Alberta Hansard — 5 April 2007, Afternoon sitting (13:00) (Legislature 26, Session 3)

20070405

Alberta — Debates (Hansard)

April 5, 2007 Alberta Hansard 431 Legislative Assembly of Alberta Title: Thursday, April 5, 2007 1:00 p.m. Date: 07/04/05 [The Speaker in the chair] head: Prayers The Speaker: Good afternoon. As we pray, let us also commemorate the 90th anniversary of the Battle of Vimy Ridge on April 9, 1917. We give thanks for the lives of the faithful men and women in our military who have defended and continue to defend the freedoms and values we cherish. Life is precious. When it is lost, all of us are impacted.

On this day I would ask that all Members of Alberta’s Legislative Assembly, all others present here, and those observing these proceedings in their homes join together to reflect upon the lives of Canadian military personnel lost in service to their c ountrymen. May their souls rest in eternal peace, and may a nation be eternally grateful. God bless. Please be seated. head: Introduction of Visitors The Speaker: Hon. members, in the Speaker’s gallery there are six officers and other ranks from the Canadian army reserves. These men are here to represent the famous four regiments of the province of Alberta.

In order of seniority the regiments are the South Alberta Light Horse, the King’s Own Calgary Regiment, the Loyal Edmon- ton Regiment, and the Calgary Highlanders. These four regiments were at Vimy Ridge on the Easter weekend of 1917. From across the province men of the 31st, the 10th, the 49th, and the 50th battalions, as part of a Canadian Corps, gained a victory at great cost. The plan and its execution was a very model of calculated Canadian ingenuity, audacity, fortitude, and bravery.

I would invite each of our visitors to rise as I introduce them: from the South Alberta Light Horse, Captain Shawn Thirlwell and Corporal Kirk Routledge; from the King’s Own Calgary Regiment, Warrant Officer Ronald Senior; from the Loyal Edmonton Regi- ment, Honorary Colonel Sandy Mactaggart and Corporal Ashley Van Leeuwen; and from the Calgary Highlanders, Lieutenant Colonel Tom Manley, commander. On Easter Monday in Ottawa and in each of our nation’s provin- cial and territorial capitals and on Vimy Ridge in France ceremonies will mark the 90th anniversary of a pivotal event in the development of Canada.

Please join me in welcoming our visitors. In so doing, we seek to give just and proper recognition to what their forebears did in the service of their sovereign nation 90 years ago. The hon. Minister of Tourism, Parks, Recreation and Culture. Mr. Goudreau: Merci, M. le Président. Aujourd'hui j'ai le privilège de présenter en votre nom, à vous et à l'Assemblée, des invités spéciaux qui sont d'origine française et qui vivent en Alberta. Ils sont assis dans la galerie pour célébrer avec nous le 90e anniversaire de la bataille de la crête de Vimy.

La célébration officielle se déroulera en France le 9 avril prochain et sera marquée par la présentation du monument canadien de Vimy, qui a subi une importante restauration pour l'occasion. Je suis heureux de vous présenter M. Gilbert Delplanque, qui est originaire de Valenciennes, un petit village à quelques kilomètres de Vimy; M. Eugène Trottier, un homme bien connu dans la communauté française d’Edmonton qui a passé la majeure

partie de sa vie adulte en Alberta et qui a contribué immensément au développement de notre communauté franco-albertaine. Aussi avec le groupe sont des membres de l’Union des Français de l’étranger. Ils sont Mme Germaine Lehodey et M. Michel Lehodey, président honoraire de l’union; M. Florien Rijavec et Mme Yvonne Rijavec, présidente honoraire de l’union; M. Patrick Balthazard, secrétaire; Mme Isabelle Vallée, trésorière; Mme Corinne Arabeyre, vice-présidente et aussi présidente de l’Alliance française d’Edmonton. Accompagnant ces personnes pour cette journée spéciale à la Législature est M.

Alain Bertrand de Patrimoine canadien du gouvernement du Canada. Je leur demanderais de se lever et d’être reconnus par l’Assemblée. Je vous invite à vous joindre à moi pour leur souhaiter une bienvenue chaleureuse. Merci, M. le Président. [Translation] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today I have the privilege of introducing to you and through you to the Assembly a number of guests of French origin who are living right here in Alberta. They are seated in the members’ gallery and are here to celebrate with us the 90th anniversary of the Battle of Vimy Ridge.

For this event, which will take place officially on April 9 in France, the Canadian Vimy Ridge Monument has been undergoing extensive restoration and its presentation will be at the centre of the ceremony. I am pleased to introduce Mr. Gilbert Delplanque, a gentleman who originates from Valenciennes, a small town a few kilometres from Vimy; Mr. Eugène Trottier, a prominent member of the French community who spent most of his adult life in Alberta and contrib- uted greatly to the development of our Franco-Albertan community. Also part of the group are members of the UFE, l’Union des Français à l’Étranger.

They are Mrs Germaine Lehodey and Mr. Michel Lehodey, honorary president of the Union; Mr. Florien Rijavec and Mrs. Yvonne Rijavec, honorary president of the Union; Mr. Patrick Balthazard, secretary; Mrs. Isabelle Vallée, treasurer; Mrs. Corinne Arabeyre, vice-president and also the president of l’Alliance française d’Edmonton. Joining them on this special day at the Legislature is Mr. Alain Bertrand, with Canadian Heritage, federal government. I would ask them to stand up and be recognized by the Assembly. I would invite the members of the Assembly to join me in extending them a warm welcome. Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. [As submitted] head: Introduction of Guests The Speaker: The hon. the Premier. Mr. Stelmach: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. This afternoon I have two introductions. First of all, I would like to introduce to you and through you to all members of the Legislature at least 32 students from Fort Saskatchewan’s Win Ferguson school. They are accompa- nied, of course, today: their teachers, Joanne Simpson and Shannon Webb; also parent helpers Chris Temple, Cindie Hughes, Shireen Meehan, Diana Mossing.

I had a very enjoyable visit with these fine students, and I would ask everyone in this Assembly to please show our appreciation for their visit. Thank you so much, and Happy Easter. Mr. Speaker, my second introduction. It is my pleasure to rise and introduce to you and through to all members of this Assembly an individual that is seated in the members’ gallery, Mr. Brian Heninger. Brian is an experienced and accomplished businessman with significant accomplishments in business, sharing a strong work ethic, personal integrity, and also a commitment to Alberta values.

He’s been married for 38 years with five children, 10 grandchildren – an impressive community worker in Calgary. I want to introduce him as our Progressive Conservative candidate for the by-election in

Alberta Hansard April 5, 2007432 Calgary-Elbow. I would ask Brian to please rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of this Assembly. The Speaker: The hon. Minister of International, Intergovernmental and Aboriginal Relations. Mr. Boutilier: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I’m pleased today to introduce in the members’ gallery representatives from Transfield asset management. We have today David Videroni, the vice-president of operations, and Rohan May, the general manager. They’re going to be of course working in Fort McMurray at the Suncor project, an important project for Alberta and Canada.

Also joining them is Mike Buffham, who is president of Buffham consulting and also provides leadership in local 92, many of whose workers work in Fort McMurray as well. I would ask them to all rise and receive the very warm welcome of the Alberta Legislature. The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Education. Mr. Liepert: Mr. Speaker, it’s my pleasure today to introduce to you and through you someone who has been a volunteer and a member of my board in Calgary-West but, more importantly, as the past president of the Dental Hygienists’ Association of Alberta.

Now she’s decided to accept another challenge and seek the PC nomination in her constituency, and if successful in that nomination, I look forward, as should all hon. members, to having her join us in this Assembly as the Member for Calgary-Currie. I would ask Patti Wickstrom to stand and be represented. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark. Mr. Tougas: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s my pleasure to introduce to you and through you and to all members of this Assembly a delegation of supporters and employees from the Bent Arrow Traditional Healing Society in Edmonton’s west end.

I’d ask that they please rise as I call out their names. They are Brad Seneca, Gregg McPhee, John Morgan, Marion Morgan, Melanie Redshaw, Linda McPhee, Brian McNichol, Marie Kristy, Lovette Ferguson, Cheryl Whiskeyjack, Shalene Jobin, Sherry Fowler, Crystal Arcand, Margo Boyd, Jessie Powder, Dorothy Scanie, Kyra Brown, Francis Bald Eagle, Dave La Swiss, Andrea Watchmaker, Florence Shone, Julie Porter-Anderson, Corey Jewitt, Patsy Conroy, and Christie De Leon. I ask that you please give them the traditional warm welcome of this Assembly. 1:10 The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Health and Wellness. Mr.

Hancock: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s a pleasure for me to rise and introduce to you and through you to members of the House someone who had a very, very busy fall. I know that because I met her on a number of occasions through that process. She works with Servus Credit Union here in the capital, and I also know that she does sell flowers as well because I’ve had occasion to buy flowers for my wife from her. I’m of course referring to Lynette Stelmach, the daughter of our Premier, who is here today, obviously, to make sure that he’s on the job for Albertans.

I’d ask her to rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of the House. The Speaker: I hope the hon. minister knows that he’s set every male in this Assembly back 10 years by admitting publicly that he buys flowers for his wife. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands-Norwood. Mr. Mason: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, but I buy flowers for my wife. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to introduce to you and through you to this Assembly Joan Harvey. She’s a member of UFCW local 401 and has now been on the picket line at the Palace Casino for 209 days.

Joan is a widowed senior who is raising two of her grandchildren. She went to work at the Palace Casino four years ago. She’s travelled all over the world while her husband served our country in the Royal Canadian Air Force. Joan is seated in the public gallery, and I would now ask that she rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of this Assembly. head: Statement by the Speaker The Battle of Vimy Ridge The Speaker: Hon. members, the House will not sit on Easter Monday.

On that day 90 years ago this country launched what was to be a singular and defining expression of courage, character, and of national will. On Easter Monday, the 9th of April, 1917, the entire Canadian Corps comprising the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th divisions rose as one for the first time in the first Great War. The day’s opening weather, a combination of driving snow and sleet, was not unwelcome on the Allied side. Beginning in the predawn hours 49 battalions of the Canadian Expeditionary Force, numbering over 100,000 men, joined the battle.

From Alberta the 10th, the 31st, the 49th, and the 50th battalions were in the thick of the action. To see Vimy Ridge and to have read the history of the first Great War is to begin to understand the cold enormity of the challenge that faced the Canadian Corps. The ridge’s brooding dominance over the plains of Douai and the intractable nature of the allied campaign to that stage pointed to a prospect of dismal failure. How did the battle go?

Let me read from the diary kept, contrary to the King’s Regulations of the day, by the late Private Adelbert Franklin Brayman of the 50th (Calgary) battalion Canadian Expeditionary Force. He is a great-uncle-in-law to Diane Brayman, our acting head of Visitor Services. Just as dawn broke clear we were well over Vimy Ridge and digging in for protection. At 9:45 a.m. we had dug in ready for a counter attack which we expected. As we looked back up that ridge in the early dawn we witnessed a scene never to be forgotten. The entire face of the hill was covered with German green and Canadian khaki.

Men lay out there in their blood soaked field, some dead some dying. A horrible sight but one quite necessary. All day we seemed dazed and sore and the strain was beginning to show but we were supposed to hold and we held. Vimy Ridge belongs to Canada. Brayman had captured the essence of the moment and the national achievement. Canadians had gained more ground, took more guns, and captured more prisoners than had any previous British offensive in World War I. In 1936 France forever deeded Vimy Ridge to Canada. A superb and fitting monument was unveiled.

There King Edward VIII gave an address to the thousands of Canadian war veterans who had made in the height of the depression a lengthy and difficult pilgrimage that evoked and stirred deep, plaintive emotion. In the company of the President of France, and having spoken in French, the King said: All the world over there are battlefields, the names of which are written indelibly on the pages of our troubled human story. It is one of the consolations which time brings that the deeds of valour done on those battlefields long survive the quarrels which drove the opposing hosts to conflict.

Vimy will be one such name . . . Around us here today there is peace, and rebuilding, and hope . . . In dedicating this memorial to our fallen comrades, our thoughts turn rather to the splendour of their sacrifice, and to our consecration

April 5, 2007 Alberta Hansard 433 of our love for them, than to the cannonade, which beat upon this ridge. Hon. members, we know what the contribution of Canadian blood at Vimy Ridge meant to Canada. His Excellency Daniel Jouanneau, the ambassador of France to Canada, has conveyed a letter to us and the people of Alberta telling us what Vimy Ridge means to France. I would like to read the contents of his letter into our Hansard so that all Albertans forever will know. The letter is dated March 26, 2007. Honourable Mr.

Speaker, On April 5th, the Legislative Assembly of Alberta will celebrate the 90th anniversary of the battle of Vimy ridge. I know how important Vimy is to Canada. On April 9 th 1917, four Canadian divisions, who were fighting for the first time as an independ- ent corps, showed the rest of the world the great fortitude and military ability of Canadians, in a very carefully planned, and brilliantly executed attack.

Two years, and many feats of arms later, this commit- ment gave Canada the right to sign the Versailles Treaty on its own behalf, and the right to become one of the founding members of the League of Nations. Vimy was a defining moment for Canada, but it was also one of the most important events of our 400-year common history and friendship.

France will never forget these young men, all volunteers, who crossed the Atlantic to fight for the core values of our two countries: democracy, the rule of law, human rights and international solidarity. 3598 young Canadians lost their lives at Vi my, and 7,100 were badly wounded, to help us free our soil. We will always remember their sacrifice, as a token of Canadian immense generosity. We remember also that Vimy was fought in the context of a large allied attack, with the French fo cusing on the deadly “Chemin des Dames” a few days after the victory of their Canadian brothers in arms.

The French people will always be grateful to Canada, and particularly to Alberta, for its support during one of the most difficult times of our history. Please convey my warm regards and my respect to all the Members of the Legislative Assembly. Yours very sincerely, Daniel Jouanneau Ambassador of France to Canada. On Monday, April 9, on Canadian soil in France, at Vimy, our sovereign, Queen Elizabeth II, our Prime Minister, the Prime Minister of France, and tens of thousands of modern-day Canadian pilgrims, including our Sergeant-at-Arms, will rise as one.

They will mark the 90th anniversary of the battle, and the rededication of the newly restored Canadian National Vimy Memorial. We cannot be there, but today let us give thanks for the lives of those who lie there and for what they and their comrades so freely gave to this great dominion 90 years ago. The blood of our very best earned Canada the right to take its place among the nations of the world. head: Ministerial Statements The Speaker: Mr. Premier. The Battle of Vimy Ridge Mr. Stelmach: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On Monday in ceremonies taking place across Canada and in France, Canadians will celebrate the 90th anniversary of the Battle of Vimy Ridge. I say celebrate because in a war noted for senseless loss of life, Vimy Ridge was a rare example of professionalism and success. It also holds special significance for Canadians. Fighting as one unit for the first time, the Canadian corps succeeded where our Allies had failed. 1:20 It is often said that Canada became a nation on April 9, 1917, at Vimy Ridge. There is much truth in that.

Vimy was a Canadian operation and a Canadian victory, and it was recognized as such in London, Paris, and New York. For Canada’s soldiers Vimy established a reputation for competence, organization, and outstand- ing bravery. As a result, in the famous final 100 days of that terrible war Canada’s troops led the Allies to victory with great valour and at terrible cost. Among them were many Albertans. Almost 50,000 Albertans served in what was then known as the Great War. John Pattison worked for the Calgary Gas Company before he enlisted in the army in 1916 and became a member of the Alberta Regiment.

At Vimy Ridge he covered 30 yards under intense fire to destroy a heavily fortified enemy position and was awarded the Victoria Cross. Sadly, this brave Albertan was killed just two months later and is buried at La Chaudière Military Cemetery, a short distance from Vimy. On Monday another Albertan, Herbert Peterson of Berry Creek, will finally be buried in that same cemetery. A member of the 49th Battalion, later to become the Loyal Edmonton Regiment, Peterson died just a week after John Pattison, but his remains lay undiscov- ered and unidentified until 2003.

On Monday he will be finally laid to rest with full m ilitary honours and with several members of the Loyal Edmonton Regiment in attendance. May all their memories live from generation to generation. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. members to join me on the 90th anniversary of the Battle of Vimy Ridge to remember and to honour these two gallant Albertans and the many other Canadians who served in the Great War. The Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition. Dr. Taft: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you to the Premier for his heartfelt tribute.

Just a few days from now, on April 9, Her Majesty the Queen, the Prime Ministers of Canada and France, and thousands of Canadian students will travel to France to witness the reopening of the Canadian National Vimy Memorial at Vimy Ridge. The memorial has been under renovation in preparation for a momentous anniversary: 90 years since Canadian soldiers proved a nation’s valour and achieved what people at the time thought would be an impossible victory.

But with extensive planning, innovative strategy, brilliantly executed tactics, and the bottomless courage of individual troops, the Canadians seized the ridge and created a moment in history that has helped shape the course of our nation’s destiny. According to some historians the taking of Vimy Ridge was not in itself a hugely significant factor in the overall direction of the war, but others point out that seizing the ridge proved that the long stalemate of trench warfare could be broken, protected the French city of Arras from attack, and had a tremendous impact on A llied morale.

To Canadians the greatest impact of the Battle of Vimy Ridge is upon our collective national conscience. Vimy Ridge is part of the Canadian story now. It can been seen as the day we grew up as a nation to fight our own battles, to prove ourselves on the national stage, but we should never forget that this moment in history was bought at the cost of thousands of precious, irreplaceable lives. In 1994 my wife, Jeanette, our sons Jordan and Spencer, and I travelled to France to visit the memorial at Vimy.

We were greeted there by Parks Canada staff since the French, out of gratitude, donated some of the land at the battle site to Canada after the war. It was a little piece of home, a small, in many ways unassuming patch of hills, one ridge looking much like another, including the famous one where so many lives were lost. Jordan and Spencer explored the Allied and German trenches, which were so close

Alberta Hansard April 5, 2007434 together that the boys had no problem calling out to each other. That’s how close those soldiers were, nearly close enough to look one another in the eye. That’s how close death loomed for the young men on both sides of the front line. The fear they felt must have been immense, yet when called upon to do their duty to take their ridge, Canadian troops used their hard-won training and experience to do what some had called impossible, and in doing so, they helped both win a war and forge a nation’s identity. So on this 90th anniversary let us all salute those gallant soldiers.

Let us honour their memories, give thanks for their sacrifice, and pledge ourselves to continue defending the nation they loved so dearly. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. leader of the third party. I’m sure unani- mous consent will be provided. Mr. Mason: Thanks very much, Mr. Speaker. Ninety years ago the Battle of Vimy Ridge was fought with Canadian troops leading a successful attack. As with every battle in war we should remember that this victory was achieved at a terrible cost on both sides. Ten thousand Allies, mostly Canadians, and 20,000 Germans were casualties, all for a few kilometres of ground.

With ceremonies across the country honouring the courageous soldiers who fought in the Battle of Vimy Ridge, we must strive to remember the lessons learned from this battle and others so that the sacrifices of our soldiers are not in vain. The lessons of history should inform our actions today by guiding us as we face the challenges of the future. Ours is not a nation forged in war but in the peaceful development of democratic institutions. Mr.

Speaker, the greatest tribute we can pay to our veterans is to build a better world, a world where the words “never again” are not rhetorical but are a solemn vow to pursue peace and deny those who recklessly take up arms. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Speaker: I’m sure, hon. Member for Cardston-Taber-Warner, that unanimous consent will be provided as well. Mr. Hinman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The greatest act of love is laying down one’s life for another. Ninety years ago over 3,500 Canadian soldiers did just that at Vimy Ridge. Why? For freedom. Freedom against oppression, discrimination, pillage, and plunder.

They treasured freedom more than life itself, and they treasured it for us and for future generations. We all have defining moments in our lives: our first step, first word, first day of school. But what defines our great nation is our independence, our freedom. We need to remember our great history in this defining moment. More importantly, our next generations need to know and remember the great sacrifices so that they will avoid a repeat of this tragedy and our families, our communities, and our country will continue to be places of peace and freedom. But it takes more than remembering.

To paraphrase Albert Einstein, the world is a dangerous place to live not because of the people who are evil but because of the people who fail to do anything about it. We must speak out and protect the freedom of those around us. Our defining moments are often remembered as turning points in a big game or in this case the Great War. We must remember and realize that it is the final result or the outcome of planning, preparing, and practising that is really the enabler to great defining moments, those moments of success or failure.

The veterans of Vimy Ridge and all those who fought in this Great War are our heroes, and we are forever indebted to them. May we always honour them by protecting their gift to us: our freedom. We can do this by following the words of Elie Wiesel, a holocaust survivor, who swore “never to be silent whenever [and] wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must [always remember to] take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the [tormented].” We in this Assembly thank the veterans of Vimy Ridge and all other veterans for their actions and their sacrifices.

Thank you from the bottom of our hearts. head: 1:30 Oral Question Period The Speaker: First Official Opposition main question. The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition. Community Initiatives Program Dr. Taft: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mismanagement by this government has become so common that I don’t think they even know the difference. Not only do they spend more per capita than any other province, they deliver less. It’s no wonder, from stag parties in Vegas, the fiasco at AADAC, untendered contracts galore, hundreds of thousands of dollars to friends for verbal advice, and now lottery grants.

To the Premier, a simple question, should be a simple answer: is the Premier prepared to defend the practice of handing out millions of taxpayer dollars through the community initiatives program in violation of the rules? Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, if it does mean looking at the very special application from the Western Guide and Assistance Dog Society, that was given dollars above what they could raise them- selves so that they can have some support from community in itia- tives program, yes, I would. The Speaker: The hon. leader. Dr. Taft: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The request didn’t even go to that fund.

The Premier should do his homework better. To the Minister of Tourism, Parks, Recreation and Culture: why does this department expect volunteers across this province to follow strict CIP guidelines when the department itself is ignoring its own rules? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Goudreau: Mr. Speaker, thank you for the question. Certainly, when I talked to my department staff, they assured me that no rules have been broken.

The guidelines allow the minister to use discre- tion in certain cases, as our Premier has just identified; for instance, the Western Guide and Assistance Dog Society from Edmonton- Meadowlark that we supported. Had we not had discretion, that particular organization would have had to close its doors. So we want to use discretion in those cases. The Speaker: The hon. member. Dr. Taft: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the same minister. This minister can’t seem to keep his story straight. First his department’s published documents say, in black and white, $10,000 limit to unmatched CIP grants.

Then the minister describes the same rule in his own words as: a strong guideline we use. Then he gets even more creative and says, quote, well, there’s a lot of flexibility that’s given to the approval of grants. End quote. Which is it, Mr. Minister: a rule, a strong guideline, or something the minister thinks he has the flexibility to ignore?

April 5, 2007 Alberta Hansard 435 Mr. Goudreau: Well, Mr. Speaker, certainly, as I indicated, we want to use a certain amount of flexibility to show a certain level of compassion to those groups that come to us where they indicate a strong need for additional support over and above the $10,000. Mr. Speaker, I need to say that since 2002 we’ve approved over 4,000 CIP applications. Certainly, the question is on the 43 that were over the $10,000, and we’re going to review those. We’re going to see if there’s any breach anywhere, and we’ll follow up on them. The Speaker: Second Official Opposition main question.

The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition. Other Initiatives Program Dr. Taft: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, this government has another multimillion dollar lottery fund that it has kept as far from public sight as it can. The program has the suspiciously vague title the other initiatives program. It doesn’t turn up in Alberta lottery’s list of programs on its website. There’s no note of it on Alberta lottery’s news and events listing. There’s no process for the public to apply. One of our members wrote a letter to seek funds from this program, and the request was quietly diverted elsewhere.

To the Premier: how does this government justify keeping a program that has handed out over $40 million in three years so far hidden from public sight? Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, always in the interests of openness and transparency this government, of course, posts all cheques, payments made to any organization, any Albertan. They’re there for the public review. They’re there to be open and transparent so that people can question what dollars have been paid to various organizations. There’s nothing wrong with that. I think it’s just part and parcel of being open and transparent. Dr.

Taft: Nobody knows the rules around that program. The Auditor General’s report says that the department has not established eligibility criteria for the other initiatives program and goes on to say that the minister “receives requests for f unding either directly or through another Member of the Legislative Assembly.” It sounds like there’s lots of room for political manoeuvring. Yesterday the Premier claimed in this Assembly, “We’ve always followed [the Auditor General’s] recommendations in all the years that I’ve served in this government.” That is pure nonsense, Mr. Speaker.

To the Premier: why has this government failed to comply with the Auditor General’s recommendation for the other initiatives program? Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, he said something like: in all the years he has served in this government. I don’t think you serve in any government. The other thing is that if there’ s any minister that doesn’t pay attention to the Auditor General’s recommendations for a good reason, then I’ll have a chat. But I can assure you that we follow the recommendations of the Auditor General. Dr. Taft: Well, a chat isn’t exactly leadership, is it, Mr. Speaker?

These are the kinds of funds that get governments into all kinds of trouble: no public accountability, the minister setting the rules, access by government MLAs, the Auditor General raising concerns that are ignored. To the Premier: is the Premier confident that every dollar of this program was spent in a manner that would withstand public scrutiny, and if he is, will he table the complete details of all the grants given under this program in the last four years? Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, in terms of openness and transparency all grants are listed; they’re public. Dr. Taft: They’re not. Mr.

Stelmach: He’s chatting across and said they’re not. Well, then, if he knows of something, tell me which one isn’t there so that we can find out why they’re not reported. Again, Mr. Speaker, this is following up on a comment that this member made the other day. He said that he has a secret agreement with the Alberta horse racing association. It’s now three weeks, and he still hasn’t brought it forward. Now he’s making another allegation. When is this going to stop? The Speaker: The third Official Opposition main question. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark. Community Initiatives Program Grant Mr.

Tougas: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday during question period the minister of tourism, parks and recreation was asked to explain why the government broke its own rules in regard to the community initiatives program. I was surprised to hear that the minister tabled a letter I wrote in support of a project. The minister said, after referring to my letter, that the government did “break our rules” in response to my letter. My question is to the Minister of Tourism, Parks, Recreation and Culture.

Is he suggesting that I somehow broke the rules or that I even suggested that the gaming minister break any rules in regard to funding for this project? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Goudreau: Well, thank you. Certainly, Mr. Speaker, my department staff has assured me that no rules were broken. In addition to that, all of our grants are made public, and they’re posted. For the sake of the opposition members I will quote our address. It’s www.albertalotteryfund.ca, and all of our grants are posted there. Everything is out in the open. Mr. Tougas: Mr.

Speaker, as the minister clearly knew, the association I was trying to help was the Western Guide and Assis- tance Dog Society, which trains guide dogs for the blind. It wasn’t a request for fancy furniture for some frat house. I also suggested that the funding come from the other initiatives program, which is a fund of lottery dollars whose distribution was entirely at the discretion of the minister. So why did the minister link this entirely legitimate and above board request as an example of the government breaking its own rules on lottery funding? Mr. Goudreau: Mr.

Speaker, the dollars th at were assigned to the Western Guide and Assistance Dog Society were community initiatives dollars. Mr. Tougas: That wasn’t what I asked for at all. Mr. Speaker, clearly this was a deliberate drive-by slur in an attempt to discredit the Official Opposition and myself. I am offended that the minister would attempt to link my perfectly legitimate, worthwhile, above board, by-the-rules request with the government’s sloppy and questionable abuse of an entirely different program. This is a new low for this government.

Again, to the same minister: will the minister apologize for his actions? 1:40 Mr. Goudreau: Mr. Speaker, this particular organization, like any other organization, which includes all of our volunteer organizations

Alberta Hansard April 5, 2007436 that apply, goes through a very serious process of due diligence. You know, we have a lot of checks and balances in place. We make sure that the regulations are followed. Certainly, you know, we want to support our volunteer groups, and this particular group, like all the other groups, goes through the same process. The Speaker: The hon. leader of the third party, followed by the hon. Member for Cardston-Taber-Warner. Homelessness Mr. Mason: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Working people come to this province for employment, cannot find affordable housing, and end up turned away from overflowing shelters. Some welcome. The Calgary Homeless Foundation last May counted 3,400 homeless people in their city, half of whom had jobs. Some MLAs were probably born in towns that have smaller populations than that. Calgary’s homeless shelters are overflowing, and a couple have been closed. The temperature is forecast to drop to minus 8 tonight, and Calgary will be scrambling again . . . The Speaker: You know, hon. member, we have a problem now.

You made your statement, but I don’t know . . . [interjections] No, no. You signed on to the 45-second rule, remember. It’s over. I don’t know what we’re doing with that first one, but go on to your second one. Mr. Mason: Thanks, Mr. Speaker. So the question, then, to the Premier is: given that these shelters in Calgary have been closed and that there is no capacity for the homeless in that city, what is he going to do about it? Mr. Stelmach: Mr.

Speaker, clearly, one of the major priorities of the government, of course, is to address the critical housing shortage, and the critical housing shortage is in many different areas. It’s in those of the homeless, homeless because of some health issue perhaps. Then there are also the others in terms of low-income wage earners looking for housing and, of course, fam ilies looking for homes. That is why we had an all-party committee meet. We put together recommendations with their help. Help will be coming forward in terms of the report and followed up with announcements.

But with this particular Calgary situation my minister was there; he spoke to Calgary. Calgary said: look, we’ve got a plan in place to deal while we’re closing this particular house. He may respond. The Speaker: The hon. leader. Mr. Mason: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Well, the Premier knows that the all-party committee has given the report some time ago, and his government, despite its claim to be transparent, is keeping the report secret until the government figures out what it’s going to do. In the meantime there are more homeless almost everyday on the streets of Calgary and other cities.

What are you going to do for them, Mr. Premier, tonight, tomorrow night, and the night after that? Talk won’t help. Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, this government moved very quickly. We’ve provided considerable milli ons of dollars in help to the homeless across the province of Alberta, to various municipalities. We, of course, worked in partnership with the federal government. We’ll continue to do that. This is a serious situation. I know that many people moved to this province in spite of the fact that, you know, we’ve got a critical housing shortage.

They insist on moving here because there are some jobs available, and really they want to move here because they have some hope and opportunity. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Cardston-Taber-Warner, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-McClung. Provincial Tax Regime Mr. Hinman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Albertans are burdened with excessive taxes. They’re being levied by municipalities, the provincial and federal governments. Alberta families are having a difficult time making ends meet, and it’s up to this government to reduce taxes on families.

To the Premier: is it the policy of this government to reduce or raise taxes in its coming budget? Mr. Stelmach: Of course, the budget w ill be delivered April 19, shortly after our Easter holiday. We know that the province of Alberta enjoys the largest tax exemption for families. Perhaps there’s even more we can do, but I would ask the hon. member to wait till April 19 so that we don’t violate our own rules. Mr. Hinman: Well, Mr. Speaker, this government is awash with cash, but Alberta families are not. Alberta families are asking for a reduction in their taxes.

The question, again, is: will this govern- ment adopt a policy that it will return a portion of the surplus dollars to the Alberta taxpayers? Mr. Stelmach: The Minister of Finance will be bringing forward a budget. It would be looking to find balance amongst all the competing interests in the province. I look forward to the budget being delivered and will have some answers to the questions. Unfortunately, I can’t give those today. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Hinman: Yes. Municipalities are having a very difficult time meeting the infrastructure needs of their people.

A recent minister’s report is looking at levying new taxes or allowing municipalities to levy new taxes. Will this government do the right thing and assure municipalities that they will not ask them to put a new tax in place but will return proper funding to those municipalities from the current taxes that this government collects? Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, that’s why this government moved very quickly on the commitment of a new fund of $1.4 billion to be allocated to municipalities.

We know that they’re facing growth pressures in every corner of the province, and the two associations and the two mayors are working on an allocation formula on how best to allocate that formula to municipalities, which will take some of the pressure off. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-McClung, followed by the hon. Member for Whitecourt-Ste. Anne. Internet Gaming Mr. Elsalhy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Internet gambling is an issue that is staring the provincial government square in the eye, and so far there hasn’t been much movement to confront this issue.

The Alexander First Nation, for example, has openly stated that they’re going to get into the Internet gambling scene whether or not the province approves. The Solicitor General has stated that online casinos are contrary to the Criminal Code, and he will enforce that, but the Alberta Gaming and Liquor Commission is fooling Alber-

April 5, 2007 Alberta Hansard 437 tans, floating the idea of online casinos, and have stated that they’re proceeding slow and steady. So what exactly is this government’s position? To the Solicitor General: can the minister confirm or deny whether, in fact, his department is considering entering or allowing others to enter the Internet gambling business? The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Public Security and Solicitor General. Mr. Lindsay: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s a good question as it’s quite prevalent in the news today.

I want to assure the hon. member that this government is not cons idering Internet gambling in any form at this particular time. However, we are obviously reviewing it in other jurisdictions to see wh at’s happening in that particular area, but we have no intentions of pursuing that at this particular time. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Elsalhy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First Nations groups have stated that they’re sovereign entities and that the province has no authority over them.

They’re using the Kahnawake example in Quebec to state their ability to operate such a venture under the authority of their own gambling commission. In Quebec their Attorney General has stated that these activities are illegal, but he chose to look the other way, and no charges were ever laid. Legal opinion is divided. The activities are contrary to the Criminal Code on the one hand, but there appear to be legal loopholes around the law. The issue is: how will this government react?

To the Attorney General: if groups in this province forge ahead with plans to establish online gambling sites, will the minister declare the activity illegal, or will he tolerate the operation and allow it to continue? The Speaker: The Minister of Justice and Attorney General. Mr. Stevens: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. First of all, the Criminal Code that determines legality relative to this matter has nothing to do with the rulings of the Attorney General in this province or anywhere else.

I can tell you that our opinion is and has been for a considerable period of time that First Nation Internet gaming, wherever it might take place in Canada, would be contrary to the Criminal Code. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Elsalhy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. One of the reasons First Nations groups in Alberta are resorting to such measures is to create economic opportunities for themselves. It is no secret that they have some serious problems, and they see these gambling ventures as a way to make positive changes for their people.

The real shame is that in this province, awash in cash, none of this money seems to be going directly to help First Nations people improve their quality of life or realize their potential. They have to fend for themselves. So they would go as far as openly contravening the Criminal Code if it meant opening doors, creating jobs, and improving quality of life on reserves. To the Minister of International, Intergovernmental and Aboriginal Relations: what opportunities is this government prepared to provide to First Nations people in Alberta so that they don’t have to get into Internet gambling?

The Speaker: The hon. minister. 1:50 Mr. Boutilier: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and Happy Easter to everyone. I think that what is most important is this. We are working very closely with our aboriginal peoples, as we have in the past and as we will today and into the future. I might add that the largest employer of aboriginals in all of Canada, of course, is Syncrude Canada Ltd., very prominent in my own constituency. But let me just say that we will continue to work with aboriginal leaders in terms of tremendous economic stories that are out there.

They are role models for young people in terms of what is happening today and well into the future. I do believe that we’re on the right track in terms of growing the economic pie, where everyone in Alberta plays an important

part in that success. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Whitecourt-Ste. Anne, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. Agricultural Income Stabilization Program Mr. VanderBurg: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. Drought, grasshoppers, BSE, and rising input costs have created hardships for Alberta producers over the last five years. Recently Alberta Agriculture and Food announced a $70 million addition, and it would be available to help producers through the Alberta reference margin initiative for the 2006 CAIS program year. This sounds like a good thing. However, some of my constituents in Whitecourt-Ste.

Anne have expressed concerns that the ones that will benefit the most on this initiative are packers and large feedlots. All my questions are to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Are packers and large feedlot operators going to get the bulk of the money from this initiative? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Groeneveld: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Quite simply, meat packers are not eligible under this program and will not be getting any money under the reference margin initiative. Only farmers and agriculture producers will benefit from this.

Feedlot operators are eligible, but our data show that only a small portion of the funds will go to them. This is really an extension of a pilot project that we’ve offered in the past three years. We’ve done our due diligence. We’ve found that the money is going to the sectors that need it most in a given year. Not everyone gets a cheque. This is about individual needs. Mr. VanderBurg: Thank you for that answer. Again to the same minister, Mr. Speaker. CAIS applications are at times confusing, and producers complain that high-priced accountants are needed to get through the red tape.

How can producers be assured that they receive potential benefits as quickly as possible from this program? Mr. Groeneveld: Mr. Speaker, I would be the first person to agree that CAIS could be simpler, but there are some things that can be done, however. Producers can get benefits sooner if they file their taxes early and if they submit their CAIS forms well ahead of the deadline of September 30, 2007. About 55 per cent of the applica- tions arrived within 60 days of the deadline, and this certainly causes a lot of delays.

Turnaround times are also better if all the informa- tion on the form is accurate and complete. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. VanderBurg: Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie, followed by the hon. Member for Cypress-Medicine Hat.

Alberta Hansard April 5, 2007438 Community Initiatives Program (continued) Mr. Agnihotri: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This government says that they want flexibility, the flexibility to break the CIP rules. The groups who do such good work don’t get the same flexibility. Most work hard to play by the rules, and they want fairness, and they want accountability. To the Minister of Tourism, Parks, Recreation and Culture. The grants above the $10,000 rule average $50,000. Will this minister admit that this is not flexibility? This is mismanage- ment. Mr. Goudreau: Mr.

Speaker, I need to say that, you know, applica- tions for CIP and CFEP grants are reviewed by our grants officers and our technical analysts to make sure that they meet the eligibility criteria and to make sure that the applications are fully completed. When they do that particular review, the recommendation comes back. Sometimes a recommendation comes back to give that organization more money, and other times it comes back to give them less money. Certainly, we review that. We use our flexibility to accommodate those that need additional financial help. Mr.

Agnihotri: To the same minister: what is the purpose of having CIP guidelines if you don’t follow them? Mr. Goudreau: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, we’ve approved over 4,000 CIP applications in the last few years. We’re talking about 43, and I’ve committed to review those. I want to review the informa- tion on the 43, and if there are issues with those 43, then I will address them. Mr. Agnihotri: To the same minister. We have asked this question many times but get no answers, so I ask once again. Will this minister table the details, all the details of the other CIP grants that broke the rules?

If you have one, table it. Mr. Goudreau: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier, all of our grants are posted on the website, and all of the information is there. I’ve asked my staff to pull the 43 that he’s talking about. It will take a few days. It takes time to isolate those individuals from all the rest of the grant applications. We’ll review them, and we’ll see where it comes. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Cypress-Medicine Hat, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Rutherford. Mosquito Larviciding Program Mr. Mitzel: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Residents of Alberta, primarily in southern Alberta, are concerned that the government is no longer funding the West Nile mosquito larviciding program. Twenty per cent of people infected with the West Nile virus develop symptoms that adversely affect their quality of life, and 5 per cent develop severe diseases up to and including paralysis. My question is to the Minister of Alberta Health and Wellness. What is the province doing to protect Albertans against the West Nile virus seeing as even the medical officer of health for Palliser and a registered nurse there have contracted West Nile in southern Alberta? Mr.

Hancock: Well, Mr. Speaker, we did advise the municipalities in the regions that were affected that the funding for the larviciding program was not going to be continued this year, and we did it because there’s no evidence that that was an effective use of resources in this particular circumstance. However, human and adult mosquito surveillance programs continue to alert our department and health regions to changes in the risk level of the West Nile virus so we can advise the public accordingly. Those surveillance programs have been conducted in southern Alberta since 2002.

Predictably, every year when mosquitoes start to appear, of course, people start to get concerned. It’s important to remember that the species of mosquito that carries the West Nile . . . The Speaker: The hon. member, please. Mr. Mitzel: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My first and only supplemen- tal. I received letters from the municipalities in southern Alberta expressing regret at the decision not to fund the program this year. Dr.

Mark Loeb, a researcher from McMaster University, is doing a study of the West Nile virus and has written that 87 per cent of the mosquito pools were positive for the West Nile virus from August 6 to 20, 2006, from the Palliser health region and the Chinook health region. My question again is to the minister. Why is Alberta Health and Wellness no longer considering funding the larvicidal program? Mr. Hancock: Well, Mr.

Speaker, we still, of course, are very interested in making sure that there’s proper surveillance, and people are encouraged to take the proper protective procedures with respect to the virus, and that is the most important place that we can put the emphasis. With respect to the program itself 25 per cent of the municipalities in the high- and medium-risk zones opted out of the grant program in 2006; 79 of 104 eligible municipalities participated with a budget of about $800,000. Approximately $230,000 of that will be returned. The administrative costs of that program are very high.

So, in short, we basically determined that that wasn’t the most effective use of the resources. The municipalities now have the equipment and training to do larviciding, and we will provide the other information. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Cypress-Medicine Hat? The hon. Member for Edmonton-Rutherford, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona. Private Registry Service Fees Mr. R. Miller: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Albertans who choose to pay their traffic fines electronically through the Service Alberta website are often surprised to learn that this government charges them the same $9 service fee that private registries charge when paying a fee in person, yet the government of Saskatchewan doesn’t charge its citizens a service fee for online fine payments, nor does ICBC in British Columbia charge a fee for payments made over the telephone. My questions are for the minister responsible for Service Alberta. How does this minister justify this $9 fee when other jurisdictions charge nothing for the same service? Mr.

Snelgrove: Mr. Speaker, we have made a long and successful tradition of not patterning our financial responsibilities after Saskatchewan or British Columbia. 2:00 Mr. R. Miller: Well, Mr. Speaker, I’m going to guess that Alberta taxpayers are looking for a better answer than that. A private registry may charge this fee as a means of generating revenue or for recovering the cost associated with the transaction itself. One would reasonably expect that the cost associated with an electronic transaction, a direct payment to the government, should

April 5, 2007 Alberta Hansard 439 be significantly less in terms of staffing and processing. Can the minister please outline how this $9 service fee is justified when a payment is submitted by a taxpayer directly to the government? Mr. Snelgrove: Mr. Speaker, that’s a fair comment. The fees and charges are reviewed on an ongoing basis by the government, and we not only try not to; we are not allowed to charge in excess of what the reasonable cost of recovery is.

So if the hon. member is suggesting that we review the $9 fee as if that may be excessive, I’ll attempt to do so; however, I think Albertans expect a reasonable cost for services that they get. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. R. Miller: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the same minister. A recent Supreme Court case, King Street Investments versus New Brunswick, determined that the government-imposed user fees which are not tailored to the cost of service itself do in fact consti- tute an unlawful tax.

Will the minister table in this House docu- ments indicating that this $9 service fee is in fact tailored to the cost of the service, or if not, will he admit that we’re unfairly taxing Albertans? Mr. Snelgrove: Mr. Speaker, we also don’t pattern our stuff after New Brunswick; however, we do show in this House all of the budget, which will be debated here in due course in a few weeks. At that time we’ll be happy to debate the entire budget of Service Alberta, and you can explain then what you think we should cut. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Beverly-Clareview, followed by the hon.

Member for Livingstone-MacLeod. Affordable Housing Mr. Martin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s clear that Alberta has a housing crisis. My constituency office is being inundated by calls about rent increases. People are being absolutely gouged, and it’s happening not only in Edmonton; it’s happening across the province. People are being forced to pay 50 per cent, 60 per cent of their income on housing. Tara Kuchar called my office when her rent jumped $375 in five months. Sherry Inglis’s rent increased by 30 per cent.

My question to the minister of housing is simply this: what is his advice to these people with these calls when they’re getting these exorbitant rent increases? What does the minister say to them? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Danyluk: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member from the third party knows, as he was on the committee of the housing task force that reported on March 19, that we are looking at that report presently, and we are running the recommendations of that report through the process so we can deal with some of the issues and concerns of people such as the individuals that wrote to you. Mr. Martin: Mr. Speaker, the report hasn’t been released even. That’s not going to help these people right now. They’re facing these rent increases right now. Another example: Mrs.

Arlene Henderson received a rent subsidy, and the landlord took up most of the subsidy right there, so she’s no better off. My question simply to the minister, then: because we’re in a crisis situation, would the minister as a temporary measure take action to enact legislation to immediately limit rent increases to, say, the consumer price index? Mr. Danyluk: Mr. Speaker, as mentioned before, the government is looking through the recommendations.

The recommendations from that report have a lot of different implications that we think are beneficial and also have challenges to renters, and we are looking at that at the present time. Mr. Martin: Mr. Speaker, these people can’t wait while you’re looking. They’re one rent increase away from being homeless. I’d add: you can still do the report, and you could bring in temporary measures for rent guidelines in the short run. Why don’t we do that right now to help these people? Mr. Danyluk: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentioned: why don’t we release the report? It is not going to help to release the report.

We are looking at responses to the recommendations and the concerns that citizens of Alberta have put in that report, and we’re dealing with that right now. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Livingstone-Macleod, and then, hon. Member for Lethbridge-East, you’re ceding your spot to the hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. Wind Power Generation Mr. Coutts: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The wind power industry in Alberta has developed in the province over the last 15 years, providing green power choice for consumers.

Our industry is one of the largest in Canada, and most of the production is in my constitu- ency of Livingstone-Macleod. But wind power generation is being limited in Alberta for two main reasons: first, there’s a current cap on the amount of wind power that is allowed into the grid, and second, there are issues related to the process around transmission infrastructure. My question to the Minister of Energy: if we are in a free market system, why is the generation of wind power being capped at 900 megawatts? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Knight: W ell, thank y ou, Mr. Speaker.

Most certainly , w e realize that wind power in the province of Alberta plays a very major role and will continue to play a major role in Alberta’s integrated energy strategy. This generation forms a major piece of our plan to build a stronger Alberta. The amount of power that is supplied to the grid at any time needs to remain in balance, and the AESO have determined that to maintain that balance, we need to cap the amount of wind power that we put onto the grid at this point in time at 900 megawatts. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Coutts: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the same minister.

Delays in constructing transmission lines to access the grid are actually holding up investment in rural Alberta and particularly my constituency. Can the minister advise the current status of the routing and the timelines for co mpleting this much-needed link in southwest Alberta? Mr. Knight: Mr. Speaker, again, this government has a plan to manage growth pressures in the province of Alberta, and transmis- sion is the backbone to our electricity system. The member is referring to a 240-kV line from Pincher Creek to Lethbridge. It’s needed, and we agreed to bring additional wind power onto the grid.

The proponent of this particular piece of infrastructure is working to

Alberta Hansard April 5, 2007440 address concerns with affected landowners, and we expect steps to be taken with the EUB in the very near future. Mr. Coutts: Thank you, Mr. Minister. My last question is: since wind power generation offers a viable economic offset for gas emissions, can the minister commit to more wind power generation to assist climate change in Alberta? Mr. Knight: Mr. Speaker, as the member has indicated, wind power in the province of Alberta is a su ccess story. We work with the proponents to address some of the issues that have been mentioned by the hon. member.

The province supports a major wind study that’s being done with proponents, with the Canadian Wind Energy Association, and the study will help us to forecast wind trends and address issues of reliability. We will then have the groundwork for an expanded capacity to put wind on the grid in Alberta. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre, followed by the hon. Member for Peace River. Blood-borne and Sexually Transmitted Diseases Ms Blakeman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Blood-borne infections like hepatitis C, HIV, and hepatitis B have serious, potentially fatal outcomes, and rates of these infections continue to rise in Alberta. There has been a 40 per cent increase in syphilis rates in Alberta over the past year. My questions are to the minister of health. When questioned last spring about why the blood-borne pathogen and sexually transmitted infections strategy has been delayed, it was the then minister’s opinion that the ad campaigns about risky sexual behaviour weren’t in line with Albertans’ morals and values.

My question is: is this health minister going to continue this attitude, or will this strategy finally be released? The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Health and Wellness. Mr. Hancock: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I haven’t seen the advertising strategy, so I’m not sure I could make a judgment call on that, but I can tell the hon. member that it’s absolutely important that we make Albertans aware of the problems that we’re facing with respect to the increase in outbreaks of syphilis. I made that state- ment in the House a number of weeks ago.

It’s important that we communicate that to Albertans and important that we make sure that Albertans are aware of the necessity to be careful with respect to unprotected sex. I’m not shy about saying that. 2:10 The Speaker: The hon. member. Ms Blakeman: Thank you. All right. Again to the same minister. This government has been sitting on this strategy that would deal specifically with this problem for nearly four years while Alberta’s rates of sexually transmitted infections are rising at a greater rate than the national average.

Will the minister concede that this government’s failure to release the report in a timely manner has allowed more and more Albertans to be put at risk? Mr. Hancock: Well, no, Mr. Speaker, I can’t concede that because I haven’t examined it to determine whether that’s what’s put Albertans at risk or whether it’s unprotected sex that’s put Albertans at risk. I would presume it was the latter, but I will certainly be interested in looking at the strategy and seeing if that strategy or some additional strategy could help us make Albertans more aware of the risks and what protections they take for them.

The Speaker: The hon. member. Ms Blakeman: Thank you. Again to the same minister. We have been waiting since at least 2003 for the blood-borne pathogen and sexually transmitted infection strategy. Can the minister tell us if there’s anything in this strategy about equipment sterilization that could have improved procedures and reduced risk of infections in Vegreville and Lloydminster? Where is the strategy? Mr. Hancock: Mr. Speaker, the specific strategy that the hon. member is referring to is not something that I’m completely conversant with at the moment.

I will have a look at it to see if there’s anything in there that would deal with the issue that she’s raised, but the fact of the matter is that we have talked to Albertans. We have tried to raise the awareness level with Albertans, particu- larly in light of the recent information available with respect to syphilis but also the other blood-borne pathogens. It is very important that we deal with these issues, and I will undertake to the member to review the strategy that she’s talking about and see whether it could have efficacy today. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Peace River, followed by the hon.

Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. Flood Preparedness Mr. Oberle: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Every spring the spectre of floods raises fears across Alberta, most certainly in my constituency. To the Minister of Environment: can he inform this House how his ministry ensures that residents of affected communities are protected from potential floods? Mr. Renner: Well, Mr. Speaker, Alberta Environment’s flood forecasting river engineering team is constantly monitoring river levels around the clock and also works in very close contact with Environment Canada, monitoring weather services.

The staff will issue advisories and warnings if they expect conditions will have an impact on streams and rivers. We also work very closely with municipalities to ensure that they have sufficient notification so that they’ll be aware of possible potential increases in river levels. When flooding does occur, Albertans are advised directly by their munici- pality as to what precautions or actions they should take. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Oberle: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the same minister: given the serious flooding in southern Alberta in 2005 I’m wondering if the minister could inform this House if we’ve learned any lessons that would help us to better prepare and thereby mitigate or avoid flood damage? Mr. Renner: Mr. Speaker, that’s an excellent observation, and in fact since the floods of 2005 Alberta Environment has taken a number of steps to ensure that communities across the province have improved flood mapping in high-risk areas. This mapping helps us to much better understand the possible impact of flooding on these communities.

Our existing infrastructure performed extremely well in 2005 to mitigate the impact of fl ooding. I’ll use an example of the slow release of water from the Dickson dam, which prevented flooding in Red Deer, Drumheller, and other communities in between. So we will constantly ensure that we can do everything within our means to minimize the loss. The Speaker: The hon. member.

April 5, 2007 Alberta Hansard 441 Mr. Oberle: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again to the same minister. I’m particularly concerned within my constituency and within northern Alberta at heavy snowpack levels in the headwaters of many of the streams and rivers that drain into the northern plains and lowlands of northern Alberta. We’re at serious risk of flooding. I’m wondering if the minister could inform us which communities are particularly at risk this spring? Mr. Renner: Well, Mr. Speaker, Alberta Environment issued just yesterday a routine water supply outlook.

That outlook indicated that given the amount of snow that we have in certain areas, depending upon the rate of melt there could be issues related to flooding. That’s what we continue to monitor. These include the communities of Peace River, Grande Prairie, High Prairie, Edson, Slave Lake, Cold Lake, and Lloydminster, but I have to emphasize: this is not an advisory; this is simply an observation that should melting occur at a rapid rate, these areas could be affected. We will be sure and provide adequate notice should that be the case. The Speaker: The hon Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar, followed by the hon.

Member for Red Deer-North. E-mail from a Government Computer Mr. MacDonald: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Agriculture and Food committed to an internal investigation into the vicious, hate-promoting e-mail that a government employee sent from a government computer to the Save My CWB website in Manitoba. This e-mail was vicious, it was vulgar, and it was completely unacceptable. My first question is to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Now that the investigation is complete, the results have not been made public, unfortunately.

However, will the minister personally post an apology on the Save My CWB website on behalf of the government and the citizens of this province and the civil servants? Mr. Groeneveld: Mr. Speaker, we took this very seriously. We did have a breach of the code of conduct by one of our employees in the department. I asked my deputy and the department to look into it. They did. They’ve dealt with it; they’ve taken the appropriate action. We followed the process as agreed upon by the union’s collective agreement. There’s been due diligence and fairness in this matter, and it’s been dealt with.

The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. MacDonald: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again to the same minister: has any apology on behalf of the department been sent to the folks at the Save My CWB website who were slurred? Thank you. Mr. Groeneveld: Mr. Speaker, yes, there has. Obviously, he hasn’t been reading the website like he probably should be. The staff member apologized for using the government computer. We respect that people have their own personal opinions and views on things even if they are different from this government. I’m quite satisfied.

I don’t know if the member opposite is looking for blood or what, but we’ve dealt with the matter. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. MacDonald: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again to the same minister: would the minister now apologize on behalf of this government, our fine province, and all of the civil servants for allowing this to happen? Why are you making the employee apologize when you should show leadership and apologize on behalf of the entire government? Mr. Groeneveld: Mr. Speaker, the matter has been dealt with. It’s been dealt with properly. End of the story. The Speaker: The hon.

Member for Red Deer-North, followed by the hon. Member for St. Albert. Trade, Investment, and Labour Mobility Agreement Mrs. Jablonski: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I recently received a letter from a constituent concerned about the Alberta/B.C. trade, investment, and labour mobility agreement, or TILMA. Among the concerns expressed to me is th at this agreement will hamstring municipal and provincial governments by limiting their ability to pass laws and regulations. My firs t question is to the Minister of International, Intergovernmental and Aboriginal Relations.

How will the TILMA affect the ability of governments to do their job to enact laws and regulations? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Boutilier: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I want to say to the hon. member that our Premier and Canadian Premiers clearly have indicated that this is to assist our citizens in terms of reducing costs and reducing red tape. It will have no impact at all on municipalities relative to their law-making ability and what they do in serving citizens just like we in this Legislature serve citizens, to the best of our ability in helping them as opposed to hurting them.

The Speaker: The hon. member. Mrs. Jablonski: Thank you. To the same minister. In his letter my constituent says that no one is being consulted about the TILMA. Can the minister please explain what consultation, if any, has been carried out on this agreement? Mr. Boutilier: Mr. Speaker, in my 45 seconds, we have and are continuing to consult.

Let me give you a small example: the Alberta Urban Municipalities Association, the Alberta Association of Municipal Districts and Counties, the Assessors’ Association, for those who go to get drugs the Pharmacists Association, for those who want to get their eyes checked the Association of Optometrists, the land surveyors, the Alberta Building Trades Council. We even met with their union people in terms of the importance because this is serving all citizens no matter what political stripe they wear. This is a great deal, and I know this Legislature will support it. 2:20 Mrs.

Jablonski: To the same minister: can the minister advise the House what has been done to publicize this agreement, the TILMA? Mr. Boutilier: Well, Mr. Speaker, clearly I am part of that publica- tion and will continue to be. I might add that from April 1, when the agreement came into effect, over the next two years municipalities, school boards, and others will continue to be key stakeholders as we in fact look, from 2007 to 2009, at that point, then, what impacts it will have, if any, on municipalities.

So from 2007 to 2009 will be an important process of dealing with our municipalities. [interjec- tions] I’m glad to see that some of the Liberals are even getting some of the French emotion that goes on in this House.

Alberta Hansard April 5, 2007442 The Speaker: That was 91 questions and answers today. head: Members’ Statements The Battle of Vimy Ridge Dr. Brown: Mr. Speaker, far away in northern France there is a forested ridge which looks over the green farmlands of the Douai plain. From a distance it might seem a rather ordinary place, but for all of us as Canadians this ridge is hallowed ground, for there in France is a part of Canada, surrounded by a pair of magnificent white marble towers. On April 9, 1917, 90 years ago this coming Monday, something remarkable happened on that piece of gr ound called Vimy Ridge.

That day marked the start of a battle which, over a period of four days, saw over 3,500 Canadian men lose their lives and 7,000 more wounded. The Canadians attacked where so many previous assaults had tried and had failed and captured what many thought was an impossible objective. The brilliant military victory was the result of meticulous preparation and training, of resourceful and innovative leadership, and of unbelievable bravery, fighting spirit, and devotion to duty of the Canadian soldier. Yet Vimy Ridge means more than a brilliant military victory in the bloody conflict of War World I.

For the first time Canadians from all parts of our young nation fought as one unit, side by side under Canadian command. Vimy won for Canada respect and status as a signatory nation to the Treaty of Versailles. It won from Canadians at home pride in the courage of their soldiers and a feeling of nationhood. Vimy reminds us that Canadians from all walks of life were prepared to serve their country and make the ultimate sacrifice for their nation and for the causes they believed in. Between those soaring white towers at Vimy stands the figure of a soldier passing his burning torch to compatriots.

This soldier, called The Spirit of Sacrifice, commemorates the immortal words of Lieutenant Colonel John McCrae: To you from failing hands we throw The torch; be yours to hold it high. If ye break faith with us who die We shall not sleep, though poppies grow In Flanders Fields. The Speaker: There’ll be five additional members. I just want to keep the theme of Vimy Ridge together in the same unit. We’ll go with Calgary-Hays, Lethbridge-East, Edmonton-Manning, and Calgary-Bow. The Battle of Vimy Ridge Mr. Johnston: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am honoured to rise today to speak to Canada’s most memorable wartime triumph. Easter Monday will be the 90th anniversary of the Battle of Vimy Ridge. Although this event happened almost a century ago, Canadians are still learning about the effects the battle had on Canada. As is tradition, thousands of Canadians, young and old, will travel long distances to the fields of Vimy Ridge, where the remains of brave and dedicated soldiers lie. There they will pay tribute to the 11,000 soldiers who gave their lives for the freedom of people all around the world.

The visiting Canadians will stand by an over- whelming memorial that marks the soldiers’ experience. This monument is Canada’s largest piece of installation art outside the country. Mr. Speaker, the Battle of Vimy Ridge was one of the opening battles of the campaign. It is also considered a major event in our history. To Canadians the name Vimy Ridge has been historically meaningful. It was the first time in our nation’s history that a corps- sized formation fought as a unit.

The success of the attack, resulting from detailed planning and a variety of innovative tactics, was in stark contrast to what had happened at the Somme only months before. This event sealed the reputations of the Canadians as among the finest troops on the Western Front. The capture of the ridge by the Canadian corps was a turning point for the Allied force. The success of the Canadian forces here and at Passchendaele and Canada’s Hundred Days helped earn Canada a place at the Versailles peace negotiations. Mr. Speaker, some suggest that Canadian unity was fostered.

All nine provinces were represented in this battle. But as Pierre Berton pointed out in his seminal work Vimy, the taking of the ridge achieved legendary status very quickly. In 1917 this event had a tremendous impact on Canadians as a whole. Today this battle still has a large impact on Canadians. All across Canada young students have been united by learning about the battle. They have learned that the young individuals who went to war were much like the young Canadians of today. A little older than them they had families and friends much like they do. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Speaker: The hon.

Member for Lethbridge-East. The Battle of Vimy Ridge Ms Pastoor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today humble and grateful for the freedom that I have to speak my mind without fear of reprisals, a freedom won with the lives of the Canadian men and women who died in the First World War in the battle at Vimy Ridge in France 90 years ago. Forces from each province joined together and did what Allied forces could not do. They stormed the ridge and conquered a long-held German stronghold, that changed the course of the war. This battle created a true sense of unity and became the birth of our nation as a nation. Mr.

Speaker, 3,600 high school students from across Canada will be going to Vimy Ridge for the rededication of the war memorial. Forty-one of these are from Winston Churchill and Lethbridge Collegiate Institute in Lethbridge. Mr. David Fletcher, a teacher at Winston, was the lead on this project, but the students, parents, and the whole community helped to raise the money necessary for this trip. They will all wear First World War uniforms, and what is fascinating is that the buttons will be exact replicas as they were cast from the original die that is kept in the Ottawa archives.

These students will represent one of our fallen who lie in the graves of France. Each student researched the story of that soldier. The research turned into a labour of love, and many managed to track family members still living. A wonderful story out of Lethbridge is that one of the students managed to make contact with the 96-year-old sister of the soldier represented. She was found living in Calgary and was thrilled for the recognition of her brother after all these many years. The family was tracked in Scotland, and medals that had never been presented for heroism will now be given to the family.

A true lifetime memory for these students. Mr. Speaker: lest we forget. These young people will ensure we must not forget the horrors of war and the love for peace that are shared by the Canadian people. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Manning. The Battle of Vimy Ridge Mr. Backs: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am humbled and honoured to stand here today and speak to the memory of the men and women

April 5, 2007 Alberta Hansard 443 who won the great Battle of Vimy Ridge 90 years ago. There were those who cried for peace. There were the warriors and the healers. They were all our citizen soldiers. They were there, stood strong together, and went into battle that day. It was the first time that the Canadian army attacked together. Les soldats canadiens du Québec et d’Acadie, proud Canadian soldiers from Quebec and Acadia were there. Ontarians, Atlantic Canadians, and our boys from the west were all there and ready.

At 5:30 a.m. on the 9th of April, 1917, four Canadian divisions, the first 15,000 infantry, backed up by their artillery, stormed the ridge with intense fortitude and courage. Imagine thousands of rounds of hot fire searing the air around you and not turning back. Imagine charging with your bayonet into a machine gun nest and not turning back. Imagine the air turning black as artillery shells blasted craters around you. Imagine your friends, your brothers around you having their legs and arms and heads blown off and not turning back. Our boys did not turn back, and they won the day.

It was an incredible sacrifice: 3,598 Canadians were killed; 7,100 were wounded. Brigadier-General A.E. Ross said, “In those few minutes I witnessed the birth of a nation.” Albertans were there from Edmonton, Calgary, High River, Lacombe, Morinville, Lac La Biche, Atikameg, and Wabasca, from all over Alberta. Many memorials stand in testimony to the sacrifices made. I salute all those and their families who suffered. We must thank them all forever. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Bow. 2:30 Tartan Day Ms DeLong: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

There were very strong values that were fought for at Vimy Ridge. I rise today to recognize that tomorrow is a significant day for the people of Scottish descent. It is Tartan Day, an opportunity for people in Alberta, in Scotland, and around the world to celebrate the many achievements of the Scottish people. We celebrate Tartan Day on April 6 because it marks the anniversary of the Declaration of Arbroath, which was signed in Scotland on April 6, 1320.

Its most significant claim was that the country was ruled at the prerogative of the people and that the King could be replaced if he did anything to threaten Scottish independence. This highly significant but little known document was one of the first in the modern world to stipulate that government is ruled by the people. Here in Canada the Scottish influence on our democracy is clear. Alberta was settled by pioneer Scots like the North West Mounted Police’s Colonel Macleod and Colonel Irvine. Our Prime Minister John A. Macdonald was a Scot as was Alberta’s first Premier, Alexander Rutherford.

The first mayors of both Calgary and Edmonton were also of Scottish descent. And it was their comrades, the Calgary Highlanders regiment, fighting for democracy at Vimy Ridge. I hope all our members will join me in celebrating Tartan Day tomorrow. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark. Shauna Seneca Mr. Tougas: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On December 14 of last year the city of Edmonton and its aboriginal community lost a true champion with the unexpected passing of Shauna Seneca.

Shauna was only 49 years old, but in her short time on this earth she touched the lives of thousands of people. In December 1993 Shauna and her husband, Brad, created a youth-focused program called Bent Arrow, that provided services to 16- to 24-year-old aboriginal youths who wanted to find a job, return to school, or were looking for a new direction in their lives. In 1994 the couple established a nonprofit charitable organization and called it Bent Arrow Traditional Healing Society, basing it on traditional teachings and values.

The name of the society perfectly illustrated Shauna’s vision and belief in the essential goodness of people. Traditionally, aboriginal people took great care to make sure that an arrow was straight, in the belief that good energy made them fly straight and true. Shauna believed that children in difficult situations were bent arrows, not broken, and that with love and faith they would fly straighter. Bent Arrow has helped countless aboriginal children, youth, and families. The society operates 14 programs from its offices on Stony Plain Road, employing 83 people.

Last year I visited Bent Arrow on what was just a typical weekday. The office hummed with activity, and there was a palpable feeling of goodwill and hope. Bent Arrow is not a mere drop-in centre where people while away the hours but a place where things get done and people help people. Bent Arrow offers nutrition programs for expectant mothers, help for survivors of residential schools, programs for healthy families, care for pregnant teens, transitional housing, a Head Start program: the list goes on and on.

The mission statement of Bent Arrow states that the society is committed to building on the strengths of Aboriginal children, youth and their families to enable them to develop spiritually, emotionally, physically and mentally so they can walk proudly in both the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal communities. Sadly, Bent Arrow will have to carry on that mission without their guiding light, but there is no doubt that the spirit of Shauna Seneca will continue to watch over Bent Arrow. Shauna may be gone, but her legacy – and what a wonderful legacy it is – will last for years to come. Thank you.

The Speaker: Hon. members, we’re allowed under our rules to have only a certain number of members provide their members’ state- ments today. One hon. member has conveyed to me a very moving story. With your permission, I’d like him to share with you. Can we have consent to do it? [Unanimous consent granted] The Speaker: The hon. Minister of International, Intergovernmental and Aboriginal Relations. The Battle of Vimy Ridge Mr. Boutilier: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was sharing with the Speaker that about 20 years ago, when I was in my young 20s, I travelled to France where, in fact, my grandfather’s 18-year-old brother was killed at Vimy Ridge on this day. My grandfather said that as a namesake, I was big on flags and I was big on emulating his traits. As a teenager I flew to France to visit Vimy Ridge – I was the only one in my family to ever do that – and I placed an ensign flag, the old Canadian flag, by his gravesite. My grandfather was still living, and I took a photo of where his brother was buried and took it back to him.

I just want to say what a smile it put on my grandfa- ther’s face to see where his 18-year-old brother who had left many, many years earlier was buried and lies today. I sincerely say that the respect that French people show for Canadians is truly something I’ll never forget. Thank you.

Alberta Hansard April 5, 2007444 head: Presenting Petitions The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-McClung first, then Edmonton-Decore. Mr. Elsalhy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have eight petitions today. The first one is signed by 476 people, and it says: We, the undersigned residents of the Edmonton-Castle Downs constituency, hereby urge the Legislative Assembly of Alberta to urge the Government of Alberta to reconsider the location of the new Edmonton Remand Centre and work with the federal govern- ment to relocate the new site closer to the Edmonton Maximum Security prison. The second one is signed by 33 people, and it says:

Whereas the ongoing rent affordability crisis is contributing to Alberta’s worsening homelessness situation, we, the undersigned residents of Alberta, hereby petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the Government of Alberta to take immediate, meaningful measures to help low-income and fixed-income Albertans, Albertans with disabilities and those who are hard-to-house maintain their places of residence and cope with the escalating and frequent increases in their monthly rental costs. The third one, Mr.

Speaker, is signed by 35 concerned Albertans, and it reads: We, the undersigned residents of Alberta, hereby petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the Government of Alberta to: 1. Ensure that the remuneration paid to employees working with people with disabilities is standardized across the sector, regardless of whether these workers are employed by government or by community-based or private providers; 2. Ensure these employees are fairly compensated and that their wages remain competitive . . . to reflect the valuable and crucial service they provide; 3.

Improve employees’ access to professional development opportunities . . . and 4. Introduce province-wide service and outcomes-focused level-of-care standards. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Decore. Mr. Bonko: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I’m tabling today 1,080 signatures, and it reads: We, the undersigned residents of Alberta, petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the Government to add the drug Elaprase to the Drug Benefit List approved by Alberta Health and Wellness in order to ensure that those suffering from Hunter’s Syndrome, including Jordan Miranda, Riley Miranda and Tyler Chauhan, get the care they need to reduce their suffering and live full lives. head: Tabling Returns and Reports The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Beverly-Clareview. Mr. Martin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I’d like to table a letter that was sent to my office on behalf of my constituent Arlene Henderson. Ms Henderson recently began receiving a subsidy to offset her rental cost; however, shortly after she began receiving the subsidy, her rent increased again. Basically, her situation demonstrates that subsidies are important, but they must be accompanied by short-term rent increase guidelines. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. leader of the third party. Mr. Mason: Thanks very much, Mr. Speaker.

I have more copies of the letters which were received by my office urging the govern- ment to provide funding for the cancer-fighting drug Avastin. In doing so, I would like to reiterate that people who require this treatment can pay up to $1,750 every two weeks. I would also mention that according to the people signing these letters, Members of Parliament, federal employees, members of the RCMP, and federal judges are covered for this treatment.

Today the letters are from Nancy Niederhaus, Allison White, Ron McIntyre, Debbie McMunn, Andrew Gniazdowsky, Elsie Thompson, Doug Frend, Pat Stevenson, and Linda Verenka. Mr. Speaker, I also have a letter from a member of the Interna- tional Brotherhood of Electrical Workers who is living in Fort McMurray. Mr. Bluett is extremely frustrated because in the last two years he has faced three rental increases and moved twice to lower his rental costs. To make matters worse, he often finds himself unemployed while temporary foreign labour is used to replace unionized Alberta workers. Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker. 2:40 The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Manning. Mr. Backs: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m very pleased to rise to present a couple of letters and the number of copies necessary from volunteers for the Unity Centre of Northeast Edmonton, Geraldine Sutton and Dale Thimer, regarding some personal stories about problems with affordable housing. Thank you. head: Projected Government Business The Speaker: The Official Opposition House Leader. Ms Blakeman: Thank you very much.

If I could ask the govern- ment to please provide us with information on their projected government business for the week commencing Tuesday, the 9th of April. The Speaker: The hon. Deputy Government House Leader. Mr. Renner: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As all members are aware, the House will not sit on Monday, April 9. On April 10 we should have second reading of bills 12 and 15 and Committee of the Whole on bills 3, 21, 16, 12, 10, and 5.

On Wednesday we will have Bill 3, Climate Change and Emis- sions Management Amendment Act, 2007; Committee of the Whole on bills 21, 22, 16, 15; and second reading on bills 17, 18, and 19. On Thursday, the 12th, we’ll be into third reading on bills 21, 22, 16, 12, 15, and as per progress on the Order Paper. Mr. Speaker, I need to point out that this will be obviously subject to change depending upon the progress that is achieved throughout the week, so we’ll work as best we can to keep the members of the opposition advised.

The Speaker: Hon. members, when we return on Tuesday – and I did send a memo to all hon. members – we will have gavel-to-gavel coverage on our website, on the Internet, of the proceedings of this Legislative Assembly, so from about 1 until 6. We’re also prepared to provide such coverage if we sit in the evening providing we have notice to make sure that the technical people are in place. But effective Tuesday, 1 o’clock to 6 o’clock, everything will be on the Internet, available to the world, the performance in this Assembly: a first.

April 5, 2007 Alberta Hansard 445 head: Orders of the Day head: Government Bills and Orders Second Reading Bill 14 Pandemic Response Statutes Amendment Act, 2007 The Speaker: The hon. Member for Red Deer-North. Mrs. Jablonski: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. An influenza pandemic occurs when a new strain of influenza virus emerges with an ability to spread quickly and cause significant sickness and mortality. Currently, global experts are suggesting that a pandemic will occur in the next one to three years.

Although the impact of pandemic influenza is unpredictable in timing and severity in the age group affected, we do know that it’s likely to come in waves of six to eight weeks, result in significant absenteeism across the sectors, and put tremendous stress on the health care system. Furthermore, because a pandemic is likely to be widesp read, the ability of neighbouring communities and jurisdictions to offer assistance will be limited. As a result, the government of Alberta has developed and will continue to revise response plans.

The government is developing their response plans in co-ordination with regional health authorities, municipalities, industry, and other key stakeholders.

As a result of planning activities, amendments to four statutes have been identified that will strengthen the province’s ability to respond effectively to both pandemics and public health emergencies in general. [The Deputy Speaker in the chair] An amendment to the Disaster Services Act will enable the Lieutenant Governor in Council to declare a state of emergency due to a pandemic that would last up to 90 days instead of the 14-day declaration which is currently provided for. The declaration would lapse after 90 days unless it was continued by resolution of the Legislative Assembly.

In addition to amendments that serve to clarify the intent and to update the language used in the Public Health Act, there are five sets of key amendments to this act. The first key amendments would enable the Lieutenant Governor in Council to declare a public health emergency due to a pandemic that would last up to 90 days instead of the 30-day declaration which is currently provided for. The declaration would lapse after 90 days unless it was continued by a resolution in the Legislative Assembly.

The amendments to increase the duration of an emergency declaration under both the Public Health Act and the Disaster Services Act are only for emergencies related to a pandemic. These extended declarations reflect the fact that a pandemic will come in waves and will require a prolonged response. The second set of key amendments will allow the minister responsible for an enactment or in their absence the minister of health to suspend or modify the application of legislation by a ministerial order in order to facilitate an effective pandemic preparation or response.

For example, under the Health Professions Act if a complaint is dismissed, the complainant only has 30 days to appeal this decision. This time limit could be suspended or modified during a pandemic. The third set of key amendments will improve the enforcement mechanisms in the act by providing for quick access to the courts for medical officers of health. These amendments will ensure compli- ance with orders that have been issued.

The fourth set of key amendments will broaden the liability protection provision to ensure that all individuals who have been directed to respond to a public health emergency cannot be liable for actions carried out in good faith. Currently the Public Health Act prohibits the termination of an employee because they have been conscripted during an emergency. The fifth set of key amendments will expand this protection to include anyone complying with an order or certificate during a public health emergency.

During a pandemic this protection could also be provided to people who are ill with influenza or to persons caring for sick family members. The amendment to the Employment Standards Code will ensure that recourse is available to people who have been wrongly terminated in contravention of these provisions. Finally, an amendment to the Government Organization Act will enable the Minister of Health and Wellness to authorize individuals or groups of individuals to perform restricted activities subject to specific terms and conditions.

During a public health emergency health resources will be strained, and skilled people may be called upon to apply their skills outside of their normal scope of practice. An example might be paramedics, who are trained to give injections but are not authorized to provide immunization. During a pandemic they could be authorized to vaccinate people. Ensuring that Alberta is able to respond to a pandemic of influ- enza supports the Premier’s plan to provide safe and secure commu- nities. The amendments to the pandemic response statutes will do just that.

I ask support of the House and move second reading of Bill 14 and adjourn debate. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. [Motion to adjourn debate carried] 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 3 Climate Change and Emissions Management Amendment Act, 2007 The Chair: Are there any comments, questions, or amendments to be offered with respect to this bill? The hon. Deputy Government House Leader. Mr. Renner: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I’d like to first of all thank the hon. members for approving of Bill 3 and getting it to this the committee stage. I’d like to take just a few moments of the Assem- bly’s time to address some of the issues that were raised during debate at second reading, and then I look forward to further discus- sion at committee. 2:50 Mr.

Chairman, I’ve got a compilation of the debate that occurred at second reading, and without making specific reference to each of the speakers, I’d just like to point out that these remarks I’m about to make refer to comments and questions raised by Edmonton- Calder, Edmonton-McClung, Calgary-Mountain View, and Edmonton-Gold Bar. I think that’s it. So if I could deal with a number of the issues first of all that were raised by Edmonton-Calder. Much of what Edmonton-Calder was referring to had to deal with whether or not carbon sequestration was valid science.

The member was questioning why the government would be promoting something such as carbon sequestration and talked about costs that are involved in carbon sequestration. I have

Alberta Hansard April 5, 2007446 to assure the member that while carbon sequestration is a valid and viable option to pursue, it is not specifically part of this bill. As a matter of fact, the task force that was recently named by the federal government is going through a process of reviewing the economics and the viability of sequestration. We look forward to that report. But I must point out that whether sequestration is done on a very large scale, à la pipelines, CO2 pipelines, it really isn’t a matter of if carbon sequestration could work in Alberta but how. That’s very much the question.

At the end of the day, though, the management of carbon in one form or another is very much an issue and part of this bill because what this b ill is attempting to do is send a clear message to industry that it’s the intention of this government and of Albertans that they need to do what is within their power to reduce the amount of CO 2 and greenhouse gases that they emit into the atmosphere. We also had issues raised with respect to the discussion of whether intensity or absolute targets should be the focus of this legislation, and I want to spend just a little bit of time talking about both of those.

This bill, as you know, Mr. Chairman, contemplates bringing forward intensity-based targets. The approach works for Alberta because it reflects gree nhouse gas performance improve- ments independent of growth or decline in the economy. This approach recognizes the huge capital investment that Alberta has made in the past in a number of sectors like forestry, electricity, oil sands, petrochemicals, and so on, and we need to give these companies time to recoup their investment while at the same time ensuring that they take future action to reduce greenhouse gases.

In a growing economy like Alberta’s absolute reductions in emissions can be achieved, but it’s important that the right policies and programs are in place to allow the economy to adjust. A combination of both approaches could be used so that emissions intensity targets are used in the s hort term and absolute targets are a much longer term objective. The result of this would be immedi- ate action on emissions, a lesser impact on the economy, and a time for researchers to develop innovative solutions.

This is, in essence, Alberta’s existing policy, and we’ve chosen to transition from intensity-based targets to absolute targets by investing in technology. We had further comments suggesting that this bill, Alberta’s Bill 3, may be obsolete given that the federal government is also contemplating passing similar legislation. I’d like to just point out to members that it’s certainly not the intention of the government of Alberta to pass legislation that would duplicate legislation at the federal level.

It would be ludicrous for us to think that we would put in legislation that would require Alberta industry to contribute to meeting our compliance mechanisms at the same time that as Canadian corporations they would also be required to meet any compliance mechanisms that might be imposed by Ottawa. But there’s something that needs to be noted. While it is our intention to work with the federal government and work with Canada to where possible harmonize and achieve similar outcomes, I’d like to point out two things to members.

First of all, the discussion that the federal government is having at this point with respect to climate change legislation is just that. They’re mired in a minority government situation. The legislation that they contem- plate has not seen broad-based approval in the Commons, and frankly, Mr. Chairman, I’m not so sure that there’s reasonable expectation that that legislation will actually come to pass. The alternative that the federal gove rnment has is to bring forward regulations under their existing legislation.

That being the case, there are very rigid and strict requirements of public notification once the government even establishes and announces its targets. So that all comes down to the reality that any action taken by the federal government is a minimum of 12 to 18 months and more likely 24 months away. The government of Alberta feels very strongly that we need to act and we need to act now. So if the federal government comes forward with legislation, (

a) we will work with them to harmonize our legislation, and (

b) in the meantime we will have taken strong action in Alberta and, actually, I would also like to say, perhaps even learned some lessons in the process so that we can assist Ottawa in the implementation of any legislation that they bring forward. The other important factor, I think, that I want to put on the record, Mr. Chairman, is that Alberta has a strong record of regulat- ing air emissions. We have been involved in regulating our own industry in particulate emissions for some time now. The climate change legislation that this bill, in fact, amends has been in place since 2002.

We’re simply amending existing legislation that had mandatory reporting, putting intensity targets and the compliance mechanisms in place. So, clearly, we want Ottawa to recognize that as we have worked together very successfu lly in the past in joint management of air quality, we see no reason why we shou ldn’t be able to continue to operate in close co-operation with Ottawa in the future.

So there’s no need for members of this House to arbitrarily hold up passage of this legislation in anticipation of what Ottawa may do because they’re a ways away from doing what it is that they’re going to do, and at the end of the day we can continue to work with Ottawa, as we always have, to co-operate as best we possibly can. Others raised issues regarding the fact that only about 70 per cent of Alberta’s industrial emissions are represented under this legisla- tion, and what are we going to do about the other 30 per cent? Well, that, Mr.

Chairman, is exactly the process that we’ve been engaged in for the past week and will continue to be engaged in over the next two or three weeks as we have been holding a number of community consultation meetings throughout the province to engage Albertans in that very discussion. Where do we go from here? We’ve closed the loop on climate change legislation. We’ve introduced the intensity-based targets for large industrial emitters. But where do we go from here?

I’m very pleased to report that Albertans are not only actively engaged in attending and participating in those community consultations but are very actively involved in providing input through our website. So I encourage not only members of the public but perhaps even members of this Assembly to be involved in this consultation process. We have a number of community meetings that are yet to be held. Last night we were in Lethbridge, the night before in Medicine Hat, and we’ll be in Calgary next Tuesday.

So I encour- age members to participate in that process, and I think that they’ll see that there is active discussion and good, quality suggestions being made by Albertans, and we look forward to that. 3:00 We also had questions regarding the issue of the compliance mechanisms and asking for some clarification on the different levels of compliance. I’d point out that this legislation operates under the same principles as the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, and its regulations provide for a number of offences that can be prosecuted.

There are significant maximum penalties under conviction, but there are also penalties that can be brought forward in the form of administrative penalties. They represent a compliance ladder for steps that would be taken based on any offences under the programs. You start at first on the ladder, and if that doesn’t result in compliance, you can constantly move up, and that’s exactly the way this legislation is designed to operate as well. Finally, I wanted to address the issue of industrial emissions.

Edmonton-Gold Bar was asking why industrial emissions are excluded and, in fact, asking what industrial emissions are. I’d like

April 5, 2007 Alberta Hansard 447 to point out that industrial emissions are the types of emissions where there is really no technology fix that’s economically viable or efficiency adjustment that could be made to reduce them in the short term. They are part of a set of chemical industrial processes, as opposed to the result of combustion. When you burn something and you send smoke up the chimney, that CO 2 that comes out is the result of combustion. When you, for example, manufacture fertilizer, you have a chemical reaction. One of the by-products of that chemical reaction is CO2. That CO2 is captured.

It doesn’t go up the stack, so to speak; it’s already captured. That’s the kind of activity that can be much more easily dealt with. We’ve already got it in a bag, so to speak. We can find ways of managing that type of CO2 much more easily. It’s also a recognition that as a result of a manufacturing process there already has been a significant reduction in CO2 on the combus- tible side since the late ’90s and the turn of the century simply from an economic perspective because natural gas is a feedstock for these types of industries.

They have made significant reductions in CO 2 simply because of the ec onomies involved. This will allow us to work with the manufacturing sector, recognizing that they have some unique circumstances there, and allow us to deal with that in a reasonable way. Finally, I want to deal with the issue in

section 8 that talks about the question: why is this

section being substituted? I can assure the member that the reason is purely administrative. It’s an amendment to ensure the consistency of the ministerial order outlined in

section 10 of the Government Organization Act. The original wording unintentionally restricted the authority. The intent remains un- changed: co-operation among other jurisdictions needs to be in the shared interest of Albertans as reflected in the expectations under this legislation. This will help us to ensure that a single set of rules applies to Alberta industry. With that, Mr. Chairman, I think I have covered at least most of the issues that were raised by hon. members at second reading, and I look forward to further discussion at committee stage. The Chair: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. Mrs.

Mather: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the hon. minister’s answers to many of the questions that we’ve posed about what the bill will do, and I guess I’m going to be focusing more on what it doesn’t do. This bill is intended to amend the original 2003 bill, Climate Change and Emissions Management Act. The main changes are in the regulation, the specified gas emitters regulation, which has set out some new emission intensity targets and three options to achieve them for the largest industrial emitters.

However, the target of reaching 50 per cent emission intensity reduction by 2 020 remains the same in this bill. It is reliance on emissions intensity that makes these changes more for show than anything else. There will be no reductions in absolute emissions, and in fact by 2020 they could double. That alone tells us that this bill and the accompanying regulations are more a reaction to public pressure and concern than a government that’s prepared to show leadership on this issue of climate change that has been scientifically proven and accepted by the international community.

You know, it’s been validated by scientists for decades now, but the communication over the last few decades has been a problem, in that politicians and media have given it a spin that makes it confusing. So it’s not realistic for us to support this bill at this point because it continues to rely on intensity emissions rather than moving towards hard caps on emissions. This plan has some flaws that make it less effective in reducing emissions in an absolute sense.

The reliance on emissions intensity as our measure of reduction instead of focusing on moving aggressively to absolute reductions to make this bill and the accompanying regulations effective are exactly making it ineffective. Absolute emission is the term used to describe the total volume of emissions from a particular source, whether it is an exhaust system of a vehicle or a stack from an industrial facility. Emission intensity is the amount of greenhouse gases released measured against another factor such as GDP or a barrel of oil.

A more fuel efficient car will have a lower emission intensity than a less efficient model, but the two cars may still have the same absolute emissions if the more efficient one is driven further. Although the hon. member also mentioned the goal to harmonize and to look at the national plan and, hopefully, some global responsi- bility, there are some questions about how what we’re doing here in Bill 3 would actually work with Kyoto commitments. Will it jeopardize our ability and Canada’s ability to meet those commit- ments?

Will it jeopardize Canada’s commitments to achieve much deeper emission reduction targets for post-2012 commitment periods, that will become more necessary given the ultimate objectives of the United Nations framework? The outcome is that industry will be faced with the prospect of trying to achieve two different sets of regulations, and I do believe that industry wants to be responsible here. They want some clear leadership. They want some clarity. I think that the fact that they’re now looking at two different sets of regulations is going to make this even more confusing.

Finally, I want to again emphasize that this bill is not integrating with any other aspects of our land use planning, our agriculture, forests, and, in particular, water use and urban development. I mentioned before when I spoke on this bill that it’s disappoint- ing, again, that this bill is dealin g with intensity targets rather than caps on emissions. Many members on this side of the House have spoken with knowledge and passion about the need for fixed targets. Now, I’m also wondering again about the global and ethical responsibility that we have for our planet. We are interconnected.

We must be trustees of our planet, and we have the potential to be world leaders. The basic principle of carbon causing greenhouse emissions has been validated, as I said, by the scientific community. The role of government is to do the right thing. We are supposed to be stewards of our land and our resources. The right thing to do is to reduce incentives for fossil fuels and increase incentives for clean, renewable energy. It is disappointing that these essential steps are not addressed in this bill.

Albertans are increasingly aware of the tremendous business opportunities in conservation as well as the value of carbon enhanc- ing agriculture, capturing methane, solar wind, and geothermal power for our world. It’s time to give these options, along with distributed electrical generation, true consideration and to give them the same incentives that fossil fuels have received for decades in this province. We are not doing that. We’re falling far short of it, so this is a very small step and certainly not adequate. The Chair: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. Mr. MacDonald: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Again, I welcome this opportunity to participate in committee on B ill 3. I appreciate some of the answers that have been provided by the hon. Minister of Environment regarding my questions from second reading. However, I’m going to have to go over Hansard and have a look because I don’t think all of my questions were answered. Certainly, when we look at Bill 3 and we look at the

definitions and

Alberta Hansard April 5, 2007448 the intensity targets, I don’t think the hon. minister was complete with his remarks. However, we’ll have a look, as I said. 3:10 Now, some people think this is not enough of a start on climate change. Others think it’s too much. It’s a significant change, Mr. Chairman, for this government. There are still the people that consider climate change to be a hoax. I can’t believe that, but there are still people who think that climate change is a hoax.

Even last night I was watching the news, and I was looking at how the Australians are having to deal with climate change, and climate change is a reality. Perhaps some people in this province, since we’re so far above sea level, are not as worried, but they should be. Every major urban centre in this province relies on water from the melting snowpack in the Rocky Mountains for water. So we have to be wise stewards of our environment, and this bill, I think, if we give it a chance, could be – could be – a good start. There’s no doubt in my mind that this is the first carbon tax in Canada.

I was surprised, as I said, to attend the news conference at Government House on March 8, but my surprise was centred around the fact that we talked about the regulation, not the actual bill here. The gas emitters regulation that was enclosed in the package that was provided to the reporters was quite interesting. Again, the actual emissions intensity is what we have to centre on here, Mr. Chairman. What exactly is that going to mean on a per tonne basis? If you can’t meet your targets and you pay the money, I think we we’re looking at $175 million annually that could be realized.

What we do with this money: that’s another question. I, for one, am not nearly as concerned about CO2 sequestration as other hon. members of this House. I’ve heard from some members that it won’t work; it can’t work; it’s a temporary measure. Cer- tainly, in Norway, Mr. Chairm an, they have been using CO 2 sequestration for a number of years, 10 years to be exact. It seems to be working. We look at the dramatic increase in CO2 sequestra- tion projects in North America. We look at some in the western Canadian sedimentary basin. We’ve talked about this before. It’s a technology that works.

It’s made a significant difference, much more than I thought, with EnCana’s project in Estevan, Saskatche- wan. In fact, the Alberta Research Council is involved in that. The University of Alberta is involved in that, the University of Calgary, the Saskatchewan government. The taxpayers are funding part of that. Hopefully, with this sort of commission that’s been set up, all the data will be presented, and perhaps some of the skeptics will give CO2 sequestration a second chance.

Now, the cost of this supposed pure CO 2 pipeline that is being considered for construction between Fort McMurray and some of the mature oil fields and gas fields around Edmonton of $1.4 billion: I’m a little suspicious of that. Certainly, I have seen costs that are three and four years old, in all fairness, but they’re significantly less than that. Significantly less than that. We’re talking about a 20-inch pipeline, a fairly big pipeline, and we’re talking about, I think, a 2,000 psi operating pressure.

So whether it will cost $500 million, a billion dollars, or $1.5 billion, if the $15 per tonne tax was to be used for this purpose, I think it would be a good purpose. It would be suitable. Certainly, I think the cost of this has to be covered by industry, but we would all benefit from this, Mr. Chairman. It’s worth noting that the cost of CO 2 reduction measures with oil sands projects can be reduced from their royalty payments. It surprises me that we haven’t done more already, but I’m pleased that finally something is being done. We have to start somewhere.

Bill 3 here may not be perfect, but whenever we consider that its main purpose is to ensure that there is a consistency with other major pieces of environmental legislation, specifically the Environmental Protection and Enhance- ment Act, I think we have to give this serious consideration. Now, when we’re talking about the options that the government is going to have, options so that they can work with industry for achieving environmental outcomes, in this case specific reductions in CO2 emissions, I think we’re going to have to look, Mr. Chair- man, at eventually having absolute targets.

This is a first step, and whether we like it or not, we’re going to have absolute targets. I think we can have absolute targets and still remain viable economi- cally. In fact, I think whenever the technology is developed, we will be exporting this technology to other portions of the oil patch around the world. I see this as a natural progression of the industry. We cannot continue with our current practices of significant amounts of CO2 released into the environment. We all know the consequences of that. Every rational person realizes that we have to change our ways.

When we look at industries, specifically the energy industry which is concentrated in Alberta, we’ve got to also look at other economic sectors, the transportation sector. I don’t think we can pin all the blame on the energy sector. I drive a car. People in other parts of North

Document details

Collection	Alberta — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20070405
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	L26 S3 20070405 1300 01 han.pdf
Language	en
Format	json
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	f8340b98c7c6dd6099d331acfd31031240f9c88f

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