Alberta Hansard — 4 December 2007, Evening sitting (20:00) (Legislature 26, Session 3)

20071204

Alberta — Debates (Hansard)

December 4, 2007 Alberta Hansard 2411 Legislative Assembly of Alberta Title: Tuesday, December 4, 2007 8:00 p.m. Date: 2007/12/04 head: Government Bills and Orders Committee of the Whole [Mr. Marz in the chair] The Chair: I’d like to call the Committee of the Whole to order. Bill 46 Alberta Utilities Commission Act The Chair: When we adjourned, the hon. Member for Grande Prairie-Wapiti had started speaking. Did you have other comments to continue on? Mr. Graydon: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. The Chair: The hon. Member for Grande Prairie-Wapiti. Mr. Graydon: Well, thank you.

Over the break I had many hon. members approach me and say they were anxious to get back in to hear the balance of my comments, so I will continue now. The new Energy Resources Conservation Board will focus on the responsible development of Alberta’s resource wealth, ensuring that the production of our province’s oil and gas, oil sands, coal-bed methane, and other resources occur safely and in the public interest. The new Alberta utilities commission will oversee the distribution and sale of electricity and retail natural gas to Alberta consumers and will make decisions on new transmission facilities. Mr.

Chairman, it has been said before but it bears repeating: under Bill 46 hearings must – must – be held on all infrastructure applica- tions where the rights of an individual may be directly and adversely affected. All interested parties have the right to be notified of the facts, to participate in a hearing, to be represented by counsel if they wish, and to appeal questions of law or jurisdiction to the courts. I would like to use the balance of my allotted time to focus my comments on the mandate of the Alberta utilities commission, specifically

section 17. A

summary of

section 17 states that where the commission conducts a hearing, it shall give consideration to whether construction or operation of the proposed development is in the public interest having regard to the social and economic effects of the development. This means that Bill 46 explicitly requires the Alberta utilities commission to consider whether a proposed development is in the public interest and to take into account its social, economic, and environmental effects. It will not only maintain the current rights afforded to landowners and intervenors but adds an additional layer of consideration.

Section 17 expands on the checks and balances currently in place. Mr. Chairman, in developing Bill 46, government has carefully considered the concerns of all stakeholders, including those raised by landowners, consumer groups, various associations, and munici- palities. The Minister of Energy has listened and responded with amendments to Bill 46. These amendments and the addition of

section 17 will ensure that Albertans have the opportunity to be heard when the regulator considers the need for major infrastructure projects, such as transmission lines, and allows all intervenors to be eligible for funding in regulatory hearings. Mr. Chairman, Bill 46 strikes a balance between the need to ensure there is enough power for Albertans and ensuring that development is carried out in a responsible manner. We will ensure fairness and efficiency when it comes to regulating Alberta’s electricity marketplace.

I am confident that Bill 46 will preserve the rights of affected individuals and intervenors while ensuring that the interests of all Albertans are met. For those reasons I’m pleased to offer my support for Bill 46. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Chair: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. Mr. MacDonald: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It’s interesting to listen to all the di scussion here at committee. When we look at these amendments in the time that we have left, certainly I for one am not convinced that this is adequate or necessary.

It’s not an adequate or necessary debate on this bill nor are the reasons put forward by the government members as to why we should go ahead with this bill at this time. There is just too much wrong with this legislation for us to proceed. Now, the hon. member previous talked about public interest in

section 17, but certainly that

section should be amended, Mr. Chairman. In fact, I’m really disappointed that that wasn’t one of the long list of amendments that was provided by the government. A portion of this that should be removed and replaced would be the last portion of

section 17, which reads, “is in the public interest, having regard to the social and economic effects of the development, plant, line or pipeline and the effects of the development, plant, line or pipeline on the environment.” I think we should consider tightening that up, that entire section.

Section 18 – and we’re obviously not going to have time – should be amended, and we should give due consideration to

section 18(2), which talks about the giving of contradictory evidence. We still don’t have an explanation for that. I see the Minister of Energy in the House, Mr. Chairman, with his coat off. He must be very excited after carrying in all the regulations that go along with this bill. He had to remove his coat because of that hard, diligent work. I’m certain at the end of this debate he must be going to table all the regulations. Now, an amendment that certainly should be made is

section 24. I’m very disappointed that

section 24 isn’t going to be amended. In fact, it should not be amended; it should be just deleted in its entirety. This bill as we allow it to continue in the Assembly in this form controls landowners and consumers, but it doesn’t control generators of electricity nor the transmission organizations, and that is wrong. That’s wrong. There are two sides of this to have a good regulatory system that’s in bala nce, and this is not the proper balance. Certainly, we talked about this before. There should be an amendment to the period of 10 days from which one has time to make an appeal. It should be increased to 90 days. The appeals from the commission,

section 29(2), should be amended as well from 30 days to 90 days. When we use closure, we don’t have time to even try to improve this flawed legislation. The exclusion of the judicial review: people have talked about this, previous speakers.

Part 5 is going to be amended, and I for one think it should be. We can go through this.

Part 6 is the Market Surveillance Administrator. This whole

section hasn’t even been touched in the limited discussions that we have had on the role of the Market Surveillance Administrator. I for one think that the Market Surveillance Administrator should come under the Auditor General Act, but it doesn’t, and I’m puzzled as to why. I know the government is sensitive about the Auditor General since the report came out on the royalties and how they are or are not handled by the department, but I for one would certainly like to have seen that

section amended to put the Market Surveillance Adminis- trator and his department under the watchful eye of our Auditor General.

Alberta Hansard December 4, 20072412 Certainly, I cannot understand why our Auditor cannot review and audit the financial statements of the Market Surveillance Adminis- trator. Also, when they report in

section 53, Mr. Chairman, that the Market Surveillance Administrato r shall make available to the minister – the Minister of Energy in this case – reports on market events or conditions or other records, and the Market Surveillance Administrator shall, in my view, subject to regulations and rules under

section 74 make public any report or records referred to it in subsection (3) or (4). Not may; not the Market Surveillance Administrator may. If we’re r eally concerned and we’re really sincere about the role of the Market Surveillance Administrator, then the Market Surveillance Administrator shall do those things. It’s not discretionary. It’s not may; it’s shall. And that, Mr. Chairman, has not been done yet. 8:10 Now, certainly, we looked earlier at the Gas Utilities Act and its relationship to the Electric Utilities Act. I don’t think our questions were answered. Maybe they were not understood.

We’re still not going to get to the court orders that are under the Market Surveil- lance Administrator, whenever that administrator may apply to the court by originating notice for an order under subsection (3). It’s quite interesting, Mr. Chairman, because there was an originating notice, as I understand, initiated by the Market Surveillance Administrator in a case involving Enmax and the importing into this market of electricity that was uneconomically priced, whatever that means. I just don’t understand why, as other members have stated, we’re so anxious to rush this bill through the Assembly.

There are many things in here that we have not discussed like

section 65(2), which in my view should be amended. The Chair: Hon. member, we are debating amendment A1. Mr. MacDonald: Yes. We certainly are, Mr. Chairman. With amendment A1 there are 24 amendments in there, and these are some of the ones that should be added to that list. An Hon. Member: We listen. We care. Mr. MacDonald: I’m afraid you don’t listen and you don’t care, hon. member. Now, the administrative penalties. We talked a little bit about that, Mr. Chairman. Some of these sections under

part 7 have been suggested to me to be struck out. The Public Service Act in

part 8: “The Public Service Act does not apply to the Commission or to the Commission’s employees or persons providing services to the Commission.” Why not? We know that Mr. Kellan Fluckiger was a contractor, and I’m told that he was not part of any of the rules or regulations that govern public servants in this province. So is that why the Public Service Act does not apply to the commission or to the commission’s employees? Surely we can get answers to these questions. Surely we can. Mr. Chairman, we talked about

part 9, the rules and regulations and the commission’s rules. This is one that’s not part of the hon. Member for Whitecourt-Ste. Anne’s amendments, but 91(1)(

c) should be amended. The Chair: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Member for Edmonton- Gold Bar, but pursuant to Government Motion 38, agreed to December 4, 2007, which states that after three hours of debate all questions must be decided to conclude debate on Bill 46, Alberta Utilities Commission Act, in Committee of the Whole, I must now put the following questions to conclude debate. We will be voting on amendment A1 on each

part individually unless I get instructions from the House leaders otherwise at some point in time. [The voice vote indicated that the motion on amendment A1A carried] [Several members rose calling for a division. The division bell was rung at 8:14 p.m.] [Ten minutes having elapsed, the committee divided] [Mr.

Marz in the chair] For the motion: Abbott Fritz Mitzel Backs Graydon Oberle Brown Groeneveld Ouellette Cao Haley Prins Cardinal Hancock Renner Coutts Horner Rodney Danyluk Knight Rogers DeLong Lougheed Stevens Doerksen Magnus Strang Dunford McFarland VanderBurg Forsyth Against the motion: Agnihotri Hinman Miller, R. Blakeman Macdonald Pannu Cheffins Martin Pastoor Eggen Miller, B.

Taylor Elsalhy Totals: For – 31 Against – 13 [Motion on amendment A1A carried] The Chair: Now we’ll have the vote on amendment A1B. [The voice vote indicated that the motion on amendment A1B carried] [Several members rose calling for a division. The division bell was rung at 8:27 p.m.] [Ten minutes having elapsed, the committee divided] [Mr. Marz in the chair] For the motion: Abbott Fritz Mitzel Backs Graydon Oberle Brown Groeneveld Ouellette Cao Haley Prins Cardinal Hancock Renner Coutts Horner Rodney Danyluk Knight Rogers Delong Lougheed Stevens Doerksen Magnus Strang Dunford McFarland VanderBurg Forsyth

December 4, 2007 Alberta Hansard 2413 The Chair: Hon. members, I believe everyone is supposed to be in their seats while the votes are taking place. Against the motion: Agnihotri Elsalhy Miller, R. Blakeman Hinman Pannu Cheffins MacDonald Pastoor Eggen Martin Taylor Totals: For – 31 Against – 12 [Motion on amendment A1B carried] The Chair: Now on amendment A1C. [The voice vote indicated that the motion on amendment A1C carried] [Several members rose calling for a division. The division bell was rung at 8:40 p.m.] [Ten minutes having elapsed, the committee divided] [Mr.

Marz in the chair] For the motion: Abbott Forsyth McFarland Backs Fritz Mitzel Brown Graydon Oberle Cao Groeneveld Prins Cardinal Haley Renner Coutts Hancock Rodney Danyluk Horner Rogers DeLong Knight Stevens Doerksen Lougheed Strang Dunford Magnus Against the motion: Agnihotri Elsalhy Miller, R. Blakeman Hinman Pannu Cheffins MacDonald Pastoor Eggen Martin Taylor Totals: For – 29 Against – 12 [Motion on amendment A1C carried] The Chair: Now we have amendment A1, part D. The hon. Deputy Government House Leader. Mr. Renner: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Given that we’ve now had three divisions – the bells have been rung – I suspect that all members that are in the vicinity will have had an opportunity to join us in the voting. There is a provision within our Standing Order 32(3) that allows for the House on unanimous consent to shorten the time between division bells to one minute or to what can be determined. I would request at this time that with unanimous consent we reduce the time on division to one minute. I think that members have had an opportunity to be here. I recognize that there are some concerns that have been expressed by the opposition.

Clearly, there is an opportunity for them to express those concerns; however, I think we do have to think about wise use of taxpayers’ resources and move on to the business of the House. [Unanimous consent denied] The Chair: The next item for voting is amendment A1D. [The voice vote indicated that the motion on amendment A1D carried] [Several members rose calling for a division. The division bell was rung at 8:55 p.m.] [Ten minutes having elapsed, the committee divided] [Mr.

Marz in the chair] For the motion: Abbott Fritz Oberle Backs Graydon Ouellette Brown Groeneveld Prins Cao Haley Renner Cardinal Hancock Rodney Coutts Horner Rogers Danyluk Knight Stevens DeLong Lougheed Strang Doerksen Magnus VanderBurg Dunford McFarland Zwozdesky Forsyth Mitzel Against the motion: Agnihotri Elsalhy Miller, R. Blakeman MacDonald Pastoor Cheffins Martin Taylor Eggen Totals: For – 32 Against – 10 [Motion on amendment A1D carried] The Chair: The hon. Deputy Government House Leader. Mr. Renner: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My colleagues advise that although my argument was compelling last time, it obviously wasn’t particularly persuasive, so I w ill again ask for unanimous consent pursuant to Standing Order 32(3) to reduce the time between the bells to one minute. [Unanimous consent denied] The Chair: Back on the amendments. We’re dealing with amend- ment A1E. [The voice vote indicated that the motion on amendment A1E carried] [Several members rose calling for a division. The division bell was rung at 9:09 p.m.] [Ten minutes having elapsed, the committee divided] [Mr. Marz in the chair]

Alberta Hansard December 4, 20072414 For the motion: Abbott Fritz Oberle Backs Graydon Ouellette Brown Groeneveld Prins Cao Haley Renner Cardinal Hancock Rodney Coutts Horner Rogers Danyluk Knight Stevens DeLong Lougheed Strang Doerksen Magnus VanderBurg Dunford McFarland Zwozdesky Forsyth Mitzel 9:20 Against the motion: Agnihotri Elsalhy Pannu Blakeman MacDonald Pastoor Cheffins Martin Taylor Eggen Miller, R. Totals: For – 32 Against – 11 [Motion on amendment A1E carried] The Chair: The hon. Deputy Government House Leader. Mr. Renner: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My mother always taught me that if you want to learn to do something properly, you need to practise. So in the interest of learning to do it properly, I would move, subject to Standing Order 32(3), that the committee give unanimous consent to reducing the time between the bells to one minute. Point of Order Division Bell Interval The Chair: The hon. Opposition House Leader. Ms Blakeman: Thank you very much for recognizing me. I am mindful of the comments made this afternoon by the Speaker in the Assembly in which he said: “The Government House Leader asked for unanimous consent to waive the time between bells.

The Assembly said no.” He would draw it to the hon. member . . . The Chair: Hon. member, this is not debatable. Ms Blakeman: Well, I’m calling a point of order on him for repeatedly doing this when we had instructions from the Speaker this afternoon that it could be done once and perhaps once again, but not repeatedly. He is violating the instructions that were given to us by the Speaker in this House this afternoon, according to what’s in Hansard. The Chair: The hon. Government House Leader, on this point of order. Mr. Hancock: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This afternoon, of course, we were in the Assembly, and I was asking the Speaker to make a ruling prior to all of this. Now we’re in committee, and Standing Order 32(3) clearly applies. It says: Subject to suborder (3.1), when a division is called in Committee of the Whole or Committee of Supply, a Member may request unanimous consent to waive suborder (2) to shorten the 10 minute interval between division bells.

There’s clearly no limitation on that standing order, and it’s quite in order to ask because one might want to have one division or maybe two divisions or perhaps three divisions, but they may not intend to carry out 10 or 15 divisions. So one doesn’t know until one asks when one has reached the point where any member of the Assembly might feel that the point has been made and feel that it’s prudent now to act to suggest that the point having been made, we should no longer waste the resources of the public of Alberta on continuing to have 10-minute intervals between votes.

So it is quite in order under Standing Order 32(3) to ask for each division, each time, because the circumstances may have changed. The Chair: Anyone else on the point of order? Ms Blakeman: That is contravening – the Speaker said you shouldn’t do this every three minutes. There has to be some order in the Assembly, and he was referring directly to Standing Order 32(3). The Chair: Anyone else on the point of order? The hon. Member for Edmonton-Manning on the point of order. Mr. Backs: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’m speaking to 32(3).

I’m looking to order in the Assembly, and I believe that not allowing this and allowing the division bells just to continue for 10 minutes in a subsequent and a repeated way is actually creating disorder in the Assembly. I think that in order to get into the debates of important questions tonight, we should be pro ceeding and having this go forward. The Chair: The hon. Member for Drayton Valley-Calmar, on the point of order. Rev. Abbott: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Referring to Standing Order 32(3), I would also agree that if we were to limit division bells to one minute, then perhaps we could have more time for debate. The Chair: I’m calling for comments on the point of order. If there is no one else, I’m prepared to make a ruling on this. It’s true that the Speaker did give some direction on the division in Assembly, but we are in committee right now. Standing Order 32(3) is quite clear, and I will read it.

Subject to suborder (3.1), when a division is called in Committee of the Whole or Committee of Supply, a Member may request unanimous consent to waive suborder (2) to shorten the 10 minute interval between division bells. It doesn’t put any other restrictions on how many times this can be called for, so there is no point of order. Debate Continued The Chair: Now, on the request by the hon. Deputy Government House Leader.

I don’t believe your request differs from the time before, so I’ll put the question to the Assembly. [Unanimous consent denied] The Chair: Now we are dealing with A1F. [The voice vote indicated that the motion on amendment A1F carried] [Several members rose calling for a division. The division bell was rung at 9:26 p.m.]

December 4, 2007 Alberta Hansard 2415 [Ten minutes having elapsed, the committee divided] [Mr. Marz in the chair] For the motion: Abbott Fritz Oberle Backs Graydon Ouellette Brown Groeneveld Prins Cao Haley Renner Cardinal Hancock Rodney Coutts Horner Rogers Danyluk Knight Stevens DeLong Lougheed Strang Doerksen Magnus VanderBurg Dunford McFarland Zwozdesky Forsyth Mitzel Against the motion: Agnihotri Elsalhy Pannu Blakeman MacDonald Pastoor Cheffins Martin Taylor Eggen Miller, R.

Totals: For – 32 Against – 11 [Motion on amendment AIF carried] The Chair: The next amendment is amendment A1G. [The voice vote indicated that the motion on amendment A1G carried] [Several members rose calling for a division. The division bell was rung at 9:40 p.m.] [Ten minutes having elapsed, the committee divided] [Mr.

Marz in the chair] For the motion: Abbott Forsyth Mitzel Backs Fritz Oberle Brown Graydon Prins Cao Groeneveld Renner Cardinal Haley Rodney Coutts Hancock Rogers Danyluk Knight Stevens DeLong Lougheed Strang Doerksen Magnus VanderBurg Dunford McFarland Against the motion: Agnihotri Elsalhy Pannu Blakeman MacDonald Pastoor Cheffins Martin Taylor Eggen Miller, R. Totals: For – 29 Against – 11 [Motion on amendment A1G carried] The Chair: The hon. Deputy Government House Leader. Mr. Renner: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Pursuant to Standing Order 32(3) I seek unanimous consent to reduce the time between the division bells to one minute. [Unanimous consent denied] The Chair: The hon. Minister of Energy. Point of Order Separating Amendments Mr. Knight: Mr. Chairman, if I could. Clarification, please. In the Standing Orders, Proceedings in Committee of the Whole, 81(2) Where the Chair receives an indication that comments, questions or amendments will be offered with respect to any sections of the Bill, the committee shall consider every such

section [of the Bill], with the title and

preamble to be considered last. Mr. Chairman, I submit to you that as we proceed through the sections – when we get to amendment M, it’s

section 95 in the bill. N is

section 95 in the bill, and then from O I think there are five in a row that deal with

section 96. I submit to you, Mr. Chairman, that they should be dealt with as one

section of the bill. The Deputy Chair: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. Ms Blakeman: Thank you very much. According to several rulings by both the chairperson and by the Speaker, these particular amendments were to be voted individually. I don’t see why there would be a need to not do that at this point. We were not actually allowed to debate them individually. We weren’t even afforded enough time to do that, and we will certainly take the time now by voting them one at a time. Thank you. The Chair: Hon member, we’re not dealing with the bill at this particular time. We’re dealing with amendments to the bill.

I received indication from the House leaders earlier that we would be dealing with each part of the amendment in alphabetical order as they appear on the amendment A1 sheet. That’s what we’ve been doing, and unless I get indication from the committee to deal with this otherwise, that’s how I will continue to deal with it. Mr. Knight: Mr. Chairman, if I may. With all respect, if we read

section 81(2), it very clearly states that questions or amendments – questions or amendments – “offered with respect to any sections of the Bill, the comm ittee shall consider every such section.” The Standing Orders there are very clear. Ms Blakeman: At this point we’re dea ling with the voting of the amendments, not with the content of the amendments. It’s the voting of the amendments that’s on the floor, and that was the ruling that was given by both the Speaker and the chair. The Chair: We’ve already ruled that this is the way the committee was agreeable to doing it.

Unless I get an indication from the committee, we’ll continue doing it this way. That was the indication to the chair when that was asked for earlier in the day, and that was agreed upon. Unless you want to take it up with the House leaders and change that indication to me. Mr. Knight: Well, thank you very much. I have one last comment. The Chair: Sure.

Alberta Hansard December 4, 20072416 Mr. Knight: Very clearly, again, Mr. Chairman, up to this point in time we have only been dealing with one

section of the bill at a time. As we move forward, there are a number of areas in this A1 package of amendments, a number of amendments dealing with one section, and that was what I was trying to bring to your attention. The Chair: Hon. Government House Leader, you have some comments on this? Mr. Hancock: Yes, Mr. Chairman. If the hon. member is correct that a number of these lettered items that you’ve broken it down into amend the same section, I believe that the hon. member has a point. We were led to believe that it was broken down into sections. That wasn’t an agreement of the House leaders.

That was your ruling because the standing procedure of the House is that we deal with the bill clause by clause, and if any member wants it voted on sepa- rately, then you don’t vote on it as a package. But that presumes that each of the sections broken down, the A to G or whatever it is, are dealing with sections. If, in fact, they’ve been broken down into subs of sections, I believe the hon. member has a point. The Chair: Well, if we are going to change the process from this point on, I would ask for a vote of the committee to do it, or else we’ll proceed the way we have been going.

Hon. members, at the very outset this evening it was indicated to me, the chair, that by an agreement of the House leaders we would be proceeding the way we have, by alphabetical part at the time. I asked if there was any change in that, I would get that change from those House leaders at that time. I have not got that indication yet. Unless I do, we will be continuing the way we have. I would suggest that members take it up with their House leaders to indicate that change to me. Mr. Hancock: There’s never been a House leaders’ agreement on this point.

It’s up to members of the House to request if they want to proceed

section by section, and if they request, we must acqui- esce. It’s not been a matter of a House leaders’ agreement. 10:00 Ms Blakeman: We did in fact request a number of times on the record that these amendments be severed, and what we were told in response was that it would be debated as a package and voted separately by each differential

section here. The amendments are identified alphabetically, A through X I believe, and that was how they were to be voted. The Chair: Well, I’ve ruled on this, and we will proceed the way we have been going about this in the past. Debate Continued The Chair: The next

section we’re dealing with is A1, part H. [The voice vote indicated that the motion on amendment A1H carried] [Several members rose calling for a division. The division bell was rung at 10:01 p.m.] [Ten minutes having elapsed, the committee divided] [Mr.

Marz in the chair] For the motion: Abbott Forsyth Mitzel Backs Fritz Oberle Brown Graydon Ouellette Cao Groeneveld Prins Cardinal Haley Renner Coutts Hancock Rodney Danyluk Horner Rogers DeLong Knight Stevens Doerksen Lougheed Strang Dunford McFarland VanderBurg Against the motion: Agnihotri Elsalhy Pannu Blakeman MacDonald Pastoor Cheffins Martin Taylor Eggen Miller, R. Totals: For – 30 Against – 11 [Motion on amendment A1H carried] The Chair: The next

part is amendment A1I. [The voice vote indicated that the motion on amendment A1I carried] [Several members rose calling for a division. The division bell was rung at 10:14 p.m.] [Ten minutes having elapsed, the committee divided] [Mr. Marz in the chair] For the motion: Abbott Graydon Oberle Backs Groeneveld Ouellette Brown Haley Prins Cao Hancock Renner Cardinal Horner Rodney Coutts Knight Rogers DeLong Lougheed Snelgrove Doerksen Magnus Stevens Dunford McFarland Strang Forsyth Mitzel VanderBurg Fritz Against the motion: Agnihotri Eggen Miller, R.

Blakeman Elsalhy Pastoor Chase MacDonald Taylor Cheffins Martin Totals: For – 31 Against – 11 [Motion on amendment A1I carried] The Chair: The next amendment for consideration is amendment A1J. [The voice vote indicated that the motion on amendment A1J carried] [Several members rose calling for a division. The division bell was rung at 10:26 p.m.]

December 4, 2007 Alberta Hansard 2417 [Ten minutes having elapsed, the committee divided] [Mr. Shariff in the chair] For the motion: Abbott Graydon Oberle Backs Groeneveld Ouellette Brown Haley Prins Cao Hancock Renner Cardinal Horner Rodney Coutts Knight Rogers DeLong Lougheed Snelgrove Doerksen Magnus Stevens Dunford McFarland Strang Forsyth Mitzel VanderBurg Fritz Against the motion: Agnihotri Eggen Miller, R. Blakeman Elsalhy Pastoor Chase MacDonald Taylor Cheffins Totals: For – 31 Against – 10 [Motion on amendment A1J carried] The Deputy Chair: Hon. members.

We’ll now vote on part K of amendment A1. [The voice vote indicated that the motion on amendment A1K carried] [Several members rose calling for a division. The division bell was rung at 10:39 p.m.] [Ten minutes having elapsed, the committee divided] [Mr. Shariff in the chair] For the motion: Abbott Fritz Oberle Backs Graydon Ouellette Brown Groeneveld Prins Cao Haley Renner Cardinal Hancock Rodney Coutts Horner Rogers Danyluk Knight Snelgrove DeLong Lougheed Stevens Doerksen Magnus Strang Dunford McFarland VanderBurg Forsyth Mitzel 10:50 Against the motion: Agnihotri Eggen Miller, R.

Blakeman Elsalhy Pastoor Chase MacDonald Taylor Cheffins Miller, B. Totals: For – 32 Against – 11 [Motion on amendment A1K carried] The Deputy Chair: Hon. members, we’ll now vote on

section L of amendment A1. [The voice vote indicated that the motion on amendment A1L carried] [Several members rose calling for a division. The division bell was rung at 10:51 p.m.] [Ten minutes having elapsed, the committee divided] [Mr. Shariff in the chair] For the motion: Abbott Fritz Mitzel Backs Graydon Oberle Brown Groeneveld Prins Cao Haley Renner Cardinal Hancock Rodney Coutts Horner Rogers Danyluk Knight Snelgrove DeLong Lougheed Stevens Doerksen Magnus Strang Dunford McFarland VanderBurg Against the motion: Agnihotri Eggen Miller, R. Blakeman Elsalhy Pastoor Chase MacDonald Taylor Cheffins Miller, B.

Totals: For – 30 Against – 11 [Motion on amendment A1L carried] The Deputy Chair: Hon. members, we’ll next vote on

section M. [The voice vote indicated that the motion on amendment A1M carried] [Several members rose calling for a division. The division bell was rung at 11:04 p.m.] [Ten minutes having elapsed, the committee divided] [Mr. Shariff in the chair] For the motion: Abbott Graydon Oberle Backs Groeneveld Pham Brown Haley Prins Cao Hancock Renner Cardinal Horner Rodney Coutts Knight Rogers Danyluk Lougheed Snelgrove DeLong Magnus Stevens Doerksen McFarland Strang Dunford Mitzel VanderBurg Fritz

Alberta Hansard December 4, 20072418 Against the motion: Agnihotri Eggen Miller, R. Blakeman Elsalhy Pastoor Chase MacDonald Taylor Cheffins Miller, B. Totals: For – 31 Against – 11 [Motion on amendment A1M carried] The Deputy Chair: Hon. members, we’ll next vote on

section N. [The voice vote indicated that the motion on amendment A1N carried] [Several members rose calling for a division. The division bell was rung at 11:16 p.m.] [Ten minutes having elapsed, the committee divided] [Mr. Shariff in the chair] For the motion: Abbott Dunford McFarland Ady Fritz Mitzel Amery Graydon Oberg Backs Groeneveld Oberle Brown Haley Pham Cao Hancock Prins Cardinal Horner Renner Cenaiko Johnston Rodney Coutts Knight Rogers Danyluk Liepert Snelgrove DeLong Lougheed Strang Doerksen Magnus VanderBurg Against the motion: Agnihotri Eggen Miller, B. Blakeman Elsalhy Miller, R.

Chase Flaherty Pastoor Cheffins MacDonald Taylor Totals: For – 36 Against – 12 [Motion on amendment A1N carried] The Deputy Chair: Hon. members, we will now vote on

section O of amendment A1. [The voice vote indicated that the motion on amendment A1O carried] [Several members rose calling for a division. The division bell was rung at 11:29 p.m.] [Ten minutes having elapsed, the committee divided] [Mr. Shariff in the chair] For the motion: Abbott Haley Melchin Ady Hancock Mitzel Amery Jablonski Oberg Backs Johnson Oberle Boutilier Johnston Pham Cao Knight Prins Cenaiko Liepert Renner Coutts Lindsay Rodney Goudreau Lukaszuk Snelgrove Griffiths Magnus Strang Groeneveld McFarland 11:40 Against the motion: Agnihotri Eggen Miller, B. Blakeman Elsalhy Miller, R.

Chase Flaherty Pastoor Cheffins MacDonald Taylor Totals: For – 32 Against – 12 [Motion on amendment A1O carried] The Deputy Chair: Hon. members, we will next vote on

section P of amendment A1. [The voice vote indicated that the motion on amendment A1P carried] [Several members rose calling for a division. The division bell was rung at 11:42 p.m.] [Ten minutes having elapsed, the committee divided] [Mr. Shariff in the chair] For the motion: Abbott Hancock Oberg Ady Jablonski Oberle Amery Johnson Pham Backs Johnston Prins Boutilier Knight Renner Cao Liepert Rodney Cenaiko Lindsay Snelgrove Goudreau Magnus Strang Haley Melchin Against the motion: Agnihotri Eggen Miller, B. Blakeman Elsalhy Miller, R.

Chase Flaherty Pastoor Cheffins MacDonald Taylor Totals: For – 26 Against – 12 [Motion on amendment A1P carried] The Deputy Chair: Hon. members, we’ll now vote on

section Q. [The voice vote indicated that the motion on amendment A1Q carried] [Several members rose calling for a division. The division bell was rung at 11:54 p.m.]

December 4, 2007 Alberta Hansard 2419 [Ten minutes having elapsed, the committee divided] [Mr. Shariff in the chair] For the motion: Abbott Haley Melchin Ady Hancock Oberg Amery Jablonski Oberle Backs Johnson Pham Boutilier Johnston Prins Cao Knight Renner Cenaiko Liepert Rodney Goudreau Lindsay Snelgrove Griffiths Lukaszuk Strang Against the motion: Blakeman Eggen Miller, B. Bonko Elsalhy Miller, R. Chase Flaherty Pastoor Cheffins MacDonald Taylor Totals: For – 27 Against – 12 [Motion on amendment A1Q carried] The Deputy Chair: Hon. members, we will now vote on

section R. We are voting right now, hon. Member for Edmonton-Manning. Mr. Backs: I’m rising to request unanimous consent to reduce the amount of time for the bells. The Deputy Chair: To one minute? Mr. Backs: Under 32(3) of the Standing Orders, Mr. Chair. [Unanimous consent denied] The Deputy Chair:

Section R. [The voice vote indicated that the motion on amendment A1R carried] [Several members rose calling for a division. The division bell was rung at 12:08 a.m.] [Ten minutes having elapsed, the committee divided] [Mr. Shariff in the chair] For the motion: Abbott Jablonski Melchin Ady Johnson Oberg Amery Johnston Oberle Boutilier Knight Pham Cenaiko Liepert Prins Goudreau Lindsay Renner Griffiths Lukaszuk Rodney Haley Lund Strang Hancock Against the motion: Blakeman Eggen Miller, B. Bonko Elsalhy Miller, R. Chase Flaherty Pastoor Cheffins MacDonald Taylor Totals: For – 25 Against – 12 [Motion on amendment A1R carried] 12:20 The Deputy Chair: Hon. members, we will now vote on

section S of amendment A1. [The voice vote indicated that the motion on amendment A1S carried] [Several members rose calling for a division. The division bell was rung at 12:21 a.m.] [Ten minutes having elapsed, the committee divided] [Mr. Shariff in the chair] For the motion: Abbott Jablonski Oberg Ady Johnson Oberle Amery Johnston Pham Boutilier Knight Prins Cenaiko Liepert Renner Goudreau Lindsay Rodney Griffiths Lukaszuk Snelgrove Haley Lund Strang Hancock Melchin Against the motion: Blakeman Elsalhy Miller, B. Bonko Flaherty Miller, R.

Chase MacDonald Pastoor Cheffins Mason Taylor Eggen Totals: For – 26 Against – 13 [Motion on amendment A1S carried] The Deputy Chair: Hon. members, we will now vote on

section T of amendment A1. [The voice vote indicated that the motion on amendment A1T carried] [Several members rose calling for a division. The division bell was rung at 12:33 a.m.] [Ten minutes having elapsed, the committee divided] [Mr. Shariff in the chair] For the motion: Abbott Johnson Oberg Ady Johnston Oberle Amery Knight Pham Boutilier Liepert Prins Cenaiko Lindsay Renner Goudreau Lund Rodney

Alberta Hansard December 4, 20072420 Haley Marz Snelgrove Hancock Melchin Strang Jablonski Against the motion: Blakeman Elsalhy Miller, B. Bonko Flaherty Miller, R. Chase MacDonald Pastoor Cheffins Mason Taylor Eggen Totals: For – 25 Against – 13 [Motion on amendment A1T carried] The Deputy Chair: Hon. members, we’ll now vote on

section U of amendment A1. [The voice vote indicated that the motion on amendment A1U carried] [Several members rose calling for a division. The division bell was rung at 12:45 a.m.] [Ten minutes having elapsed, the committee divided] [Mr. Marz in the chair] For the motion: Abbott Jablonski Oberg Ady Johnson Oberle Amery Johnston Pham Boutilier Knight Prins Cao Liepert Renner Cenaiko Lindsay Rodney Goudreau Lund Snelgrove Haley Melchin Strang Hancock Mitzel Against the motion: Blakeman Eggen Mason Bonko Elsalhy Miller, B. Chase Flaherty Miller, R.

Cheffins MacDonald Pastoor Totals: For – 26 Against – 12 [Motion on amendment A1U carried] The Chair: Hon. members, the next amendment is A1V. [The voice vote indicated that the motion on amendment A1V carried] [Several members rose calling for a division. The division bell was rung at 12:57 a.m.] [Ten minutes having elapsed, the committee divided] [Mr. Marz in the chair] For the motion: Abbott Jablonski Oberg Ady Johnson Oberle Amery Johnston Pham Boutilier Knight Prins Cao Liepert Renner Cenaiko Lindsay Rodney Goudreau Lund Snelgrove Haley Melchin Strang Hancock Against the motion: Bonko Eggen Miller, B.

Chase Flaherty Miller, R. Cheffins Mason Pastoor Totals: For – 25 Against – 9 [Motion on amendment A1V carried] The Chair: The next amendment is amendment A1, part W. [The voice vote indicated that the motion on amendment A1W carried] [Several members rose calling for a division. The division bell was rung at 1:10 a.m.] [Ten minutes having elapsed, the committee divided] [Mr.

Marz in the chair] For the motion: Abbott Jablonski Oberg Ady Johnson Oberle Amery Johnston Pham Boutilier Knight Prins Cao Liepert Renner Cenaiko Lindsay Rodney Goudreau Lund Snelgrove Haley Melchin Strang Hancock 1:20 Against the motion: Bonko MacDonald Miller, R. Chase Mason Pastoor Cheffins Miller, B. Taft Flaherty Totals: For – 25 Against – 10 [Motion on amendment A1W carried] The Chair: The next amendment is amendment A1X. [The voice vote indicated that the motion on amendment A1X carried] [Several members rose calling for a division.

The division bell was rung at 1:22 a.m.] [Ten minutes having elapsed, the committee divided] [Mr. Marz in the chair]

December 4, 2007 Alberta Hansard 2421 For the motion: Abbott Jablonski Oberg Ady Johnson Oberle Amery Johnston Pham Boutilier Knight Prins Cao Liepert Renner Cenaiko Lindsay Rodney Goudreau Lund Snelgrove Haley Melchin Strang Hancock Against the motion: Bonko Hinman Miller, R. Chase MacDonald Pastoor Cheffins Mason Taft Flaherty Miller, B. Total For – 25 Against – 11 [Motion on amendment A1X carried] [The voice vote indicated that the clauses of Bill 46 as amended were agreed to] [Several members rose calling for a division.

The division bell was rung at 1:34 a.m.] [Ten minutes having elapsed, the committee divided] [Mr. Marz in the chair] For the motion: Abbott Jablonski Oberg Ady Johnson Oberle Amery Johnston Pham Boutilier Knight Prins Cao Liepert Renner Cenaiko Lindsay Rodney Goudreau Lund Snelgrove Haley Melchin Strang Hancock Against the motion: Bonko Hinman Miller, B. Chase MacDonald Miller, R. Cheffins Mason Taft Flaherty Totals: For – 25 Against – 10 [The clauses of Bill 46 as amended agreed to] [Title and

preamble agreed to] The Chair: Shall the bill be reported? Are you agreed? Hon. Members: Agreed. The Chair: Opposed? That’s carried. The hon. Government House Leader. Mr. Hancock: Well, Mr. Chairman, I would move that the commit- tee rise and report Bill 46. [Motion carried] [The Deputy Speaker in the chair] Mr. Johnson: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole has had under consideration a certain bill. The committee reports the following bill with some amendments: Bill 46. I wish to table copies of all amendments considered by the Committee of the Whole on this date for the official records of the Assembly.

The Deputy Speaker: Are you agreed with the report? Hon. Members: Agreed. The Deputy Speaker: Opposed? So ordered. head: Government Bills and Orders Third Reading Bill 46 Alberta Utilities Commission Act The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Minister of Energy. Mr. Knight: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

It’s a pleasure for me to move third reading of Bill 46 after the stimulating debate that we had with respect to the amendments that were brought forward to in fact strengthen this bill for the protection of all Albertans and to provide for Albertans a utility commission that will in the future I’m very sure provide an excellent opportunity for Albertans not only to have the protection and the service of a strong utility structure but also to be very much engaged in that process as it moves along. Mr.

Speaker, a key area that was entrusted to me as the Minister of Energy for the province of Alberta includes the continuing effective operation of Alberta’s electricity system to meet Albertans’ growing needs, and it’s a responsib ility that I don’t ta ke lightly. I think that all hon. members here would agree with me that the intent of Bill 46 to create two entities out of the EUB is, indeed, something that is required and is a positive move for Alberta. 1:50 Mr. Speaker, I’d like to say in the context of that that some hon. members might suggest that it’s an attempt to act against the interests of Albertans.

However, the AUC, like the EUB, has an obligation to approve what’s in the public interest, and I think that, in fact, what we’ve done here is to address exactly that. I’m pleased that we’re able to start the final debate with respect to Bill 46 here in third reading. Mr. Speaker, at this point in time I would like to move to adjourn debate. [Motion to adjourn debate carried] head: Government Bills and Orders Second Reading Bill 57 Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2007 (No. 2) The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Government House Leader. Mr. Hancock: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would move Bill 57, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2007 (No. 2) for second reading.

Alberta Hansard December 4, 20072422 [The Speaker in the chair] As was indicated in first reading when it was introduced, miscella- neous statutes usually is a statute which does not have much debate because it only gets introduced after all parties have agreed that the contents thereof are, in fact, miscellaneous. I will adhere to that concept, Mr. Speaker, and not debate it further and would at this time move that we adjourn debate on Bill 57. [Motion to adjourn debate carried] head: Government Motions The Speaker: The hon. Government House Leader. Time Allocation on Bill 46 39. Mr. Hancock moved:

Be it resolved that when further consideration of Bill 46, Alberta Utilities Commission Act, is resumed, not more than one hour shall be allotted to any further consideration of the bill at third reading, at which time every question necessary for the disposal of the bill at this stage shall be put forthwith. Mr. Hancock: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We’ve spoken to this motion twice. I won’t speak to it further. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Rutherford. Mr. R. Miller: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Although the hon.

Government House Leader might not wish to speak to it further, I certainly think it’s important that we speak to it further. This is now I believe the fourth time in just the last few days that we’ve seen this government invoke closure on debate in this Legislature. Yes, the fourth time. I think it’s shameful, quite frankly, that we see this sort of thing happening. You know, we’ve been through an exercise in democracy and parliamentary rules over the last six hours. I know that there are some members of the House who question the tactic.

Quite frankly, there isn’t a member on this side of the House who would not have rather spent the last six hours debating Bill 46 as opposed to doing the votes that we went through, but the government put the opposi- tion in a situation where we weren’t allowed to debate over the last six hours, unfortunately, and I think it’s fair to say it’s unfortunate for the people of this province. They lost six hours of debate on Bill 46 as a result of the government. In fairness, Mr. Speaker, as they with Government Motion 39, they are using the standing orders to their full advantage.

I think it’s fair to say that the opposition used the standing orders to their full advantage, for whatever that might be worth. It can be questioned what it’s worth, but nevertheless that is the way it works. Both sides of the House have shown tonight that they’re willing to use the rules as they are to the best of their abilities and for the purposes as they best see fit; that is true. I hear the President of the Treasury Board agreeing with me. I’m glad that he sees some merit in my argument.

To speak specifically to Government Motion 39, clearly the opposition is going to vote against this motion, and clearly, if need be, there will be another standing vote on this. It is simply a matter of principle, Mr. Speaker, and I think it’s an important principle. Mr. Liepert: You don’t have any. Mr. R. Miller: I hear the hon. Minister of Education suggesting that I don’t have any principles. If he’s looking for a point of order, he’s dangerously close to finding one because, Mr.

Speaker, as has been said by many members of this House many times – many times – we have nothing if we don’t have our own dignity and our own honour. For that minister to sit there and question my dignity and my honour and suggest that I don’t have any principles is not funny. It is not funny. Mr. Speaker, I’m ashamed. It’s 2 o’clock in the morning, and duly elected members of this Assembly are here to do a job on behalf of the people of this province. The smugness that comes from that side of the House is absolutely shameful.

I have said this before, and here we are again: a black day for democracy in this province. The fourth time in only a handful of days that the government has invoked closure. They are denying the people of this province their rights in terms of having their voices heard. The hon. Minister of Education should know that I tabled a letter in this House this afternoon that came from a constituent, totally unsolicited, suggesting that Bill 46, even as amended, is a terrible piece of legislation and in the letter asked me to vote against the amendments.

He was suggesting in this House yesterday that that doesn’t happen, that the only way that any members of this House are getting letters from constituents suggesting that they vote against Bill 46 is if they’re solicited. Well, clearly that’s just not the case. There are many people across this province that are incredibly concerned. [interjection] I certainly did not solicit a letter from the mayor of Calgary. I’m going to suggest that the Minister of Education probably didn’t solicit that letter either. Mr. Rodney: Can we go back to a division? Mr. R. Miller: Oh, we will in a very short time, hon.

Member for Calgary-Lougheed. We will very definitely be back to a division in no time, I’m sure. As I said, a black day for democracy. Here we are once again being forced into a closure motion by the government for whatever reason. You know, Mr. Speaker, I do not understand. This is the fifth week in this House in the fall sitting, and we could have started this debate five weeks ago. [Mr. R.

Miller’s speaking time expired] The Speaker: I’m sorry, hon. member, but under Standing Order 21(3) there are only two speakers permitted. [The voice vote indicated that Government Motion 39 carried] [Several members rose calling for a division. The division bell was rung at 1:58 a.m.] [Ten minutes having elapsed, the Assembly divided] For the motion: Abbott Jablonski Oberg Ady Johnson Oberle Amery Johnston Pham Boutilier Knight Prins Cao Liepert Renner Cenaiko Lindsay Rodney Goudreau Lukaszuk Shariff Griffiths Lund Snelgrove Haley Marz Strang Hancock Melchin Against the motion: Bonko Hinman Miller, B.

December 4, 2007 Alberta Hansard 2423 Chase MacDonald Miller, R. Cheffins Mason Taft Totals: For – 29 Against – 9 [Government Motion 39 carried] head: 2:10 Government Bills and Orders Third Reading Bill 46 Alberta Utilities Commission Act (continued) The Speaker: Hon. Minister of Energy, are you continuing? Mr. Knight: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I think for the purposes of third reading I would like to just say again that I hope that we have an opportunity here in the next something less than an hour to indicate to Albertans the concerns that some people have raised with respect to th is issue and also, I believe, the opportunity to indicate how we’ve addressed those concerns to the greatest degree. With that, I thin k I would like to just allow the debate in third reading to continue. Thank you very much. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. Mr. MacDonald: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Certainly, when we think of this hour and we think of the lack of proper time in committee that was used or in the absence of time to try to repair this bill, the 24 amendments, it’s remarkable that this government would invoke closure again on this bill. There are, again, so many outstanding issues and so little time, and if this government contin- ues with this pattern of closure, the citizens of this province are apt to invoke closure on this government. Now, specifically with this bill and in third reading we have to ask ourselves: have we done enough? Obviously, hon. members, we have not.

We have not done enough with this bill to improve it and to satisfy the concerns and the issues that have been brought forward. The 24 amendments are simply a reflection of how it was so poorly drafted in the first place.

Now, when we look at this series of amendments – I won’t call them improvements to this bill – no one on the government side in the limited time we had at committee stood up and said that the proposed amendments, the changes in the intervenor funding, provided the Alberta utilities commission the discretion to provide funding to a local intervenor or other intervenors in a hearing or any other proceeding. I didn’t hear that, Mr. Speaker, and when we look at some of the other attempts to satisfy the concerns of Albertans, they’re not addressed here either.

Certainly, whenever we’re looking at the administrative penalties, we clarified that the administrative penalties that the Alberta utilities commission can impose on a person are either a fine or other terms and conditions or both – and we talked about this earlier – but there’s been really no satisfaction here where we’re moving some officers’ and directors’ joint liability issues. I could go on and on, but I think what we need to do here with this bill in third reading is give it one more chance.

Now, with the time that we have, I think we should consider bringing this bill back to committee because we have not finished the work that needed to be done. [interjection] I’m sure the Minister of Energy is excited about that. We look at the regulations, which we have been patient for and we’ve been asking for. I’m very disappointed that we have not had a chance to review them. Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment to the bill here, a notice of amendment. I would ask if the pages could please come by. We have lots of copies for everyone here, including the signed original on the top.

If that could be distributed, please, I would be grateful. The Speaker: Hon. member, I’m assuming that this is a committal amendment, so just proceed. It’ll be circulated right now. Mr. MacDonald: Thank you very much. Now, Mr. Speaker, my notice of amendment. I will read it into the record for the benefit of the hon. Member for Drayton Valley- Calmar.

I move that the motion for third reading of Bill 46, Alberta Utilities Commission Act, be amended by deleting all the words after “that” and substituting the following: “Bill 46, Alberta Utilities Commission Act, be not now read a third time but that it be recommitted to Committee of the Whole for the purpose of reconsid- ering sections 3 to 24.” Now, there’s a lot in sections 3 to 24 that we haven’t had the time to address because of this government’s habit of invoking closure. Mr. Speaker, I would urge all hon. members to consider this amendment at this time and for these very reasons.

If we were to go back to Committee of the Whole and we were to deal with sections 3 through 24, these are some of the things that we could consider. In

section 3(1) we could consider an amendment, and we could discuss changing the composition of the commission, eliminating the appointment of nine members chosen by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, changing it to better reflect the needs of Alberta consumers. This is done by adding five consumer appointees. Let’s put the consumers first, not last. [interjection] The hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo has spoken. Unfortunately, I could not hear that. Perhaps it’s better that I did not. Now, if we were to adopt this amendment, it would also give us time to look at

section 6(1)(

a) in committee. If we were to have a look at

section 6(1)(a) – and that’s under Duty of Care, Mr. Speaker – we could discuss the idea and consider a change in language to broaden the concept of best interest. Defining the public interest can be done narrowly; for instance, the economic interest. This means that other concepts will be considered. If we have a look at this, we could consider the environment, for example. If we were to go down here to

section 8(1) – again, I would remind all hon. members that the approach, if we were to amend this, is based on limiting the powers of the commission and the extent to which it could exercise powers that are not contained or enumerated within Bill 46. I’m sure the Minister of Energy is having doubts about Bill 46, and he must be having doubts about the discretionary powers of the commission. Mr. Knight: You don’t get to determine when I have doubts. 2:20 Mr. MacDonald: I don’t get to determine when the hon. Minister of Energy has doubts. I’m relieved to hear that, hon. member. Now,

section 8(5). This will give us an opportunity to have a look at this. If we were to do the right thing, we would rein in the power of the commission to ensure that only matters that are essential to the performance of the commission’s mandate are dealt with during any proceeding. Without this, any matter could come into the mandated power of the commission. We could also have a look at

section 8(7). I think, again, that we would be better off without

section 8(7). Mr. Knight: There are a few things around here I think we’d be better off without as well. Mr. MacDonald: Well, why didn’t you say that in committee?

Alberta Hansard December 4, 20072424 Now you’re getting the chance, so I would encourage you to please support this proposal. Now 9(1). You know, the Minister of Energy may be confident that

section 9 is fixed, but Albertans are not. If we were to strike out

section 9(1), this would ensure that the commission is unable to convene, make orders, or issue a decision without providing notice or holding a hearing. This ensures that some measure of account- ability and due process remains for Albertans. We can have a look at

section 11. Again, we need to have a look at the powers of the commission, ensuring that it takes its powers from the act and not some expansive concept of the powers that a Queen’s Bench justice wields. If we were to look further here, Mr. Speaker, we all know that Queen’s Bench judges have a great deal of power. The amendment to this

section spells out the powers of the commission, stopping short of granting them similar powers and immunities that are vested in a Queen’s Bench justice. This is a very important limitation. The provision of these immunities could have broad, very serious implications. Now

section 12. If we were to use that, we’ve gotta be very careful. When we look at this section, if we were to change this and allow for greater civil enforcement of a finding that a contempt of the commission has occurred, it gives teeth to the powers to find persons who have been contemptuous and allows for real chances for the recovery of costs. In

section 15 we could consider some changes as well, Mr. Speaker. When we’re discussing this, we cannot but remember that a few months ago, going back to May and June, specifically June, Albertans learned that the government had hired private investiga- tors to spy on landowners and other concerned citizens who attended public hearings of the Energy and Utilities Board on a transmission line, to be specific, a transmission line hearing in Rimbey, and at a hearing in Redwater on the northwest upgrader.

The EUB spy scandal has made it clear that there are big problems with Alberta’s energy and utilities regulatory system. Again, when the government spies on its own citizens, citizens who are only trying to express their concerns with regard to proposed power lines in their backyard and other utilities that could impact the quality of their life, the system is badly broken. Public confidence has been eroded by this government in the electric utility regulatory system. The government knows it, the Minister of Energy knows it, and Bill 46 is not going to fix it. Mr.

Boutilier: Bill 46 is going to serve Albertans well. Mr. MacDonald: Bill 46 is not going to serve all Albertans, hon. Member for Fort McMurray-Wood Buffalo. Now, instead of fixing the problem, the government has drafted, hastily I might add, this bill. Hastily. Mr. Boutilier: Diligently. Mr. MacDonald: Not diligently.

Kellan Fluckiger has certainly been involved in the drafting of this, and if it was drafted really well, you wouldn’t have had to hire this $500-an-hour consultant to try to help out, throwing lifelines to $500-an-hour consultants and then at the same time having the gall to sa y that this side of the House is wasting taxpayers’ money. Shame on you. Shame on you after spending an additional $26,000 on another propaganda campaign in 133 newspapers to try to convince rural Albertans that Bill 46 is the right thing to do. Shame on this government, Mr. Speaker. Shame on this government.

We still haven’t satisfied with Bill 46 all the outstanding questions and all the outstanding concerns that Albertans have had. In the time that I have left, Mr. Speaker, I would like to suggest regarding our amendment here to move this bill back to Committee of the Whole for the purpose of reconsidering sections 3 to 24. Let’s have a look at, specifically,

section 15, the absence of commission members. Here I think the interests of Albertans would be better served if we were attempting to limit anyone who has not taken

part in any part of the proceeding from delivering any opinion or decision based on evidence that they had not been presented. We have to amend

section 15. We also have to have a look again at

section 17 because this government has failed to do that, Mr. Speaker. We had a little chat about this earlier. This is the

section about public interest. A lot of these suggestions have been made by many fine citizens from central Alberta, including Joe Anglin. I know the minister said in an e-mail: no to Joe. I can’t believe it. We should be very pleased that we have a gentleman like that living in this fine province, and we should listen to him whenever he points out ways to improve this bill. You wouldn’t have to pay him $500 an hour. You wouldn’t even have to pay him $75 an hour, like you paid the spies. That’s what the spies got in Rimbey: 75 bucks an hour plus expenses. Mr. Knight: How much was his bill that he sent to the EUB?

Mr. MacDonald: I can certainly answer that for the hon. gentleman. The Speaker: Please. Please. The hon. Member for Edmonton- Gold Bar has the floor. Mr. MacDonald: Thank you very much. The Minister of Energy can check this out. It’s $600. Six hundred dollars is what Mr. Anglin’s bill is, and he donated it, like the rest of the Lavesta group, into the pot – yes, into the pot – to pay their legal fees. Six hundred bucks. Six hundred bucks. Those allegations have been made against that gentleman by Conservatives throughout central Alberta. They have been dismissed as not true, and the minister knows that.

The minister knows that. That’s typical. I’m disappointed to say: that’s very typical. Now, when we look at public interest,

section 17, Mr. Speaker, there are two amendments to this

section that should be made. We’re not going to just delete it. An Hon. Member: Only two? Mr. MacDonald: Only two. Two would fix this up. But the aim with both of them is the same: to keep this bill from narrowly defining what is in the interests of Albertans. These amendments aim to protect those who raise environmental concerns, et cetera, because

section 17 as it stands now is dedicated to ec onomic benefits. We have a look at

section 22, Mr. Speaker, and again we’re talking about the local intervenor costs. I think the government should take some guidance from Joe Anglin. [interjections] Yes, I think they should. I think they should listen to him to try and broaden the term “local intervenor” by including those who have environmental concerns. It’s just unacceptable that we have this narrow definition of local intervenor. 2:30 Now,

section 22(2). This is the one that: oh, well, we’re not to worry; things are going to work out. Intervenors may or may not get their costs covered. How can people trust the process when the process in the past has implemented a covert spy operation against them? How can they trust this system? How can they trust the

December 4, 2007 Alberta Hansard 2425 system when the system was spying on them? Again, I’m so disappointed in the government members across the way b ecause you had an opportunity here with this bill to try to fix the problem, and I’m sad to say that you’re de termined to make it worse. Now, if we were to look at an extension of the provision to provide costs to intervenors to ensure that (

a) they can get legal representation if they want it and to ensure that (

b) lawyers are encouraged to act in the public interest instead of turning parties to the proceedings away because they can’t . . . [Mr. MacDonald’s speaking time expired] The Speaker: I’m afraid, hon. member, I recognize the following order. We’re on the amendment. The hon. Member for Edmonton- Highlands-Norwood, then Cardston-Taber-Warner, then the President of the Treasury Board. Mr. Mason: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I’m pleased to rise to the amendment that has been put forward by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar.

This amendment is very similar, in fact it’s identical, to an amendment that the NDP opposition put forward at second reading on this bill. We continue to believe . . . Dr. Taft: We enthusiastically support it. Mr. Mason: Yes, and I support this, too. Maybe I won’t be as ecstatic as you are, but I’ll certainly support this motion. Mr. Speaker, one of the things which the government is quite proud of and which we are prepared to give some grudging credit to them for . . . Mrs. Jablonski: Thank you. Mr.

Mason: Wait for it, hon. member. . . . is the establishment of permanent all-party standing commit- tees which have the opportunity to hear from the public on important pieces of legislation. That’s something that we have been calling for for years, and we were pleased to see that the government actually put that in place. But the government is being very selective about what use these committees will be put to and which pi eces of legislation they’re prepared to forward for public consideration.

The government has some flagship bills, Bill 1 and B ill 2, that they’re prepared to take out because there’s not very much in principle that’s very controversial about them. Although the government did manage to create a controversy in some of the applications, nevertheless, they were prepared to have discussion and input from the public as was the intention.

But on a very important piece of legislation and a very contentious piece of legislation, like Bill 46, the government is unprepared apparently to allow these committees to do their work and legislators from this Assembly from all parties to openly solicit input from the public on this bill. This has been by far the most controversial bill, and there’s obviously a great deal of input that the public would like to provide, yet the government has refused, at least so far, to permit the standing committee to hear from it. In this particular case the recommendation is to the Committee of the Whole.

That’s where this is different from our amendment. We wanted it to go to one of the standing policy field committees and have public input. But I think that it’s still worthwhile to go back to Committee of the Whole. I think it’s been really unfortunate that the government, in this particular case, has kept this bill out of the Assembly for most of the session. It has seemed to me, Mr. Speaker, that there would have been plenty of time to debate this bill without closure. Mr. MacDonald: Do you think they’re embarrassed? Mr. Mason: I’m asked by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar whether they’re embarrassed. No.

I think that they were divided, confused, and disorganized, and they were unable to get their act together on how they were going to handle the public opposition to this bill. Mr. Knight: They’ve figured us out. Mr. Mason: You know, it’s written all over you, hon. minister. The problem is that the government was really unprepared to bring this forward and make it a central focus of debate in this Legislature. They kept it off the table for most of the Assembly’s time in the session, and then they brought it forward for committee under conditions of closure.

Of course, our friends in the Liberal opposition were openly threatening to prolong the debate and keep it going on, so they in a sense goaded the government into the action they’ve taken, but there’s still no excuse for what the government has done. I think this is an important b ill, a serious bill, and a bill that Albertans have a great deal of concern about, and the amendments that the government has brought forward, which we’ve just spent so many hours voting on, don’t deal with the concerns that people have.

They continue to weaken the regulatory process and weaken the capacity of the public and concerned parties to have input into that process. It’s better than the original bill, but it’s still not as good as what we had before, and that’s the bottom line as far as I’m con- cerned, Mr. Speaker. The government’s intention was to split the functions of the EUB into two, one to deal with oil and gas and one to deal with electrical utilities, and there’s nothing wrong with that. It makes a great deal of sense. But they’ve tried to s lip in at the same time changes that allow the EUB to restrict public input.

We’ve seen what’s happened. We’ve seen what’s happened with the EUB, where they began to take actions on their own, at least as far as we know, and interfered in their very own process. I’ve never seen anything like it, Mr. Speaker. Here it is, a quasi-judicial body appointed by the government, responsible for regulating very important parts of our economy, and they interfere in their own process and, effectively, take sides against the landowners, who are legitimate intervenors in the particular case, and they do that by violating, in my view, the civil rights of those individuals by spying on their activities.

Of course, we called immediately for the cancellation of the hearings. The government resisted that, and I heard the hon. Minister of Energy and other members of the government saying that that was absolutely ridiculous, but in the end that’s exactly what they had to do. It was the equivalent of a mistrial because the process had become so tainted and so flawed that it had to be cancelled alto- gether, and they had to start over. It’s unfortunate that that happened, but that was the right thing to do. I just wish the government and the EUB would have taken the Alberta NDP’s advice weeks before they actually did.

It’s pretty clear to us that that EUB has not been properly reformed because there’s a fundamental culture that’s going to be passed along to the next body through this bill, which is support for large private interests like utility companies and gas and oil companies over the interests of the public. The weakening of the provisions for public input in this b ill I think is its fatal flaw, its Achilles heel, Mr. Speaker. 2:40 I think we have not got to the bottom of what went on in the EUB. We haven’t even come close. The Perras report was a whitewash.

Alberta Hansard December 4, 20072426 The terms of reference and the appointment of the person doing the investigation were entirely under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Energy. So, of course, certain questions weren’t asked or addressed in the report, like: who on the EUB itself knew of or had approved a covert spying operation? Justice Perras just didn’t ask that question. It’s not in his report. He fingered the director of security, but he went no higher. We need to know, Mr. Speaker, who gave the director of security his marching orders. Was it the executive director of the organization?

There were other officials of the EUB that were copied on that e-mail, which proves that they knew about the covert spying operation. They didn’t get fired. The minister finally got around to quietly sacking three members of that board and called it a retirement, but that’s like, you know, senior officials in the Kremlin all of a sudden announcing their retirement, and nobody really believes that they actually retired. In fact, they’re just happy that they’re still alive. Mr. Speaker, we haven’t got to the bottom of that.

Of course, the real question, the $64,000 question, that wasn’t asked by Justice Perras is: what did the minister know about this? The minister has never said what he knew. We’ve asked him. We’ve asked him in question period to tell the House what he knew and what he did. What did he know, and when did he know it? We haven’t got an answer to that, and we certainly haven’t got that answer from Justice Perras because it was, of course, conveniently outside of his terms of reference. Mr.

Speaker, I think the culture of secrecy and collaboration with the oil and gas and utilities industry and hostility to legitimate citizens’ concerns: that culture of the EUB is going to be transposed into the new Alberta utilities board. I’ll tell you why I think that. I went today on the EUB website, and I found that they have drafted all of the rules which will govern the new AUB, and they’ve posted them on their website. They call them draft rules, but of course the jurisdiction to do that will only be provided when Bill 46 is passed into law, and here we are debating it.

Obviously, it has not passed into law, yet the EUB has already generated the rules. There are a dozen or two dozen documents up on their website that deal with the operation of this organization, which has no jurisdiction at all. I think it’s a clear signal from the government that not only did they take the passage of Bill 46 for granted, but in fact the same gang is going to be running the show, and the culture of that organization, which is a horribly undemocratic culture, is going to continue.

We’re going to s ee the same kind of culture: the suspicion of environmentalists, the fear of landowners standing up for their rights, the motivation and the overwhelming desire to help big oil companies, big utility companies get their projects through. That’s the culture of the EUB. It shouldn’t be a surprise b ecause that’s the culture that this government wanted. If you look at the mandate of the organization, its job is to get the energy and get the raw materials out of the ground and get them to market as quickly as possible, which is very consistent with this government’s plan.

Unlike my friends in the Liberal Official Opposition I do believe that this government has a plan, but that plan is to extract the tremendous natural resources of this province, particularly hydrocar- bon resources and energy resources, as quickly as possible, with as little regard for the interests of people who live in the vicinity or the environment or the effect on the economy and get it to the United States just as fast as they possibly can. Of course, they have a further plan, and that’s to take as little as possible in terms of the royalties for those resources. I think the government does have a plan.

It’s just a plan that’s unacceptable. I think that if all Albertans fully understood this government’s plan, they would be shocked, frankly, Mr. Speaker. I want to just indicate that we will support this. We think that we should go back to Committee of the Whole. We recognize that we’re running out of time. Mr. Speaker, we have set fixed dates for this fall session, and all parties accepted those dates. So all parties I think have an obligation to make that system work. The govern- ment hasn’t done that b ecause they deliberately withheld this bill from active consideration of this Assembly.

What we’ve just seen earlier tonight on the part of the Liberal opposition, wasting over five hours of time just ringing bells, is also something that . . . The Speaker: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member, but the time has now left us. As strange as this may be, we still have an opportunity for Standing Order 29(2)(a). The hon. Minister of Energy. Mr. Knight: Mr. Speaker, if I might. Thank you very much.

I would like to just ask the member opposite if he would clarify for me, please, if he has some shred of proof that I somehow was involved in some particular piece of business that he seems to be, you know, just sort of accusing me of wit hout really accusing me. I find it a bit distasteful. As a matter of fact, I would suggest that those kinds of accusations made in other quarters, perhaps not here, you know, might be met with a different result.

I think that the types of things that they do that they get into Hansard and then pass around for other individuals to read – they puff their chests all out and say: that guy did something. I would like to ask the member, if he has a shred of proof with respect to those allegations, if he wouldn’t mind sharing it with the rest of the members of this Assembly so we could deal with it. The Speaker: The hon. leader. Mr. Mason: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. There was no allegation.

There was a direct question to the minister, and I asked him this question in question period: what did he know, and when did he know it? He dodged the question. So I took this opportunity to ask it again, and I’m going to ask it again. Mr. Minister, what did you know, and when did you know it? Mr. Hancock: Mr. Speaker, I would like the hon. member to perhaps elaborate on what he was saying just at the end of his comment about what productive work can be done in a session when all parties come to the table ready to work rather than wasting hours and hours of time ringing bells with 10-minute intervals.

The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Mason: Well, thank you, hon. minister. It really seems to me that both the Conservatives and Liberals have done a disservice here. The Conservatives haven’t brought this bill forward in a timely fashion and allowed a debate. Instead, they waited till the end and imposed closure. The repeated ringing of the bells and the wasting of time I think consumed a great deal of time. I think that it was worthwhile to have recorded votes on some of those amendments of the government, but we could have agreed to shorten the bells and saved time.

It was a colossal waste of the Assembly’s time, in my view. 2:50 The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar, 29(2)(a). Mr. MacDonald: Yes. To the hon. member: why then, if it was considered a waste of time, did the other members of your caucus support us on those votes earlier this evening?

December 4, 2007 Alberta Hansard 2427 Mr. Mason: On the votes we agree that the amendments are wrong. I think that they probably stood for a vote for the first one or two and after that didn’t. Mr. Hinman: I just wanted to ask the hon. Member for Edmonton- Highlands-Norwood regarding the House leaders: could they not have come to an agreement – I’m not part of those – to say, you know: we’re going to take the five hours; why don’t you allow us to have the debate, have it opened up? It just makes sense to me. They put it out to them, but it seemed like a refusal from the government. But I don’t know.

I wasn’t part of that. Do you know from your caucus if that was not part of the session to say, “We’re going to take the five hours; let’s utilize it,” and the government refused to accept that? Mr. Mason: I really have no idea, Mr. Speaker. The Speaker: Others? Then we’ll proceed. The hon. Member for Cardston-Taber- Warner, followed by the hon. President of the Treasury Board, followed by the Leader of the Official Opposition. Mr. Hinman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s a privilege to stand and to discuss the amendment to consider sending this Bill 46 to the Committee of the Whole.

I stand to speak in support of it. We discussed it earlier. Once again we’re in the dilemma here where this is a major turning point for the property owners of the province and what the repercussions are going to be for not just one genera- tion but many generations of Albertans going forward from this because it’s very difficult to undo things once government has done them up. It’s just, like I say, one step forward, three steps back, and we continue losing ground on a continual basis. In the history of this province, Mr.

Speaker, we’ve been very successful, for the most part, and the reason, I believe, is because of the respect for individual rights and property rights here in the province. If we limit those property rights, as the hon. Minister of Energy seems to have said so ma ny times, in the public interest – those are the famous words of dictatorships and tyrannical countries around the world where they put forward this idea that it’s going to be in the public’s interest when it isn’t. Those things need to go to committee, the all-party committee, so that they can really be opened up and discussed.

I will quote from Ayn Rand’s crucial work, Atlas Shrugged: “Just as man can’t exist without his body, so no rights can exist without the right to translate one’s rights in to reality, to think, to work and keep the results, which means: the right of property.” In other words, all the other rights that we hold dear are in jeopardy if we allow the rights of Alberta landowners to be taken away. This just isn’t right, Mr. Speaker. You know, another thing, if it went back to the Committee of the Whole, is the discussion on the question of whether or not we really do need to split the EUB. It’s been a disaster.

It’s been a disaster for a long time. We call it a quasi-judicial court. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to call it a kangaroo court. When the members go there and they speak and they try to address the concerns of their land, it’s like talking to a brick wall. They can spend all day talking to this appointed judicial court, only to be told at the end, much like we’ve been told at the end on the royalty review: well, maybe the facts are wrong, maybe we don’t understand the picture, maybe the future is in jeopardy, but we’re not going to commit political suicide on this; we must go ahead with it.

It’s basically the same thing at the EUB, the same results: they listen, and then at the end they give their famous words, “This is in the pub lic’s interest.” We need the landowners to be able to stand up and say no. It’s very interesting with the transmission line from Pincher Creek to Lethbridge that there are some property owners – and I guess that maybe we can’t call them that, but there are some groups that do have the ability to say no. They can refuse entrance until they receive the compensation they want. That’s the First Nations.

We had a great example of this in the south where they said no to the transmission lines from Pincher Creek over to Lethbridge. Busi- nesses just said: well, we’re going to go north, and we’ll go around it. There was a tremendous effort on the part of the landowners, and when there is a joining together of landowners, the strength comes forward. They were saying no to the crossing because there was a better way to go: directly through a less populated, less intense agriculture area, through the First Nations area.

Finally, with enough resistance they went back and then with fair market price and agreement, both sides coming together. We understand that in a court of law, if we are going to look at contract law, it covers where both parties come in willingly and make an agreement. This isn’t common law that we have in this quasi-judicial court. This is Her Majesty’s court, and they dictate that this is what will come forward. It’s not in the best interest. When people lose their ability to say no and to defend their property, it escalates to a position where there is unrest.

Then this government seems to think that th e answer to that is: “We’ll get spies. We have insurrection coming up. This is going to do damage to society.” All of these thing we continue to struggle with because this government won’t open up and have an open and full-scale debate. There are many other areas that are problems that need to be fixed before we ever consider changing the board, such things as the land agents, the monopoly that they have on the industry, the appointment of those people sitting on that c ourt. There never has been a landowner representative.

It’s inappropriate to say that they have a knowledge and they have sensitivity to the landowners when it’s in their mandate to say: “Well, it’s for the oil and gas. It’s for the power lines to go through. We can say that it’s going to go through in the public interest.” In fact, it really isn’t. If it’s in the public interest, we’ll respect contract law. We’ll be able to have two willing parties come together. It’s interesting when that event takes place even in rural Alberta, one neighbour will say: I really don’t want that transmission line coming through here.

Yet when the company has to bargain in good faith, all of a sudden the other neig hbour says: “Well, you know what? At $3,000 a kilometre it’s worth it for me to have it over on my property.” All of a sudden because there is real debate and a real contract where both parties are coming together, we get a consensus to let it go through. When you’re told that you’re just going to be expropriated and we’re going to put it on your land, there isn’t a good feeling, and therefore we start to have these battles. We’re having more and more in Alberta. It’s because of the way we’re going about it.

The landowners feel that they do not have a say. I just want to say once again that this is an opportunity for the government. Because of poor planning on their part, it doesn’t make it an emergency that has to be shoved through. It isn’t right. It needs to go for more discussion, which would be much more open and beneficial for society. On top of all the other things, you know, they’ve been overloaded at the EUB. There’s no doubt that we’ve had a boom economy, but I have faith that the royalty framework is going to slow that down. The need will not be there. The growth will not come forward in this province.

They can hire a few extras under the current system until they get this right. They w ill continue. It’s not a crisis. We can have a proper debate, inform the public so that they really understand it. We could wait for that.

Alberta Hansard December 4, 20072428 I speak in favour of this motion and one more time plead with the government to think of the people of this province ahead of their political careers. An Hon. Member: Oh, give me a break. Mr. Hinman: I’ll give you a break all night. You can leave any time. I believe there are enough members over there that you don’t have to sit in here if you don’t want to. You don’t want to listen and talk to the people. You don’t want to be in here. It’s evident. You don’t want to have an open debate. That’s why you invoked closure. There was no necessity for it.

It was just poor planning or, maybe, excellent planning, as the Member for Edmonton-Highlands- Norwood puts it. We need to go to committee on this. The people need to have an opportunity to absorb this and feel comfortable with it. I would hope that all members would vote in favour of this motion. Thank you. 3:00 The Speaker: Hon. members, 29(2)(

a) is available. The hon. Member for Peace River, then Calgary-Varsity. Mr. Oberle: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Of the many, many questions that one could ask of the hon. member after that wide-ranging dissertation, I would refer him to his comments early in his speech in which he was talking about the Alberta royalty review. He said something to the effect of: as with the royalty review where we were told that maybe the facts are wrong and maybe the future is in jeopardy, intimating I think that the government informed him of such.

I would like to know when anybody from this government informed him of any such ridiculous notion. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Hinman: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. There have been several investment advisers and industry leaders that have met with this government, and they’ve spoken openly that when they’ve sat down with the Minister of Finance, when they’ve sat down with the deputy leader, they told them in that discussion that they understood those flaws, that they were a problem. As they left, though, they responded to industry, these individuals, by saying: we’re not going to do anything about it.

If the hon. member would like to discuss it outside, I’d be happy to discuss it further with him because of time allocations. An Hon. Member: You want to discuss it outside? Mr. Hinman: Oh, I could allow him. There have been many discussions by the different, like I say, investment advisers that this government has gone to talk to. You could talk to your Deputy Premier. He could inform you of those that he talked to, and perhaps if he’s open and honest, he w ill tell you the responses that he gave in those closed meetings, b ecause I’ve talked to the individuals, and they’ve shared it publicly.

The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Varsity. Mr. Chase: Thank you. To the hon. Member for Cardston-Taber- Warner: being a rural landowner I’m sure you’ve had to do some carpentry in your past life, and in carpentry the rule is measure twice, cut once. I’m just wondering if the Member for Cardston- Taber-Warner would see these 24 amendments as 24 cuts without any measurement ever having taken place. Mr. Hinman: Well, thank you for the question.

I guess I would have to say that I don’t know that they had a full plan, but they maybe had 24 masterminds who came forward each one wanting to say: well, put this in the puzzle and put this in the puzzle. It doesn’t come together, it doesn’t make a whole picture, and it’s very fractioned. I do not believe that they had a plan that was put together properly, let alone a measuring tape to measure it to see how it would perform for the landowners of this province. The Speaker: Others on 29(2)(a)? Then I’ll recognize the hon. President of the Treasury Board, followed by the Leader of the Official Opposition. Mr.

Snelgrove: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you for the latitude you’ve shown. Obviously, this bill has a far-ranging perspective from the other side, so I do appreciate that the amend- ment has been allowed to wander, and I will try to be more direct if I can. We may have spent several hours here tonight in what might be considered a procedural thing, ringing the bells, but the one thing I will say for the bells ringing is that at least they were consistent.

The opposition started in second reading by spending most of their time in dissertations about previous royalty structures or events that had happened with the EUB or other hearings and never seemed to really want to focus on the actual bill that we were dealing with. It became very clear, Mr. Speaker, that their intent was not to help the bill or to promote the bill to Albertans; it was to stop it. That’s their job, and that’s fine. It is the position of the government that you need to have an open discussion about the bills, Mr.

Speaker, though it becomes very obvious that the discussion, as has happened on the amendment, soon becomes: you guys are bad, you did this wrong, you’re not doing what we want, so we’re going to talk about procedures and not about the bill. So that’s their opportunity. There is a certain amount of amount of time, and it can be spent constructively debating the bill or it can be on the red herring issues that surround it. One of the things the mover of the amendment talked about was the office of the Utilities Consumer Advocate. Mr.

Speaker, it’s as if somehow that office hadn’t been accomplishing anything and that by reopening the bill in committee, it would. The fact is that we have one of the most expensive utility rate regulatory regimes in Canada, one of the most expensive in North America. As a matter of fact, one individual consultant managed to bill the Alberta ratepayers $1.1 million over two years, with no review of any effectiveness or oversight.

Even though most of the professional intervenors received $200,000 to $400,000 per year from the cost- recovery process, they do not and are not willing to participate in any of the unfunded policy or collaborative processes. It’s very clear that the intervenor process as it was set up allowed special interest groups and people to come in to apply for money that the consumer pays for. It would be naive to suggest that if the utility company pays, somehow the consumer doesn’t. It all gets back to: when you turn on the light switch, you pay. Mr.

Speaker, the cost to the user – I’m not saying the taxpayer – to the person turning on the switch, last year from the total utility things was between $50 million and $60 million because we pay the legal costs of the utility companies, too. The opposition would like to portray to the outside source there that they are willing to commit Alberta taxpayers’ money to groups like the Sierra Club, groups like Greenpeace to come to Alberta and intervene in every hearing they choose. There are around 60,000 applications a year around facilities, and there are less than 30 actual hearings. So a huge portion, Mr.

Speaker, of the business of moving Alberta along goes very

December 4, 2007 Alberta Hansard 2429 smoothly. Occasionally, as would be in any circumstance where there are that many thousand applications for utilities or for energy growth, you are going to have differences. It’s absolutely essential in those times where there are very serious concerns that they be addressed and that the real people involved have a chance to present and to be funded. It’s essential. It’s part of this legislation that if anyone wants to be heard, there’ll be a hearing.

Now, I’m not sure what the strategy is on the other side, and I wouldn’t want to speculate, but it’s surprising that in second reading many of the things they demanded were presented in the amend- ments, and rather than deal with the amendments so that they could even deal with their amendments, they chose to filibuster about royalty structures and other events rather than deal with the amend- ments that they were asking for. They chose to ignore it. They got all wrapped up in the fact that there is a certain amount of time that we can spend on bills, and they lost their focus.

So they have decided that if it’s not their way, it’s the highway. Mr. Speaker, democracies aren’t always pretty. It’s like making sausage: maybe you don’t want to see it being made. But there is an obligation on both sides to present their case. It comes in here. The opposition is quite willing to forget the bill. Let’s not even talk about the bill. Let’s talk about: you’re going to put closure on it; we don’t have time to talk. We can spend six hours in this building ringing bells. I have to again say that the bells were consistent. We knew what the bells were going to do, and they stopped o ccasion- ally.

And what a pleasant sound when the bells stop. The other side doesn’t quite get that out of their ears yet. To turn this back, to go back into stages of a bill that they don’t want to talk about – they’re not prepared to deal with the issues. Like a Mad magazine they would rather talk about spies: spies are here; spies will be everywhere s oon, Mr. Speaker, if we pass this bill. They question the credibility of judges who go out there with an impartial focus and they bring the facts forward, and because the facts don’t suit their story, then it’s bad: it can’t be right b ecause it doesn’t suit our story.

This isn’t about stories. The legislation that we’re passing is printed. The world can see it. Now, that’s not what they want. They would have liked to stay in second reading until we close this session so that they could continue to stand up around Alberta and spread falsehoods about what was in the bill. 3:10 This government listened to Albertans, they listened to the users, and they brought in appropriate amendments that will keep the lights on in Calgary and the rest of Alberta in an orderly manner, Mr. Speaker. That’s what the people of Alberta elected us to do. They didn’t elect us to ring the bells.

They didn’t elect us to spread falsehoods. They didn’t allow us to impugn the motives of a minister, and a darn fine minister, too. They asked us to work with the industry, to work with consumers, and to put together a plan that will keep Alberta working. That’s exactly what the bill has done. We have gone through stages. Has it been productive? Not very from their side, Mr. Speaker. I would really appreciate if relevance were a part of this session around this bill. It would have made it better for all.

The Speaker: Hon. members, I must now proceed to the calling of decisions with respect to this. [The voice vote indicated that the motion on the amendment lost] [Several members rose calling for a division. The division bell was rung at 3:11 a.m.] [Ten minutes having elapsed, the Assembly divided] For the motion: Blakeman Hinman Miller, B. Bonko MacDonald Miller, R.

Chase Mason Taft Cheffins Against the motion: Abbott Johnson Oberg Ady Johnston Pham Amery Knight Prins Boutilier Liepert Renner Cenaiko Lindsay Rodney Goudreau Lukaszuk Rogers Griffiths Lund Shariff Haley Marz Snelgrove Hancock Melchin Strang Jablonski Mitzel Totals: For – 10 Against – 29 [Motion on amendment to third reading of Bill 46 lost] The Speaker: Hon. members, on the motion for third reading of Bill 46. [The voice vote indicated that the motion for third reading carried] [Several members rose calling for a division.

The division bell was rung at 3:24 a.m.] [Ten minutes having elapsed, the Assembly divided] For the motion: Abbott Johnson Oberg Ady Johnston Oberle Amery Knight Pham Boutilier Liepert Prins Cenaiko Lindsay Renner Goudreau Lukaszuk Rodney Griffiths Lund Shariff Haley Marz Snelgrove Hancock Melchin Strang Jablonski Mitzel Against the motion: Blakeman Hinman Miller, R. Bonko MacDonald Pastoor Chase Mason Taft Cheffins Miller, B. Totals: For – 29 Against – 11 [Motion carried; Bill 46 read a third time] Mr. Renner: Mr.

Speaker, as we are about to proceed to further business on the Order Paper, I would like to suggest that should division be requested by members of the House, we give unanimous consent of the Assembly to reduce the time between the division bells to one minute. [Unanimous consent granted]

Alberta Hansard December 4, 20072430 head: Government Bills and Orders Committee of the Whole (continued) [Mr. Marz in the chair] The Chair: I’d like to call the Committee of the Whole to order. Bill 50 Health Professions Statutes Amendment Act, 2007 (No. 2) The Chair: Are there any comments, questions, or amendments to be offered with respect to this bill? The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. Ms Blakeman: Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. I’m pleased to be able to speak briefly in Comm ittee of the Whole to Bill 50, the Health Professions Statutes Amendment Act, 2007 (No. 2). This is

an act that essentially is extending liability protection to members of the health professions that are willing to assist with competency exams for internationally trained medical graduates. Certainly, in Alberta we are all looking forward to more doctors and health professionals to assist us, and since this is a bit of a roadblock in our way, we’re certainly willing to support the intent of Bill 50 and what it’s trying to do to protect other health professionals. On behalf of my colleagues in the Liberal opposition I’m happy to support this in committee. 3:40 The Chair: The hon. Member for Red Deer-North. Mrs.

Jablonski: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m pleased to have the opportunity to speak in debate on the Health Professions Statutes Amendment Act, 2007 (No. 2). The bill is worded broadly enough that the amendment applies to any person that a college determines is qualified to conduct assessments. I think this is a very good bill, that will give us more opportunity to have more health care profes- sionals, so at this time I urge all members to join me in supporting Bill 50, the Health Professions Statutes Amendment Act, 2007 (No. 2). Thank you. The Chair: Are you ready for the question? Hon.

Members: Question. [The clauses of Bill 50 agreed to] [Title and

preamble agreed to] The Chair: Shall the bill be reported? Are you agreed? Hon. Members: Agreed. The Chair: Opposed? That’s carried. Bill 47 Livestock Commerce and Animal Inspection Statutes Amendment Act, 2007 The Chair: Are there any comments or questions or amendments with respect to this bill? The hon. Member for Cypress-Medicine Hat. Mr. Mitzel: Thanks, Mr. Chairman. It’s my pleasure to rise in Committee of the Whole to present Bill 47, the Livestock Commerce and Animal Inspection Statutes Amendment Act, 2007. The bill would amend the Livestock Identification and Commerce Act and the Animal Health Act.

Amendments to the Livestock Identification and Commerce Act will clarify the requirements and refine the legal language pertaining to security interest disclosure and directing of payment for the sale of livestock. The amendments to the Animal Health Act will add inspection authority over livestock marketing facilities. I appreciate the support received in second reading of the bill, and I encourage all members of this House to give their full support to Bill 47. The Chair: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Rutherford. Mr. R. Miller: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

It’s my pleasure to respond to Bill 47, the Livestock Commerce and Animal Inspection Statutes Amendment Act, 2007, on behalf of my colleague from Edmonton-Gold Bar, who serves in the Official Opposition as the shadow minister for agriculture. I would only like to echo his comments from second reading, when he indicated that this is a good bill and will have the support of the Official Opposition caucus.

I recall hearing the Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar congratulate the mover of the bill, the Member for Cypress-Medicine Hat, for the good job that he did in preparing this bill and, in particular, the gr eat job he did in consultation with various stakeholder groups. I remember specifically the comparison that the Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar drew with the work that was done by the Member for Cypress-Medicine Hat and comparing that to the lack of consultation that was done by the Minister of Energy on Bill 46 and the stakeholder groups who wanted to be heard.

Having echoed the comments of my colleague from Edmonton- Gold Bar that this is a good bill, a timely bill, and the Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar having assured me he doesn’t have any specific concerns as this bill moves through the committee stage, Mr. Chairman, I’m happy to advise that we will be supporting it as it is without amendments. We will look forward to further discussion in third reading. Thank you. The Chair: Are you ready for the question? Hon. Members: Question. [The clauses of Bill 47 agreed to] [Title and

preamble agreed to] The Chair: Shall the bill be reported? Are you agreed? Hon. Members: Agreed. The Chair: Opposed? That’s carried. Bill 49 Traffic Safety Amendment Act, 2007 The Chair: Are there any comments, questions, or amendments with respect to this bill? The hon. Member for Edmonton- Rutherford.

December 4, 2007 Alberta Hansard 2431 Mr. R. Miller: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It’s my pleasure to rise on behalf of my colleague from Calgary-Varsity, who is the shadow minister responsible for Infrastructure and Transportation. I have the opportunity and the honour, as it were, to be responding to Bill 49, the Traffic Safety Amendment Act, 2007, in committee stage. Now, Mr. Chairman, I think there are a number of things that this bill is attempting to do.

For the most part members of our caucus are supportive of it, but there are a couple of specific areas in the bill that do cause some concern and one, in particular, that causes me a great deal of concern. When I get to that particular stage, I will be moving an amendment to address that. A number of things here that this bill is doing. Probably the most notable, the one that has caught the public’s attention, is the speed- on-green system.

I think that when my colleague from Calgary- Varsity spoke to this bill in second reading, he discussed the fact that those of us in the Official Opposition certainly have concerns that some have viewed this as a cash cow. I believe the leader of the third party discussed the idea of robocops. I’m not prepared to go quite that far. I certainly do have concerns that we’re not targeting the cash that is going to be raised by the sp eed-on-green cameras into traffic safety programs.

I would be much, much more comfortable with this bill and with the idea of speed-on-green were we to in fact be targeting that cash into some sort of accident reduction or traffic safety programs. Right now the way the bill reads, there is no guarantee that that would happen. As I was reading through the bill, it caused me to think back to the number of times that I’ve had photoradar tickets. [interjections] It’s only been twice. Both stories are anecdotal, but it’s kind of interesting, Mr. Chairman.

The first time that I had a photoradar ticket, I was actually on my way to a Rotary meeting in order to hear the chief of police of the city of Edmonton speak about the merits of photoradar. Of course, I didn’t know at the time that I had received a photoradar ticket on the way to hear the chief speak, but I certainly found out some time later. I was late for Rotary, and of course being a committed Rotarian, I really wanted to be there on time to hear the chief speak. So that was a lesson. You know, as they say, if you don’t want the ticket, don’t speed. So that was a good lesson. Mr.

Elsalhy: You got fined twice because you got fined for Rotary. Mr. R. Miller: Well, I didn’t get fined for Rotary, because I was actually there on time. I paid a bigger fine. The second time, Mr. Chairman, that I r eceived a photoradar ticket was actually the morning that my father-in-law passed away. He had already passed, and we had a phone call from the hospital. Of course, you know, you jump in the car. It’s 5 o’clock in the morning, and you’re quite concerned to get there. Quite frankly, your head probably isn’t in the space where it should be.

I was quite distressed, I have to admit, some weeks later to get this thing in the mail and look at the time and date on it and realize that we were actually on the way to the hospital after my father-in-law had passed away. To learn that I had been speeding by a small margin – it wasn’t a lot. Nevertheless, I was speeding. So there you go. Now, I guess the reason for relating those two stories, Mr.

Chairman, is that it always causes a lot of concern for citizens when they think about these cameras, whether or not they would be more effective if, in fact, there was a real policeman speaking to them at the time and giving them perhaps the opportunity to explain away why they were speeding but probably, more importantly, giving the officer that would be investigating the opportunity actually to . . . 3:50 An Hon. Member: Sass him out. Mr. R. Miller: I wasn’t going to say: sass him out. . . . lecture or educate the motorist as to the dangers of speeding or the dangers of running through a red light.

That, of course, is not available when it’s a camera that does that and it’s only a piece of mail that comes into the mailbox some weeks later. So certainly a lot of questions about the effectiveness of the program given that there are no demerit points attached to this violation ticket when it comes in the mail but, rather, simply a fine. I would be much more supportive of this bill were there to be a

section in here that would deal specifically with technology that would identify the driver of the vehicle and thereby allow us to attach demerit points to the violation. From what I understand, that technology is currently available. Of course, we don’t currently demand that all vehicles have a front licence, but were that to be the case and were the technology to be used, I think this would be a more effective program in terms of reducing accidents and encourag- ing traffic safety.

That’s another change that I would have liked to have seen in here to in fact accomplish more of what is claimed to be the government goal, and that is a reduction in traffic accidents and traffic violations. The one

section in particular that causes me the most concern, however, is

section 14. I’m just going to go to

section 14 here and read some of it into the record, Mr. Chairman. It’s the sort of thing that a lot of citizens may not glom on to initially, but when one pauses to think about it, it causes untold concern not just to myself but to anybody whom I’ve discussed this with.

Section 14 on page 10 of the bill that we have in front of us contemplates the following. It says that the Insurance Act is amended in

section 650 by adding the following after subsection (3):

(4) Despite subsection (1), the Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations. The Lieutenant Governor in Council, of course, is the cabinet. (

a) respecting the priority of payment of insurance held by a lessor . . . And it goes on to describe that. (

b) defining terms for the purposes of this section; (

c) where regulations are made under clause (

a) or (b), modifying any provision of this Act to the extent that the Lieutenant Governor in Council considers necessary in order to carry out the purpose and intent of this section. Now, the concern here is that what this really is saying is that despite whatever the legislation in subsection (1) of

section 650 of the Insurance Act says, despite any of that, Executive Council, i.e. the cabinet, can in the backrooms – once again outside of public debate, public scrutiny, public consultation – pass regulations that would supersede the Insurance Act. Now, we saw a similar

section in Bill 46, and it caused a great deal of concern for those of us in the opposition. It caused a great deal of concern for people like Mr. Anglin and others whereby regulation is trumping legislation. This may be too fine a point for some members of the government to fully appreciate, Mr. Chairman, but in my mind it’s unconstitu- tional. It’s certainly undemocratic, and it certainly goes against all of the tenets of this Assembly. This is to be the final word on laws that govern activities that take place in this province.

Here we have for the second time today a pi ece of legislation in front of us that says: “Oh, yeah. It doesn’t really matter what this says. What we the cabinet decide in the backrooms, outside of public scrutiny, outside of public debate, outside of public consultation, is superior to anything that the legislators of this province should choose to pass in this Assembly.” I’m sure that somebody on the other side is going to get up and explain away the reasons why this is necessary, but I’m here to

Alberta Hansard December 4, 20072432 submit to you, Mr. Chairman, that this is never necessary. This is always wrong. This should never happen. There is no plausible explanation that could be provided to me that would make this an acceptable clause in this bill, and for that reason I do have an amendment that I would like to pass to the table. It has with it the original copy and, as well, the appropriate number of copies to be handed out. So I’ll just wait for a minute while that happens. Thank you. The Chair: We will refer to this amendment as amendment A1. Mr. R. Miller: Mr. Chairman, can I begin now?

The Chair: Yes, you may proceed. Mr. R. Miller: Mr. Chairman, the amendment reads as follows: “Mr. Rick Miller to move that Bill 49, Traffic Safety Amendment Act, 2007, be amended by striking out

section 14.” I think I’ve given the reasons for moving that amendment. In my mind I cannot in good conscience allow a piece of legislation to pass through this Assembly reading such as it does, that Executive Council would have the authority to pass regulations that would supersede legisla- tion passed by this House. I’m recommending to all members that we strike

section 14 from the legislation altogether and allow it such that Executive Council would no longer have the authority to supersede the Insurance Act, the way that this currently reads. As I said, I think it’s wrong. I think it’s irresponsible for us to even contemplate such legislation. I do believe it’s probably unconstitutional and certainly in my mind would leave the govern- ment in a position where they may face a court challenge, perhaps even a Supreme Court challenge, if they were to proceed with this the way it is. I look forward to further debate on the amendment, Mr.

Chairman, and I thank you for the time. The Chair: Are there others on amendment A1? The hon. Member for Lethbridge-East. Ms Pastoor: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will be brief. I definitely wanted to make sure that I was on the record as supporting this amendment to Bill 49, the Traffic Safety Amendment Act, 2007. Not for a minute do I believe that this isn’t a cash cow bill that’s coming forward. I’ll be very brief here. At the 100th anniversary of the Legisla- ture, in 2006 I believe it was, I can clearly remember Peter Lougheed standing up at that dinner and giving an address.

At that time he used the words, if I recall correctly: always remember that the House takes precedence over the government. I don’t believe that anybody that was elected after ’93 truly understood what he was saying, and what he was saying is referring to this

section 14. It is a very, very dangerous precedent when we actually can have the government take precedence over the House. I am totally in support of removing 14 and putting it back the way it’s supposed to be, in the hands of the people who elected us to make the rules, not with some of us making the rules but with all of us making the rules. The Chair: Others? Are you ready for the question? The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. Ms Blakeman: Thank you very much.

I’d like to support my colleague in this amendment, and I am quite distressed that this is the second time this evening that such a clause has been brought before this Assembly. It was also included in Bill 46. Unfortu- nately, we were not able to get amendments from our side up for debate and for voting, but one had been prepared to strike the corresponding

section out of Bill 46, and here it is again in Bill 49. You know, my colleagues are right: it is unconstitutional. I’m sure it will end up being challenged. I hope this isn’t another sign of what this new Premier views as democracy. Being able to go behind closed doors with cabinet and make regulations that trump legisla- tion and trump the powers and privileges we enjoy in this Assembly would not make him a more democratic Premier, I would argue. It would put him at the back of the line. So I’m quite upset to see this come forward.

I think it’s very wrong. 4:00 Every other time I’ve predicted that something was unconstitu- tional and would be challenged, indeed it has been, and it’s cost the taxpayers a heck of a lot of money. Considering that the government is supposed to know what they’re doing and has lots of lawyers to tell them, I’m very disappointed to see this because they’re basically putting before us something that is going to cost us a lot of money when it ends up at court. So I think the government would be wise to support this amendment and get rid of this before it does cost us more money. Thank you.

The Chair: Are you ready for the question on amendment A1? Hon. Members: Question. [Motion on amendment A1 lost] The Chair: Are there others that wish to speak on the bill? The hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands-Norwood. Mr. Mason: Thank you. I’m pleased to speak to Bill 49. I just want to express some concerns about some of the trends which are exemplified in Bill 49. One is the movement away from community policing and hands-on policing and real police officers. This is a concern that I have.

We’ve called for an increase in the number of police officers in the province and, particularly, help for the larger cities to increase their financial capacity to have real policing. Someone whom I’ve followed for some time since I was involved with city council, Mr. Chris Braden, who is now a consultant but was formerly an inspector with the Edmonton Police Service and helped pioneer some of the theories behind community policing, has actually gone to court to oppose photoradar. He has some interest- ing ideas about why he does that.

It’s because if you get your picture taken with photoradar, they know that the vehicle was speeding, but they don’t n ecessarily know who was driving it. Nobody stops the driver, so nobody is able to observe whether or not there are outstanding warrants or whether or not that driver might be intoxicated or impaired in some way or might have some serious problem. They may have, you know, a medical problem, and they’re trying to get to a hospital. That’s also a possibility. There are a number of good things that come from having a real police officer stop a vehicle that’s speeding.

They can observe the driver and may actually be able to provide assistance, if it’s needed, or to apprehend somebody that has outstanding warrants or may be impaired. We’re seeing an extension of this kind of technology. As the technology develops more and more, policing, especially traffic policing, is taking place through these electronic met hods with no personal interconnection between a police officer and members of

December 4, 2007 Alberta Hansard 2433 the public. It’s advantageous to the government or the city for a couple of reasons. First of all, it’s a lot cheaper than hiring real police officers and paying them, and it brings in lots of revenue for very little outlay. You know, we used to have a joke in Edmonton city council whenever we were f aced with a cash crunch and were afraid that we might have to raise property taxes in the city. The joke was: just hire another photoradar van.

It’s not really a very funny joke, but it certainly exemplifies how both the police service and the city viewed photoradar; that is, as a cash cow. Now we’re extending this principle even further with these speed-on-green lights and the red-light cameras. I think that there are some serious problems with this approach. The other concern that I have, Mr. Chairman, is that we’re increasingly becoming a surveillan ce society. We’re increasingly getting to the point where individuals’ actions are under surveillance at all times and not just by police forces or by governments but by private interests as well.

In fact, there’s product-tracking technology that’s now being introduced where products purchased at a grocery store will actually be able to be traced all the way through. So there’s a real risk, and I think privacy commissioners in this country and in other countries have talked about the erosion of people’s personal privacy and the extension of the state, in particular, in its surveillance of individuals and tracking individuals on what they’re doing and so on at all times. I think this is a legitimate concern. Of course, it has to be balanced.

It has to be balanced against the safety of the people in the comm unity. But I think that we’re not getting enough balance in that debate. The focus is much more on safety and, you know, people’s fear of crime, kind of a very hard- nosed approach, and I think we’re losing sight of some of the other aspects that need to be balanced. I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Edmonton- Rutherford’s comments about taking pictures of people with a front licence plate and then tracking down what they’re doing. That just increases the intrusion and the surveillance of people a lot more even than this bill envisages.

To me, it’s really getting to be intrusive. Mr. Chairman, I think those are the two aspects. I would rather see funding for more police, more live police, and of course a community-policing approach, which I fully believe in and in my experience as a municipal councillor for 11 years began to see great value in it. I really think that it’s unfortunate that police services are moving away from it. It’s kind of like a passé thing. It has kind of gone out of style. I actually think that it was one of the most effective ways of deterring crime and providing safety in the community. As Mr.

Braden said: peace in the hood. That’s the objective of policing. In general I don’t like the approach. I don’t want us to become like Britain, where there are thousands of cameras, one on every corner, and people are observed going about their daily business in lots of ways. I think that kind of Big Brother approach is not necessary. I think that if you get enough police and they get connected and involved with their community and they know the people and they know what’s going on in the neighbourhoods and so on, it is the most effective way of deterring crime.

Certainly, I think that having some real, live speed traps, good old-fashioned speed traps – I’m not going to tell stories about speeding offences, as the hon. Member for Edmonton-Rutherford did, but I can tell you that getting a photoradar – Mr. Chairman, this is what people tell me. When you get a photoradar ticket in the mail, you may or may not slow down, and if you do, maybe for a little while.

But when you have to face that cop and he’s 15 or 20 years younger than you are and he gives you a ticket and says “Please slow down,” then I understand that this often has a more significant effect on people’s tendency to speed. That’s what people tell me, Mr. Chairman, and I believe that. I believe that actually getting a ticket from a real, live police officer is a far great

Document details

Collection	Alberta — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20071204
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	L26 S3 20071204 2000 01 han.pdf
Language	en
Format	json
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	f4bdcee07524c73b6b473d5a27c1d3c45d2c962e

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (json).