Before deregulation, Albertans enjoyed some of the lowest electricity rates in the world.

Today, our rates are among the highest in Canada.

The Alberta Liberal Caucus believes that government has a role to play in regulating essential services like electricity, where market forces are insufficient to protect consumers from price instability.

We will move Alberta forward by restoring affordable, stable electricity rates for homeowners and businesses, and return common sense and order to Albertans’ monthly power bills.

The Largest Power Bill in Alberta History: $13.8 Billion

In six years, deregulation has added $13.8 billion dollars extra to the cost of generating power in this province - not including transmission, distribution and billing costs.

The Alberta Liberal Caucus Plan for Electricity

Re-regulate the electricity system for all Albertans.

Simplify power bills to eliminate customer confusion.

Establish a Planning Council on Electricity to help predict and prepare for future energy requirements using the lowest-cost options.

Keep prices as low as possible by ensuring the lowest-cost power generators are used first.

Actively promote energy conservation, and encourage electricity generation from renewable resources and alternative energy sources.

Here’s how our power plan stacks up against deregulation:

[direct link to this article]

To download the Alberta Liberal Opposition Land Use Strategy, click here.

[direct link to this article]

The Liberal Opposition’s major accomplishments in Seniors and Community Supports this session included the government’s long-overdue increase to AISH levels, in response to the Liberals’ repeated calls for more help for AISH recipients. The 2005 provincial budget included an $80-million annual injection to the program, raising spending to $488 million per year for severely disabled Albertans who cannot work full time to support themselves. This is exactly what the Liberal Caucus had been calling for. However, we continued to criticize the government’s inability to conduct long-term planning when they failed to set a plan to ensure regular increases to the monthly living allowance.

The recommendations in the Auditor General’s Report on Long-Term Care Facilities echoed many of the measures the Alberta Liberal Opposition has proposed for years regarding all those in continuing care.  Liberal policy supports the establishment of provincial standards for:

• Minimum staff training requirements,
• Resident care, including resident rights in all continuing care facilities,
• Accommodation,
• Nutrition and food

As well as:

• The establishment of an independent Ombudsman for residents in continuing care facilities,
• Restoring universal dental and optical benefits for seniors under the Alberta Seniors Benefits program.

The Liberal Opposition identified problems and pressed the government for action, long before the Auditor General’s report was released. We drew attention to the high rate of sedative and antipsychotic drug use in Alberta, which is almost double the rate in Europe and the U.S., and the possible connection to staff shortages. The Alberta Liberal Opposition repeated these concerns when the AG presented similar findings.

Accountability was a theme that was emphasized throughout this spring session as we planted seeds of democratic reform by proposing the establishment of all-party committees. The cooperation and openness that all-party committees create, make the democratic process open, transparent, and accountable.  Bridget Pastoor offered her expertise to the Task Force on Continuing Care Health Service and Accommodation Standards in reviewing the substandard care levels at continuing care facilities across the province.  She urged the government to put partisan politics aside in an effort to do what is best for Albertans in care.

[direct link to this article]

Today’s seniors are not content to watch life from the sidelines – they are actively involved in their communities and most are fully aware and engaged in the issues that affect them.

The cutbacks of the Tory government over the past 10 years have hurt seniors. Many have seen their ability to pay the bills and enjoy their retirement decline sharply.

While eliminating health care premiums and gaining the modest benefits promised by the Tory government will provide some relief for seniors, more needs to be done.

The Alberta Liberal Opposition would:

• Restore universal dental and optical benefits for seniors
• Index the Alberta Seniors Benefit to the Alberta consumer price index
• Reduce costs for independent seniors by re-regulating electricity and introducing public auto insurance
• Provide incentives to build affordable housing for seniors
• Increase the number of long-term care spaces
• Provide stable and equitable funding for seniors’ lodges
• Establish Standards of Care for organizations caring for frail or ill seniors
• Implement Standards of Training for seniors care attendants so staff are equipped with appropriate knowledge and skills
• Establish a body to investigate complaints of elder abuse and other seniors’ issues

[direct link to this article]

View our brochure (PDF format) that outlines the Liberal plan for public health care.

[direct link to this article]

Coal Bed Methane (CBM), a new energy source, could result in enormous long-term payoffs.  But because of its environmental risks, CBM could be a blessing or a curse for this province.

CBM is a natural gas found in coal seams.  It is extracted by drilling multiple wells into coal seams and allowing the gas to flow to the surface.  CBM requires a higher density of wells than other natural gas projects because of the low concentration of gas in coal seams.  During CBM extraction, water may be used, and this water contains contaminants.

Alberta must get it right

Coal bed methane poses risks to land and water and can generate significant noise pollution and flaring. American landowners have met with members of the Alberta Surface Rights Federation to relate their experiences. In Colorado, methane leaked into local water wells. Water from CBM extraction also leaked out and with its high mineral content made the local land uncultivable. The Alberta government should learn some lessons from the American experience before proceeding with CBM development here.

There are currently about 1,000 CBM wells in Alberta. They’ve been dubbed “experimental” by Alberta Energy meaning they don’t have to undergo environmental impact assessments.

Albertans deserve better. All CBM developments should undergo comprehensive environmental impact assessments. Resource development has to be balanced against its potential to harm the environment and nearby residents.

[direct link to this article]

Looking for a particular policy?  Select your topic area here to see our policy in that area.

[direct link to this article]

Our policy for dealing with climate change in a fair and effective way.

The Climate Change Risk

Over the past 100 years, greenhouse-gas emissions have been steadily increasing.

Scientists believe these emissions are causing the earth’s temperature to rise.  They predict an increase between 1.4 and 5.8 degrees Celsius by the end of this century.

The effects of this temperature change would be devastating.  Some effects could include:

• an increased incidence of severe weather, such as drought and forest fires, which have already cost Alberta over $2.3 billion in the past five years;
• glacial shrinkage, resulting in less available drinking water;
• a decline in biological diversity crucial to the environment;
• adverse effects on Alberta tourism such as skiing and fishing; and decreasing water quality for human consumption.

Clearly it is in the best interests of Albertans to act now and avoid these consequences.

Tackling Climate Change

Climate change is a real risk to Albertans and our environment.  As a contributor to this problem and as stewards of the environment, we must act now to counter this growing threat.

The Alberta Liberal Caucus has established a set of principles to guide our solution the problem of climate change.

• A strategy that unfairly targets any single province, region, or economic sector is unacceptable.
• The climate change strategy must respect the goal of economic growth in Canada and the provinces.
• Any strategy to reduce emissions must be a cooperative effort between the provinces, the federal government, and Canadians.
• Climate change demands immediate action.
• We must reduce greenhouse gas emissions – not just slow their increase – to stop climate change.
• Protecting our environment and the air we breathe is an important element of long-term economic growth.
• Climate change initiatives provide growth opportunities for environmental technology companies in Alberta.

At What Cost?

The Alberta Government claims that meeting Kyoto reduction targets would cripple Alberta’s economy.  However, the government’s numbers fail to consider many important factors, such as:

• the cost of climate change, such as drought and other severe weather conditions;
• savings to consumers and businesses through energy efficiency;
• economic growth and job creation from the increased demand for clean energy (solar and wind) and new technology;
• an increased quality of life for Albertans through a cleaner environment; the ability of future technological innovation to help meet emissions targets economically.

A Strong Plan Of Action

The key to slowing down climate change is a strong plan of action created through consultation between all orders of government, the public and industry stakeholders.

• Emissions standards should be set for different emissions categories.
• In other words, different industries should reduce emissions proportional to their ability to do so.
• CO₂ should be defined as a commodity and placed on a national exchange where emitters could buy and sell emissions credits.
• The federal government should be able to buy international emissions credits when the domestic price becomes too high.
• The primary cause of greenhouse gas emissions, consumer energy use, should be addressed through consumer awareness and incentive programs.

Innovative Solutions

Storing CO₂ underground

One possibility is the storage of CO₂ underground, including exhausted oil wells.  This would also provide industry a supply of CO₂ to help recover oil from wells.

Coal-bed CO₂ injection

One specific kind of geological storage is coal-bed methane enhancement with CO₂.  This technique assists in recovering valuable methane from coal deposits while storing CO₂ underground.

An Energy Efficiency Fund

By allocating just ½ of one percent of our royalty revenues (about $20 million) the government could create a revolving fund for energy efficiency to help Albertans make their homes more energy efficient.  The low-interest loans would be paid back over time with the money saved on energy bills.

CO₂ should be defined as a commodity and placed on a national exchange where greenhouse gas emitters would be able to buy and sell emissions credits.  This market would ensure that emissions levels are reduced in the most efficient manner possible for our country.

[direct link to this article]

The water policy for the Liberal Caucus.

More than gold, more than silver, more than the province’s oil and gas reserves … water is our most precious natural resource.  And now, more than ever, we must take steps to protect it.

The Alberta Liberal Caucus Water Policy is guided by the following principles:

• The government holds our water in trust to ensure a healthy environment and healthy people.
• Sustainability of our water resource is paramount, and decisions on use or allocation will involve environmental protection of and conservation.
• The public has a reasonable expectation to be involved in decisions about water supply.
• New water management legislation must recognize the environmental values of this precious provincial resource.

That means:

• Ensuring water quality.
• Preserving biological diversity.
• Ensuring an ample supply of pure drinking water.
• Determining, restoring and protecting in-stream needs.
• Developing and sustaining healthy aquatic ecosystems.
• Protecting heritage, aesthetic and recreational values and the role water plays in economic growth.

Ensuring water quality

Provincial testing processes for drinking water need to be reviewed.

Alberta needs safe drinking water, access to testing facilities, and prompt turnaround for test results.

Watershed Stakeholders

The following stakeholders must work together to reduce the impact of development, economic activities and land use on water quality:

• wastewater operators
• drinking-water treatment-plant operators
• livestock and crop producers
• rural residents
• land owners
• industries

Clear lines of communication and co-operation between health authorities and Environment must be established to ensure water quality issues are dealt with promptly.

The process for notifying the public about water quality concerns must be improved.

Sustainability and Conservation

We recognize that water is a scarce and valuable resource.  The Alberta Liberal Caucus vision for water management includes:

• Alberta’s ground water resources are mapped so we understand how much water we have and where it is located.
• All connections to a public water supply are metered.
• Equipment meets efficiency guidelines.
• Water-intensive industries are reviewed to ensure they are using the best available technology.
• Watershed management plans are published on a scheduled timeline.
• Priorities for use of water are given to users on the condition that strict conservation measures are implemented.

Environmental Protection

Protecting our water resource and the landscape it sustains ensures a healthy environment.

That means:

• Saying no to bulk water sales and no to interbasin transfers.
• Ensuring that crown resource dispositions (forestry, mines, minerals, and public land resources) are registered.
• Establishing and protecting in-stream flows before allocating any excess.

Public Participation

The Alberta Liberal Caucus vision for water management includes:

• Published applications for diversions or withdrawals and new uses, prior to approval.
• Fair and open public hearings, with intervener funding made available.
• Advance notice of meetings, information used by decision-makers, and meaningful input into decision-making given to all Albertans, not just those directly affected.

Environment Policy

• We must recognize the value of wetlands to our ecosystem.
• We must not reduce our potential to regulate wetland drainage.
• Biodiversity protection must be included in legislation as required by the Biodiversity Convention, which Canada has signed. That means the protection species and organisms whenever possible.
• Aesthetic aspects, such as appearance and smells, economic, and tourism interests, must be included in the provincial water policy.

[direct link to this article]

1. Don’t feel pressured. You don’t ever have to sign a contract. A default electricity price is always available to consumers who haven’t signed contracts.
2. Find out how much extra charges will cost you. Make sure you ask the salesperson about extra charges and add-ons, not just about the electricity or natural gas prices. Those extras add up!
3. Check the cancellation penalties. Ask about the contract’s cancellation clause. There may be large fees or penalties for moving or canceling for other reasons.
4. Ask about one-time charges. Make sure you don’t get a nasty surprise on your first bill! Ask the salesperson if there are any additional, up-front, or one-time charges that new customers have to pay.
5. Take all the time you need. Remember that you don’t have to sign a contract on the spot. Always get the facts and check the competition before you lock in.
6. Shop around. Under energy deregulation, you do not have to buy electricity and natural gas from the same retailer. Make sure you get the lowest price you can for every utility.
7. Ask marketers for i.d. All door-to-door energy salespeople must carry identification, so ask for it.
8. Protect yourself against scams. Before you sign a contract, always call Alberta Government Services at 1-877-427-4088 to make sure the retailer is licensed.
9. Go over your contract again after you sign. You have 10 days from when you receive your signed copy of the contract to cancel without paying any fees or facing any penalties. Always double-check the contract to make sure the terms are what you expected!
10. Know whom to call when things go wrong. Before you sign a contract, find out whom to call when there’s a problem with your bill and when your power or natural gas isn’t working. Often, it will be two different companies.

[direct link to this article]

Electricity. It’s something we use every day. It’s something we can’t live without.

THE WAY TO LOW-COST POWER FOR ALBERTA

Do you “choose” to buy electricity for your home?

If you’re like most Albertans, it’s not a matter of choice.

It’s a matter of necessity.

For many years, Albertans enjoyed some of the lowest power rates in North America.

For many years, we didn’t even need to think about electricity - unless the power went out and we were counting the minutes or hours until service was restored.

Unfortunately, those days are gone.

DEREGULATION HAS FAILED

The efficient, reliable, affordable system that once served us so well was dismantled by the Alberta government with no rhyme or reason.

The government traded in a perfectly functional, customer-friendly system - for a complex, confusing, and worst of all - expensive - mistake.

And Albertans are paying the price.

The government has spent billions of our hard-earned tax dollars trying to fix this costly mistake - called deregulation.

But the mess just gets worse.

DO YOU WANT TO SHOP AROUND FOR POWER?

As if high confusing bills aren’t enough, Albertans will be forced to shop around for electricity service, starting in 2006 when the Regulated Rate Option expires.

How do you feel about the prospect of facing door-to-door salespeople selling contracts for electricity?

Isn’t there a better way to do things?

Why can’t we have cheap, reliable power like we used to?

The answer is - yes - there is a better way. Yes, we can have cheap, reliable power like we used to.

LOW-COST POWER FOR ALBERTA

Electricity is an essential service - not a commodity that’s subject to radical price swings.

The Alberta Liberal Opposition, in consultation with electricity experts, has designed a superior new system for electricity service in Alberta.

Under our Low-Cost Power for Alberta plan:

• You will save money. 
• Power bills will be easier to understand.
• You won’t be forced to shop around for the best deal.
• You’ll get one low rate, with no contracts to sign and no complicated calculations to make.
• You will be able to budget more easily each month because the rate will be stable.
• You can count on a steady supply of low-cost power for years to come.

DEREGULATION HAS NOT WORKED FOR ALBERTA

The Tories promised that the changes would bring lower power bills - but we’ve seen just the opposite.

It’s no wonder other jurisdictions have rejected energy deregulation.

California’s disastrous experiment with deregulation, which also started with promises of cheaper power, ended in early 2003 after eight years of economic misery for consumers.

In announcing this decision, a California Public Utilities Commissioner said deregulation was “a disaster for ratepayers, utilities and their employees.”

He called deregulation “the most expensive public policy mistake in the history of California.”

Can Alberta be far behind?

THE LOW-COST POWER FOR ALBERTA PLAN—HOW IT WORKS

The Low-Cost Power for Alberta plan is based on a centralized, streamlined system that minimizes capital and operating costs.

Alberta is already well-equipped to adopt such a system.

All we need is political will.

Our plan is based on the following principles:

• Electricity is an essential service-not a commodity subject to radical price swings.
• Instantaneous balance of supply and demand throughout the delivery system is a physical requirement of electricity.
• The lowest possible cost occurs when the amortized capital costs and variable operating costs are minimized.
• Capital costs are minimized when generation and transmission are added to provide just enough capacity to maintain an acceptable level of reliability.
• Operating costs are minimized when generators are dispatched in ascending order of marginal cost.

UNTANGLING THE DEREGULATION MESS—SEVEN STEPS TO LOW-COST POWER SYSTEM

1. DISPATCH GENERATION AT MARGINAL-COST

In Alberta, electricity is dispatched based on the “bid” price of power in the Power Pool. All generators are paid the bid price, even if they previously “bid in” at a lower price.

This system is open to price manipulation and leads to higher prices.

Bringing generators online on a marginal-cost basis is much more cost-effective.

Our plan would see generators with the lowest cost used first. The higher-cost generators would come on line only as more demand is placed on the system.

And the cost savings would be passed on to Albertans.

2. FIXED-RATE COMPENSATION

Electricity generators are currently paid according to the daily Power Pool Price. Because this price is set through a bidding process, it is unstable and often much higher than the actual cost of producing electricity.

Compensating generators with a fixed rate based on fuel costs, depreciation, operation and maintenance, and a fair return on investment would give Albertans affordable electricity and generators fair compensation.

Investors would also be more likely to build new generation because the risk has been removed with a guaranteed return on investment.

3. ONE LOW RATE

Under the current system, the Regulated Rate Option will end in 2006 and consumers will have to shop around for the best rate.

Our plan would see the Power Pool set one low rate for all customers.

Commercial, industrial, farm and REA customers with a metering device could buy directly from the Power Pool.

4. ONE POWER COMPANY

Under our plan, residential customers would be billed by the same company that maintains the wires and reads the meter.

The one low rate would be offered by all wire-service providers so Albertans would only have to deal with one company for meter readings, bill payments, and power outages.

5. STREAMLINE THE SYSTEM

• Eliminate the Balancing Pool and roll its functions into the Power Pool.
• Eliminate the Transmission Administrator and replace with a Transmission Department created as part of the Power Pool to deal with ongoing electricity wire issues.
• Eliminate the Market Surveillance Administration. (The need to monitor for manipulation will disappear.)

6. INCORPORATE LONG-TERM PLANNING

Add a Planning Council under the direction of the Power Pool to:

• forecast future energy requirements and ensure they are met
• establish the reliability criteria for generation and transmission
• design options for meeting long-term capacity and energy requirements
• identify the lowest cost option for new generation

7. CUT OUT THE MIDDLEMAN

The Power Purchase Arrangements (PPAs) transferred the rights to use the generating plants that existed before 1995 to new “ownership” for 20 years. In 2000 industry paid $2.1-billion for the rights.

PPA holders currently supply electricity to the pool at spot prices, which are much higher than the marginal cost of producing the electricity.

Our plan would see the Power Pool take over the PPA holders’ obligation to pay the fixed and variable costs to the plant owners, eliminating the middleman.

It doesn’t make economic sense to have PPAs. They drive up costs. They don’t make the market more competitive. And they don’t result in lower costs.

Our plan un-bungles the mess created by deregulation.

[direct link to this article]

What are these energy contracts they’re now selling?

As of June 2003, Alberta’s electricity and natural gas industries are fully deregulated. For consumers, this means that you must decide whether to sign electricity and natural gas contracts. An energy contract is an agreement between you and an energy retailer (also called an energy marketer) to provide you with electricity or natural gas at a fixed price for a certain period of time. In other words, the price you pay for electricity will be the same every month for the duration of your contract. Contracts have benefits, but they also have drawbacks. Read on to find out more.

Do I have to sign an energy contract?

No! If you don’t sign a contract, you can remain on the RRO (or regulated rate option) for electricity prices until 2006. The RRO is fixed – you pay the same price for electricity every month. After 2006, if you haven’t signed a contract, you will pay a “flow-through” or “spot market” price for electricity. This means that you will pay the market price for electricity every month. The market price changes rapidly, so your bills will change, too.

What are the drawbacks of signing a contract?

Contracts give you certainty, but certainty comes at a price. Energy retailers will charge you a premium (built into the price they charge for electricity or natural gas) in exchange for guaranteeing stable prices. The price you pay will be the same every month, but in the long run there’s a good chance you will be paying more than someone who chose to pay the market price.

Why do I feel like I am choosing between a rock and a hard place?

Because you are! Deregulation picks winner and losers. The ‘choice’ between volatile monthly rates and energy contracts (with premiums built right in!) proves consumers lose and industry wins.

Who should sign a contract?

The Alberta Liberal Opposition believes that no Albertan should have to sign a contract and that there should be one low electricity rate for all Albertans. Unfortunately, deregulation doesn’t offer this. If you need to plan ahead and cannot afford wild ups and downs in your bills, you should consider locking into a contract to give yourself certainty.

What’s a better deal, the default option or an energy contract?

It is anybody’s guess! No one knows for certain whether the spot electricity price will average out to more or less than contract prices. The best deal is the Alberta Liberal Low-Cost Power for Alberta plan, which guarantees that everyone pays the lowest possible prices.

Air miles or two months free? How do I know which one is right for me?

Don’t get caught up in gimmicks that only disguise higher prices. The best way to choose a contract is to go back through your old bills and see what rate you paid for electricity (on average) over the last year. Try to find a contract that offers you a similar rate. Albertans are finding that regardless of what retailers offer to dress it up, electricity prices are still higher than what they should be. That’s the great rip-off of deregulation.

How can I be sure the company I am dealing with is reliable?

You can take action to protect yourself from scams. All energy retailers and door-to-door marketers must show identification, so ask for it. Before you sign a contract, you should also call Alberta Government Services (toll-free) at 1–877–427–4088 to make sure the retailer is licensed. You can also check the retailer registry online at http://www.customerchoice.gov.ab.ca.

If I don’t sign a contract will my power get cut-off?

No. As long as your payments are up-to-date, energy retailers cannot adjust, discontinue, disconnect, change or in any way alter your electricity service until after you send them a signed copy of an energy contract.

Do I have to sign on the spot?

No! The energy retailer must give you time to look over the contract and compare prices. You never have to sign on the spot.

Do I need separate contracts for electricity and natural gas?

No. You can choose whether you want separate contracts or whether you want to “bundle” your utilities together. Choose the option that gives you the best possible deal on both electricity and natural gas.

How can I be sure I am not paying too much?

The only way to guarantee that you don’t pay too much is to unplug deregulation. The Alberta Liberal Opposition’s Low-Cost Power for Alberta Plan guarantees that you always pay the lowest rate possible. Under deregulation, there is always the possibility of additional rate riders, premiums and hidden fees.

Why is the Alberta Liberal Opposition explaining contracts when they want to unplug deregulation?

The Alberta Liberal Opposition knows that deregulation in Alberta has failed and should be unplugged. However, only the Alberta government can decide to unplug. We won’t let Albertans struggle in the dark until the Alberta government realizes, like the government in California, that unplugging is the only solution to skyrocketing utility bills. Alberta consumers are entitled to the information they need to make wise decisions. We are committed to providing this information.

If there is a problem, who should I call?

Nothing is simple under deregulation. Here’s a quick guide to sorting out the confusion:

• If you experience a problem with a retailer or a door-to-door marketer, call Alberta Government Services at 1-877-427-4088 to report them.
• If you have a problem with your power service (such as an outage or fallen wire), you need to call your wire services provider (WSP). Their contact information should be listed somewhere on your power bill.
• If there is a problem with you power bill, call the energy retailer. Your retailer’s name and contact information should be printed prominently on the bill.

Wouldn’t it be easier if you only had to call one number?

With the Alberta Liberal Low-Cost Power for Alberta plan, Albertans would only have to deal with one power company for all their electricity needs.

What if I have a question that is not answered here?

Here are two places to call for help:

• You can call the government’s Public Information Centre at (780) 427-0265. You can call toll-free from anywhere in Alberta by first dialing the Rite Number, 310-0000.
• You can contact the Alberta Liberal Opposition through our website at http://www.albertaunplugged.com by calling the Rite Number, 310-0000, and asking to speak to the Official Opposition. We would be more than happy to listen to your concerns about energy deregulation and offer our solutions.



[direct link to this article]

[direct link to this article]

It’s time for the province to support Alberta’s cattle ranchers by loosening the stranglehold of the “big three” meat packers. 

Loosening the Stranglehold of the Packers

• There are only three packing companies: Cargill, Lakeside, and XL foods; these packers owned 13.4 % of the cattle in Alberta in 2003.
• The three packing companies process at least 90% of the cattle slaughtered in Alberta ( Auditor General Report on BSE assistance July 27,2004)
• These three packing plants have received over $12 million in grants from 1987 to 2000.
• From 1992-1995 Cargill received almost $2.5 million of the $12 million in grants. (Alberta Government Public Accounts Grants Books)
• These three packing companies received $45 million of the $400 million in compensation funds.

The Alberta Liberal Plan

The Alberta Liberals believe there is an alternative by supporting Alberta entrepreneurs:

• An Alberta Government should provide infrastructure for water, roads and land to help get small packing plants off the ground.
• Appoint a “beef czar” reporting directly to the Premier– an Albertan with an ear to the ground in the cattle industry, the environment, trade and the needs of local authorities – instructed to move the industry forward.
• Set a 10 per cent cap on the slaughter of the big three coming from their self-owned herds.
• Restrict market share and control of Lakside, Cargill, and XL Packers until healthy market conditions return.  This may require capping processing capacity of these companies and placing a moratorium on the purchase of Alberta-based processing companies.

The Existing Environment

• The Alberta Government forced the Tender Beef Co-op to establish its plant in B.C. due to bureaucratic red tape.
• The Tender Beef Co-op in Alberta ran into land purchasing and provincial support problems with its original location in Beaverlodge, Alberta.(Herald Tribune Grande Prairie Aug 30/04)
• The Government of B.C. lured away the packing plant and the 60 full time jobs from Beaverlodge when they offered land, 15 acres of low cost city property and a government promise to help remove any obstacles in development.
• There are groups starting packing plants across Alberta; we should support them and the jobs they create instead of forcing them to other provinces offering a better business environment to ranchers.

Capping the Lakeside Cargill and XL Foods Plant Operations

• Alberta currently has no legislation to cap the size of the herd that packers can own.
• Cargill has bought up a packing plant Caravelle in Spruce Grove this is not helping diversify the sale of beef and therefore allows the big 3 packing plants to control even more of the beef market.
• Lakeside is planning a large expansion to its plant in Brooks which will further consolidate ownership of cattle processing among the big 3 packing plants.

Packers and the Necessary Controls

• A 10% cap would allow packers to always have stock on hand for processing, however, not enough to control the market price of cattle by flooding the markets.(Approved by the Alberta Cattle Feeder annual meeting) (Source The Western Producer March 4/04)
• The distinction of the 10% of the slaughter rather than the size of the herd insures that packers are processing 90% of cattle owned by Albertans out of their total monthly amount.
• Albertans require legal protection from packer monopolies similar to the U.S. in order to support a strong open economy in the trade of cattle.
• In the United States, the 1921 U.S. Packers and Stockyards Act protects livestock and poultry producers by prohibiting monopolistic or predatory practices that force sellers to accept lower prices than would be available through free competition.

Control in the Market

• The BSE Crisis has demonstrated we cannot have all of our focus on the U.S. and we need to seek out new markets for the high amount of product we have to export
• Canadian Beef exports of $633 million to the United States were down just $78 million ($711 million) for the same market period (Jan to May) 2004 over 2003. (The Western Producer August 26/04)
• Total Canadian beef exports were down a total $72,584,698 in 2003 due to an increase in sales to Macau, Poland, Philippines, and the Caribbean. (The Western Producer August 26/04)
• The value of Canadian beef exports remained surprisingly strong during the BSE crisis; significant questions remain on how Alberta ranchers were hit so hard while large processing companies saw profit rise by over 280 per cent.
• “The frustration is that had we have been self sufficient in processing capacity coming into this, Canada would by–and–large have recovered from its BSE cattle price crisis,” Ted Haney, Canadian Beef Export Federation.
• The Alberta Government needs to support increased research into all markets along with the development of the new packing plants so that we can have demand for the product before it is completed.

[direct link to this article]

Ms Pastoor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Employment and Immigration stated that his number one priority is that every Albertan leaves home in the morning and comes back to his or her family safe at the end of the workday. 

In 2008, the last reported year, 23 people died as a result of farm incidents and 19 the year before. These are Albertans who left for work but didn’t return home. To the Minister of Employment and Immigration: why is the minister content taking no action to protect paid farm workers?

Mr. Lukaszuk: Mr. Speaker, I will reiterate the fact that my number one priority is to make sure that every worker leaves their home, be it in the morning, and comes home healthy and, obviously, alive at the end of the day. That is my number one priority. It’s heart wrenching when I read about accident reports when, unfortunately, something has happened. We’re not in the business of pointing fingers. This is a collaboration between employers, employees, and this government to make sure that we have as safe a workplace as possible.

Now, dealing with farms, Mr. Speaker . . .

The Speaker: I’m afraid we’re going on.

Ms Pastoor: Given that occupational health and safety legislation increases monitoring and safety in the workplace, which leads to decreased injury and health in every other workplace, when will the minister change the legislation to include paid farm workers?

Mr. Lukaszuk: Mr. Speaker, I must brag on behalf of our Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development. He has just significantly increased funding for safety training throughout the Alberta agricultural community. Under the auspices of this department WCB coverage is available to farm workers if they choose to avail themselves of WCB coverage on farms. That has always been available. But we are looking at a balance. Most farming in this province still happens on family farms, where people actually live, not only work.

Ms Pastoor: Given that the farm accident monitoring system is voluntary and that, as a result, farm injuries are widely underreported, how can the effectiveness of the farm safety education programs be accurately determined to ensure that that $715,000 is well used?

Mr. Lukaszuk: Mr. Speaker, we are monitoring all injuries that are employment related on farms. But this member actually brings up a very good point, perhaps unintentionally. The fact of the matter is that if an accident happens on a farm, it doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s a work-related accident. People actually live on farms; they play on farms. Those are not only places of employment, so not all accidents that occur on a family farm are farming related.

Alberta Hansard, March 16, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Mr. MacDonald: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Two hundred very large production modules for Imperial Oil’s Kearl oil sands project will be built in South Korea. 

Substantial job losses here in Alberta will result from this deal. My first question is to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Is exporting construction jobs offshore the cheapest way for Imperial Oil to construct its Kearl oil sands project here in Alberta?

Mr. Lukaszuk: Mr. Speaker, I should start by saying that not only creating jobs but keeping Albertans employed and creating an environment in which businesses can stimulate employment is this ministry’s and this government’s number one priority. However, individual companies within this province make business decisions based on cost models or availability of production skills or other variables that this government does not monitor. One of the differences between this government and perhaps governments in different parts of the world is that we don’t tell people how to run businesses.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Mr. MacDonald: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again to the minister of unemployment: what is the total value of the work being done in South Korea, and how many person-hours of work have been lost here in Alberta in the construction and steel-fabricating industries?

Mr. Lukaszuk: Mr. Speaker, I’m not sure if this question is appropriately addressed to me. He should contact the employer and find out. This government is not in the business of business. We don’t tell businesses how to run businesses in Alberta. However, we are in the role of making sure that there are workers available in the province, and we always make sure to hire Albertans first, the rest of Canadians second, and then, when you can’t find them, export abroad.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Mr. MacDonald: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again to the minister of unemployment: how can steel fabricators here in Alberta compete fairly and on a level economic playing field against South Korean manufacturers who have access to cheap, subsidized steel and steel products? How can industries here compete? How can you allow that?

Mr. Lukaszuk: Well, Mr. Speaker, I guess welcome to the real world would be my answer to this question. The fact is that he identifies a very good point. Alberta is immersed in a global economy. We compete not only against other provinces and states but also against the world, and our job is to make sure that our employers have well-trained and skilled workers in this province. However, that doesn’t mean that they will not export some jobs or import workers to this province. It’s a world economy, we’re functioning in it, and it is our role as government to make us as competitive as possible.

Alberta Hansard, March 16, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Mr. Hehr: Mr. Speaker, the Kainai community corrections facility, the only correctional facility in the province established for aboriginal inmates, is being closed, and the reason given by the Solicitor General is that there are not enough minimum security aboriginal inmates available to use this facility. 

To the Solicitor General: now that we had an opportunity to discuss this last week, is it still your assertion that Kainai community corrections is closing because of a lack of minimum security aboriginal inmates in Alberta in need of its services?

Mr. Oberle: Actually, just to correct the preamble, Mr. Speaker, I don’t believe I said that the reason that we are closing it is because of a lack of minimum security inmates. That is one issue. I also indicated, I think rather clearly, that we have a budgetary issue, and we also have services available in other locations. If the member would like to attend my estimates tonight, I’ll be discussing this in more detail.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Mr. Hehr: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, if you check Hansard from last week, you can refer to your answer there, where it did say that you had a lack of aboriginal inmates for the facility.

Nonetheless, on March 8 the Kainai correctional centre received notice that the Lethbridge Correctional Centre was holding 19 male and 15 female aboriginal inmates that were classified as minimum security. Why were these aboriginal inmates not serving time in the Kainai correctional centre, located a mere, short distance away?

Mr. Oberle: Well, again to correct the preamble, Mr. Speaker, I most certainly didn’t say that there was a lack of aboriginal inmates. That’s what he said in his second preamble. I did say that the inmate population was changing, and there are less minimum security inmates in our inmate population today. If the member would care to get his facts straight, we could get to a question.

Mr. Hehr: Okay. Fair enough. So if we have less minimum security inmates, we have a few more medium security inmates. We have this facility that’s being used for aboriginal inmates. Why aren’t we using more of this facility to house aboriginal inmates in medium security? Can’t you use your powers to make this happen?

Mr. Oberle: Well, I was asked that question before, Mr. Speaker. I want to remind the hon. member that the facility is not ours. It’s a lease program, a contracted services arrangement. The facility is not ours, and it’s not up to me to reconstruct it, and I don’t have funds to do that. So we’re seeking solutions elsewhere.

Alberta Hansard, March 16, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Ms Blakeman: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The government has created a catch-22 in the competitiveness review.

It is extremely vague on expectations for changes in environmental regulations, yet only a 90-day period is allowed for a response from the task force on how changes are supposed to take place, so no detail, no context, but make changes in 90 days. To the Minister of Environment: is there support for increased funding for environmental impact assessments on the front end? If the government is serious about increasing development in the oil and gas sector, this is where the system bottlenecks.

Mr. Renner: Well, Mr. Speaker, yesterday we talked about the role that Alberta Environment will play in the regulatory review. The member brings forward a very important point. The whole issue of how we conduct an environmental assessment I think has to be considered in the context of whether or not we are making unnecessary duplication. I do think that that’s an area that we would like to move forward on to look at how we do environmental assessments in that context.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Ms Blakeman: Thank you very much. Is the minister saying that he’s looking at downgrading the environmental impact assessments or somehow lessening the requirements for them?

Mr. Renner: No. I’m saying, Mr. Speaker, that if you do things the same way, you should probably expect the same outcomes. We would like to improve our outcomes. So I’m saying that there may be opportunities for us to do environmental assessments from the perspective of determining what is more global in nature. Can we have 15 volumes of data that are generated in environmental assessment that are more generic in nature and then concentrate our efforts on those aspects of that environmental assessment that would apply to any particular application and do that in more detail?

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Ms Blakeman: Thank you very much. Back to the same minister: what is the factual basis for stating in the review that there can be cost savings without negatively impacting the environment?

Mr. Renner: Well, I gave her a very good example yesterday when I talked about the fact that we can avoid unnecessary duplication. The line of questioning that we just were in is a very good example. Is it necessary to do over and over and over again environmental assessments that cover the same information? Or should we, in fact, be concentrating our energies on those aspects of that assessment that pertain to an individual application and enhancing the amount of background and research information for those aspects rather than duplicating over and over multiple kinds of information that’s not necessary?

Alberta Hansard, March 16, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Mr. Chase: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This government’s failure to properly fund the postsecondary system is causing institutions to look at charging students non tuition-related fees of $500 or more to fill their financial shortfalls. 

In Alberta, however, students already have the third highest tuition in the country according to Stats Canada.

To the Minister of Advanced Education and Technology: can the minister explain why he thinks students should do the job of this government, which is to provide sustainable funding for the postsecondary education system?

Mr. Horner: Well, Mr. Speaker, postsecondary education in the province of Alberta is a partnership between the taxpayer and the students. We have always maintained that an investment in one’s future is an investment in education, probably the best investment they’re going to make in their lifetime. So it’s a partnership. I would say that the CPI cap, which we talked about, is a good way to move forward. Other provinces are removing their caps. We’re keeping ours. I would say that in my discussions with the students over the course of this week as it relates to ancillary fees, we’re going to continue that discussion.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Mr. Chase: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Why doesn’t the minister move to provide sensible regulations for mandatory fees by limiting the amount that fees can be increased, requiring consultation with students, and ensuring that students aren’t being charged extra fees for basic educational services?

Mr. Horner: Well, Mr. Speaker, I’m surprised that the hon. member isn’t listening to what the students probably have told him. We met just the other day, and we talked about that very thing. We are looking at and discussing with postsecondaries how we might be able to deal with one-time issues around IT costs, around various things that aren’t necessarily with regard to instruction but might be something that the institution might want to look at in terms of its fixed assets or in terms of supports for students.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Mr. Chase: Thank you. I met with the students this morning, and one of their concerns was having a referendum on all increases so that students would actually have a say in their fees.

Will the minister admit that his government’s tuition cap policy is meaningless if institutions can simply raise noninstructional fees by unlimited amounts?

Mr. Horner: Well, Mr. Speaker, currently there are regulations in place that do limit some of the noninstructional fees that institutions can levy. We are, as I said, working with the students and the postsecondary institutions to talk about how we might build some fences, if you will, around things that are outside of those regulations. To suggest that we’re moving away from the policy that we’ve had before is ridiculous.

Alberta Hansard, March 16, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Dr. Taft: Thanks, Mr. Speaker. The time has come for Alberta to take a strong stand in the battle against sexual exploitation. 

This government should cut through the confusion, strengthen the laws, pursue prosecution, go after the gangs, support the victims, and educate the public about the issues.

To the Minister of Justice: in order to decrease victimization and sexual exploitation, will the minister and this government develop legislation that will address the proliferation of sexual massage parlors?

The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

Ms Redford: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This issue is important to all Albertans, and I want to commend the member on his statement today with respect to this issue. We in Alberta Justice and, indeed, this government take this issue very seriously. We believe that it’s about more than criminal prosecutions, and by that I don’t mean that we’re not prosecuting. What we are doing is supporting projects like Project Kare, which are integrated investigative teams that include senior counsel, senior investigators who are ensuring that we’re able to resolve these cold cases.

Dr. Taft: Well, Mr. Speaker, we want to be in a province where we don’t need Project Kare. That’s way too many victims. We want to stop the victims from turning up in the streets of this city. Will this minister work with municipalities, police, health officials, and other stakeholders to develop provincial standards that enable Alberta municipalities to better establish, investigate, and prosecute bylaws related to adult entertainment and sexual services?

The Speaker: The hon. minister.

Ms Redford: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. One of the pieces of work that we’ve worked on very closely with police agencies in this province in the last two years is to ensure that their investigative teams are looking not only at what particular acts may be involved in running businesses such as massage parlors but also the environment, the actual, factual environment as to how people are functioning in these businesses so that they’re not exploited. We believe it’s very important to ensure that we’re creating a system where people are talking about this, understanding this, investigating this, and prosecuting.

Dr. Taft: Okay. Well, that sounds like a step in the right direction. Again to the same minister: given the power of public awareness and opinion, will the minister support a broader educational program about the risks and victims of sexual exploitation aimed at the demographic groups most likely to use these services?

Ms Redford: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think that’s a very good suggestion. We’ve certainly done a lot of work around this through the safe communities innovation fund. Just this evening one of our Crown prosecutors will be at the library speaking to victim sexual exploitation online. We’ll continue to do that work, and I’m happy to work with the member on that.

(continued)

Dr. Taft: Well, thanks, Mr. Speaker. Erotic massage parlours in Alberta are incubators for sexual exploitation and human trafficking. The victims are the sex workers, who are often coerced and entrapped by pimps, profiteers, and gangs. They are treated as if they are barely human. My first question is to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Will the minister and his department investigate the number and welfare of foreign workers working in sexual massage parlours in Alberta?

The Speaker: The hon. minister.

Mr. Lukaszuk: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This hon. member brings up an issue that I think is important to all of us in this House. Just like our Justice minister, I would look forward to working with this member on ideas on how we can address this very important issue. But just to let you know, in our most recent federal-provincial-territorial ministers’ meeting the issue of identifying sex trade worker smugglers has been very high on the Canadian agenda. As a matter of fact, my department right now is training our front-line staff on how to identify situations where we suspect individuals have been brought in from abroad for the purpose of sex trade.

Dr. Taft: Great. Actually, that program is a good step in the right direction.

My next question is to the Solicitor General. Given that prevention is far better than treatment, will the minister use some of the $47 million surplus in the victims of crime fund to support the sex workers who are victimized in massage parlours with a program to help them escape from that business?

Mr. Oberle: Well, Mr. Speaker, we will work with all victims of crime in allocating that victims of crime fund. The member will know that we want to maintain some sort of a surplus there so that we can ensure the sustainability of that fund. But we’ll certainly look at the proposal.

Dr. Taft: Okay. I appreciate that.

My next question then is to the Minister of Health and Wellness. Given the health risks of sexual massage parlours, including the spreading of diseases like syphilis, which is on the increase in this province, will the minister direct his public health officials to use their full authority to clamp down on massage parlours as a public health risk?

Mr. Zwozdesky: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Minister of Employment and Immigration through his staff provide related health coverage or health services or something to that effect. I’ll discuss it with him, and we’ll figure out where it should go.

Alberta Hansard, March 16, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Dr. Swann: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Last Thursday I asked the Minister of Seniors and Community Supports why the long-term care centre promised to Grande Prairie in 2006 has not been started. 

She could not provide an answer. She also could not say what happened to the $2.3 million that was given to Chantelle Management to start this facility. To the Premier: why has $2.3 million of taxpayer money been sitting in Chantelle Management’s bank accounts for four years, and construction has still not started?

Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, with respect to seniors’ housing in the province of Alberta we are moving forward with a very aggressive plan to add to the number of living spaces in the province. We want to make sure that seniors can retire in the very same community that they helped build. We’re reviewing all of the applications that have come forward for funding, and we’ll make decisions on them soon.

Dr. Swann: To the Premier. It has been four years. Is the province going to ask for that $2.3 million to be returned with interest or not?

Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, I can get additional information on that particular issue, but overall in terms of increasing the number of spaces, we’re looking at at least 800 to 900 spaces. We’ve been told that with the increasing population in years to come, we would need about 1,200 spaces every year to keep up with the pace of growth in what you’d call the baby-boomer generation, that will be retiring within a number of years.

Dr. Swann: Well, I’m sure the people of Grande Prairie will be very interested in that lack of an answer, Mr. Premier. How do you expect to build trust in a population where you neither answer a question nor have a serious response to 2.3 million public dollars absent from our agenda?

Mrs. Jablonski: Mr. Speaker, what is going on in Grande Prairie right now with Chantelle developments is a very important project not only to the people of Grande Prairie but to us. We are in the process right now of learning that they have managed to get all their building permits and to get their contract with Alberta Health Services, and they will be starting the project within the next two months.

The Speaker: Second Official Opposition main question. The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition.

Centralized Cytology Lab Services

Dr. Swann: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. One theme that’s clear within this government is that there’s no long-term plan for health care, including lab services. This past weekend I was in Lethbridge, and the resounding concern related to the impending closure of their cytology lab. To the Premier: why is the Premier closing a lab in Lethbridge which performs necessary tests for cervical cancer?

Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, the minister recently met with the pathologists, and he’ll have more information with respect the results of the meeting. We’re working with Alberta Health Services to deliver the best quality of services with the pathologists in the province.

Dr. Swann: Well, Mr. Speaker, we’ve spoken to pathologists and to public health officials, and they’re puzzled also. What’s the evidence the Premier can table in the House to show that this change will improve both the timeliness and accuracy of the testing for cervical cancer?

Mr. Zwozdesky: Mr. Speaker, I’d be happy to undertake that follow-up on behalf of the questioner and on behalf of the Premier. The fact is that it’s just the analysis of the Pap smears or whatever services are being alluded to here that are being centralized. They are being sent somewhere, in this case probably to Calgary, so that the turnaround time can be faster, and that’s what we’re working toward, making the whole system more efficient. But I will look more deeply into that on behalf of the member.

Dr. Swann: Well, for such a significant issue it’s surprising that the minister is only now looking into this issue. How is it going to save time or money to send all the Pap smears from Lethbridge to Calgary?

Mr. Zwozdesky: Mr. Speaker, it could well be the case that Alberta Health Services has put in place some additional precautionary steps to make sure that it will be more efficient, to make sure that the turnaround time is faster. This is not an issue of contracting things out; this is an issue of working within the publicly provided system, which is exactly what this cytology analysis lab is in Calgary.

Alberta Hansard, March 16, 2010

[direct link to this article]

On March 16, David Swann delivered an open letter to Premier Stelmach regarding the behaviour of government MLAs during the Motion 504 debate. 

Click here to read the letter.

[direct link to this article]

Edmonton – Official Opposition Leader David Swann is wondering what happened to the $2.3 million the Tories granted Chantelle Management to begin construction on a 60-bed long-term care facility. The money was handed over in 2006 through the government’s Affordable Supportive Living Initiative (ASLI), but construction has yet to begin.

“People in Grande Prairie are very concerned by this issue,” Swann says. “The current long-term care facility is in terrible shape and must be replaced as quickly as possible for the sake of resident safety. What’s holding up construction of the new facility?”

“Has the $2.3 million been returned to the province, since Chantelle Management hasn’t started work on the project?” Swann asks. “How common is this kind of circumstance – has the province reviewed all funding given out through ASLI? What about other capital projects, such as schools and hospitals? How much taxpayer money is hanging in limbo, paid out to companies that haven’t delivered? And most importantly, when will the citizens of Grande Prairie receive the long term care facility they were promised back in 2006?”

Swann says that this situation shows that the Stelmach administration takes taxpayer funds for granted and doesn’t seem to care where the money goes.

“There’s no excuse for allowing millions of dollars to go missing for years,” Swann says. “A responsible government would not allow a private company to hold onto millions of taxpayer dollars for this long, especially when there is an urgent need for the facility this money was supposed to fund.”

– 30 –

For more information contact:

albertaliberalcaucus
1-866-633-4214

[direct link to this article]

Edmonton – Statistics surrounding sexual exploitation in Alberta are startling. Over the past 27 years, there have been 31 verified murders of vulnerable women in the Edmonton area alone, with only five of those cases being solved. 

During Sexual Exploitation Awareness Week, the Alberta Liberal Caucus has joined forces with the Pros¬ti¬tu¬tion Aware¬ness and Ac¬tion Foun¬da¬tion of Ed¬mon¬ton (PAAFE). With the help of Liberal MLA Kevin Taft, PAAFE hopes to bring the various, sometimes unseen, realms of sexual exploitation and human trafficking to the forefront of Albertans’ awareness.

Today in Question Period, Kevin Taft will ask specific questions surrounding sexual exploitation businesses operating as so-called “massage parlors.”

“This issue is out of sight, therefore out of mind for many Albertans,” Taft says. “We need some kind of regulatory change to ensure human trafficking in Alberta, which sometimes involves helpless children, is stopped.”

Taft also wants the Stelmach administration to reduce the market that enables sexual exploitation. “If no one is willing to buy human beings for perverse reasons, there would be no market for human trafficking,” says Taft. “We need to inform the public about these massage parlors and sexual exploitation. We need to teach young men and women that these places cause serious harm to those working there, and the money garnered at these places is likely used for other criminal purposes.”

Some interesting stats about sexual exploitation in Alberta:

• The average age of a child involved in prostitution in Alberta is 15.4 years old
• The Protection of Sexually Exploited Children Act has helped more than 980 children in the past 11 years
• The Council of Europe reports human trafficking grosses more than $42.5-billion annually worldwide

– 30 –

For more information contact:
albertaliberalcaucus
1-866-633-4214

[direct link to this article]

Alberta Liberal MLA Kent Hehr asks Alberta’s Minister of Sustainable Resource Development to list grizzly bears as an endangered species.

[direct link to this article]

Mr. Chase: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Unlike their public school counterparts, private schools and religious charter schools exclude students by charging tuition or by applying faith-based restrictions.

Recently MLAs were recipients of a letter dated February 12, 2010, from Don Zech, public board chair of Palliser regional schools in which he suggests, “The timing is indeed ripe for a discussion about formerly private schools joining the public system as alternative programs.”

To the minister: does the minister not see this as a case of private schools not only wanting to have their private pudding but eating our public’s, too?

Mr. Hancock: Well, Mr. Speaker, when a private school decides to fold its tent and join the public system as an alternative program, it becomes part of the public system.

Mr. Chase: Does the minister agree with the chairman’s justification that “the full instructional grant does, however, help them offer competitive wages and benefits so they can hire the best teachers for the job at hand”?

The Speaker: The hon. minister.

Mr. Hancock: Yes, Mr. Speaker. When a private school joins the public system, becomes an alternative program under the public system, it becomes part of the public system. In that case, the public board becomes responsible for the educational opportunities there, responsible for the quality of instruction there, responsible for reporting to the public with respect to the results there. That’s a very good thing in many circumstances. Those that choose not to join the public system continue to be responsible in their own way for the funds that are being provided. But when the private school joins the public system, they become public.

Mr. Chase: And they continue to charge tuition while getting full per-pupil funding.

Given that the underlying principle of public schools is inclusion regardless of culture, creed, ability, or economic status, why is the minister permitting “faith-based alternative programs” to hide under the public school banner and receive full per-pupil, taxpayer-funded instructional grants?

Mr. Hancock: Well, Mr. Speaker, I’m astonished at this hon. member. Normally he’s suggesting that we shouldn’t be having private schools, that we should be having just a public system. What we have in Alberta is a very strong education system because there’s a lot of choice. That choice is very extant in the public system in Alberta. Faith-based alternatives in the public system are working very, very well in Edmonton and Calgary and right across the province.

Where the hon. member goes wrong is when he suggests that you can still charge a tuition fee to somebody who’s attending a public school. That’s not on in Alberta.

School Closures

Mr. Chase: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Waves of potential school closures are washing over communities in Edmonton and Calgary, but this government is looking the other way, claiming that the decisions are for the school boards to make. The truth is that, yes, city core neighbourhoods are losing students to the suburbs, but provincial policies are making the situation worse.

To the minister: how are municipalities supposed to keep families in the city core when this government has a utilization policy that pushes schools out of these neighbourhoods?

Mr. Hancock: Mr. Speaker, under the Municipal Government Act when municipalities plan for their future neighbourhoods, they’re requested to consult with school boards serving those neighbourhoods to plan appropriately. One would suggest that that type of consultation and process should also work with respect to the redevelopment of area structure plans in the inner-city neighbourhoods or the areas that are not in the suburbs. That type of consultation has to work between local governments because local governments, the municipalities and the school boards, are the ones that know what’s in the best interests of their communities and for their students.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Mr. Chase: Thank you. The utilization formula is out of sync with the Learning Commission’s class size recommendations. One of the Minister of Education’s predecessors conceded five years ago that there were problems with the utilization policy. Why is the minister still standing idly by while outdated bureaucratic formulas are being used to hurt communities in Calgary and Edmonton, perhaps permanently?

Mr. Hancock: Well, Mr. Speaker, what’s outdated is this member’s understanding of how we do capital. In fact, utilization is a very minor part of the capital formula with respect to where new capital is allocated and how modernizations occur. What’s most important is the health and safety of students. What’s next important is the need for spaces in places where students live. Those are the things which go into the question of where we allocate capital. I’d like to say that there’s enough capital to do everything we need all at once, but there isn’t, so it’s very important for school boards to use their infrastructure in the most effective way possible so that all of their students have a good educational opportunity.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Mr. Chase: Thank you. The first schools to close are the big ones, whose hallways are considered instructional spaces. Infrastructure grants were tied to student enrolment five years ago, a change that also punishes schools the moment students begin to flow out of the . . .

The Speaker: Hon. member. Please, please, please. Remember, you signed the paper. No preambles. You signed the paper.

Mr. Chase: Thank you. I will use that in the future, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker: No. Now. Get to the question.

Mr. Chase: Will the Minister of Infrastructure re-examine this policy before it accelerates the decline of city core neighbourhoods in our major cities?

The Speaker: Perfect.

Mr. Hancock: Mr. Speaker, school boards should and school boards are making appropriate decisions with respect to where the schools are and what resources they need for their students. I would say that it’s very irresponsible to suggest that a school board is closing a needed school because the hallways are too wide. That would be ridiculous, and I don’t believe it’s happening.

Alberta Hansard, March 15, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Mr. Kang: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Last week I asked the Minister of Infrastructure when the review of the Swan Hills treatment plant will be released. 

All I got was data on PCBs, so I’m going to try again. To the Minister of Infrastructure: why has it taken a year for the minister to assess “what the assessment is saying”?

Mr. Danyluk: Well, Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear again that the Swan Hills Treatment Centre has done an excellent job in treating the hazardous waste of this province. I want to say to you as well that every five years we do an assessment of that treatment plant to see what the future of that plant should be, and that is in the process. We are reviewing not only what is taking place in Alberta but what the needs of Albertans are and what the needs of industry are as far as the plant is concerned. It is a very much-needed plant at this time.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Mr. Kang: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the minister again. The minister keeps on saying: we are assessing; we are assessing. When will the minister stop the secrecy surrounding Swan Hills and release this report?

Mr. Danyluk: Mr. Speaker, I’m not sure exactly what the hon. member expects us to do. I want to say to you that it is very important to assess. It is very important to look at what is necessary for the future direction of this province. This government is not going to stand up and say, “Yes, we’re going to do this,” and then backtrack in a different direction. It is clearly important that the direction that is taken is a well-thought-out focus.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Mr. Kang: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think the minister should get off his assessment and provide some action. This treatment plant cost $22 million to run last year. Albertans want a government that is accountable. So why won’t the minister release the review?

Mr. Danyluk: Mr. Speaker, that’s exactly what this government is: accountable for what we are doing. It is in our budget. It is in our focus of what is important in the Swan Hills treatment plant. The review is there. We are looking at it; we are assessing what is necessary. I will reiterate again the importance of the plant and the importance of Swan Hills, looking at it as a utility and not as a profit-making institution.

Alberta Hansard, March 15, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Dr. Taft: Well, thanks, Mr. Speaker. Activity-based funding is a new funding model that Alberta Health Services is going to implement across the province. 

The reported plan is that it will be implemented for continuing care facilities starting April 1, 2010, just a couple of weeks from now. My question is to the Minister of Health and Wellness. Is the drive to activity-based funding being led under the Alberta Health Services superboard or under the Department of Health and Wellness?

Mr. Zwozdesky: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of funding models out there which hon. members here would be familiar with. One of them is block funding, or global funding, which is where we’re coming from. Another one, which we’re moving a little bit toward in this case, is called activity-based funding, and I think it warrants even further discussion. It’s basically based on volume and on type of service. To my knowledge it’s primarily Alberta Health Services that is pursuing this, with the intended first target group being long-term care.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Dr. Taft: Well, thanks, Mr. Speaker. According to the organization chart of the Alberta Health Services superboard – this chart was just updated a couple of weeks ago – the lead position for activity-based funding for continuing care is vacant. Apparently, no one is going to run this new funding model. Is the minister aware of this?

Mr. Zwozdesky: Mr. Speaker, what I am aware of is that the board and its CEO, Dr. Duckett, are looking at this matter and hoping to start that particular process as part of the five-year funding plan. Now, if that’s different than what I understand it to be, then we’ll clear that up in a hurry, I’m sure.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Dr. Taft: Thanks. Given that five of the six positions for activity-based funding under Alberta Health Services are vacant, how can this minister have confidence that Dr. Duckett or the board is going to begin ramping this up? How do they have any capacity to run this system?

Mr. Zwozdesky: Mr. Speaker, you don’t recruit people to those kinds of senior positions overnight. It takes some time, it takes some doing, and there are processes and protocols to be followed. Secondly, now that we know that we have a secure, stable, and predictable funding plan coming very soon, that too will help take some pressures off the system and allow for better planning going forward.

Alberta Hansard, March 15, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Ms Pastoor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In the last reported year there were 23 farm-related deaths and 757 injuries that required ER visits.

While this government supports farm safety education programs, there has been no noticeable decline in the farm injuries or deaths, and paid farm workers continue to be excluded from the Alberta Occupational Health and Safety Act and aren’t covered under workmen’s comp. To the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development. A year ago the minister was consulting with the agricultural sector on farm safety. When will the farm safety report . . .

The Speaker: The hon. minister.

Mr. Hayden: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We ran out of time for the full question, but with respect to the issue of farm safety, we are concentrating on reducing fatalities and injuries rather than regulating and legislating what takes place there to the point that this morning I made an announcement that $715,000 is being invested through ag societies throughout the province to put on farm safety seminars and education seminars in order to make it a safer environment for people to work. So our commitment is there.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Ms Pastoor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to ask the same question in a year and see if that extra money has really helped.

To the Minister of Employment and Immigration: when will you be introducing legislation amending the Occupational Health and Safety Act to protect the health and safety of paid farm workers, as was recommended by a provincial judge over two years ago?

The Speaker: The hon. minister.

Mr. Lukaszuk: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. Our Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development has clearly indicated that both his ministry and the Department of Employment and Immigration are committed to farmer safety. Indeed, there is a report that in due course the minister may be receiving. It’s that ministry that takes the lead on it. But in the meantime I am of the firm opinion that I’d rather prevent accidents from happening in the first place than deal with their consequences. That’s what both of the ministries are committed to right now.

Ms Pastoor: Well, that was a nice answer, but I’m not sure that it really was the one that would match my question. Why does the minister continue to exclude paid farm workers from workers’ comp coverage? What is the rationale behind that decision?

Mr. Lukaszuk: Well, Mr. Speaker, work environment on a farm obviously differs a great deal from that in any industrial setting. A farm is also a place where people actually live and raise children, and it’s a community, so applying strict industrial standards to a farm setting is not exactly comparable. But there are reports that we are looking at. You must appreciate the fact that both the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development and I had a chance yesterday to take a fresh look at it. Wait and see what we shall do.

Alberta Hansard, March 15, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Ms Blakeman: Thanks very much, Mr. Speaker. I don’t believe that Alberta currently has a perfect balance between oil and gas development and environmental protection. 

The problem is that when it comes to environmental regulations, this government has a terrible track record, and while the competitiveness review does recognize and talk about environmental protection, I don’t see anything in here that clearly defines and priorizes action.

To the Minister of the Environment: what was the minister’s part in this review?

Mr. Renner: Well, Mr. Speaker, this review was an effort that was a partnership between independent third parties, industry, and government, and by government I refer to the Department of Energy, the Treasury Board, Environment. Who else was involved? Technology was involved in the review. SRD was involved in the review. The role of Environment was to work with other ministries and identify areas where there is overlap, where there is duplication, and where we can streamline a process but at the end of the day protect the environment.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Ms Blakeman: Thank you. To the same minister: how exactly will the minister streamline the review process for environmental assessments? What has been lined up so far?

Mr. Renner: Well, Mr. Speaker, the competitiveness review talks about a group that will be chaired by the Member for Drayton Valley-Calmar, the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Energy. The parliamentary assistants from Environment and SRD will also be involved in this. They will be in fact working with officials within those industries to identify those. They have two objectives, short term and longer term, and we expect the report back from them very shortly.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Ms Blakeman: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister explain what it means for environmental monitoring when the report states on page 17: “Stakeholders have also raised concerns about duplicative and overly frequent reporting requirements”?

What exactly does that mean?

Mr. Renner: Mr. Speaker, as you’re well aware, there are a number of jurisdictions that have responsibility for the oil and gas industry: the ERCB, SRD, and Environment. In some cases industry finds itself reporting the identically same data to all three regulators. It makes sense that they should only have to report that data once. Maybe the government could talk to itself rather than industry talking three times.

Alberta Hansard, March 15, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Mr. MacDonald: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Alberta was the only province with a notable job loss in February. We lost 14,800 jobs last month. 

My first question is to the Premier. Why are we exporting so many construction and steel fabrication jobs to places like South Korea when the unemployment rate for the construction sector here in this province is increasing?

Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, while it’s certainly disappointing to see the unemployment increases here in the province of Alberta, over the long term we’re going to see the economy pick up and the number of people without a job diminish. Even though the numbers are up, we still have the third highest employment rates in the country of Canada. But to this government even one person that’s without a job is serious, and we want to get all people back to work.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Mr. MacDonald: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again to the Premier: given that 200 very large production modules for Imperial Oil’s Kearl oil sands project will be shipped from South Korea to Portland, Oregon, then moved by barge up the Columbia and Snake rivers, that from there they will be trucked slowly through Idaho, Montana, and Alberta to the Kearl oil sands project, how many jobs were created in South Korea as the result of this bad deal for Alberta, and how many jobs were lost here in this province in the construction industry?

Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, that’s why the competitiveness review is so important, to make sure that we compete with other countries. There has been a huge global economic shift. Countries are competing not only for contracts. They’re competing for investment, and they’re also competing for people. That’s why, I believe, the opposition will support this government in the Competitiveness Act, Bill 1, and get the process moving as quickly as possible.

Mr. MacDonald: Again, Mr. Speaker, it’s difficult to compete when this government is selling out the industry.

Now, given that the people of Alberta have provided generous royalty and tax concessions to Imperial Oil for the Kearl oil sands project, how does this deal between South Korea and Imperial Oil benefit the steel fabrication and construction and manufacturing industries in this province, which are suffering through such very difficult times?

Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, that’s just the issue here: why is it that other countries can compete with industries in the country of Canada and provide the necessary equipment and some of the large vessels that the oil and gas expansion in the oil sands requires? That is why we want to go through the whole regulatory process – the review, the competitiveness – to reposition Alberta to make sure that we can compete.

Alberta Hansard, March 15, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Mr. Taylor: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The competitiveness review confirms what we all knew, that within two years of taking office this Premier succeeded in eroding trust with the energy sector and in introducing a bucketload of uncertainty to what was one of the most stable oil and gas jurisdictions in the world. 

The effect was a less competitive oil and gas industry.

To the Premier: given this government’s track record for changing royalties again and again and again, what assurance can the Premier give that this time will be different and that this time he’ll stick with it?

Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, the changes that were introduced in terms of the drilling incentive and some of the other changes recently were in reaction to an ever-changing market, new finds of shale gas, and also to deal with the credit crisis and partly, of course, the economic recession. This last competitiveness review was done with months of consultation with the industry and having that information analyzed and the recommendations coming forward to government.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Mr. Taylor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Since this competitiveness review doesn’t actually speak to Alberta having to have one of the three lowest combined royalty and tax rates compared to similar jurisdictions – this is to the Premier again – does performance measure 1(a) in this year’s Energy ministry business plan, which says just that, still hold?

Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, the changes following the competitiveness review are to put jobs back in Alberta, whether it’s the local tire shop, to put people back in motels across rural Alberta, and also to keep creating more jobs well into the future. Again, a third party analyzed the report and said that this is building a $2.5 trillion business over the next 10 years.

Mr. Taylor: Well, Mr. Speaker, so far two questions and no answers. I’ll try this again. How does the Premier intend to prevent his government’s new focus on competitive royalties and resource revenues from becoming just a race to the bottom?

Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, the competitiveness review analyzed all information coming forward in terms of the new geological data that’s out there: shale gas available not only in the United States but in B.C., Saskatchewan, and Alberta, some of the cardium plays for oil. Of course, this is about introducing innovation and also new technology, new technology that will significantly reduce the environmental footprint the oil industry has put on Alberta.

The Speaker: Second Official Opposition main question. The hon. Member for Calgary-Currie.

Oil and Gas Royalties

Mr. Taylor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’ll try my luck with the Minister of Energy this time, and maybe I’ll get some answers this time. Maybe. While this report is four months late, it still remains short on details. To the minister: since the new royalty curves weren’t done when you released this review last Thursday, why weren’t they ready, and who’s designing them?

Mr. Liepert: Well, I would like to correct the preamble, as generally is the case. There were a number of initiatives that were announced last Thursday. What we did say, however, Mr. Speaker, was that we did want to get the report and the response to it out so that industry could make its decisions regarding investment. We wanted to also ensure, because of the situation involving natural gas and the low prices for natural gas, that we take a further look at, as the member said, the royalty curves. We’re not expecting significant changes, but we did want to have the extra 60 days to do that.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Mr. Taylor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Now, when we consulted with industry, they were not opposed to paying higher royalties when prices were high, so what is the minister’s rationale for lowering the maximum for oil by 10 per cent and the maximum for natural gas by 14 per cent?

Mr. Liepert: Well, I can’t comment on the consultations that the Official Opposition had with industry, but if that was what they were told by industry, we were told differently, Mr. Speaker. We were clearly told that, especially in the area with the new deposits in shale gas, there’s huge investment up front, there’s high risk that’s being taken, and the high end of the curve, which was previously at 50 per cent, simply did not make the risk viable. We’ve made those adjustments, and they’ve been well received, I would say.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Mr. Taylor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Since conditions change and since there’s nothing in the competitiveness review about how this government would review royalties in the future, what is the minister going to do, if there is a need to make changes, that doesn’t throw the industry back into turmoil? Do you have a process in place?

Mr. Liepert: Well, yes, we do, Mr. Speaker. The process we outlined very clearly was that it would be the process that we’ve gone through for the last year, which is consultative, collaborative, and working together. We have huge challenges outside our province. With our province being under attack, we need to ensure that as Albertans we are working together, that we trust one another, and I think the announcements of last week will go a long way to rebuilding that trust as Albertans.

Alberta Hansard, March 15, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Edmonton – Hugh MacDonald, Alberta Liberal MLA for Edmonton-Gold Bar, will ask MLAs to support his Motion 504 today in the Legislature. MacDonald’s motion is designed to make schools safer for students with life-threatening allergies to common substances such as certain foods, latex, or the venom of insect stings.

The motion reads, “Be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly urge the Government to introduce legislation requiring all school boards to establish and maintain an anaphylactic policy that includes strategies to reduce exposure to anaphylactic causative agents, information on life-threatening allergies, annual first aid training on dealing with life-threatening allergies, and a requirement for every school principal to develop a plan for each pupil affected by an anaphylactic allergy, including the maintenance of a file for each anaphylactic pupil.”

Currently, Alberta has no legislation or regulations requiring school boards to take preventative action against anaphylaxis. Anaphylactic shock can lead to coma and death extremely quickly, making every second count when assisting a student suffering from a severe allergic reaction. Both Manitoba and Ontario have passed anaphylactic legislation with all-party support.

“Alberta’s school boards do a good job of maintaining a safe environment for students, but with anaphylaxis, prevention and the ability to respond rapidly are the best measures,” says MacDonald. “A single, provincially-mandated approach to anaphylactic incidents will give parents peace of mind and could very well save lives of at-risk students.”

Parents who have requested greater protections for children with allergies will be available to speak to reporters at 4:45 today in the Legislature rotunda.

– 30 –

For more information contact:

albertaliberalcaucus
1-866-633-4214

[direct link to this article]

Official Opposition Leader David Swann asks the Premier to stop the imminent closure of urban core schools in Edmonton and Calgary, at least until a review can be completed to reconcile contradictory education and municipal policies. For more info, see http://bit.ly/aCuTNu

[direct link to this article]

Every day the Legislature is convened, Alberta Liberal MLAs ask between seven and nine questions to the Premier and his ministers.

Typically only the first two or three questions are picked up by the media. Here are some questions and government responses Albertans might be interested in:

Hugh MacDonald asks why the government has plenty of cash to pay for private school tuition for the children of elite PC appointees, but is forcing the closure of public schools – see http://bit.ly/a2RwTr

Kevin Taft asks the Minister of Health to reverse the gag order preventing doctors and nurses from speaking out on capacity problems at the Tom Baker cancer centre – see http://bit.ly/aAV2f1

Kent Hehr asks the Stelmach administration to protect grizzlies by classifying them as an endangered species – see http://bit.ly/cC9CoP

Darshan Kang asks the Stelmach administration to fight impaired driving by lowering the legal blood alcohol limit to 0.5 – see http://bit.ly/bOIoOP

Bridget Pastoor asks why Alberta’s syphilis infection rate is twice the national average – see http://bit.ly/acfnJq

To ask MLAs about these questions, contact us at 1-866-633-4214.

– 30 –

For more information contact:

albertaliberalcaucus
1-866-633-4214

[direct link to this article]

Ms Blakeman: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The Royal Alberta Museum has been missing in action, on hiatus, mothballed, something. 

We’ve had a new plan, and that was put on hold. Then a second, downsized plan, and that was put on hold. And then the persistent rumours of two museums, neither of which has been built. My questions are to the Minister of Culture and Community Spirit. Clearly, the budget does not contain infrastructure money for new museums, but Albertans would like to know what is wrong. Why has our museum been sidetracked for so long, well before the recession hit us?

Mr. Blackett: Well, Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, whether we’re talking one site or two sites, it is a significant amount of money that we’re looking at to be able to put forward. Given the current economic circumstances we don’t have in our budget or in our capital plan the ability to finance a $250 million facility.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Ms Blakeman: Yeah, but you mothballed these before the recession. Back to the same minister. Given that in 1997 the Syncrude Gallery of Aboriginal Culture replaced the pioneer exhibit and, aside from travelling exhibits, we’ve had no permanent exhibit of nonaboriginal history, when will it be replaced or a new exhibit be established?

Mr. Blackett: Well, Mr. Speaker, when the financial situation is such that we have the ability to move forward, then we’ll be able to do so.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Ms Blakeman: Thank you. Can the minister tell us the timeline for restoring funding for the three provincial archivists that the Glenbow Museum in Calgary was forced to lay off in the fall? These are critical staff for a museum.

Mr. Blackett: Well, Mr. Speaker, first of all, the Glenbow Museum is a private institution. It’s not one that’s funded by our government. What we do fund is our collection and the maintenance of our collection. Other than that, the Glenbow is a private institution, and they have to respond to their financial situations like anybody else.

Alberta Hansard, March 11, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Mr. Chase: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The noble mandate of the public school system is to provide the best education possible for all children regardless of their ability, their economic status, their creed or culture. 

Under this government’s guise of choice the line of demarcation between public, private, and charter schools has been blurred to the detriment of the public school system.

To the minister: what is your justification for publicly funding exclusive, tuition-charging private schools and religiously restrictive charter schools?

Mr. Hancock: Mr. Speaker, I don’t believe we do fund tuition in private schools.

With respect to charter schools there are a number of reasons why charter school exist. As long as they fit the purpose of their charter and meet the requirements to be renewed on I think it’s a five-year term, they are public schools, and they’re funded like public schools.

Mr. Chase: To the minister again. How is it that Springbank’s athletic, elite Edge private school is permitted to receive full public per-pupil funding and charge restrictively high tuition rates while hiding out under the mantle of the geographically distant Grande Prairie public board?

Mr. Hancock: Well, the short answer, Mr. Speaker, is that it’s not. Grande Prairie has announced that they have an arrangement with the Edge school. If, in fact, they do bring the Edge school into the public system as an alternative program, it will be considered as such, and if it fits the requirement to be an alternate program in the public system, it will be funded as an alternate program in the public system. But it’s not funded as a private school, and it’s not funded now.

Mr. Chase: Again, we’re turning around as opposed to coming across with the answers.

Tuition. Can they charge tuition and still be a public school?

The Speaker: The hon. minister. [interjection] Whoa. You had the question and no more preamble. The hon. minister. [interjections] The hon. minister has the floor.

Mr. Hancock: Well, Mr. Speaker, I’m not dodging the question at all. The short answer is that we are not paying tuition for students at Edge school. If they are a private school and if they charge tuition, they’re not a public school, so they don’t get funded like a public school. As a private school they’re eligible for either 60 or 70 per cent of the operating funding of a public school, depending on whether they’ve agreed to adhere to the reporting and accountability requirements. As a private school they’re not eligible for the public school funding, but if they become an alternate program in the public school, that’s a different situation. Then they’re not a private school.

Alberta Hansard, March 11, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Mr. Hehr: Mr. Speaker, the woodland caribou is an endangered species, recognized both by the province and the federal government. 

Development has already shrunk caribou habitat to an unsustainable size. This government’s answer is not to protect caribou habitat but to simply cull wolves year after year.

To the Minister of Sustainable Resource Development: does this minister have any plans, besides killing wolves year after year, to protect and preserve caribou habitat on an ongoing basis?

Mr. Knight: Mr. Speaker, what we’re going to do with respect to habitat conservation affects more than just caribou habitat. If you take a look at the work that has been done up to this point in the lower Athabasca region and work that will be done in the Peace River region, in the boreal forest areas of the province of Alberta, there’s a tremendous amount of effort being put into habitat conservation, particularly for caribou but for all species.

Mr. Hehr: Well, that’s good to hear.

Now to jump to my third question, which is on the lower Athabasca region. By your answer are you assuring Albertans that you will be preserving large areas in the lower Athabasca region for caribou protection?

Mr. Knight: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think part of that answer is very obvious already. I don’t think that many people would argue with the fact that Wood Buffalo park is a large piece of the boreal forest in the lower Athabasca drainage area that is already preserved for habitat for a number of different species. The issue relative to caribou is actually a specific one that we are paying a tremendous amount of attention to. As the member indicated, predation is part of the problem. We do need to manage these wildlife populations.

Mr. Hehr: Well, I like to hear that answer, that you have to manage these problems, but there seems to be relatively little action on it. The Alberta Wilderness Association has requested, actually, federal intervention. Can your organization give a timeline as to when caribou habitat will be protected in the lower Athabasca or anywhere?

Mr. Knight: Well, Mr. Speaker, it’s there now. You know, the “when” is a number of years ago that we started into this program. We continue to work with it. There has been some suggestion that additional real estate should be added to what’s already there in protected areas. When the plan comes forward, you will see that there will be a very strong element of conservation in that plan.

Alberta Hansard, March 11, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Dr. Taft: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions will be to the Minister of Health and Wellness. 

Yesterday cancer doctors at the Tom Baker cancer centre were ordered by Alberta Health Services to stop raising concerns publicly about capacity problems at the Tom Baker cancer centre. This was widely reported.

My first question to the minister: is the minister aware or not that this gag order was given?

Mr. Zwozdesky: Mr. Speaker, I’m not aware of any gag order, but I am aware, just as of a few minutes ago, of a clipping that just got delivered to me on this subject, so I’d be happy to take a look and see what actually happened.

As I said earlier, I think doctors should feel very free to comment on medical issues, and people at Alberta Health Services should feel free to comment on policy-driven issues.

Dr. Taft: Okay. Mr. Speaker, this is clearly a medical issue. This is about the capacity to provide cancer treatment in Calgary. Will the minister order Alberta Health Services to reverse this gag order and let the physicians speak about these concerns?

Mr. Zwozdesky: Mr. Speaker, as I just said, I’ll take a look and see what it is that the member is referring to.

I want to just go back to what I said a little earlier this week, and that was that the whole issue of what kind of health-related facilities are needed and in which part of the province, for what purpose, will be reviewed very thoroughly and is being reviewed very thoroughly as we speak. It will be all announced at the end of this month.

Dr. Taft: Well, Mr. Speaker, secrecy is the enemy of accountability. Openness is what’s needed here, and it’s needed throughout the health care system. Does the minister understand that physicians and nurses need the right to openly advocate for patient care and that the public has a right to know?

Mr. Zwozdesky: Mr. Speaker, I do understand that. I understand it very well. That’s why we have the Health Quality Council working with Alberta Health Services as we speak on the release of a detailed report regarding the four unfortunate incidents that occurred last year at the hospital in Calgary. We’ll continue that discussion.

Alberta Hansard, March 11, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Ms Pastoor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday the Solicitor General was kind enough to provide some responses regarding questions about the Kainai Community Corrections Society. 

I’d like to follow up today.

To the Solicitor General. This government has worked to scale back conditional sentencing and keep offenders in correctional facilities. Won’t tougher laws, the prospect of new minimum penalties, and relying on prisons as a deterrent lead to a larger custodial population?

Mr. Oberle: Well, Mr. Speaker, I suppose that’s a possibility, but these are issues under federal jurisdiction. I can’t really comment at this time what the impact will be, but certainly we will respond to whatever impact is imposed upon us. In the meantime I have to provide the facilities to house the inmates that we do have.

Ms Pastoor: The Solicitor General noted that the Kainai facility’s utilization rate was too low and that economically viable solutions needed to be found elsewhere. Did the minister or the department consider other options to closing this facility such as reclassifying the institution to hold medium security prisoners? Has anyone from the ministry ever discussed other options?

Mr. Oberle: Mr. Speaker, this is a minimum security facility; it’s not a medium security facility. The province doesn’t own the facility. The province already owns facilities that are adequate to house these inmates. Unless this is a spending day, I think the member would agree with me that I need to utilize those facilities.

Ms Pastoor: The Solicitor General wants us to believe that this is a purely economic decision not to provide funding for a facility that is an essential part of its community aimed at ameliorating the overincarceration of aboriginal offenders. It may sound like good fiscal policy, but in the long run is it really a good social policy?

Mr. Oberle: I believe it is, Mr. Speaker. I don’t see how a facility designed to house inmates in that community or any other is going to change the cultural issues around incarceration. We are providing facilities that are culturally sensitive, and I’m required to utilize those facilities to their maximum.

Alberta Hansard, March 11, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Mr. Kang: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Last year the Swan Hills treatment plant cost Albertans $22 million to operate. 

A review of the plant was completed one year ago. The review gives recommendations on what to do with the plant, to close it down or to keep subsidizing it.

To the Minister of Infrastructure. The government has been reviewing these recommendations for a year. What has the minister finally decided?

Mr. Danyluk: Well, Mr. Speaker, let me first tell you that the Swan Hills treatment plant has done an excellent job in helping rid the province of hazardous wastes and PCBs and dioxins. Also, let me make this very clear: the purpose of the plant is to ensure that we get rid of those PCBs. There is no doubt that the government is reviewing the recommendations, as it does every five years.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Mr. Kang: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister publicly release the review done on the Swan Hills treatment plant? That’s my second question, sir.

Mr. Danyluk: Well, Mr. Speaker, as I said, we’re doing a comprehensive strategic assessment. But I need to express one thing: the Swan Hills treatment plant is a plant that is like a utility. It is for the insurance that the dioxins and the PCBs are taken care of in this country and in this province.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Mr. Kang: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Maybe the minister is waiting for the next review, scheduled four years from now, to make a decision. While the minister hems and haws, how many more taxpayer dollars are going to have to go to this money pit?

Mr. Danyluk: Mr. Speaker, I want to say to you that we have done a strategic review and a strategic assessment, and at this particular time we are assessing what that assessment is saying and what the recommendations are.

Alberta Hansard, March 11, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Mr. MacDonald: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the Minister of Education: why does this government have so much money to pay the private school tuition for the children of elite Conservative appointees, yet it is forcing the closure of necessary public schools in central Edmonton neighbourhoods?

[interjection] You may laugh, but it is true.

Mr. Hancock: Nothing could be further from the truth, Mr. Speaker. We have a number of different ways of delivering education to the children of Alberta to make sure that every child has an opportunity to learn in their best way, in their best place. As we study how we go forward to do it better, we will even provide more options, I hope, for children to be able to learn in the manner and in the place and at the pace that makes sense for them. We pay for students in public schools, and we pay significantly less for students who go to private schools, but they all get educated.

Mr. MacDonald: Again to the same minister. That’s not true, Mr. Speaker. How can this government justify spending $100,000 a year on private tuition for Gary Mar’s children in Washington and on Vancouver Island at the same time we’re closing public schools in central Edmonton neighbourhoods as a cost-saving measure?

Mr. Hancock: Mr. Speaker, in many circumstances both in the private and public sectors contracts of employment are entered into. I’m not aware of the details of the contract of employment intergovernmental relations has entered into to ensure that we have the best ambassador possible in the U.S. to promote Alberta’s interests and make sure that Alberta jobs are secure. But I can tell you this: Gary Mar is doing a fantastic job down there making sure that every single state in the United States knows how much they benefit from the work that happens in this province, and the contract of employment is worth it.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Mr. MacDonald: Thank you. Again, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Education: why does this government value the elite, private education of the children of hand-picked Conservative appointees over the public education of children in central Edmonton neighbourhoods, right here in this city?

Mr. Hancock: The answer is: we do not. The government does a wide range of very important things. One of the most important things the government does is make sure that every child in Alberta has an opportunity to succeed, an opportunity to learn. We do that very well through very good school boards across the province, including the school boards right here in Edmonton, who are among the best in the world. People come from all over the world to see what we’re doing right here.

We also do other things, Mr. Speaker. It will surprise the hon. member to know that one of the ways we pay for those schools is by doing business and selling our products around the world and having ambassadors to do it.

Alberta Hansard, March 11, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Dr. Swann: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Doctors, nurses, and other health professionals have a moral and professional responsibility to advocate on behalf of better patient care. 

Cancer doctors in both Calgary and Edmonton have from time to time spoken out about the need for expanded cancer care in these centres. Yesterday Alberta Health Services forbade cancer physicians at the Tom Baker in Calgary from speaking publicly about the need for new cancer facilities. To the Minister of Health and Wellness: does the minister agree with the health superboard forbidding cancer doctors from commenting on capacity problems at the Tom Baker cancer centre?

Mr. Zwozdesky: Mr. Speaker, I’m very aware of what the needs are for cancer treatment and cancer patients in general in Calgary. I was just there and visited the Tom Baker centre, and I’m pretty on top of the issue. I don’t know what the hon. member is driving at here. I’m not familiar with the directive that he’s referring to. But what I would just say quickly, Mr. Speaker, is that if it’s a policy matter, whoever is asking that question should direct it to the Health Services people. If it’s medical, ask the doctors.

Dr. Swann: I’m disappointed, Mr. Minister. You know there’s a culture of intimidation and fear in this province around health care workers speaking out.

Do you support that gag order, or do you not?

Mr. Zwozdesky: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know of any gag order. I’ve been out talking to doctors. They’re talking very openly, very freely with me. They’re talking very openly with the Health Services people. I’ve talked with the nurses. I’ve talked with the optometrists. I’ve talked with pharmacists. I’ve talked with a whole bunch of people. There are 90,000 people out there, and I may get to talk to every one of them yet.

Dr. Swann: Denial, denial, denial, Mr. Minister.

This is the same week that the superboard blocked the full release of the report from the Health Quality Council. Does the minister agree that the superboard is spinning out of control and blocking information from Albertans, including that from health professionals?

Mr. Zwozdesky: Mr. Speaker, nobody is blocking any information whatsoever. I spoke with Alberta Health Services yesterday. I spoke with the Health Quality Council yesterday. They said they had some privacy concerns related to the parameters of the Alberta Evidence Act and the Health Information Act, issues of privacy that are being resolved. I said: well, speed it up, please, so that we can get the report out to the public. They’re going to do that in nine days.

The Speaker: Second Official Opposition main question. The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition.

Long-term Care in Grande Prairie

Dr. Swann: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In 2006 this government committed to fund a new long-term care facility in Grande Prairie. It promised $4.6 million. A total of $2.3 million was paid to Chantelle Management to get the building under way to replace the outdated and unsafe Grande Prairie care centre. In this facility it takes 45 minutes to get all 60 patients down to the main floor. Families must be praying that a fire doesn’t break out in the future.

To the Minister of Seniors and Community Supports: why has no work been started on this facility in the four years since the $2.3 million was transferred?

The Speaker: The hon. minister.

Mrs. Jablonski: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I understand there are a number of circumstances around this project, but I believe that they are in the process of getting started. We will follow up with our office to see where they are in this process.

Dr. Swann: Well, how is the minister accounting for the funds distributed through this affordable supportive living initiative when it seems that the residents of Grande Prairie are still waiting for action after four years of this company having 2.3 million public dollars?

Mrs. Jablonski: Mr. Speaker, we have a program in my department called the affordable supportive living initiative. There are a number of criteria that organizations have to meet in order to be able to get the funding. One of the criteria is that they’re able to go into the ground within nine months of receiving the funding, and the second one is that they’re finished within two years of receiving that funding. That part of our program has been in process in the last two years.

Dr. Swann: I assume, then, that the minister is acknowledging that she doesn’t know what’s happened to that $2.3 million. To the Minister of Health and Wellness. The Premier stated earlier that the minister is travelling to Grande Prairie. Will the minister commit to visiting this centre and ensuring that he understands the need for urgent change in that facility?

Mr. Zwozdesky: Mr. Speaker, if the schedule allows, I’d certainly welcome the opportunity to do that. We’re visiting Grande Prairie. I’ll also be visiting High Prairie. We’re on a tight schedule so that I can come back here for question period that same day, but we’ll do the best we can.

Alberta Hansard, March 11, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Edmonton – As up to one hundred schools in the urban cores of Edmonton and Calgary face possible closure due to budget cuts, the Stelmach administration continues to spend hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars to send former PC Cabinet Minister Gary Mar’s children to exclusive private schools on Vancouver Island and in Washington, DC.

When confronted about the issue in Question Period today, Education Minister Dave Hancock angrily rejected Edmonton-Gold Bar MLA Hugh MacDonald’s claim that the money could be better spent on keeping schools in Alberta open.

MacDonald insists that neighbourhood public schools must be protected.

“For the Minister of Education to stand there and claim that Albertans would rather spend their tax dollars on private schools for the privileged instead of public schools for Edmonton and Calgary families shows how out of touch this administration has fallen,” MacDonald says. “PC government priorities continue to support their elite friends.”

– 30 –

For more information contact:

albertaliberalcaucus
1-866-633-4214

[direct link to this article]

Mr. Chase: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. More children in Alberta are taken into custody by this province per capita than anywhere else in Canada. 

When children in care are hurt or die, the privacy of the family is paramount, but the details of the incidents need to be released. The sharing of information and solutions is the only way to bring change. We need to know what happened and what is being done to fix it. To the minister: how is it in the best interests of a dead child or their family to keep the circumstances that led to their death a ministry secret? Exactly whose interests are being protected?

The Speaker: The hon. minister.

Mrs. Fritz: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will look at the preamble and see, hon. member, if your preamble was correct. I think it is incorrect, but I’ll look into that further. In answering this question, we are governed by laws and regulations, and they do regard privacy for children in various circumstances. For the one that this member is discussing, there is an ongoing police investigation. To respect the integrity of that investigation, we will not be releasing any further information at this time.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Mr. Chase: Thank you. Will the minister provide details that led to the death of a 21-month-old child in care last Wednesday and the findings of the ministry’s internal investigation when it is completed?

We don’t need names. We don’t need addresses.

The Speaker: The hon. minister.

Mrs. Fritz: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I indicated, I believe people have the right to know what has happened in cases involving children in this ministry and not just in this situation but in others as well. That information will be released that is appropriate in accordance with the regulation and the legislation that we have. There is an ongoing police investigation right now, and I will not compromise the integrity of that investigation.

Mr. Chase: I don’t want the investigation compromised, but when it’s through, we need the details.

I will ask again. Will the minister take the first step to end the systemic secrecy and require that the children’s advocate report directly to the Legislature, as is the case in all other provinces?

The Speaker: The hon. minister.

Mrs. Fritz: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. The children’s advocate and the reporting that the children’s advocate does in the ministry is not related to systemic secrecy. It’s related to what is right, and it’s related to the information. There are four quarterly reports that come to the Legislature through the children’s advocate as well as an annual report, and the member is aware of that.

Alberta Hansard, March 10, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Mr. Kang: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Transportation would rather make excuses than take the initiative. 

He failed to fund the airport tunnel by passing the buck to the city of Calgary and so far – so far – failed to bring in distracted driving legislation. His excuse? He’s waiting to get the legislation just right. To the Minister of Transportation. Ontario has distracted driving legislation. Why can’t Alberta adopt something similar?

Mr. Ouellette: Well, Mr. Speaker, I have to say that he’s absolutely right on one thing: I’m waiting to make sure we can get it right. He’s absolutely wrong on another. It’s not our responsibility to fund the airport tunnel.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Mr. Kang: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Why won’t the minister legislate against electronic distractions now since he could always expand the legislation to apply to other types of distractions later on?

Mr. Ouellette: Mr. Speaker, I think I’ve said that to the hon. member a number of times. There are a lot of distractions out there. We want to make sure, when we put legislation in place, that it’s effective, and in order for it to be effective, it’s got to be enforceable. We’re looking at all those aspects to make sure we get it right.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Mr. Kang: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m talking about electronic distractions right now, Minister. Then you can change them later on, add other distractions.

To the minister again. This government has failed to end drinking and driving. Now they won’t rein in distracted drivers. Why are safe drivers not a priority for this minister?

Mr. Ouellette: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know how many times I’ve said in this House how important safe driving is to this government and keeping our roads safe and protecting all Albertans on our roads.

Alberta Hansard, March 10, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Mr. Hehr: Mr. Speaker, on February 9 the Kainai Community Corrections Society, who operate a corrections facility for Alberta’s aboriginal population, were told they would have to close their doors on March 31 because this government would no longer provide funding to the facility. 

To the Solicitor General. After meeting with the people from Kainai, they indicated that the ministry was pleased with the performance of the facility. Given that, I was wondering why the corrections facility was being closed when so many aboriginal offenders could benefit from its existence.

The Speaker: The hon. minister.

Mr. Oberle: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and thank you to the hon. member for that question. It allows me to clarify that there is absolutely no performance issue involved here. It’s a simple matter of the fact that our minimum security inmate population has dropped radically as a result of conditional sentences, community supervision, those sorts of things, and the Kainai centre is around about 50 per cent capacity and continues to decline. I have those resources available in other centres, and we’ve made a budgetary decision. It has nothing to do with performance.

Mr. Hehr: Well, given that the Kainai community corrections facility is designed and operated for aboriginal offenders, who make up 35 per cent of Alberta’s prison population, and not only that but it also employs 29 people on the Blood reserve, accordingly, could the Solicitor General please explain to me how closing this facility helps these aboriginal Albertans?

Mr. Oberle: Well, once again, Mr. Speaker, my job here is to provide correctional services for the entire population spectrum of the province of Alberta. The fact is absolutely crystal clear. We have very few minimum security inmates anymore. That is a minimum security facility, and I can’t fill it.

Mr. Hehr: Finally, Mr. Speaker, why did the Solicitor General give only 50 days’ notice to the Kainai community corrections facility that they would be closing their doors within 50 days? Why the short notice?

Mr. Oberle: Mr. Speaker, I am planning to meet – we’re trying to arrange a date – with the leadership there, and we’ll certainly talk about that. The fact of the matter is that I can’t release budget details any time before the budget is actually tabled in the House, so I had no possibility of warning them of what was coming there. I will meet with the community and discuss their concerns.

Alberta Hansard, March 10, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Ms Blakeman: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The Alberta Film Advisory Council has AMPIA producers, film commissioners, and unions working together to advise the minister. 

Unfortunately, the minister has not attended even one meeting in the last two years, and the MLA position that was on the council was cancelled. After a three-year consultation the council developed a business case for the minister. My questions are to the Minister of Culture and Community Spirit. Why has the minister abandoned the three-year Alberta film development business case? What happened to it?

Mr. Blackett: Well, Mr. Speaker, just to clarify one thing, I haven’t been invited by the Alberta Film Advisory Committee to a meeting until last week. I will be attending a meeting with them on the 29th of March. I have representatives from my department that attend those meetings on a regular basis.

As far as the business case, it was deemed when we sat down with the film producers and representatives from the guilds that some of the aspects of the business case weren’t relevant and weren’t going to go forward, so we have moved on.

Ms Blakeman: Of course you’re invited. It’s your council. Given that our film industry needs both indigenous Alberta productions and the work for many Albertans through Hollywood big-budget movies, why is the minister continuing to pit the two sides against one another?

Mr. Blackett: Mr. Speaker, I’ve never pitted the two sides against one another. If that’s the assertion the hon. member would make, ask somebody from AMPIA if I ever did anything disparaging to any member of a guild or union. Our crews, our grips, our camera people, our sound people are some of the very best, hard-working people in the entire world, and they’re recognized as such internationally. I would never do anything to disparage that. We need to work together. I’ve consistently said that we need work together and would continue to work with those people who want to.

Ms Blakeman: You need to watch your Facebook postings, then. Will the minister show leadership to the industry, commit to attending meetings of his own advisory council, re-establish the MLA co-chair, and work to rebuild this sector?

Mr. Blackett: Mr. Speaker, I as minister responsible for the film and television and digital industry will take responsibility for meeting with the representatives of that group. I don’t think it’s necessary for us to have an MLA co-chair. I will become active with that, as I have continued to be, and will continue to meet with anybody in the industry who’s willing to meet with me.

Alberta Hansard, March 10, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Dr. Taft: Thanks, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday afternoon the Alberta Health Quality Council and Alberta Health Services released a one-and-a-half-page summary of a 60-page investigation into four patient safety incidents at the Children’s hospital in Calgary. 

The Health Quality Council wanted the full report released; Alberta Health Services is blocking that release. To the Minister of Health and Wellness: will the minister exercise his authority and order Alberta Health Services to release the full, unedited report?

Mr. Zwozdesky: Mr. Speaker, I’ve spoken with the Health Quality Council. I’ve also spoken with Alberta Health Services not long ago. I’ve asked them to work together immediately to provide as much information as they possibly can and to release a full, detailed report regarding this matter as soon as possible.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Dr. Taft: Thanks. Again to the same minister, Mr. Speaker. Accountability cannot happen without full disclosure, and the Health Quality Council drafted the report so that it could be released without violating privacy. Mr. Minister, why the secrecy?

Mr. Zwozdesky: Mr. Speaker, there’s no secrecy. The fact is that you have to respect the parameters of the Alberta Evidence Act, you have to take into account the Health Information Act and what its parameters are, and then you have to contact family members. You have to work with physicians. You have to be very careful in these matters, and I’m sure the hon. member knows that. Those issues are being looked at as we speak, and I’ve asked for the full, detailed report to be released within 10 days.

Dr. Taft: Mr. Speaker, this report was concluded in October. The Health Quality Council took full account of the issues that the minister has provided. The minister has made himself complicit in this cover-up. Why won’t he stand behind the Alberta Health Quality Council and have this report released? Who’s he trying to protect?

Mr. Zwozdesky: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the member didn’t hear what I just said. I said that I’ve spoken with both of these parties. I’ve asked them to go through this issue very thoroughly. They are doing that as we speak, and in less than 10 days they will have the full report issued to the public as requested by me the minister.

Patient Safety Report, Continued

Dr. Taft: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question will be to the Minister of Health and Wellness. I want to confirm with him what he said earlier today in question period, that the full, unedited report prepared by the Alberta Health Quality Council into patient safety incidents at the Children’s hospital in Calgary will be made public within 10 days.

Mr. Zwozdesky: Mr. Speaker, what I believe I said is that a full, detailed report within the parameters of the Alberta Evidence Act and respecting the parameters of the Health Information Act is to be made available within 10 days. I’ll leave it up to them to get together and figure that out. I’m sure they will.

Dr. Taft: Well, Mr. Speaker, our information is that the report was already written to meet those parameters, so if the report is going to be released unedited, why not just release it today?

Mr. Zwozdesky: Mr. Speaker, as I’ve indicated, I’ve spoken with the two groups, and I’ve asked the same issue of them. I said: why not just release it? They said that they have some confidentiality issues that they still have to address, and as soon as they get the green light on those confidentiality agreements, which I know the hon. member himself would respect and know about, the report will be released, as I’ve just indicated.

Dr. Taft: Mr. Speaker, the Alberta Health Quality Council has said that the confidentiality issues are already addressed. It’s as if Alberta Health Services thinks the Health Quality Council reports to them. Will this minister do the right thing and from here on give the Alberta Health Quality Council full independence in releasing its reports?

Mr. Zwozdesky: Mr. Speaker, the first two incidents that were reported on were done within a matter of hours. Immediate action was taken. The third one was done within a very short time period as well, and so was the fourth one. But as they all came in, it was decided by the Health Quality Council, through their own protocols, to lump all four together in one report. That’s what they’ve done. They are just as concerned about patient quality and safety as we are, and we’ll ensure that it gets released.

Alberta Hansard, March 10, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Dr. Swann: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Official Opposition for years has been fighting for an independent review of MLA salary and benefits. 

The need for this review was further highlighted when the Premier and his cabinet voted themselves huge raises after the last election. While we won the battle with the passing of Motion 501, there are still unanswered questions about the scope of review of this committee.

To the Premier: will the recommendations of the committee be binding?

Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, I met with the hon. leader the other day, I believe at a social function here in the city of Edmonton, and I asked him if we can get an opportunity to just sit down and chat about the motion that was passed, since it was moved by an hon. member from the opposition. We’re going to do whatever we can to work with the opposition parties and put the right committee in place. That information, I believe, goes to a committee that’s chaired by you, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker: The hon. leader.

Dr. Swann: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the MLA pay committee’s scope include the extra pay that government members receive for sitting on internal cabinet policy committees?

Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, again, I asked the hon. leader to sit down and work through all of these questions that they might have and also have input on what process we follow and what’s on the table for review.

Dr. Swann: Again to the Premier: will the MLA pay committee’s scope include travel, accommodation, and hosting expenses that are claimed by both members and their assistants?

Mr. Stelmach: That comes out of the Legislative Assembly, so that’s a completely different matter. But I will say, though, in terms of ministerial expenses, that I believe we’re the only jurisdiction that on a regular basis puts all the expenses on the web on a regular interval. No matter what expenses are incurred in the office, all Albertans know of them almost immediately.

The Speaker: Second Official Opposition main question. The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition.

School Closures

Dr. Swann: Thanks, Mr. Speaker. Government utilization policy is forcing school boards to drain the city core of schools in favour of the suburbs. At the same time, cities like Edmonton and Calgary, in keeping with the government’s own land-use framework, are trying to reduce urban sprawl and revitalize their cores, which is hard to do without good schools to attract people to the core. To the Premier: will the Premier commit to an expeditious review of these contradictory education and municipal policies before real damage is done to core neighbourhoods in Calgary and Edmonton?

Mr. Hancock: Well, Mr. Speaker, it’s not government policy that determines whether a school is closed or not. It’s a question of what the most appropriate educational opportunities for students are. School boards have a responsibility to make sure they use their resources well to make sure that they have the best opportunity for students, and they do a good job at it. Edmonton public school board, with the city centre school project, closed some schools, yes, but made sure that the receiving schools provided a better educational opportunity for the students in that area.

The Speaker: The hon. leader.

Dr. Swann: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Given that the last Minister of Education mentioned reviewing a school closure situation in 2005 and nothing happened, will the Premier end the empty promises and temporarily halt school closures in Edmonton and Calgary until this review is done?

Mr. Stelmach: As the minister mentioned, Mr. Speaker, we’re going to do what’s best in the interests of the education of the children.

The Speaker: The hon. leader.

Dr. Swann: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. They’re clearly not talking to each other in the government. Given the government’s policies for school utilization are on a collision course with municipal development, why won’t the Premier take this issue seriously and put in place a school utilization policy that actually works with our municipalities instead of against them?

Mr. Hancock: Mr. Speaker, I can let the hon. member know that I have had many, many conversations with school boards and with mayors and municipalities about how we can better use our schools both as a school facility and as a community facility. We’re working very closely with them in terms of how surplus school properties can be utilitized, how they can be maintained where necessary in order to be reused as a school when the neighbourhood regenerates. All of that work and that communication is actually happening.

Alberta Hansard, March 10, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Edmonton – During Question Period today, David Swann, Leader of the Official Opposition, will demand Premier Stelmach stop hurting Calgary and Edmonton by forcing school boards to close schools in urban cores. 

Municipal governments in Edmonton and Calgary are trying to revitalize their downtown cores – but school closures make it difficult to attract families, and up to 70 schools in Edmonton alone could be on the chopping block thanks to the Stelmach administration’s education cutbacks. And if all the schools under review in Calgary were closed that would be that city’s largest closure of schools ever.

“A school is the heart of any neighbourhood, but this administration doesn’t care about the very real possibility of hollowing out the metro cores of our two largest cities,” Swann says. “These decisions have far-reaching ramifications, and if we don’t want Edmonton and Calgary to look like Detroit in ten or twenty years, the Premier and the Minister of Education should rethink their position.”

Swann and the Official Opposition support a thorough review of the way government handles school closures, and demand that plans to close schools cease until that review is complete.

“Five years ago, former Education Minister Gene Zwozdesky admitted that the procedure for closing schools should be reviewed. Last month, current Education Minister Dave Hancock said ‘We are looking at our school closure regulations.’ Why should we believe him, when five years have already gone by since the Tories last made this promise?” Swann asks.

Swann notes that closing down schools also defeats much of the purpose of the Stelmach administration’s own land-use framework, which encourages development of city cores.

“The right hand of this administration doesn’t know what the left is doing,” Swann says. “The Premier needs to sort out his contradictory policies so that school boards and municipalities can work together to revitalize our city cores.”

Swann asks parents and community leaders in Edmonton and Calgary’s cores to write or call their MLA and the Premier.

“We all need to stand up for local schools,” Swann says.

– 30 –

For more information contact:

albertaliberalcaucus
1-866-633-4214

[direct link to this article]

Edmonton – After spending just a day with the athletes at the 2010 Arctic Winter Games, Alberta Liberal Leader David Swann is proud to say he was a part of this international event hosting nearly as many athletes as the Vancouver Olympics. Thousands of local volunteers gave heart and soul to make this a fabulous sports and cultural event.

Swann had the privilege of presenting numerous medals to well deserving athletes from all across the globe. 

“For Alberta to host the world in a unique event like the Arctic Winter Games is truly special,” Swann says. “Many of these young people will no doubt compete at the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics.”

More than 2,000 athletes from as far away as Russia and Greenland are participating in the games. Swann says he’s impressed with how wonderfully the City of Grande Prairie, the Winter Games Society and the County of Grande Prairie organized the event.

“Ultimately they are hosting the Olympics on a smaller scale,” Swann says. “It takes attention to detail, dedication, a clear vision and the ability to follow through on that vision. That is what the true Albertan way is all about. To all of the organizers: well done!”

– 30 –

For more information contact:
albertaliberalcaucus
1-866-633-4214

[direct link to this article]

Official Opposition Leader David Swann asks Premier Ed Stelmach if the MLA pay review committee will have the power to make binding recommendations, and if the scope of the review will include extra pay for backbenchers sitting on cabinet policy committees.

[direct link to this article]

Mr. Kang: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. According to the provincial budget Service Alberta will have 410 full-time employees cut from its staff, most of them in information technology support roles. 

My questions are to the Minister of Service Alberta. How can the minister plan to offer more services to Albertans online and cut the IT people needed to manage those services at the same time?

The Speaker: The hon. minister.

Mrs. Klimchuk: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I’ve indicated before, part of Service Alberta’s budget, which I defended in my estimates, is about transforming the way that we do government. That’s what Service Alberta is leading. If you look at the areas of technology and the areas of efficiencies we found, yes, there will be some reducing of employees there; there’s no question. But when we can find duplication and have efficiencies in government, that’s a good thing for Albertans.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Mr. Kang: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. What assurances can the minister provide that cuts made to IT support staff won’t impair Alberta’s SuperNet access, that many rural and remote communities depend on?

The Speaker: The hon. minister.

Mrs. Klimchuk: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With regard to the whole SuperNet and rural connectivity that is something that I’ve been working very hard on. The ongoing team within Service Alberta is working hard, working with all the ministries that are involved with the SuperNet and making sure that Albertans have access to SuperNet, whether it’s through their ISP providers or whether it’s through the other services that are available.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Mr. Kang: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the minister again. Last July the health records of 11,000 Albertans were at risk of capture by a computer hacker. How can Albertans be sure that these massive departmental layoffs won’t leave the information that they provide to the government less secure?

The Speaker: The hon. minister.

Mrs. Klimchuk: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With respect to the security of Albertans’ information that is something that we work on very hard, and the Auditor General brought that to this department’s attention a couple of years ago. These last two years we’ve worked very hard in that area to ensure that the information is protected. That’s access to information and as well all the good work that the registry agents do when they are working and having access to the information. It’s that partnership that we work very hard on as well.

Alberta Hansard, March 9, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Mr. Chase: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In April 2008 a foster care review report was released. 

In November 2009 a kinship review report was released. Their recommendations have been widely ignored. A review of the child intervention system was initiated last summer. We’re still waiting for the report, but funding to intervention services was just cut by $27 million. This government initiates review after review of broken systems but then undermines its findings. To the minister: how many foster and kinship homes in this province have more than their approved number of children?

The Speaker: The hon. minister.

Mrs. Fritz: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m not able to give you an exact number at this time. I can get that number and give it to the member. I can tell you this. The foster care review report, the eight recommendations that were put in place – it’s very clear about the screening process, about the home orientation, about the training for foster parents. I can tell you as well that there are provisions there for level 1 or level 2 support workers to have more children in their home when it’s been identified to be reasonable.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Mr. Chase: Thank you. I’ll look forward to the follow-up information. Right now it’s a first-bed, first-served circumstance for foster children as opposed to placing them carefully. When will this haphazard approach to placing children in foster and kinship homes based solely on beds available end?

Mrs. Fritz: Well, I think that you should apologize for that preamble, for what you’re saying about the way that children are placed in this province. I can tell you that the foster care system works very, very well with the people in the field and that they take their responsibilities very seriously. That foster care review report with those eight recommendations: you should read that, hon. member, and you would know the strong screening process that’s in place for our foster parents. You’d also know about the good work that’s being done in the field by our foster care workers.

Mr. Chase: There is no doubt that there are wonderful foster care parents out there. Unfortunately, not enough.

Was the decision to cut $27 million from children intervention services made based on preliminary findings of the children’s intervention system review? What’s the justification?

The Speaker: The hon. minister.

Mrs. Fritz: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I’ve indicated to you before, it’s a $1.1 billion budget in this ministry. There is a 3 per cent reduction. Yes, there has been a reduction in the child intervention area of the budget. I will be monitoring that very closely. That reduction was made based on what the staff indicated, that the systems that have been put in place that have changed the way the service delivery is occurring for more placements of children actually create efficiencies. As I said, I will monitor that very closely. I’ll ensure that the supports and resources are available, and if they aren’t, I’ll take the appropriate measures to seek more funding if needed.

Alberta Hansard, March 9, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Mr. Hehr: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In 2002 the Endangered Species Conservation Committee recommended that the grizzly be listed as a threatened species. 

The government ignored this recommendation. Given that there are fewer than 700 grizzlies left in Alberta, my spider sense tells me that these experts will recommend this again on Friday at the minister’s scheduled meeting. To the Minister of Sustainable Resource Development: given that experts state that the grizzly bear is a threatened species, why won’t this minister simply list it as such?

Mr. Knight: Well, that’s an interesting observation that the member opposite has made. My recollection of what’s going to happen here, Mr. Speaker, is that there is a committee that will meet on the 12th of March, and at that point a decision will be made. To my knowledge no decision has been made other than what some folks might have put in the papers or other places, that individuals read and then presume that something is going to happen. I will wait, appropriately, until the 12th of March, until our committee has made the determination and given me a report, and then we will respond.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Mr. Hehr: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I guess I misheard the minister last night when I thought he said that he wasn’t going to list the grizzly bear as an endangered species. I guess, then, my return question: if this committee, the Endangered Species Conservation Committee, again recommends to you that it should be listed as an endangered species, will you take their advice after their meeting on the 12th?

Mr. Knight: Mr. Speaker, it is not my position now nor will it be in the next few days to list any species in Alberta as endangered. We have a process. The gentleman is asking a question now relative to something that went on in estimates last night: a point blank question if I was going to say that bears are endangered in Alberta. I was not prepared last night to say that, and I’m not prepared this afternoon to say that.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Mr. Hehr: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I guess that estimates is where we have open and candid discussions with a minister. At least, I think that’s the process. Last night, again taking the minister at his word, he said that he wasn’t in a position to put a moratorium on harvesting bears. If the minister is not in a position to put a moratorium on hunting bears, then who is?

Mr. Knight: Mr. Speaker, I guess I’m going to have to go through this again. We have a process in place. We have a grizzly bear recovery program in place, and I’m going to let that process work. Once we receive the information from the committee, we’ll be in a better position to be able to determine what the status of this species is in the province of Alberta. At that point we will deal with the issue.

Alberta Hansard, March 9, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Ms Blakeman: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Last July an open letter to the Minister of Culture and Community Spirit concerning the state of Alberta film and TV was signed by a wide cross-section of representatives. 

This was followed in December by a proposal from the Alberta film and television unions to combine streams 2 and 3, expand the number and description of key positions, implement regional bonuses, and re-establish a recoupable development fund. It is now too late to save a spring or summer shooting season, but with a quick response the minister could save the fall season. To the Minister of Culture and Community Spirit: when can we expect a response from the minister to this proposal?

Mr. Blackett: Well, Mr. Speaker, I have the information with my officials, and they are working on some proposals for me. We have in our department over the last two years made a multitude of changes to the film development program with the idea of enhancing business in our province, making ourselves more attractive. Just last November we included $800,000 for money to promote Alberta stories, project and script development, export market development, training and mentoring along with increasing our cap from $1.5 million to $3 million to $5 million.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Ms Blakeman: Thank you very much. Back to the same minister. Well, currently we are not competitive. My question is: why is the minister creating a situation where Albertans trained in Alberta are forced to go to B.C., Quebec, or even New Mexico to work? To put it another way, why are we training talent and crew for our competitors?

Mr. Blackett: Well, Mr. Speaker, we’re in disagreement. I believe we are competitive. People in British Columbia and Ontario say that we’re competitive. Our labour rate as of last September was the most competitive in Canada. It’s probably the third most competitive now. We’re not in a race to the bottom. If you talk to the film producers, the people who actually put their money on the line, who actually are out there trying to bring business to our province, they’re very enthusiastic about our prospects for the next six months. I’m not sure what the member opposite is listening to.

Ms Blakeman: Well, I’m looking at how many people are working in this province. That’s what’s important to me, Albertans working. Given the Premier’s focus on competitiveness and given that for every dollar spent toward production, the film and television industry generates $10.80 in Alberta, why can’t the minister see the film and TV sector as easy pickings for the government’s competitiveness checklist?

Mr. Blackett: First of all, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has her facts incorrect. The amount of return on investment is $6 for $1, not $10.80. We went through the minister of finance; we went through the department. We sat down with AMPIA; we sat down with other industry representatives. We agreed on $6. If we’re going to move forward collectively, let’s at least work with the same information, and let’s get the facts straight. Let’s work together and make sure that we’re competitive and attract business to our province.

Alberta Hansard, March 9, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Mr. Taylor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A sour gas blowout near Hythe has been burning for almost two weeks now, and regulators are saying that it might take another two weeks to fully put it out.

Now, while blowouts are rare, industry is required to take out insurance to protect themselves. Unfortunately, their insurance does nothing to cover the losses incurred by Albertans as owners of the resource. To the Minister of Energy. During a blowout there is an absolute open flow of gas which is much higher than normal production rates. How much gas is expected to have been released over the last two weeks?

Mr. Liepert: Mr. Speaker, I don’t have that information.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Mr. Taylor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Companies are not required to pay royalties on gas that is not produced, so the gas wasn’t the only thing going up in smoke for the last couple of weeks. How much money in royalties is the province expecting to lose because of this blowout?

Mr. Liepert: Well, Mr. Speaker, obviously, if I don’t have the answer to the first question, I don’t have the answer to the second.

Mr. Taylor: Well, then, hopefully, Mr. Speaker, the minister will be able to provide written answers to those questions and perhaps this one as well, written or oral. Albertans are the owners of the resource, so why hasn’t this government made it mandatory for blowout insurance to cover the loss in royalties?

Mr. Liepert: Well, Mr. Speaker, the member is correct that he should put those questions on the Order Paper, and I will respond accordingly.

Alberta Hansard, March 9, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Ms Blakeman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There is no question that ducks died on tailings ponds controlled by Syncrude, but the Premier’s policy of maintaining a wilful ignorance of the damage done to our international reputation is not helping. 

How can the Premier say that he’s on top of this file when he hasn’t even seen the photos that the rest of the world is looking at? This is the single biggest black mark on Alberta’s oil sands industry ever. My question is to the Premier. What sort of a briefing has the Premier had? Don’t ask, don’t tell?

Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear. Of course I saw the very same photos that everyone in this Assembly saw when the ducks first perished in the tailings pond. I saw, you know, volunteers trying to remove the oil with cotton swabs off the ducks’ bills.

However, that was when the incident originally took place. The reference here is to the pictures that are evidence in the trial that is before us. I was very frank to the reporter yesterday. I did not see those pictures at all prior to them being delivered to the court as evidence. This is a serious situation before the court. It’s a very good act that we have. We’ve charged the company that’s responsible for it, and let the court decide.

The Speaker: I’m not sure where this is leading, but if this matter is sub judice, I’m going to seek advice from the Minister of Justice.

But I don’t think so from the first question.

The hon. member.

Ms Blakeman: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Back to the Premier. Mr. Premier, people see these images and ask: what is Alberta doing to stop this? What direct action is the Premier taking to give leadership on tailings ponds reclamation, on hard targets on emissions, on reducing the use of water, and all the other environmental issues that go along with this?

Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, we have the strictest environmental laws in the nation, and that is why in this particular case under the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act the charges were laid to the company pursuant to that act.

With respect to the Fort McMurray area, Mr. Speaker, there is no area in Canada or perhaps even in North America that is as closely monitored on a 24-hour basis 365 days a year for air, water, and soil quality.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Ms Blakeman: Thank you very much. Back to the Premier again. Spin, spin, spin. Leadership is not about spin. It’s not about rebranding. It’s about actions taken to achieve a particular result. Is the Premier happy with the result so far? We have dozens of pages in international magazines talking about what a disgrace this is. Are you happy with it so far?

Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, there’s a lot that has been done in Fort McMurray and, in fact, right across Alberta with respect to the development of resources. There is a lot of attention paid, obviously, to this area because there is a fair amount of production of oil, and it has attracted a lot of attention. But, again, if you go back to third-party evaluation, 98 per cent of the time the air quality in Fort Saskatchewan and Fort McMurray, in those two areas, which have a large oil and gas and value-added presence, is better than or equal to any major Canadian city in North America.

Alberta Hansard, March 9, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Dr. Swann: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I recently was in Grande Prairie, where the main concern was when they will receive a new hospital, a hospital that’s been needed for some years for their growing, thriving community. 

This was promised back in 2007.

To the Premier: with the Premier being so willing to talk of the priorities and concerns of the people of Calgary, will he now speak of the priorities for the people of Grande Prairie? Will the new QE II replacement hospital be started this year?

Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of large projects where the tenders have been closed, which will produce some savings. Treasury Board and Infrastructure are evaluating how much money there is in savings. I’ve also instructed the minister of health to look at those projects that we have set aside money for, but during the huge inflationary period that we went through, the costs really rose. I’ve asked him to revisit all those projects. That would be Grande Prairie, Medicine Hat, Slave Lake, I believe, or High Prairie, and a number of other locations, including some of the long-term care residences.

Dr. Swann: Well, Mr. Speaker, the people want to have some definite response. Will the Premier give some definite information to the people of Grande Prairie about when they can expect shovels to be in the ground for a new hospital in Grande Prairie? When?

Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, the minister of health will be visiting the city of Grande Prairie in 10 days or so. He’ll be visiting with the community and with council and will share some information with them.

Dr. Swann: Well, another health concern for the people of Grande Prairie was the deplorable state of the Grande Prairie Care Centre, a long-term care centre urgently needing to be replaced or extensively renovated. Will the Premier commit to providing funding for long-term care needs in Grande Prairie?

Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, I believe that during the period of time of this inflation we did release about $10 million to the hospital to help support some changes in code requirements. As I said before, the minister will be in Grande Prairie in a number of days and will be able to sit down with the board, the chamber and discuss the situation.

The Speaker: Second Official Opposition main question. The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition.

Health Facilities Capital Plans

Dr. Swann: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, in the ongoing health care saga the only thing that seems to have been accomplished in this last two years is confusion, frustration, and uncertainty. This is the product of failed centralization without a plan, no cost-benefit analysis, and no checks and balances in place. First to the Premier. I hope we’ll get an answer today on this question. What is the explanation for conflicting messages coming from this government and from Alberta Health Services? Who is actually in charge, Mr. Premier?

Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, there are no conflicting messages. We are the only jurisdiction in Canada that has not only removed, paid off the accumulated deficit but has given Alberta Health Services increased funding for five years. That’s the only plan of its kind in the whole country of Canada.

Dr. Swann: Well, I’ll try to the minister of health, then, Mr. Speaker. Please clarify this: do you have the final decision on whether Calgary will or will not receive the much-needed new cancer centre? Yes or no?

Mr. Zwozdesky: Mr. Speaker, as I’ve indicated on several occasions in the House, a capital plan for $2.5 billion over the next three years will be available in a matter of days. I will be sitting down with the Minister of Infrastructure, with colleagues from Calgary and from elsewhere discussing that, and we will roll out the good news at that time.

Dr. Swann: Well, Mr. Speaker, another question revolves around what criteria are used for determining the priority of capital health projects. Are these determined based on need or on political expediency?

Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, it’s such an easy one to answer I thought I’d get up. If the hon. Leader of the Opposition had an opportunity to read the capital plan, the 20-year strategic capital plan, how priorities are set is listed in the whole plan, and that’s not only for health facilities, schools but for roads and other infrastructure as well.

Alberta Hansard, March 9, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Ms Blakeman: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The film industry in Alberta is in a very grave situation, but the Minister of Culture and Community Spirit is being divisive rather than constructive.

The minister has recently described film unions as selfish and acting like children, which isn’t very helpful. To the Minister of Culture and Community Spirit: why did the minister claim during budget debates that the head of IATSE, Damian Petti, was in a November meeting with the minister and the president of CFTPA, Norm Bolen, and somehow refused to co-operate, when Mr. Petti and Mr. Bolen have never met?

Mr. Blackett: Well, Mr. Speaker, there’s no smoking gun here. What I did say at estimates was that I had met with Mr. Bolen, who is the head of the CFTPA, and I had met with Mr. Petti on the same day. I didn’t say that they were in the same room.

With respect to the fact that I said that they were acting like children, I said that in our film industry there are many reasons why we have to be competitive in Alberta. That’s because we have a film development program that has a labour rate that’s competitive with Ontario, with British Columbia, but we need co-operation from our film producers and our unions and guilds. British Columbia and Ontario have an agreement . . .

The Speaker: Sorry. The hon. member has the floor.

Ms Blakeman: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Well, back to the same minister. Given that IATSE has signed a binding agreement with 250 producers for a North American low-budget agreement, which helps Alberta producers, why does the minister ignore that in favour of advocating a nonbinding contract with Canadian producers? How does that help Alberta film workers?

Mr. Blackett: I said it again in estimates, Mr. Speaker. That’s great that they have a binding agreement with low-budget films. The question was: why do we not have larger productions that employ more Albertans? I said that if we want to get more large productions into Alberta, then we need those agreements similar to the ones that we have with the small producers to attract those people from the States and from other countries and across Canada to our province.

Ms Blakeman: It needs to be a binding agreement, Minister. Back to the same minister: why did the minister dismiss as grandstanding a gathering of almost 300 concerned film actors, stage workers, directors, set dressers, makeup artists, DOPs, and other film workers? Why did you dismiss them as grandstanding rather than taking their concerns seriously and working with them, not against them?

Mr. Blackett: Well, Mr. Speaker, if they were really interested in talking to me, they wouldn’t have given me less than 48 hours to respond to their invitation knowing full well that I was in Vancouver and I wouldn’t be back in Calgary until late in the day last Monday. They can call whenever they want. If they want a chance to talk to me – I’ve talked to hundreds of them in the past; I will continue to do so in the future – my door is always open, and we’re available.

Alberta Hansard, March 8, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Mr. Chase: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Last month the government announced a memorandum of understanding on aboriginal education with treaty chiefs and the federal government. 

Motion, however, should not be confused with progress. On aboriginal education this government is standing still and in some areas is actually going backwards. To the Minister of Education. The partnership memorandum seems to be an agreement to come up with a strategy later, an IOU rather than an MOU. Will this MOU require the provincial government to actually come forward with any new resources to improve aboriginal learning outcomes?

Mr. Hancock: Well, Mr. Speaker, the memorandum of agreement that was signed a week ago last Wednesday together with the partnership agreement which we signed last fall are two very, very important steps forward. First of all, the partnership agreement that we signed last fall with the grand chiefs of treaties 6, 7, and 8 and the president of the Métis Settlements General Council and the president of the Métis Nation of Alberta set up a partnership with Advanced Education, Education, and Aboriginal Relations, working with those groups to really focus on how we can move aboriginal education, First Nations and Métis education, forward in this province. This new partnership, that includes the federal ministry: I’ll be able to elaborate further, Mr. Speaker, on the good work.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Mr. Chase: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There’s a tremendous difference between smoking a ceremonial pipe and blowing smoke. Provincial per-student funding for First Nations learners has been frozen at last year’s level and only increased by $12 the year before that. How are school districts supposed to improve aboriginal learning outcomes when their ministry is standing still?

Mr. Hancock: Far from standing still, we’ve made the most progress in this area that has been made in ages. First of all, the progress really is the leadership of the communities themselves, the leadership together with the province and now the federal government signing on, making it the highest priority.

Mr. Speaker, I wouldn’t be in that member’s position of making light of very important ceremonies that people undertake in terms of the pipe ceremonies at the start. We take very, very seriously our partnership with treaties 6, 7, and 8, our partnership with the Métis Settlements General Council, and the work of all of us to make sure that, first, the achievement gap is eliminated between First Nations and Métis students and other students of Alberta.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Mr. Chase: Thank you. I certainly don’t take First Nations’ ceremonies for granted. I’m a big fan of the Black Elk sacred pipe, as one example.

High school completion rates for First Nations students are at 52 per cent compared to 79 per cent for all other students. But Budget 2010 eliminates grants intended to boost high school completion rates. Why is this minister backtracking on raising completion rates for aboriginal learners?

Mr. Hancock: Absolutely not backtracking on that. In fact, it’s still one of the most important things we can do; that is, to ensure that each and every one of the students in this province regardless of their background, regardless of whether they live on a First Nation or in a city or a town or in a rural area – every single student matters. Every student, every day. No exceptions.

Alberta Hansard, March 8, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Mr. Kang: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Alberta is at a crisis point in the battle against impaired driving, and Mothers Against Drunk Driving have called repeatedly for the government to step up to the plate. 

My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Will you commit to lowering the acceptable blood-alcohol content for operating a vehicle to 0.5?

Mr. Ouellette: Mr. Speaker, impaired driving is a crime, and it’s treated as such in this province. Our message has always been clear: don’t drink and drive, or sooner or later we’re going to get you. We’re going to keep our policemen on the roads. We’re going to keep doing everything we possibly can to catch the people that drink and drive and keep them off the roads.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Mr. Kang: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Minister, your message is not working. In 2007 there was a 19 per cent increase in the rate of impaired driving, and 2008 brought a 40 per cent increase. That’s pitiful. Will the Minister of Transportation be forecasting doubledigit increases to the rate of impaired driving again in 2009?

Mr. Ouellette: Mr. Speaker, we’ve been expanding our program. We brought in last year as part of our program a regulation that now we also convict people that are driving under any type of drugs, whether it’s prescription drugs or anything else. Under our graduated driver’s licence for all new drivers there’s absolutely zero tolerance; they can’t have any type of alcohol in their system. We plan on keeping the pressure on.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Mr. Kang: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We are not talking about GDL drivers; we are talking about drivers who already have the licences. Twenty two per cent of drivers who suffered a fatal crash in 2008 had consumed alcohol prior to the accident. The government’s inaction is killing people. Why doesn’t the minister amend the Traffic Safety Act to increase the current 24-hour suspension to a week-long penalty?

Mr. Ouellette: Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, we look at the whole system. We’re going to make sure that Justice does their part of it, that the Solicitor General does their part of it, and we’re doing our utmost to keep drivers safe in Alberta.

Alberta Hansard, March 8, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Ms Pastoor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The way the government has handled the growing syphilis rates in Alberta is embarrassing. 

Firing three top public health officers and proceeding to do virtually nothing for three years has seen infection rates soar. Syphilis is entirely treatable, and for Alberta to have twice the national average for infection rates shows this government has ignored their own advice and allowed this situation to get out of hand.

To the Minister of Health and Wellness. The former minister of health apparently ignored this issue. Will the minister finally act on the recommendations made in 2007 and have a province-wide campaign?

The Speaker: The hon. minister.

Mr. Zwozdesky: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The spreading of an infectious disease is a great concern to all of us. I thank the member, actually, for raising the issue because we do have a plan in place now, and there is a little bit more of an addition to that plan coming soon that will see, among other things, targeted interventions with certain population areas and certain population groups. That plan will also include establishing a 14-member group that will look further into the prevention aspects of this particular issue, and there are other enhanced clinical screenings being done as well.

Ms Pastoor: A proper health care system should have enough capacity to shift resources when needed and not completely drop everything else. This appears to have been the case under the H1N1. What is the minister doing to make sure that we have very balanced public health?

The Speaker: The hon. minister.

Mr. Zwozdesky: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In fact, the chief medical officer for health, who is one of many advisers to me as minister, has the additional parts to that plan. That’ll be coming out very soon, hon. member, and I’ll be sharing that with the public.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Ms Pastoor: Thank you. I wonder if the minister could tell me just on what basis the projection was made by the public health officer. You’ve talked about the plan coming forward. Is there a specific timeline?

Mr. Zwozdesky: Well, Mr. Speaker, we’re already establishing the new 14-member team as we speak. But there will be more specific actions very soon that we’ll be rolling out that will address exactly that issue. It’s a cause for concern to be sure, and we’re targeting to get back to zero within five years, which is a very realistic projection at this stage.

Alberta Hansard, March 8, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Mr. Taylor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. By ramming through Bill 50 last year, this government took away a landowner’s right to be consulted in the construction of high-voltage power lines. 

Now that projects are being planned, landowners are frustrated that they’re being left out of decisions that are severely affecting the value of their property. For example, a 40-acre strip by Crossfield is virtually unsellable because of uncertainty on where those transmission lines are going to go up. To the Minister of Energy: how are Albertans supposed to invest in this province when they’re kept in the dark and they aren’t given any power to protect their interests?

Mr. Liepert: Mr. Speaker, there are a whole bunch of accusations made in that preamble that are completely false. What Bill 50 did was ensure that we not have hearings around the need. The need is evident, and Bill 50 passed the House last fall. What are taking place right now are negotiations with the various proponents of the transmission lines, with the landowners, and it’ll be going before a hearing shortly.

Mr. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, instead of consultations this government prefers information sessions so that people can find out what this government has already decided. With this Big Brother mentality what process is left for Albertans to make their concerns known to this government, Minister?

Mr. Liepert: Well, Mr. Speaker, first of all, any Albertan has the opportunity through any elected official to make their views known relative to any issue. I would suggest that if there’s a particular situation that this member has that he would like to draw to my attention as a minister of the Crown, I would also be open to those suggestions. Then on the official side of it, as I said, the hearings will begin. There’s ample opportunity there as well, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, we’ve heard reports that the so-called experts sent to these sessions not only lack knowledge, but they also met Albertans’ concerns with contempt. Given this government’s track record for silencing Albertans or attempting to silence them, how can Albertans have any confidence that this government will finally hear and act on their concerns?

Mr. Liepert: Well, Mr. Speaker, I’m not quite sure where the member is getting his information. He prefaced his question by: we hear. I’m not sure where he hears. But, certainly, in the process of going forward with the negotiations with landowners, I’m informed by many of those who are involved that negotiations are proceeding satisfactorily.

Alberta Hansard, March 8, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Mr. Hehr: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. One-third of homicides committed in Alberta are a result of domestic violence. 

Every year over 12,000 women are forced to live in shelters while more than 14,000 are turned away because of lack of space. Yes, Mr. Speaker, you heard that correctly: 14,000 women fleeing from abuse are turned away every year. To the Premier: when will this government take action to help the 14,000 women who are unable to be accommodated in shelters?

Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, not only has the budget increased for housing and accommodation; there are dollars put into a number of areas. One is to get the message across to many Albertans in terms of the physical and verbal abuse within families, especially towards women and their children. There are many not-for-profit agencies that have undertaken the education process in this province. But we will continue to keep ensuring that we work with agencies, that there is appropriate housing, and provide comfort for those that have been abused by their families.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Mr. Hehr: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that the message is getting out there, but it is awful slowly. We need to do something for those 14,000 women who are fleeing violence right now. In that regard, why aren’t we increasing our operational funding right now to improve more shelter space to help these 14,000 women fleeing these horrible, horrible situations today?

Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, having attended many of the fundraising events that raise funds to supplement those that are provided by government to the various agencies providing housing, counselling, and protection and in speaking to the president, she was quite satisfied in terms of the direction the government is taking and the increase in funding. We’ll continue to do that in spite of the fact that, you know, our resources are constrained. But this is a serious matter. We take it very seriously. Yes, education will help, but there are other ways of intervening to ensure that women are protected in their own homes.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Mr. Hehr: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I know money is tight right now, but if this government is looking for money, we can always look to the $50 million that is ready and able to help people in the victims of crime fund. Why isn’t this money being put to use right now to help these 14,000 women who are fleeing domestic violence situations?

Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, I’m not responsible for the fund, but the minister that is responsible can certainly answer the question. Mr. Oberle: Mr. Speaker, the member will know that we have allocated millions of dollars to help victims of crime. The surplus in the fund is required to achieve stabilization. Nonetheless, my department is looking at it, and we’ll report in due time.

Alberta Hansard, March 8, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Mr. Chase: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Children and Youth Services is a ministry in crisis, a broken system that puts children’s lives at risk. 

It is a system where qualifications aren’t valued, where monitoring is not a priority, and where screening of foster and kinship homes is insufficient. There is something systemic and fundamentally wrong with this ministry which will not be resolved by simply changing ministers. To the Premier. The current system is costing children their lives. What specific actions is the Premier taking now to fix the system to ensure that we don’t see another life lost?

Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, it’s always a tragedy when a child dies no matter what the circumstances. Certainly, you know, as a father and a grandfather – and many of us are parents and grandparents – this is a serious situation, and our hearts go out to the families involved. The minister has ordered an investigation, and she may have further detail in this particular case.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Mr. Chase: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again to the Premier: when will this government introduce legislation to ensure that all individuals who care for our most vulnerable population are properly qualified?

Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, foster parents do exceptional work in this province. There are many, many untold stories of children’s lives that have been turned around through the exceptional care of foster parents. As I said before, the minister is undertaking an investigation in this particular matter. Once the results are provided to the minister, she will take action.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Mr. Chase: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Front-line workers are facing enormous caseloads. They cannot provide the help because the government has not helped them. Will the Premier require that the children’s advocate report directly to the Legislature as a first step to improving transparency and accountability within the ministry?

This is the case in all other provinces.

Mr. Stelmach: As I said, Mr. Speaker, this matter is under investigation. The minister will review the results of that investigation and make the appropriate decisions.

Alberta Hansard, March 8, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Dr. Taft: Well, thanks, Mr. Speaker. Since the nationally respected Alberta Cancer Board was dissolved by this government, a major voice for cancer care in this province has been silenced. 

This government has been told there is not enough capacity for cancer care in Calgary since at least 2003, yet it fails to act. Even if work began now on a new facility, it would still be several more years before it would be up and running. My question is to the Premier. How many more years are the people of Calgary going to have to wait before they get a full-fledged cancer hospital?

Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, cancer care is a priority for my government. Alberta Health Services is looking at improving access to cancer treatment and not concentrating always on the bricks and mortar.

Any further questions the minister of health can give more information on.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Dr. Taft: Thanks, Mr. Speaker. Well, I’ll try the Premier on this. Is the Premier aware that the site in which cancer services are being delivered at the Holy Cross, which is rented on behalf of the Tom Baker centre, is the subject of a very serious class-action suit concerning deadly asbestos poisoning?

Mr. Zwozdesky: Mr. Speaker, I think I’ve made it clear in this House on a number of occasions that the health infrastructure capital plan will be unveiled on or about March 31, and that will include looking at cancer facilities in Calgary.

Dr. Taft: Well, I’ll repeat the question to the minister. The Tom Baker centre is so crowded, Mr. Speaker, it has to deliver services in rented spaces. One of these spaces is the former Holy Cross Centre. So again to the minister: is the minister aware that the site in which cancer services are being delivered at the Holy Cross is the subject of a very serious class-action suit concerning deadly asbestos poisoning?

Mr. Zwozdesky: Mr. Speaker, no, I am not aware of the asbestos issue that has just been raised, but I can assure this member that I’ll look into it right away. In the meantime I would like to assure all Albertans who are listening and watching and those who are participating in this debate that we are going to be adding more capacity for cancer care in Calgary. I believe it’s the McCaig centre that will be opening relatively soon, and that will take some stress off the system. But let’s wait for the capital plan to come out in its formal sense in a couple of weeks.

Alberta Hansard, March 8, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Canadians value law and order very highly; it’s part of our national culture.

Early in our history, North West Mounted Police established themselves across the Prairies before the arrival of the European settlers to ensure that the law and peace were upheld and respected.

Peter Schiemann, Brock Myrol, Anthony Gordon and Leo Johnston were following that proud tradition when they were senselessly murdered. There are no words that can ever heal the pain of this tragedy, but I hope their loved ones can take some solace in the deeply felt regrets and compassion that all Albertans felt and continue to feel surrounding this terrible incident.

In many ways, the men and women of the RCMP and our other police and peace services are ordinary people: husbands, wives, sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, parents. But in one particular way, they are truly extraordinary: for the sake of the safety of their fellow Canadians, they risk everything, every day. Sometimes, as in Mayerthorpe five years ago, they pay a terrible price for their altruism.

For their sacrifice, we are eternally grateful. May their friends and families take comfort in the knowledge that their loss was not in vain, but upheld the highest ideals of our civilization.

Office of the Leader of the Official Opposition
Communications Department
1-866-633-4214

[direct link to this article]

Every day the Legislature is convened, Alberta Liberal MLAs ask between seven and nine questions to the Premier and his ministers. 

Typically only the first two or three questions are picked up by the media. Here are some questions and government responses Albertans might be interested in:

Kevin Taft investigates the disbanding of Grande Prairie’s bone and joint clinic – see http://bit.ly/ahHg5w

Laurie Blakeman wonders why the Stelmach administration isn’t pursuing a wider range of opportunities to reduce Alberta’s carbon footprint – see http://bit.ly/arAkez

Darshan Kang continues to push the Stelmach administration to support Calgary’s vital airport tunnel – see http://bit.ly/akmWrg

Kent Hehr pushes the Stelmach administration to do something about the deplorable overcrowding at the Edmonton Remand Centre – see http://bit.ly/dh42SM

Bridget Pastoor wants to know whatever happened to the police college promised to Fort Macleod – see http://bit.ly/dcibWC

To ask MLAs about these questions, contact us at 1-866-633-4214.

– 30 –

For more information contact:

albertaliberalcaucus
1-866-633-4214

[direct link to this article]

Ms Pastoor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You know, I didn’t get a chance to go to the Olympics either.

This week the Edmonton city council passed their municipal development plan, which included a section on food and urban agriculture. The local food industry has a significant impact on the economy, environment, social, and cultural growth in urban areas. To the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development. Sustainable food systems will be a defining aspect of our urban areas in the future. Has the minister incorporated this into long . . .

The Speaker: Hon. minister, you can proceed.

Mr. Hayden: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am indeed pleased that the member opposite is such a supporter of the local food industry because, of course, it’s hugely important to our province’s economy.

It is one area of agriculture that we’ve seen the greatest increase, 30 per cent, in our farmers’ markets over the past couple of years. The products and the variety that they’re producing and that they’re showcasing around the world now are available right here in Alberta, and I hope people take advantage.

Ms Pastoor: The expansion of urban areas has led to dramatic losses of prime agricultural land, yet this is not the focus in the land-use framework. What is the minister doing to address this issue?

The Speaker: The hon. minister.

Mr. Hayden: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If I recall rightly, I believe about 4 to 5 per cent of the provincial land base is urban settings. Unfortunately, one of the problems with that is that around these centres is some of the best soil that we have in our entire province. But the markets continue to increase around our urban centres for products and things that are being brought in, so people can do that shopping within a hundred kilometres.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Ms Pastoor: Thank you. That’s the urban side of it, but I still think we have to protect our agricultural land. Will the minister introduce initiatives to encourage municipalities to include food and urban agriculture as a central aspect of the development plans?

The Speaker: The hon. minister.

Mr. Hayden: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As a past municipal politician I would expect that the member opposite would understand that land-use issues are issues that are at the local level. It’s their responsibility. I expect that they do very much consider at their tables the highest and best use for land and try to make their decisions based on good information.

Alberta Hansard, February 25, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Mr. Chase: Mr. Speaker, world-wide economic conditions have impacted all Canadians, but they’ve had dire consequences for a group of former Nortel employees living in Alberta whose LTD and pension benefits were cut off when Nortel collapsed. 

To add insult to injury, the federal government permitted the sale of Nortel’s assets without guaranteeing employee compensation as a precondition. To our EI minister. Ontario is the only province with a pension benefits guarantee fund that’s funded entirely by corporate contributions. Will the minister commit to similar measures in this province to protect vulnerable Albertans?

The Speaker: The hon. minister.

Mr. Lukaszuk: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s always horrible when a situation like this occurs and workers and their families are left without income.

I have to say two things. Number one, it’s very rare for it to occur in Alberta. I must say that my provincial counterparts as early as the beginning of this week have raised this issue at our federal-provincial-territorial meeting to the federal minister. It is squarely a federal matter, so if there is any provincial overlay, I would suggest the member direct his subsequent two questions to our minister of finance.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Mr. Chase: Thank you. To whoever wishes to answer, I am pleased to hear that these discussions are occurring. The effect is going to be felt in Alberta because we’ll be picking up the pieces. Since Nortel’s bankruptcy proceedings began, what efforts has the ministry made to ensure that the federal government amends the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to provide protection for employees affected by corporate bankruptcy? The hon. minister of finance would be fine.

The Speaker: The hon. minister.

Dr. Morton: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I would have assumed the hon. member would know, both of Nortel’s pension plans are registered in Ontario and regulated by the Ontario superintendent of pensions. That’s because of their location of Ontario. There is a federal dimension as well. We have been in touch, as the other minister has indicated, with the feds, but this is largely outside of our jurisdiction.

Mr. Chase: What I’m hoping is that this government will stand up for Alberta’s former Nortel employees who are being directly affected by the bankruptcy. It’s our problem now, and working with the feds is part of the solution, but we have to come up with a made-in-Alberta solution as well.

Mr. Speaker, the Ontario government has promised former Nortel employees that the first $1,000 of their monthly pension payments will be guaranteed, and Quebec offered some pension protection to Nortel retirees in October of 2009 . . .

The Speaker: The hon. minister. [interjection] The hon. minister has the floor.

Dr. Morton: Well, again, Mr. Speaker, it’s not surprising that Ontario has done this since both of the Nortel pension plans are registered in Ontario and regulated by Ontario. I would tell the hon. member and the House that the Alberta superintendent is consulting with Alberta Justice currently as to whether or not we would have the opportunity to intervene in the March 3 hearing about the Nortel settlement and, if we can, to possibly object to that.

Alberta Hansard, February 25, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Mr. Hehr: Well, Mr. Speaker, the proposed changes to Alberta’s electoral boundaries provide further evidence that the growing pains that we are experiencing in this great province are very real and very evident. 

The current provincial budget frequently incorporates the term “finding efficiencies.” How about this efficiency: keep Alberta’s Legislature at 83 seats and save millions. Will the minister consent to doing this?

The Speaker: The hon. minister.

Ms Redford: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I understand that the boundaries commission has provided a report reflecting the current state of the legislation in Alberta. There’s much time for public comment, and I’ll look forward to what the result might be in the future.

Mr. Hehr: Well, regarding public comment much of that has already been made to the commission. It was noted in the report that many Albertans really don’t want another four MLAs. So how about following the first rule of democracy, listening to these people and not incorporating these four MLAs?

Speaker’s Ruling

Questions about Legislation

The Speaker: Well, hon. member, the first rule of democracy is to uphold the laws of the province of Alberta. This Assembly has passed a piece of legislation mandating 87 electoral divisions. Is the hon. member asking the Minister of Justice to not observe the law, to break the law?

I’m sorry. You’re going on to your third question, please.

Number of Provincial Constituencies

(continued)

Mr. Hehr: Okay. Here’s my third question, then. If that is in fact true, can we put forward some new legislation, then, to keep it at 83 seats so that we don’t have another four?

Ms Redford: Well, Mr. Speaker, the Legislature is open for public business, and if the member wants to introduce legislation, he’s certainly entitled to do that.

Alberta Hansard, February 25, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Ms Blakeman: I’m sorry. I didn’t know that it was puffball day. [interjections] I didn’t know. I didn’t get the memo. 

Energy efficiency is an essential step towards achieving Alberta’s emission targets and the most effective means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions from a cost perspective. Guys, it’s low-hanging fruit.

To the Minister of Environment: will the minister include a minimum standard of EnerGuide 80 for all new home construction going forward into the energy efficiency legislation?

Mr. Renner: Well, Mr. Speaker, in the words of the member opposite, it’s puffball day. I’ll hit one out of the park for her. The issue is not for the Minister of Environment to make that decision. I advise the minister responsible, who is the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Ms Blakeman: You’re supposed to be guiding this government in environmental policy.

Question 2 to the same minister: given that energy efficiency in homes increases property values while significantly benefiting our environment, will the minister include mandatory third-party energy efficiency labelling of new homes in the energy efficiency legislation or talk to his friend about it?

Mr. Renner: Well, Mr. Speaker, there are a myriad of opportunities that we have to incent and enhance the degree of energy efficiency. That is the responsibility and the role of the Minister of Environment, to point those opportunities out; in fact, to urge caucus to adopt those. But I think it would be presumptuous in the extreme for me to tell this member that I can promise something that is not within my jurisdiction to implement.

Ms Blakeman: Well, why doesn’t the minister share with us exactly what he is doing to get his colleague to implement this legislation?

There’s a puffball for you. Go ahead. Hit it out of the park.

Mr. Renner: Mr. Speaker, we have initiated an interdepartmental committee that is responsible for reviewing all things related to the building code and other matters with respect to energy efficiency. That will then drive towards a recommendation that comes forward not only from Environment but from Municipal Affairs, from other ministries, not the least of which is Treasury Board because some of this will involve public dollars. At that point in time we will make a decision, and I’ll be more than happy to advise the member what it is.

Alberta Hansard, February 25, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Mr. Taylor: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I don’t know how I’m going to follow that, but I’ll try.

Today we learned of another move by oil sands companies to limit the amount of bitumen being upgraded here in the province of Alberta. We need this value-added industry. We need the jobs and the taxes that it brings, and we need the industrial by-products that it makes. To the Minister of Energy: does the minister accept that this cutback and others like it are a serious blow to maintaining a substantial upgrading industry in the province of Alberta?

Mr. Liepert: Well, as I’ve stated in the House before, Mr. Speaker, these are business decisions, and they’re made on the basis of whether or not they’re economically profitable. Ideally, obviously, Alberta would like to have more upgrader capacity in Alberta, but when the margin is very narrow, you’re not likely to encourage private-sector investment in that business.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Mr. Taylor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The government keeps talking about bitumen royalties in kind, but these kinds of shifts indicate that that’s not going to keep a very large proportion of bitumen here in Alberta, so I’d like to know from the minister what’s next. What else does the minister have to use because the bitumen royalty in kind program seems clearly not to be enough?

Mr. Liepert: Well, I don’t agree with the member, Mr. Speaker. The bitumen royalty in kind is a very important program that’s been introduced by our government. We believe over time that that will be a very wise decision. As production ramps up, there are opportunities for increased bitumen for the people of Alberta. As you know, we have a proposal out there right now for an upgrader to upgrade the Alberta portion of the BRIK program, and I think that’s going to be, if we look back 10 years from now, a very important decision.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Mr. Taylor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. While we wait for the government to act, long-term decisions are getting finalized by industry. I understand the proposal is out there. We need some time, but time matters. So how long do Albertans have to wait before the minister starts to push other means of adding value here in the province?

Mr. Liepert: Well, again, I don’t agree with the preamble, Mr. Speaker. The impression was left that somehow Alberta is not coming forward with initiatives. The BRIK initiative is a clear indication of what we’re prepared to do to ensure that Albertans going forward have the opportunity to benefit from upgraded bitumen in this province, and we’ll continue to do that.

Alberta Hansard, February 25, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Mr. MacDonald: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. When asked about appointments to cabinet policy committees on Tuesday, it was stated that members were paid according to order in council, but that wasn’t the question. 

The question was: how are Conservative members appointed? The Legislative Assembly Act states that to be paid for committee work, members must be appointed by order in council, by regulation, or ministerial order.

To the Premier: since we know the appointments were not made by order in council, how did the Premier appoint all 69 Conservative members to the cabinet policy committees without violating the Legislative Assembly Act?

Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, I believe the other day the member asked for a copy of the order in council. Unfortunately, I didn’t bring it with me here today, but I believe that order in council was issued close to two years ago. It’s public. For all orders in council, as soon as they’re signed, copies are left with all members of the media. I know the media has them, and we’ll make sure that a copy is given to the opposition.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Mr. MacDonald: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Clearly, the Premier is confused and does not understand. We’re not after the order in council that set up the fee schedule for the committee work. We are after the order in council, if it does exist, for the appointments to the five cabinet policy committees that you set up so that each and every Conservative MLA last year received $1.4 million. Show us that order in council, or you’re in violation of the act.

Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, let’s be very clear. Each member did not receive $1.4 million. You know, one day we don’t have an order in council, and today we do have an order in council. All members were appointed to CPC through ministerial order. The order in council gave, very publicly, the rate of pay to those members.

Mr. MacDonald: He’s digging himself in deeper, Mr. Speaker.

Again to the Premier. If what the Premier stated on Tuesday is true, that the cabinet policy committees are “not committees of the Legislature,” why does the order in council or the ministerial order that sets out the fee schedule for these committees fall under the authority of the Legislative Assembly Act, specifically section 37?

Are you not violating that section?

Mr. Hancock: Mr. Speaker, this is almost a point of privilege at this stage.

An Hon. Member: He needs a lawyer.

Mr. Hancock: The hon. member is not entitled to ask for legal advice, but he probably should get legal advice if he can’t even read section 37 of the Legislative Assembly Act, which allows for the payment of members in a number of different circumstances. One of the ways that Members of the Legislative Assembly are paid is pursuant to the Legislative Assembly Act and the allocations under the Members’ Services Committee. Another way that Members of the Legislative Assembly are paid is if they take on other responsibilities. Some serve as members of Executive Council, some serve as members of cabinet policy committees, as an example, and some in the past have served as members of agencies, boards, and commissions, and the Legislative Assembly Act specifically allows and provides for that.

Alberta Hansard, February 25, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Dr. Swann: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday in the House the Premier was asked questions that came directly from guests in the gallery. 

The Premier was dismissive and perhaps disrespectful of the guests by not answering their questions. Today we ask the Premier to do the right thing and provide real answers, that the guests were seeking.

To the Premier. The Seniors budget shows $119 million allocated to supports for the delivery system. What does this money pay for, and why is there such a large difference in how this is allocated across six PDD regions?

Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, we have provision for discussion of estimates. All departments are bringing their estimates forward. I believe the opposition has close to two hours on each department to ask these questions. The ministers are able to provide specifics to every line item in that budget.

Dr. Swann: Well, Mr. Speaker, another question from yesterday: why is $915,000 going to board governance when the board members are typically volunteers? Why is there such a large difference in this spending between the six regions?

Mr. Stelmach: A very good question. We’ll find out during the estimates why the discrepancy, and if there are some boards that are charging more for their input as board members than others, then we want to know about it. If some are doing that on a volunteer basis, we certainly commend them and will try and find out why other boards aren’t doing it.

Dr. Swann: Well, since Seniors is already done, Mr. Speaker, I guess I would ask a third question to the Premier. The minister of seniors stated that the PDD budget will not be increased but that any efficiency savings that come from her department would be directed to front-line staff. How much will need to be found in efficiencies to accommodate PDD caseloads, that are increasing by 50 to 100 per year?

Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, the overall support for the vulnerable has increased in the budget, but the question I would have to the hon. member is: why is it that the good questions have now come from those that offered those questions and not from members across the House? Now he’s saying that we’ve already done the estimates and that we can’t ask those questions. I would say: put those questions all in writing, and the minister will give detail to every question.

The Speaker: Second Official Opposition main question. The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition.

Municipal Sustainability Funding

Dr. Swann: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This government likes to talk up its municipal sustainability funding. In fact, in press releases it’s claiming that the municipal sustainability initiative will be maintained over time, but this program is now being stretched out far beyond the original number of years. Again to the Premier: given that the government is providing less each year than was agreed upon when the MSI was signed three years ago, why is the government claiming in press releases that funding has actually increased?

Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, we are committed to $11.3 billion over 10 years. Given this economic downturn I spoke very honestly in open dialogue with municipalities and said: “Look, we can’t dip even further into savings than we have already to date to sustain municipal funding. Would you be open to stretching that 10-year period another year or two?” All municipalities agree that that’s the way to go. They appreciate the funding. Notwithstanding the fact that it isn’t as much as what they thought they were going to receive in the original plan, it is still much more than any other province supports their municipalities anywhere in the country of Canada.

Dr. Swann: Well, again, Mr. Speaker, the question was: why is the government claiming to be increasing the funding?

Mr. Stelmach: Municipalities are receiving today more for infrastructure than back in 2007. That’s very clear.

Dr. Swann: Well, Mr. Speaker, the original deal promised to stretch out over 10 years, but now the money is going to be stretched over more, so less money each year. Does the Premier accept that his government broke its word again to municipalities in the province?

Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, we’re working in partnership with
municipalities.

The other thing is that we are receiving some very, very, very good tenders on infrastructure in the province, whether it be the building of roads, replacement of water or sewer, improvements to infrastructure no matter where we are in the province of Alberta, sometimes with as much as 40 per cent savings. So there may be less going this year in terms of some very specific grants, but on the other hand we’re getting a very good buy for the money that we’re investing in infrastructure. I would say that most municipalities said that it more than equals what they’ve seen in reduction in their municipal funding.

Alberta Hansard, February 25, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Mr. Kang: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Calgary is now the fourth-largest city and its airport is the third busiest in the country. 

The airport is expanding, and we need to provide for growth around it. The deadline for commitments from the federal and provincial governments for the Calgary International Airport tunnel is approaching, and after March 1 without those commitments the deal is dead.

To the Minister of Transportation: why are you killing any chance of Calgary having this necessary airport tunnel by not providing any support, sir?

Mr. Ouellette: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is absolutely wrong again today. We supply all kinds of support to the city of Calgary. This is a municipal, local road, and the municipal district of the city of Calgary should be making their priorities on what they do with the money we give them on what roads they plan to build.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Mr. Kang: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The city of Calgary already committed $50 million, and the airport authority committed $40 million. This issue is a provincial one, not just one for the city of Calgary. This government should be looking at the issue from this perspective, not running away from it.

To the minister again: why isn’t the government treating this vital tunnel as an issue of provincial importance?

Mr. Ouellette: Mr. Speaker, this hon. member knows that every single issue in the province is an issue for this government, but there are ways of handling the issues. I can’t run out and try and find money on a tree somewhere to start supporting areas that are not my responsibility.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Mr. Kang: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just as it would improve Alberta’s competitiveness for the federal government to open up the Calgary airport to more flights from overseas, so too would it improve Alberta’s competitiveness to have an airport that is fully accessible to the whole city of Calgary and the whole of Alberta.

Why is the minister unable to see the competitiveness incentive behind this?

Mr. Ouellette: Mr. Speaker, I also have to tell the hon. member that he’s into another area that’s not my jurisdiction. Other airlines’ open skies agreements are the full purview of the federal government. They regulate who is allowed to fly into this country, province, wherever you want to call it. I’ve written letters to that minister agreeing that Alberta would love to have open skies and bring more people and allow other airlines to fly into Calgary and to fly into Edmonton so that we have more competitive rates for all of our constituents.

Alberta Hansard, February 24, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Ms Blakeman: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Window rebates, the inclusion of rental properties in rebate initiatives, and support for walking and cycling infrastructure are all smaller but significant initiatives to help reduce emissions. 

Further areas for the government to pursue are greener building codes and legislation to support the construction and demolition waste reduction program. To the Minister of Environment. Construction waste makes up 25 per cent of our total waste in Alberta, but only 10 per cent is recycled. When will the minister introduce construction and demolition waste reduction legislation? It’s ready to go. It was supposed to come in the fall. Will we see it this spring?

Mr. Renner: Mr. Speaker, we’re currently engaged in conversations with the Alberta Construction Association and others associated with this initiative. We have a memorandum of understanding in place.

I can advise the member that that dialogue is ongoing, and I am hopeful that we will be able to move forward as soon as possible.

Ms Blakeman: That was a nonanswer.

To the same minister: since 96 per cent of Albertans feel that conservation and energy efficiency in our homes is important and 86 per cent of Albertans are willing to pay more for this feature when purchasing a new home, when will the minister increase the energy efficiency requirements for new homes in the provincial building codes? That’s directed to the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Mr. Goudreau: Mr. Speaker, I’m sorry. I wasn’t paying attention to the question.

Ms Blakeman: Well, that’s typical but unfortunate.

Back to the Minister of Environment. Since there is a high degree of support for legislated energy efficiency targets and the government’s own 2008 climate change strategy promised it would develop an energy efficiency act, when will the minister introduce energy efficiency legislation?

Mr. Renner: Well, Mr. Speaker, the issue of energy efficiency is one that’s critical if we’re going to be able to accomplish the much-needed commitment that we have to CO2 reduction in our overall climate change strategy. That being said, the legislation that’s already in place, the climate change and emissions management legislation, has significant amount of authority under our regulation-making powers, and we anticipate that we’ll probably have a two-step approach. We’ll be moving forward under existing legislation and then introducing new . . .

Alberta Hansard, February 24, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Mr. Hehr: Mr. Speaker, the recent changes to the mission and vision of Elections Alberta highlight the inadequacies of the current approach to democratic renewal in Alberta. 

While the former Chief Electoral Officer engaged and encouraged the voting public, his replacement seems to have a less ambitious agenda. Why won’t the minister admit what Albertans already know? Real democratic reform to Alberta’s electoral system is not on the government agenda.

Ms Redford: Well, Mr. Speaker, there’s legislation coming before this House very shortly that’s going to deal with a number of great recommendations that were made by both the current Chief Electoral Officer and the former Chief Electoral Officer. I would say that the future of democracy in Alberta is certainly well and good in place, and he shouldn’t be predicting anything else.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Mr. Hehr: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. Stakeholder groups have spoken to me about what they perceive to be a wilful blindness to solve the problems that have been identified to the government many years ago. An example of this is providing university students with the ability to choose their ordinary residence for the purpose of voting. Why does this government refuse to act when these Albertans are asking for these types of changes?

The Speaker: The hon. minister.

Ms Redford: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We think that’s an issue of a great deal of importance, as did the former Chief Electoral Officer. We’ve carefully reviewed the legislation, and I believe students do have that right at the moment.

Mr. Hehr: Well, Mr. Speaker, I realize that the Chief Electoral Officer is an officer of this Assembly, but it baffles me why this Legislature would hire an individual who does not want to actually promote individuals voting in elections. What bothers me more is the fact that this minister appears to be satisfied with a 41 per cent voter participation rate in Alberta. To that end, how many of the former electoral reforms will the Justice minister be bringing forward out of the 180 recommendations?

Ms Redford: Well, Mr. Speaker, the legislation will be before this House shortly, and the hon. member will be able to see that for himself. I’m not going to debate that ahead of time. Mr. Speaker, the other thing that I think is very important to discuss here is this constant association between the voter turnout and whether or not democracy is in peril. In this very House one hon. member from this member’s caucus speculated on 10 or 15 reasons why people may or may not have voted in the last election, and none of them had to do with democracy.

Alberta Hansard, February 24, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Mr. Chase: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The nature of care that not only protects but nurtures children with disabilities in Alberta is of the utmost importance in ensuring that they experience the best quality of life possible. 

It is therefore essential that there be appropriate placements and ongoing evaluation of the care that is provided for vulnerable disabled children. To the minister: given the highly specific individual needs of disabled children, can the minister briefly introduce and follow up in writing what quality and quantity of training specific to physical or mental disabilities is required for Children and Youth Services staff above and beyond the limited staff members in the family support for children with disabilities program?

The Speaker: The hon. minister.

Mrs. Fritz: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I can tell you that the family support for children with disabilities program is highly valued by our families. We did have a survey, and 86 per cent of families said that they value this program and recognize the good support and services that we do offer because it’s customized to the needs of the child. I know this member does care about this area. I’ve seen you at many organizations out in the community, hon. member. What you’ve requested in writing – I think it would be the multidisciplinary teams that you’re looking at for the specialized services – I can provide.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Mr. Chase: Thank you. I appreciate the follow-up, Madam Minister.

Is the minister absolutely certain that all Children and Youth Services staff are adequately trained and have the necessary understanding and experience to provide the proper placements and supports to Alberta’s vulnerable disabled children?

Mrs. Fritz: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely certain. I go back to what I said earlier about the families, to what we hear back from the families. I’ve been told that this is a leading program across Canada, and that’s because of the good specialized support services that we offer to families. This is a $120 million area of the budget. We’ve added another $5 million in this coming budget to the programs, and it’s with that support. As I said, hon. member, I will provide the information you are seeking.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Mr. Chase: Thank you. What type of follow-up does the ministry conduct to ensure the well-being of disabled children after they have been placed in either foster care or kinship care? How frequently does the support evaluation occur to ensure that the placement and care continue to be appropriate?

Mrs. Fritz: Mr. Speaker, with the foster care program there was a review that was done two years ago. That review did show that there needed to be more extensive assessment with families, and that would include families with children with disabilities. That assessment is, of course, face-to-face interviews. Those have increased on a monthly basis as well as on a quarterly basis. I can get back to you as well about the orientation, the home training, and the follow-up.

Alberta Hansard, February 24, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Dr. Taft: Thanks, Mr. Speaker. Well, it’s an important day for health care in Grande Prairie. 

The bone and joint clinic at the QE II hospital in Grande Prairie reduced waiting times and human suffering by accelerating hip and knee surgery, yet despite the surge in orthopaedic funding announced last week, this clinic in Grande Prairie is being disbanded this week.

To the Minister of Health and Wellness: who made the decision to phase out this program, and why?

Mr. Zwozdesky: Mr. Speaker, I’m not aware of the funding being phased out or ended per se. What I do know is that the current arrangement expires I think at the end of this fiscal year, but that issue is up to Alberta Health Services to review. As people here know, I’m meeting with them later tonight. Hon. member, I’d be pleased to address that question with Alberta Health Services later this evening.

Dr. Taft: Well, please do so because my information, which is very firm, is that they basically took their last patient on Monday. Again to the same minister: what steps will be taken to ensure that the people of the Peace Country have similar access to orthopaedic surgery as the people of Calgary?

Mr. Zwozdesky: Mr. Speaker, I think we should make it clear that the clinic being talked about didn’t actually, to my knowledge at least, perform surgeries at the site. They did more of the coordination of ensuring that the services got provided somewhere in the region around there. So if there’s an issue here with respect to services for Peace River or other locations you’ve mentioned, then that, too, can come under the discussion this evening, and I’ll make sure it does.

Dr. Taft: It was a co-ordinating service that, as I said, accelerated wait times and helped reduce people’s suffering, and it should be continued.

Again to the same minister. Alberta Health Services has a hip and knee steering committee, which had a role – and I know this in writing – in deciding to fund this clinic last June. Who are the members of the Alberta Health Services hip and knee steering committee, what’s their mandate, and exactly who are they accountable to?

Mr. Zwozdesky: Mr. Speaker, I’ll get the names that the member seeks; I don’t have them with me, obviously. I know that about six years ago when we created this hip and knee steering committee as a subgroup of a larger management committee, its purpose really was to look at reducing wait times and managing the times better. I think they did a good job, hon. member. I’m curious to know about the funding issue that you mentioned, so I will find out about that and get back to you with the answers.

Alberta Hansard, February 24, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Mr. Taylor: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. An interesting report came out today from the University of Calgary School of Public Policy, comparing Alberta, B.C., Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, and the state of Texas. 

The report states that Alberta is the least competitive of those jurisdictions for oil and gas investment. This is extremely concerning. To the Premier: what are the Premier’s thoughts about the conclusions this report presents?

Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, it clearly follows what the government has in place. We have the Competitiveness Act before this House that’s being debated. We want to ensure that we’re the best place to do business in the North American continent. There have been substantial changes in not only price but in the availability of gas in shale, and that’s changed the situation considerably. So we’re waiting for the competitiveness review to be done and also completion of the act so that we can undertake putting the competitiveness review in place.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Mr. Taylor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. When I asked the Minister of Energy about upcoming royalty changes, he stated, “The framework itself is in place and will stay in place.” Does the Premier now think that more needs to be done than the tweaks to the payouts that the minister is considering?

Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, we will have the most competitive and innovative economy in North America. I just ask him to wait and listen for the completion and the presentation of the report, which will be here soon.

Mr. Taylor: You’re not asking me to wait; you’re asking 78,000 unemployed Albertans to wait.

We’re hearing these days of record land sales in the province because of the interest in the Duvernay shale gas play, and you might almost be able to kid yourself into thinking that happy days are here again if it weren’t for those 78,000 unemployed and wereit not for this School of Public Policy report. To the Premier: is the province still committed to its own competitiveness review?

Mr. Stelmach: Yes, we are.

Alberta Hansard, February 24, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Ms Pastoor: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you, Madam Minister. I think we understand the difference between what they do, the care that they deliver, but I think the question was: what is the discrepancy between being able to run boards with volunteers and actually having to pay $915,000 for board governance?

My next question would be: with the estimates and target budget of 2010-11 and 2011-12 being the same as the 2009-10 forecast of $597 million . . .

The Speaker: The hon. minister.

Mrs. Jablonski: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. What I would like to say is that because this program is so important to this government, we want to make sure that the program is very consistent throughout the province. We want to make sure that there’s clarity in the program.

We want to make sure that there’s efficiency and effectiveness, especially effectiveness, to the services that we provide. The most important things besides all of those is that this program is sustainable now and into the future. So we have a plan in place. It’s our six-priority action plan, which we have travelled across the province and talked to people about to make this an even better program.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Ms Pastoor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In the budget debate the minister of seniors stated that they were projecting PDD clients to increase from 50 to 100 people in the coming year. How does the minister expect to deal with the AUPE increases, annualized cost for individuals who have come into the service and that the budget is still being held at the ’09-10 rate?

Mrs. Jablonski: Mr. Speaker, the member across is absolutely correct when she says that our budget remains level. I think that’s a wonderful accomplishment considering what’s happening in these times. We are always looking for efficiencies in our program so that we can support our people with developmental disabilities, so we will be looking for those efficiencies, and any savings that we find within my ministry will go directly to the front line for people with disabilities.

Alberta Hansard, February 24, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Dr. Swann: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Today in the House we have roughly a hundred guests whose quality of life has been negatively affected because of government changes to the persons with developmental disabilities program. 

They have sent me the following basic questions they want asked to the Premier. To the Premier: what did the province do with the $1,403.60 raised at a bottle drive in January and delivered here on February 10?

Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, this government is committed to supporting adults with developmental disabilities, and we’re also committed to ensuring that the program that we have in place is sustainable for years to come to support all Albertans with developmental disabilities. The PDD program continues to be well funded. I believe it’s in the area of about $600 million.

Any of the other details with respect to the program the minister responsible can answer.

Dr. Swann: Well, again to the Premier. According to the Seniors and Community Supports business plan and budget for 2010 the total estimate for direct operations for PDD, their community boards, is $15.8 million. How many individuals would this support?

The Speaker: The hon. minister.

Mrs. Jablonski: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The PDD program is very important to this government and to all MLAs in this Assembly. I know that first-hand because I’ve heard from many of them. I’m committed to this program, and I can tell you that with the direct program we have for our people with developmental disabilities, in Michener I know we have approximately 270 people that are served in that program.

Dr. Swann: Well, again, Mr. Speaker, we’re looking for some evidence that this money is being spent on the delivery of care to persons with developmental disabilities. What does the $119 million under supports to delivery system pay? What does it pay for, and why is there such a large difference in how this is allocated across the six PDD regions?

Mrs. Jablonski: Mr. Speaker, the PDD program that we have here in Alberta is one of the very best in Canada. This program and our budget show our commitment to people with developmental disabilities. The goal of the program is to help our people with developmental disabilities to live the most independent and the best life that they can live. I’d like to quote my friends from the Camrose Association for Community Living where they say: our purpose is to help our friends with developmental disabilities live their best life.

Alberta Hansard, February 24, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Calgary – Darshan Kang, Alberta Liberal critic for Infrastructure and Transportation, has sent a letter to all Alberta’s MLAs asking them to support the construction of a tunnel under the Calgary International Airport’s new runway. 

The tunnel is needed to compensate for the closure of Barlow Trail north of McKnight boulevard, which connects northeast Calgary with the airport. Without the tunnel, all traffic from the area will be routed onto Country Hills Boulevard and Deerfoot Trail, to the detriment of local business and quality of life. The proposed tunnel would also provide a future link for light rail to the airport; without it, C-train service to the airport may never happen.

“Without this tunnel,” Kang’s letter reads, “the City of Calgary will face increased gridlock, a worsening environment, a poorer quality of life and the provincial road known as Deerfoot Trail will remain a traffic hazard.”

Kang’s letter asks MLAs of all parties to urge the Stelmach administration to step up and show leadership by signing on to a funding deal that would partner the City of Calgary and the Calgary Airport Authority with the federal and provincial governments.

– 30 –

Attached: Kang’s letter to MLAs

For more information contact:

albertaliberalcaucus
1-866-633-4214

[direct link to this article]

Alberta Liberal MLA Bridget Pastoor’s Motion 501 passed in the Legislature on Monday. 

Motion 501 reads: “Be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly urge the Government to establish an independent Commission to review the current salaries and benefits for Members of the Legislative Assembly and to report to the Government and this Assembly on whether the current overall remuneration for Members is fair and adequate.”

With the weight of the Assembly behind the motion, the Premier agreed in Question Period on Tuesday that his government would begin work to follow the advice of the Assembly. 

[direct link to this article]

Mr. Kang: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Driving from Calgary to Edmonton, one can’t help but notice a variety of signs on private property, from semi-trailer billboards to the hay bale towers advertising feed, yet this minister specifically targets antinuclear signs, and his answers have not cleared things up. 

This issue is not just about removal of signs on private property; it is about a situation where of all the signs out there on the highways of the Peace Country only the signs against nuclear power were specifically targeted. To the minister: why?

Mr. Ouellette: Mr. Speaker, I’ve got to tell you that this hon. member is absolutely wrong. Look, I’ve told him many times that this department has a policy that we do not allow signs within our right-of-way, and they’re noncompliant 300 metres on private land outside the right-of-way. On outside the right-of-way signs we send out letters telling people that they’re not compliant and to remove the signs, but we don’t remove them. Inside the right-of-way it doesn’t matter what’s on the sign. If they’re not compliant, we will remove them.

Mr. Kang: Mr. Speaker, this is about expressing freedom of speech, and it has nothing to do with the right-of-way. It is not right that only the signs expressing opposition to a government policy are removed. We haven’t had an answer on this. Perhaps the minister doesn’t know why his department is having this removal done.

What investigation of this has he undertaken?

Mr. Ouellette: Mr. Speaker, this policy has absolutely nothing to do with freedom of speech. It has to do with noncompliant signs within a right-of-way, and if the signs are noncompliant, it doesn’t matter what’s written on them; they’re going to be removed.

Mr. Kang: Those signs were not in noncompliance, Mr. Speaker. When can we and the people of the Peace Country expect to see a public formal review and report on this matter?

Mr. Ouellette: Mr. Speaker, we’re looking into some of the claims, but I’ve got to tell this hon. member: they are noncompliant. We don’t allow signs in the right-of-way.

Alberta Hansard, February 23, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Ms Blakeman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Walking and cycling have been used throughout the world to reduce car usage, road wear and improve citizen health and community connectivity. 

This government is doing the oil and gas sector a disservice in terms of meeting our emissions targets when it insists on spending billions on one big-ticket CCS but ignores the smaller initiatives that can have significant, enduring effects.

To the Minister of Environment: what is the province doing to encourage more people-oriented initiatives like building cycling lanes and walking trails?

Mr. Renner: Well, Mr. Speaker, while I appreciate that there may be some environmental benefits to cycling and walking, I’d suggest that the benefits probably accrue more to the cyclers and the walkers. She may want to address that question to the minister of health.

Ms Blakeman: Well, I think that if they’re walking or cycling, they may not be driving, and that should help us.

To the same minister: given that the municipal sustainability initiative has been cut two years in a row and given all the other areas this wonder-fund is supposed to cover for cities, how does the minister expect cities to extract money to pay for environmental programs which are more the minister’s responsibility?

Mr. Renner: Well, Mr. Speaker, we just recently announced a $2 million contribution to a project jointly managed by AUMA and AAMD and C that will create a centre of excellence for municipalities large and small throughout the province to find opportunities for them to significantly increase their energy efficiency and at the same time decrease their environmental footprint. So while we’re not expecting that we’ll pay for the initiatives, we certainly will give them the expertise that they need to find the direction that they’re going.

Ms Blakeman: To the same minister. Well, here’s an opportunity. Why doesn’t the minister amend the Green TRIP program to include incentives to expand walking and cycling infrastructure?

Mr. Renner: Well, Mr. Speaker, I wouldn’t necessarily be opposed to doing such a thing, but I do want to point out that the Green TRIP program is designed to reduce in a significant way the carbon footprint. And while I said at the outset that there may be some marginal benefits from this, I don’t think that’s the best bang for the buck for this program.

Alberta Hansard, February 23, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Ms Pastoor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We speak of the extreme importance of oil and gas in Alberta and to Albertans, but we can’t lose sight of Alberta south of Calgary. 

The promised police college is very important for police services, retaining our rural culture, and fostering economic diversity in our rural communities.

To the Solicitor General. Fort Macleod has had this carrot dangled in front of it since 2006. Why has the minister waited so long to provide them with answers?

Mr. Oberle: Well, Mr. Speaker, I haven’t waited all that long. I’ve been in the position for about a month.

The hon. member will know the conditions under which this college was first suggested, that being that it gets private funding and it’s operationally self-sufficient. Given the fact that I can’t identify private funding to that level, I have no public funds to proceed. Given that, I will do everything I can to make this project proceed, but I can’t make any promises at this time.

Ms Pastoor: Thank you for that. I think that’s a tiny little door that’s opened.

My next question is: can we expect a concrete, well-prepared, long-term implementation strategy or evidence of any sort of planning? What kind of work has been done to actually attract private? Should we maybe rethink private?

Mr. Oberle: Well, we can rethink private if we want, Mr. Speaker, but the fact remains that I don’t have any public funds available to me right now. As the hon. member pointed out, we need long-term planning. I think we have a capital plan that stretches out for a very long term. In order to pull this project off, I would need to find a way to reprofile that, and I can’t do that right now.

Ms Pastoor: Okay. My next question to the same minister: I guess, given those answers, what I’d like to hear is that there is a pledge that it will be built.

Mr. Oberle: I’ve made about the clearest pledge I can make, Mr. Speaker, and that is that I will work very hard for the citizens of Fort Macleod and the MLA that represents this area. I feel for their position. I will do everything I can to make that college happen.

Alberta Hansard, February 23, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Mr. Hehr: Mr. Speaker, Albertans have been both supportive and proud of our troops serving overseas in the protection and defence of people’s right to vote for a democratically elected representative. 

Given this backdrop, my question is for the Justice minister. Why did your government select an individual to run Elections Alberta who does not believe that it’s his job to encourage people to vote, or is this the government’s whole idea?

The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

Ms Redford: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s not my understanding that the government did select this individual. I believe that was the purview of this House.

Mr. Hehr: I understand that, but we all know who actually selects these individuals to run our departments.

Do you think it’s possible for your department to maybe instruct this individual that their mandate is to encourage active participation in getting Albertans to vote, or are you going to ignore that job?

Speaker’s Ruling

Questions about Officers of the Assembly

The Speaker: Well, hon. member, just for clarification. The person in question, the Chief Electoral Officer, is an officer of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta, not the government of Alberta. If it came to my attention that a minister of the Crown was actually intervening in the affairs of an officer of the Legislative Assembly, there would be an intervention all right. It would come from me.

Third question.

Chief Electoral Officer
(continued)

Mr. Hehr: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker, for that. I guess I just like the old way when the old guy was actually trying to actively promote things and actually get people to vote, but who am I to argue with the process that we have in place here?

I guess my final question for the political minister – I mean the Justice minister – is that given her answers today are what most people already know, are there really any substantive changes coming to the electoral act? Can we see some fixed election dates? Can we see some reform to university students being able to vote at the schools where they’re going to school? Or what’s going on?

The Speaker: The hon. minister.

Ms Redford: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The first thing I’d say is that if there are people in Alberta that are concerned about the efficiency, the transparency, or the honesty of this system, I would suggest that one of the reasons for that might be because of the sort of information that’s being propagated through the prelims to these questions. However, Mr. Speaker, as I have said on more than a regular basis, we will be introducing amendments to the Election Act based on the recommendations of the Chief Electoral Officer, both the current one and the previous one, as a result of lessons learned from the past two elections that are printed in published reports. I think we’ll have a great debate in the Legislature.

Alberta Hansard, February 23, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Mr. Taylor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday the Minister of Municipal Affairs responded to my questions by saying that the government wants to “level the playing field” with election financing laws for municipalities. 

But here’s the thing. The individual wards in Edmonton and Calgary are bigger than many entire municipalities, with 60,000 or more constituents. So what playing field is the minister trying to level, the urban-metro one with 60,000-plus constituents or the rural one with 10,000?

The Speaker: The hon. minister.

Mr. Goudreau: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Certainly, I was reiterating some of the comments that we are hearing from Albertans in general. Albertans are believing in accountability, and they are wanting to see transparency within their local governments. They believe that those issues are important. So part of the process of Bill 203 was the fact that we are trying to have the same rules for every elected official across the province of Alberta.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Mr. Taylor: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would think that you would be trying to raise the bar rather than lower the bar. Given that the city of Edmonton has election financing rules that are already more comprehensive and in some ways stricter than the provincial rules, is the government trying to make Edmonton conform to weakened average provincial rules?

Mr. Goudreau: Mr. Speaker, certainly the regulations and the rules and the amendments to the bill that are coming forward will provide some clarity to all municipal elected officials. I recognize that Edmonton has their own rules and regulations. When we do introduce the amendments, it’s going to complement those types of decisions that they’ve made in the past.

Mr. Taylor: Well, Mr. Speaker, I don’t know about clarity, but there’s a big fat catch-22 here. Candidates are individually responsible for their campaign debts, but if the debt is greater than $5,000, they can’t pay it individually because that would contravene the act’s limits. How would the minister advise that this situation be addressed?

Mr. Goudreau: Mr. Speaker, I think, you know, aside from disclosing the information that will be coming up after our break, that clarity will be provided when we introduce the amendments.

Alberta Hansard, February 23, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Mr. MacDonald: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. According to the Legislative Assembly Act in order to be paid for sitting on a cabinet policy committee, three things must happen: payments must be reported, the rate of payment must be set through order in council, and the appointments to these committees must be done by an order in council, by a ministerial order, or by regulation. 

My first question is to the Premier: why did the Premier appoint 69 government MLAs, that were paid last year $1.4 million, to five cabinet policy committees without issuing an order in council?

The Speaker: The hon. Government House Leader.

Mr. Hancock: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. All members on CPCs are paid in accordance with an order in council that was passed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

Mr. MacDonald: Again, Mr. Speaker, to the Premier: given that we have requested a copy of this order in council going back to December 9, 2009, when will this order in council be made public?

Mr. Hancock: All orders in council are published and made public.

Mr. MacDonald: It is interesting, Mr. Speaker, that this one to date has not.

Now, again to the Premier. The Premier set up these appointments; he can answer this question. Who in the Premier’s office decided to set up the cabinet policy committees in such a way that the Legislative Assembly Act was not followed when those appointments were set up?

Mr. Stelmach: They’re not committees of the Legislature.

Alberta Hansard, February 23, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Dr. Swann: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today I want to acknowledge that yesterday afternoon the Assembly unanimously passed the Alberta Liberals’ Motion 501, which called for an independent review of MLA pay. 

This is a very encouraging step. How this government responds to the passing of this motion will be a true test of its openness and accountability.

To the Premier: when will the Premier establish an independent committee to review MLA pay?

Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, we will begin to work on establishing the committee. Because it was a motion passed before the House, it’s incumbent upon the government to begin those discussions, and I’m open to the opposition taking part in those discussions just like we have MLAs taking part in the Members’ Services Committee. We have members of all parties represented.

Dr. Swann: Thank you to the Premier. Again to the Premier: what does the Premier envision as the scope of the committee?

Mr. Stelmach: I have some ideas. I’m sure the Liberals have some ideas. The other parties have some ideas. Let’s come together and build a committee and bring clarity to this issue.

Dr. Swann: Very good. Finally, to the Premier: does the Premier envision the committee being functional by this fall?

Mr. Stelmach: Yes.

Peter Lougheed Centre Beds

Dr. Swann: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Two weeks ago we asked the minister of health when the 140 empty beds at the Peter Lougheed hospital in Calgary would be opened to provide relief to the overburdened hospitals in Calgary. The minister said that he had already told Alberta Health Services to look into it, so these questions are to the minister. When can Calgary see these 140 beds opened?

Mr. Zwozdesky: Mr. Speaker, what I said was that I would pass that information along to Alberta Health Services, and in fact it’s on our agenda for further discussion tomorrow evening. I don’t think that a decision will be made tomorrow evening, but it’s up for discussion. It all has to be part of our longer term capital plan, which I said we would have ready on or about March 31.

The Speaker: The hon. leader.

Dr. Swann: Thanks, Mr. Speaker. According to the March 2009 CEO’s report of Alberta Health Services it was estimated that $48 million to $50 million would be needed in operating funds for the 140 beds at the Peter Lougheed. When these beds are open, will Health Services make this funding part of their permanent operating costs for the next five years, or is this a one-off this year?

Mr. Zwozdesky: Mr. Speaker, the answer in large part will come when we have the five-year funding plan in place. That’ll be starting on April 1, 2010, and those very considerations and concerns that the hon. member has raised will be given the exact discussion that he requested and that I have demanded.

The Speaker: The hon. leader.

Dr. Swann: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Existing hospitals are already understaffed. How many RNs and LPNs and support staff will be needed if those 140 beds are to be kept open?

Mr. Zwozdesky: Well, I don’t have the math in my head, Mr. Speaker. I visited that particular Peter Lougheed Centre a couple of weeks ago, and I can tell you that the nurses and the LPNs and the docs and the nurse practitioners and the front-line triage people are working extremely hard, and they’re very pleased, as are the patients, to have the new wing open. What we’re looking at now is: what’s the best use of the 140 beds that had to be closed? We’re considering all of that right now.

Alberta Hansard, February 23, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Mr. Chase: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This government disbanded the board of trustees of the Northland school division last month. 

Since then Albertans have been learning more and more about the social and economic challenges facing residents of Northland. My questions are to the Minister of Education. Given that the challenges facing Northland were beyond the capacity of the trustees alone to address, would you please describe the efforts your ministry has made to involve other ministries such as children’s, Aboriginal Relations, and employment to support the work of the board of trustees, and will the minister table evidence of this previous . . .

The Speaker: The hon. minister has the floor.

Mr. Hancock: Well, Mr. Speaker, we work very closely with Health and Wellness, with Children’s Services, with Aboriginal Relations, and with other ministries to make sure that we don’t operate in a silo whether it’s in the Northland school division or any other school division in the province. The absolute ability for us to co-operate in the interest of children is one of our primary purposes. The first phone calls I made after the changes to cabinet were to the Minister of Health and Wellness and to the Minister of Children’s Services, talking about the need for us to continue our collaborative processes supporting children in the education process.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Mr. Chase: Thank you. Part of the question that you may have missed was the tabling of those initiatives prior to the disbanding of the Northland school board.

Given that the previous efforts of the trustees and the government did not succeed in producing acceptable academic results in Northland, what new resources and supports is the government placing at the disposal of the official trustee appointed last month?

Mr. Hancock: Mr. Speaker, I think it’s very prudent not to give people answers while you’re still asking the questions. We have a review team in place that’s visiting each and every one of the communities involved in Northland, talking with the families in the communities, talking with the educators in those communities, working with the official trustee. Rushing in with a dump truck load of programs before we’ve asked all the questions and analyzed what we can best do to create the community engagement, the community value for education that’s so necessary to succeed I think would be imprudent.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Mr. Chase: Thank you. This problem has existed for over 20 years. The government took very dramatic action, blaming the trustees. It would be nice to know what some of the remedies are.

Finally, when the inquiries committee’s six-month deadline is up, will the minister release the report to the public immediately along with a timeline for acting on the committee’s recommendations?

Mr. Hancock: Mr. Speaker, I take offence to the idea that anybody blamed the trustees. I was very clear that I wasn’t blaming trustees. What we were looking for was another way to deal with a very, very important issue so that the children could be put first and we could find a way to move forward with results for the children. The trustees that were involved are still in place, as a matter of fact, as chairmen of their local councils, to which they’re elected. We still hope that they will participate in this process. It’s not about the trustees; it’s about the children. We’ll focus on that and make sure that we get it right.

Alberta Hansard, February 22, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Ms Pastoor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In this year’s budget debate for Seniors and Community Supports the minister stated that over the next three years all of the 9,200 people supported by Persons with Developmental Disabilities will be reassessed using the supports intensity scale, SIS, to determine how much support they receive. 

To the Minister of Seniors and Community Supports: what will be the total cost of performing the reassessment of PDD individuals, and will this be coming from the department’s budget or from the PDD community boards’ budget?

Mrs. Jablonski: Mr. Speaker, the cost of implementing the SIS supports assessment tool is very minimal. We did have to hire four people, but they’re hired temporarily to help us get through the next few years in the assessment process. The cost of the assessment will come from the PDD budget.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Ms Pastoor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister explain where the supports intensity scale came from and what the cost is of purchasing it and using it?

Mrs. Jablonski: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the cost for the SIS supports – the software that we have and the computer, the training, all of that – is very minimal. We did purchase it; I’m not sure what the name of the company is. The reason we purchased the SIS assessment tool is because it’s a very well-researched program. It’s used in 23 different states, and it’s used in two other provinces.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Ms Pastoor: Thank you. I guess my point on that question was that I believe it’s American.

Will the minister inform the House how the level of PDD supports was determined before SIS and whether there’s an evaluation process to track the difference between the new SIS and the previous method?

Mrs. Jablonski: Mr. Speaker, once a person is determined to be eligible for PDD, there is an assessment process. We have six different regional community boards, and the evaluations they use have evolved throughout the years. They’re not necessarily the same, and they’re not necessarily consistent. We felt that it was very important that each individual in Alberta is assessed in a very consistent way, so we have a process now where somebody in Grande Prairie or a person with similar disabilities in Lethbridge can be assessed equally and fairly through the same system.

Alberta Hansard, February 22, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Ms Blakeman: Thank you very much. Mr. Speaker, meeting climate change goals is more than carbon capture and storage. 

It must include energy efficiency measures. The province is partnering with the feds through EcoEnergy to offer rebates to home and condo owners on boilers, hot water, and insulation, but the feds will also cover windows. Given that the purpose of rebates is to incent people to make improvement they wouldn’t otherwise make and that windows are responsible for up to 50 per cent loss of energy efficiency, not including them is a big error. To the Minister of Environment: has the government moved any closer to funding window replacement as part of the energy efficiency rebate program?

Mr. Renner: Mr. Speaker, the consumer rebate program has been up and in operation for some time now. Unfortunately, it does not include windows. I can’t advise the member of anything different than that. It’s a matter of getting the maximum amount of efficiency out of a limited amount of dollars.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Ms Blakeman: Thank you. Back to the same minister. Although they meet the under-three-storeys requirement, most three-floor walk-ups are not eligible because they’re rental units. Why doesn’t the government include these under the rebate program?

Mr. Renner: Well, Mr. Speaker, the issue around rental units is a good one. I, frankly, would welcome some feedback and some suggestions from the opposition on how we might deal with that because in most rental units it is up to the tenant to pay for the cost of utilities. There’s really no incentive even if there is a consumer rebate in the hands of the owner of the building. So it’s necessary to try to point the rebate to the person who has the responsibility.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Ms Blakeman: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The minister is exactly right. The individual renter has to pay the utilities but has no control over the energy efficiency of the building. That goes to the apartment owner, and they have no incentive to do anything because they’re not paying the utilities. My recommendation to the minister: will he consider creating a special category for these kinds of rental buildings?

Mr. Renner: Well, Mr. Speaker, I’d be happy to create a special category, but as I just enunciated and the member confirmed, a category is not what’s needed. What is needed here is being able to target the funds to the individuals that have control over making the decisions.

Alberta Hansard, February 22, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Mr. Hehr: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Recently the deplorable state of Edmonton’s Remand Centre was highlighted in the legal decision Trang versus Alberta, Edmonton Remand Centre. 

Clearly the commentary contained in this legal decision is a black mark on justice in Alberta. To the Solicitor General. This Queen’s Bench decision noted the inhumane conditions in Edmonton’s Remand Centre amounted to Charter of Rights and Freedoms violations. Accordingly, what is the Sol Gen doing to rectify these ongoing and persistent violations at the facility?

Mr. Oberle: Well, Mr. Speaker, the decision is not a black mark on justice in Alberta. It’s certainly a cause for concern in the operation of our corrections facility, namely the Edmonton Remand Centre, but it is not a black mark on justice in Alberta. I don’t accept that preamble at all.

Mr. Hehr: Black mark, cause for concern: tomayto, tomahto.

Mr. Speaker, the Alberta court noted that a major problem in Edmonton’s Remand Centre was overcrowding, overcrowding that still exists today. Given that the new remand centre is not to be finished until 2012, what interim measures are being introduced to address these issues?

Mr. Oberle: Well, Mr. Speaker, the decision in question is still, in fact, before the courts, and Alberta at this point has not decided whether or not to appeal the decision. However, I can tell the member that we have taken steps to resolve most of the issues in the judgment, and we’ll continue to work on it.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Mr. Hehr: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. Despite what the Solicitor General says, we all know here that there are 800 inmates in the Edmonton Remand Centre at night. Really, that place is supposed to hold 500. What is he doing besides telling the House one thing when another situation exists? What is he really doing to rectify this ongoing Charter violation?

Mr. Oberle: I am and my department is working on resolving the issues within the Edmonton Remand Centre, and we’re quite busy constructing a new one if the hon. member would care to go for a little drive, Mr. Speaker.

Alberta Hansard, February 22, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Mr. Taylor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This government didn’t think through the effect that new legislation would have on municipal election campaigns. 

According to the new rules, municipalities are going to hold onto funds for the candidates, but with campaign money not being released to the candidates until just four weeks to go before voters go to the polls, there will be no way to pay for most aspects of a municipal election campaign.

To the Minister of Municipal Affairs: how is a candidate supposed to pay for signs, billboards, brochures, and even rent a campaign office without the money to pay for them?

Mr. Goudreau: Mr. Speaker, just as a reminder to the members of the House Bill 203, which was a private member’s bill, was passed in this Legislature. We are now working to ensure that when it does take effect, it is workable, it is practical, and it aligns with the legislation that we presently have. We will be bringing forward amendments to that effect.

Mr. Taylor: Oh, that should work well. We’re bringing forward government amendments to a private member’s bill that the government has proclaimed without consulting with the AUMA and the AAMD and C. Why didn’t you consult with them before proclaiming this legislation?

Mr. Goudreau: Mr. Speaker, again, not to defend the rights of a private member’s bill, but there was a fair amount of consultation that did occur. My understanding is that there were contacts made with the AUMA, their executive, and representatives from AUMA as well as AAMD and C, so there was ongoing dialogue that way. As well, there were a number of letters and correspondence that were received from numerous elected officials from across the province as Bill 203 was developed.

Mr. Taylor: Well, Mr. Speaker, if that consultation with members of the AUMA and AAMD and C that the minister talks about, whether, you know, as members of those organizations or individual mayors, city councillors, town councillors, and so on and so forth, actually happened before the proclamation of this legislation – and the minister has already admitted that it needs to be amended, and it will be amended – why did they go ahead and proclaim the legislation? Why not just hold off on it till you’ve got it right?

Mr. Goudreau: Mr. Speaker, what we heard from people across the province is that, you know, generally Albertans believe in accountability, they believe in transparency, and they believe that our local governments are extremely important in providing the services to Albertans. We are attempting to level the playing field so that all municipal candidates across the province are governed by the same rules. Now, we are hearing from Albertans who are asking us to move forward with these particular initiatives, and I would dare say that the vast majority of people who talk about it want to see limits placed on such things as election spending.

Alberta Hansard, February 22, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Mr. MacDonald: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the Premier: why are appointments of Conservative MLAs to the Treasury Board and the Agenda and Priorities Committee done through an order in council, which is published, while appointments to the Conservative cabinet policy committees are not done through order in council but done through the Premier’s office? 

Those appointments are done in secrecy.

Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, they can’t be secret because everybody knows who sits on what committee, so I’m not quite sure where the member is going with it. We do have members that are appointed to what we call cabinet policy committees. They’re there to talk about issues that come forward from Albertans, whether it be looking at regulations or laws that some constituents are asking us to put in place. They vet, discuss it, and bring it forward as a recommendation.

Mr. MacDonald: Again, Mr. Speaker, to the Premier: what legislative authority is the Premier using to appoint and pay Conservative caucus members to the internal cabinet policy committees, which meet behind closed doors?

Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, the CPCs, the cabinet policy committees, were put together to discuss issues and policies that come forward and to bring those recommendations. Many of those recommendations lead to legislation, and that legislation ends up here in the House for full and open debate, as does every piece of legislation.

Mr. MacDonald: Again, Mr. Speaker, to the Premier: is the Premier’s exercise of this authority to appoint and pay cabinet policy committee members a violation of the Legislative Assembly Act, specifically section 37? Did you read that before you appointed those people?

Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, I always trust you as the Speaker of this Assembly to make sure that nobody at all breaks any legislation with respect to this legislation.

The other thing is that I’m sure that across this way and in that party over there, even the party of three, they get paid for a whip, an assistant whip, and a House leader, and all of those things are paid for through the Legislative Assembly.

The Speaker: The payment for whips, though, only applies to officially recognized parties, so in the case of the third party that wouldn’t happen.

Alberta Hansard, February 22, 2010

[direct link to this article]