March 17, 2004 Alberta Hansard 535 Legislative Assembly of Alberta Title: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 1:30 p.m. Date: 2004/03/17 [The Speaker in the chair] head: Prayers The Speaker: Good afternoon. Welcome. Let us pray. We give thanks for the bounty of our province: our land, our resources, and our people. We pledge ourselves to act as good stewards on behalf of all Albertans. Amen. Please be seated. head: Introducti on of Visit ors Mrs. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I’m very pleased to introduce to you and through you to members of the Assembly Georges Farrah.

He’s the parliamentary secretary responsible for rural development. Mr. Farrah is very well aware of the changing needs of rural Canada as he represen ts a v ery rur al Que bec co nstituency that has so me particularly unique challe nges. I k now that h e i s a ver y strong champion in the federal government for a strong rural Canada. Mr. Speaker, it is very appropriate and timely that I introduce Mr.

Farrah to the As sembly tod ay because earl ier th is afte rnoon we released the MLA steering committee report Rural Alberta: Land of Opportunity alon g with o ur rep ort co authors, the memb ers fo r Innisfail-Sylvan Lake and Wainwright. We know that a strong rural Alberta is esse ntial to the econom ic picture , to the cultur e and environment of ou r province, a nd we know that the prov ince of Alberta will lead the way in finding solutions for our rural areas. So we are very pleased that Mr.

Farrah is h ere to see ho w highly we regard the sustainability of rural Alberta and to discuss opportunities for co-operation between the federal and provincial governments and our rural communities. Mr. F arrah is a ccompanied by D onna Mitchell , who is the executive director for Rural and Cooperatives Secretariats, as well as a number of staff. I would ask that our honoured guests rise and receive the very warm welcome of our Legislature. The Speaker: The hon. Deputy Speaker. Mr. T annas: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Royal C anadian Legion’s Alberta Nort hwest-Territories Command take s a keen interest in promoting the values of good c itizenship among young people throughout the province and the Territories. The Legion is in partnership with the Legislative Assembly Office in a program that reflects that good work. It is Mr. Speaker’s MLA f or a Day program. We are ve ry appreciative of both the Legion’s financial support and their involvement in this annual event. In your gallery are Mr. Bob Hanna h, the Leg ion’s command pr esident, who is accompanied by Jean Clark and Lenore Schwabe, command vice- president.

I would now invite our guests to rise and rece ive the traditional warm welcome of the Assembly. I’m also pleased, Mr. Speak er, to introduce to you and thr ough you to all members the 30 student participants in your MLA for a Day program. Our shadow colleagues are seated in both galleries. They are ac companied by their Legion chaperone s, Dutchy and Diane Enders, Cecile Boyer, and Gord McDonald. I would ask them now all to rise and receive, again, the traditional warm welcome of this Assembly. head: Introduction of G uests The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Human Resources and Employ- ment. Mr.

Dunford: Thank you v ery much, Mr. Spea ker. Part of our activities within the personnel administration office is the attraction and retention of employees to work in the Alberta civil service. I’m pleased to report to all members today that our civil service has won, in the past, national awards. One of the things that we do to enhance our recruitment prospects is run an in tern program. So today we have with us 35 interns. They are from all parts of our government. These 35 interns ha ve just recently graduated from postsecondary education.

The interns are in their first and second years of employ- ment here with the Alberta government, and of course, as mentioned, this has been co-ordi nated through the personnel adminis tration office. So I would ask them to rise and receive the warm greetings of the members of the Legislature. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Peace River. Mr. Friedel: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It’s my pleasure and privilege to introduce some s pecial guests today. I have 45 visitors from the Peace River high school attending at the Assembly today.

They’re down for a field trip to the Legislature and to other points in Edmonton. They’re accompanied by teachers Dania Hill and Aaron Dublenko and a parent, Jerrold Lundgard. Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the fact that you invited them to join your MLA for a Day event this morning. I’m sure they enjoyed it. They’re seated both in the members’ and the public galleries, and I’d ask them to rise now and receive the traditional warm welcome of the Assembly. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Leduc. Mr. Klapstein: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I’m delighted to introduce to you and through you to the rest of the Assembly our guests from the Covenant Christian School near Leduc in my constituency. We have teach er Michell e Fisher, pa rent helper s Linda G oltz, Elly McGowan, Bruce Moore, Nynke Miedema, and Grace Deunk, and 18 students. So I’d ask the Assembly to extend to them the w arm traditional welcome. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Lacombe-Stettler. Mrs. Gordon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to introduce to you and thr ough y ou to mem bers of t he Asse mbly Ms Tara DeLeeuw, who live s in the f arthest nor theastern par t of the Lacombe-Stettler constituency bordering on Ponoka-Rimbey. Tara tells me that she is a strong advocate in rural Alberta, particularly for women and youth, f ocusing her t ime and energy on the need f or equal access for all to law and justice. I would ask Tara to rise and receive the warm welcome of the House. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. Ms Blakeman: Thank you very m uch, Mr. Speak er.

I’d lik e to introduce to you and t hrough you to all members of the Assembly Marilyn Corbett, who is sitting in the public gallery. She is a member of Education Watch. She’s also a recently retired librarian and a grandparent who’s very concerned about education funding of K to 12 and the postsecondary system . I would ask Marilyn to please rise and accept the warm welcome of the Assembly. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Drayton Valley-Calmar. Rev. Abbott: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and a happy St. Patrick’s Day to you and all the Irish in the building and everybody else.

It is a great day for the Irish, an d it’s also a great day for rural Alberta

Alberta Hansard March 17, 2004536 because today in our midst we have the mayor of Breton, where I lived for 11 and a half years. His name is Darren Aldous. He’s also the vice-pre sident of the r ural munic ipalities, small towns, a nd villages on the AUMA. I’ve introduced him before, but I know he was meeting today with the rural secretariat, so I’d like him to stand and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs. Mr. Boutilier: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Alberta Junior Hockey League, of course, are experiencing playoff s right now.

Man y members in this House, in fact, are cheering for their teams. It’s my pleasure today to introduce the voic e of the Fort McMurra y Oil Barons, which I had the p leasure last ni ght to provide colour commentary with for three hours on radio. He’s seated in th e members’ gallery. It’s Jeff Henson. He’s with KYX 98, the home of the Barons. I’d like to ask him to rise a nd receive the war m welcome of this Assembly. The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Sustainable Resource Develop- ment. Mr. Cardinal: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

It’s my pleasure to introduce to you and through you to the Assembly five members of my department th at ma ke up the fire weather team : Nick Nimchuk, Paul Kruger, Lisa Avis, Zygm unt Misztal, and Be tty Herzog. I’d like them to r ise and re ceive t he tradi tional warm welcome of the Assembly. 1:40 The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona. Dr. Pannu : Thank you, Mr. Spe aker.

I ’m pleased to rise and introduce to you and t hrough you to the House a parent who’s an active member of the Education Watch initiative, a parent organiza- tion which is very concerned about and advocates for adequate and stable funding f or public educa tion. Ms Mari lyn Covello has a daughter in gra de 3 at McKe rnan elementary junior high sc hool. She’s seated in the public gallery. I would now ask her to please rise and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Whitecourt-Ste. Anne. Mr. VanderBurg: Thank y ou, Mr. S peaker.

It’s an honour to introduce to you and t hrough you to th e Assembl y a long -time constituent of Whitecourt-Ste. Anne, Mrs. Vera Michalchuk. Vera is a lifelong educa tor who gre w up on a hom estead near Drayton Valley and t aught in m any towns west of Edmont on for 40 y ears before retiring from the Wildwood school. Vera is not only a mother of five and a great long-time Conservative, but sh e’s had so much positive influence on each and every one of us through her wise son David Michalchuk, our caucus director and, I’m told, her favourite. She’s very proud of him.

She’s sitting in the members’ gallery, and I’d ask her to rise and receive the warm welcome of this Assembly. The Speaker: Hon. members, I’d like to introduce to you and to all of the people who may be listening and watching seven members of the Alberta Legislative Assembly who 15 years ago this week, on March 20, 1989, were elected to the A lberta Legislative Assembly for the first time. I’m going to ask the head page, as I mention their names and introduce them to you, to deliver to each one of them a special 15th anniversary Mace pin of the province of Alberta. So, first of all, to the hon.

Mem ber for H ighwood, the Deputy Speaker, 15th anniversary; the hon. Mi nister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, the MLA for Less er Slave Lak e; the hon. Member for Athabasca-Wabasca, the hon. Minister of Sustain- able Resource Development; the hon. Member for Stony Plain, the Minister of Seniors; the hon. Member for Rocky Mountain House, the Min ister o f Inf rastructure; t he h on. Memb er fo r Cal gary- Foothills, the Ministe r of Fina nce; and, 15 y ears ag o, the hon.

Member for Calgary-Elbow, the hon. the Premier. head: Oral Quest ion Peri od The Speaker: First Official Opposition main question. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. Automobile Insurance Mr. MacDonald: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. While the government fiddles, auto insurance rage continues to burn. Drivers from across the country and in this province are outraged by a net profit of $2.6 billion dollars from an industry that has been just recently pleading poverty. Shamefully, the Premier defends this 673 per cent increase in p rofits. T o the Premi er: how c an you def end these obs cene profits? Mr. Klein: Mr.

Speaker, first of all, we don’t involve ourselves with the profits of insurance companies. What we do is involve ourselves with the protection of the consumer . Th e hon. member should be pleased with the program we put in place because, actually, we took profits out of the insurance industry. We took about $250 million – million dollars – out of the insurance industry so that young, safe drivers can be reward ed th rough lowe r ins urance pre miums an d older, safe drivers can be rew arded through lower insurance premiums and those in be tween w on’t e xperience extre me ra te increases.

The program is a good progra m. A gain, I ha ve to commend the hon. Minister of Finance and the hon. Mem ber fo r Medicine Hat for the ou tstanding wor k that they have done t o stabilize insurance rates in this province. Mr. MacDon ald: Again t o the Premi er: whe n will y ou stop tinkering, put people bef ore the prof its, and cons ider the plan f or public auto insurance on www.liberalopposition.com? Mr. Klein: Mr. Speaker, relative to the first part of the

preamble we have put people before profits as I outlined. We hav e taken about $250 million out of the insurance industry to make sure that insured drivers in this province are treated fairly regardless of age or gender. Relative to going to a socialist system, I don’t think so. That may be fine for the NDs and the Liberals, who are s ocialist think ing people, but the majority of people in this province are free thinkers, really respect and un derstand the entrepreneurial and the free enterprise system and want to see it stay that way. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. MacDonald: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again to the Premier: how can you reject a plan for public auto insurance when that plan would reinvest profits into road safety, programs that reduce accidents, and furthe r reduce dr ivers’ premiums? How can you reject that plan? Mr. Klein: Mr. Speaker, first of all, we don’t reject a plan that reinvests money into ro ad safe ty. I’ll hav e the hon. Minis ter of Transportation speak to that issue. Our main c oncern rela tive to the insuranc e l egislation tha t we

March 17, 2004 Alberta Hansard 537 passed – and we’re now working on the regulations associated with that legislation – is to m ake sure that people in this provinc e are treated fairly. That is the mai n point. Tha t is th e point th at we wanted to emphasize and the point that we wanted to address, and we have addressed it very successfully indeed. Relative to t he am ount of mo ney t hat goes int o ro ad s afety, whether that comes from insurance or whether it comes from general revenues, it is significant. I’ll have the hon. minister comment. Mr. Stelmach: Thank you. Mr.

Speak er, the province of Alberta invests in excess of $2 million annually in road safety programs. Together with what the go vernment invests in road safety, other participants like regional health authorities, enforcement agencies, the centre for injury prevention, the Alberta Motor Association, and including in surance companies, all pool thei r resources and look towards focusing on safety on provincial highways. The Speaker: Second Official Opposition main question. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. Complaints to Utilities Consumer Advocate Mr. MacDon ald: Thank y ou, Mr. Speak er.

This governm ent’s credibility continues to decline. The Utilities Consumer Advocate received over 800 complaints from angry Albertans in his first four months on the job, mostly about high bills and confusing bills and high prices, but this disaster of energy deregulation continues. These concerns are being ignored ac cording to the so-called utilities watchdog, who said, quote , 800 calls in four months is not a huge number, end of quote.

Yet just last month the Minister of Govern- ment Service s, who is also in cha rge of the Utilit ies Consumer Advocate, terminated a contract with Imperial Parking after receiv- ing the sam e number of com plaints ove r 18 months. My first question is to t he Premier. Why won’t this government take the concerns of Albertans seriously and admit that the only solution to high prices and confusing en ergy bills is un plugging energy deregulation? 1:50 Mr.

Klein: We will not unplug energy deregulation, because insofar as electricity is concerned, it is working, with the generation of about 3,000 megawatts more of power each and every year. Relative to gas, Mr. Speaker, gas was regulated long before the hon. member was a Member of this Legislative Assembly and long before I was a Member of the Legislative Assembly. What the hon. me mber fails to point out and purposely fails – because it is their intention to mislead and misrepresent.

What he intentionally – intentionally – fails to point out is that 37 per cent of those complaints to the consumer advocate were on natural gas bills, had nothing to do whatsoever with electricity. Now, Mr. Speak er, he intentionally left that out of his

preamble because intentionally he wants to mislead and misrepresent the case to Albertans. Mr. Mason: Point of order. The Speaker: I gather that there ’s an intervention on a poi nt of order. The hon. Me mber for Edmonton-Highlands on a point of order, and to the Government House Leader, be prepared. Let’s reme mber: pa rliamentary l anguage. And it a pplies t o everybody in this House. The hon. member. Mr. MacDonald: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again to the Premier: given that 18 per cent of the c omplaints received by the Utilities Consumer Advocate were from Albertans who could not afford to pay their utility bi lls, why won’t this government guarantee lower bills by unplugging this $8 billion boondoggle? Mr. Klein: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know any other phrase to use other than “intentional ly misle ad” beca use aga in we hea rd this hon. member allude to a figure that is not correct. We heard him allude to an adject ive tha t i s certai nly not cor rect. Boondog gle is not correct. A good program would be a correct definition.

It is not an $8 bill ion b oondoggle. I t is a prog ram tha t has brought 3,000 megawatts of new energy on th e market. It is a program that has stabilized electricity prices, and by the way it is a program that has brought about a consumer advocate. You know, Mr.

Speaker , I would like to put on my hat as a journalist again and ask this hon. member as a journalist: how can he one week criticize the whole notion of a consumer advocate, saying that this person is just a puppet, or something to that effect, of the utility industry because he’s paid by the utilitie s, then g et up an d quote eloquently and wax eloquently about what the consumers’ advocate says? It’s unparliamentary to use the word “hypocrisy,” but I can’t think of anot her word. Maybe “unprincipled.” I don’t k now if t hat’s unparliamentary or not . . .

Speaker’s Ruling Parliamentary Language The Speaker: But in this Assembly the hon. Member for Calgary- Elbow is not a journalist. He’s the leader of the governing party and the Premier. And parliamentary language is the decorum that will be used in this House. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. Complaints to Utilities Consumer Advocate (continued) Mr. MacDon ald: Thank y ou, Mr. Speaker.

Given t hat energy deregulation is not correct, did the government appoint an industry- funded consumer advoc ate in order to silence other consumer advocates who have stood up and spok en out in opposition to this government’s failed energy deregulation scheme? Mr. Klein: It’s not a failed deregulation scheme, and I would remind the hon. member again that 37 per cent of the complai nts that the consumer advocate dealt w ith were related t o gas pric es and not electricity prices – 37 per cent – something the hon. member fails to mention. But he does mention a lot the unplugging of electrici ty deregulation.

Well, Mr. Speaker, if I could make a suggestion – it would be helpful to all A lbertans – that w ould be to unplug www.liberalopposition.com. The Speaker: Third Official Opposition main question. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. Long-term Care Beds Ms Blakeman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Currently almost 4,000 of Alberta’s long-term care be ds are in pr ivate room s, 8,8 00 a re semiprivate, and almost 750 are in wards.

Subsidies for low-income seniors and AISH recipients only cover the cost of semiprivate and ward long-term care be ds, but it appe ars that ne w long-t erm care facilities will consist primarily of private rooms. My first question is to the Minister of Health and Wellness. Is the minister allowing

Alberta Hansard March 17, 2004538 a situation to develop where the already limited stock of semiprivate and ward rooms is depleted even further? Mr. Mar: Mr. Speaker, the reality is that there have been changes over many years with respect to long-term care, and what seniors are telling us is that t hey actually prefer to get away from the i dea of wards and semiprivate rooms. They prefer private rooms, so we let the marketplace operate as it does to re spond to the needs of what seniors actually want. Ms Blakeman: My next question is to t he Premier.

Is th is some misguided circular logic where the government stops build ing the only kind of long-term care beds for low-income seniors that it’s willing to subsidize? Mr. Klein: Mr. Speaker, we a re committed to building as many seniors’ units as w e possibly can, both f or long-term care and for assisted living and also lodge accommodation for those who can care for themselves. But relative to the situation I’ll have either the hon. Minister of Health and Wellness or the hon. Minister of Senors respond. The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Woloshyn: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to clarify a misconcep- tion.

The support that we’re giving to seniors in long-term care goes up to, in dollars, the semiprivate rate. That is correct. However, we have taken upon ourselves to advocate on behalf of seniors who are under our program to ensure that they get the private room at the semiprivate rate, which is a darn g ood bargain. We adv ocate for them by putting the families together with the individual facilities. In addition to that, any senior w ho was in a private room on our program would not be moved out of that room unless it was within the same facility and to a semiprivate. So, Mr.

Speaker, I’d like to point out very strongly that we did look after all of the people on our program, that they’re not suffering unduly, and, in fact, that we did insist that the people in our program do for the most part receive the same kind of re sidual income of $265 that the lodge people do. The Speaker: The hon. member. Ms Blakeman: Thank you. Then to the Minister of Seniors: if the seniors or their f amilies are not a ble to convinc e the ow ners o r operators of long-term care facilities to give them the private room at a semiprivate room rate, where exactly are these seniors to go?

Is the government going to cover the additional cost or not? Mr. Woloshyn: Mr. Speaker, very specifically, like I indicated, the people who we re in the pri vate ro oms would not be mov ed out against their will, would not be forced to pay more. Quite frankly, we have been able to resolve through consultation on behalf of the residents virtually every case that they presented as hardship, and the operators have been very co-operative. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands, followed by the hon. Member for West Yellowhead. Special Duty Audit by Auditor General Mr. Mason: Thank you very much, M r.

Speaker. Albertans have been flooding our offices with calls, demanding to know if the $400 million in BSE aid was well spent or if it all ended up in the hands of U.S.-owned packing houses. The government has insisted that the Auditor General would investigate, but yesterday we learned that this investigation would be a s deep as a slough in a drought. The Auditor General now says that he will not follow the money beyond who got the initial cheques and tha t he will not table the terms of reference or an audit plan. My question is to the Premier.

Will the Premier now admit that the routine audit as ked for by the Minister of Agric ulture, Food and R ural Dev elopment is insuff icient to answer the ques tions th at Albertans are asking and, instead, use cabinet’s authority under the act to request a sp ecial duty audi t, which can follow the money? 2:00 Mr. Klein: Mr. Speaker, it’s my understanding and it should be the hon. member’s understanding as well that the Auditor General is an independent individual who is ap pointed by this Legislature. He doesn’t take direction from government.

To have him take direction from government or any other member of t he Legislature, for that matter, could be dangerous, very dangerous indeed. If one were to direct the Auditor General, for instance, to ignore something, that would be dangerous. The Auditor General, as I understand it, works with his legislative mandate and conducts his work as he se es fit. That’s why w e recently amended the legislation with the s upport of at le ast the Liberal opposition to give him wide-ranging powers.

As always, this side and that side of the government will co-operate with the Auditor General as fully as we possibly can as he conducts his work. I tend to put more faith in the Auditor General and his assessment of what he needs to do than the NDs’ opinion of what they think he needs to do. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Mason: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Well, given that the Premier is unfamiliar with the provisions of the Auditor General Act that clearly give cabinet the power to order a special duty audit, how can he claim that the Auditor General will get an answer to the question of why packer margins have inc reased by 200 pe r cent, when the Auditor General writes that the flow of money after it is in the hands of those entitled to receive it . . . The Speaker: Hon. member, it’s a question. There’s no way a 45- second question is a question. Mr. Mas on: Thank y ou, Mr. Speak er.

Giv en that the Auditor General has ruled out following the audit and given that the govern- ment is refusing to get to the bottom of this, when will the Premier stand up and ask Executive Council to order a special duty audit so that we can follow the money? Mr. Klein: Mr. Speaker, first of all, as I pointed out, I don’t think that it’s appropriate or wise for any member of Executive Council to order the Auditor General to do anything.

Now, if the hon. member or if this legislative body wants the Auditor General to do what he probably is doing anyway, then I have no problems with that being a legislative motion or anything else. Mr. Mason: Will you vote for it? Mr. Klein: Fine. I don’t care one way or the other. It’s just that I don’t feel comfortable as an individual and as the Premier asking Executive Council to orde r the Audit or Gener al t o do anyth ing, because if you can order him to do something that the oppo sition

March 17, 2004 Alberta Hansard 539 wants, then it stands to reason that you can order him to do some- thing that the opposition doesn’t want. Mr. Speaker, he is an officer of t he Legislature; the refore, it should be the Legislature that directs him. Hav ing said that, I do believe that the A uditor Gene ral has the powers to investig ate whatever he wants , whenever he wants, not withstanding the direction of the opposition or this Legislature. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Mason: Oh, I get a third one. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Speaker: Hon. member, you always had a third one.

It’s just that you abused the second one. So pleas e proceed carefully with the third one. Mr. Mason: Than k you very m uch, Mr . Speaker. Given that Albertans will not see terms of re ference or an audit plan from the Auditor General, how is this government going to assure Albertans that his investigation will be a thorough analysis of the program and who received the money from it? Mr. Klein: Mr. Speaker, you know, if I were the hon. member, I’d be very careful, because what he is doing is questioning the investi- gative authority and, indeed, the integrity of the Auditor Gen eral.

The Auditor General has s aid t hat he wi ll conduct – a nd I don’t know if I’m quoting him correctly – a thorough investigation of this matter relative to BSE . I would s uspect that that matter relates to whether the money under the assistance program that we launched, the $400 million, was spent pr operly, whether the pa ckers made excessive profits, a mat ter that is already being investigated by a parliamentary committee and, as I unders tand it, the C ompetition Bureau.

The Auditor General I believe has indicated that he will submit his report by the en d of J une, and i t remains to b e seen at tha t time whether or n ot he has done a thorough job. But I have every confidence in t he Auditor General to do a thorough job because that’s what he is mandated to do. The Speaker: The hon. Member for West Yellowhead, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Glengarry. Cheviot Creek Coal Pit Mr. St rang: Thank you very m uch, Mr. Speaker.

There was an announcement yesterday by the El k Valley Coal Partnership that they plan to go ahead with a $50 million development at the Cheviot Creek coal pit near Hinton. As the Member for West Yellowhead, where the development will take place, I have been asked b y my constituents about its economic impact. My main question is to the Minister of Econom ic Development. C ould the mi nister tell the Legislature what the economic impact of this de velopment is expected to be? Mr. Norris: Well, Mr. Speaker, before I answer the hon. member’s question, a couple of things have to be said.

In light of the contin- ued questions that come from the opposition that point t o nothing but an economy that’s on a downward spiral, this particular piece of news along w ith hundreds ar ound t he province every day cl early prove that that’s incorrect and that it’ s been w hat we’ve said all along: the Alberta advantage is alive and well. I would also like to offer compliments to the MLA for West Yellowhead. He and I have b een working on this for q uite some time. The bottom line about this particular project is that this region has been very hard h it, Mr.

S peaker, in a number of di fferent industries, not only forestry and coal and agriculture but in tourism, and this member and I have been working together to try and secure new opportunities, of which this is one. This plant, obviously, will generate an initial introduction of about $50 million of new business into the community in the retrofit. Mr. Speaker, 120 new jo bs, that were slated to be lo st when Cardi nal River Coals shuts d own, will be saved.

More importantly, it’s an ongoing opportunity for the West Yellowhead region, and I think all members of this House, including the opposition members, should be grateful to the Member for West Yellowhead for trying so hard to build a better Alberta. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Strang: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My first and last supplemen- tal question is to the Minister of Energy. What process and approval are needed before the Cheviot Creek coal pit can be producing its coal resource? Mr. Smith: Well, Mr.

Speaker, the bringing into play of a mine of this calibre is going to be a significant ac hievement in Alberta. Importantly, this Cheviot mine has already been approved by a joint federal/provincial panel, so much of the legwork and the bull work has already been done, and that’s important. Now we’re going into individual licensing processes with the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board and with Alberta Environment. Mr. Speaker , I can point out that the Me mber f or We st Yellowhead is in char ge of a committee that works with royalty review.

He ’s updating the 1976 coa l policy in this provinc e and looking for a long -term vision so tha t, in fac t, not only will the Cheviot mine open, but we w ill start to exploit and develop these resources, this coal that allows us to build new, better burning, more environmentally acceptable coal-fired generators and a llows us to move into new markets. 2:10 Mr. Speaker, I think it’s important that we note that a lot of this credit actually goes to China. China today, in fact, uses 50 per cent of the world’s consumption of cement, which they use coal to fire with.

They use 30 per cent of the world’s supply of coal and 36 per cent of the steel. China is our third largest trading partner and one that will be extremely important to the Member for West Yellowhead as well as to this economy and to the creation of new jobs in Alberta. Private/Public Partnerships for Hospital Construction Mr. Bonner: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health and Wellness has recently indicated that this government is open to learning from the practices of other countries and p rovinces.

I hope this i s true because if this government paid attention to the evidence and learned from other juris dictions, they would kno w that usin g alternati ve financing, like P3 hospitals, doesn’t work. To the Premier: given the example set by Australia’s P3 Port Macquarie base hospital, that cost taxpayers three times what a public hospi tal would have cost, will the government rule out P3s as a way to build and maintain health care facilities in Alberta? Mr. Klein: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that is no. We will not rule it out. It will be ruled out, however, if it doesn’t make economic sense.

That’s why there is a very thorough process that has been put in place to adjudica te a P3 proposal, whe ther it’s for a hospital , a

Alberta Hansard March 17, 2004540 roadway, a school, or any other pub lic institution. Basically, that process involves a thorough review of the initial proposals, then a separate request for qualifications, then a request for proposals. At each stage of the process there is a thorough review of the proposals not only in terms of the physical qualities relative to the project but the finances and whether the taxpayer will benefit in the long run. So we will not rule out P3s, but as I said previously, we will rule out a P3 if it doesn’t make sense. Mr. Bonner: To the Premier, Mr.

Speaker: given the example set by England’s P3 Cumberland hospital, where an independent commis- sion found that management problems led to poor patient care, will the government rule out P3s for Alberta’s health care facilities? Mr. Klein: No, Mr. Speaker. We will not. I think it would be folly to rule out a P3. For instance, I know t hat the Cal gary health authority is now c onsidering a P3 proposal for a south hospita l. Now, that will have to go through the process. There have been some failures relative to P3s, and there have been some successes. You know , we w ant to f ocus o n the succe ssful projects.

Hopefully, they can work and work for us and work for the taxpayers of this province, but if they don’t work, they simply won’t happen. I’ve been to the U.K., and I visited a P3 project where the proponents and the United Kingdom National Health Service say that it’s working quite fine, thank you. N ow, there m ay be other projects in the U.K. that were built under P3 that are not working as well. You know, i t’s so com mon for the Liberals to che rry-pick, and usually the cherries they pick are the bad cherries. Mr. Bonner: Mr.

Speaker, to the Premier: can the Premier explain why his g overnment is refusing to learn a clear lesson f rom other jurisdictions that P3 hospitals are a failure? Mr. Klein: Quite the opposite, Mr. Speaker. We are learning from other jurisdictions, but we’re learning from their successes, because we believe in looking at what works well in other jurisdictions and why it works well and impl ementing those policies. So relative to health reform generally, for instance, it’s our plan to l ook at those jurisdictions, those countries where the health system is deemed to be better than it is in Canada.

We’re saying: let’s look at w hat works, and perhaps we can incorporate what works into our health system, and let’s reject what doesn’t work. The sam e with P3s: reject what doesn’t work and take the best of the components and put that into our p rocess. In that wa y, we come out with a qua lity project at a price that taxpayers can afford and something that may in the long run or probably will in the long run benefit the taxpayers of this province. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-McCall, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. Portable Classrooms Mr. Sharif f: Thank you, Mr. Speak er.

Mos t of the el ementary schools in my riding use portables for classrooms, and many of these portables have been designed for 24-student capacity. However, it is very common to find 30 to 31 students in these classrooms, which means there ar e 31 winte r coats, boot s, jackets, and so on. Quite often teachers have to move desks and chairs around to accommo- date student activities, making the rooms very, very congested and unsafe. My ques tions today are to the Minister of Infrastructure. Could the minister please explain what his department’s guidelines are for portable size and capacity? Mr. Lund: Mr.

Speak er, I’m not sure whi ch portables the hon. member is referring to. Of course, in the past the construction of the portables has been at the discretion of the school board, so you could get varying size s. For our sta ndard, as f ar as the departm ent is concerned, we’ve now moved to an area per student as opposed to the old class of 25. Under that, the situation is that in a permanent structure it averages because it changes with a number of factors: the age, the grade level, the number of students that have special needs, and a couple of other smaller factors that figure into it.

Normally the average would be about 80 metres square. Portables normally are about a hundred m etres square, so they, in fact, are usually bigger than the old 25-student class size. Now, with the policy, as far as into the future, we are looking at trying to standardize a nd to try pe rhaps eve n the gove rnment building and then leasing to school boards as opposed to the school boards doing it. How ever, we are g oing to loo k a t the standa rd construction as we ll so that the re is a m ore uniform standard throughout the province. When it c omes to health and s afety, Mr.

Speak er, as f ar as ai r quality is concerned, we do have in place the standards that must be met in all classes. Of course, as far as health and safety the school board working with the school would deal with things like the exits. Mr. Shariff: My first and only supplementary is again to the same minister. Given the safety of our children in such situations, what is the departmental safety policy, and when was it last reviewed? Mr. Lund: Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, for the safety as far as air quality is concerned, we have those standards.

The size of t he portable, the amount of room, is governed under the area utilization formula. That f ormula is extremely important to u s not only i n situations like the hon. member has mentioned but also when we are building new schools and to size the classes and to size the overall school to fit with what is necessary in that area. Also, when we look at the utili zation factor – and this is reall y important. As we move forward, we have a policy that we will not – we will not – build new schools in a jurisdiction until the utiliza- tion is up to 8 5 per cent.

That i s really critical, because if you go below that, you end up then having difficulty with the operating and maintenance side, and y ou end up with a lot of spa ce that is not necessary. We can’t afford to continue to do that. However, having said that, we do recognize – and the Minister of Learning and I have talked about it on many occasions – that where you have K to 4 children that are being bused for a long distance, we must take another look at that, but we’ve got to stick with the 85 per cent utilization. The Speaker: The hon. Interim Leader of the Official Opposition, followed by the hon.

Member for Red Deer-North. 2:20 SuperNet Dr. Massey: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Alberta taxpayers have paid almost $20 0 mi llion for Super Net, but w ith the downl oading of costs, for m any com munities it’s going to becom e NoNet. My questions are to the Minister of Innovation and Science. Why is the government allowing companies involved with SuperNet to charge struggling communities, like the village of Heisler, a $4,000 hookup fee and $3,000 a year just to maintain one connection to the system? Mr. Doerksen: Well, Mr. Speaker, the Alberta SuperNet will in fact connect almost every community in Alberta.

Any community that has a library, a school, a hospital, or government building will have SuperNet access located in that town.

March 17, 2004 Alberta Hansard 541 The Speaker: The hon. member. Dr. Massey: Thank you. Again to the minister. SuperNet is in the village. Hooking it up is going to cost them $4,000 and another $3,000 a yea r. How a re they going to incorporate that into their budget year after year? Mr. Doerksen: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Municipal Affairs may wish to supplement. When we started this process, it was quite clear to the munic ipalities that our oblig ation was to take the poi nt o f presence for this hi gh-speed optical network into that community.

That, in fact, gave the opportunity for the municipalities to connect to the SuperNe t because the base network or the m ain connection across Alberta was being put in place to let them access that high- speed optical network. So, in fact, it is an advantage to them. The Minister of Municipal Affairs ma y wish to talk ab out some discussions that he has been having with the municipalities. The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Boutilier: Thank you very much, and I would l ike to supple- ment, Mr. Speak er.

As the m inister of innovation has indicated, we’ve been working very closely with our municipal partners, both rural and urban. I w ant to say that th e annu al convention for the Association of Municipal Districts and Counties is coming up within the next tw o week s, which, I know, m any m embers from this Assembly are going to be attending. I’d ask the member to stay tuned, because we’ve been working very closely with this ministry in terms of how every single municipality in this entire province will be hooked up. SuperNet is a program that is unmatched.

No other province in Canada has anything even close to it. Dr. Massey: My question is again to the Minister of Innovation and Science. What solut ion do es the minist er have fo r cash-starved communities like He isler w ho simply can’t affo rd SuperNet? Downloading the costs onto them isn’t the solution. Mr. Doerksen: Well, Mr. Speaker, again I might ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs to suppl ement the answer. I k now of no other jurisdiction, frankl y, in the world that make s this opportunity available to all Alberta citizens. It is unpara lleled, and in fact a recent

article out of IEEE magazine, which is a hig hly respected technical magazine, gave the Alberta SuperNet an innovation award for the vision of that network. Mr. Bouti lier: Mr. Speake r, to follow up from the mini ster of innovation, every single village, small town, municipality, all 360 of them – I don’t want to scoop myself here, but I can say that we have some very important news, because we’re working with our partners within municipalities. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Red Deer-North, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview. Employment Training Mrs. Jablonski: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is f or the Minister of Human Resources and Employment. Mr. Minis ter, it was reported in Red Deer that you said that there is a fierce demand for skilled workers in northern Alberta’s resource industry and that employers are made to think that they ha ve to hire high school graduates for every job. Are you suggesting that it is not necessary to graduate from grade 12 or to finish high school and that students can drop out of school to get a job? [interjections] Mr. Dunford: Pretty spicy stuff, eh? Let’s be clear.

If the people that are listening to us now and the people that will be reading Hansard are in school, stay in school. If you are about to graduate, get yourself into our excellent postsecond- ary system right now or just as soon as you possibly can. If you’re under I’m going to say the age of 25, get yourself back into school. But there’s a time for clear talk, and I think this is it.

What I’m meaning is that we have a w hole generation of folks out there that are older tha n 30 a nd have not completed high school, and if we have employers and if we have governments myopically saying that you have to have grade 12 in order to enter the workforce, then we are subjecting a whole generation of people to poverty. What I was suggesting in the public meeting where I was quoted – and it appe ars almost misquoted – is that w e have to look at the individual person, and we have to determine what is best for them in terms getting them into the workforce.

We need flexibility on the part of the training institutions. We need flexibility on the part of the employers. With that flexibility we can get everybody productive in Alberta, and that’s what we want. Mrs. Jablon ski: Mr. S peaker, my final ques tion to th e same minister: what jobs can people who don’t hav e a high s chool diploma get? Mr. Dunford: Yeah, there are lots of them there. There’ll be a string. The thing that we need to know and understand is t hat we have people over 30, we have people that have not completed high school that are trainable and can work into our workforce. The Speaker: The hon.

Member for Edmonton-Riverview, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona. Electronic Health Records Dr. Taft: Thank you, Mr. Speaker . Th e main problem f acing Alberta’s health care system is not out-of-control costs; it’s misman- agement of the money w e have. Yester day I a sked rea sonable questions of the Minister of Health and Wellness about whether his department did due diligence on the electronic health record system. The answer I got didn’t address the question, so I’ll give the minister another chance today.

To the Minister of Health and Wellnes s: given that the minister announced $59 million in October for health information systems, then provided the AMA wi th $65 million i n November, and RHAs are spending untold millions more, will the minister tell us the total expected cost of establishing the electronic health record system? Mr. Mar: Well, Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of St. Patrick’s Day I feel compelled to answer in the following manner. There once was a man from Riverview Whose opinions were respected by few. He said: it’s so grand to have your head in the sand; Our health system we need not renew. Mr.

Speaker, I would be happy to sit down with the hon. member at any time that he’d like to educate and edify him on the subject of the importance of W ellnet. W e have i nvested over $130 mil lion from 1997 through to March 31, 2003, on information technology. It has been f or the foll owing purpos es. It has been to improve patient safety, and it is to improve quality of care. The electr onic health record, pilot programs leading up to the EHR, the seniors’ drug profile program, the pharmaceutical information network, and the newborn metabolic screening system are only to name a few.

I would like to point out that tha t l ast progra m rec ently w on a prestigious national award.

Alberta Hansard March 17, 2004542 Mr. Spe aker, $59 million was allocated to develop the EHR, including its implementation up to 2004. The Department of Health and Wellness i s pu rsuing other sources of funding, inc luding the federal government’s program under Canada Health Infoway. So far Wellnet has rece ived $16 m illion in funding f rom CHI , Canada Health Infowa y, to im plement the pharm aceutical inform ation network. 2:30 The Speaker: The hon. member. Dr. Taft: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again to the sam e minister: given the staggering amount of health information generated every day in clinics and labs, in hospitals and doctors’ offices, what cost controls are in place to ensure that the costs of the health information system don’t soar? Mr. Mar: Mr. Speake r, Alber tans can be assured t hat there a re sophisticated financia l syst ems in place and c ontrols wit hin the Department of Hea lth and Wellness including Alberta Wellnet .

Also, of course, the Department of Health and Wellness is subject to the financia l scrutiny of the De partment of Financ e, and all of Alberta Wellnet ’s reporting controls inc lude docume ntation providing specific details before a project beg ins. This includes issues of deliverables, milestone dates, details on resources needed to complete the work, and, fina lly, monthly status reports on the work that ’s been com pleted. A lberta W ellnet is audited by the provincial Auditor General. The contracting process adheres to the policies and the procedures set out by Alberta Finance. The Speaker: The hon. member.

Dr. Taft: Thank you. Wi ll the minister, instead of wa iting for a written question, table for us any cost-benefit analysis that was done to justify spending $124 m illion on th e new he alth inform ation system? Mr. Mar: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member wishes to send me a letter on that, I would be happy to prepare him a written response accordingly. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona, followed by the hon. Member for Olds-Didsbury-Three Hills. Health Care Reform Dr. Pannu: Thank you, Mr. Speak er.

On Ja nuary 22, 2004, t he Minister of H ealth and W ellness said loudly and clearly that the government had d ecided not to ac cept the Graydon report recom- mendations because Albertans do not support user-pay schemes. After no doubt being read the riot act, the minister is now falling in line behind the Prem ier and S teve West in advoca ting snak e oil remedies that will inevitably lead to a two-tiered health care system in this province. My quest ions are to the Minister of Hea lth and Wellness.

Why is the minister championi ng the ve ry tw o-tiered health c are system that the Graydon report recommends af ter categorically rejecting the same report’s recommendations? Mr. Mar: Mr. Speaker, there is no such report, that I’m aware o f, that recommends a two-tiered health care system. The Speaker: The hon. member. Dr. Pannu : Thank you, Mr. Speak er.

Why is the gov ernment misleading Albertans with spin about the nonsustainability of the health care sy stem when the m inister knows and the government knows from the gov ernment’s own public accounts t hat health spending in Alberta has been stable over the last dozen or more years once inflation and population are factored in? Mr. Mar: Mr. Speaker, the sand that is r unning in the ear s of the Member for Edmonton-Riverview seems to be running in the ears of the Member for Edmonton-Strathcona as well. I refer the hon. member to the report that was tabled earlier this week done by the Conference Board of Canada.

This is the most important public policy issue, not just in Alberta but across Canada. There is a remorselessness to the ar ithmetic that you canno t have health care spending growing at 8, 9, 10, or 11 per cent a year when government revenues are only growing at 2, 3, or 4 per cent a year. Mr. Speaker, that is the remorselessness of the arithmetic. It matters not whether you’re a Conservative in Alberta, an ND in Saskatchewan, a Liberal in British Col umbia; thi s is the re ality across Canada.

I t’s the re ason why it’s the s ubject m atter of important debates cu rrently go ing on among ministe rs of hea lth across this country, the reason why first m inisters have as ked ministers of healt h and minis ters of finance to get toge ther this summer. It’s the reason why this is the most important public policy issue that we will deal with in the next 10 years. It’s not just us that are saying it, Mr. Speaker. Premier Lord from New Brunswick would sa y that on the current cost tracking that we’re undergoing right now, the Canadian health care system will not be here in 10 years’ time.

We are taking active steps to a void that consequence. The Speaker: The hon. member. Dr. Pannu: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Among all the provinces of Canada why does Alberta stand alone in advocating the two-tiered approach of th e Graydon report, which the minister less th an two months ago said would not be accepted by most Albertans? Mr. Mar: Mr.

Speaker, this Assembly is filled wi th people w ho know what they know, it’s filled with people who know that they don’t know, but it also has a few members that don’t know that they don’t know. head: Recognit ions The Speaker: In 30 seconds I’ll call upon the first member. Hon. members, I have seven hon. members who want to partici- pate in Recognitions t oday, and I’m not sure that any of the seven are of Irish heritage. Well, i f the hon. Me mber f or E dmonton- Highlands is of Irish heritage and if there’s so mething about St. Paddy’s Day, you’re first. Mr. Mason: It’s not about St. Patrick’s Day; I’m sorry.

The Speaker: You’re not Irish? Mr. Mason: Half. The Speaker: Well, that’s not good enough. All right then. Okay. The closest that I can see to an Irishman in the Assembly, the hon. Member for Calgary-Fort. Mr. Cao: Thank you. I’m wearing some green here today.

March 17, 2004 Alberta Hansard 543 International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination Mr. Cao: Mr. Speaker, March 21 is the Inte rnational Day for the Elimination of Raci al Discrimination, proclaimed in 1966 by t he United Nations, c alling on al l nations to re double their efforts to eliminate all forms of racial discrimination such as xenophobia and related intoleranc e; discrim ination base d on cultur e, na tionality, religion, or language; and racism resulting from official doctrines of racial superiority or exclusivity such as ethnic cleansing.

To me, eliminating discrimination must also come from individu- als at home. Individuals must reach outside their own ethnic and cultural zones o f com fort. I c hallenge every Alberta n, every Canadian to make it their living routine to invite a person of different ethnic and cultural heritage into their own homes. Mr.

Speaker , in Alber ta the hum an rig hts, citiz enship, and multiculturalism law recognizes that all persons are equal in: dignity, rights and responsibilities without regard to [the protected grounds of] race, religious beliefs, colour, gender, physical disability, mental disability, age, ancestry, place of origin, marital status, source of income or family status. I feel blessed to live and raise our family in Alberta, in Canada. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview. U of A Pandas Hockey Team Dr. Taft: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On March 14, 2004, the number one ranked University of Alberta Pandas hockey team claimed their third consecutive national championship and fourth in the last five years with a 2-no thing victory over the Ottawa Gee-Gees in Mon- treal, Quebec. The Pandas got two goals from CIS player of the year Danielle Bourgeois for the s econd consec utive ga me as Alberta dominated the game throughout, outshooting Ottawa 28 to 5 through two periods and 49-11 overall.

CIS coach of the year Howie Draper suggested that Marc h 14 culmina ted a stunni ng seas on for the Pandas, who ran their undefeated streak against CIS opponents to an unbelievable 81 games. Congratulations to the U of A Pandas hockey team. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glenora. Alberta Rocky Mountain Parks Mr. Hutton: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Today I stand to recognize the Alberta Rocky Mountains. Recently Alberta Rocky Mountain parks were acknowledged as a premier world destination for sustainabl e tourism .

National Geographic sur veyed 200 specialists in sustaina ble tourism , destinati on stewa rdship, and related fields, and the results reported in the March 2004 issue of National Geographic Traveler ranked Alberta’s Rocky Mountains sixth out of 115 l ocations around the world. It is notable that Alberta’s parks ra nked ahea d of the Ba varian A lps, t he a lpine regions of Switzerland, and even my Scottish highlands. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the tourism operators in Banff, Jasper, and Lake Louise o n their ex cellent work to ear n this trem endous recognition. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Speaker: The hon.

Member for Calgary-East. 2:40 Art Smith Mr. Amery: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On February 19 of this year the hon. Minister of Seniors and myself attended the grand opening of a transitional residence in my constituency that will provide a safe and comfortable home to eight people requiring housing assistance. This project was the result of a partnership among Horizon Homes, the community f acility enhancement program, Cal gary Homeless Foundation, Alberta Seniors’ homelessness initiatives, and Human Resources Canada. This house, Mr.

Spe aker, w as dedica ted t o an o utstanding Canadian who devoted most of his life to serving his fellow citizens as an ald erman, a member of this Assembly , a Member of Parlia- ment. In 1998 he founded the Calgary Homeless Foundation. This gentleman is the hon . Art Smith. I wou ld like to ask all of m y colleagues to recognize Art Smith for his commitment and dedica- tion to those most in need. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Drayton Valley-Calmar. Alberta Schools’ Athletic Association Curling Championship Rev. Abbott: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my pleasure to recog- nize the girls, boys, and mixed division winners and all of the teams who competed in this year’s Alberta Schools’ Athletic Association provincial curling c hampionships, which took place in D rayton Valley this month. The winning rinks included in the mixed division Beaumont composite high school, in the girls’ division Stony Plain’s Memorial composite school, and in the boys’ division Lamont high school. As well, Frank Maddock high school, the hos t team from Drayton Valley, finished third in the mixed division. Mr.

Speaker, cu rling i s a sport that captivates the Canadian imagination. Everyone knows great competitors like Alberta’s own world champions R andy Ferbey and Kevin Martin as well as Canadian champions such as Colleen Jones and Sandra Schmirler. It is at high school competitions where the next Alberta champion and the next B rier, Scott , and wor ld cha mpion makes his or her mark. It’s als o at these competitions wher e new f riendships ar e forged, many of whom will continue to compete against each other as they move up the curling ranks. Finally, Mr.

Speaker, let me say a huge con gratulations to all of the volunteers from Frank Maddock hi gh school and the Drayton Valley community. Many students, staff, and volunteers worked very hard to mak e the A lberta prov incial hig h school curli ng championships a huge success, and each volunteer deserves a warm round of applause. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Red Deer-North. Great Kids Awards Mrs. Jablonski: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On Sunday, March 14, 2004, the Premier, the Minister of Ch ildren’s Services, and Mrs. Colleen Klein presented 16 children and youth with the Great Kids award.

These young peo ple between the ages of five and 18 have made great c ontributions to the ir communities, their schools, and their families. From collecting books for children to raising $76,000 for cancer research, these Great Kids have already made a difference in this world. With thanks to the corporate sponsors each Great Kid will receive a computer from IBM, an education bursary from TransCanada, accommodation at Fantasyland Hotel, and attraction passes to West Edmonton Mall. Mr.

Speaker, the 16 Great Kids that were selec ted from 257 outstanding nominations are Jazlyn Wiebe, Sherwood Park; Helen Cashman, Edmonton; M ikyla Sh erlow, Jasper; Keiran S awatzky,

Alberta Hansard March 17, 2004544 Okotoks; Paul Zimmerman, Wetaskiwin; Katy White, Banff; Candy Squire, Vulcan; Jacqueline Luhoway, Edmonton; Rodrick Mwemera, Youngstown; Jaylene Norris, Re d Deer ; Nolan Slee va, Medicine Hat; Carlia Schwab, Sylvan Lake; Kelsey Trach, Vermilion; Jayden Madsen, Hinton; Taryn Penrice, Red Deer; Megan Fester, Calgary. I ask that all members of this Legislature join me in congratulating Alberta’s Great Kids 2004. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands. Tooker Gomberg Mr. Mason: Thank you very much, Mr. Spe aker.

On March 4 Albertans lost a true champion for social justice and the en viron- ment. With the passing of Tooker Gomberg we have lost a formida- ble environmental advocate and a visionary activist w ho inspired many. No one wa lked the ta lk like Tooker. It takes a unique personality to do so in ev eryday life a nd far m ore so to do so i n political life. He was a straight talker who always told us what he thought we needed to hear even if it wasn’t what we wanted to hear. Tooker saw the environment as necessary to the world’s life and to our own. He placed huge value on that life.

He didn’t only want to preserve our natural environment; he wanted it to thrive. In trying always to think of better w ays to do things, his uncompromising approach sometimes led to strong opp osition, but his values never wavered. Tooker too k on the to ughest job of t hem all : t rying to change the world. Losing To oker is a loss for m e, for our province, a nd for all Canadians. In fact, it’s a loss for our planet. I would like to express my condolences to his wife, Angela, and to his family. head: Present ing Pet itions The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands. Mr. Mason: Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker. I am presenting a petition sig ned by 137 A lbertans petit ioning the Legislati ve Assembly to urge the government of Alberta “to return to a regulated electricity system, reduce power bills and develop a program to assist Albertans in improving energy efficiency.” head: Notices of Motions The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Shaw. Mrs. Ady: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to give oral notice that the following bill will be int roduced on Thurs day, March 18, 2004: Pr. 1, St. Mary’s College Amendment Act, 2004. Mr. Bonner: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to give oral notice that the following bill will be introduced on Thursday, March 18, 2004: Pr. 2, Sisters of Cha rity of St. Louis of Medicine Hat Statutes Repeal Act. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Olds-Didsbury-Three Hills. Mr. Marz: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to give oral notice that the following bill will be introduced on Thursday, March 18, 2004: Pr. 3, Living Faith Bible College Act. head: Tabling R eturns and R eports The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Revenue. Mr. Melchin: Thank you, Mr. Speak er.

I ris e today to ta ble the requisite number of copies of two reports. The first one is the 2002- 2003 annual report of the Alberta Securities Commission. The second is the first report of Alberta Revenue, the 2002-2003 annual report. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Wainwright. Mr. Griffiths: Thank you, Mr . Speaker. I rise t oday to ta ble the appropriate number of copies of two letters from the Alberta Urban Municipalities Associ ation expre ssing support for Motion 501, which called for the gradual elimination of the education portion of property taxes. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands. Mr.

Mason: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have two tablings today. I’m tabling five copies of a letter dated Ma rch 16, 2004, fr om the Auditor General to me saying that he will not be able to follow the BSE compensation money. Secondly, I am t abling f ive copie s of a document called Key Messages: NDs Public A ccounts Motion f rom the Public Af fairs Bureau in the agriculture department advising negative remarks with respect to the New Democrat caucus. The Speaker: The hon. Member from Edmonton-Glenora. Mr. Hutton: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am tabling the appropriate number of copies of the National Geographic Traveler Destination Scorecard that I mentioned in my recognition. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mrs. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I’m pleased to f ile today with the Assembly copies of the report Rural Alberta: Land of Opportunity, the MLA steering committee report on rural development. Early this afternoon with coauthors, the members for Innisfail-Sylvan Lake and Wainwright, in attendanc e the report was released. Copies of the release are filed. Mr.

Speaker, we know that a strong rural Alberta is essential to the economy, culture, and environment of this province. Alberta will lead the way in finding solutions for our rural areas, and this report from the communities will help us find those solutions. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. Mr. MacDonald: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I would like to table on beha lf of the Offi cial Opposi tion our policy : public insurance which is fair, affordable, and accessible. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands on a point of order.

Point of Order Parliamentary Language Mr. Mason: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I would refer you to the list of expressions which are considered unparliamentary, and it included statements made by the Premier today in question period that the hon. Mem ber for Edm onton-Gold Ba r was de liberately misleading the public a nd the Ass embly on certain matters in h is question. In the expressions ruled unparliamentary by Speakers and chairmen of the Alberta Legislative Assembly, on page 9 it says that

March 17, 2004 Alberta Hansard 545 mislead deliberately or deliberately meant to mislead the House and misleading intentionally were ruled to be unparliamentary. I would request that the hon. Premier withdraw the r emarks and apologize to the House. 2:50 The Speaker: The hon. Government House Leader on this point of order. Mr. Hancock: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Certainly, one of the things which we m ust aspire to in th is House is to use pa rliamentary language at all times and to treat each other with the utmost respect.

There are, in f act, in Beauchesne’s pages and pages of words that have been used in houses of parliament which have been either ruled to be in certain circumstances allowable and parliamentary and in other circumstances to be ruled out of order. The measure of w hether a word or use o f wo rds or contex t of words is parliamentary or not parliamentary, of course, comes out of Beauchesne’s 491. The Speaker has consistently ruled that language used in the House should be temperate and worthy of the place in which it is spoken. No language is, by virtue of any list, acceptable or unacceptable.

A word which is parliamentary in one context may cause disorder in another context, and therefore be unparliamentary. Mr.

Speaker, I of course, knowing full well that you’ve meant us to memorize your memo of February 12 an d attachments, would refer to page 2, where again you deal with the question of unparlia- mentary language: “The Speaker takes into account the tone, manner and intention of . . . the person to whom the words were directed; the degree of provoc ation; and m ost importantly, whether or n ot the remarks created disorder in the Chamber.” So it’s clear that in terms of language spoken in the House and words used in the H ouse, the question really is: have they created disorder?

That seems to be the common theme i n both of t hem: “May cause disorder in another context, and therefore be unparlia- mentary” according to Beauchesne’s or “whether or not the remarks created disorder in the Chamber” in the context of your own remarks in your memo. Clearly, fi rst and foremost, the mem ber to whom the response from the hon. Prem ier was directed made no com ment, raised no issue with respect to the question of whether or not it was unparlia- mentary.

Members of his own caucus didn’t raise any objection, and in fact as I recall the circum stances at the time, it was one of the quieter times in the House. So disorder was clearly not provoked by use of the word. Then to go further, of course in the 11th question in the House this afternoon the leader of the third party used the word “misleading” himself in the context of his question. [interjections] The Speaker: The hon. Government House Leader has the floor. Mr.

Hanco ck: The q uestion of whe ther one ca n use the w ord “misleading” in the context of debate in the House or in answering questions in the House in this context, whether one can use even the term “deliberately misleading” clearly has to come from the context. In the contex t in whic h it was being used and in answ er to the question where the Member for Edm onton-Gold Bar had used certain information but had le ft out ce rtain other i nformation, the words “mislea ding” and “delibe rately misle ading” appl y to the description of what was actually happening and, in fact, caused no uproar in the House.

As I recall and I think other members recall, it was a very quiet time in the House. The only person who jumped up somewhat belatedly was the Member for Edmonton-Highlands. So, Mr. Speaker, I would re quest that you take into account the context of the question and the answer, the context of the word used, the context that “misleading” has been determined both parliamen- tary and unparliamentary, the fact that subsequent to that you clearly admonished the House t o utilize pa rliamentary l anguage, a nd, I think, the fac t t hat the hon.

Mem ber for Edm onton-Strathcona thereafter used the word “misleading.” Surely he took it to m ean that that was n ot somet hing which had caused such a deg ree of uproar in the House as to be unparliamentary. I think we have a clear understanding of what happened and what ought to happen in the future, and we should leave it there. The Speaker: The hon. Opposition House Leader. Ms Blakeman: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Well, t here have been some interesting points raised, and if I may be allowed to join in the debate that is occurring right now over the comments, I too would also refer to the docu ment provi ded by the Speaker on February 12, 2004.

The Government House Leader refers to something on page 2, but when I actually look through those phrases which the Speaker has asked us to plea se have a look at – in fact, we are cautioned to be careful in their use – in fact, “mislead” is quite clearly spelled out a number of tim es, whe ther you wish to take i t in the conte xt of continue to mislead, mislead the H ouse, delibe rately mislead the House, deliberately meant to misle ad the House. There are three different cita tions there, three dif ferent examples. A “de liberate attempt to” mislead the people, “misleading”: four different exam- ples of that.

A “misleading statement,” “misleading the Assembly,” misleading the House, misleading Albertans: there are half a dozen examples of where that was not acc eptable. “Misleading informa- tion,” intentionally misleading. I t hink it’s quite cl ear based on the docu ment the Spe aker provided that he inte nded that w e understand that the word “mis- lead” in any of its many possible combinations was not a word that was particularly considered parliamentary in this Assembly.

An intere sting point raised by the Government House Leader seems to be trying to establish precedent, saying that if the member who it could be argued had the insult upon them doe sn’t raise the point of order, somehow that’s not worthy of being considered for comment or for citation. I would argue that any mem ber of the Assembly has the right, indeed the responsibility to rise in the House if they feel that decorum is being breached, that there is unparlia- mentary behaviour taking place in the House, or even that the tone that we’re all working on is being deliberately lowered in the House.

I would think it incumbent upon any member of the Assembly to rise and to bring that to the attention of the Speaker and, in fact, to ask for the House to be brought to order. I would als o argue a gainst the Gover nment Hous e Leade r’s assertion that an uproar needs to be demonstrated in order for the words to be considered unparliamentary. I don’t believe that’s the case at all. I think, agai n, that the whole tone of the House can be lowered if co mments are m ade repeatedly and left to g o unchal- lenged.

I don’t think that there needs to be people rising up in arms or taking to arms for something to be pointed out to the Speaker and brought before this Assembly as being unparliamentary, unprofes- sional, and frankly disrespectful. Those few comments I may offer up mostly in response to those raised by the Government House Leader. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The Speaker: Hon. members, I want to make this very clear at the outset. Ques tion peri od and the f unctioning of question peri od I really truly believe should have the fewest possible interventions by

Alberta Hansard March 17, 2004546 the chair to be most successful and effective, and I decline as much as I possibly can to interrupt question period. There were two times I intervened today with comments, and they’re in Hansard, and all members can refer to it. Now, here toda y we have a point o f order. Fi rst of all, l et me make it very, very clear that any member has the right to rise when they feel that unprincipled parliamentary conduct is underway in the Assembly. That is not only their right; more importantly, it is their responsibility to do that.

So just because a particular member does not, does not mean that there isn’t an opportunity for others to do it. 3:00 In the case of what we’re dealing with today in the point of order from the hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands, basically it has to do with language. Well, here is what was said, and I quote directly from Hansard. This is part of the response given b y the hon. Member for Calg ary-Elbow, who ha ppens to be the president o f Executive Council, who happens to be the Premier of the province of Alberta.

What the hon . membe r fail s to po int out – a nd p urposely fails, because it is their intention to mislead and misrepresent. But what he intentionally – intentionally – fails to point out is that 37 per cent of those complaints to the consumer advocate were on natural gas bills, had nothing to do whatsoever with electricity. Now, Mr. Speaker, he intentionally left that o ut of his

preamble because intentionally he wants to mis lead and mi srepresent the cas e to Albertans. Now, we hav e documents, that we have ci rculated in the past, from me about when it is unparliamentary to use such phrases, such words, and what have you, and they have been qu oted too. I need not go through them again because I’ve dealt with them in Hansard before, but clearly anything like “mislead,” “misleading,” “mislead- ing statement,” “misinformation,” “intentionally” had been ruled unparliamentary. The document I’ve circulated before gives you the time, the dates when the interventions were.

I also prov ided to all hon. members occasions and dates when such words as “mislead- ing,” “misleading statements,” “misleading the House,” “misled,” “misrepresentation” were ruled not unparliamentary. That is part of the dilemma, and that is part of the difficulty in hearing some of the arguments. What is not part of the difficulty in understanding this, however, is the intent of accusing someon e else of uttering a deliberat e falsehood, and that is unparliamentary. That is not a debatable point, and there is no context. The member stands up.

There are opportu- nities for members to have different views, different opinions, and that’s part of what de bate is all ab out. To su ggest that another member is dishonest is not an appropriate policy for any member in this particular House. One can de al with a whole se ries of authorities and go fr om Erskine May, the 22nd edition, page 387, Marleau and Montpetit, page 525, and Beauchesne’s sixth edition,

section 492, li sting the words that I’ve provided, listing the words Beauchesne has in it, and on and on and on. T hen we c an go to our own Sta nding Orders 23(h), (i), and (j). Members should simply not accuse other members of being less than honest. Thi s is a pla ce of int egrity. It should be a place of integrity. Members can have different views on certain things. We have led ourselves to believe, in fact, that we can hear one statement that says it’s this and an other statement that says it’s that, and we know what the statement really is.

But we’ve been conditioned to believe in the integrity of members, that when they speak, they speak with integrity. So I don’t like what happened here today at all, and I don’t think that it keeps with the tradition at all. I did make two interventions in the Assembly when this was done. I’m concluding that this is a point of order. It’s a recognized and a legitimate point of order. I did make some comments to the Member for Calgary-Elbow about tempered language in the House before. Now, the other da y I rule d on a point of or der against the hon.

Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar, and a number of members sent me notes and said: well, you ruled on a point of order against the hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar, but you didn’t make him apolo- gize. I said: well, I think that I used enough language in giving the ruling that that probably wasn’t required. I’m going to maintain the same policy with respect to this matter today in the case of this particular point of order because it is tainted by one oth er thing that is tru e. The hon. Member for Edmonton - Strathcona in hi s second question in his set used similar language.

You know, what’s good for the pot should be good for the kettle or something to that effect, whatever the heck it is. But the point of all of this is tha t we can all be better than we are at some time, and I encourage all of us to please remember that. There are a lot of young people up here today. Certain people are going to get e-mails and memos and letters from people across the province who saw ques tion period ag ain, and they ’re going to be making accusations against hon. member s who utter disre spectful statements. They often send m e copies. My list is getti ng pretty thick, in fact.

Pretty thick. head: Orders of t he Day head : Government Bills and Orders Committee of the Whole [Mr. Shariff in the chair] The Deput y Chair : Hon. members, we ’ll call t he committee to order. Bill 17 Agricultural Operation Practices Amendment Act, 2004 The Deputy Chair: Are there any comments, questions, or amend- ments to be offered with respect to this bill? The hon. Member for Leduc. Mr. Klapstein: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m pleased to rise once again to speak t o Bi ll 17, the Agricultural Operation Practices Amendment Act.

After second reading of this bill I was pleased to hear that there was gene ral su pport for the amen dments, and I appreciate the comments that were made. This gives m e further confidence in the fact that these amendments will provide further clarity for the Natural Re sources Conservation Board, which administers confined feeding operations in Alberta, for the livestock industry, and for ot her stakeholders. I am confident that these amendments provide the clarity needed by all stakeholders as they are based on consultations with them last year.

I would like to respond to the questions and comments that some hon. members raised during second reading to clarify the intent of the proposed am endments. As I have sta ted on many occasions, further clarity is what these amendments are all about. I agree with the c omments from the hon. Member for Olds- Didsbury-Three H ills that pr ior to the am endments to AOPA in January of 2002 there was a patchwork of municipal land-use bylaws and rules across the province related to confined feeding operations. This patchwor k and uncer tainty c aused m any proble ms w ithin neighbourhoods and between neighbours.

I would like to thank the

March 17, 2004 Alberta Hansard 547 hon. me mber f or his comments that since the NRCB was given responsibility for regulating CFOs in Alberta, there is more consis- tency across the province, and the standards for these operations will allow the livestock industry to move f orward in a respons ible manner. Further to my original response last Thursday the NRCB is being given further discretion to determine the minimum distance separa- tion from an existing residence when an operation is applying to expand.

The amendments are intended to give the NRCB the ability to l ook at the s pecific circum stances surrounding the prop osed expansion and make a decision based on the facts of the matter and common sense or judgment. As I menti oned in my resp onse last we ek, t he site-s pecific topography, prevailing winds, and other factors need to be part of the decision on appropriate MDS rather than an inflexible line on a map. As the hon. mem ber knows, t he NRCB ha s been giv en a lot of discretion in administering AOPA to make the right decisions based on the uniqu e situations surrounding each operation.

W e need to continue to trust that they will make the right decisions. Over the past two years the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development has established two practice review committees. One of these committees has completed its review, and the other is ongoing.

In regard to the member’s concern with giving the minister more discretion to deny the establishment of a practice review committee, this discretion is li mited in that it only gives her addi- tional discretion to deny a request if a practice review committee has already dealt with the issue or if the request does not have merit or the NRCB is already dealing with the concern. 3:10 We do not want to re-create the tactics that some opponents used in the past by requiring the CFO operator to spend considerable time and money defending an unsubstanti ated claim.

For that reason I would also not support the suggestion of a refundable deposit. The establishment of a com mittee should be based o n the merit of the request, not the ability of someone to force an operator to defend an allocation because someone is prepared to lose a small deposit. The hon. mem ber also e xpressed concerns w ith remov ing the affected-party status fr om n eighbours of lands on w hich manur e from the operation is intended to go. From our experience over the past two years these manure spreading lands often change, in some cases the day after the application is approv ed.

As w ell, manure application usually only occurs once or twice a year, and in some cases manure is not applied on the same land for several years. As I mentioned during second read ing, we’ll be adding more stringent restrictions to the regulations with how close to a residence or public building like a community hall you can spread manure if it is not incorporated. The ex ample that the hon. m ember used of manure being spread across the road and hitting cars is an issue of improper manure spreadin g. It is not an issue of a neighbour not being an affected party.

The NRCB currently has authority through AOPA to deal with problems of the improper application of manure. As well, proposed amendments to AOPA will give affected-party status t o nei ghbours of new and expanding registration-sized operations. These are smaller operations. Previously this status was limited to the municipality and the applicant. I thank the hon. member for his support in changing the term for short-term storage of manure from six to se ven months. This will help avoid the need for the spreading of manure on frozen or snow- covered ground.

The regulations deal with the spreading of manure on snow or frozen ground. I am proposing that operations that have nine months of permanent manure storage not be allowed to spread manure on snow or frozen ground without t he NRCB approving a manure handling plan. There a re uniq ue ci rcumstances, such as prevention of wind erosi on in so uthern Alberta, that m ay benefit from a winter application of manure.

As far as the NRCB having discretion to not require nine months of permanent storage, as I me ntioned during se cond reading , the NRCB would have to approve a manure handling plan that identified why nine months of permanent storage would not be required. The example that I use d was selling manure to a mushroo m grower so that he would not need to store manure on his own operation. If the situation changed and the operator needed to store manure on his operation, they would be required to have adequate storage.

Regarding the hon. member’s comments about the use of manure as a soil am endment for saline s oils, a re cent study com pleted by Alberta Agriculture showed that saline levels in soil would only be increased with lar ge additi ons of ma nure being a pplied on a continual basis. These application rates would far exceed the limit specified i n AOPA. T he use of manure to improv e the orga nic matter and structure of these soils is meant to encourage plant growth and improve these soils. A management pl an would be required by the NRCB to ensure that application did not create a risk to the environment.

Regarding the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Edmonton- Glengarry, the mini ster will de termine the merit of an application when considering the establishment of a practice review committee based on the fa cts included in the reque st. The de termination of what is a minor alteration to an existing building or structure that will not requ ire notification of neighbours will be at the discretion of th e appro val officer. This discretion will be lim ited to those minor modifications that will re sult in im provements or minimal change in the risk to the envi ronment or disturbance from the operation.

Any increase in the capacity of the operation to house animals is not considered a minor change. An example would be a change to a manure sto rage lagoon from top to b ottom load ing, which would reduce odour. Regarding the hon. member’s concerns with approval officers not being bound by all provisions t hat municipalities include in their municipal development plan, the original i ntent of A OPA was to encourage municipalities to identify where they did not want CFOs to be located. Approval officers will continue to be bound by these provisions.

However, some municipalities have started to include technical requirements in their municipal development plans that are over and above or contrary to the provisions of AOPA. Previously an approval officer had to automatically deny an application simply because these prov isions were included i n the plan. T his wou ld require an appeal to the NRCB by the applicant, crea ting unneces- sary costs and d elays. A gain, this is a clarification of the original intent of AOPA amendments two years ago.

There are many issues that have to be evaluated and dealt with in considering establishing or expanding a CFO, just like the establish- ment or expansion of an operation in any other industry. It would not be prudent to deal with one issue at a time as in most cases they are linked to others and, therefore, need to be addressed collectively in order to make the best decision. I appreciate the hon. member’s support for the pr oposed emer- gency order provisions.

It is a lso e ncouraging to hear tha t the environmental groups we consulted with through our proces s last year support the direction we are taking regarding the definition of a CFO. Regarding the com ments m ade by t he hon. Mem ber for Edmonton-Mill Woods, I certainly agree that the environmental principles of AOPA are sound. One of the fundamentals of AOPA continues to be that the neighbours of these operations are protected and their well-being considered when these o perations are es tab-

Alberta Hansard March 17, 2004548 lished or expa nded. The main purpose of the minimum distance separation in AOPA is to provide some distance between these operations and their ne ighbours to re duce their i mpact. The se distances increase as the num ber of ani mals on the operati on increases. The NRCB works closely with the regional hea lth authorities when considering an application for a new or an expand- ing CFO. Regarding the com ments m ade b y the hon. M ember for Edmonton-Strathcona, the intentions of these amendments are not to relax standards in the legislation.

Although AOPA does not require existing operations t o meet all the st andards in A OPA, i f these operations are causing a risk to the environment or an inappropriate disturbance, the NRCB can require them to fix the prob lem. The same principle a pplies whe n the buildin g code cha nges. T he province does not require all homeowners in the province to upgrade their homes to the new st andard. This principle a lso applies to operations that were previously approved through the municipal development permit process.

There is certa inly int ent to look at the specific circumstances surrounding a CFO and balance the needs of the operation, protect the environment, and minimize the impact on neighbours. There are no provisions in AOPA or in the proposed amendments that allow the NRCB to ov erride the Public Health A ct. As I menti oned a moment ago, the N RCB work s closely with t he r egional he alth authorities. In regard to the questions from the hon.

Member for Edmonton- Gold Bar two examples of size of operations that would produce 500 tonnes of manure per year are a 35-sow farrow-to-finish operation or a 21-head herd of dai ry cows. In AOPA manure also includes associated bedding and feed spillage. As one can see, these are very small operations. Regarding the hon. member’s concerns with amendments to allow neighbours of CFOs to waive the requirements for MDS, experience has shown us ov er the pas t two years that an operation coul d not expand because a neighbour was within the MDS, even though they supported the expansion of the operation.

This amendment would allow these suppor ters to w aive the requirem ent and allow the operation to expand. Mr. Chairman, this government recognizes that by making these changes to the Ag ricultural Operation Prac tices Act, the original intent of the le gislation will be cla rified for all those concerned: confined feeding operators, municipalities, the public, an d t he Natural Resources Conservation Board, which administers the act. Passing Bill 17 will clarify a number of technical and policy changes that were brought up in a r eview of the act during the stakeholder consultation last y ear.

The amendments enhanc e the provi nce’s ability to deal with nuisances such as odour, noise, dust, smoke, or other disturbances resulting from an agricu ltural operation. They also continue to provide produ cers and other stak eholders with a one-window process for siting of new or expanding confined feeding operations. With those comments, Mr. Chair, I will conclude by encouraging all members of this Assembly to support this bill. Thank you. The Deputy Chair: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. 3:20 Ms Carlson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I’m pleased to have an opportunity to speak to Bill 17, the Agricultural Operation Practices Amendment Act, 2004 . We’ve been waiti ng for this piec e of legislation for quite a long time. Over the years that I’ve been in this House, I’ve had the opportunity to visit m any intensive livestock operations and hear a bout their conc erns and v isit ma ny of t he communities that they reside in and hear about those concerns. So we’ve been looking forward to some of the necessary amend- ments. For the most part this bill addresses the easy ones; let me put it that way, Mr. Chairman.

What we see it not addre ssing are the health impact assessments that we expected to be in this legislation. I don’t see any serious addressing of environmental concerns. What we don’t see here, I don’t think, is help for area farmers surrounding the operations considered to be directly affected persons.

Well, the health impact and the env ironmental impac ts are v ery important issues to be dealt with, but what is most pressing to people who live in thes e com munities is the dec ision of w ho is and w ho is not directly affected because, of course, there are some real impacts for people who live in these areas in terms of smell and quality of life. So with that, Mr. Chairman, I’ll be introducing an amendment that deals with that particular concern. The Deputy Chair: Hon. member, you may proceed now. We shall refer to this as amendment A1. Ms Carlson: Thank you.

As members can see befo re them, what this amendment does is amend

section 12 in the propose d

section 21(

a) by striking out “of ½ mile or the minimum distance separation, as determined in the regulations,” and substituting “2 miles.” So if you were to go to page 8 in the bill and take a look at point 12,

section 21 is amending what is now designated to be an appropri- ate area to deem people to be directly affected.

It says by adding and in the case of an application for a registration or an amendment of a registration must notify the owners or occupants of land within the greater of ½ mile or the minimum distance s eparation, as determined in accordance with the regulations, of the parcel of land on which t he conf ined fe eding o peration is l ocated or is to be located before “within the time period.” For anyone who’s visited these areas, you can clearly see that a half a mile is not enough space, that people farther away than half a mile are s ignificantly direc tly af fected by the c onfined f eeding operations, particularly by sme ll and by the impact on their road system of the trucks travelling back and forth, also the impact when manure is spread, whether it’s composted or spread as a liquid.

For anyone upwind or downwind of these particular locations it can have a significant impact. There’s no doubt that at certa in times of the year the last thing you’d be doing if you were within even a two-mile radius of a confined feeding operation is having a barbeque on the outside patio of y our home be cause the smell is such tha t it will certainly put you off your food and impacts everything in your life, including the smell being pervasive and getting in your clothing. We’re saying that as laid out in this legislation a half a mile is just not enough space.

Certainly, people at a further distance than that are directly affected, and we’ve chosen two miles because that seems to be a reasonable compromise. We know that in some of the areas I visited, people feel that they are directly affected within a five- or 10-mile radius. All this is a sking fo r is to expand that particular distance so that more people can have some say, pro or con, on any changes in the area. So with that, Mr. Chairman, I’ll cede the floor to anyone else who wants to comment on this amendment. The Deputy Chair: The hon. Member for Lethbridge-East. Dr. Nicol: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I rise to speak in favour of the amendment. This is basically an amendment that is going to in some ways achieve some of the things t hat were requested in the rural development strategy that was released today by the government, in

March 17, 2004 Alberta Hansard 549 the sense that it talks in there a bout the str onger ru ral community voice. They talk about the fact that the lifestyle, the commitment of the community, the sense of community that’s so relevant in rural areas is one of the things that’s attractive about the developmen t potential of our rura l communities. If we have an opportunity for individuals to get more involved in discussions about what’s going to happen to their communities, what the ambience of their commu- nity is, then they, in effect, will achieve some of the things that are being asked for in the rural strategy.

The other thing i s that by increasing this se paration a little bit, what it does is it r eally brings in a n opportunity f or a lot of the residents in those rura l areas that are going to be im pacted, not so much by the direct facility but by the waste management activities associated with that facility. There have been a number of times this winter as I’v e driven around southern Alberta and through central Alberta w hen you would see manure being spread that can’t be worked in because the ground is frozen, and people are saying: “How long is that going to sit there?

Is it going to sit there now till spring thaw? Is it going to sit there till something else h appens, t ill they get another snow to cover it up ?” An d in most cases, Mr. Chairman, that’s what has happened. We’ve had a little bit more snow, and it has covered it up, and it looks nice and white again. But if we open up and allow for people to have a say, it gives them buy-in. It gives them a sense of ownership. It gives them a sense of community.

I think tha t’s one of the things that we really need to start looking at and talkin g a bout as we go through this w hole process of what is appropriate discussion when activities are going to go on in a community that have a direct effect on that community. I think that ha ving tw o miles instead of the half mile or the minimum distance separation gives us a muc h better appr oach to looking at how the whole thing fits into the sense of community that we’re tryin g to creat e in Albe rta and that comes out with the philosophy that was behind the rural development strategy report that was released today.

I think that if we’re going to really make a statement that we’re buying into that report, that we believe that the focus of that report is important, in effect, we will support this amendment and give more pe ople a chanc e to have input. Yo u know, this is one of the things that w e need to look at in terms of making sure that communities feel that they have some control and some say, no t necessarily absolute but i nput to the dire ction their community takes. So I would encourage everybody to look at this and accept the two-mile amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Deputy Chair: The hon.

Member for Edmonton-Strathcona. Dr. Pannu: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to briefly comment on the amendment. I’m going to speak in support of the amendment, but before I do that, I also want to compliment the hon. Member for Leduc for taking the trouble to systematically address the concerns and points that were made by someb ody on this side, by some members of the House, including some comments that I made. So I want to thank him for paying attention to the concerns.

We may or may not agree on the matters that are under debate, but at least to pay attention to and take seriously in debate those points made I think is a very refreshing sort of thing. 3:30 As to the amendment I think it does try to address one of the flaws in Bill 17. I think it is important to increase the distance between the nearest comm unities an d the CFO loc ation. Half a mile is not enough. Some of the s mells have str ong odour. Malodor ous conditions prevail i n and around those operations, so half a mile limit is not good e nough.

To increase at least by two miles would help at least in part to alleviate some of the concerns surrounding the problems that residents or communities surrounding these operations face on a day-to-day basis. I would certainly be happy to support this amendment and urge all other members in the House to support this amendment as well. The Deputy Chair: Anybody else? Mr. Klapstein: Well, we did go through a lot of consultation, an d I think we made a fair judgment call. I don’t think it’s the time to make it more onerous for producers at this time. The De puty Chair: The hon. Member for Olds-Didsbury-Three Hills.

Mr. Marz: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a couple of comments on this amendment. I’m not certain what is the exact right number of miles because that can be tremendously affected by the manage- ment practices of the individual operat ion. It can be af fected by topography. It can be to tally o ut of v iew bec ause i t wo uld b e separated by a hill. Certainly, there have been some things that have happened in the last year in my constituency that would provide a little bit of insight into what effect some of these operations do have.

It’s been argued, and argued successfully, that there is a negative impact on the values of neighbouring properties, especially residences. The ow ners of these properties appealed their assessment to the Municipal Govern- ment Board, and their appeal was u pheld. They had their assess- ments reduced because it was recognized that their assets had actually decreased as a result of someone else developing a confined feeding operation within that area. So whether it’s a half mile or one mile or two miles , I’m no t certain. I think the management practices have a lot to do with the individual op eration.

I would like to repeat again that those management practices make the difference between how easy it is for a new development to take place somewhere in the province or not. I submit t o you, Mr. Chairman, that these things are judged by the poorest operators and what the poorest operators are allowed to do through the standa rds rat her than w hat 90-plus per cent of the operations actually are, which are very good operations.

I think it behooves us all in here to make sure that these standards that are put in place are to ensure that the poorest amongst them are brought up to a standard that peo ple can be comfortable with and trust that it’s not going to have an adverse effect on thei r property values. Thank you. Mrs. McClellan: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to add a couple of comments to this. I a ppreciate the hon. me mber’s inpu t. N o question; it’s been an area that we’ve been interested in fo r some time and we’ve had a number of conversations about. However, I think that the hon.

Member for Olds-Didsbury-Three Hills made the comment that is really germane to this discussion. We introduced the Agricultural Operation Practices Act a year ago and committed at that time to do a review of it when it had been in place for a year. The hon. Member for Leduc has conducted that review and spent a fair amount of time with industry, with communities. The crux of the matter is that management practices are really the key to this.

Like any indus try the majorit y of t he people w ho are in this industry practise very good management practice, do their best to be good neighbours, good corporate citizens. But you will have – and

Alberta Hansard March 17, 2004550 members opposite know because we’ve worke d on a cou ple – instances where the rules were right; the practices were wrong. Maybe rather than making it so onerous for the 90-some per cent of good operators, we make it a heck of a lot tougher for those who aren’t. I will give you my commitment that we will do that. We will enforce this act t hrough the prope r channel, w hich is the NRCB. This act gives them the authority to go in and do it, and sometimes it takes a little longer than we want, but eventually we get there.

So I would recommend that we d on’t accept t his amendment in t he letter that it was w ritten. B ut in the spirit of what I believe was intended by the member who submitted it, we’ll make that commit- ment that we will do everything that we can to ensure that those rules are enforced and good management practices are practised. There are so many good projects out there now, and there are so many advances in technology. I give the example of the Iron Creek colony with their biogas project that has reduced odour, emissions so significantly. We have other examples of that occurring in t he province.

This industry does for the w hole want to be a good community partner and wants to contribute to their com munities through th e jobs and opportunities that are there. Let’s deal with the ones who don’t under the rules and regulations that we do have in place and the legislat ion that we have in pla ce and let this industry grow appropriately, not unfettered, but appropriately, and make sure that those who are in the indust ry foll ow the g ood legisla tion and regulations that are in place. So, Mr.

Chairman, as I say, I don’t accept or recommend that we endorse this amendment in the letter of it, but certainly I will take the spirit of it and ensure that our authorities uphold that spirit. [Motion on amendment A1 lost] The Deputy Chair: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. Ms Carlson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the comments from the mini ster of agriculture and cer tainly also support, as she does, those operators who are taking a look at biomass operations, where they’re using the gasses for other purposes rather than just having them exposed to the air.

Those are areas that we’ve looked at extensively over the years, particularly as they have developed in Europe, and are very much supportive of them. I also agree with her that the big concern is for those few operators in this provinc e that are poor operators . I agre e that most of the operators do an excellent job, but it’s particularly because of those poor operators that we sc rutinize this kind of legislation carefully and bring in amendments to try and improve it wherever necessary. In that light, I have a nother amendment, Mr.

Chairman, that I would like to bring forward at this time. 3:40 The Deput y Chair : Hon. mem bers, the a mendment is bein g distributed. For the record we shall refer to this ame ndment as amendment A2. Hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie, you may proceed now. Ms Carlson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment reads that this particular bill, Agricultural Operation Practices Amendment Act, 2004, be amended by striking out

section 10. So if people will go to page 7 in this piece of legislation, and we go to 10:

Section 19 is amended by adding the following after subsection (1):

(1.1) Despite subsection (1), if in the opinion of the approval officer the proposed amendment is related to a minor alteration to an existing bui lding o r st ructure at a conf ined fe eding operation or manure storage facility that will result in a minimal change to its risk, i f any, to the environment and a minimal change to a di sturbance, i f any, not ification i s not req uired under subsection (1). So this amendment proposes to strike out that section. As we see it, the problem is that the

section a llows an approving of ficer to waive notice about amendments, and we want to know what is being considered as a minor alteration. It’s not defined anywhere, and our concern is that it may be misused and that if anyone is amending an operation, people close by and affected parties should know about it. This is primarily a concern when we’re talking about poor operators and the number of approval office rs that are out there available to inspect these facilities. We have seen in other departments where the number of people actually on the road inspecting has been greatly reduced over years.

This can be such a critical function that we really believe that this leaves the ability of operators to change or make alterations to their structures or buildings too open. We just believe that this should be deleted and that those alterations should go throu gh the regular approval process. Thank you. The Deputy Chair: Anybody else wish to participate in the debate? Mr. Klapstein: Well, there is a lot of discretion left with the officer.

Can you imagine what would happen if somebody wanted to change a gate on a feedlot, if somebody wanted to repair a wall or change a wall inside a building and you had to go through the whole applica- tion process for somet hing that com mon sense would te ll you is minor? That was the intention of it: that if it’s going to make a significant change or have a significant impact, yes, go through the application process, but if it’s somethi ng min or, t hen gi ve someb ody so me discretion to deal with it. That was the intent of it.

If an officer is not exercising the proper discretion or judgment, that can soon be dealt with. But to make a minor change in an operation and have to go through a lengthy, costly application process, I can’t support that. Dr. Nicol: Mr. Chairman, I just rise to ask for clarification, then, on what constitutes minor. We de alt with a case with the minister – both ministers, in fact – where minor was a matter of

interpretation as well. It was a matter of whether or not going o ut with a shovel and digging a little ditch to dra in wate r was minor versus using a BobCat or using a tractor. Those three different lev els of activity eventually occurred w ithin that f acility, and, you kno w, once you start and say, “Well, it’s just a minor drainage problem,” it ends up being a major earthmoving activity by the time you get to the end of it. This is the kind of cl arification that needs to be put into this section.

If we’re going to deal with minor alterations, I fully support the idea that changing a gate, changing a w all, moving this or that for better animal movement, that kind of thing, is quite all right. One of the operational aspects of

section 19(1.1) says: “a minor alteration” – and I’ll skip down – to a “manure storage facility that will result in a minim al change to its risk .” That becomes too subjective. You know, back to the example that I was talking about, everybody in the com munity looked at i t and said tha t that was significant, yet the operator said that it was minor, and the inspector who was there said: wel l, the operator says that it’s minor, so it is minor. Who gets to judge that? Let’s have this clarified; that’s the intent.

Let’s not allow these things to go on bef ore we can clarify how much of a c hange is a minor change. That’s why this amendment needs to be supported. The Deputy Chair: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona.

March 17, 2004 Alberta Hansard 551 Dr. Pannu: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m speaking to amendment A2. To preface my brief remarks in support of amendment A2, I just want to draw the attention of the House and remind the House that a couple of years ago – well, three years ago maybe, in 2001 – when the Ag ricultural Ope ration Pr actices Amendment A ct, 2001 was debated, the New Democrat op position heard a great deal fr om concerned residents of rural communities and s mall towns about what was wrong with what was being proposed in that bill at that time.

The bill passed in spite of widespread opposition to this and concerns expressed across the province and particularly in rural areas. We certainly were most sympathetic to those concerns, but the changes weren’t made in the bill to fully address those concerns at the time.

Two years since the proclamation of the bill we are now seeing amendments being proposed to the bill from the government’s side, but I think the amendments as proposed in this 2004 version of the Agricultural Operation Practices Amendment Act don’t go far enough to address even the minor concerns that have remained on the table during the last two years. This amendment which proposes to strike out

section 10 on page 7 dealing with the am endment of

section 19 I think is a good amendment. It will go at least some ways in improving the legisla- tion, which is flaw ed in other w ays a s well. Certainly , if this amendment A2 is accepted, it will help address some of the concerns with the proposed bi ll and with the existing legislation w hich this bill tries to amend. I speak in favour of the amendment, and I urge other members to do the same. [Motion on amendment A2 lost] The Deputy Chair: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. Ms Carlson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have another amendment, and I’ll just start t alking about this one as it’s being distributed because it’s very similar to the last amendment. This time if you go to page 8 of the bill, you’ll see that what we’re asking to be struck out is in

section . . . The Deputy Chair: Hon. member, let the amendment at least arrive at this desk first. Ms Carlson: Okay. The Deputy Chair: It’s my job just to m ake sure that I hav e the right copies. Okay. You may proceed now. 3:50 Ms Carlson: Thank you. This is a very similar amendment to the last one. If y ou go t o page 8 of the bill, we’re taking a look at

section 21 and striking out clause (b), which is the same wording as the last amendment that we dealt with. Once again, given the debate on the last amendment, I’m still not satisfied that we have defined the difference between significant and minor changes. The discre- tion is left too much in the hands of the landowner as compared to the approval officer, particularly when we’re dealing with environ- mental impact issues.

I agree with the s ponsor of the bill when he sa ys that minor changes to g ates or doorw ays or minor st ructural c hanges aren’t significant, but when you deal with any of the environmental impact issues like the processing or moving or handling of the manure or the water contained w ithin the operation and that which needs to be drained or added to the facility, we start t o talk about significant impacts that really need to be considered within the environmental impact of the operation and the region. So I would suggest that those are not ever minor in nature.

I don’t see them defined elsewhere within the act, so this looks to me like the only place where we can make an amendment that those kinds of issues will be dealt with with the weig ht that they need to be d ealt with for the long-term viability of the operation and the community. So I would ask all members to please support this amendment. Mr. Klapste in: Well, once again I’ m not going to support the amendment. I know it’s putting some trust in the approval officer in specifying a minimal change.

I think that an approval officer that’s experienced and has bee n on the job and un derstands what hi s responsibilities are is going to know when something exceeds what is minimal. Mr. Marz: I’d just like to make some brief comments on this. One of the concerns I raised in second re ading that’s relative to this is giving the NRCB more discretion than they currently have.

It’s been my experience in my own constituency that it’s that discretion and how it was handled that has caused a lot of problems in my particular area and provided for a lot of increased complai nts to the fie ld officer, and the field officer’s responses – I have copies of them here, how they claim to have re sponded to the ir concerns. Th e recor d hasn’t been good. I’m not going to go through them, but when the complai nts stopped going to the approval off icer and started coming to me, I went out and checked for myse lf and ca lled the field inspector.

I didn’t get the same response because it was a different question, but I got a sim ilar ty pe of res ponse, that water doesn’t run off that quarter. Well, I was out last weekend, and water was running off my quarter, that was a lot flatter than this one, and filled up the dugout and ran over. There are communities and there are probably field inspectors that do different things in different ways and interpret the act differently.

In the partic ular case I ’m deali ng with, I ’ve had nothi ng but problems since the development, as far as complaints go, and people stopped complaining to the NRCB because they’re not getting any response. So I thi nk tha t this parti cular amendment has some merit, not necessarily eliminating the whole thing but pr oviding some clarity to what is minimal risk. How many minimal risks can you tolerate before you have a major risk? How many minimal or minor changes can you have approved before you end up with a major change?

So if the mover would like to address how you would otherwise go about addr essing t his particular issue other than ac cepting this particular amendment, I would be happy to hear it. Mr. Klapstein: The choices really are to force an operator through the entire approval process over something that is minimal or having some trust or some confidence in an officer of the NRCB that he will exercise some sound judgment on small things. If I have to choose between the two, I will choose to not put that operator through a full- blown application or approval process over something that’s minor.

I will trust the officer to do what’s right, and if he doesn’t, we have ways of addressing that. Ms Carlson: Mr. Chairman, then my question to the sponsor of this bill is this. Why didn’t you define “minimal” within the act? As we have heard first-hand, there have been some experiences where the judgment of that person out there in the field wouldn’t pass scrutiny in other areas or in other circumstances. So tell us exactly why there

Alberta Hansard March 17, 2004552 were no defini tions provided in these changes for that issue, particularly where it deals with the environmental issues of manure handling and water management. The Deputy Chair: The hon. Member for Leduc. Mr. Klapstein: Yeah. Well, what is minimal can be a whole range of things that might happen or that a person wa nts to do on their operation. The spre ading of manure, the e nvironmental risk, that applies to every body. Reg ardless of the size or regar dless of t he changes they want to make, they have to comply with what the rules are in terms of protecting the en vironment.

Even the small opera- tions, that we try to treat differently and in a less demanding process, still have to comply with all the environmental rules and regulations. So I don’t think that changes. Ms Carlson: Mr. Chairman, I just want to put on the recor d that I find that answer completely unsatisfactory. The Deputy Chair: Okay. Anybody else wish to participate in the debate? Is the hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands drawing my attention, wanting to speak? Mr. Mason: No, I did wa nt to speak on t he bil l, but I’m not yet familiar with the amendment. [Motion on amendment A3 lost] Ms Carlson: Mr.

Chairman, I have one more amendment on this bill, and I’ll have it distributed now. The Deput y Chair: We shall record this next amendment as amendment A4. Please give a few minutes for distribution. Hon. member, you may proceed now. Ms Carlson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This particular amendment amends

section 9 by adding the following after the proposed

section 18.1(5). I would refer people to pag e 6 of the bill if the y want to follow along. We’re adding here: 18.2(1) In this se ction “ health impact assess ment” means an assessment conducted by the medical officer of health, or designate, of the health unit or health regi on under t he Reg ional H ealth Authorities Act in which the proposed or operating confined feeding operation or the proposed amendment to an approval, registrat ion or authorization is located on the potential impact of the operation to the health of humans.

(2) Any approval, registration or authorization that is deemed to be provid ed und er sec tion 18.1 must, w ithin 6 mo nths of the coming into force of this section, be submitted for a health impact assessment and must comply with

Part 2, Division 1 of the Environ- mental Protection and Enhancement Act. Mr. Chairman, this amendment speaks directly to the comments made by the mover of this bill to the previous amendment when he said that issues must comply with curr ent legis lation around environmental impact. In fact, for the most part, these operations are not required to either have health impact assessments or environmen- tal assessments. That is some thing that ha s been m issing in t his legislation and is missing in the amendments to this particular act. We’re trying to put some

definitions and some clar ity i nto this amending act, w hich are m issing and which the move r of this particular bill seems to be unable to specify directly in terms of what

definitions should be. 4:00 We truly believe that the future of this industry is contingent upon these operators being operators that will pass inspection for health impacts and e nvironmental impacts. For those ope rators w ho operate efficiently and effectively, this will be very minor in terms of consequence, but for those who do not, then it has a major impact not just on the operators and those people working within that facility but all their surrounding neighbours.

As we look at this prov ince opening up its borders to more operators in this indust ry, we must significantly look a t how we assess the impa ct on the env ironment and th e health of anybody affected. This is the step that we need to go for these operators and for all Albertans. It’s a necessary, critical step to put in place in this legislation. If we don’t do this, when we think about the volume of manure created yearly by these pigs – it’s significantly greater than anything that huma ns could contri bute to in a y ear – th e health impacts and the environmental i