Province of Alberta The 27th Legislature Second Session Alberta Hansard Monday, May 4, 2009 Issue 34 The Honourable Kenneth R. Kowalski, Speaker

Legislative Assembly of Alberta The 27th Legislature Second Session Kowalski, Hon. Ken, Barrhead-Morinville-Westlock, Speaker Cao, Wayne C.N., Calgary-Fort, Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees Mitzel, Len, Cypress-Medicine Hat, Deputy Chair of Committees Ady, Hon. Cindy, Calgary-Shaw (PC), Minister of Tourism, Parks and Recreation Allred, Ken, St.

Albert (PC) Amery, Moe, Calgary-East (PC) Anderson, Rob, Airdrie-Chestermere (PC), Parliamentary Assistant, Solicitor General and Public Security Benito, Carl, Edmonton-Mill Woods (PC) Berger, Evan, Livingstone-Macleod (PC), Parliamentary Assistant, Sustainable Resource Development Bhardwaj, Naresh, Edmonton-Ellerslie (PC) Bhullar, Manmeet Singh, Calgary-Montrose (PC), Parliamentary Assistant, Advanced Education and Technology Blackett, Hon.

Lindsay, Calgary-North West (PC), Minister of Culture and Community Spirit Blakeman, Laurie, Edmonton-Centre (AL), Deputy Leader of the Official Opposition Official Opposition House Leader Boutilier, Guy C., Fort McMurray-Wood Buffalo (PC) Brown, Dr. Neil, QC, Calgary-Nose Hill (PC) Calahasen, Pearl, Lesser Slave Lake (PC) Campbell, Robin, West Yellowhead (PC), Deputy Government Whip Chase, Harry B., Calgary-Varsity (AL), Official Opposition Whip Dallas, Cal, Red Deer-South (PC) Danyluk, Hon. Ray, Lac La Biche-St.

Paul (PC), Minister of Municipal Affairs DeLong, Alana, Calgary-Bow (PC) Denis, Jonathan, Calgary-Egmont (PC) Doerksen, Arno, Strathmore-Brooks (PC) Drysdale, Wayne, Grande Prairie-Wapiti (PC) Elniski, Doug, Edmonton-Calder (PC) Evans, Hon. Iris, Sherwood Park (PC), Minister of Finance and Enterprise Fawcett, Kyle, Calgary-North Hill (PC) Forsyth, Heather, Calgary-Fish Creek (PC) Fritz, Hon. Yvonne, Calgary-Cross (PC), Minister of Housing and Urban Affairs Goudreau, Hon.

Hector G., Dunvegan-Central Peace (PC), Minister of Employment and Immigration Griffiths, Doug, Battle River-Wainwright (PC), Parliamentary Assistant, Agriculture and Rural Development Groeneveld, Hon. George, Highwood (PC), Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development Hancock, Hon. Dave, QC, Edmonton-Whitemud (PC), Minister of Education, Government House Leader Hayden, Hon. Jack, Drumheller-Stettler (PC), Minister of Infrastructure Hehr, Kent, Calgary-Buffalo (AL) Horne, Fred, Edmonton-Rutherford (PC) Horner, Hon. Doug, Spruce Grove-Sturgeon-St.

Albert (PC), Minister of Advanced Education and Technology Jablonski, Hon. Mary Anne, Red Deer-North (PC), Minister of Seniors and Community Supports Jacobs, Broyce, Cardston-Taber-Warner (PC) Johnson, Jeff, Athabasca-Redwater (PC) Johnston, Art, Calgary-Hays (PC) Kang, Darshan S., Calgary-McCall (AL) Klimchuk, Hon. Heather, Edmonton-Glenora (PC), Minister of Service Alberta Knight, Hon. Mel, Grande Prairie-Smoky (PC), Minister of Energy Leskiw, Genia, Bonnyville-Cold Lake (PC) Liepert, Hon. Ron, Calgary-West (PC), Minister of Health and Wellness Lindsay, Hon.

Fred, Stony Plain (PC), Solicitor General and Minister of Public Security Lukaszuk, Thomas A., Edmonton-Castle Downs (PC), Parliamentary Assistant, Municipal Affairs Lund, Ty, Rocky Mountain House (PC) MacDonald, Hugh, Edmonton-Gold Bar (AL) Marz, Richard, Olds-Didsbury-Three Hills (PC) Mason, Brian, Edmonton-Highlands-Norwood (NDP), Leader of the NDP Opposition McFarland, Barry, Little Bow (PC) McQueen, Diana, Drayton Valley-Calmar (PC), Parliamentary Assistant, Environment Morton, Hon.

F.L., Foothills-Rocky View (PC), Minister of Sustainable Resource Development Notley, Rachel, Edmonton-Strathcona (NDP), Deputy Leader of the NDP Opposition, NDP Opposition House Leader Oberle, Frank, Peace River (PC), Government Whip Olson, Verlyn, QC, Wetaskiwin-Camrose (PC) Ouellette, Hon. Luke, Innisfail-Sylvan Lake (PC), Minister of Transportation Pastoor, Bridget Brennan, Lethbridge-East (AL), Deputy Official Opposition Whip Prins, Ray, Lacombe-Ponoka (PC) Quest, Dave, Strathcona (PC) Redford, Hon. Alison M., QC, Calgary-Elbow (PC), Minister of Justice and Attorney General Renner, Hon.

Rob, Medicine Hat (PC), Minister of Environment, Deputy Government House Leader Rodney, Dave, Calgary-Lougheed (PC) Rogers, George, Leduc-Beaumont-Devon (PC) Sandhu, Peter, Edmonton-Manning (PC) Sarich, Janice, Edmonton-Decore (PC), Parliamentary Assistant, Education Sherman, Dr. Raj, Edmonton-Meadowlark (PC), Parliamentary Assistant, Health and Wellness Snelgrove, Hon. Lloyd, Vermilion-Lloydminster (PC), President of the Treasury Board Stelmach, Hon. Ed, Fort Saskatchewan-Vegreville (PC), Premier, President of Executive Council Stevens, Hon.

Ron, QC, Calgary-Glenmore (PC), Deputy Premier, Minister of International and Intergovernmental Relations Swann, Dr. David, Calgary-Mountain View (AL), Leader of the Official Opposition Taft, Dr. Kevin, Edmonton-Riverview (AL) Tarchuk, Hon. Janis, Banff-Cochrane (PC), Minister of Children and Youth Services Taylor, Dave, Calgary-Currie (AL) VanderBurg, George, Whitecourt-Ste.

Anne (PC) Vandermeer, Tony, Edmonton-Beverly-Clareview (PC) Weadick, Greg, Lethbridge-West (PC) Webber, Len, Calgary-Foothills (PC), Parliamentary Assistant, Energy Woo-Paw, Teresa, Calgary-Mackay (PC) Xiao, David H., Edmonton-McClung (PC), Parliamentary Assistant, Employment and Immigration Zwozdesky, Hon. Gene, Edmonton-Mill Creek (PC), Minister of Aboriginal Relations, Deputy Government House Leader Officers and Officials of the Legislative Assembly Clerk W.J. David McNeil Clerk Assistant/ Director of House Services Louise J. Kamuchik Clerk of Journals/Table Research Micheline S.

Gravel Senior Parliamentary Counsel Robert H. Reynolds, QC Senior Parliamentary Counsel Shannon Dean Sergeant-at-Arms Brian G. Hodgson Assistant Sergeant-at-Arms J. Ed Richard Assistant Sergeant-at-Arms William C. Semple Managing Editor of Alberta Hansard Liz Sim

May 4, 2009 Alberta Hansard 923 Legislative Assembly of Alberta Title: Monday, May 4, 2009 1:30 p.m. 1:30 p.m. Monday, May 4, 2009 [The Speaker in the chair] head: Prayers The Speaker: Good afternoon. Welcome. Let us pray. At the beginning of this week we ask for renewed strength in the awareness of our duty and privilege as members of the Legislature. We ask for the protection of this Assembly and also the province we are elected to serve. Amen. Hon. members and ladies and gentlemen, we’ll now be led in the singing of our national anthem by Mr. Paul Lorieau.

I would invite all to participate in the language of one’s choice. Hon. Members: O Canada, our home and native land! True patriot love in all thy sons command. With glowing hearts we see thee rise, The True North strong and free! From far and wide, O Canada, We stand on guard for thee. God keep our land glorious and free! O Canada, we stand on guard for thee. O Canada, we stand on guard for thee. head: Introduction of Guests The Speaker: The hon. Member for Whitecourt-Ste. Anne. Mr. VanderBurg: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It’s great today to introduce to you and through you a group of energetic students from the Darwell school in Whitecourt-Ste. Anne. They’re joined today by Michael Warner and Darla Topping. At this time I’d ask them to please rise and receive the warm welcome of this Assembly. The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Health and Wellness. Mr. Liepert: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It’s a pleasure for me today to be able to introduce through you to members of this Assembly representatives of the Professional Association of Residents of Alberta.

I know I’m probably going to get in trouble with you by saying this, but I’m going to say it anyway: these are the future Dr. Shermans of Alberta. I would ask that they stand as I introduce them. First, we have Dr. Matt McIsaac, Dr. Jillian Schwartz, and Dr. Diana Hong, who are representing the field of family medicine. From internal medicine are Dr. Seema Patel and Dr. Angeli Chopra. Representing plastic surgery are Dr. Peter Kwan and Dr. Adil Ladak. I would welcome as well Dr. Brock Debenham from radiation oncology, Dr. Riley Boyle from anaesthesia, Dr. Elsa Fiedrich from pediatrics, and Dr.

Kenman Gan from ophthalmology. I would ask all of our guests to please stand and would ask members to give them the traditional welcome. The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Health and Wellness is in trouble with me, but I take consolation in knowing that I’m not the only one. The hon. Minister of Seniors and Community Supports. Mrs. Jablonski: Thank you. I’m very honoured to introduce to you and through you to members of this Assembly an exceptional group of Albertans, the Red Deer 18th Morrisroe Scout troop.

They spent some time with the Minister of Municipal Affairs this morning, and he said that they’re very articulate, intelligent, and committed. They’re from Red Deer, Mr. Speaker. This week, as you might know, is Emergency Preparedness Week, and this Scout troop is one of the first troops in Alberta to earn their emergency preparedness badge. In order to earn this badge, one must be trained in CPR, know how to use a defibrillator, and know how to prepare a 72-hour emergency kit. They’ve also been asked to provide first aid service during the upcoming Olympic torch relay. Congratulations. I’m very proud of them.

Joining us in the mem- bers’ gallery are Derrick Richards, the group commissioner and troop counsellor; Susan Scott, vice-chair and troop counsellor; Bruce Schollie, the Akela, which is the pack leader; Cody Richards, Scout patrol leader; Monica Scott, Scout patrol leader; John Scott, a Scout; and Evan Schollie, also a Cub Scout. As you can see, Mr. Speaker, Scouting is a family affair. They’re now standing in the members’ gallery. I’d ask them to receive the traditional warm welcome of this Assembly. The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Children and Youth Services. Ms Tarchuk: T h a n k y o u , M r .

S p e a k e r . I t i s m y p l e a s u r e t o introduce to you and through you to all members of the Assembly a very special guest, Mr. Bradley Bostock. He is executive director of Child Find Alberta. Mr. Bostock is seated in the members’ gallery and joins us today to kick off the Green Ribbon of Hope Campaign. The campaign runs through the month of May to build awareness regarding the issue of missing children and to educate about ways to safeguard children from predators. I’d like to ask our guest to rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of the Assembly. The Speaker: The hon.

Member for Calgary-North Hill. Mr. Fawcett: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s a pleasure for me today to rise and introduce to you and through you eight members of the Youth Advisory Panel and their chaperone. These eight youths are from all across the province, as far north as Gift Lake and as far south as Claresholm. The Youth Advisory Panel plays a critical role in providing the Youth Secretariat, of which I’m proud to be the chair, with a youth perspective in helping identify important issues for youth in Alberta.

They’re all in Edmonton volunteering for the Speak Out conference, which is an opportunity for Alberta’s youth to share their experiences and ideas about education. The individu- als are Brittany Ashley, Zaheed Damani, Cassie Flett, John Hampson, Fardoussa Omar, Brandon Stewart, Amy Yaremcio, Jesse Peever, and Jena Bober. They are seated in the members’ gallery. I’d ask them to please rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of the Assembly. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands- Norwood. Mr. Mason: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I’m very pleased to rise today to introduce four guests from Red Deer regional hospital. They are Dr. Danga Sileikiene, Jennifer Hovila, Janice Kuefler, and Derek Harwood. They’re concerned about the proposed centralization and privatization of gynecological cytology laboratory services, that directly affects the laboratories in Red Deer, Lethbridge, Medicine Hat, and University of Alberta hospitals. Today they are here to witness the presentation of a petition which was signed by many engaged citizens in their community and from regions around the province.

I would now ask that they rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of this Assembly.

Alberta Hansard May 4, 2009924 The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Calder. Mr. Elniski: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s my pleasure to introduce to you and through you today to the members of this Assembly my constituent and friend Mr. Jan Buterman and his partner, who really wishes she was a constituent but who for the moment will have to be happy living in Germany, Ms Nicole Koegel. Jan truly lives on the front lines of my constituency and is a champion for the Spruce Avenue community. Indeed, from Mr.

Buterman’s house you can see three other constituencies, which makes me all that much prouder that he chose to live in Edmonton-Calder. I would ask them to stand and receive the traditional warm greeting of the Assembly. Thank you. head: Members’ Statements The Speaker: The hon. Member for Battle River-Wainwright. H1N1 Virus in Central Alberta Pig Herd Mr. Griffiths: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to underscore the importance of relying on fact, not fear, in the midst of the H1N1 influenza outbreak.

Over the weekend it was announced that a pig herd in central Alberta had contracted the illness from a farm worker who had recently returned from Mexico. As a result some countries are now unnecessarily restricting imports of pig and pork products. In fact, both the World Health Organization and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations agree that flu viruses do not affect the safety of pork and warned against imposing trade restrictions.

The pigs, the family that lives on the farm, and the farm worker have recovered or are recovering. 1:40 I’d like to stress that there is no threat to our food supply. Pork and pork products are still safe to eat when handled properly and prepared properly, as always. You cannot catch the virus by consuming pork products. I’d also like to commend the farmer who owns the pig herd. Due to the diligence of the farmer, his veterinarian, and the government’s immediate response, pr ecautionary measures were put in place to minimize the risk of the influenza spreading to other swine and people.

The farm was quarantined, and no other farms are reporting herds with flu symptoms. Agriculture and Rural Development has been working closely with industry and the federal government since the outbreak in people was reported, urging producers to be vigilant in their biosecurity measures, to restrict people from visiting their barns, especially if they’ve been to areas affected by the virus, and to report any suspected cases.

Agriculture and Rural Development will continue to work with its counterparts to ensure that producers are vigilant in maintaining their biosecurity practices and support the efforts of the federal government to get borders reopened to Alberta pork. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Egmont. National Emergency Preparedness Week Mr. Denis: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. May 3 to 9 is National Emergency Preparedness Week, as noted earlier by the Minister of Seniors and Community Supports.

Emergency Prepared- ness Week is a collaborative, province-wide effort that educates Albertans about their role in preparing for emergencies and disasters as well as encourages communities to work together during a crisis. Safety is everybody’s responsibility. Planning and preparing for emergencies can significantly reduce the impact of an emergency or disaster and help Albertans recover more quickly. We should all be prepared to address our basic needs for at least the first 72 hours of an emergency. Mr. Speaker, there are three simple steps that will better prepare Albertans to face a range of emergencies.

The first is to know and assess the risks in your community or region. The second is to make a plan that will help you and your family know what to do. The third is to prepare an emergency kit that includes water, nonperishable food, a flashlight, extra batteries, candles, matches, and a first aid kit. Partnerships are essential to providing the foundation that builds safe and strong communities in Alberta. The government of Alberta through the Alberta Emergency Management Agency is committed to helping individuals and families become better prepared to face a wide range of emergencies any time, anywhere.

By working together with municipalities, First Nations, emergency services, volunteer organizations, the medi a, and individuals, we can help ensure the safety of Albertans when disasters threaten our communi- ties. I encourage all Albertans to take a few moments to learn how they can keep themselves and their families safe. Being prepared is not reserved to one week out of the year but is a year-round activity. Are you prepared? You can check out our website at www.aema.alberta.ca or my Twitter site at JonoMLA. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Varsity. Public Education Parable Mr.

Chase: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The class of ’44, a public education parable. Welcome back, grade 6ers, to day two of your graduating class of ’44. We had a very eventful first day back at school yesterday. As you r ecall, we had just begun the genesis of our discussion of ancient civilizations when the fire bell rang, causing our mass exodus from the school. Once outside, Caretaker Leviticus called out the names and numbers until Principal Deuter- onomy and Vice-principal Joshua judged that it was safe for us to return.

Ruth led the way back into the school while twins First and Second Samuel held the outside doors, and the First and Second members of the Kings family monitored the inside doors. Once back in the classroom we reviewed the drill carefully, chronicling what had gone right and wrong. Ezra and Nehemiah remarked how calmly, regally Esther had led the way while Job patiently followed behind. David, the proverbial optimist, noted that he wasn’t afraid because he knew the drill. His ecclesiastical enthusiasm prompted Solomon to wisely remark that, in his opinion, our first fire drill was a real success.

Isaiah and Jeremiah lamented that they thought it was their turn to hold the doors. Ezekiel and Daniel praised Hosea for his quick response in alerting the fire department. Amos and Obadiah had very little to add to the discussion. Jonah wailed that Micah, Nahum, and Zechariah had been talking instead of exiting the school quickly and quietly. However, none of his classmates swallowed his story. In conclu- sion, Malachi prophesied that tomorrow would be a new day and that if we didn’t do better in the future, we might suffer the conse- quences. Students, please now open your history books to

chapter 1, ancient Greek gods and goddesses. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Decore.

May 4, 2009 Alberta Hansard 925 National Hospice Palliative Care Week Mrs. Sarich: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This week is National Hospice Palliative Care Week in Canada. This one-week campaign not only focuses on raising awareness of hospice palliative care but is also a week to celebrate, recognize, and share the achievements of hospice palliative care and its care providers. Hospice palliative care is a type of health care that aids in relieving suffering and improving the quality for those living and dying.

Hospice palliative care provides care to patients and their families living with or at risk of developing a life-threatening illness, regardless of diagnosis , prognosis, or age. Palliative health care providers help patients prepare for and manage the dying process by addressing the needs, hopes, and fears of patients and their families, Mr. Speaker, as well as helping Albertans cope with loss and grief during illness and after death during the bereavement period.

These services could not be provided without the support of the Canadian Hospice Palliative Support Association and their belief that all Albertans should have access to quality end-of-life care. Mr. Speaker, I’d like to take this opportunity to thank all those involved in National Hospice Palliative Care Week and to help celebrate, recognize, and share in the achievements of the hospice palliative care and all its health professionals. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Leduc-Beaumont-Devon. Green Ribbon of Hope Campaign Mr. Rogers: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today many members of this House are wearing green ribbons, like this one, to commemorate Child Find Alberta’s Green Ribbon of Hope campaign. This campaign was started 18 years ago in response to the abduction and murder of Ontario student Kirsten French. It raises awareness about the issue of missing and abducted children. The ribbon symbolizes the hope for the safe return of these children to their families. Mr. Speaker, this is an issue that affects people across our country. In 2007 over 60,000 children were reported missing.

Thanks to Child Find Alberta people in our province faced with this horrifying ordeal have somewhere to turn for help. These dedicated volunteers spend countless hours educating adults and children on how to prevent abductions and work hand in hand with law enforcement and other agencies to locate missing children. I commend their dedica- tion to keeping children and youth from being victims of abduction, abuse, exploitation, and trafficking and providing strength and support to parents during a most trying time in their life.

This green ribbon is a symbol of hope to the families of missing and abducted children across our nation. Mr. Speaker, I invite all members of the Legislative Assembly to wear this green ribbon and draw awareness to this very important issue. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Bonnyville-Cold Lake. Online Campground Reservations Mrs. Leskiw: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On Friday the Minister of Tourism, Parks and Recreation in partnership with the Minister of Service Alberta launched Alberta’s new online campground reservation service.

The sheer volume online and over the phone shows that Albertans want this service. There were more than 145,000 hits to the website in the first few hours, and the call centre has handled thousands of phone calls. Mr. Speaker, more than 10,000 campsites have been reserved online or through the Service Alberta call centre so far. It is interesting also that on our opening day 23 per cent of the website hits were international, from the United States, France, and Switzer- land.

Despite the high volumes I’m told there are some spots available for this long weekend at Cypress Hills provincial park and other locations. The new online service makes it easier for Albertans and visitors to make reservations in 25 popular provincial campgrounds. I know my constituents are pleased that two Bonnyville area campgrounds are included in the service this year: Moose Lake provincial park and Franchere Bay provincial recreation area, both great places to camp. I understand there were some glitches, as you would expect with any new service.

This is being monitored closely, and adjustments are being made where necessary. Mr. Speaker, the government’s investment in the SuperNet made it possible to take the Internet out to remote campground locations. I encourage all Albertans to use this service and to explore Alberta’s beautiful campgrounds this summer. Thank you. 1:50head: Oral Question Period The Speaker: First Official Opposition main question. The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition. Parental Choice in Education Dr. Swann: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The proposed changes to the human rights act are an embarrassment.

They show this government to be out of touch with Albertans and the modern world. The Alberta Teachers’ Association has clearly stated that they do not support the move. The Shel don Chumir foundation similarly has stated that it’s against this bill. To the Minister of Culture and Community Spirit: why did the minister not listen to these groups in drafting the legislation? Mr. Blackett: Well, Mr. Speaker, sometimes you have to make tough choices.

There were lots of recommendations that were made to our department on this proposed legislation: some that we agreed with, some that we didn’t agree with, some that I brought to our caucus and we supported, and some that we decided we would not. I remember the day the Sheldon Chumir foundation released their report, and I spoke in response to it. The Leader of the Opposition at that time said that he would work with us to make this bill a successful one. There were things that we all agreed on that we should have.

The inclusion of sexual orientation into this particular legislation was one that we agreed on and others. The Speaker: The hon. leader. Dr. Swann: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Why did the minister let the right wing of his caucus prevail over his own knowledge and experience and the understanding of experts in this area? Mr. Blackett: Well, Mr. Speaker, it’s funny enough: the right wing of this caucus. Our caucus has had full, vigorous debate on this particular issue.

The Sheldon Chumir foundation wanted us to take out publications and statements, and that, you know, from an organization I wouldn’t deem to be right wing. But our caucus thought we wanted to make sure that we protected the rights and responsibilities of those visible minorities and those people that are new immigrants to this province. We can’t agree with everything, and we shouldn’t expect that the opposition would understand that. Dr. Swann: Well, does this minister understand that the lack of consultation and thought on this policy has resulted in a bad bill that

Alberta Hansard May 4, 2009926 will lead to children being excluded from public schools on impor- tant issues like evolution, women’s rights as well as trivial issues like what the Flat Earth Society might be promoting, compromising our public education system? Mr. Blackett: Well, Mr. Speaker, I love to read fiction. I like to engage in it. But I would expect the Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition would be able to read the bill, which clearly states: “subject-matter that deals explicitly with religion, sexuality or sexual orientation.” Evolution is not explicitly religious.

We’re talking about the actual religion if you’re talking about Catholicism, for instance, or Muslim. We’re not talking about religious beliefs. We are not talking about religious content. In our school system in our curriculum as it stands today, there is very little in the way of a religious nature with respect to the subject matter. The Speaker: Second Official Opposition main question. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. Ms Blakeman: Thanks very much, Mr. Speaker.

According to the Sheldon Chumir foundation the parental opt-out clause in the proposed human rights legislation is a “slippery slope to administra- tive and legal chaos.” Teachers must have the freedom to teach our children how to think critically and with an open mind without fear of the consequences of archaic laws being forced upon them by the government. To the Minister of Culture and Community Spirit: will the minister confirm that

section 11.1 of the proposed human rights legislation can be used to launch a human rights complaint against a teacher, principal, or school board? Mr. Blackett: Well, Mr. Speaker, what is clear is that if a teacher follows the curriculum, which has very little that is of a contentious nature, and if the school board, as they have to do now under the School Act, notifies a parent of those contentious issues with respect to religion, sexuality, or sexual orientation, they have nothing to worry about. The Speaker: The hon. member. Ms Blakeman: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

To the same minister: what consequences has the minister identified regarding a chill effect for teachers who will now avoid spontaneous discussion or teaching opportunities for fear they might run afoul of various student opt-out instructions? Mr. Blackett: Well, thankfully, most of our teachers, Mr. Speaker, in this province are reasonable people. Parents are reasonable people. We do not determine what the discussion in a classroom is. The Minister of Education and the school board determine what the curriculum is. We cannot control nor is our intent to control any discussion that arises in a classroom.

That is for the teacher to lead, and there is nothing here in this legislation that deters them from doing their job. The Speaker: The hon. member. Ms Blakeman: Thank you. To the same minister: how do those outside of Alberta determine a standard of education to assess Alberta students when a student can opt out of any class or teaching module in math, biology, history, social studies, or whatever when their parents object on religious grounds? [interjections] It’s factual. Mr. Blackett: Well, Mr. Speaker, hopefully those people outside of the province won’t be listening to the Member for Edmonton-Centre.

I’ll tell you this: if they read the legislation, “subject-matter that deals explicitly with religion, sexuality or sexual orientation,” I don’t know where math fits into that. I don’t know where English fits into that. I don’t know where social studies fits into most of that. I don’t know what school you went to, but the one I went to never had to deal with that subject matter. The Speaker: Third Official Opposition main question. The hon. Member for Calgary-Varsity. Mr. Chase: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

While Bill 44 fails to differentiate between faith-based objections of conscience and opportunistic avoidance convenience, it expects classroom teachers to be able to do so. Parental rights devoid of parental responsibility are not simply unsound but unjust. If a parent considers a portion of Alberta’s approved public curriculum objectionable, then the onus should be placed on the parent to seek out the publicly subsidized alternatives currently available, whether through home-, charter, or private schooling.

To the minister: given that hours of instruction and preparation are contractually predetermined, where and how are objecting students going to be accommodated? Mr. Hancock: Well, Mr. Speaker, in the same way that they’re accommodated now. Under our current Sc hool Act and our mandated policies if parents object to religious instruction or instruction with respect to human sexuality, they are entitled to ask that their child be opted out of the class, either within the class or in another setting in the school, to take an alternate program at that time. It’s the policy now. It’s the policy that will continue. Mr.

Chase: How many additional teachers are you planning to hire to educate faith-based objectors within the universally accessible public system? How will their deployment be determined and their nonoffending curriculum developed? Mr. Hancock: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is taking things to a ludicrous extreme. We currently have in this province an opportu- nity for parents who object to their child being included in instruc- tion with respect to human sexuality to have those children opt out of that. We also have in the School Act, under

section 50, an opportunity for parents to ask that their child be excluded from religious instruction. That’s ex actly the same process that will be continued. Parents will continue to be notified when those topics are up for discussion, and if they wish, they can exclude their children. It’s not a problem now. It won’t be a problem in the future. Mr. Chase: Given that the mandate of public schools is to provide a first-rate education rather than a publicly subsidized sitting service, under what circumstances would a teacher or principal be empow- ered to call an objectionable parent to come pick up their child?

In other words, how far backward are public schools under Bill 44 expected to bend over at the expense of all other children, their parents, and teachers to accommodate the wishes of faith-based objectors, whose rights to legitimate dissent are already covered under our existing School Act? Mr. Hancock: The only thing objectionable that I found was in the way that question was formulated. Mr. Speaker, as I’ve said, in Alberta we have a very strong curriculum. We expect teachers to teach that curriculum.

In that curriculum from time to time – for example, in the junior high health program or in the CALM program in high school – there are topics of human sexuality, which have always been issues of concern to

May 4, 2009 Alberta Hansard 927 parents about how their children are instructed in those areas. Many parents want to know when that instruction happens, and they want to be able to know either that their child could be excluded from that or included. They’re also allowed to talk to their child about values, about caring and loving relationships, and about the things around that. We would encourage parents to be involved in their children’s education, to understand what’s in the curriculum, and to have the opportunity, where they object, to have their child opt out. The Speaker: The hon.

Member for Edmonton-Highlands- Norwood, followed by the hon. Member for Lacombe-Ponoka. Mr. Mason: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Over the weekend the Minister of Culture and Community Spirit admitted that evolution was science, and he said that his government isn’t arguing science. But, you know, despite all of the protestations from the other side about what they’re not doing, we need to remember that it was the Premier himself who said that evolution would be optional if parents objected on religious grounds. This isn’t a fantasy of the opposition; this comes from the Premier.

So I want to ask the Minister of Culture and Community Spirit: have you and the Premier figured out why you’re contradicting each other and why the message . . . The Speaker: The hon. minister. 2:00 Mr. Blackett: Well, Mr. Speaker, I know one thing: I don’t pretend to speak for the Premier. What we have here is the legislation. It’s clearly stated, and I refer to that. In the legislation that I brought forward: “subject- matter that deals explicitly with religion, sexuality or sexual orienta- tion.” If you have a question about what the Premier said, I suggest that you ask the Premier that question. Mr.

Mason: Well, I keep trying, Mr. Speaker. The minister knows that those things are subject to

interpretation. It is the

interpretation of what is religion that is at stake here. Will he stand up here and settle this matter once and for all and say that evolution is not considered religious grounds and will not be enforced by this government and make sure that the act is amended to say that? Mr. Blackett: Well, Mr. Speaker, I know my English is pretty good, and I did say: “subject-matter that deals . . . with religion.” Evolu- tion is not religion. Neither is math. Neither is English. I can’t be more clear than that. Ask a court, ask anyone to determine where evolution becomes religion. Mr. Mason: Well, Mr. Speaker, the Premier’s

interpretation and his minister’s

interpretation are clearly very different things. The question is: will you change this act, will you amend it to ensure that there can be no misinterpretation such as we’ve seen from your Premier, your leader? Mr. Blackett: Mr. Speaker, as he alluded to last week, we haven’t even had debate in second reading on this particular motion. We’ll have a lot of chances to discuss it, and we’ll see what comes out of that. I tell you what. Speaking of misinformation, I’d love for the opposition members to actually stick to the facts, to what’s actually written here, not their flights of fancy and their ideas of fiction.

The Speaker: Of course, the question period is not the place to debate bills – we have ample opportunity for that – nor is it a place to seek legal

interpretations, but we all know that, too. The hon. Member for Lacombe-Ponoka, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary-Mountain View. H1N1 Virus in Central Alberta Pig Herd Mr. Prins: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Over the weekend it was announced that the H1N1 flu virus had been discovered in a herd of pigs in Alberta. Unfortunately, a small number of countries are now either banning or restricting the import of pigs and pork products. My question is to the minister of agriculture. Can you provide us with an update on this situation? Mr. Groeneveld: Mr.

Speaker, it’s my understanding that the worker and the family who live on the farm have recovered from the flu, but there have been unwarranted trade restrictions imposed. China has banned importing live pigs and pork from Alberta. Both the World Health Organization and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations agree that flu viruses do not affect the safety of pork and warned against imposing trade restric- tions. To date there have not been any reports of illness in other pigs. The virus was contained in this one instance. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Prins: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As a livestock farmer myself – and I’ve raised pigs for many years, many thousands of them – I know that farmers have very strict biosecurity protocols to protect the health of their animals. My second question is for the same minister. Can you explain the biosecurity measures in the livestock industry and explain what they have in place? Mr. Groeneveld: Well, Mr. Speaker, the pork industry in particular in Alberta has very proactive biosecurity measures in place that are standard procedure.

This includes limiting visitors to the barn, using visitor logs, showering before and after entry into the barn, wearing special clothing inside the barn, using closed herds, and sourcing stock from reputable sources. In addition, flu in pigs is a notifiable disease under the Animal Health Act here in Alberta. Any suspected cases must be reported to the chief provincial veterinarian within 24 hours. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Prins: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. That sounds good to me.

I’m going to be sure to put some pork chops or ham steaks on my barbecue this weekend, and I’d encourage all Albertans to do the same. My final question to the same minister: what traceability measures does Alberta have in place to ensure that this one isolated incident does not spread further? Mr. Groeneveld: Well, Mr. Speaker, in January we introduced new traceability measures, which included premises identification. It’s become significant that we’ve done this now.

Livestock producers were required to register their premises, which includes providing their legal land description, species that are raised there, and the maximum capacity of the operation. In cases like this, information is critical. As soon as we are notified of a possible animal disease like H1N1 in a herd, we are able to check our system and find out immediately what other livestock operations are in the area, what

Alberta Hansard May 4, 2009928 species of livestock are being raised, and the proximity of livestock to other farms’ herds. The Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition, followed by the hon. Member for Cardston-Taber-Warner. Wait-list Registry Dr. Swann: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Lack of answers on wait-list issues in the health system prompt further questions on how this government continues to fail Albertans in establishing the true status of wait-lists in the health care system. Albertans are being denied access to information that would tell them how quickly they can expect to be seen.

This government has neglected to update the Alberta wait-list registry since September 2008. To the minister: why is the Alberta wait-list registry more than seven months out of date? Mr. Liepert: Well, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest: let’s talk about something that is up to date. I would advise the Leader of the Opposition and all members of the House to go to the Alberta . . . Mr. Mason: Just answer the question. Mr.

Liepert: I would advise the Leader of the Opposition and maybe the other fellow over there to go to the website of Alberta Health Services because on that website is their strategic plan for the next three years. It talks specifically about wait-lists and asks for public input. Dr. Swann: Well, that’s very good, Mr. Speaker. I’m sure public input is important, but when will the wait-lists, with an accurate picture of people’s ability to access the system, be available? Mr. Liepert: Well, if he’d check the website, Mr. Speaker, there are some specific numbers on there that I’m sure he’d find very interesting. Dr.

Swann: Will the minister comment on how we’re going to be reporting the regional differences in access when the regions are gone? Mr. Liepert: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think we’re all Albertans, and our objective through Alberta Health Services is to ensure that we provide equitable health care to all Albertans. Now, this particular member and this particular party may want to favour one particular region over the other in this province. We don’t do that, and that’s the way we’re going to proceed. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Cardston-Taber-Warner, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview.

Spring Flooding Mr. Jacobs: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This year’s late heavy snowfall in southwest Alberta has many of my constituents thinking about spring floods. Every year spring storms flood Alberta’s many rivers, which are already high due to snowmelt. Every year that rain and runoff flows through Alberta and into Saskatchewan, sending much more water across the border than the 50 per cent we are obligated to send. My first question to the Minister of Environment: what is this government doing to help harness the excess rain and runoff in the spring for productive use in the late summer and fall?

The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Renner: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As you know, mankind has been trying to harness Mother Nature for thousands of years. I think that we find time and time again that our feeble attempts are sometimes acknowledged as such by Mother Nature and by the environment. That being said, we do have a series of dams, reservoirs throughout the province that we maintain and try to have the level in those dams reflect the risk of flooding that is based upon the snowpack in the mountains, and we’re managing them in the same way this spring. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr.

Jacobs: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Oldman dam, just north of Pincher Creek, not only captures spring runoff and rain but helps regulate the flow of water during high stream flow, protecting downstream communities from the devastating effects of flooding. The first supplemental to the same minister. The benefits of dams are obvious. When will this government commit to building more? Mr. Renner: Well, Mr. Speaker, I wish I could give a very simple and direct answer to that question – it would certainly make my life a lot easier – but unfortunately I can’t.

The cost related to dams is enormous, and there are consequences. It’s undeniable that there are consequences, particularly downstream and to some degree the flooding that results behind the dam. We’re constantly looking at opportunities to expand our dam infrastructure in the province, and we’re also looking at some very promising opportunities for off- stream storage as well as traditional dams. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Jacobs: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My second supplemental to the same minister. While dams help control spring flow, it still brings the risk of floods.

What is the government doing to ensure that Albertans are aware of potential flood situations during the annual flood season? 2:10 Mr. Renner: Well, Mr. Speaker, I can speak from personal experience that the damage that can be caused by floods is enor- mous. However, Albertans can rest assured that we continue to do 24/7 monitoring of not only the level of water that’s in the rivers but also the snowpack, the rate of melt, and related weather systems that move through.

We issue advisories, warnings, and they are not only posted online, but when they’re severe enough, we’ll intercede and make sure that as many people as possible have advance warning of dangers that may result. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. Beef Marketing Dr. Taft: Thanks, Mr. Speaker. The check-off for the sale of beef in Alberta is $3 a head, and currently it’s nonrefundable.

However, this government is planning to make this check-off refundable without allowing producers to exercise their democratic right to hold a plebiscite on the matter. My question is to the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development. Why is the minister not allowing producers to conduct a plebiscite and decide for themselves instead of imposing a decision on them?

May 4, 2009 Alberta Hansard 929 Mr. Groeneveld: Well, Mr. Speaker, if just one producer wants to redirect his own money to support an association of his choice, he should have that freedom. It’s not up to government to tell business owners what business association they must support with their own money. That gives these business owners the ability to choose for themselves. It certainly does. No matter the outcome, everyone loses in a plebiscite because it will only further divide a group that’s already faced with the difficulty of trying to work together. The Speaker: The hon. member. Dr. Taft: Well, thanks.

I congratulate the minister on reading his notes so well. My question to him now is: if allowing choice on this matter is so important, why was the minister so heavy handed in making ID mandatory for every beef producer in this province? Why the double standard, Mr. Minister? Mr. Groeneveld: Mr. Speaker, they’re two very separate issues. The age verification is mandatory. We’re trying to move beef, particularly, into offshore markets. I’ve heard out there loud and clear that if you don’t do that, you’re not going to be here.

So we moved ahead, and there was compliance, I believe, of 83 per cent, and I think that probably now we’ve got the stock in position where we can move ahead with this. Will it give us a market advantage? Stay tuned. We’ll see how that goes in the next little bit. The Speaker: The hon. member. Dr. Taft: Well, thanks. A pretty convenient double standard, Mr. Speaker. As this minister knows, from Pollockville to Peace River Alberta’s beef producers are angry, and they feel betrayed by this minister and this Premier.

Will the minister tell the House which big feedlot operators are calling for this change, or is he afraid of revealing the names of the people who bankrolled this Premier’s leadership campaign? Mr. Groeneveld: Here we go with the innuendo again, Mr. Speaker. Why doesn’t he come right out and say what he’s thinking? I can guarantee this hon. member that there are a whole lot of people out there that want to have choice. It’s not just feeders. There’s a whole slug of them, so don’t think that a 50-50 plebiscite is going to solve anything. Domestic Worker Recruitment Fees Mr. Benito: Mr.

Speaker, a number of my constituents have expressed concerns about domestic workers, specifically nannies, being charged fees by recruiting companies. My question is to the Minister of Service Alberta. Are employment recruiting companies allowed to charge fees to domestic workers hoping to seek employ- ment in our province? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mrs. Klimchuk: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The government of Alberta wants to ensure that all workers in our province are treated with fairness and respect.

Currently there is an exemption in Alberta’s regulations that allows for nannies and domestic workers to be charged a fee by recruiting companies. As the Minister of Service Alberta I have the ability to change that exemption. I assure you all today that I will be removing that exemption as soon as possible. Mr. Benito: Well, Mr. Speaker, that’s certainly good news. My first supplemental is to the same minister. Is the fee that these agencies are charging domestic workers something new? Mrs. Klimchuk: Actually, Mr.

Speaker, this exemption for domestic workers has been in place for decades, but there is no good reason for it to exist. It is already illegal for an employment agency to charge a fee for helping a person find work in all other Alberta sectors. We will be communicating this change with the employ- ment agencies, and we’ll work closely with our counterparts in Employment and Immigration and the federal government to ensure that employees, workers, and the employment agencies are well aware of their rights and obligations. Mr. Benito: My last supplemental is to the same minister, Mr. Speaker.

When will this exemption be removed? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mrs. Klimchuk: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am taking the steps to ensure that the regulation will be amended by June 1, and the change will take effect three months after. I believe this is a change that’s necessary in creating further equality in Alberta’s labour market. As Minister of Service Alberta I became aware of the situation when I first was appointed last year, and it’s time to make sure it gets done. Caribou Management Mr. Hehr: Mr.

Speaker, a recent federal report has noted that half of Canada’s boreal caribou herds are in decline and could die off unless their habitat is better protected. To the Minister of Sustain- able Resource Development: despite the caribou recovery plan having been in existence for approximately four years, why does the caribou population continue to be in critical danger? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Dr. Morton: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Woodland caribou have been in decline across all of Canada, the provinces and the territories, including Alberta, for the last century.

In the recent federal report referenced by the hon. Member for Calgary Buffalo, the data on Alberta, in fact, stood out precisely because we do the best job of all the provinces in actually tracking our caribou, having previous numbers and current numbers because we have a cari bou recovery plan. Mr. Hehr: Well, congratulations on the tracking of the numbers. Given that the province admitted last year that the land northwest of Edmonton and set aside for caribou protection was still subject to significant industrial development, why has greater action not been taken to protect these critical habitats? Dr.

Morton: Mr. Speaker, we are taking extensive and innovative actions to protect the habitat and to look after our sustainable caribou population. Again, the opposition likes to make it sound like you do one thing at a time in this province. The fact is that in most of northern Alberta, in addition to wildlife issues, you have forestry issues, oil and gas issues, native issues, and so forth. You have to strike a balance, and that’s exactly what we’re doing. The success

Alberta Hansard May 4, 2009930 of our integrated land management plan, which reduces the footprint of industry, and co-operation between forestry and oil and gas exploration has made a significant improvement in protecting caribou habitat. Mr. Hehr: Well, I like to hear of all these wonderful things. Last week I was asking about the grizzlies, which appear to be in decline. This week I ask about the caribou, that continue to be in decline. Why, with all these efforts, are things continuing to decline?

What are we going to do specifically in the interim between now and the land-use framework to protect these populations of animals that remain here? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Dr. Morton: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m happy to report that the Lower Athabasca Regional Advisory Council, which deals with the northeastern part of northern Alberta, will be moving forward on its advice. Part of their agenda, part of their guidance document is to look at new protected areas.

I’ve seen the guidance documents, and I can predict with some confidence that there will be significant new protection for wildlife and forest in the northeast. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. Parental Choice in Education (continued) Ms Notley: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This government’s attempt to water down human rights under the guise of curriculum control has created a firestorm of controversy. Once again a lack of foresight has embarrassed our province.

It’s ridiculous to think that the teaching of evolution would ever be considered a violation of human rights, yet that’s exactly what your plan will likely be interpreted to say. My question is to the Minister of Culture and Community Spirit. Why won’t you clarify the issue right now and commit to removing any threat to teachers from your proposed changes to our human rights scheme? Mr. Blackett: Well, Mr. Speaker, I have to agree with the hon. member that it’s ridiculous to believe that evolution as part of our curriculum would be something that would be challenged. Ms Notley: Well, Mr.

Speaker, the School Act does not say that people can remove children from instruction on the equality of people from different races or genders. The minister is finally adding sexual orientation to the code, but, at the same time, he’s allowing people to remove children from instruction on the equality of people with different sexual orientation. Does the minister think that parents should have the right to remove children from instruc- tion about the equality of people from different races or genders?

If not, why is he treating the GBLT community differently and creating a second tier of human rights in our province? 2:20 Mr. Blackett: Mr. Speaker, the opposition is all over the map, like, you know, the subject matter that deals explicitly with religion. I don’t know what half of what she says has to do with this particular piece. We as a caucus, as a government strongly believe in human rights. We believe in family. We believe in a lot of things.

We believe that Bill 44, when we get to actually debate it, will show exactly how we have looked at the best interests of Albertans and each and every gr oup and will represent them to the best of our ability. Ms Notley: Well, I suspect that the minister had trouble understand- ing the question because he doesn’t understand the issue. Your proposed policy will clearly allow children to be removed from classes which discuss sexual orientation. Presumably, that includes where a teacher instructs that sexual orientation is a protected equality right under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Why is the minister supporting a plan to limit the ability of teachers to talk about our human rights code to our Alberta children? Mr. Blackett: Mr. Speaker, what we are doing is saying that, you know, the provisions are already given to our parents in the School Act. We will continue to do that. With respect to sexual orientation, they have that provision to opt out now. They will have that provision going forward. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie, followed by the hon. Member for Lethbridge-East. Adult Guardianship and Trusteeship Legislation Mr. Bhardwaj: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

There are fears among seniors that the Adult Guardianship and Trusteeship Act will allow for their rights to be taken away arbitrarily without their consideration or without the assistance of legal representation. My questions are to the Minister of Seniors and Community Supports. Could you please inform this House about the real facts? Mrs. Jablonski: Mr. Speaker, I too have heard these misconcep- tions. I stand before you and all members of this Assembly to assure you that these claims are wrong. In fact, quite the opposite is true.

I am more than willing to go on record and say that the Adult Guardianship and Trusteeship Act is good legislation. It provides more choices and more safeguards for Albertans who need help making decisions. The act is designed to respect an Albertan’s right to make decisions for as long as possible and maintain their dignity in the process. It’s a big improvement over the 30-year-old Depend- ent Adults Act legislation. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Bhardwaj: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My constituents have told me that under the new act capacity assessors can enter seniors’ homes to make determinations about their mental capacity without their consent. Again to the same minister: can you please explain the safeguards provided to individuals under the AGTA? Mrs. Jablonski: Mr. Speaker, first let me clarify that under the new AGTA adults are presumed capable unless determined otherwise by proper assessments. Any adult can refuse a capacity assessment, in which case the assessor will leave.

Also, under the new act if anyone applies to the court to be a private guardian, the adult will be notified and given copies of all the documentation. The adult also has the right to legal representation. Seniors and vulnerable adults are more protected than ever under the new AGTA. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Bhardwaj: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My final supplement to the same minister: since this is new legislation, what are you doing to help our constituents understand it better?

May 4, 2009 Alberta Hansard 931 Mrs. Jablonski: Mr. Speaker, my ministry staff are currently conducting information sessions on the new AGTA in communities across the province. We’ve been running local ads to announce these meetings, and a list of all the sessions is posted on my minis- try’s website. I encourage anyone who has questions about the AGTA to attend one of these sessions or to contact the office of the public guardian. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Lethbridge East, followed by the hon. Member for St. Albert. Emergency Preparedness Ms Pastoor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is Emergency Prepared- ness Week. Grass and brush fires outside of Edmonton, flood season around the corner, and the threat of H1N1 pandemic have all heightened Albertans’ awareness of emergency preparedness. One of the initiatives that appears to have fallen off the public radar is the interdisciplinary institute for emergency preparedness that was part of last year’s business plan. My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. In 2008 the minister was committed to establish- ing the safety, security, and environmental institute.

Given that the institute’s funding was supposedly in place last year . . . The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Danyluk: Well, Mr. Speaker, the institute is being worked on. We are having discussions, and the progress is coming forward. The Speaker: The hon. member. Ms Pastoor: Thank you. I’ll be just a tad more specific. How much money has been spent, what is the timeline for completion, and has this been budgeted for next year? Mr. Danyluk: Mr. Speaker, it is in our budget with the Alberta Emergency Management Agency. We hope that our progress this year will bring forward the good work that the agency could do.

I would say that it’s in our budget year. Ms Pastoor: Given that the proposed fiscal sustainability act will take away the $2.5 billion security blanket for disaster recovery, what is the minister’s plan B if there are no funds left to deal with forest fires, floods, and other disasters, a very real possibility with this proposed legislation? Mr. Danyluk: Well, Mr. Speaker, first of all, we do not budget for disasters. Disasters are not things that are predicted. Every year we have different disasters, whether they be floods or storms.

In 2005 the disasters cost approximately $165 million; last year it was approximately $40 million. This government has always supported Albertans in disasters and in emergencies. The Speaker: The hon. Member for St. Albert, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary-McCall. Emergency Public Warning System Mr. Allred: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today the Minister of Municipal Affairs announced that the province is investing in upgrading the emergency public warning system, and I’m pleased that he was able to meet with the Red Deer Morrisroe Scout group and advise them on it.

That will certainly assist them in responding to an emergency. Can the minister elaborate and tell Albertans specifically why this is being done? Mr. Danyluk: Well, Mr. Speaker, Alberta has an outstanding public warning system. It is the first province-wide system of its kind. The system has served Albertans very well, but it is time to look at new technologies so we continue to lead the way. In specifics, we will increase the access to information by expanding our use of technol- ogy of satellite television, satellite radio, website alerts, reverse 911, cellphones, social media. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr.

Allred: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that response. My second question is for the same minister. Can the minister tell us when he thinks this new system with all its new technology will be up and running? Mr. Danyluk: Well, today is the first day of a process of building for the future. Today we issued a request for proposal, and the plan is to have the system in operation in approximately a year. Mr. Speaker, during the upgrade of the process I want to assure Albertans that there is not going to be any disruption of the system we have in place.

The system that we are bringing forward is going to provide additional access for all Albertans. The emergency public warning system will be there for Albertans for the future. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Allred: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My final question is for the Solicitor General and Minister of Public Security. Your ministry is responsible for the Amber Alert. How will changes to the emer- gency public warning system affect the Amber Alert? Mr. Lindsay: Mr.

Speaker, the key to an effective Amber Alert program, obviously, is getting accurate information out to the public as soon as possible so that the public can be on the lookout for the child. These improvements that the hon. minister spoke about to the emergency public warning system will enhance the Amber Alert program used by police services in this province in high-risk cases of child abduction. The partnership with police has proven highly successful. Each of the seven Amber Alerts that has been initiated since the start-up in 2002 has concluded with the safe return of the child. The Speaker: The hon.

Member for Calgary-McCall, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary-North Hill. 2:30 Condominium Property Act Consultation Mr. Kang: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The endless monitoring of condo problems by the Minister of Service Alberta is completely ineffective. Condo owners have to choose between difficult legal battles or leaving their homes because this government refuses to protect them. To the Minister of Service Alberta: how does the minister’s monitoring do anything to help Albertans who have to leave their homes because they can no longer afford the condo repair bills? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mrs.

Klimchuk: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With respect to this situation, as I’ve indicated before, the Condominium Property Act is one of those acts that is under review and is going to be going through a very thorough review. It’s a very complex piece of legislation; therefore, we need to make sure we do it right. I’m very

Alberta Hansard May 4, 2009932 aware of some of the tragic and unfortunate situations that are happening across Alberta, and that’s why being informed of these situations is so important to me. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Kang: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think that review is taking longer and longer while the crisis is hitting more and more Albertans every day. Since the minister refuses to change the legislation to help condo owners, how else will the minister assist condo owners who are forced to pay tens of thousands of dollars to repair the poor construction of their homes?

The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mrs. Klimchuk: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to note that I will be meeting with the Alberta Real Estate Association. I know that particular group has some excellent suggestions looking at solutions to some of these issues, whether it’s condo fees or the reserve fee or the maintenance issue. We know that condos are aging in Alberta. We also know that with the boom in building there were situations where perhaps places were built that we need to look at and to change to enforce the rules better. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Kang: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The situation is not improving as the number of legal cases involving condos, repairs, and manage- ment companies continue to rise, Minister. How can the minister justify her continued inaction on this issue? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mrs. Klimchuk: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again, with respect to the Condominium Property Act, the review that will be going on in this next short while is really, really important. I am very aware of the many legal cases that are before the courts on this matter with respect to individual situations. This affects families.

This is families having to move out for whatever reasons. This is why we need to look at this and make sure that those families are protected and to make sure that things like this don’t happen again. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-North Hill, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview. Knowledge Infrastructure Program Funding Mr. Fawcett: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Alberta’s postsecondary students are the future of our knowledge-based economy.

Earlier today we got some good news when our government announced the shared funding agreement with the federal government to enhance the infrastructure of Alberta’s postsecondary institutions. My first question is to the Minister of Advanced Education and Technology. It is nice to receive infrastructure funding, but how does this funding align with the provincial goals and priorities? Mr. Horner: Mr. Speaker, today we did have the pleasure of having two of our federal ministers, Ms Ambrose and Mr.

Goodyear, in Edmonton to announce a partnered funding of $350 million for postsecondaries here in the province of Alberta, of which $187 million is the provincial contribu tion to this project, the KIP, or knowledge infrastructure project. The federal contributions are going to enable us to enhance and advance the high-priority capital projects within the science and innovation system across the province. It’s also important to note that these projects are going to support nearly 2,500 new jobs for Albertans in Alberta. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Fawcett: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My second question to the same minister: how were Alberta’s universities and colleges selected for this program? What criteria was it based on? Mr. Horner: Mr. Speaker, Campus Alberta, introduced in this House last year, developed a system of prioritization for Campus Alberta and all through the province based on the need identified through a provincial, pan-Alberta approach. I’m very, very pleased that all of our postsecondaries were online and on stream with what we were doing.

The universities and the colleges and the technical institutes all have submitted to us their priority projects and their deferred maintenance and their science and innovation agenda, so we went through that list in consultation with the postsecondaries and came up with those high-priority projects. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Fawcett: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My final question to the same minister. The federal government called this one-time funding. Is this the only announcement we can expect related to this program? Mr. Horner: Well, Mr.

Speaker, I would love to see more an- nouncements from the federal government on dollars coming to Alberta and certainly hope that there are a number of areas where they’re going to be making do on some commitments. I think the balance of funding under the knowledge infrastructure program is going to be further announced this fall. The ministers gave us every indication that there is another phase to this project. It’s a short- term, two-year program.

We have to have shovel-ready projects, but they also have to be projects that in our mind align with the goals and the objectives of Campus Alberta and the science and innovation agenda of Campus Alberta. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary-Mackay. H1N1 Virus in Central Alberta Pig Herd (continued) Dr. Taft: Thanks, Mr. Speaker. China, Ukraine, and South Korea have all banned Alberta pork as a result of the spreading H1N1 influenza.

Alberta pigs, as I thin k we all know in this Assembly, have tested positive, but we also all know it has to be stressed that the influenza cannot be transferred to humans from the consumption of pork and that Alberta pork is safe to eat. My first question is to the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development. How is this minister working with Alberta pork producers to co-ordinate efforts and ensure that Alberta’s pork exports are not further hurt by misconceptions about the H1N1 influenza? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Groeneveld: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It certainly is a good question because it sure is an issue for our pork producers out there today. I can guarantee the hon. Member for Edmonton- Riverview that from the very moment that swine flu was announced, we worked with the pork people on contacting all the producers, making sure their biosecurity was up to speed. I don’t think we had

May 4, 2009 Alberta Hansard 933 to do that. I think they were there ahead of us. But it certainly is an issue, and we continue to work with them as we move through this. The Speaker: The hon. member. Dr. Taft: Thanks. Again to the same minister: does this minister recognize that in situations such as these industry councils such as Alberta Pork play an important role in protecting export markets? Mr. Groeneveld: Well, of course they do, but we have to work together. Let’s not lose sight of th e fact that we have to work with the federal government. We have to work with CFIA.

We have to have all our ducks in a row. We work with these people every day to make sure that those are the protocols that we have in place. The Speaker: The hon. member. Dr. Taft: Well, thanks, Mr. Speaker. We all realize that Alberta Beef Producers played a huge role in the BSE crisis. We probably expect the same from Alberta Pork. To the same minister: since making check-offs on pork refundable, which Bill 43 would do, weakens the pork industry at a time when it needs strength and unity to face a crisis, will the minister delay Bill 43 until all its effects can be thought through? Mr. Groeneveld: Mr.

Speaker, why was I not surprised with that question after the set-up from the last question? Maybe give me a little time to think about this. Of course, what this will do for the pork industry, as the beef industry, as the other associations: they will have to become more accountable. They’ll have to think out of the box. They’ll probably have to come up with some new ideas to make sure that it works for all their producers, every one of them in there, and they will not lose any money in the check-off procedure. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Mackay.

Education Public Satisfaction Survey Ms Woo-Paw: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. For Alberta to remain on the leading edge, we need to be constantly evaluating how our education system is performing. I understand that Alberta Education conducts surveys with random samples of students, parents, teachers, and school board members as well as the public to measure our overall satisfaction with the quality of the education system. This is important data as it complements the hard data we have such as test results, dropout and completion rates, and postsecondary transition rates.

My questions are all for the Minister of Education. The surveys have shown that public satisfaction with Alberta’s education system has been consistently lower than that of students, parents, teachers, and school board members. Can the minister explain why that is? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Hancock: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member is correct.

The public’s satisfaction is lower than that of those who are directly involved in the school system, and I think that, in fact, is the answer, that people who are directly involved with the school system get their information through the school system, either from school newsletters or from the schools directly, so they have a higher degree of association with the system, and it’s encouraging to know that they have a higher degree of faith in the system.

The public – and our surveys show this because we ask the questions – tends to get their information from the media; therefore, they have less satisfaction with the system. 2:40 Ms Woo-Paw: Does the ministry make adjustments or modifications to survey methodologies, questions, and respondent groups to address ongoing changes to the content of K to 12? Mr. Hancock: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we do review the questions annually and make changes as appropriate. We want to make sure that the measures fit the goals of our business plan, that we’re addressing the relevant needs of our stakeholder groups.

For example, self-identified aboriginal high school students and their parents were added as respondent groups. Parents of students with severe special needs are surveyed as well. We break down the results for respondent groups by geographic region, for example, and in other areas. In addition, jurisdiction surveys are now available in 10 different languages to make sure that we can get a full response from all parents in the system. Ms Woo-Paw: Does the ministry work with stakeholders in developing and updating the methodologies, contents, and scope of the provincial jurisdiction surveys?

The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Hancock: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes, in fact, we do. We worked with stakeholders in developing the surveys in the first place back in 1995, and now we have an advisory group made up of school boards that work with us on the design implementation of the accountability pillar surveys to assess school jurisdiction perfor- mance. We receive advice and feedback on the choice and composi- tion of groups to be surveyed, the general survey content such as the linkage between measures and survey questions, processes for survey administration, timelines, and feature enhancements.

Yes, we have an advisory committee. We do take advice on what should be in the surveys and how they should support the accountability pillars. The Speaker: Hon. members, that was 108 questions in responses today. In 30 seconds from now we’ll move on with the Routine. head: Presenting Petitions The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona. Ms Notley: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is my distinct pleasure to be able to present a petition today regarding the issue of centralized cytology labs.

The petition reads: We, the undersigned residents of Al berta, petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the Government of Alberta to introduce legisla- tion to put a moratorium on the centralization of gynecological cytology laboratory services in the Province of Alberta. The petition has 668 signatures. head: Introduction of Bills The Speaker: The hon. Deputy Government House Leader. Bill 45 Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act, 2009 Mr. Renner: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to introduce a bill on behalf of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General. I request

Alberta Hansard May 4, 2009934 leave to introduce Bill 45, the Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act, 2009. Under the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act a commission must be appointed to review existing electoral boundaries and make proposals for change where appropriate. The Electoral Boundaries Commission Act also requires the commission to submit a report that divides Alberta into 83 proposed electoral divisions.

The amendments in Bill 45 will require an electoral boundaries commis- sion to be established no later than July 31, 2009, and prepare a report dividing Alberta into 87 proposed electoral divisions. Bill 45 will help ensure the po litical representation reflects the changing population of the province and that these changes are in pl ace in a timely fashion. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. [Motion carried; Bill 45 read a first time] head: Tabling Returns and Reports The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Varsity. Mr. Chase: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I have three tablings today which are directly related to the Calgary-Varsity constituency, which I have the honour of representing. The first is the 2nd

Chapter of Light up the World, an event in memory of Captain Nichola Goddard, who would have celebrated her 29th birthday with her family on May 2 had she not been killed in action leading her troops into battle in Afghanistan. The money raised will benefit the people of Papua New Guinea. My second tabling, from last Friday, is the opening of the smart new building for Smart Technologies in Varsity’s research park. In addition to the fact that it is built to the LEED gold standard, viewed from above, it symbolically represents the capital letter E of education, which is key to Alberta’s future.

My third tabling is the program celebrating the 75th anniversary of John Paul II Polish school in Calgary. Our Lady Queen of Peace church is located at 2111 Uxbridge Drive N.W. in Calgary-Varsity. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona. Ms Notley: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to table the appropri- ate number of copies of letters opposing the delisting of gender reassignment surgery. The letters argue that the procedure is medically necessary, that the savings to the government are ex- tremely small, and that delisting will likely lead to a costly legal challenge.

The letters are written by Brendan Van Alstine, James Swanson, Michael Lepard, and Jamie-Lynn Garvin. head: Orders of the Day head: Public Bills and Orders Other than Government Bills and Orders Second Reading Bill 204 Provincial-Municipal Tax Sharing Act [Debate adjourned April 27: Mr. Danyluk speaking] The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs to continue. Mr. Danyluk: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It is indeed a pleasure to continue on with my presentation on Bill 204. Mr. Speaker, as I’ve said before, strong communities are a priority for this government, and we are supporting them.

However, the challenges facing Alberta’s municipalities are complex. They are as wide ranging as the unique nature of municipalities themselves. What we are doing and what we will continue to do is talk to municipalities about the importance of sustainability, their challenge, and the possible solutions. The Minister’s Council on Munici pal Sustainab ility played an important role to help develop long-term solutions to address these challenges.

The council presented a report, we listened, and we took action on a number of the council’s recommendations, including the creation of the municipal sustainability initiative, the creation of the Capital Region Board. The board has now presented their long-range regional plan, which has been developed to benefit not only the citizens of the region but all of Alberta. We will continue to look at ways to promote greater communication, collaboration, and co-operation amongst municipalities. While progress has been made, what is clear to me is that the issues facing municipalities are complex.

They go beyond funding. That is why I see this bill as overly simplistic and inflexible, and I cannot support it. Municipalities are diverse. Their challenges are diverse. The solutions need to and will be diverse. That is also why I will continue to discuss the issue of long-term sustainability with municipalities. Alberta and Albertans need strong municipalities. Albertans deserve strong and safe communities, and this government will continue to support them. My top priority as the Minister of Municipal Affairs is to ensure that our province has those sustainable communities for Albertans to thrive in.

This is a priority for our Premier, my ministry, and the government of Alberta today and into the future. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Currie. Mr. Taylor: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It is my pleasure to join debate on Bill 204, the Provincial-Municipal Tax Sharing Act, brought forward by my colleague from Edmonton-Centre. I think it is a very timely bill. I think it addresses not only a timely and current but ongoing issue of real concern to municipalities big and small in the province of Alberta. You know, Mr.

Speaker, there is a difference between simple, as in straightforward, and simplistic, as in: tries to apply an easy answer to a complex problem. I do not believe that this bill is simplistic. 2:50 Indeed, I believe that the Minister of Municipal Affairs, in listening to his remarks just a moment ago and reviewing Hansard from a week ago, when he began to speak in debate on Bill 204, has gone to some length to come up with anything he could throw against the wall to object to this bill.

On the one hand, he says that the municipal sustainability initiative provides operating money and that “the two large centres” – I guess he means Edmonton and Calgary – “had the opportunity to have some of their funding put into operating. Their decision was that they wanted all funding to come as capital, and that’s exactly what we did.” On the other hand, he goes on to argue that there’s this incredible autonomy that municipalities have under MSI to determine their local priorities, choose their projects to meet their citizens’ needs.

But then he says that MSI, unlike Bill 204, “includes measures to ensure that we are accountable to Alberta taxpayers for funds provided to municipalities.” Then he goes on to say: Projects [have to] meet program criteria designed to ensure that they will contribute to the long-term sustainability of Alberta communi-

May 4, 2009 Alberta Hansard 935 ties. Municipalities must submit a long-term infrastructure plan as well as detailed information about each project to be funded through MSI. He says further, “We are also developing an accountability framework to ensure that funds provided to municipalities are used to meet agreed-upon objectives.” Then he slags Bill 204 for not including any of these accountability measures. All Bill 204 would do is “provide a fixed proportion of tax revenue unconditionally.” Well, it’s a fixed proportion of tax revenue that would be reviewed on an annual basis, Mr. Speaker.

But I will agree with the mini ster that, yes, it is uncond itional. That is the point. MSI is anything but enabling of municipal autonomy to make their own determinations. It is full of conditions and requirements and quid pro quos and strings. It has more strings attached to it than, you know, even a lot of the legislation that has come forward from this government. It is overwhelmingly, quite apart from what the municipalities choose, about the provision of funding for capital and for infrastructure. What we are saying with Bill 204, Mr. Speaker, simply and in a straightforward manner, is this.

The cities and towns of Alberta need sustainable, predictable operating funding that generates enough funding to be able to meet their operational requirements year in and year out. Over primarily the last 15 or 16 years, but it’s been a trend that’s been going on for, you know, probably several decades now, federal and provincial governments have been downloading responsibilities onto lower levels of government, whether that is the municipal government, whether that’s school boards – this isn’t really a form of government – even the volunteer sector.

The responsibilities have been downloaded to people and organizations and corporations and governments below this level of government at the provincial level, yet we haven’t been correspondingly downloading the revenue that we scoop up to these lower organizations – that sounds terribly pejorative the way I put it, but you get my point: the organizations beneath us on the governmental and community org chart, if you will – so that they can actually afford to pay for the responsibilities that we have asked them to undertake on our behalf or in pl ace of what we used to do at the provincial level. Mr.

Speaker, if this hasn’t been said before in debate on Bill 204, it surely will be said again, I would imagine. It needs to be said and reiterated and contemplated and thought about, and we need to wrap our heads around this. There is only one taxpayer. There are a number of levels of government clamouring to get their hands into that taxpayer’s pocket, but municipalities are like the runt of the litter at lunchtime when it comes to being able to do that. Of all the taxes that are paid by a household in this province, 92 to 95 per cent go to the federal government and the government of Alberta.

That leaves, depending on who’s doing the calculation, just between 5 and 8 per cent of the taxes to go to the municipality.

But the municipalities increasingly are providing more services to increasingly larger populations, and the cost of providing those services continues to go up, whether it’s collecting the garbage and the recycling, whether it is providing through family, community, and social services, you know, social programs, whether it is operating the inventory of social housing that exists, whether it’s providing or having a hand in providing the support that we envision will come to the homeless under the Housing First models being advocated by the Calgary 10-year plan to end homelessness, the Edmonton plan to end homelessness, other municipalities’ plans to end homelessness, and the overarching province of Alberta 10-year plan to end homelessness.

You know, those services need to be provided at the local level, and they take local dollars to do it. More than 80 per cent of us live in urban areas, Mr. Speaker, and we need the level of government. In fact, it is simply done this way on a daily basis that the level of government closest to us, the citizens, provides a very large part of the services that we use every day, and they need to be able to pay for that. Municipal sustain- ability initiative funding is going to capital projects and is not being used for operating expenses.

Even if the minister had directed that the $50 million that MSI provides for operating be required to be spent that way by the cities, it wouldn’t be enough. Some quick calculations here, and I’ll just give you the rationale for how we figured these numbers out. The operating shortfall for any municipality is difficult to determine because, of course, municipalities aren’t allowed to have operating shortfalls, but they do in reality. We looked at the amounts that Edmonton and Calgary proposed to increase their property taxes for 2009.

We then added the amount that the two cities took from their reserve funds, because you have to dip into your reserve funds to pay the bills that you can’t otherwise afford to pay, and then we added in the amount that each city received in grants and subsidies. We understand the total of those numbers to be approximately the funding shortfall for each city’s operating expenses. For Edmonton we came up with a shortfall of $104 million. For Calgary we came up with a shortfall of $131 million.

As you can see, $50 million divided two ways won’t come close to addressing those operating shortfalls, let alone all the other cities and towns in the rest of Alberta where the other one-third, roughly, of the population lives. On the other hand, 2.5 per cent of the income tax that the province collected in 2008-2009, last year’s provincial income taxes, recognizing, as we’ve discussed in estimates debates and so on, that that would be a lesser number in the year going forward to some extent, would be close to $310 million. We assume the similar ratios to those used to allocate MSI funding.

That’s 34 per cent, or $105 million, to Calgary; 25 per cent, or a bout $77 million, to Edmonton; 41 per cent, or $126 million, to the other municipalities. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Speaker: Are there other participants? The hon. Member for Calgary-Varsity. Mr. Chase: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to speak in favour of Bill 204, Provincial-Municipal Tax Sharing Act. The purpose of Bill 204 is to ensure a predictable revenue stream for municipalities. The funding would go towards municipalities’ operating expenses, which would lessen funding shortfalls for those operating expenses.

The bill would allocate 2.5 per cent, roughly $300 million, of income taxes collected by the province to go back to the municipalities. This bill would allow for the percentage of income taxes that would be allocated to municipalities to be changed after one year. That indicates the flexibility built into Bill 204. It’s extremely important that we’re clear that we’re not asking for a tax increase but relocating current tax revenues. That’s extremely important. We’re not saying: let’s top up the taxes. As the hon.

Member for Calgary-Currie previously mentioned, there is only one taxpayer, and given this global recession that we currently find ourselves within, that pocket is unfortunately shrinking. 3:00 The hon. Member for Calgary-Currie talked about the limitations of the municipal sustainability initiative, and that problem has to do with the whim of the provincial government. It takes sort of a patriarchal view that we will provide the municipalities with whatever we deem fit as opposed to consulting them and freeing them up to use money as needed.

Now, to the province’s credit they do provide money through the local gas tax. The municipalities do

Alberta Hansard May 4, 2009936 receive a portion of that, much of which, I’m sure, goes into the municipal sustainability initiative. However, what we have seen in this province since 1994 and what has continued on up until last year is centralization of power controlled by the province. In 1994, under the guise of equivalency and efficiency, the government reduced the number of locally elected school boards. It removed the autonomy that school boards had through the collection of the educational portion of their property tax, which back in 1994 accounted for half of their revenue.

We have seen this last year health boards reduced to one. Previously we had 17 regional health authorities taken down to nine and most recently to one. So what we see in this province is an eroding of the powers and potentials of municipally elected officials to govern as they were elected to do. The municipalities regard the tax collection by the province as a type of cash cow. The province takes a considerably large portion of the income that a municipality generates and then returns a fraction of it in the form of grants, grants which frequently have fairly closely tied strings attached to them.

What Bill 204, the Provincial-Municipal Tax Sharing Act, does is that it guarantees autonomy to municipalities. It guarantees that a portion of the income tax the residents pay to th e province is returned to them, where services are most urgently needed. Now, an argument this provincial government uses frequently is with regard to immigration to Alberta. We hear over and over again in this House that immigrants to Alberta do not bring with them their schools. They do not carry their hospitals or their recreational facilities or their fire halls on their backs.

Therefore, it’s through the largesse of the province that these services are provided. Well, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that that’s a lot of baloney, for lack of a better word, because the people that immigrate to Alberta bring with them their revenue in the form of income tax. They bring with them their revenue in the form of the property taxes which they’re charged.

This isn’t just largesse on the part of the province provid- ing these services to the people freely, but what happens is that the province filters the services, and the municipalities and those living in the cities are expected to be extremely grateful for the generosity shown by the province. What Bill 204 says is that these people are entitled to their money, that where their services are provided is where their money should be spent.

Yes, in a democracy there is an expectation that we all share in the betterment of the province, in the betterment of the country; thus, we pay federal taxes and we pay municipal taxes and, of course, provincial taxes. But by the time the two upper levels of govern- ment have drawn their share, which the hon. Member for Calgary- Currie pointed out was in the area of 92 per cent, there’s very little left for the front line, and the front line, of course, is the municipal- ity. What Bill 204, the Provincial-Municipal Tax Sharing Act, does is that it guarantees the security to local municipalities.

They know that whatever the tax rate is that is set by the province and by the federal government – you can do the math – 2.5 per cent will be returned to the municipalities if Bill 204 is adopted. That provides stability. It provides sustainability. It provides a degree of predict- ability to municipalities as opposed to the offerings by the province. Now, the province did make a 10-year commitment through MSI, but what it hasn’t taken into account is the global r ecessionary effects, so those percentages may be reduced again at the whim of the province, who is in the driver’s seat on MSI funding.

Also, as I’ve indicated before and as the other members from Calgary-Currie and from Edmonton-Centre have indicated, this sort of poor cousin placement of municipalities dependent on the largesse of the federal government and the provincial government takes them out of the direct ability to provide the services to their constituents. I find it interesting that municipalities, for example, from an electoral governance basis, are able to look after a million individu- als through their ward system, wh ich is less than half of what provincial representation is required.

So if we’re looking potentially at reducing electoral expenses and looking at, for example, what aldermen have to do in terms of governance, then maybe we should be looking at reducing the number of constituencies within the cities. If federal MPs can have this larger representation and aldermen can have a larger representation, maybe in the interests of a smaller and more efficient government we should be viewing a reduction in electoral constituencies and truly reflecting the fact that two-thirds of Albertans live in the cities.

It is those two-thirds that would benefit most directly, of course, from Bill 204, the Provincial-Municipal Tax Sharing Act. That would not leave their rural friends and family out of the picture because the Provincial-Municipal Tax Sharing Act not only offers support to Calgary and Edmonton but to Medicine Hat, to Red Deer and Lethbridge, all the smaller municipalities. Let’s not forget the terrific contribution of Fort McMurray that would be strengthened by the application of Bill 204, the Provincial-Municipal Tax Sharing Act. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Egmont, followed by the hon.

Member for Edmonton-Strathcona, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary-McCall, then Calgary-Buffalo. Mr. Denis: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I’m happy I was first on that list because I think I lost track throughout that as to who was next. I appreciate the opportunity to rise today to speak to Bill 204, the Provincial-Municipal Tax Sharing Act in 2009.

This was of interest to me as I have an alderman in Calgary who is a member of my board of directors, and I had a chance to discuss this with him amongst a few other people as well. 3:10 As the previous speakers have mentioned, this bill seeks to allocate two and a half per cent of personal and corporate income tax to Alberta’s municipalities. It has received a bit of media attention. The first time I heard about it in the media was on April 2 from the Edmonton Sun, and interestingly enough there is a Facebook group that’s been established.

I see the Member for Calgary-Currie here and the Member for Calgary-Buffalo, I see an alderman in my area, and I also see a cousin of mine, actually, who’s a member here, so I’ll have to chat with him about that. He wears my colours. Don’t worry. He very much wears my colours. The Speaker: Having some relevancy with respect to the question at hand would be in order. Mr. Denis: Oh. Yes, sir. In essence, the finances would be collected to a provincial account known as the provincial-municipal tax sharing account. The relevancy earlier, Mr. Speaker, was that this was referenced, again, in Facebook.

I think social media is a good thing. I assume, Mr. Speaker, because it’s not clear in the legislation, that these funds would be divvied up amongst our local govern- ments. The rationale behind this legislation is that the dedicated funds would provide Alberta’s local governments with additional sources of revenue that would be reliable, stable, and unconditional. The fact is that this government has continually demonstrated its commitment to the sustainability and development of Alberta’s municipalities through many grant programs. Indeed, there are up

May 4, 2009 Alberta Hansard 937 to 80 different grants available to municipalities through 13 different ministries, all designed to support Alberta’s communities. [The Deputy Speaker in the chair] Perhaps the sponsoring member felt as though there is a need to dedicate a specific amount of provincial revenue to support the growth municipalities have experienced in the past decade. However, Mr. Speaker, the municipal sustainability initiative, which I’ll refer to as the MSI, was deve loped to address this growth.

If municipalities need to undertake projects to meet demands related to this growth, they can apply and receive funds pursuant to the MSI. Projects can include building or improving roads, bridges, public transit, and water supply, treatment, and distribution systems. Since 2007 a total of $900 million has been distributed through MSI, and this year’s budget allocates an additional $400 million to MSI, which will again rise next year, to $1.2 billion. What’s the total? That’s $11 billion over 10 years, unpr ecedented throughout this nation.

These increases are designed to support municipalities by providing equivalent funding when compared to the amount of money collected through the education property taxes. Suffice it to say, Mr. Speaker, that this government has supported and continues to support municipalities through these times of substantial growth, which leads me to the conclusion that Bill 204, however well intended, is both needless and redundant. I think it is important to remind the sponsoring member of the other grants that this government offers to support municipalities.

For example, Alberta Transportation offers the Alberta municipal infrastructure program, which specifically is designed to provide financial assistance to municipalities for infrastructure projects that maintain or enhance the economic, social, and cultural opportunity of a municipality. This includes capital projects such as roadways, waste water collection and treatment systems, cultural and recre- ational filings, and solid waste management systems.

The government also offers the regional partnerships initiative, which focuses on promoting and fostering regional co-operation and cost savings by facilitating projects that involve three or four municipalities. There are two components to the regional partner- ship initiative, exploration and implementation. The exploration grant allows municipalities to evaluate the feasib ility of a project such as amalgamating water services or developing a regional governance structure or business plan.

If the exploration process suggests that the project will be beneficial, the implementation component of the regional partnerships initiative can assist munici- palities with its implementation. Mr. Speaker, I could go on to discuss many other programs that government offers to municipalities, but the reality is that there is substantial support for Alberta’s municipalities to manage both growth-related and non growth-related capital and operational pressures. Furthermore, these municipal supports ensure openness and accountability and are a demonstration of this government’s prudent financial management.

It was not so long ago that members of the opposition were criticizing the government’s spending patterns, suggesting we needed to reprioritize spending and reallo- cate finances. In

summary, I find myself somewhat confused as to how Bill 204 would save this government money or demonstrate a, quote, reprioritization. This government has already made our municipali- ties a priority, which is demonstrated by the many municipal grants and initiatives that I have outlined. Furthermore, the funds that Bill 204 suggests that the government allocate to municipalities must come at the expense of other programs, and I look forward to hearing from the sponsoring member in her closing speech as to what provincial services she believes we should cut. Would she cut health care? Would she cut education?

Would she cut any specific services? I’m looking forward to hearing that, Mr. Speaker. Regardless, Mr. Speaker, Bill 204 is a redundant bill and therefore unnecessary. For these reasons, I’m unable to support it. I will table my references to the page. Thank you. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary-McCall. Ms Notley: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is a pleasure to be able to rise to join in on this debate on this interesting piece of legislation proposed by the Member for Edmonton-Centre.

In general, I believe it is the intention of our caucus to be supporting this bill. It’s a bill that, as has been stated already, would allocate 2.5 per cent of income tax revenue into an account for municipalities, which would provide roughly $300 million more a year to municipalities. As has been discussed already, this is not the only source of funding for municipalities. Indeed, there are a number of other sources of funding from the government for municipalities.

But the key element to this bill and the proposal here, of course, is that this funding would be unconditional and would allow for long-term planning and would allow for support for operational funding and operational funding deficits. As all members of this House know, there do appear to be a number of municipalities who are reporting significant financial difficulty at this time. My understanding is that the number is roughly around 60 municipalities across the province who report these kinds of difficulties.

As we know, the biggest source of revenue for most municipalities is the property tax, but there is a limit with respect to how much revenue can be brought in through that mechanism.

At the same time while that limit is in place, the municipalities themselves have a growing demand for services placed upon them not only from the federal government through its 15 years of downloading services onto municipalities but also through the provincial government and also through their own population, which, quite importantly, are becoming increasingly engaged in their municipal politics as that is, of course, the government which is closest to home, as it were. A number of people think first to go to their municipality to demand a number of services, and that’s not unreasonable in many cases.

Of course, because the municipalities are, as it were, on the ground, they are often in the best position to provide leadership on the resolution of certain issues. You know, a perfect example of that is the housing issue. We’ve seen both the city of Edmonton and the city of Calgary lead the way in large part on the issue of dealing with housing and homelessness.

I’m not sure that I necessarily agree that the processes that they’ve adopted are utterly the best, but there’s no question that they are trying to make a commitment to address the issue, and we have the provincial government appearing to follow behind in that regard. We have, for instance, talk about the need for homelessness strategies. I believe the city of Edmonton suggested we’d be looking at about $3 billion, and I believe the city of Calgary talked about $4.5 billion.

Then, unfortunately, the provincial government has committed much less than that amount and even in claiming to fund that this year has taken every single dollar from other housing funds in order to support their so-called investment in this particular housing fund. In fact, we have sort of a follow the bouncing ball kind of process, where we ultimately find that the net investment in housing on the part of the provincial government hasn’t gone up a single red cent. Ultimately, it will fall to the municipalities to shoulder that burden as they have been for some time.

Alberta Hansard May 4, 2009938 3:20 That’s just an example. I mean, that’s certainly not the only example. Most of that funding doesn’t come out of operational funds, but it’s an example of how municipalities are taking on greater and greater roles in terms of the services that they provide to the cities. It’s just an example of the circumstances which are leading to the situation where we have municipalities suffering operational deficits. To go back a little bit to the municipal sustainability initiative, the NDP does support, in general, that fund. There are good things that come from that fund.

We would like to see its allocation criteria amended somewhat so that it’s not based on kilometres of local roads because we’d rather not see municipalities be encouraged to build yet more sprawling subdivisions with windy lanes that absolutely nobody without three GPS systems and two different maps and two navigators can get through. Rather, we’d like to see a denser type of development premised on the notion of enhanced public transportation. That’s why we think the municipal sustain- ability initiative can be tweaked to make some improvements.

Notwithstanding that, it is still conditional, and it still is premised on a 10-year duration. That doesn’t provide the ability for uncondi- tional operational funding which allows for planning that goes beyond that 10-year period. That, of course, is the kind of thing that we would see provided to municipalities through the bill that we’re looking at at this time. It’s for this reason that we think that members of this House should consider supporting this bill.

We need to look at the changing relationship between municipalities, the provincial government, and the federal government, we need to look at the changing demands that we place upon our municipalities, and we need to look at the very constrained set of financial resources at the disposal of municipalities, a system that was put in place when, I think, the expectations vis-à-vis municipalities were very different. We must then look at the whole issue of how that can be changed.

We know that municipalities, like other parts of government across the province, are suffering from a very, very significant infrastructure debt, one created by this province and the federal government but more by this province over the course of many years as they tried to hide their debt in things as opposed to off the books. That debt has not been addressed, notwithstanding the funding which had certainly started to kick in over the last couple of years or maybe even more than that.

Nonetheless, because of the inflationary pressures at the time we know that municipalities are still struggling with tremendous infrastructure debt, and we think that this is a time for this kind of investment in particular to be considered and not dismissed. These are job-creating investments. We know that in the long term that is another objective which this government should be focusing itself towards, given the current economic situation that we’re all experiencing. As I said before, it’s with these general reasons in mind that our caucus will be supporting this particular bill. Thank you.

The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-McCall, followed by the hon. Member for Red Deer-South. Mr. Kang: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m pleased to rise to speak in favour of Bill 204, which will go a long ways to solving maybe not all of the operating needs of municipalities, but I think it will pretty well solve most of the problems. This bill is a step in the right direction to ensure predictable funding for municipalities. This will provide funding for the municipalities just for operating expenses only, not for infrastructure.

It will lessen the shortfalls in operating expenses that municipalities have from time to time. This bill will allow the government to allocate 2.5 per cent, roughly $300 million, a year from the income tax the province collects to go toward municipalities. We’re talking about all of the municipalities here. We want to be clear that, you know, this is not a tax increase. This bill will be reallocating the current revenues that the province collects in personal income taxes, and the money collected from the personal income taxes will go toward municipali- ties. That will be 2.5 per cent.

While the province has downloaded a number of responsibilities to the municipalities, municipalities lack the ability to generate enough revenue to meet the current operating costs. This bill will provide a stable revenue stream so that municipalities can better meet their current operating needs without having to increase property taxes or raid their reserve funds if they have any. During the boom times there was lots of migration. It put lots of pressure on the municipalities to hire more police officers, more firefighters.

They had to build more fire stations, and that put lots of pressure on the municipalities. They are limited in raising their taxes. Edmonton is an example of a municipality facing a shortfall of operating expenses. Expenditures rose by 7.2 per cent in 2009, but the revenues, excluding property taxes, increased only by 0.9 per cent. If a municipality is having difficulty in funding existing programs or funding the creation of new programs, they only have a couple of options.

They can either raise the property taxes, or they can cut existing programs and defer future projects, or municipalities can tap into reserve funds they may have saved. Although municipalities are not a llowed to run deficits on their operating budgets, they have to adopt extreme measures to meet their funding shortfalls. Calgary raised property taxes 5.3 per cent. I think next year they’re going to rise by 4.6 per cent. There was a big hue and cry. People were almost up in arms because the property taxes were going up and because that’s hitting people hard, you know, in their pockets.

In Edmonton they raised property taxes 3.6 per cent for 2009. Both Edmonton and Calgary couldn’t raise enough taxes to meet their operating needs. They had to cut back on their existing programs and future projects. They had to even tap into their reserve funds. Of all the taxes raised by the governments, 95 per cent goes to the provincial and federal governments. Only 5 per cent goes to the municipalities. I think the municipalities should get a larger share of household taxes, and this bill will achieve that by giving munici- palities some share of the personal income taxes collected by the province.

This 2.5 per cent figure was arrived at by taking into consideration the operating shortfall for all of the municipalities. It is difficult to put an exact number, but this figure will almost correct the shortfall the municipalities face. 3:30 We determined that 2.5 per cent of the income tax the province collected in 2008-2009 would be a good amount b ecause in some sense approximately we added all those figures up. The municipali- ties, you know, the shortfall they took out of the reserve fund and all the other shortfalls they had, we added them all up, and that’s the number we arrived at.

It would be a reasonable number, 2.5 per cent, to reallocate income taxes to the municipalities. This funding will help support upgrading needs of municipalities, but it would not solve all their financial difficulties. For example, we have not included the unfunded capital plan for either city nor the gap in infrastructure funding that has been identified. Considering that $1.3 billion is needed to fill Edmonton’s infrastructure funding gap, the amount that would be allocated by this bill is not really extravagant. That’s not really a big amount.

This will only help the municipalities for their operating expenses.

May 4, 2009 Alberta Hansard 939 There is also a mechanism within this bill that will allow for the 2.5 per cent to be changed one year after the fund is created. We decided on 2.5 per cent of income taxes to create the fund, which is a minimum amount b ecause of the current tough ec onomic times. Moreover, the fact that there’s a mechanism that would alter the percentage allocated to the municipalities is a good response to the argument that 2.5 per cent would be too much or too onerous for an already cash-strapped province.

As the economy slows down, maybe the municipality’s operating expenses will come down, so this 2.5 per cent number can be changed. Although there is a provincial and a municipal revenue sharing formula there, those unconditional grants account for less than 25 per cent of all provincial municipal grants, and some of the money has strings tied to it, that it cannot be used for operating expenses. The Alberta Municipal Government Act sees municipalities as little more than the provider of a few local services and gives municipali- ties few tools to raise their taxes, so that relationship doesn’t work any more.

It is time to see the municipalities in Alberta as an important level of government in their own right. Strong municipalities are essential to Alberta’s future. More than 80 per cent of Albertans live in urban areas. Our cities, towns, villages, and hamlets are the levels of government closest to us and provide service that we use every day. Local governments are in the best position to lead Alberta into the future, by developing a sustainable transportation system, improving our land use, and becoming our environment leaders.

Lots of services have been downloaded, offloaded to the municipalities by the provincial government, and I think they need this funding to cover their operating expenses. Thank you very much. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Red Deer-South, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo. Mr. Dallas: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s indeed a pleasure to rise today and join in the debate on Bill 204, the Provincial-Munici- pal Tax Sharing Act, which, of course, has been brought forward by the Member for Edmonton-Centre.

Bill 204 proposes to apportion 2.5 per cent of income tax revenue to a provincial-municipal tax- sharing account. The

preamble of this bill states that municipalities in Alberta require both stable and predictable funding. However, Mr. Speaker, this government provides significant long-term funding for munici- palities through programs such as the municipal sustainability initiative, better known as the MSI. MSI is a program that in 2009 will provide municipalities with $400 million in funding. Not only that, but this 10-year commitment to funding will see an unpr ece- dented amount allocated to municipalities.

The MSI is one of many programs that are available to municipalities, such as the Alberta municipal infrastructure program, the gas tax fund, and the building Canada fund. This government supports all municipalities while recognizing their autonomy. Bill 204 is redundant as this govern- ment already has in place significant and long-term funding. I would like to raise some concerns that I have with Bill 204, particularly how this new account will be funded and the impact that funding will have on all Albertans.

Alberta prides itself on having one of the lowest tax structures in Canada, with a 10 per cent flat tax rate and no provincial sales tax. Mr. Speaker, income tax is one of the largest sources of revenue for both federal and provincial governments, accounting for over 30 per cent of all tax revenues. This past year personal income taxes accounted for approximately 22.3 per cent of provincial revenues, and corporate income tax accounted for 9.8 per cent. The

preamble states that “municipalities in Alberta require a stable and predictable level of funding from the Government to effectively plan and deliver services and programs.” However, I do not see how this account could be considered predictable and stable, particularly since revenue from taxes fluctuates year to year. This fact seems to contradict the intent of this bill. Mr. Speaker, I’m not sure how the member for Edmonton-Centre can see this proposed account as being stable and predictable. Revenue from income taxes is deposited into the province’s general revenue fund.

From there these funds are used by the government to pay for public programs such as health care, educa- tion, and infrastructure. Money is allocated from the general revenue fund to ministries based on need. For example, in 2008 Health and Wellness required 34 per cent of the year’s budget. By allocating 2.5 per cent to the proposed provincial-municipal tax sharing account, 2.5 per will have to be cut from ministries. Not only that, but it will take away from programs that help every single Albertan.

Ministries such as Health and Wellness and Education help each and every Albertan and have a direct impact on the lives of all Albertans, as do many other government programs. Mr. Speaker, another point that I’d like to raise about Bill 204 is that it would require additional bureaucracy to manage the fund. Once again, this bill requires this government to spend more. I question why the Member for Edmonton-Centre is asking this government to spend money in a time when it may not be fiscally prudent to do so.

In addition to creating more bureaucracy, this bill also calls for the creation of a Legislature committee to convene every year and draft new legislation. The members opposite claim that this government would be more fiscally responsible; however, this bill would seem to contradict this statement. The Member for Calgary-Currie stated recently in this House that “this government needs to get a handle on its spending.” This statement stands in complete contradiction to this bill, as this bill is proposing additional government spending. It seems that these members cannot get all of these priorities straight.

One minute they want us to stop spending, yet they introduce legislation requiring more spending. A final and important note that I would like to make, Mr. Speaker, is that Bill 204 has all the appearances of a money bill, which a private member cannot bring forward. Certain sections try and get around this by creating further legislation; however, in all appear- ances this would be a money bill. Even with this provision of creating further legislation, this bill has requirements on the financial initiative of the government, thus making it a money bill.

If passed, Bill 204 would clearly impact the government’s ability to raise and spend money. Automatically dedicating revenue to municipalities is problematic as it reduces the government’s ability to direct spending to its highest priorities and does not allow fiscal flexibility. Ultimately, Mr. Speaker, I cannot support this b