004; Bi ll 9 , Prevention of Youth Tobac co Use Amendm ent Act, 2004. Then Committee of the Whole will deal with bills 7, 8, and 9 and other- wise as per the Order Paper.

On Wednesday evening under Govern- ment Bills and Orders, Committee of Supply, supplementary supply, day 1 of 1 is e xpected to occur, f ollowed by second rea ding an d possibly also Committee o f the Whole fo r bi lls 7, 8, and 9 a nd otherwise as per the Order Paper. On Thursday, February 26, in the af ternoon we will dea l with Government Bills and Orders, Introduction of Bills, Supplementary Supply Appropriation Act, second reading of bills 12 and 13, and third readings and otherw ise as pe r the Order Paper.

I sho uld comment that we anticipate that bills 12 and 13, that I just alluded to for Thursday, will be introduced on February 24, two days earlier. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Speaker: Hon. members, you have received in the last several days the biographies of all the new pages, and I think they’re quite energetic and quite enthusiastic, and they definitely will enforce the rule of no foreign objects in the Assembly until Orders of the Day is called. head: Orders of t he Day head : Government Bills and Orders Second Reading Bill 4 Blind Persons’ Rights Amendment Act, 2004 The Speaker: The hon.

Minister of Community Development. Mr. Zwozdesky: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is indeed a privilege to rise today to officially move this particular bill, Bill 4, the Blind Persons’ Rights Amendment Act, 2004, at second reading. I say that because it has bee n a long tim e coming , and I ’m delighted that today we are joined by the guests I introduced earlier to you. Mr. Speaker, in May of 2000 responsibility for the Blind Persons’ Rights Act and its regulation, the guide dogs’ qualification regula- tion, was transferred from Al berta Healt h and Welln ess to my Ministry of Comm unity Dev elopment.

We are continuing on a journey of change with this Bill 4 that puts into place very important and much-ne eded chang es to the B lind Persons’ Ri ghts Ac t. It closes the gap in our legislation and provides better protection for individual Albertans who are blind and require the use of a guide dog or a white cane. One of these individuals is present here today with her dog. That is Diane Bergeron. Dian e, as I indicated to the House earlier, is a special co-ordinator of the Advisory Board on Services for Persons

Alberta Hansard February 19, 200458 with Disabilities and the City of Edmonton Youth Council. She also serves as a volunteer member of the Canadian National Institute for the Blind, or CNIB, board. She has two children, and I’m so pleased that Summer, one of her children, was here today to be with her. She has a special two-year-old guide dog named Polar. 3:00 About two and a half years ago Diane and her children, accompa- nied by her g uide dog o f the day, were out buying groceries, Mr. Speaker. She called a taxi to take them home.

Somewhere about 20 minutes later a cab pulled up in front of the doors, and as soon as the driver saw the dog beside Diane, the cab pulled away and left them standing there. Diane called the cab company, told the dispatcher what had happened. She was advised that the drivers could not be forced to pick them up even though there were three cabs from that company already sitting in that sam e parking lot. Obviously, she was upset that this would happen while she had her children with her particularly. I think her daughter still remembers seeing her crying in the store.

Diane is not alone in this particular situation, because we know that other Albertans are also telling us how they hav e been denied services in restaurants, denied ac cess to shopping in loc al grocery stores, perhaps denied apartment accommodations and so on because of a no dog policy in those premises. Proposed amendments to the bill before us, the Blind Persons’ Rights Amendment Act, 2004, are a step for ward in c reating a n envir onment for Albertans that promotes a bett er understanding, promotes positive attitudes, attitudes that can contribute to the well-being of those who are blind.

I want to comment also on the stakeholder consultation that led up to the creation of these amendments. Changes and recommendations for change came from our stakeholders, the persons who will be served most by this particular set of amendments, and they also came from members of the general public. Many, m any Albertans were consulted inc luding a ver y public and open review process that strove to strike a balance in clarifying and strengthening the act as it pertains to the rights of blind persons.

The public rev iew process that c ommenced in Oct ober of 2001 was in fact chaired by former Alberta Ombudsman Harley Johnson to address not only guide dogs but also assistive dogs that are trained for other purposes. These are dogs that are used by other disability groups such as persons who are deaf, hard of hearing, or suffer from seizures. The final report from that chair was submitted in late 2001. Public feedback on the report through a standardize d que stionnaire was then initiated. It has always been my practice, Mr.

Speaker, as you know, to release these reports to the public for another look, if you will, at what the actual recommendations look like. We had ma ny act ive discussions in tha t respect with A lbertans who fed into the process and, quite obviously, with the persons with the CNIB. Inc luded in that f eedback from Albertans was the fact that guide dogs and other assistive dogs are very different in terms of need, in ter ms of requirement, certification, and scope and that these matters should be addressed separately.

The feedback also identified that legi slation concerning blind pe rsons’ rights should concentrate on the rights of those who are determined to be blind as well as the need to develop a better definition of blindness, a more medical and legal definition, if you like. So we beg an looking a t how we can bring into eff ect thos e important and necessary changes. Bill 4 is in response to what we heard, and it addresses the concerns raised by stakeholders, includ- ing changes to legislation affecting those individuals who rely upon the use of guide dogs.

Individuals who rely upon assistive dogs for other purposes will continue to be protected as they already are by the Alberta Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act. Now, the amendments before us today clarify the existing Blind Persons’ Rights Act, and they strengthen those areas that pertain to the rights of blind individuals. Quite specifically, Mr. Speaker, these amendments will do at least the following things. They will provide a more a cceptable definition of blindness as deter mined by the medical profession.

They will provide protection for certified dog trainers and for the dogs being trained. They will allow an identifi- cation card for the blind person guide dog team to be issued. They will provide ministerial authority for developing further regulations respecting qualifications for guide dogs. As well, they will establish higher maximum fines for violations of the act such as discrimina- tion against a blin d person accompanied by a guide dog or an individual purporting to be bl ind who is tr ying to garner benefits under the act. For example, these fines will increase as follows.

Discrimination against a blind person accompanied by a guide dog will increase threefold, from $1,000 to $3,000. An i ndividual purporting to be blind to garner benefits under the act will see fines increased from $100 to $300, and with respect to abuse of white canes, individuals other than a blind person carrying a white cane in public places will see a penalty increasing from $25 to $250, a tenfold increase. These are very serious changes to a very serious issue within a very serious act.

Once the amendin g l egislation is i n place, we will al so have mechanisms that will allow us to add other training facilities to the list of accredited facilities. You know, Mr. Speaker, as I wa s meeting with individuals from the blind community, I noted that there are about a dozen or s o of these facili ties acr oss North America. Ther e’s only one in Canada, and it happens to be in Ottawa. I s aid to them , as I’ve said to othe rs in the c onsultation process: why c an’t we have one of tho se fac ilities right here in Alberta?

It would be another w onderful A lberta f irst, in this particular case specifically for the blind community. So we began looking at the possibility of doing that, and lo and behold I think we can and we will accomplish that. It will be a tremendously positive step forward in providing services to our blind community. As I begin to wrap up, Mr. Speaker, I’ll just add a few points.

The amending legislation also will provide the minister of the day with the authority to make regulations respecting the qualifications for guide dogs, and this authority will expedite the process for making regulatory amendments such as adding additional training facilities to the accredited list, be they here in Alberta or elsewhere. I recall one of my colleagues having said on several occasions that change is a journey, not a destination.

Through the Blind Persons’ Rights Amendment Act, 2004, we will continue to create an Alberta that builds on what we already have and ensures that all Albertans enjoy the highest possible quality of life with a particular focus on the most vulnerable members o f our communities. By doing this, I’m confident that we will be creating a place w ith a ver y leve l playing field for Diane, for her family, and for all Albertans, a place that encourages a more effective delivery of programs for those who are disabled and that promotes positive a ttitudes w hile raisi ng awareness of these important issues.

In this respec t, I want to sincere ly thank the CNIB a nd their representatives who ar e here with us today – Mr. O’Donnell, Mr. McKeown, Ms Shuster , and, of course, Diane – an d also my own staff members who have been working so diligently on this. Andrew Turzansky, whom I introduced to y ou earlier, has been e xtremely helpful, and he’s become a closer friend probably to the community and to the department for his leadership in this respect. For their help, for their stewardship, and for the care and concern that the CNIB ha ve shown and continue to show dail y for blind,

February 19, 2004 Alberta Hansard 59 deaf-blind, and for a ll vi sion imp aired i ndividuals, t hey w ere certainly warmly received at an inaugural event in our community last evening. I think we had just under 1,000 people who came out to show support and respect for the CNIB and the many individuals that they serve.

It was a particularly special night not only for the CNIB but also for our government because yesterday was the day that we actually had this bill introduced at first reading, and I was so privileged to do that. 3:10 At the same time, it was also the inauguration of what I hope will become a long-sta nding tradition, a fun draiser, as it we re, with a sharp focus on not only raising funds but also raising awareness for issues pertaini ng t o t he blind community. In that respect, they provided the first ever Vision award to our Premier.

I know that the Premier’s work in this area goes bac k to at le ast 1980, if that is correct – I think it is – when he was mayor of Calgary, and we saw that in so me of the film foo tage, Mr. S peaker, tha t was sh own yesterday. We also we re shown w hat some of the is sues are that blin d individuals face on a daily basis, and we saw how much hope was given to p eople who have suddenly become blind or to the y oung children who are born blind. It was a tremendous message, and I’m so glad that so many of our col leagues from the Legislature were able to be there with us. We’ve met many times with the CNIB.

I think we will continue to meet many more t imes as we mo ve thi s bil l alo ng and as we address these very important needs that reflect the needs of the blind persons’ community and their guide dogs and the facilities that are needed to he lp en sure t hat t hat i nfrastructure re mains soli d and continues to be the best that our province can provide. Thank you ve ry much. I look f orward to your s upport for this important Blind Persons’ Rights Amendment Act, 2004. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. Ms Blakeman: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, am very pleased to be able to rise today and add my comments to the record in second reading for Bill 4, the Blind Persons’ Rights Amendment Act, 2004. This has been a long time coming. I can remember that it was some time ago, I think actually at the end of my first term, that this issue first came u p legislatively with a bi ll introduced by the Member for Clover Bar-Fort Saskatchewan, if I remember correctly. I think we adjourned from the sitting before it got a full debate.

We’ve had a review, as the m inister mentioned, launched i n October, public reac tion to the initi al report, t hen a fina l report submitted to the minister by the end of December of 2001, and some additional questionnaires, the minister says. I wasn’t aware of that particular consultation or go-round but certainly take his word for it. I’m just going to go through the issues about why there’s been a need for an update of this particular act.

Essentially, what we’ve had is two acts that offered protection for people with a visual disability, and those are the Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act and then the Blind Persons’ Rights Act. This was to make sure that people were not facing any kind of prohibition or discrimination around accommodation and facilities, tenancies, housing, employ- ment, access to government programs and services. All of those are protections meant to be offered to various individuals.

The Blind Persons’ Rights Act quite specifically was setting out to make sure that no one was impersonating a blind person, so there was mention of not using the white c ane and quite a bit of detail around a white cane. I even noticed that the original wording talked about the white cane being painted over a certa in percentage of its surface, which certainly does date it as now I think many of them, in fact, have a plastic covering or are made of some material that doesn’t require painting. A number of other things were in that bill.

There was a definition of blindness, referring to someone registered as blind at the CNIB or who is receiving a pension as a result of blindnes s or an eye specialist has certified them to be according to a particular chart. It also went further to define “guide dog.” That act has been problem- atic for some time for a number of reasons. The duplication in itself in that the blind persons are protected by both pieces of legislation can create some confusion, I think. The enforcement of it.

I think there have been problems with the police and the prosecutors being reluctant to act on complaints made under the Blind Persons’ Rights Act because there are comparable sections availa ble under the Human Ri ghts, Citiz enship and Multiculturalism Act. That shoul dn’t have been a rea son for no action to be taken at all, but enforcement seemed to be a problem. The timeliness of resolving complaints. Some cases were resolved very quickly, but others took a lot longer, and it seemed that the ones that came forward under the Blind Persons’ Rights Act hardly ever got resolved at all, which became problematic.

I in particular hea rd about the iss ues raised under acc reditation and training. We need to know that the guide dogs have been trained and there’s a standardized training, and that also offers reassurance to people who are working with the dogs. What we had was that the owner of a tra ining school ha d to a pply to the gove rnment to be included on the list of qualified institutions, but then there was no follow-up to make sure that that school or that individual trainer met any kind of ongoing standards or upgrading or anything else.

There was no monitoring or evaluation to make sure that everybody stayed current and that acceptable standards were upheld. Those regulations have not been updated since 1986, and the list of training institutions was not maintained, so there was a great deal of consternation over that. In fact, I can think of one individual with a dog that I’m sure was not trained at an accredited training institu- tion, and yet they are out there with that dog. You know, that causes worry for the public, for the individual, and for everyone else that’s trying to uphold the use of service dogs like blind dogs.

I wasn’t aware of this until I started doing the research, but there was also a provision in the act that said that the CNIB would issue identification cards for the individual and for their dog, and in fact the CNIB has never done that and didn’t really want to do it, an d thus you see in the amending act that the ministry will take that over.

Aside from the currenc y of t he accre ditation and tr aining th e second-largest complaint or number of complaints that I heard about the Blind Persons’ Rights A ct was that it w as not t aking into consideration all of the other kinds of assi stance animals that had come into fairly common usage. Essentially, there are service dogs, signal dogs, and assistance dogs. Right now we only have le gisla- tion that protects people that are using guide dogs for the blind. There are hea ring ear dog s. There are sei zure dogs.

There a re special highly trained protection dogs f or peopl e who have been stalked or are under imminent threat of attack, and the dog is always with them and will prote ct them. That’s a diff icult one for many business owners and people to deal with. Nonetheless, it’s a dog for a very specific reason to assist people. We’ve assistance dogs like the ones you see that work with children with autism, for example, or with people with mobility problems. They help, you know, turn on lights and appliances and pick things up that people that are in wheelchairs may drop.

So that’s an assis tance dog, and there’ s nothing in the legislation that allows people to have those dogs and to have the same protection as is offered to the guide dogs. So there is no question that there was a need for an update in this bill.

Alberta Hansard February 19, 200460 3:20 Okay. So we had the need. We went through all of the consulta- tions, and what came out of the f ocus groups a nd the result ant feedback loops was that there is still a problem with restaurants. We heard a story from the minister about taxicabs, a number of providers of services not understanding and not recognizing the guide dogs, and that lack of public awareness is still the biggest barrier.

I’ve already talked about the issu e ab out the other k inds of assistance and service and signal animals, and although the minister said that they would be protected under the Human Rights, Citizen- ship and Multicultur alism Act, in fact they’re not protected in the same way that guide dogs are. There was a great desire to have those animals brought in under the act, a nd there ce rtainly was a lot of discussion in the focus groups of that. There is a real need for very clear training guidelines and uphold- ing monitori ng a nd evalu ation of the trainers and the tra ining institutions.

There’s a need to balance the rights of the dog handler or the person who is using the dog and their ability to control the animal in public. We need people to feel confident when they’re in public with a dog that’s being used as an assistance animal that that animal is clearly under the control of the person that’s working with them.

The CNIB, who se main of fice is, in fa ct, in my c onstituency, developed a very strong po sition, and they put it forward to me at one point that they wanted to see this act, the Blind Persons’ Rights Act, remain pretty much as it was, to not include additional kinds of service animals and, further, that they felt – and they did a good job of lobbying for it – that there sh ould be some e xpansion and strengthening of the act to, you know, provide some additional assistance to students around Brai lle mate rials and c lassroom education in Braille.

They had a very effective lobbying strategy to get that point of view across, and that was sort of bal anced on the other side wi th those people that wa nted to see the legis lation expanded. So that’s kind of the background and history of this. [Mr. Shariff in the chair] I’m willing to support the act as brought forward by the Minister of Community Development, but I am disappointed that we are not looking at Bill 5 being, you know, the assistance animal act. Clearly, there’s a need for that. There was a great deal of time and effort put in by people to say: we need this.

If the choice by the government was not to include thos e animals under the Blind Persons’ Rights Amendment Act, to leave that as it is pretty much, then I think we should have seen the second piece of legislation come forward at the same time because we’ve waited. I mean, 1980 I think is the originating act for the Blind Persons’ Rights Act. We’re now in 2004, so it took us 24 years to get a good amending act in front of us. I’m assuming that this is going to pass now.

I don ’t want to have t o wait 24 y ears to g et an ass istive or service animal act in front of the Legislature, and I think that if the minister were really committed to that, he should have brought it forward as a companion piece. So that’s my concern with what’s happened in this process. I have no problem with the act as it’s in front of us, but the process was not completed. There’s a need for some sort of legislated protection against discri mination for people that use other kinds of service animals.

We needed the same kinds of rules around monitoring and evaluation and registration of training facilities and of tra iners for those other kinds of service and assistance animals, and we just don’t have it. So we’ve got half the equation here. Now, as I said, I’m more than happy to support the first half of the equation, but I really wanted to see the second half of the equation. All of the groundwork has been done, so I’m disappointed that the government didn’t take the time when they had it to come forward with the rest of what we need here.

From all of that work – from the 24 years, from the consultation process that started in October of 2001, and here we are in February of 2004 so o ver two years – wha t we hav e are som e fairly minor changes to the Blind Persons’ Rights Amendment Act, essentially an update in the definition so that it’s not quite so loosey-goosey and is looking for a medical definition. We’ve got fines for someone using a white cane who isn’t visually impaired, fines and prohibitions for impersonating a blind pers on.

It’s including t he protections and extending the protections and privileges to the trainers who are out on the street training or taking dogs that are being trained into cabs and places like that. It includes, again, that standard clause, that the government always does and that I loathe and detest, about everything further is done by regulation behind closed doors with the minister with one exception, and that’s the updating of the list of approved trainers.

Finally, the minister is going to take ov er – we ll, I gues s start, be cause there doesn’t seem to have ever been anyone that actually issued the ID cards. So the minister would be responsible for issuing the ID cards. So all of tha t 24 yea rs plus th e consulta tion ha s resulted in five changes. As I say, I don’t need to belabour the point. It’s all there. Oh, the one thing was that we’ve over the years, of course, heard from a number of individuals who felt very strongly about this. Just one that I’ll highlight is Harry Lunscher, who’s from Lethbridge.

He was one of the ones that ha s written repeatedly to members of the Official Opposition caucus talking about his disappointment that this proposed act would only deal with sight assistance dogs and not with all service dogs, his point being that service dogs are used in support of lifestyles that go well beyond sight assistance. He and his wife use one. He’s pron e to falls and his wife is hearing im paired, so their dog T.J. helps them enjoy life to the fullest, and he doesn’t get the same protection for T.J. that someone with a guide dog does. He’s been in touch with the Premier.

He’s been in touch with, I’m sure, many of my colleagues here i n the House trying to lobby to have all service dogs included. Others went further and wanted it to be service animals because t here are certain animals that are much more sensitive to be of assistance, like seizure animals. Certain ones are better at detecting the seiz ures coming. I’ve got a num ber of letters here from him. That’s just one.

He was writing at that point in June of 2001 i n support of B ill 219, whic h was the n the one brought forward by the Member for Clover Bar-Fort Saskatchewan in which he was hoping it would pass because that one was bringing forward

an act that brought hearing ear dogs or assistance dogs for the deaf into the Blind Persons’ Rights Act, and that was sort of the first go at this. I just wa nted to point out, y ou know, how important it is to a whole other

section of people that we do address and offer protection to those that are using other kinds of serv ice and as sistance and signal animals, and I hope that before we leave this spring session we will see the government bring forward the companion act to this one. In t he meantime I am hap py to st ate my support in sec ond reading in principle for Bill 4. Thank you very much. 3:30 The Acting Spea ker: The hon. Mem ber for C lover Ba r-Fort Saskatchewan. Mr. Lougheed: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As chair of the Premier’s Council on the Status of Persons with Disab ilities I’m pleased t o

February 19, 2004 Alberta Hansard 61 speak in support of this bill. Bill 4 does a number of things. First of all, it clarif ies guide dog certi fication and monitori ng rules. It protects those who train these exceptional dogs. It strengthens the definition of blindness and helps pre vent dis crimination against those who use a guide dog. I’m supportive of this bill also because it’s one more step towards a barrier-free Alberta. It support s the spiri t and the inte nt of the Alberta disability strateg y that w as deve loped by the Pre mier’s Council on the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

In it there’s a call for full citizenship for persons with disabilities, and full citizenship means enabling persons with disabilities to be independent, to make choices, and to acc ess op portunit ies to ful ly contr ibute to our society. The Premier’s council believes that the lives of persons with disabilities can be improved if we break down those barriers, those barriers that prevent disabled individuals from contributing fully and participating. Bill 4 supports this belief in tangible ways, the way in which blind people and their guide dogs are perceived and treated.

Through my role as c hair of the Premier ’s council I have the privilege to meet and know many people throughout the pro vince with phys ical and mental disabilitie s. Alm ost to a per son their frustrations in life are not connected to their disability but rather the limitations on their lif estyle that’s impose d on them of ten by the opinions of others. These limitations are usually a result of precon- ceptions, assumptions, or just plain old l ack of understanding and education.

I’ve been privi leged in m y time working with the council a nd being associa ted with t he council m embers to learn a great deal about their issues. One example that stands out in my mind is the time I exited a building with one of our council members who was blind and accompanied by a Seeing Eye dog. We were coming up to a row of taxis waiting for customers and Shirley was a little bit ahead of me with her guide dog, W illie, and a s she w as walking along the first taxi driver sort of was there, and he indicated that he was waiting for somebody or he w as in use. I don’t remember exactly.

I wasn’t sure that he was actually waiting for a customer and had already committed to somebody. Anyway, I ended up walking ahead and it appeared, I think, to the second driver in the second car that I was by myself. “Taxi, sir?” he says. I said, “Yeah. Great.” So I gave him my little briefcase, or whatever it was, and he t hrew it in the trunk , and then I s aid, “Shirley, throw this in too.” He nea rly fell over because here was this other person accompanied by a dog, and I ’m sure – I suspec t, anyway – that Shirle y would have bee n denied service if she had been alone and had been asking for cab service.

In another set of circumstances when Shirley and I took a cab to someplace else, the cab driver was not pleased in that circumstance either. Yet this dog, Willie, that Shirley has is one of the most obedient an imals that I think anybody could ever see. It’s an amazing dog. Shirley tells me that the many trips she’s been on – for example, she goes across Canada to Newfoundland – Willie curls up under the seat on the plane. Shirley reports good service from the airlines.

Willie will curl up under the seat and stay there for five or six hours without moving and then re-emerges from underneath, and people around are really surprised, you know, because Shirley would board first, that this dog was on the plane. These are obedient dogs; they are well trained. These people face many challenges taking these dogs with them . Bei ng in meetings with Shirley and seeing how she’s always compelled to, you know, take Willie out during lunchtime so Willie can have a little break and get out there – s he’s got issues of dealing with dog droppings and disposing of those.

Another big issue is pets.

Whereas Willie is a well-behaved dog, if another dog comes along under poor control by its owner, runs up, starts barking and chasing Willie around, it’s very difficult. Here we have a lady, unable to see anything and trying to control her dog, not knowing what’s going on, and the other person not controlling their pet. A difficult situation. It was interesting for me last night at the CNIB Vision awards, and many of you were there. There were many dogs around.

There was a bun ch of noise at one tim e when pe ople were doing som ething with different instruments just as a kind of entertainment time and lots of racket. I’m sure that there was not a single dog bark heard in that whole facility from all those Seeing Eye dogs that were there. They are under control, they are trained, and they are a credit to the people who are engaged in that industry to take care of them. Something else that we’ve observed lately that is quite a change as well is the increase in the number of dogs in training that we see around.

I don’t know what agencies are doing that here in Alberta, but I do see quite a few of those dog s. Quite a few of those dog s have little signs on the m saying: I’m in training. Some other dogs that are qualif ied, certified Seeing Eye dogs ha ve: I’m a w orking dog; do not pet. When I first became acquainted with Shirley and her Seeing Eye dog, Willie, you know, you tend to reach down and pat it, and if you like dogs, you scratch it behind the ears and so on. Everybody does that. It’s a typical reaction. Those dogs are working animals, and they aren’t pets. They aren’t to be treated that way.

It’s encouraging to see those little signs that they do have on there. It’s an education for the rest of us. We need to be educated in so many ways about the needs of people with disabilities that we just don’t understand. So that’s been an interesting observation over the past few years, to see how that’s been happening with those dogs. I’m appreciative, too, of this bill for the increase in the penalties that are mentioned. They’re significant penalties, and they cut both ways. I’m aware of a situation in another jurisdiction. I have been in meetings in this c ircumstance.

There was a person using a dog who didn’t really seem to need this. It was an assistive dog. Just recently a fellow told me about how this wasn’t really a trained dog; it wasn’t necessary. T he person w asn’t utilizing i t, as I k ind of suspected. He was commenting on h ow that inappropriate use destroyed both his credibility as an individual and also jeopardized the work of people like the CNIB who are prom oting the use o f legitimate guide dogs, well-trained and useful to people with vision difficulties. Mr.

Speaker, a barrier-free Alberta is certainly possible if we have the will and the commitment to make it happen, and Bill 4 helps us get one step closer to that goal. I’d encourage all mem bers to support me in supporting this Bill 4, and at this time I’d just like to adjourn debate on Bill 4. [Motion to adjourn debate carried] head: Consider ation of Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor’s Speech Mr. Griffiths move d that an humble address be presented to Her Honour the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor as follows. To Her Honour the Honourable Lois E.

Hole, CM, AOE, Lieuten- ant Governor of the province of Alberta: We, Her Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly, now assembled, beg leave to thank you, Your Honour, for the gracious speech Your Honour has been pleased to address to us at the opening of the present session. [Adjourned debate February 18: Mr. McClelland] The Acting Speaker: The hon. Member for Airdrie-Rocky View.

Alberta Hansard February 19, 200462 3:40 Ms Haley: Thank you so much, Mr. Speaker, for this opportunity to respond to the Speech from the Throne. The vision outlined within it comes at a truly m omentous time as we appr oach our sec ond century as a province. I would like to thank the Lieutenant Governor for so g raciously beginning our ses sion, and I am glad, as are all Albertans, that she is in good health in both body and spirit. The Speech from the Throne c overed many areas of great importance to Albertans. However, the area of greatest interest to me is the str ategic plan.

I appre ciate that there are four distinct pillars to this plan; however, what I am most excited about in this speech is the part of the strategic plan that allows us to look forward on an econom ic basis. The pla n is desig ned to set out a 20-year vision for Alberta, and that gives us a starting point to plan how we can continue to diversify our economy as we move further into the 21st century. As a child gr owing up in t he oil patch, I a lways knew how important the oil and gas industry was to our province’s economic well-being. Moreover, I believe it will be of major importance for years to come.

What I hope we can accomplish with the plan is to capitalize on the opportunities that allow us to further develop both our nonrenewable and our renewable resources as well as to pursue innovation- and knowledge-based sectors at a time that our economy is so stron g.

While ou r manufacturing sector is doing better and more jobs are be ing created in that a rea of our workforce, the real truth is that for too long now we have been shipping out our oil and gas, our l ive cattle, our gr ain and oilse ed by the bushel, and our forest product s with li ttle or no va lue added to t hem, and value added is what I want to talk about today.

Almost a hund red years ago in Alb erta no on e could h ave imagined th e massive changes that have occ urred from cars and planes to electr icity and running wa ter, to plasma screen TVs, to towers that reach to the sky, let alone computers and the Internet. I mean, even 30 years ag o people wer e lucky if they had a set of encyclopedias in their homes let alone the amazing information that we have access to today just by turning on a computer and surfing the web. This second ce ntury tha t we ar e approachi ng will hold mor e changes than any of us can even begin to imagine.

It is possible that a hundred years from now people could be living on other planets. Perhaps mundane issues like trying to build roads will no longer be quite so imp ortant. The sky is truly the limit, and Albertans with their go-to-it attitude will be major players in anything that is going to happen. But one thing is for sure: this is the time right now that we have to f urther develop our own uni que industries in Alberta. We cannot sit back and say that things are just fine the way they are now.

We do not ha ve the lux ury of taking anything for g ranted, particularly the surpluses that we have been so fortunate to achieve when oil and gas prices are high. This is precisely the time that we have to take a dvantage of our ec onomic w ell-being to furth er diversify our economic base. I would like to talk about the kinds of things that I think we can do even in the short term and where I think there are some issues that truly we need to deal with.

We all know about and many of us have seen the petroche mical plants at J offre and the m agnitude of the multibillion dollar investments this industry created when they were able to strip certain gas components like ethane or butane, propane, and condensate from our own resources. It has allowed the private sector to make huge investments in our province, create great jobs, and further diversify our economy. The bes t part, Mr. Spe aker, is that once these products were stripped out, we were still able to sell natural gas to he at homes in other part s of Cana da or the United States.

However, several years ago the fed eral government’s National Energy Board decided against allowing Alberta corporations to strip out by-products when they approved the construction of the Alliance pipeline. This allows the petrochemical industry in Chicago to strip those same products out of our gas, allowing American industry to grow and flouris h while our local producers struggle to se cure an adequate supply for their production needs.

It is clear to me that part of the strat egic pla n is to have the fede ral gove rnment be more willing to help all provinces in Canada achieve all that they can and not hamper progress or be at cross-purposes with the various regions of this c ountry. In fact, it is tim e to adopt a pol icy all over thi s country of re cognizing and enco uraging str ength a nd d iversity. Whether it is the situation like the National Energy Board created or like the feds are creating now by trying to leave Alberta out of the negotiations with our industries on the Kyoto protocol, these types of situations have to be resolved.

Another sector tha t cou ld benefit from a better-defined value- added policy is the secondary manufacturers of forest products. At just one plant in Crossfield Palliser Lumber has created over 125 jobs and many value-added products tha t are sold not just here in Alberta but as far away as Texas. You have to admit, Mr. Speaker, that it beats just shipping logs out of our province. We have a v ery y oung seconda ry m anufacturing indu stry i n Alberta, and we need to nurture it so that it can develop into a viable contributor to our economy.

It makes so much sense that you have to wonder why these same companies are struggling to exist. Well, it turns out, Mr. Speaker, that in a province where 60 per cent of the land mass is covered with forest, these companies struggle to acquire the very fibre they need to run their businesses. Perhaps the first step in helping the m to m ake this value-added sector viable is to indicate to the big forest product companies that it might be a good idea to leave some fibre inside the province so that the secondary manufacturers could utilize it.

Possibly a way to encourage them would be to tie their contribution of fibre to their forest management agreements. You have to wonder, if there was jus t a little more processing going on here and less raw wood leaving our prov ince, whether or not the sof twood lum ber issue would be a little less damaging than it is today. Another obvious area that will benefit from a better value-added strategy is agriculture. In this area, I want to give credit where credit is due. Much has been done, but much more needs to be done .

Many Albertans can understand the whole c oncept of value added much more easily when we look at some simple products. A loaf of bread in some specialty shops can sell for more than a whole bushel of wheat. A bottle of Canadian Club rye whisky sells for more than about 10 bushels of rye. And, of course, there is beer, everyone’s favourite barley product, and for some strange reason it has a much higher value than a bushel of barley. Now, that, Mr. Speak er, i s what value-added is all about. Many consumers appreciate the ready-to-consume products that require little effort to prepare after a long day at work.

The more of that that can be done in our own province, where the raw materials are, the more jobs can b e created and the higher the value of those products being sold. The government of Alberta has assisted value-added agriculture by funding organizations like AVAC. It is a research arm designed to assist in product research, development, and production possibili- ties. There are othe r groups an d organiz ations t hroughout th e province, but many of them face the same obstacles.

Once again, we have to look at the federal government toge ther with the Cana dian Wheat Board, as they seem to be at c ross- purposes to our value-added strategy. The anomaly of the shipping and elevation charges on board-contr olled wheat and grain means that you would be hard-pressed to find a pasta manufacturer inside

February 19, 2004 Alberta Hansard 63 Alberta. In fact, in the very province where some of the world’s best durum wheat is grown, it is not economically viable to make pasta. That is just one more of the ludicrous situations we find ourselves in because of the W heat Board’s antiquate d and count erproductive rules. The good news for canola producers is that the Wheat Board doesn’t control it, a nd that is w hy we have a successful canola- crushing industry in our province.

It is not rocket science; it is just common sense but an important area that must be dealt with so that our province can benefit from the spinoff value of our own prod ucts. Man y of our prod ucers have discovered the importance of growing niche crops like mustard seed, canary seed, lentils, peas, flax, or oats. All of these crops allow us to look at further adding value to our products. Being able to ship Alberta beef in boxes or to make pet food and suede coats creates jobs here at home rather than outside our province.

I can only hope and pray that our beef industry can survive this crazy situation that we find ourselves in because of one case of mad cow disease. Perhaps the challenge we will face when it does finally end will be to consider w hether we really want to con tinue being reliant on shipping live cattle out of our province. Or do we want to further add value to that product as we redevelop our mark ets in what will no dou bt be a very diffe rent catt le business than it is today?

As someone that farmed and ranched in Alberta, I have to say that one day our pro ducers are going to have to look carefully at the wisdom of growing crop s and raisi ng cattle f or an export market. We are all learning the hard way that commodity market trends are down, that it is getting more and more difficult all the time to even get close to br eaking even on import costs l et alone make enough money to keep a farm viable. We must use all of our ingenuity to find ways to add value to our agriculture products if we want farming to even continue in Alberta.

I know that many people in this industry are looking at the situation, and I am confident in them and in their ability to find the s ilver lining in this incr edibly dark cloud. The people who stay in this industry are some of Alberta’s finest residents, and I wish them all the very best as they go through these difficult days filled with even more difficult decisions. Another element of the v alue-added strategy that I want to t alk about is knowledge-based industries. The big question is: what can we do to encourage such companies to come h ere?

It appears that the strategy most commonly ut ilized b y other pr ovinces a nd the United States w as to com e up with i ncentive programs for these industries. Alberta is not c ompetitive in this se ctor. The result is that most of the research and development funding in Alberta comes from government sources. Further, Alberta, with the third-largest economy in Canad a, has only 1.5 per cent of the v enture capital. These are things that need to change drastically if we are to become not just competitive but a leader in this field.

When I look at value-added, I see that government has to assess very carefully where it is important to level the playing fiel d and make Alberta a strong competitor, one that is capable of attracting corporate research and development and venture capital as well as technology commercialization. For too long now research that is finally at the point where one can commercialize it has been leaving our province. This needs to change so that as taxpayers we can see the world’s bes t re search c ulminate in innovativ e products a nd technologies developed and marketed right here at home.

Our ingenuity fund is helping to make it possible for Alberta t o have some of the fine st researchers anywhere in the world locate right here. However, our inability to capitalize on what they develop is leaving the glass half full. As we get deeper into things li ke nanotechnology, I hope that we will hav e found a way to keep the spinoff industries here, that that, in fact, Mr.

Speaker, may well be the next oil and gas business for our province. 3:50 Film is an ex ample of an indust ry that receives tax credits both federally and provincially in all parts of Canada, the United States, as well as Europe, New Zealand, and Australia. In order to have any film production done in A lberta at a ll, we ha d to come up with a program to assist this industry . The A lberta f ilm d evelopment program has helped, a nd in fact many Alberta producers and crew members have moved back from other provinces to help re-establish our industry.

Unfortunately, our program, the way it sits now, does not attract big productions o ver $ 10 million, nor do we hav e the ability to work with offshore and guest production on a direct basis. We do, however, work with our own Alberta-based producers, who are able to enter into co-production work and still access our program. This past year in Alberta close to $100 million in production has been done, but that is a far cry from the $400 million or $500 million that should be done here if we were to achieve even 10 per cent of what is being done in Canada.

Also, with a cap in place on our fund at $10 million in this past fiscal year, we find ourselves hemorrhag- ing production into other provinces, and there is not enough money in our fund to do all of the business that should be done here, so they go where the tax credits are. As well, this winter we have lost Great North Productions out of Alberta, and t he rea son was simp le: they c ould not assure their owners, Alliance Atlan tis, that when they were ready to move into production, they w ould in fac t be able t o access our fund.

T his company was doing over $30 million worth of production in Alberta, and it is a real loss for Edmonton. So once again I find myself looking forward to the budget because I hope that T reasury Board wi ll recognize th e importance of thi s industry to Albert a, to our com munities, and partic ularly to ou r tourism sector. If you wonder at all about the logic of that, I leave you with this thought on film. The country of New Zealand has seen a $3.8 billion economic benefit thanks to a $200 million tax credit given to the producers of The Lord of the Rings. Mr.

Speaker, I’m absolutely delighted that my government has set out a 20-ye ar strategic plan, an d I know that as we m ove further down this road, t here will be things that will need to be looked at including using our f iscal policy to ens ure that w e’re competitive with other jurisdictions. We’re a very young province – we’re only 99 years old – competing with cultures that are thousand s of years old. Even just in Canada a lone we ha ve had to do i n less than a hundred years that which our ea stern cousins have had ov er 300 years to accomplish.

I do not see it as a disadvantage, but what I do see is that we have to take the time to look at the whole picture. We would not have the economic benefit of the tar sands and billions of dollars in investment they have created had we not had a government willing to find ways to assist that industry in the beginning. As we take steps into the second century of our province’s history, we mus t be b old. We must find way s to convince the federal government to work with us and not against us so that we may find ways to achieve our full potential.

It is time to unleash innovation that focuses on becoming a world leader in research, development, and commercializatio n of new ideas. Th is applies to bot h our existing str engths in e nergy, agriculture, for estry as well as new businesses that create wealth by commercializing new technologies, creating new produc ts, and adding value a t home a nd for ex port abroad. We must find the strength of will to look at our fiscal policies for ways to help our ec onomy m ove pa st the hewe rs of w ood and

Alberta Hansard February 19, 200464 drawers of wa ter attitude s that hav e plague d us fo r decades and instead allow us to fully capture our own economic diversity. I am excited about our future, Mr. Speaker. I think the 21st century truly belongs to us. The Acting Speaker: Standing Order 29? The hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands. Mr. Mason: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It was indeed a pleasure to hear Her Ho nour the Lieutenant Governor deliver the throne speech. As always Her Honour brought renewed warmth and grace to this Chamber.

I would also like to add my voice to those of my colleagues in expressing my hope that Her Honour will remain in office for at least the duration of next year’s centennial celebra- tions. She does tr emendous credit to her office, and I very much appreciate her contributi