►
Description
Legislative Assembly of Alberta
assembly.ab.ca
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
D
Well,
thank
you
very
much.
Madam
speaker
I'm,
pleased
to
be
here
today
to
move
the
second
reading
of
Bill
six.
The
police
Amendment
act,
which
will
ensure
police
and
Alberta
are
more
accountable
and
more
responsive
to
the
communities
that
they
serve.
This
is
the
first
time
Alberta's,
policing
legislation
has
undergone
substantial
changes
in
34
years.
In
that
time,
the
world
in
Alberta
have
changed.
Of
course,
dramatically
policing
has
changed
too
Madam
speaker
and
so
have
the
Public's
expectations
of
the
police.
D
Today,
police
are
expected
to
involve
their
communities
in
developing
approaches
and
solutions
that
we
Now
understand
to
be
very
complex
and
often
nuanced
and
Public
Safety
challenges.
Police
derive
their
Authority
from
having
the
confidence
of
the
public
that
they
serve,
but
maintaining
public
confidence
confidence
isn't
their
job
alone
under
the
police
act.
The
legislative
responsibility
to
ensure
adequate
policing
throughout
the
province
falls
to
the
Alberta
Government.
D
We
want
our
Police
Services
to
be
representative
of
the
communities
that
they
serve
and
respond
to
their
needs
not
just
today,
but
into
the
future.
The
provincial
government
has
a
responsibility
to
provide
them
with
the
framework
in
order
to
do
so
so
I'll
now
detail
how
police
Amendment
act
will
serve
this
important
purpose.
Firstly,
the
legislation
answers
a
long-standing
calls
from
a
broad
range
of
stakeholders,
including
the
police,
to
reform
the
public
complaint
process.
D
This
legislation
will
establish
an
independent
agency
to
handle
complaints
against
the
police.
The
police
review
commission
establishing
the
police
review
commission
replaces
the
system
of
police
investigating
police,
which
invites
a
perception
of
bias
with
an
independent
body
that
will
be
responsible
for
receiving
complaints,
investigating
them
and
conducting
any
resulting
disciplinary
procedures.
D
This
would
make
the
complaints
process
totally
Independent
by
changing
these
functions
from
being
handled
in-house
by
police
services
and
putting
them
under
the
authority
of
an
arms
length
organization.
Creating
independent
agency
to
receive
investigate
and
adjudicate
complaints
will
also
make
it
easier
for
albertans
to
access
the
process
to
stay
updated
on
the
progress
of
the
case
and
resolve
their
matters
in
in
a
more
quickly
fashion.
D
Commission
we're
proposing
amendments
to
ensure
every
death
and
serious
injury
involving
law
enforcement
is
investigated
independently
and
consistently
by
expanding
a
search
mandate
to
include
cases
involving
peace
officers
working
for
the
province
and
authorized
employers,
including
municipalities,
bolstering
public
confidence,
which
is
one
of
the
main
aims
of
this
legislation,
also
AIMS
in
finding
ways
to
ensure
that
police
are
in
tune
with
the
community's
public
safety
goals
and
priorities.
We're
proposing
amendments
that
will
give
albertans
a
larger
role
in
working
with
police
to
ensure
their
communities
needs
and
aspirations
are
being
met.
D
If
passed,
this
legislation
will
mandate
the
creation,
a
formal
governance
bodies
where
communities
policed
by
the
RCMP,
giving
them
oversight
closer
to
municipalities
with
Standalone
Police
Services
have,
via
their
local
police.
Commission
communities
policed
by
the
RCP,
currently
have
the
option
of
forming
policing
committees.
But
during
the
stakeholder
engagement
that
informed
this
legislation,
we
learned
that
most
communities
unfortunately
have
not
done
so.
D
Although
this
legislation
would
mandate
the
creation
of
these
civilian
governance
bodies,
we've
taken
care
to
develop
a
model
that
respects
the
distinct
needs
of
different
size,
communities
for
small
and
Rural
communities,
policed
by
the
RCMP
under
the
Provincial
Police
Services
agreement,
we're
proposing
a
Provincial,
Police,
Advisory
Board.
This
group
of
communities
is
also
represented
by
an
interim
board
established
in
conjunction
with
the
police
funded
model
that
was
implemented
in
2020,
but
the
interim
board
is
made
up
solely
a
municipal
elected
officials.
D
This
legislation
would
open
membership
on
the
provincial
board
to
a
much
wider,
broader
scope
of
the
public,
with
one
seat
designated
for
First
Nations
and
representatives
and
one
seat
designated
for
representatives
of
the
metis
communities.
In
addition
to
those
communities,
there
are
47
municipalities
in
Alberta
that
have
their
own
contracts
for
the
RCMP
to
police
them
communities
with
a
population
over
fifteen
thousand
that
have
a
municipal
RCMP
contracts
would
be
required
to
set
up
a
local
governance
body.
D
Smaller
municipalities
with
population
under
15
000
will
be
represented
by
Regional
governance
bodies
unless
they
prefer
to
form
their
own
local
board.
This
legislation
would
also
give
the
public,
throughout
Alberta
a
more
meaningful
role
by
requiring
police
to
develop
communities.
Safety
plans.
Community
safety
plans
will
require
police
to
work
more
closely
with
civilian
Partners
on
strategies
that
go
beyond
enforcement
and
better
address
the
root
causes
of
crime.
When
you
have
a
greater
collaboration
between
the
police
and
their
Partners
in
the
community,
it
leads
to
more
coordination
and
it
helps
identify
gaps
in
Services.
D
Ensuring
people
get
the
help
that
they
need
when
they
need
it.
Whether
it's
from
the
police
or
local
social
service
agencies
will
make
our
communities
a
much
safer
place.
The
legislation,
the
legislation
will
mandate
diversity
and
inclusion
plans
that
outline
steps
that
police
are
taking
to
reflect
their
communities
and
to
train
officers
about
the
distinct
cultural
needs
of
the
communities
that
they
work
in,
proving
those
connections
will
result
in
better
outcomes
between
police
and
the
people
that
they
serve.
D
Additionally,
building
better
relationships
could
lead
to
more
opportunities
for
mentorship
and
encourage
more
people
from
diverse
communities
to
pursue
careers
in
policing.
This
legislation
also
aims
at
increasing
the
diversity
in
voices
that
are
involved
in
police
governance.
By
giving
the
minister
the
authority
to
appoint
members
to
Municipal
Police
commissions,
provincial
appointees,
on
Municipal
Police
commissions
are
a
common
practice
in
several
other
provinces,
including
British
Columbia,
Ontario,
Manitoba,
New,
Brunswick
and
Nova
Scotia.
The
number
of
provincial
appointees
will
be
based
on
the
size
of
the
commission.
D
The
provincial
government
has
a
legislative
responsibility
to
ensure
adequate
policing
in
Alberta,
and
this
is
a
logical
extension
of
that
mandate.
Similarly,
we
are
proposing
that
sections
of
the
ACT
governing
ministerial
intervention
be
clarified
to
allow
the
minister
to
step
in
at
the
request
of
police
services
or
Commissions
in
the
event
of
a
dispute
at
the
local
level.
D
Another
proposed
amendment
will
enable
the
minister
to
set
provincial
policing
priorities,
which
will
help
Foster
consistency
and
policing
right
across
this
province.
Police
commissions
will
also
need
to
create
their
own
policing
priorities
while
taking
the
provincial
priorities
under
consideration
and
report.
Whenever
there
is
a
change,
police
will
need
to
report
annually
on
their
progress,
while
they
will
increase
accountability
and
transparency
with
the
communities
that
they
serve.
We're
also
proposing
administrative
changes
that
will
underpin
and
support
our
reforms
of
the
public
complaints
process.
D
First
amendments
will
create
standardized
categories
of
complaints.
This
will
establish
a
consistent
framework
on
how
the
police
review
Commission
triages
complaints
to
improve
the
Public's
understanding
of
the
process.
Further
amendments
will
distinguish
between
police
misconduct
and
employee
performance.
Ensuring
Police
Services
can
better
handle
performance
issues
through
human
services
and
collective
bargaining
process.
D
Separating
police
misconduct
from
employee
performance
will
allow
the
commission
to
focus
on
misconduct
and
help
with
a
more
a
timely
resolution
of
the
complaints.
Finally,
there
are
the
small
administrative
changes
to
the
law
enforcement
review
board,
most
significantly
the
increase
in
the
chair's
term
from
a
maximum
of
three
years
to
five
years.
The
legislation
will
be
introducing
today
represents
a
fundamental
shift
that
reimagines
police
as
an
extension
of
the
community
and
provides
a
variety
of
practical
and
realistic
reforms
aiming
at
getting
us
there.
D
This
legislation
is
the
product
of
listening
to
a
broad
range
of
albertans
from
all
corners
of
the
province,
from
a
variety
of
backgrounds,
a
variety
of
occupations.
This
is
a
culmination
of
years
of
important
work
that
started
in
2018
under
the
previous
government
and
included
meetings
with
more
than
200
organizations
representing
law
enforcement,
health
and
social
service
agencies
in
sectors,
municipalities,
indigenous
organizations
and
diverse
communities.
We
are
here
we
have
heard
from
nearly
fifteen
thousand
albertans
who
completed
the
public
survey
as
well
as
1500
respondents
who
filled
out
the
survey
for
the
law
enforcement.
D
Pardon
me
filled
out
a
survey
for
law
enforcement
members
I
hope
that
members
on
both
sides
of
the
house
will
support
this
legislation,
which
ensures
police
are
more
accountable
to
the
public,
more
responsive
to
the
community
that
they
serve,
which
ultimately
will
help
safer
communities
and
build
relationships
between
the
community
and
the
law
enforcement
at
Large
without
Madame,
speaker
I.
Thank
you
very
much
and
I'd
like
to
move
second
reading
a
build
series.
E
We
can
all
agree
that
most
fundamental
role
of
the
government
is
to
make
sure
that
all
albertans
can
feel
safe
in
their
homes,
in
their
communities
and
across
this
province,
and
certainly
law
enforcement
plays
a
important
and
fundamental
role
in
making
sure
that
and
on
the
side
side
of
the
house.
I
want
to
stay
for
the
record
that
we
support
civilian
oversight
of
law
enforcement
and
we
believe
that
policing
should
be
responsive.
E
To
the
needs
of
the
communities
and
reflective
of
the
diversity
of
our
communities,
so
there
are
a
number
of
things
that
Minister
also
touched
on
that
need
to
be
unpacked
in
this
piece
of
legislation,
but
before
I
do
that
I
do
want
to
say
that
this.
E
These
changes
are
coming
out
of
a
review
that
we
started
in
2018
and
purpose
of
that
review
was
to
make
changes
to
police
act,
to
make
sure
that
police
Act
is
responsive
to
albertans
need.
But
we
have
not
seen
any
report
coming
out
of
that
review.
That
report
has
not
been
shared
with
albertans.
It
would
have
been
nice
to
see
what
we
heard
from
the
communities
across
this
province.
E
E
Their
own
reports
is
that
there
will
cost
them
more
than
a
half
a
billion
dollars
more
than
half
a
billion
dollar
to
set
that
up
in
Alberta
municipalities.
Rural
municipalities
of
Alberta
in
Alberta
at
large
have
opposed
that
idea,
but
still
UCP
are
pushing
ahead
with
that.
We
also
know
that
early
on
the
government
changed
funding
model
for
the
municipalities
and
downloaded
millions
of
dollars,
250
plus
million
dollars
onto
municipalities.
E
However,
the
problem
with
this
piece
of
legislation
is
that
there
is
one
provision:
that's
a
new
body
will
be
created
and
Minister
will
appoint
CEO
and
registrar
for
that
oversight.
Body
and
rest
literally,
everything
is
left
for
the
regulations
governing
the
powers,
duties
and
function
of
the
commission,
provincial
Advisory,
Board
and
policing
committees.
These
are
the
three
bodies
that
were
mentioned
in
the
act
and
literally
everything
their
power,
their
duties,
their
functions.
E
Everything
is
left
to
the
regulation,
there's
just
one
provision
that
there
will
be
a
commission
that
will
be
responsible
for
the
oversight
and
there
is
no
other
detail
that
is
provided
in
this
piece
of
legislation.
Again.
Oversight,
civilian
oversight
is
really
good
and
principle.
We
agree
with
that,
but
this
piece
of
legislation
leaves
far
too
many
details
to
regulation.
E
And
second
thing
or
we'll
come
back
to
this
civilian
over
side
piece,
but
I
also
want
to
say
that,
throughout
this
legislation,
the
government
is
trying
to
get
more
control
and
concentrate
all
those
powers
in
Minister's
office
before
Nestor
was
responsible
to
establish
standards
for
police,
commission
police
Commissions
in
policing
committees.
But
now
they
are
also
adding
that
now
they
will
be
the
one
setting
the
priorities
instead
of
working
collaboratively
with
those
commissions
and
to
achieve
that
goal.
What
this
legislation
is
proposing
that
now
that
Minister
will
be
able
to
appoint.
E
In
the
concerned
areas
that
when
we
were
in
government,
there
was
an
open
process,
Alberta
board's
recruitment
process
where
every
single
appointment
was
published
on
that
and
all
albertans
were
invited
to
apply
for
that,
and
the
criteria
was
not
who
you
know.
But
criteria
was
what
you
know
and
whether
you
qualify
for
that
position
and
since
this
government
came
into
power,
there
is
no
such
process
and
we
have
seen
pretty
much
UCP
insiders,
former
party
office
holder,
put
in
possessions
like
senior
advocate
and
other
on
on
other
boards.
E
So
here
we
are
talking
about
policing.
So
certainly
there
is
a
concern
that
if
the
minister
is
able
to
stack
the
deck
at
his
own
or
her
own
discretion,
that
could
lead
to
the
politicization
of
policing.
So
that's
a
huge
concern
and
there's
a
certain
formula
that
legislation
suggests
that
how
Minister
will
appoint
these
board
members
that
for
every
three-member,
Mr
got
a
point
one.
Member
on
the
commission.
E
However,
there
is
another
residual
power
in
this
legislation
that
prime
minister
could
appoint
up
to
49
percent
of
the
commission-
man
49
percent-
and
there
is
not
a
word
about
how
those
members
will
be
chosen,
what
their
qualification
will
be
and
who
they
have
our
last
third
letter
who
they
have
consulted
on
these
changes
for
municipalities
consulted
about
these
changes
or
First
Nations
consulted
about
these
changes
was.
This
is
something
that
police
act
review
recommended,
but
since
they
never
published
that
report,
so
we
would
not
know
whether
that
was
recommended.
E
E
E
E
Other
things
they
are
establishing
a
police,
Advisory
Board,
which
will
take
over
the
current
board
and
there
will
be
15
people
appointed
to
it
and
again
there
will
all
be
appointed
and
picked
by
this
government
and
only
requirement
there
is
that
there's
be
one
member
of
a
First
Nation
one
member
of
MIT
settlement.
E
E
Their
power,
their
functions,
their
membership.
Everything
is
left
for
this
government
to
decide
if
there
is
nothing
in
this
legislation
to
make
sense
that
how
this
new
model
will
work
and
I,
don't
think
that
government
was
ready
to
bring
this
bill
forward.
They
have
not
done
their
homework.
They
just
want
to
make
an
announcement
that
oh,
they
are
bringing
forward
civilian
oversight.
E
Government
is
asking
Council
to
pay
for
The,
Graduate,
renumeration
or
allowance
to
the
member
of
the
committee
in
accordance
with
the
regulation.
So
there
is
a
possibility
that
government
will
establish
these
committees
and
further
download
because
onto
the
municipalities,
which
they
have
done
previously.
E
Then
there
are
other
provisions:
fear
were
requested
by
a
police
Service
as
police
commission
Minister
now
can
direct
the
council
and
when
asked
in
technical
briefing,
that
what
kind
of
matters
that
can
be
directed
to
minister
and
we
are
Minister
can
intervene.
So
didn't
seemed
like
that
anything
was
on
the
table,
including
police
budgets.
That
now
Minister
will
be
able
to
intervening.
E
E
I
think
there
are
a
few
other
good
things,
I
think
one
good
thing
I
would
like
to
highlight
that
this
act
will
take
peace
officers
and
sheriffs
under
the
jurisdiction
of
the
commission.
So
complaints
arising
from
their
conducts
now
can
also
be
investigated
before
this
piece
of
legislation
insert
was
the
independent
armland
body
that
was
danced
to
investigate
serious
harm
and
injuries.
Now
this
legislation
makes.
E
E
Subordinate
to
the
commission
and
again
I
think
I
would
like
to
know
that
who
was
consulted
on
this
change,
why
this
was
the
best
route
and
will
there
be
further
consultation
about
that,
because
there
is
still
a
lot
that
is
left
to
the
regulation.
We
are
double
determine
the
powers
and
duties
of
the
commission,
so
there
are
a
few
other
things.
For
instance,
the
government
has.
E
Set
the
limitation
period
for
one
year
again:
why
was
that
one
year
chosen
and
what
will
happen
if
one
year
time
has
passed
or
somebody
has
retired
or
switched
Police
Service?
There
is
no
mention
of
that.
So
in
general,
I
would
say.
The
intention
of
the
bill
is
good:
to
bring
civilian
oversight
to
make
police
more
responsive
to
the
needs
of
albertans,
but
government
left
far
too
many
details
sort
of
far
too
many
details
to
regulations.
G
Well,
thank
you,
madam
speaker.
It's
I'm
happy
to
rise
to
speak
on
Bill
5,
the
Justice
statutes,
Amendment
act
I,
particularly
no
sorry
bills.
Sorry
I
was
looking
six.
G
No,
no,
no
yeah
the
police
Amendment
act.
I
just
got
the
wrong
bill
number
it's
okay!
The
bill
will
make
important
changes
and
I
appreciate.
I
appreciate
the
comments
from
my
from
the
previous
speaker.
I
I
enjoyed
a
bunch
of
those
references.
One
of
my
favorites
is
one
of
the
ones
that
The
Honorable
member
closed
with.
Is
the
government
will
give
themselves
power
to
to
do
things?
Well,
Madam
speaker,
the
government
doesn't
give
itself
power.
G
The
people
of
Alberta
gives
the
government
power
at
an
election
every
four
years
for
someone
that
that
claims
to
have
finished
law,
school
I
thought.
That
was
a
really
interesting
I
thought.
That
was
a
really
interesting
comment
to
have
heard
in
this
house.
Madam
speaker
I
also
heard
comments
about
the
ACT,
whether
it
was
I
heard
at
different
points.
G
If,
in
the,
if
you
check
the
Hansard
I'm
sure
you'll
find
at
different
points
in
the
discussion,
we
heard
comments
that
The
Honorable
member
said
it
was
too
slow
based
on
some
report
done
some
time
ago,
and
then
a
couple
of
paragraphs
later
The
Honorable
member
said
it
was
too
fast
and
the
government
couldn't
possibly
have
time
to
it,
done
it
right.
So
clearly,
what
we
just
heard
was
a
bunch
of
gobbledygook
with
with
no
real
Focus
or
no
real
consistent
amounts
of
of
thought
into
what's
actually
happening
now.
G
Here's
the
other
thing
I
also
heard
that
the
I
appreciate
the
honorable
member
said
that
civilian
oversight
was
a
good
thing,
probably
one
of
those
few
sentences
that
I
agreed
with
with
what
I
just
heard,
but
also
then
the
honorable
member
went
on
to
complain
about
all
the
things
that
would
be
necessary
to
provide
that
civilian
oversight
and
they
were
all
bad,
so
so
Madam
speaker
it's.
It
seems
to
me
that
this
is
a
bill
that
is
well
intended.
G
I
can
tell
you
that,
as
a
person
in
this
legislature,
I
may
not
be
the
only
one
I'm,
probably
one
of
very
few,
that
actually
sat
on
a
police
commission
for
a
couple
years.
So
I
could
tell
you
that
civilian
oversight
is
a
good
thing
and
it's
a
good
thing
to
support
police
now.
I
appreciate
folks.
On
the
other
side,
many
of
them
are
on
the
defund
police
camp,
which
is
not
really
supportive
of
police.
G
I
myself
are
on
the
I
support
police
camp
and
having
been
part
of
civilian
oversight
in
the
past
Madam
speaker,
I
can
tell
you
that
it
makes
a
big
difference
because,
let's
face
it,
many
of
us
If
we're
honest
with
ourselves.
G
If
we
had
to
pass
judgment
on
what
what
good
job
or
bad
job
we
have
done,
would
probably
give
ourselves
a
passing
grade
and
In
fairness
in
some
cases
that
would
be
correct,
but
but
but
where
it
gets
complicated
Madam
speaker
is
if,
if
we
perhaps
didn't
deserve
a
passing
grade,
it
might
be
hard
for
us
to
not
to
give
ourselves
a
failing
grade
if
we
were
judging
ourselves.
So
let's
face
it.
G
Civilian
oversight
is
a
very
good
thing,
which
is
part
of
the
reason
why
even
the
rules
now
before
this
piece
of
legislation
has
it
that
in
some
cases,
a
police
service
from
an
area
a
jurisdiction,
a
geographical
jurisdiction
different
from
the
one
where
somebody's
charged
with?
If
it
is
a
connection
to
the
police,
gets
investigated
by
a
police
service
out
of
that
particular
jurisdiction,
which
is
I.
Think
for
obvious
reasons.
It
gives
credibility
to
the
investigation.
G
It
gives
credibility
to
the
Police
Service
in
the
area
where
the
event
took
place,
so
that
people
who
actually
look
at
this
don't
say
well
yeah
the
police
investigated
themselves.
Who
could
you
know
who
could
who
could
take
that
seriously?
And
it's
not
fair
to
it's,
not
fair
to
the
police?
Actually,
so
this
actually
is
supportive
of
our
Police
Services,
which
we
all
ought
to
support
here,
because
they
are
the
ones
that
are
one
of
our
last
lines
of
Defense
them
and,
of
course,
all
of
our
other
First
Responders.
G
H
Thank
you
very
much
Madam
speaker
and-
and
this
is
an
interesting
bill-
I
have
a
lot
of
questions
about
it.
I
will
say
to
the
diatribe
I
suppose
from
the
previous
speaker
that
it's
a
bit
Rich
to
get
up
and
be
confused
about
what
Bill,
you're
speaking
to
and
then
proceed
to
complain
that
the
last
speaker
didn't
know
what
he
was
talking
about.
H
H
So
the
first
good
thing
in
it
is
the
police
review
Commission
in
principle,
I,
say
in
principle,
because
a
lot
of
details
are
left
to
the
regulations,
so
one
is
never
totally
certain.
What's
going
to
happen
there,
but
I
think
overall,
the
idea
of
a
centralized
police
review
commission
is
a
very
good
one.
My
recollection
is
this
is
something
that
everyone
was
asking
for.
The
police
chiefs
were
asking
for
this.
The
the
people
that
acted
for
complainants
were
asking
for
this.
H
H
It's
certainly
removes
the
sort
of
appearance
because,
of
course,
we
had
Acer
for
sort
of
higher
level
things,
but
for
things
that
weren't
death,
Serious
injury
or
a
serious
insensitive
matter,
those
things
would
typically
go
to
to
go
to
either
another
Police
Service
or
the
specific
Police
Service
being
investigated,
and
that
it
just
didn't
always
look
great
and
it
was
very
challenging
for
the
police
services
to
manage
that,
because,
even
if
they
did
a
good
job
which
they
did
by
and
large
the
vast
majority
of
the
time
it
looked,
it
didn't
look
great,
so
I
think
that's
a
very
good
thing.
H
I
think
everyone
will
be
happy
with
that.
The
Guiding
principles
also,
which
are
at
the
beginning
of
the
ACT
I,
think,
are
good
they're
good
principles
in
so
far
as
they
they
go.
I
might
quibble
somewhat
with
the
language.
I
feel
it's
a
little
bit
out
of
date.
The
language
around
you
know
mental
health
rather
than
trauma-informed
the
language.
Around
sort
of
you
know
respecting
diversity,
rather
than
saying
you
know,
taking
addressing
something
like
systemic
racism
or
dealing
with
intersectionality,
I.
H
H
They're
bad
I
would
more
see
they're
questionable
in
that
they
don't
have
sufficient
substance
and
there
isn't
really
a
clear
reason:
I
guess,
I'm
a
natural
skeptic
might
be
the
way
to
put
it,
and
so,
when
someone
does
something
and
there's
no
clear
reason
for
why
you
would
do
that
thing,
I,
always
sort
of
wonder
what's
going
on
well,
this
is
the
thing
I.
Don't
I,
don't
know.
H
What's
going
on,
so
there's
the
establishment
of
a
provincial
board
and
then
Municipal
and
Regional
committees
and
in
both
instances
and
I'll,
read
out
the
sections.
So
with
respect
to
the
provincial
board,
it's
section
28.02
in
the
act,
the
Provincial
Police
Advisory
Board
shall
have
the
powers
and
perform
the
duties
and
functions
set
out
in
the
regulations.
So
that's
the
entire
substance
of
what
the
Provincial
Police
Advisory
Board
will
do
it's
Powers
duties
and
functions.
That's
like
100
of
what
it
does
and
that
will
all
be
in
the
right.
F
Thank
you
very
much.
It's
not
every
day
that
I
get
to
ask
an
intervening
question
to
the
former
chair
of
the
legislative,
Review
Committee.
So
having
the
opportunity
to
do
so.
I
would
say
that
one
of
the
things
that
I
appreciate
about
the
honorable
member
for
Calgary
Mountain
View
is
her
incredible
attention
to
detail
and
that
definitely
applied
to
bills
that
came
before
this
house,
but
also
the
regulations
that
didn't
necessarily
come
to
this
place,
because
regulations
are
passed
behind
closed
doors.
F
So
I
would
say
what
is
one
of
the
members
concerns
around
a
section
being
that
broadly
defined
to
be
later
spelled
out
in
regulation.
For
me,
as
a
not
lawyer,
one
of
my
concerns
would
be
that
we
don't
get
the
clarity
about
what
the
actual
purpose
is,
that
that
is
determined
just
by
a
subset
of
the
business
assembly,
a
subset
within
the
government
caucus
and
that
there
is
no
clear
chance
parenting
and
sometimes,
as
we
know,
regulations
aren't
necessarily
communicated
in
the
clearest
of
ways
to
those
that
might
be
impacted.
H
I
would
be
delighted
to
elaborate
on
that
I
love
talking
about
the
difference
between
legislation
and
subordinate
regulations.
Nobody
else
loves
it,
but
I
love
it
yeah
I,
would
say
generally
generally
in
good
legislation.
What
I
would
say
is
a
rule
of
thumb.
Is
that
the
legislation
which
is
the
the
piece
that
comes
to
the
legislature,
which
is
the
piece
that
is
passed
by
all
elected
members?
So
arguably
everyone
who
doesn't
live
in
Calgary
elbow
or
law
he
now
in
this
room
is
represented
and
they
have
a
voice
in
this
room.
H
That's
the
purpose
of
representative
democracy,
and
so
the
legislation
should
have
the
substance
of
the
issue.
The
regulations
should
be
left
to
sort
of
work
out
details
or
things
that
change
frequently
or
maybe
you
know
like
a
process
or
something,
but
normally
you
wouldn't
normally
leave
everything.
H
You
might
say.
You
know
that
additional
additional
ways
in
which
the
commission
would
do
its
work
would
be
there.
You
might
say
you
know:
oh,
they
can,
they
can
add
sort
of
additional
Powers,
maybe
in
certain
circumstances,
but
generally
generally,
you
would
want,
in
the
legislative
part
to
broadly
Define
what
the
powers
are
and
what
the
duties
are,
because
otherwise
the
powers,
duties
and
functions
are
what
the
board
does.
Otherwise
you
don't
know
what
the
board
does.
Aside
from
the
title,
it's
called
the
policing
advisory
committee,
but
that's
pretty
much
it.
H
So
again,
this
is
like
it's
very,
very
Broad,
and
the
reason
that
I
am
reluctant
in
this
case
is
because
again,
at
least
in
theory,
if
a
constituent
were
to
come
into
my
office
and
say
you
voted
for
this
bill
and
it
does
something
I
don't
like
I
would
like
you
to
explain
to
me
like
why
you
thought
that
was
good
or
why
you
thought
it
was
worth
voting
for
in
this
case,
I
wouldn't
be
able
to
explain
anything
to
them,
because
I'm
being
asked
to
vote
on
the
bill
without
knowing
what
the
substance
of
the
issue
is,
and
so
that's
that's
way
too
much
power
being
devolved
to
cabinet
and
I
see
another
intervention.
F
Chat
Madam
speaker
and
to
the
member
for
allowing
the
intervention
I
guess
where
my
head
goes
based
on
the
remarks
that
I've
heard
so
far
is
very
significant
parallels
between
this
section
within
the
bill
and
Bill
one
which
of
course,
has
been
already
well
ran
through
indeed,
but
also
plagued
with
Scandal
and
and
deep
public
concerns
about
its
legality.
F
Knowing
that
it's
going
to
be
brought
to
the
courts
by
indigenous
leaders
already
is
something
that's
being
talked
about
significantly,
and
definitely
this
section
of
the
bill,
I
think
is
intended
to
give
large
sweeping
Powers
within
this
piece
of
legislation.
So
I'm
wondering
if
the
member
can
maybe
talk
about
other
times.
I
know
that
this
is
only
the
fifth
Bill
brought
in
under
the
current
Premier
and
the
current
cabinet.
H
Yes,
thank
you
much
very
much
to
the
member
from
Edmonton.
Glenora
might
I
add
as
well
that
you
are
looking
lovely
this
evening.
H
So
returning
returning
to
the
bill,
yeah
I
think
that's
an
excellent
point
and
that
that
is
what
to
a
certain
degree,
gives
me
cause
for
concern
here,
because
this
isn't
the
first
time
we've
seen
it.
We
saw
it
in
Bill
10.
Obviously
that
was
under
a
previous
Premiere
and
then
the
government
had
to
go
and
sort
of
walk
that
that
language
back
after
giving
itself
too
much
power.
We
saw
it
again
in
Bill
one
in
this
session.
H
The
sovereignty
act
which
again
gave
cabinet
way
too
much
power,
and
so
it
does
appear
to
be
a
theme
that
the
power
is
sort
of
centralized
in
the
hands
of
cabinet,
and
that's
not
good
governance.
I
know
that
good
governance
isn't
always
a
thing
that
is
is
a
sexy
political
issue,
but
it's
important
without
it.
We
can't
govern
ourselves
and
that's
extremely
problematic.
So
I
think
this
is
problematic.
It
does
cause
me
to
question,
and
you
know
I
would
be
willing
to
give
it
the
benefit
of
the
doubt.
H
But
for
as
the
member
mentioned
these
previous
instances
in
which
there
has
been
sort
of
a
massive
overreach
by
this
government
attempting
to
sort
of
take
too
much
power,
so
everything
is
in
the
regulations.
That's
my
big
concern
with
this.
My
other
question
is
who's
asking
for
this.
H
As
the
member
or
as
the
previous
previous
period,
the
the
member
for
Calgary
Buller
McCall,
pointed
out.
You
know
there
was
a
consultation.
It
was
started
in
2018
originally
under
our
government.
The
report
from
that
has
has
I
mean
it
came
back
and
then
never
went
out
and
the
the
government
still
has
it
they've
just
never
released
it.
H
So
I,
don't
recall
anyone
asking
for
this,
and
in
fact
these
sorts
of
regional
and
Municipal
committees
are
allowable
under
the
current
legislation.
So,
under
the
current
legislation,
they're
permissible
they're
not
required,
but
they're
permissible,
and
there
have
been
maybe
a
handful
in
the
entire
history
of
the
province.
H
So
so
people
can
do
this
now
and
they
choose
not
to
so
I,
don't
understand
why
we're
forcing
it
on
them
who's
asking
for
this.
Who
is
it
that
wants
this?
Who
thinks
it's
helpful
and
why
do
they
think
it's
helpful
that
might
help
us
to
Define
what
it
is
that
the
powers,
duties
and
functions
ought
to
be.
H
I
No,
that's,
okay,
it's
hard
when
I'm
behind
you.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
So
much
and
I
do
hesitate
to
interrupt
the
the
member
from
Calgary
Mountain
View,
because
her
knowledge
is
is
deep,
but
I
I
want
to
allow
her
to
be
able
to
speak
without
to
Interruption
for
the
next
10
minutes,
or
so
she
brings
up
a
really
good
point
about
consultation
and
again
I
I.
I
Do
hope
that
the
minister
he
touched
on
it
slightly
in
his
opening
remarks,
but
I
would
love
to
hear
you
know
who
exactly
was
consulted
who's
asking
for
this.
I
You
know
it
wouldn't
be
the
worst
thing
if
he
could
even
table
the
folks,
the
groups,
the
individuals
who
were
consulted
I
think
we'd
like
to
hear
that,
especially
given
what
we
heard
from
the
member
from
empty
Lenora.
This
government's
lack
of
ability
to
consult,
as
we
saw
with
Bill
one,
the
sovereignty
act.
We've
got
multiple
treaty,
Chiefs
First,
Nations
Chiefs.
From
around
this
province,
who've
spoken
out.
Who've
said
there
was
absolutely
no
consultation
that
took
place
in
fact
that
Minister's
office
was
shut
out.
I
So
I
would
give
that
an
opportunity
to
the
to
the
minister
to
clear
the
record.
Thank
you.
No
more
interventions.
H
Thank
you
very
much.
I
I
appreciate
that
that
was
very,
very
helpful
actually
because
it
reminded
me
to
sort
of
go
back
and
run
through
the
history
of
this
matter,
a
little
bit
so
I.
Don't
think
anybody
disagrees
that
the
police
act
needs
to
be
amended.
In
fact,
I
think
that
there
is
Broad
agreement
on
a
lot
of
things
that
need
to
be
done.
H
However,
there
are
some
places
where
the
details
are
problematic
and
the
ACT
is
sort
of
a
mismatch
of
amendments,
and
that
sometimes
makes
it
run
in
a
bit
of
a
clunky
way,
and
so
in
2018
it
was
me
who
got
to
go
out
with
a
consultation
and
I
went
very
broad.
H
I
took
that
consultation
to
social
serving
agencies
to
stakeholders
throughout,
because
the
truth
is
that
the
the
problems
that
occur
in
in
policing
are
impacted
by
health
and
vice
versa.
The
problems
that
occur
in
terms
of
social
disorder
in
terms
of
mental
health
and
addictions,
the
police
get
those
problems
because,
at
the
end
of
the
day,
when
all
other
services
fail,
the
police
have
to
pick
up
the
phone.
H
We
did
a
very
broad
consultation,
because
we
wanted
to
talk
to
those
other
systems
about
what
belonged
there.
So
we
wanted
to
talk
to
to
housing
and
to
mental
health
and
to
addictions
about
how
they
could
better
handle
those
issues
so
that
they
they
didn't
wind
up
with
the
police
who,
normally
again,
they
have
to
show
up
because
they're
the
legally
required
to
turn
up
when
they're
called,
but
who,
who
don't
the
police,
don't
think
that
they
are
the
best
place
for
those
mental
health
and
addictions
issues
either.
H
It's
just
the
system
is
not
designed
to
work
together
anyway.
That
is
why
we
did
the
consultation.
So
broadly,
because
that
was
one
of
the
problems
we
were
attempting
to
solve
now
my
predecessor,
my
immediate
successor,
there
have
been
so
many
I've
lost
track.
My
immediate
successor,
the
former
member
for
Calgary,
elbow,
thought
that
this
was
a
laughable
approach.
He
made
fun
of
this
approach.
He
thought
it
was
ridiculous
to
consult
with
all
of
these
outside
stakeholders.
He
said,
he'd
have
the
act
in
by
2020.
H
H
Yeah
found
it
hilarious
that
we
would
consult
with
these
sort
of
stakeholders
around
sort
of
mental
health
and
addictions,
and
all
those
things
and
I
had
not
heard
that
another
round
of
consultation
went
out,
and
so
it
would
be
very
helpful
to
me
and
I
think
all
members
of
this
house
to
know
what
consultation
was
done
and
who
was
talked
to
and
sort
of
what
the
follow-up
from
that
was
because
that
first
brush
that
we
did
in
2018
was
never
supposed
to
be
the
whole
conversation
that
was
supposed
to
be
a
scoping
of
the
conversation.
H
That
was
a
conversation
around
like
how
how
broad
do
we
need
the
conversation
to
be?
Who
needs
to
be
included?
What
do
we
need
to
talk
about?
What
are
the
areas
of
focus?
It
was
like
designed
to
set
up
principles
and
then
have
further
conversations,
so
I
would
love
to
know
what
happened
to
all
that.
Okay,
I
am
now
going
to
oh
other
things
that
are
questionable.
In
my
view,
the
ministers
ability
to
step
into
disputes
I
find
that
a
large
centralization
of
power,
it
seems
odd
to
me,
I.
H
Don't
really
understand
why
you
would
do
that.
The
minister
is
not
a
chief
of
police.
The
minister
is
meant
to
be
oversight
of
the
chiefs
of
police,
and
so
this
seems
like
a
it
doesn't
seem
like
great
governance,
so
I
would
love
to
know
a
little
more
about
that
to
make
me
a
little
bit
more
comfortable
with
it,
because
again,
it
just
seems
like
a
huge
centralization
of
power.
H
So
the
questions
I
have
I
note,
at
least
with
respect
to
level
one
complaints
and
possibly
others
that
the
costs
associated
with
the
investigation
are
to
be
borne
by
the
police
services
themselves.
Just
overall
I'd
like
to
know
how
much
this
is
going
to
cost
and
whether
all
of
the
costs
will
be
born
like
how
the
cost
will
be
divvied
up
whether
they
will
all
be
born
by
the
police
services
paying
into
it
and
what
we
expect
the
total
cost
to
be.
H
What
exactly
will
be
the
powers,
duties
and
functions
of
the
board?
Broadly
speaking,
who
asks
who
asked
for
the
solicitor
general
to
be
able
to
step
into
disputes
in
the
case
of
a
dispute?
I
find
that
again,
a
very
weird
thing,
so
I
would
love
to
know
who
asked
for
that
and
why
we
think
it's
a
good
idea.
H
Okay,
I'd
also
love
to
know
who
asked
for
the
advisory
boards,
because
again,
I
I,
don't
recollect
like
people
can
do
it
now
and
they
don't
so
I'm
a
little
curious,
oh
big
issue.
Currently
the
disciplinary
process
loses
jurisdiction
when
an
officer
resigns.
Is
that
problem
addressed
in
this
legislation
and
does
it
intend
to
be
addressed
because
that's
one
of
the
biggest
problems
that
needed
to
be
fixed?
H
About
a
minute,
okay,
so
I
would
just
I
would
just
love
to
know
a
little
bit
more
about
the
substance.
I
can
see
that
the
complaint
has
made.
It
goes
through
the
process.
It
seems
generally
good.
The
minister
intervening
thing
again
is
a
bit
a
bit
curious,
so
I'm,
hoping
that
the
minister
can
answer
those
questions
being,
as
they
were
asked
a
second
reading
that,
hopefully
they
can.
They
can
answer
those
in
committee
and
with
that
Madam
speaker,
I
will
adjourn
debate.
What
I
think
is
just
in
the
nick
of
time.
B
I
actually
had
like
35
seconds
left,
but
maybe
I
should
tell
you
that
having
her
the
motion
to
adjourn
debate,
all
those
in
favor,
please
say
aye
any
opposed.
Please
say
no,
that
is
Carrie.
B
Member
who
it's
too
late
because
you
stood
so
now,
it's
your
time,
I,
don't
know
how
much
okay!
My
apologies,
that's!
Okay,.
F
It's
okay,
I
rise
tonight
as
the
first
speaker
for
Bill
five,
the
Justice
statutes,
Amendment
act,
2022
While,
others
may
have
been
so
Keen
to
want
to
speak
to
it.
I
look
forward
to
hearing
what
they
have
to
say
now
that
we
are
on
that
bill,
so
it
is
being
brought
forward
by
the
member
for
Calgary
Acadia,
who
is
currently
the
Minister
of
Justice.
F
So
to
the
dealer
and
I
think
that
that
certainly
is
a
good
move
and
I'm
glad
that
the
current
government
hasn't
decided
that
they
are
as
opposed
to
that
as
they
are
to
some
other
things
to
date.
Definitely
this
is
around
ensuring
that
we
have
consistently
strong
reputation
when
it
comes
to
the
sale
and
distribution
of
our
world-class
grain
products.
F
That
focuses
on
other
types
of
alcoholic
products
and
they
were
using
Canadian
products
to
help
build
and
grow
their
market
share
in
that
area.
I
found
it
incredibly
interesting
and
I
think
that
the
collaboration
that
was
in
place
around
the
sale
and
distribution
of
Canadian
products
that
certainly
has
a
strong
Merit
I.
F
Think
part
of
the
reason
why
the
federal
government's
brought
this
piece
in
is
around
ensuring
it
that
if
there
are
any
issues
with
a
product,
it
can
be
traced
back
to
its
place
of
origin
to
make
sure
that
we
don't
have
to
destroy
any
products
unnecessarily.
So
I
think
that
making
sure
that
we
have
the
record
of
the
vehicle
and
the
registration
and
that
we
can
track
the
track.
F
Buyer
to
the
final
dealer
is
an
important
piece
to
make
sure
that
we
don't
impede
our
ability
to
sell
our
products
locally,
nationally
or
or
internationally
when
it
comes
to
our
world-class
agricultural
products.
So
I
wanted
to
begin
by
saying
that
piece,
and
definitely
there
are
a
few
other
pieces
in
this
bill
that
give
me
a
bit
of
a
pause
for
consideration.
I
appreciate
that
we
were
able
to
get
a
bit
of
an
intra
jurisdictional
comparison
through
briefings
that
we've
had
from
officials
and
one
of
the
big
pieces.
F
That
seems
to
be
an
outlier
in
terms
of
the
introducer.
Sectional
piece
is
the
fact
that
the
current
cap
around
civil
court
rulings
is
fifty
thousand
dollars
here
in
Alberta.
The
bill
proposes
to
raise
that
cap
to
two
hundred
thousand
dollars.
So
this
is
that's
a
significant
increase
quadrupling
the
cap
and
50
is
closer
in
line
with
what
the
inter
jurisdictional
comparisons
are.
I
believe
it
averages
at
85.,
so
that
is
a
significant
increase
over
what
it
used
to
be
and
I
I
guess.
F
One
of
the
questions
that
it
begs
for
me
is
why
we
think
it's
important
to
to
raise
it
by
such
a
significant
amount,
and
don't
we
anticipate
that
that
will
drive
more
traffic
towards
the
Civil
courts
as
opposed
to
where
they
they
lie
today
and
with
that
additional
traffic
to
the
Civil
courts.
We
know
that
we've
seen
many
budgets
brought
forward
by
the
current
governing
party
that
have
not
kept
up
with
the
current
demands,
let
alone
The
increased
demands
that
we
will
likely
see.
F
F
That's
a
cause
for
some
concern
and
I
think
is
important
for
us
to
be
able
to
ensure
that
if
we
are
making
decisions
in
this
place,
that
will
drive
up
traffic
to
different
types
of
Court,
including
the
civil
court,
that
there
should
be
resources
put
in
place
so
that
people
can
have
access
to
Justice
or
some
sort
of
Remedy
in
a
timely
fashion.
I
know
that
the
government's
being
more
focused
on
renaming
courts
than
actually
Staffing
courts,
thinking
that
that's
going
to
magically
make
things
better.
F
So
we
will
probably
have
at
least
one
recommendation
one
potential
Amendment.
But
of
course,
since
second
we
won't
be
in
a
position
to
to
bring
that
forward.
It
will
be
something
that
probably
comes
at
the
next
stage
of
the
legislation
and
and
that's
definitely
something
that
we
will
speak
to
in
Greater
detail
at
that
time.
But
when
members
do
speak
from
the
governing
side,
if
they
can
speak
to
that
cat
piece,
I
hope
that's
something
that
current
members
of
the
government
caucus
have
asked.
Questions
of.
F
So
just
to
summarize,
this
build
as
amend
six
different
pieces
of
legislation.
I've
touched
on
a
couple
so
far
and
they're
is
another
piece
that
we
haven't
talked
about
yet
at
this
stage,
or
as
it
relates
to
the
referendum
act,
and
there
is
an
amendment
to
ensure
that
all
referendums
require
a
motion
of
the
assembly
and
I
guess.
F
One
of
the
the
questions
I
have
with
that
is
why
the
current
government,
why
it
is
that
the
the
cabinet
believes
that
limiting
it
to
having
to
come
to
this
place
before
something
can
go
to
the
people
of
Alberta
would
be
a
move
that
they
think
is
in
the
best
interest
of
all
albertans
to
to
limit
those
who
can
actually
bring
forward
referendum.
F
Questions
I
know
that
there
was
talk
under
previous
members
of
the
the
house,
the
former
Premier
who's,
no
longer
a
member
of
this
assembly,
Jason
Kenney,
the
former
Justice
Minister,
who
again
is
no
longer
a
member
of
this
assembly.
Doug,
Schweitzer
and
and
I
also
have
to
say
that
this
has
given
me
a
moment
to
reflect
on
the
fact
that
we've
had
three
resignations
in
this
place.
F
In
short
order,
and
the
premier
acted
very
quickly,
as
did
her
cabinet
to
call
a
by-election
for
one
of
those
seats
but
left
the
seat
of
the
former
former
Justice
Minister
vacant
in
Calgary
albo,
unrepresented,
as
it
says
currently
on
their
website
that
they
have
no
MLA
they.
There
is
not
a
current
party
that
represents
those
folks
and
then,
of
course,
the
day
that
bill
won,
the
job-killing
sovereignty.
Act
was
introduced.
The
Jason
Kenney
decided
to
resign
as
well.
F
The
current
government,
has
chosen
to
make
priorities
for
for
themselves
and
if
it
is
fair
to
trust
that
the
current
government,
which
of
course
holds
presently
the
majority
of
the
seats
in
the
province
of
Alberta,
if
they
are
indeed
in
the
best
position
to
decide
what
warrants
are
referendum
question
or
not,
it
seems
like
there
could
be
more
power
held
in
the
hands
of
many
an
opportunity
to
if
this
is
really
about
bringing
the
power
of
the
people
to
the
Forefront
and
making
sure
that
they
have
a
chance
to
weigh
in
matters
of
significance
to
them,
whether
it
be
a
provincial
local,
municipal,
School,
related
or
federal
issues
that
the
government
wants
to
call
a
referendum
on.
F
Why
is
it
that
the
the
provincial
government's
the
only
one
to
determine
who's
who's
in
a
position
to
be
able
to
make
that
call
and
ask
for
that?
Clarity
from
the
people
of
Alberta,
it
feels
like
it's
an
attempt
to
use
political
influence
yet
again,
as
we've
seen
the
political
interference
as
it
relates
to
ensuring
that
every
albertan
has
an
opportunity
to
elect
and
have
an
elected
member
representing
them
in
the
legislative
assembly
of
Alberta.
Again,
we
don't
have
that
for
Calgary
lawheed.
We
don't
have
that
for
Calgary
elbow.
F
Why
is
the
current
government
so
scared
to
let
the
people
of
Calvary
actually
have
a
by-election
and
have
their
voice
heard
in
this
place,
and
that
relates
directly
to
this
section
around
referendums,
in
that
the
government
wants
to
decide
what
referendum
questions
they
have?
The
government
wants
to
decide
where
they'll
have
by-elections.
It
seems
incredibly
anti-demis
product
and
we've
seen
this
be
a
bit
of
a
theme
so
far
under
the
the
leadership
of
the
current
Premier.
F
So
it
definitely
brings
some
significant
pause
for
consideration
and
do
we,
as
members
of
the
legislative
assembly,
want
to
delegate
that
power
again
just
to
ourselves
or
do
we
want
to
truly
Channel
representative
democracy
and
ensure
that
all
members
of
the
of
the
population
have
an
opportunity
to,
through
some
form
of
fair
lobbying,
be
able
to
bring
forward
referendums
for
the
people
of
Alberta,
as
opposed
to
just
members
of
the
legislative
assembly?
Bringing
forward
emotion
and
and
getting
majority
support?
I'm
happy
to
welcome
an
intervention
from
my
colleague,
the
member
for
Edmonton
Highlands
Norwood.
I
Thank
you
to
the
member
for
everything.
Lenoir
I
wasn't
going
to
intervene,
but
I
just
I,
guess
I'm
passionate
about
Justice
statutes,
but
you
know
one
of
the
things
that
I
think
is
an
interesting
connection.
Here
is
you
talked
about?
You
know
referendums
and
you
kind
of
alluded
to
the
fact
that
this
is
a
government.
That's
not
really
been
listening
to
the
people
of
Alberta
and
we
saw
that
most
recently
with
the
sovereignty
act
with
Bill
one
and
pushing
that
through
and
hearing.
I
You
know
even
more
about
that
today
that
you
know
not
only
were
First
Nations
across
this
province
not
consulted,
nor
were
even
some
of
the
key
cabinet
ministers
and
so
I
guess.
My
question
for
the
minister
for
the
member
soon
to
be
Minister
from
Edmonton
Glenora
is
yeah.
Sorry
knock
on
wood
is,
you
know,
is
she
concerned
about
the
fact
that
there
are
these
pieces
around?
Let's
say
referenda
in
this
piece
of
legislation
when
we've
seen
a
government
quite
recently,
in
fact,
you
know
really
not
heating
the
way
wishes
of
albertans.
F
Employees
of
the
government
of
Alberta
within
indigenous
relations
directly
speaking
to
Media
about
their
grave
concerns
and
the
fact
that
that
they
know
that
their
Minister
has
been
raising
concerns
around
Bill
one
and
its
lack
of
consultation.
Its
lack
of
Engagement
with
the
folks
that
are
supposed
to
be
partners,
LED
that
work
being
led
by
the
minister
for
indigenous
relations
in
the
department
that
supports
that
Minister.
It
caused
a
significant
concern
for
myself
and
I'm
sure
for
many
others
to
see.
People
feel
brave
enough
to
come
forward
when
they
work
in
this
building.
F
To
speak
about
the
concerns
that
they
have
around
their
inability
to
do
their
job.
When
the
premier's
office
shuts
down
any
feedback
and
doesn't
allow
for
that
type
of
voice
to
be
raised
and
and
significant
concerns
to
be
heard
and
in
turn
acted
upon
and
and
we've
seen
it
in
under
the
current
government
in
other
areas
of
deep
public
concern,
as
well
as
it
relates
to
people
wanting
to
whistle
below,
as
it
relates
to
their
own
safety
and
well-being
within
this
building,
for
example.
F
F
Let's
go
to
some
of
the
stuff
from
this
bill.
That
is
probably
a
step
in
the
right
direction,
and
I
am
going
to
speak
specifically
around
the
interjurisdictional
support.
Orders
act,
that's
again,
a
Justice
Bill,
specifically
the
piece
around
child
and
spousal
support
orders
from
other
provinces
and
how
we
will
have
an
expedited
enforcement
process.
F
Some
of
the
pieces
right
now
that
are
definitely
slowing
that
that
Duke,
that
ability
of
spouses
and
and
children
to
receive
fair
compensation
relate
to
the
fact
that
the
orders
can't
currently
be
provided
over
the
telephone
or
electronically
that
they
have
to
have
original
documents.
Transmitted,
for
example,
and
received
I.
Think
having
electronic
or
telephone
transmission
will
be
an
improvement.
It
will
help
expedite
the
process.
I
think
the
other
piece
around
removing
the
need
for
sworn
documents
is
also
beneficial.
F
I
think
there
are
other
ways
that
we
can
ensure
that
their
authenticity,
including
notary
and
ensuring
true
copy
so
I,
think
that
this
will
be
a
potential
Improvement
to
the
legislation.
I
think
it
will
put
us
more
in
line
with
other
jurisdictions,
and
it
has
the
potential
to
ensure
that
that
partner
spouses
who
are
entitled
to
compensation
and
children
who
also
are
entitled
to
compensation
compensation
which
they
need
usually
to
pay
the
rent
and
keep
the
lights
on
and
keep
food
on
the
on
the
table.
G
Thank
you,
madam
speaker.
I
appreciate
that
happy
to
rise
on
this
bill.
Now.
Changes
in
this
bill
include
amendments
to
the
Provincial
Court
of
Alberta
and
Court
King's
bench
They
are
Kings,
not
Queens.
Good
I
got
that
it
was
I
had
to
think
about
that
for
a
second
still
have
the
reflex
to
say
Queens,
but
it
is
indeed
the
court
of
King's
bench.
The
Alberta
Government
will
be
enhancing
the
Court's
ability
to
fulfill
its
duties
to
provide
Fair,
accessible,
And
Timely
resolutions
for
Alberta.
G
That
will
be
achieved
by
allowing
more
claims
to
be
dealt
with
through
the
Provincial
Court,
which
uses
a
simplified
and
more
cost-effective
process
than
the
court
of
Kings
bench.
Now
I
heard
the
member
opposite
talk
about
access
to
Justice,
which
I
I
certainly
would
agree.
That's
an
important
issue,
I
and
I.
Guess
the
change
from
50
000
to
two
hundred
thousand
dollars
for
Provincial
Court
claims,
instead
of
going
through
Provincial
Court
bench,
should
actually
I
believe
provide
more
access.
Now
it
is
arguable
what
is
the
right,
number
and
and
I
suppose
that's
something!
G
That's
the
perfect
argument,
Madam
speaker,
because
we
could
argue
about
that.
For
six
days
and
not
agree
because,
as
the
rate
first,
the
right
number
one
dollar
or
10
million
dollars-
well,
it's
likely
highly
likely
to
be
somewhere
in
between
and
we've
chosen
something
in
between,
and
what
was
here
before
is
something
in
between,
but
but
I
think
that's
a
fair
thing
to
comment
on.
G
Nonetheless,
it's
been
a
number
of
years
and
I
think
I
certainly
sincerely
hope
that
most,
if
not
all,
members
of
the
house
would
think
it
might
be
time
to
increase
that
number.
So
the
other
members
of
members
on
the
other
side
want
to
quibble
about
whether
the
number
is
the
right
number
or
not
again,
I
suppose
we
could
fight
about
that
all
day,
but
at
least
I
hope.
G
We
can
agree
that
it
is
indeed
High
Time
and
perhaps
then
some
to
increase
that
number
to
provide
what
the
member
opposite
suggested
was
concerned
about
which
is
access
to
justice.
So
provincial
courts,
of
course,
are
located
across
72
communities
and
will
provide
albertans
with
easier
access
to
legal
proceedings
and
quicker
res
Solutions.
Well,
we
hope
maintaining
the
same
fair
and
high
quality
rulings
that
albertans
depend
upon
now.
G
The
last
time
the
Civil
Court
claims
were
increased
was
indeed
2014
and
again
I
I'm
hopeful
that
this
change
will
be
seen
by
most
albertans
as
a
positive
thing,
and
indeed
once
you
get
past
that
limit.
Generally
speaking,
you
need
to
hire
a
lawyer.
I
appreciate
you
can
you
can
represent
yourself,
but
there's
a
saying
about
a
client
that
represents
themselves,
and
somebody
probably
wiser
than
me
made
that
claim
and
I
won't
pass
judgment
on
the
claim.
G
I'll
just
say
that
it's
there
is
a
point
where
one
is
probably
wise
to
get
professional
judgment
when
they're
dealing
with
some
matters,
so
the
bill
will
also
support
our
hard-working
Farmers
by
eliminating
some
bureaucratic
record-keeping
requirements
for
buyer,
Sellers
and
Distributors
of
grain.
G
And
then,
let's
face
it,
Madam
speaker
if
there
is
a
a
parent
living
in
another
province
that
is
legally
obligated
to
provide
funding
to
the
the
parent
with
custody
and
their
children.
G
Maybe
we
are,
on
the
other
hand,
when
you're
leading
the
pack,
you
take
some
risk
of
making
the
first
mistakes,
but
in
this
particular
case
we're
already.
These
similar
sticks.
Steps
have
been
taken
to
British,
Columbia,
Saskatchewan,
Manitoba
and
Nova
Scotia,
and
so
I
think,
based
on
the
experience
that
we
have
learning
from
those
other
provinces,
I
think
we
can
have
reasonable
hope
that
this
this
particular
change
will
be
a
positive
one
and
one
that's
been
proven.
G
Other
places
and
Isn't
it
nice
that
we
can
bring
those
learnings
here
to
benefit
Alberta
families
and
particularly
Alberta
children.
It
would
allow
Alberta
to
join
these
province
in
enhancing
single
parents's
ability
to
collect
critical
child
child
and
spousal
support,
so
I'm
feeling
very
positive
about
that.
The
bill
also
introduced
includes
the
trustee
Act.
G
This
proposed
amendment
would
allow
and
provide
albertans
with
certainty
that
trusts
will
not
fail
when
left
temporarily
without
a
trustee.
Furthermore,
the
ACT
would
remove
the
transfer
of
trust
property
to
the
courts,
thus
making
it
easier
for
such
property
to
move
directly
to
a
new
trustee
once
one
is
appointed,
I
think
that's
also
important
and
certainly
a
the
courts
would
always
always
do
the
best
job
that
they
could
I.
Don't
think
any.
Certainly
our
government's
not
doubting
that
I
hope.
G
Nobody
in
this
house
is
doubting
that,
but
nonetheless
a
trustee
that
may
have
better
personal
knowledge
of
the
family,
the
children,
the
parents,
I
I,
think
I
hope.
We
can
agree
that
there's
a
better
chance
of
a
good
job
being
done
when
that
familiarity
takes
place,
so
additional
changes
to
the
referendum
act.
This
act
demonstrates
the
government's
commitment
to
strengthening
democracy
in
the
province
by
ensuring
that
albertans
have
a
direct
say
on
important
matters.
G
The
proposed
adjustment
would
clarify
the
requirement
to
bring
a
legislation
to
the
legislation
sure
and
only-
and
that's
only
applies
to
constitutional
matters.
I
think
the
member
aside
said
all
suggest
certainly
seemed
to
me
to
suggest
that
all
of
those
those
resolutions
would
have
to
go
to
here,
but
this
is
I'm
just
pointing
out.
This
is
just
for
constitutional
matters,
so
indeed
not
all
of
those
would
have
to
come
to
the
house.
So
now
here's
one
of
my
what
I
think
is
really
important.
G
One
of
the
most
pertinent
changes
included
in
Bill
5
is
allowing
the
Legislative
Assembly
to
security
to
carry
firearms.
G
This
change
was
proposed
by
the
speaker
and
the
sergeant-at-arms
in
in
order
to
better
ensure
the
health
and
safety
of
elected
officials,
staff
and
visitors
to
the
Legislative
Assembly.
The
sergeant-at-arms
is
responsible
for
directing
controlling
and
managing
security
Personnel,
while
the
speaker's
office
is
responsible
for
the
overall
security
of
the
legislative
assemblies,
committees
and
members
now
Madam
speaker
following
the
24
2014
shooting
on
Parliament,
Hill
and
I
just
have
to
say
this.
This
is
part
of
the
reason
why
this
piece
is
so
important
to
me.
I
actually
was
there.
G
Some
members
of
the
House
may
remember
that,
and
some
may
not
I
can
tell
you.
It
was
not
a
pleasant
experience.
G
The
just
not
because
I
did
anything
right
wrong
or
indifferent
by
sheer
happenstance
I
was
leaving
the
grounds
of
the
Parliament
building.
G
At
the
time
when
the
shooter
was
coming
through
the
front
Gates
I
was
trying
to
get
out
of
the
front
Gates
and
the
only
one
of
the
few
claims
of
claims
to
fame
I
may
have
in
this
world
is
the
next
day
every
newspaper
in
Canada
had
a
picture
of
the
shooter
coming
through
the
gates
and
an
old
fat
bald
guy
about
three
steps
ahead
of
him
heading
the
other
direction,
and-
and
so
that's
and
but
but
here's
what's
important,
that's
kind
of
fun
for
me
to
tell,
but
what's
actually
more
important
is
at
that
time
our
national
Parliament
did
not
allow
very
few
firearms
in
the
Parliament
and
in
fact
the
sergeant-at-arms.
G
If
I
have
my
facts
straight
I
think
I
do
here
and
if
I'm
get
corrected,
I'll
I'll
live
with
that,
but
I
believe
the
sergeant
arms
are
the
only
one
allowed
to
have
a
firearm
and
was
a
sergeant-at-arms
that
stopped
the
perpetrator
of
the
crime
by
shooting
the
perpetrator.
I.
Don't
think
anybody
would
argue
that
was
a
legitimate
action
to
take,
but
but
what,
if
there
was
Zero
guns,
wow
I'm,
just
a
little
bit
afraid
of
how
much
more
damage
there
would
have
been.
G
Actually
answers
that
question
for
the
people
of
Alberta
and
if
there's
ever
an
issue
that
all
members
of
the
legislature,
no
matter
what
party
we
belong
to
and
what
else
we
believe
I
think
it's
something
we
should
all
have
in
common
is
that
we
want
each
other
to
go
home
safe
every
day.
Even
if
we
think
the
folks,
in
the
other
side
are
wrong
about
everything,
even
if
they
think
we're
wrong
about
everything.
G
I
sincerely
hope
that
we
all
want
each
other
to
get
home
safe
at
the
age
of
not
one
or
two,
but
every
single
day
that
we
come
into
this
important
place,
because
that
actually
serves
albertans
the
best
so
that
this
piece
of
legislation
deals
with
that
and
I
think
in
a
responsible
way.
The
review
that
was
done
concluded
the
Legislative
Assembly
security
service
should
be
allowed
to
carry
firearms
in
the
legislative
building
and
the
surrounding
Precinct
and,
of
course,
training
of
the
legislative
assembly.
G
Security
personnel,
as
peace
officers
will
take
place,
ensuring
that
they
have
the
most
up-to-date
training
to
keep
Alberta's
legislative
buildings
and
grounds
safe
for
elected
officials
and
indeed
the
public
that
are
here
because
we
work
for
them
and
they
are
indeed
the
most
important
people.
Although
all
human
life
is
important
and
all
needs
to
be
protected
so
I,
this
change
would
bring
us
in
line
with
other
Canadian
jurisdictions,
such
as
Ontario
Manitoba
and
now
Parliament
Hill
in
Ottawa.
G
In
closing
Madam
speaker,
the
bill
in
covers
a
fairly
wide
breadth
of
territory,
and
yet
it
is
a
positive
change
for
the
people
of
Alberta
I.
It's
I
believe
it
increases.
Access
to
Justice,
improves
the
efficiency
of
collection
of
child
support
in
reducing
needless
paperwork
for
grain
dealers,
and
it
is
indeed
in
line
with
what
this
government
is
always
focused
on
making
life
better
for
albertans
and
on
that
grounds,
Madam
speaker,
I,
intend
to
support
this
bill
and
I
recommend
the
same
that
all
members
of
this
assembly
support
this
building.
J
Thank
you,
madam
speaker,
appreciate
the
the
chance
to
to
rise
and,
of
course,
I
would
certainly
agree
with
the
member
from
Calgary,
Hayes
I.
Believe
everybody
in
this
entire
building
needs
to
go
home
safe
every
night,
especially
when
they're
wrong,
because
I
want
you
back
here
the
next
day,
so
that
I
can
continue
to
tell
you
how
wrong
you
are
so
I
want
that
opportunity
over
and
over
again.
J
But
probably
most
of
my
comments
here
this
evening
are
just
going
to
be
around
a
couple
of
different
subjects
on
a
whole,
around
Bill
5,
the
the
Justice
statutes,
Amendment
act,
2022
number,
two
I'm
in
support
of
and
so
I
guess
it's
more
around
I
guess
questions
and
we'll
get
the
opportunity
to
I
guess
delve
deeper
into
some
of
those
questions.
When
we
get
the
opportunity
in
committee,
the
whole
so
I
guess
I'll
I
I
I
want
to.
J
Of
course
you
know
always
layer
the
sandwich
here,
a
little
bit
and
so
I
I
know
the
member
from
Calgary
Hayes
was
talking
about
when
it
comes
to
maintenance
enforcement
and
and
paying
those
and
as
a
a
father
of
two
step,
children.
J
Certainly
I
saw
challenges
with
respect
to
getting
those
payments,
and
so
you
know
when
we
can
make
changes
that
expedite
that
type
of
type
of
thing.
That
is
not
a
bad
thing
to
say
the
least,
and
I
certainly
would
have
loved
the
chance
to
have
benefited
from
that.
J
But
unfortunately,
back
in
those
days
there
was
a
challenge
around
that,
so
definitely
supportive
of
of
that
change
in
in
Bill
five
and
I
again,
I'd,
probably
remiss
as
has
been
mentioned,
there's
some
multiple
changes
across
this,
which
kind
of
makes
Bill
5
a
little
bit
of
an
Omnibus,
Bill
and
I'd
be
remiss
if
I
didn't
remind
members
that
that
served
in
the
29th
legislature.
J
You
know
very
effectively
in
in
opposition
and
very
much
disagreed
with
Omnibus
legislation,
and
so
I
can't
help,
but
ask
what's
changed
so
I
I.
Don't
want
anybody
to
think
that
I've
forgotten
about
that
Madam
speaker,
so
I
will
continue
to
remind
them
about
that
and
that
maybe
ties
back
into
the
whole
wrong
part.
That
I
originally
brought
my
my
comments
to
in
the
beginning.
J
So
one
of
the
changes
that
we
do
see
here
is
around
the
referendums
and
I
think
my
friend
from
Edmonton
Glenora
had
mentioned
this
around.
Why
there
seems
I
guess
a
desire
to
not
have
the
assembly
in
involved
in
this
process
and
the
reason
I'm
asking
this
is
I.
Think
back
to
the
recent
referendums
that
that
were
held
here
in
the
province
of
Alberta,
specifically
around
Equalization
and
I,
bring
this
up,
because
what
I
found
when
I
was
talking
to
people
about
that
question
around
Equalization.
J
There
wasn't
a
very
clear
understanding
of
what
that
was.
I
very
quickly
lost
track
of
the
number
of
folks
that
thought
that
it
meant
changing
what
was
currently
there
and
that
actually
wasn't
the
question.
The
question
was:
do
you
want
to
remove
Equalization
period,
and
so,
when
you
kind
of
start
to
talk
people
through
that
it
was
oh,
oh
I!
Oh
that's
what
it
meant.
J
I
didn't
quite
understand
that,
and
so
I
think
it's
incumbent
a
little
bit
upon
the
assembly
so
that
when
we
are
potentially
posing
referendum,
questions
that
albertans
can
very
clearly
understand
what
they
mean,
and
that
wasn't
the
case
in
with
with
the
question
around
Equalization,
so
I
think
there
still
is
a
role
that
the
assembly
could
be
playing
with
regards
to
trying
to
clarify
those
things
so
again
happy
once
we
get
into
committee
the
whole.
What
some
of
the
reasoning
is
around
that?
J
What
they
heard
then
of
why
it
seems
so
straightforward
that
maybe
we
should
you
know
back
off
hands
off
a
little
bit.
The
other
part
that
I
want
to
talk
about
which
again
the
previous
speaker
also
brought
up,
was
moving
Us
in
line
moving
that
cap
with
regards
to
civil
court
rulings
from
from
50
000
up
to
200,
000.
I,
certainly
agree.
Fifty
thousand
dollars
might
have
been
fine
way
back
when
that
was
first
established.
It's
not
fine
anymore
again,
you
know,
I
could
make
the
exact
same
argument.
J
Is
it
two
hundred
thousand
I
don't
know,
but
it
would
be
interesting
to
know
what
kind
of
information
the
government's
managed
to
to
bring
together
to
inform
that
that
decision
a
little
bit
and
I
guess,
more
importantly,
with
that
information,
when
will
they
actually
plan
to
make
that
that
actual
change
to
that
level,
which
then,
of
course
now
starts
to
ask
the
question
you
know,
will
we
see
an
increase
in
in
court
filings
and
obviously
then
in
court
cases
that
will
be
be
coming
forward?
J
I
know
in
the
past
the
province
has
struggled
with
regards
to
capacity
around
efficiently
getting
through
court
cases
that
are
that
are
coming
through
for
various
amounts
of
Reason
not
even
include
how
we've
gotten,
through
the
pandemic
over
the
past
couple
of
years,
and
so
going
forward,
I'm
wondering
if
the
government
has
managed
to
come
up
with
maybe
some
predictive
models
or
something
like
that
in
terms
of
what
kind
of
increases
do
they
think
will
will
result
in
increasing
that
cap
and
maybe
at
different
levels.
J
You
know
if
we
increased
it
to
100
000.
We
would
see
this
many
more
court
filings,
150
and
so
on
and
so
forth
and
and
with
those
increases,
is
the
government
prepared
to
be
able
to
help
the
court
system
in
terms
of
any
other
additional
resources,
especially
staff?
J
As
we
all
know,
we
can
come
up
with
all
the
great
technology
in
the
world,
but
if
we
don't
have
the
amazing
people
that
work
in
that
system
running
it
we're
going
to
start
to
run
into
to
problems,
we've
got
to
make
sure
that
we
we
have
all
of
that
to
back
up
there
for
them.
So
I'm
wondering
what
kind
of
plan
is
in
place
as
I
said:
I'm
not
expecting
any
kind
of
finite
details.
J
I
mean
that
starts
to
get
into
the
realm
of
the
whole
polishing.
The
crystal
ball,
at
which
point,
and
why
don't
we
start
asking
about?
Maybe
the
lottery
numbers
at
the
same
time
for
that,
but
it
would
be
helpful
to
know
where
that
that
might
be
going
and
so
I
guess
one
of
the
other
things
I
did
want
to
touch
on
around
the
sales
of
good,
acting
as
somebody
who
had
come
from
working
in
the
food
industry.
J
You
know
my
my
26
years
at
Lucerne
Foods
at
the
at
the
ice
cream
plant
I
know
that
tracking
the
transportation
of
of
goods
was
important,
especially
if
there
was
some
kind
of
a
a
problem,
whether
it
be
contamination
of
an
ingredient
or
a
recall
of
some
kind
of
a
of
a
product-
or
you
know,
as
as
maybe
would
suggested,
is
just
simply
outdated
information
or
a
practice
that
no
longer
happens,
and
it's
it's
morphed
into
some
other
procedure
which
happens.
J
Is
you
find
more
efficient
ways
to
to
do
things
or
you've
simply
gotten
away
from
a
certain
practice,
because
you
no
longer
produce
that
whatever
the
case
may
be,
I'd
be
interested
to
hear
some
of
the
feedback
on
that.
So
we
can
understand
why
the
proposed
changes
around
the
sale,
Goods
act
will
be
beneficial
again.
I'm,
not
necessarily
against
removing
some
of
the
paperwork.
You
know
as
the
red
tape
critic,
I've
always
said.
J
You
know
we
don't
need
to
do
15
copies
when
only
10
will
do,
but
at
the
same
time
we
don't
want
to
put
the
system
in
in
any
kind
of
Jeopardy,
especially
when
we
are
talking
about
food
with
you
know
the
increase
in
allergies
cross-contamination
things
like
that.
We
want
to
make.
You
know,
be
able
to
ensure
that
our
food
system
is
secure.
It
is
safe
for
everyone
to
to
eat
here,
and
so,
like
I
said
as
I'm.
Not
necessarily
you
know
opposed
to
the
to
any
of
the
changes.
J
I
would
certainly
like
to
see
some
more
clarification
around
some
of
the
questions
that
that
I've
been
having
again
it's
it's
about
ensuring
that
albertans
could
be
confident
in
in
what's
going
on
with
proposed
legislation.
You
know
it's
it's
one
thing
to
to
tell
them
that
you
know.
Decisions
are
are
being
made
elsewhere,
but
we
certainly
don't
want
people
to
think
that
the
assembly
might
be
I,
guess
being
circumvented
here,
a
little
bit
a
little
bit
in
reference
back
to
to
referendums.
J
Again
I
know,
members
of
the
29th
legislature
did
have
significant
issues
around
any
more
extra
powers
and
whatnot
being
afforded
to
ministers
to
make
decisions
or,
of
course,
the
the
claim
that
well,
it's
all
coming
in
regulations,
I
know
that
members
serve
very
well
trying
to
remind
the
government
at
the
time
that,
well
perhaps
you
should
put
it
in
legislation
not
in
regulations,
so
part
of
that
layered
sandwich
there
again
reminding
folks
what
changed
from
that
position
back
then,
when
you
wanted
to
see
a
lot
of
things
in
legislation
now
you're
seeing
more
of
a
desire
to
want
to
put
things
in
in
regulation.
J
You
know
we.
We
don't
want
albertans
to
think
that
we're
circumventing
the
responsibilities
of
this
house.
Unfortunately,
we
have
now
seen
a
couple
of
attempts
by
the
government
to
do
that,
saw
that
during
the
one
Health
Bill,
where
they
were
trying
to
provide
the
opportunity
to
you,
know,
modify
legislation,
bring
in
new
legislation
or
delete
legislation
without
the
consent
or
oversight
of
the
assembly,
and
we
saw
that
again
with
the
recent
sovereignty
Act,
which
you
know
caused
great
great
concern.
J
It
still
is
quite
honestly,
so
you
know
we
don't
want
that,
of
course,
Happening
Here,
with
with
Bill
5,
because
I
think
we've
got
some
changes
that
within
here
that
that
are
very,
very
good.
That
I've
talked
to
already
so
I.
Do
look
forward
to
more
debate
going
forward
here,
especially
committee
to
the
whole.
J
Hopefully,
I'll
get
a
few
answers
to
some
of
my
comments
as
as
we
move
forward
I
know
some
of
my
other
colleagues
have
some
other
things
to
say
about
this,
but
I
guess
at
this
time
I
will
take
my
seat
and
see
what
else
the
debate
comes
up
and
I'll
be
taking
notes
vigorously.
H
Thank
you
very
much.
Madam
speaker,
I'm,
pleased
to
rise
and
speak
to
Bill
5,
which
is
the
justice
statutes.
Amendment
act,
so
there's
stuff
in
here
I'm,
going
to
start
with
the
inter-jurisdictional
support
orders
so
once
again,
I'm
starting
with
something
that
I
think
is
good
about
the
bill.
I
think
that
anything
we
can
do
to
support
the
ability
to
do
these
inter-jurisdictional
supporters,
especially
these
sorts
of
things
which
are
like
allowing
electronic
means
and
telephone,
and
that
sort
of
thing
is
really
really
good.
H
So
the
interesting
history
on
this
is
once
long
ago
it
used
to
be
next
to
Impossible,
because
maintenance
enforcement
is
a
provincial
agency
in
each
individual
process.
Province.
Essentially,
what
could
happen
was
the
the
non
like
the
parent
who
who
didn't
have
the
child,
who
didn't
have
primary
custody,
could
move
to
another
jurisdiction
and
then
just
stop
paying
their
child
support.
So
that's,
obviously
not
a
very
good
situation
and
that
left
a
lot
of
children
in
poverty
and
children
in
poverty
is
a
very
bad
thing.
H
So
this
over
time,
provinces
have
developed
the
ability
to
sort
of
enforce
each
other's
support
orders
through
various
mechanisms,
and
and
this
takes
that
one
step
further
and
I
think
that
can
only
possibly
be
a
good
thing
so
to
all
those
people
out
there
who
think
that
we
never
agree
on
anything
in
this
place.
We
agree
on
this,
so
there
we
go.
That's
that's
two
things
to
three
things
tonight,
so
yeah
I
think
that's
I,
think
that's
a
pretty
good
thing,
so
I'm
I'm
glad
to
see
that
is
changing,
I!
H
Think
again,
it's
a
big
step
in
the
right
direction.
H
Now,
of
course,
I
couldn't
just
leave
it
at
that
could
I
one
thing
I
do
have
to
point
out
when
we're
talking
about
this
is
that
so
maintenance
enforcement
or
the
the
orders
I
guess
the
orders
for
child
support
are
usually
originally
garnered
through
the
courts.
Now,
there's
a
table
that
kind
of
sets
out
based
on
the
payor's
income,
what
the
child
support
will
be.
So
there
isn't
much
of
an
argument.
There's
not
a
big
argument
over
how
much
you're
going
to
pay
unless
the
person
isn't
sort
of.
H
Sometimes
it's
unclear
what
the
income
is
or
people
try
to
write
things
off
like
there
can
be
a
little
bit
of
an
argument,
but
for
the
most
part,
the
support
is
based
on
what
the
income
of
the
payor
is
and
what
what
that's
designed
to
do
is
to
bring
both
households
up
to
a
similar
level.
So,
essentially
to
say
you
know,
if
you're
a
wealthy
individual
you
just
you,
can
relative
poverty
you're
required
to
support
them
to
the
level
that
they
otherwise
would
have
been
supported
and
I.
Think
that's
a
fairly
reasonable
rule.
H
I
think
that's
a
fairly
reasonable
rule.
So
often
time
not
often
well
often
enough
times,
one
of
the
things
that
legal
aid
does,
that
a
lot
of
people
don't
think
of
a
lot
of
people
when
they
hear
legally,
they
think
of
criminal
matters,
but
actually
legal
aid
does
a
lot
of
Family
Matters
and
those
Family
Matters
were
actually
often
more
difficult
to
retain.
H
Counsel,
for
so
legal
aid
often
had
like
close
to
a
six-month
wait
to
get
a
family
lawyer
who
would
take
the
legal
aid
rate
and
the
legal
aid
retainer
to
handle
a
client,
and
so
that's
really
really
challenging.
H
It
leaves
a
lot
of
people
in
a
lot
of
trouble
and
what
it
means
is
that
not
only
do
you
wind
up
with
a
lot
of
unrepresented
people
in
court,
but
you
also
wind
up
with,
like
you
know,
the
a
lot
of
situations
where
the
the
person
who
has
the
more
money
is
able
to
advance
the
better
argument,
and
so,
while
we're
talking
about
this
piece
and
the
importance
of
sort
of
greasing
those
wheels
and
making
sure
the
children
get
the
supports
that
they
need
I.
H
Think
that
I
I
just
can't
let
it
go
past.
Without
commenting
on
the
fact
that
this
this
government
is
woefully
in
violation
of
its
obligations
under
contract
to
fund
legal
aid
and
that
that
is
incredibly
problematic,
they're
also
in
violation
of
conversation
they're
supposed
to
have
around
the
legal
aid
tariff
again.
H
This
isn't
an
issue
that
always
up
in
the
public
that
high,
but
the
one
of
the
reasons
it's
next
to
impossible,
to
get
a
family
law
lawyer
to
sort
of
take
on
legal
aid
cases
and
I,
don't
want
to
see
next
to
Impossible.
H
That's
but
there's
there's
far
more
people
needing
representation
and
wanting
to
go
through
legal
aid,
even
people
who
are
getting
approved
than
there
are
lawyers
to
take
that
case
now,
admittedly,
it's
it
can
be
challenging
to
get
a
family
law
where
at
all,
right
now
in
this
province,
but
certainly
the
Tariff,
which
was
set
at
92
dollars
an
hour.
It
sounds
like
a
reasonable
amount
of
money,
but
you
have
to
bear
in
mind
that
that's
not
what
the
lawyers
paid.
Oh
sorry,
intervention
thank.
K
You,
member
for
allowing
a
quick
question
as
I
was
listening
to
speak
so
eloquently
about
the
matters
of
family
law
and
the
impact
that
bill
five.
The
Justice
statutes
Amendment
act
might
have
on
it
occurred
to
me
that
there
may
be
some
impacts
on
child
support
payments
that
are
adversely
affected
by
this
legislation,
in
that
it
may
not
empower
the
the
individual
who
is
not
getting
support
to
have
the
means
to
actually
get
legal
representation
to
go
after
that
support.
So
is
there?
H
Thank
you
very
much.
The
member
for
the
question
and
I
mean
I.
Think
that's
one
of
the
challenges
is
that
this
bill
addresses
the
enforcement
of
interjurisdictional
support
orders.
H
So
once
you
have
the
order
against
the
other
party,
if
they
move
to
another
Province,
this
makes
it
easier
to
get
the
money,
but
it
doesn't
do
anything
about
getting
the
original
order,
so
it
doesn't
help
those
individuals
who
are
seeking
support
or
where
there's
a
dispute
about
support
or
because
there
are
still
some
things
that
can
sort
of
come
into
dispute
like
who
has
custody
that
sort
of
thing,
and
so
this
doesn't
help
with
that
and
I
think
that
that
is
problematic.
H
So
another
thing-
oh
that's,
that
was
what
I
was
saying.
What
I
was
saying
was
the
government
was
went
to
review
the
tariff
rate
and
the
reason
that's
important
is
because
that
actually
pays.
For
you
know
the
the
rental
of
the
office.
It
pays
for
the
the
the
the
support
staff
that
sort
of
Staff
a
lawyer's
office
for
access
to
Legal
databases,
which
is
actually
extremely
expensive.
H
I
knew
when
I
was
in
practice.
I
had
a
couple
of
my
colleagues
from
my
class
had
gone
into
criminal
defense
work
and
they
basically
practiced
legal
aid.
Criminal
defense
work
full-time,
most
of
them
practiced
out
of
the
box
of
Mars
because
they
couldn't
afford
to
have
an
office
on
what
the
current
tariff
rate
is.
H
So
it
definitely
is
a
problem
both
the
overall
funding
to
Legal
Aid
and
therefore
the
people
that
can
seek
legal
aid
and
and
the
the
refusal
of
the
government
to
engage
in
this
tariff
review
process,
particularly
it's
a
problem
for
for
people
in
the
area
of
family
law,
and
that
tends
to
be
worse,
worsened
where
there
are
children
involved.
So
I
would
be
remiss
if
I
didn't
mention
that
that
is.
That
is
another
thing
that
the
government
could
do
to
make
this
better.
H
H
An
interesting
proposal
I
would
love
to
hear
more
from
the
government
about
it
about
why
they're
doing
it
and
who
they're
doing
it
for
and
what
the
intended
consequences
are.
The
reason
I
say
that
is
so
essentially
what
it
means
is.
Currently
you
can
go
to
what
many
people
will
call
sort
of
small
claims
court,
which
is
just
Provincial,
Court,
Civil
Division
for
anything
up
to
fifty
thousand
dollars
their
I,
don't
want
to
say
there
are
because
there
may
have
been
an
increase
in
the
complement.
H
Since
this
government
came
in
and
I'm
not
sure
in
2019
there
were
nine
Provincial
Court
judges
in
the
Civil
Division
nine,
that's
not
very
many.
Obviously
so
I
mean
if
you
were
to
increase
the
remit
from
50
000
to
200
000
you're,
potentially
looking
at
sort
of
four
times
higher
so
four
times
more
cases,
perhaps
more
than
that
right,
because
the
amount
that
people
are
claiming
is
not
going
to
be
like
over
the
distributed
in
that
way.
H
But
let's
say
even
four
times
what
that
means
is
appointing
a
bunch
more
judges,
which
is
fine.
If
the
government
is
going
to
do
it
and
might
I
add
that
if
they
are
going
to
do
it,
those
judges
require
support
staff,
they
require
court
clerks
and
judicial
assistants
and
sheriffs
and
a
bunch
of
folks
to
make
that
work.
So
if
the
government
wants
to
do
that,
that
is
fine.
I
will
point
out
that
what
that
does
do
is
so
judge
justices
at
the
king's
bench
level
are
remunerated
through
the
federal
government.
H
So
the
federal
government
pays
the
judges
when
they're
at
the
king's
bench,
level,
justices
or
judges
in
the
Provincial
Court
are
paid
by
the
provincial
government,
and
so
that's
you
know
several
hundred
thousand
dollars
a
year
per
body
that
the
sort
of
province
is
agreeing
to
take
on
rather
than
having
the
federal
government
take
it
on
which
is
again
their
choice
if
they
think
that
there
are
good
reasons
for
doing
it.
But
I
would
like
to
hear
a
little
more
about
what
those
reasons
are,
and
there
are
some
reasons.
H
There
are
definitely
some
reasons
in
favor
of
this.
But
again
it's
important
to
to
hear
what
those
reasons
are.
Now
the
the
government
will
cite
access
to
Justice
and
in
some
ways
yes,
so
it
is
easier
to
file
your
claim
in
Provincial
Court.
The
forms
are
less
complex.
The
system
is
maybe
more
easily
comprehensible
to
someone
who
is
representing
themselves.
H
So
arguably,
it
gives
more
people
that
ability,
but
it
cuts
both
ways,
giving
more
people
the
ability
to
sue
means
more
people
get
sued.
And,
yes,
we
have
a
problem
with
people
who
would
like
to
sue
who
have
valid
claims
and
cannot
get
their
suits
into
court.
That
is
a
problem
that
we
have
and
that
the
government
should
be
concerned
with.
We
also
have
a
problem
with
people
getting
sued,
so
people
who
are
the
recipients
of
a
lawsuit
they're
on
the
receiving
end
of
a
lawsuit
and
the
claim
is
not
a
valid
claim.
H
So
this
is
a
thing
that
happens
also
because
anyone
can
sue
you.
Anyone
can
sue
anyone
over
anything
at
any
moment.
So,
yes,
there
are
allowing
more
people
to
Sue
or
arguably
gives
more
people
access
to
justice,
but
it
also
puts
more
people
because
you're
not
just
going
to
increase
the
number
of
valid
claims.
H
You're
going
to
increase
the
number
of
invalid
claims,
also,
which
means
that
there
are
people
who
are
going
to
get
sued
and
who
are
going
to
have
to
go
through
the
time,
trouble
and
expense
and
just
general
personal
life
stress
that
is
involved
in
getting
sued.
Who
have
done
nothing
wrong?
Who
have
done
nothing
to
Warrant
it.
So.
H
Yeah,
increasing
access
in
that
way
kind
of
cuts
both
ways
so
I
would
love
to
hear
from
because
the
the
government
I'm
sure
keeps
statistics
on
this.
So
I
would
love
to
hear
from
people
about
like
how
they're
measuring
what
the
legal
aid,
what
the
legal
needs
are
and
how
this
better
meets
the
legal
needs,
because
there
is
out
there
in
the
province
and
I
suspect
other
places,
but
I'm
most
familiar
with
Alberta.
H
A
problem
of
unmet
and
legal
leads,
and
it's
a
it's
a
big
problem
and
it's
growing
every
day.
A
lot
of
it
is
in
family
law.
Some
of
it
is
in
civil
law,
it's
all
over
the
place
and
the
problem
doesn't
just
arise
in
terms
of
those
who
are
at
least
able
to
afford
it,
like
probably
people
up
to
the
median
income
and
above
can't
afford
to
pay
for
their
legal
needs
currently.
So
this
is
a.
It
is
a
big
problem.
H
It
is
something
that
the
the
minister
and
the
courts
and
the
entire
legal
system
should
rightly
concern
themselves
with,
but
what
I
I
would
like
to
know
is
what
sort
of
analysis
was
done
on
what
the
unmate
legal
needs
are
and
how
why
this
is
the
best
solution,
as
opposed
to
any
other
solution,
and
I
would
raise
once
again
legal
aid.
So
if
the
province
is
going
to
take
on
the
increased
cost,
because
this
allowing
claims
up
to
200
000
in
Provincial
Court
is
not
a
thing.
H
K
K
I
have
spoken
in
this
house
about
the
I
think
unprecedented
public
protests
by
acting
members
in
the
legal
aid
profession,
lawyers
on
the
streets
in
this
province
begging,
demanding
protesting
the
government's
inaction
to
addressing
their
acute
needs
to
keep
their
system
functioning
and
I
know
that
I've
worked
in
that
system
as
a
volunteer,
and
it's
been
an
ongoing
lack
for
for
decades
and
finally
come
to
a
head
with
this
crowd
in
the
streets
of
lawyers
actually
protesting
and
I've,
never
seen
that
before
I,
don't
think
a
public
house.
H
And
thank
you
very
much
for
that
question
because
you're
right,
the
problem
extends
Beyond,
just
those
who
would
qualify
for
legal
aid,
but
it
definitely
covers
those
who
would
otherwise
qualify
for
legal
aid,
and
it
is
incredibly
problematic
the
reason
you're
seeing
criminal
lawyers
and
now
family
lawyers
as
well
sort
of
come
together
to
try
to
take
the
government
to
task
on
this
issue
is
because
it
is
a
critical
problem
and
it's
it's
also
another
violation
of
another
agreement.
H
I
think
that's
one
of
the
most
frustrating
things
is
that
there
was
a
lot
of
time
and
energy
put
in
not
just
on
the
part
of
the
government,
but
on
the
part
of
legal
aid
itself
in
the
Law
Society
of
Alberta,
who
obviously
are
an
important
partner
in
this
as
well
to
come
to
an
agreement
to
come
to
an
agreement
in
terms
of
how
to
go
forward
with
legal
aid
in
terms
of
what
funding
was
necessary
to
meet
those
most
core.
Most
basic
needs
like
this
isn't
a
a
luxurious
system.
H
It
was
a
system
that
was
designed
to
like
at
least
at
least
hit
those
those
men
minimums
those
Basics
and
a
lot
of
time
and
effort
went
into
setting
up
an
agreement
to
go
forward
and
everyone
signed
it
and
this
government
just
tossed
it
out
much
like
they
tossed
out
the
government,
the
contract
with
doctors
and
threatened
to
lay
off
nurses
after
the
pandemic,
and
it's
just
I
mean
it's
another
step,
it's
another
step,
but
yes,
legal
aid
is
in
a
critical
shortage
and
certainly
we
ought
to
see
more
funding
going
there.
H
H
I
have
because
I
think
when
the
government
talks
about
access
to
Justice,
what
they
should
be
doing
is
looking
at
what
the
needs
are
and
how
those
needs
are
best
met
and
and
I'm,
not
saying
that
this
doesn't
do
it
I'm
just
saying
that
no
evidence
has
been
provided
that
it
does
do
it
and
at
the
same
time,
that
this
costs
more
money,
we
have
legal
aid,
still
continuing
to
be
underfunded.
H
At
the
same
time,
incidentally,
Madam
speaker
that
the
the
government
is
continuing
to
raid
the
victims
of
crime
fund
to
fund
its
other
programs.
So
this
is
yeah.
It's
it's
problematic
and
I
would
like
to
know
a
little
more
about
it.
It
might
not
be
problematic,
but
I
would
like
to
know
a
little
more
about
why?
Why
this
specific
thing,
what
it's
intended
to
achieve?
Why
the
government
thinks
that
this
is?
You
know
the
the
best
throw
they
have
on
access
to
Justice?
H
And
you
know
what
they're
going
to
do
about
things
like
legal
aid?
What
they're
going
to
do
about
you
know
the
other
side
of
the
coin.
I.E
more
people
get
access
to
the
court
system,
but
more
people
wind
up
on
the
receiving
end
of
lawsuits
that
that
were
potentially
unmerited
and
those
people
can't
even
go
to
Legal
Aid
and
seek
legal
aid,
because
the
funding
just
isn't
there
so.
H
Yeah
I
mean
this:
has
the
potential
to
be
a
good
thing.
It
has
the
potential
to
be
an
extremely
problematic
thing.
Overall,
I
would
say:
I
mean
we're
generally
supportive
of
the
bill.
I
do
have
questions,
I
would
say
again
it's
one
of
those
yes
and
things.
Thank
you.
Honorable.
B
Members
are
there
others
wishing
to
speak
to
Second
reading
of
Bill
five
seeing
none
I
will
call
the
question
on
Bill
five,
the
on
second
reading
of
Bill
5,
the
Justice
statutes,
Amendment
act,
20
22
number:
two:
does
the
assembly
agree
to
the
motion
for
second
reading?
All
those
in
favor,
please
say
aye
any
opposed.
Please
say
no!
That
is
Carrie.
L
L
L
B
Members
I'd
like
to
call
Committee
of
the
whole
to
order
Committee
of
the
whole
is
under
consideration
bill
for
the
Alberta
Health
Care
insurance
Amendment
act
2022.
This
is
the
first
time
this
bill
is
being
considered
in
committee.
I
seek
a
speaker
for
a
bill
for
The
Honorable
member
for
Spruce
Grove,
Stony
Plain.
M
Very
much
Madam
chair,
I'm
honored,
to
rise
today
to
speak
to
Bill
4,
the
Alberta
Health
Care
insurance,
Amendment
Act
across
this
province.
Our
front
line
health
care
workers
have
dedicated
their
lives
to
ensuring
that
we
receive
the
best
care
possible
and
even
during
unprecedented
times
with
unimaginable
pressures,
our
Frontline
workers
acted
with
an
unwavering
dedication
to
serve
all
albertans,
whether
it
be
the
lingering
effects
of
the
Coba
19
pandemic.
The
current
wave
of
seasonal
flu
or
respiratory
viruses
or
simple
everyday
Health
Care
needs
our
physicians
continue
to
show
up
for
albertans
across
this
country.
M
However,
Frontline
healthcare
workers
are
not
being
given
the
support
they
need
and
as
a
father,
I
need
to
be
assured
that
when
my
family
gets
the
care
they
need
when
and
where
they
need
it,
it
will
be
there
when
they
need
it.
For
that
to
happen,
we
need
to
have
the
right
supports
in
place,
supports
that
acknowledge
and
address
the
challenges
our
physicians
are
facing
in
delivering
Essential
Health
Care
Services.
M
That
being
said,
I'm
proud
to
be
able
to
support
this
government
in
upholding
our
commitment
to
giving
our
world-class
Frontline
health
workers
the
the
support
that
they
need.
This
bill
allows
us
to
not
only
uphold
that
commitment,
Mr
Speaker,
but
to
strengthen
it
as
well.
By
ratifying
a
new
agreement
between
the
government
of
Alberta
and
the
Alberta
Medical
Association,
we
can
rebuild
our
relationship
with
Physicians
and
ensure
that
our
Burton
families
receive
the
best
care
possible.
M
M
Under
this
bill,
we
will
see
the
252
million
dollars
in
new
spending
over
four
years
on
targeted
initiatives,
59
million
in
annual
funding
and
16
million
in
one-time
Investments
targeted
at
communities
and
Specialties
facing
Recruitment
and
Retention
issues.
Now
this
funding
will
address
pressures,
including
Recruitment
and
Retention
programs,
so
moral
burdens
can
access
family
doctors
along
with
more
support
for
practice
viability.
The
list
goes
on
Madam
speaker.
Lump
sum
increases
for
Primary
Care
networks,
pcns
of
20
million
dollars
in
each
of
the
2022-2023
and
2023-24
will
provide
additional
support
for
primary.
M
M
Madam
speaker
under
the
leadership
of
the
minister
of
Health.
Our
government
has
been
sincere
over
the
past
year
and
showing
a
willingness
to
listen
to
acknowledge
the
challenges
in
the
Health
Care
system
and
to
do
something
about
it
and
that's.
Why
outlined
in
this
agreement?
Is
our
commitment
to
remove
section
40.2
of
the
Alberta
Health
Care
insurance
act
or
Bill
21,
as
some
people
call
it,
take
away
any
government's
ability
to
terminate
this
agreement
in
the
future
as
a
government.
This
agreement
allows
us
to
provide
stability
through
or
during
historically
volatile
times.
M
It
will
allow
us
to
work
together
with
with
Physicians
or
partners
and
to
provide
Innovative
innovative
solutions
regarding
things
like
payment
models
that
works
best
for
family
physicians
to
keep
their
practices
viable.
Madam
speaker.
The
agreement
also
sends
a
very
positive
message
to
Physicians
and
the
AMA
that
the
government
values
the
relationship
and
is
working
collaborative
collaboratively
to
strengthen
our
health
care
System.
M
We
hope
the
stronger
relationship
may
also
strengthen
attraction
and
retention
efforts,
especially
in
Rural
and
remote
communities
for
Physicians.
This
agreement
gives
them
the
voice
that
they
are
entitled
to
and
it
recognizes
Physicians
as
leaders
in
the
Health
Care
system
and
will
allow
them
to
have
an
expanded
role
at
the
table.
M
Madam
speaker,
the
fact
of
the
matter
is
that
we
have
just
experienced
a
historic
Global
pandemic,
one
that
inevitably
has
highlighted
some
of
the
cracks
in
our
country's
Health
Care
system
and
I
would
hope
that
the
members
opposite
agree
that
this
agreement
sets
the
right
tone
and
will
help
us
put
our
best
foot
forward
over
the
next
four
years.
As
we
start
to
repair
the
cracks
and
move
the
system
forward,
so
burdens
can
access
the
care
they
needed
when
they
need
it.
M
K
Thank
you,
madam
chair
I,
am
pleased
to
rise
to
speak
to
Bill
Forbes,
and
it's
interesting
as
I.
Listen
to
the
member
for
Spruce
Grove
and
his
comments
talking
about
how
indeed,
the
the
bill
which
rescinds
the
government
he
suggested
was
going
to
be
the
future
any
future
government's
right
to
tear
up
a
government,
a
contract
the
government
made
with
an
organization.
K
In
this
case
it
was
doctors
that
suggests
that
would
be
forever
done
with
I'm
thinking
Madam
chair,
that
in
doctors
Minds,
that
that
is
the
farthest
thing
from
from
what
they
believe
to
be
the
truth,
because,
indeed,
if
it
happened
once
they
probably
feel
quite
certain
that
it
can
be
made
to
happen
again.
This
is
not
a
a
permanent
peace,
Accord
Madam
speaker
Madam
chair.
It's
perhaps,
is
a
a
a
period
of
truce,
but
it
certainly
is
not
something
that
will
be
forgotten
or
forgiven.
K
I
remember
the
final
words
in
one
of
the
movies
that
I've
seen
a
long
time
ago
was
The
Killing
Fields
about
the
War
I
was
in
Cambodia,
where
lots
of
lots
of
people
were
taken
hostage
and
murdered
by
the
Khmer
Rouge,
and
one
of
the
individuals
who
was
incarcerated
was
a
a
journalist
who
was
Asian
and
he
was
associated
with
an
American.
K
He
ended
up
spending
lots
of
time
in
a
tournament
camp
and
got
finally
was
able
to
escape
and
the
American
journalists
went
overseas
to
see
him
and
he
sought
forgiveness
and
the
individual
who
had
been
suffering.
The
incarceration
said
nothing
is
Forgiven
and
I.
Think
that's
the
same
thing
that
that
holds
true
for
the
doctors
in
this
province
who
suffered
the
ignominy
of
of
having
their
contract
torn
up
under
the
terms
of
Bill,
21
and
now
being
rescinded.
K
That
power
being
extended
under
the
terms
of
Bill
4
and
the
the
government
members
are
are
looking
for
for
a
pat
on
the
back
they're
looking
for
forgiveness
and
I
won't
deign
to
speak
for
the
doctors,
but
I
can't
imagine
that
forgiveness
is
the
first
thing
on
their
mind
when
they
see
Bill
four,
because
indeed
the
the
hatchet,
the
guillotine,
still
hangs
above
their
head
in
the
memory
of
that
bill,
21,
which
which
eviscerated
their
contract
will
never
ever
be
forgotten
and
forever
be
abstained
and
oblite
upon
a
relationship
between
government
and
our
doctors,
and
indeed
the
the
Whole
Health
Care
system.
K
In
this
province,
a
Wild
Bill
4
does
repeal
the
government's
right
to
extinguish
or
tear
up
or
rescind
or
kill
or
eviscerate
or
cremate.
However,
you
we
want
to
describe
it:
the
raped
to
the
government,
the
the
the
doctor's
contracts.
The
government
has
continued
to
find
other
ways
of
other
means
to
diminish
the
role
of
the
medical
professionals
in
this
province,
while,
while
boasting
about
Bill
4,
which
retracts
the
switchblade,
the
government
used
to
carve
out
this
signature
from
the
contract
with
doctors,
the
new
premier
ads
insults.
K
K
Some
reward
from
the
medical
community
in
this
province,
and
that
is
by
advocating
from
the
highest
office
of
this
province
from
the
premier's
mouth,
advocating
that
people
actually
get
their
their
children
and
themselves
vaccinated
against
the
flu,
which
is
causing
our
emergency
systems
to
our
emergency
rooms,
to
be
overloaded
and
for
for
one
small
utterance.
The
price
that
we're
paying
or
for
for
lack
of
that
utterance.
The
price
that
we
repeat,
we're
paying
is
is
an
unforgivable
one.
It's
Petty
that
we,
we
can't
hear
the
premier
say
those
words
get
yourself
vaccinated.
K
We
hear
it
in
government
advertising,
we
hear
the
health
Minister
say
it
Madam
chair,
but
for
the
premier
today
to
say
that
is
somehow
beneath
her
somehow
it's
a
slight
to
her
right-wing
rump,
which
is
actually
dictating
to
the
government,
its
own
policy.
So
that's
an
embarrassment
to
Madam
chair
that
albertans
are
scratching
their
head
at
and
I
find
that,
on
the
doors
repeatedly
I
hear
about
the
things
that
government
has
done
and
one
of
the
top
of
Mind
things
that
is
remembered
by
people
in
this
province
is
how
the
doctors
contracts
were
torn
up.
K
People
still
have
a
very
great
respect
for
the
medical
profession
in
this
province
and
they
do
not
put
the
blame
at
the
foot
of
doctors
and
nurses
and
LPNs
for
the
failures
of
this
government
to
manage
the
the
pandemic
and
manage
the
now
respiratory
disease
outbreak
that
we
have
this
province
going
through.
They
put
it
squarely
at
the
foot
of
the
government
and
is
plain
to
see
why
Madam
chair
when
the
premier
won't
even
come
out
and
say
two
Val
Burtons
I
encourage
you
to
go
out
and
get
vaccinated
against
the
flu.
K
It's
a
safety
measure,
it's
a
Health
Management
measure
to
protect
each
other.
It's
it
is
mind-boggling
that
one
sees
this
type
of
behavior
from
the
premier
and
it's
really
mind-boggling
to
albertans
a
witness
it
time
and
time
again
on
a
doorstep.
Madam
chair
and
it's
embarrassing
frankly
to
to
see
this
sin
of
omission
by
a
premier
who
knows
full
well
knows
full
well,
even
though
she
doesn't
want
to
admit
it
publicly
that
vaccines
work
and
they
work
against
flu
transmission
and
it
will
save
lives.
K
It
will
help
from
having
our
hospital
system
overwhelmed
in
the
next
little
while,
if
it
already
isn't
overwhelmed,
I've
spoken
with
doctors
at
the
Missouri
cardio
Hospital
Madam
chair
who,
in
response
to
my
question
about
what
would
it
take
to
have
to
to
be
the
final
straw
that
breaks
the
camel's
back?
And
he
looked
at
me
both
and
said
it's
already
broken.
K
We're
seeing
premature
deaths
happen
as
well,
Madam
chair
and
that's
a
disgrace
to
this
province
and
disgraceful
Behavior
by
this
government
that
indeed
we're
having
those
things
happen
in
our
hospitals,
and
it
just
simply
requires
a
a
more
forthright
acceptance
of
real
facts
and
real
science
by
particularly
the
leader
of
the
government,
the
new
premier
of
this
province.
So
congratulations!
No,
that's
not
what
doctors
and
not
what
nurses
are
going
to
be
extolling
upon
the
government.
They
want
to
hear
from
the
premier
get
vaccinated,
wear
a
mask
indoors.
I
mean
my
grandfather.
K
He
didn't
recognize
him.
Madam
chair
because
he
was
wearing
a
mask
to
protect
themselves
against
the
Spanish
Flu
in
18..
So
a
hundred
years
ago,
over
a
hundred
years
ago,
Madam
chair
people
knew
well
enough
60
miles
north
of
this,
this
city
of
Edmonton
and
this
legislature
to
protect
themselves
from
the
Spanish
Flu
a
pandemic.
Then,
and
yet
here
in
this
day
and
age
in
2022,
where
the
premier,
who
won't
utter
the
words
please
go,
get
yourself
vaccinated
I,
encourage
albertans
to
protect
each
other,
come
together
as
a
province
and
protect
each
other.
K
That's
the
type
of
leadership
we're
seeing
in
this
province
for
that.
This
government
hopes
to
be
congratulated
for
rescinding
something
as
onerous
ability
to
tear
up
a
government
contract
with
doctors,
unforgivable
Madam,
speak
Madam,
chair,
unforgivable
and
other
ways
that
the
the
government
is
is
finding
to
create
a
poor
relationship
with
the
doctors,
nurses
and
other
health
care
providers
in
this
province.
K
Continue
to
Astound
me,
I
I,
hear
on
one
one
side
of
the
coin:
the
government
members
saying
my
goodness
they're
doing
wonderful
jobs,
they're
doing
excellent
things
and
then
the
on
the
other
side
of
the
coin
felt
justified
in
tearing
up
the
doctor's
contract.
So
what
changed
then
and
now?
Why
was
it
so
justifiable
to
tear
up
a
bona
fide
legitimate
contract
yeah?
Well,
probably
president
the
lawsuit
was
coming.
K
That
might
have
been
one
reason
sure,
but
now
now
they're
apologetic
for
it
I
haven't
really
heard
apologies,
but
I've
heard
the
the
request
for
for
congratulations
for
for
doing
so.
Nothing
so
despicable
can
I.
Think
of
has
ever
happened
in
terms
of
relationship
between
doctors
and
the
government
of
Alberta,
and
it's
in
emblematic
Madam,
chair
of
the
type
of
dictatorial
powers
that
this
government
likes
to
exercise
and
then
apologize
for
them
later.
K
They
tried
to
get
away
with
something
in
Bill,
one
that
we
railed
against,
and
all
albertans
railed
against
legal
Scholars
railed
against
giving
themselves
the
power
to
change
legislation
and
create
legislation
within
cabinet
behind
closed
doors.
Now
that
little
element
of
it,
which
was
significant
departure
from
normal
legislative
practice
in
the
Westminster
Parliament,
was
taken
out
of
the
bill,
but
there's
still
many
many
parts
of
that
piece
of
the
legislation
in
Bill
one
which
will
affect
us
for
for
forever.
K
If,
indeed,
it's
allowed
to
stand-
and
you
can
bet
that
we
won't
allow
to
stand,
should
we
hold
office
in
May
of
2023,
so
Bill
4
is
yet
another
example
Madam
chair
of
the
Draconian
tactics
that
this
government
will
use
and
then
apologize
for
later,
expecting
thanks
and
forgiveness,
to
be
granted
by
the
province
of
Alberta
by
the
population
of
Alberta
and
that's
not
going
to
be
forthcoming.
Mr
Speaker.
K
This
is
one
of
many
Achilles
heels
that
this
government
has
created
for
itself
in
hopes
of
serving
its
right-wing
flank,
which
has
taken
over
the
party
which
is
now
sitting
in
the
front
benches
of
the
party
and
government
is
not
recognized
by
by
the
people
in
this
province.
There
was
maybe
a
small
percentage,
maybe
15
20
I'm,
not
sure
the
percentage,
but
tell
you
what
Madam
chair,
I
I
the
other
day
that
Mr
dieffenbaker
and
other
major
conservatives
historically
in
this
country
would
be
rolling
in
their
graves.
K
To
see
what
this
purported
conservative
party
has
become,
and
I
I
know
that
my
own
mother,
who
is
a
former
conservative
supporter,
would
would,
with
her
limited
capacity
right
now,
even
turn
the
TV
off
when
she
hears
the
current
Premier
coming
to
speak,
and
that's
that's
saying
something:
Madam
speaker,
because
I
thought
that
she
was
not
capable
of
that
type
of
analysis
still,
but
believe
me,
Premier,
has
elicited
things
from
from
my
mother's
capacity.
K
That
I
didn't
think
still
existed
and
I
was
I
was
pleasantly
surprised
about
that,
but
very
disturbed
that
it
took
that
length
and
that
depth
of
of
problematic
dictatorial
capacity
exercised
by
our
Premier
to
to
to
show
that
capacity
still
existed
in
my
mother's
critical
analysis
ability.
So
nothing
could
be
further
from
the
truth.
Madam
chair
that
the
the
doctors
and
the
Health
Care
Professionals
in
this
province
are
are
coming
to
a
correct.
K
Congratulate
the
the
government
for
rescinding
the
onerous
measure
in
Bill
21
by
enacting
bill
for
the
health
care
insurance
Amendment
act,
there's
a
very
large
fear
that
will
always
remain
within
that
profession
that
they
can
do
it
again.
They
they
did
it
without
shame
the
first
time
and
believe
me,
Madam,
chair
that
Maxim
Rings,
true
from
the
end
of
the
the
last
line
of
the
movie
The
Killing
Fields,
with
respect
to
doctors
and
the
relationship
between
doctors
and
the
medical
and
and
the
government
of
Alberta
Nothing
Is
Forgiven.
N
Well,
thank
you,
madam
chair,
for
the
opportunity
to
rise
and
speak
once
again
to
bill
for,
and
I
I
want
to
extend
my
thanks
to
the
members
of
the
assembly
for
their
comments
during
the
second
reading
and
during
the
the
committee
of
the
whole,
in
particular
to
my
colleague
that
I'm
looking
across
the
way
that
Spruce
Grove
Stony
Plain
for
his
comments
and
I
also
want
to
thank
all
members
here
for
their
support
for
this
bill.
It
is
truly
greatly
appreciated.
N
As
I
said
during
Second
reading
Madam
chair,
we
acknowledge
the
health
system
is
under
pressure
and
is
facing
significant
challenges.
Physicians
and
Healthcare
professionals
are
facing
strain.
It
is
a
difficult
time
and
their
dedication
to
caring
for
albertans
is
truly
valued
and,
and
once
again,
I
say
thank
you
to
all
of
them.
Now
these
challenges,
contrary
to
the
assertions
made
during
Second
reading,
are
not
unique
to
Alberta
and
and
are
not
the
results
of
government
policy,
but
rather
other
results
are
particularly
challenging.
N
Respiratory
virus
season
and
the
impacts
of
covid
they're
happening
in
jurisdictions
across
the
country
and
indeed
the
entire
world
Madam
chair,
Alberta's
government,
is
taking
concrete
action
to
address
these
challenges
facing
the
system.
Examples
include
a
new
official
administrator
for
AHS
and
a
concrete
AHS
reform
plan.
That
plan
tackles
EMS
response
times
decreasing
ER
wait
times,
reductions
and
surgery
wait
times
and
longer
term
reforms
through
consultations
with
Frontline
workers
to
be
able
to
push
down
decision
making
and
enable
and
support
Frontline
workers
in
providing
care
to
albertans
that
they
greatly
need
and
so
greatly
deserve.
N
And,
of
course,
the
new
agreement
with
the
Alberta
Medical
Association
is
another
example
of
concrete
action.
Now
we
are
confident
the
agreement
will
help
stabilize
the
health
system
target
areas
of
concern
and
support,
albertans
and
Health
Care
needs.
The
agreement
has
significant
Investments
to
address
occurring
challenges
and
issues
brought
forward
by
physicians
during
our
conversations
Madam
chair.
N
It
is
an
agreement
that
focuses
on
partnership
working
closely
with
the
AMA
and
stability
by
adding
an
estimated
750
million
dollars
to
the
budget
to
stabilize
the
Health
Care
System,
including
260
million
in
targeted
funding
to
address
various
pressures.
And
finally,
it
is
an
agreement
about
Innovation.
This
is
about
working
jointly
with
doctors,
promote
different
pay
models.
There
were
comments
made
during
Second
reading
about
Physicians,
leaving
Alberta
and
to
be
perfectly
clear.
Madam,
chair,
physician
retention
and
recruitment
is
one
of
our
top
priorities.
N
But
we
know
thank
you.
We
know
there
is
more
work
to
do
particularly
to
have
the
right
number
of
doctors
in
the
right
places
throughout
our
Province.
So
we
will
continue
to
work
to
address
these
issues.
Madam
chair
I
also
want
to
take
a
moment
to
address
comments
made
that
members
made
during
the
second
reading
debate.
Regarding
the
issue
of
trust
since
becoming
Health
Minister.
One
of
my
top
priorities
has
been
the
relationship
with
Physicians.
N
I've
listened
to
them,
acknowledge
the
difficulties
they're
facing,
as
well
as
the
challenges
that
we
are
facing
collectively
in
our
Health
Care
system
and
I've
committed
to
taking
action
to
address
these
challenges.
I
was
personally
at
the
bargaining
table.
Madam
chair,
I,
respect,
Alberta's
Physicians
full
stop
we'll
be
working
with
the
AMA
as
very
close
Partners
in
the
weeks
and
months
ahead,
and
we
will
continue
working
together
to
implement
the
agreement
to
address
other
key
issues
related
to
physician
compensation.
N
Madam
chair,
the
bill
of
force
is
about
following
through
on
our
promise,
to
the
AMA
and
to
Physicians,
and
it
is
a
further
step
toward
continuing
an
environment
of
partnership.
It
repeals
section
40.2
of
the
Alberta
Healthcare
Insurance
act.
This
section
of
the
ACT
allows
governments
to
terminate
compensated
related
agreements
and
if
the
bills
pass,
the
government's
mechanism
for
terminating
the
new
AMA
agreement
will
be
removed.
As
we
committed
to
do
in
the
agreement,
the
legislation
is
no
longer
required.
N
There
is
now
a
defined
term
for
the
agreement
and
a
process
and
timelines
in
place
for
negotiating
and
amending
a
successor
agreement.
Bill
4
also
proposes
a
housekeeping
amendment
to
update
language
in
the
health
care
insurance
act
to
reflect
the
updated
title
of
the
Minister
of
Justice.
It
was
previously
the
Minister
of
Justice
and
solicitor
general
to
conclude
Madam
chair
I
want
to
thank
albertan's,
Physicians
and
all
health
care
providers
for
their
tireless
work
and
selfless
commitment
over
the
past
few
challenging
years.
N
Our
government
appreciates
the
tremendous
contributions
Physicians
make
on
the
front
line
and
the
Health
Care
System
each
and
every
single
day.
Alberta's
government
is
deeply
appreciative
of
their
critical
role
once
again,
I
thank
all
members
of
this
house
for
their
support
of
Bill,
4
and
Madam
chair.
Thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
speak
once
again.
H
H
So
this
government
is
is
patting
itself
on
the
back
talking
about
upholding
their
commitment
and
ratifying
a
new
agreement.
But
what
about
Madam
chair
sorry?
What
about
we
made
a
mistake?
What
about
we
apologize?
None
of
those
words
seem
to
be
coming
from
the
folks
over
there
and
Madam
chair
the
ought
to
apologize,
because
not
only
is
this
reversing
a
bad
decision
that
they
made,
but
they
cannot
reverse
the
damage.
The
decision
caused
Physicians
take
a
long
time
to
train
four
years
of
undergrad
four
years
of
medical
school
internship
residency.
H
They
take
a
long
time
to
change
chain,
you're
looking
at
at
least
a
decade,
and
so
those
Physicians
that
this
bad
decision
on
the
behalf
of
the
government
has
forced
out
of
our
Province
will
take
a
very
long
time.
Madam
chair
to
replace
and
albertans
are
suffering.
Albertans
are
suffering
right
now.
H
There
are
tens
of
thousands
of
people
in
the
City
of
Lethbridge
alone
without
a
family
physician
part
of
the
part
of
the
problem
with
why
our
ERS
and
our
paramedics
are
presently
overwhelmed
is
because
many
people
have
no
access
to
primary
care
when
people
have
no
access
to
Primary
Care
and
let
us
be
clear,
the
government's
original
decision
to
tear
up
that
agreement
was
aimed
at
Family
Physicians.
It
was
aimed
at
Primary
Care.
There
was
no
question,
it
was
clear
in
their
messaging.
H
It
was
clear
in
their
actions
and
that
decision
has
had
huge
impacts
and
what
happens
when
people
don't
have
access
to
Primary
Care
Madam
chair
is
that
they
get
sicker
and
it
costs
more
to
treat
them.
It
is
worse
for
the
individuals,
it
is
worse
for
the
system
as
a
whole,
and
it
is
worse
for
the
budget
and
the
bottom
line,
it's
worse
in
every
conceivable
way.
Madam
chair
and
this
government
just
stomped
in
and
made
those
decisions
without
considering
the
ramifications
of
their
actions.
H
H
Wasn't
egregiously
bad
decision
and
no
one's
saying
that
there
aren't
challenges
in
other
jurisdictions,
no
one's
saying
that
everyone
isn't
struggling
with
respiratory
illnesses
and
Health
Care
Systems.
But
this
government
chose
to
make
a
bad
situation
worse.
They
chose
to
stop
in
and
rip
up
the
contract
with
doctors
they
told
to
chose
to
publicly
attack
Family
Physicians
and
drive
them
out
of
the
province
at
the
worst
possible
time.
They
chose
to
drive
the
Health
Care
system
to
the
red
line
over
and
over
and
over
again
exhausting
Health
Care
Professionals
throughout
the
province.
H
They
chose
to
threaten
nurses,
with
laying
them
off
as
soon
as
the
pandemic
was
over.
They
chose
to
try
to
roll
back
the
the
salaries
of
respiratory
illness,
respiratory
therapists
and
many
other
Health
Care
Professionals
in
the
midst
of
a
pandemic,
when
it
was
the
worst
possible
decision.
H
Well,
Madam
chair.
That's
not
good
enough!
It
doesn't
fix
the
damage
that
was
done.
You
know
sure
the
government
has
repealed
its
ability
to
tear
up
the
contract
with
doctors,
but
I
mean
they
didn't
have
the
ability
when
they
came
in
and
they
went
ahead
and
passed
legislation
to
Grant
themselves
that
ability.
So
what
gives
us
any
assurance
that
they
won't
do
it
again?
They've
demonstrated
a
total
disrespect
for
for
laws
for
contracts
for
promises.
H
For
what
people
are
owed
for
for
Duty
for
the
Health
Care
system
for
the
public
I,
don't
know
you
know
they've
repealed
it
for
now,
because
they
say
it's
no
longer
necessary.
Well,
Madam
chair
was
never
necessary
in
the
first
place,
when
was
attacking
doctors
necessary?
What
made
that
necessary?
H
I,
don't
think
anything.
So
yes,
this
is
a
good
bill.
It
fixes
a
very
big
mistake
that
the
government
made,
but
normally
when
you
make
a
big
mistake
and
you
try
try
your
best
to
undo
it.
Even
though
again
you
can't
under
undo
the
consequences
you
can't
unders
undo
the
the
trust,
the
damage
to
the
trust
there
was
a
contract
in
place.
There
was
a
a
promise,
a
promise.
A
contract
is
a
promise
to
these
positions,
and
this
government
went
back
on
that
promise.
They
broke
that
trust
and
it
doesn't
just
reappear.
H
H
Meanwhile,
the
fact
that
they
pushed
the
system
to
the
verge
of
collapse,
no
apology
for
that.
No
apology
for
this
action.
We
have
a
premier
now,
who
won't
even
tell
people
to
get
their
flu
shot
in
one
of
the
worst
flu
seasons.
In
recent
memory
we
have
a
premier
who
won't
tell
people
to
get
their
flu
shots.
We
have
a
Health
Care
system
that
is
overwhelmed
and
a
government
unwilling
to
do
the
least
that
they
possibly
can
so
sure.
H
H
Madam
chair
I
am
I,
am
appalled
that
the
government
would
not
apologize
for
this
decision.
I
am
appalled
that
the
government
this
would
refuse
to
apologize
would
would
expect
to
be
congratulated.
You
know
this
should
be.
H
I
think
Madam
chair
that
I
have
made
that
point
fairly
fairly.
Clearly,
at
this
point,
I
I
could
go
on
at
length,
but
I
will
I
will
leave
it
there
and
Madam
chair
with
that.
I
will
adjourn
debate.
B
B
O
O
This
is
certainly
I.
I
will
say.
This
is
something
that
I
have
heard
from
constituents
about
now,
admittedly,
not
many,
but
it
has
been
brought
to
my
attention.
For
example,
just
recently
I
was
out
at
an
event
and
I
met
a
gentleman,
and
we
were
talking,
he
said
hey
by
the
way.
My
dad
is
your
constituent
and
I'd
like
to
get
him
in
touch
with
you,
because
he
has
an
issue
on
his
property
with
an
abandoned
oil
and
gas.
O
Well,
now,
I
recognize
that's
not
specifically
about
the
sorts
of
things
we're
talking
about
here
in
terms
of
adverse
possession,
but
it
is
connected
with
the
question
of
property
rights
and
indeed,
I
was
able
to
help
his
father.
He
was
having
some
trouble
accessing
the
documents
online
to
be
able
to
file
his
application
to
be
able
to
make
a
claim
about
the
neglect
of
the
particular
company,
that's
responsible
for
the
oil
and
gas.
O
I
am
also
aware
of
the
situations
can
have
just
through,
of
course,
situations
between
landlords
and
tenants.
I
know
that
this
has
been
something
that's
been
exacerbated
lately,
particularly
with
challenges
around
housing,
prices
and
I.
Remember
recently:
reading
a
story
online
of
a
woman
in
B
in
Ontario,
who
had
put
used
all
of
her
savings
to
buy
a
property,
a
condominium
that
she
was
going
to
move
into
a
townhouse
and
in
buying
it
discovered
that
there
was
a
tenant
living
there
that
she
had
not
known
about.
O
And
I
know
this
has
been
quite
a
process.
This
is
a
question.
That's
been
debated
for
some
time,
indeed,
the
current
Premier,
the
first
time
she
was
here
in
this
house
as
leader
of
the
official
opposition
and
then
a
member
of
the
government
party
after
she
crossed
the
floor.
But
before
that
part
she
indeed
was
speaking
quite
a
bit
as
a
as
a
leader,
then
of
the
Wild
Rose
party,
about
the
issue
of
property
rights
in
the
province
of
Alberta.
O
The
blog
post
was
published
in
August
of
last
year
in
2021.,
and
she
talked
about
some
of
that
review
that
they
did,
and
indeed
they
went
out
and
talked
with
albertans
and
approximately
87
percent
of
the
folks
that
they
surveyed
agreed
that
adverse
possession
should
be
abolished
in
Alberta,
so
strong
support.
O
O
Or
suggesting
that
it's
a
good
way
to
adjust
property
boundaries,
I
I,
can't
say,
I
find
much
sympathy
with
that.
Madam
chair
the
idea
that
a
property
owner
should
have
to
regularly
go
out
and
inspect
and
make
sure
that
nobody
is
squatting
on
their
property
that
nobody
happens
to
have
built
a
Shack
or
taken
over
some
other
space
or
move
defense,
and
while
they
weren't
looking
and
therefore
they
should
be
punished
by
losing
that
portion
of
their
property.
That
does
not
make
sense
to
me
so
certainly
I'm,
happy
I
think
to
support
this
bill.
O
So
there
are
a
few
thoughts
as
we
sort
of
take
a
look
at
this
legislation
and
consider
what
some
of
the
potential
impacts
might
be
again,
agreeing
with
the
overall
principle
of
the
bill
and
the
concept
and
moving
in
the
direction,
but
certainly
some
questions
about
the
impacts.
It
might
have
now.
Certainly
I
think,
as
some
other
members
on
our
side
of
the
house
have
noted.
O
It's
an
egregious
oversight,
an
intentional
Choice
Mr
chair
to
abrogate
and
ignore
the
duty
to
consult
that
this
government
knew
it
had
and
the
condescension
that
we
have
seen
coming
from
this
premier
and
she
tries
to
suggest
that.
Well,
it's
not
really
a
big
deal,
we'll
talk
to
them.
After
the
fact.
It's
not
really
what's
important
to
them.
There's
lots
of
other
things.
O
O
O
Which
is
why
we
want
to
ensure
that,
with
this
bill,
the
government
has
indeed
done
due
in
proper
consultation
with
First,
Nations,
metis
and
Inuit
rights
holders,
and
certainly
looking
for
them
to
make
clear
on
the
record
that
their
intent
with
respect
to
indigenous
right
holders
for
with
respect
to
exercising
the
treaty
rights
and
their
traditional
activities
on
the
land
Mr
chair,
and
it
was
interesting.
Actually
I,
listened
to
a
podcast
called
Canada
land
and
they
cover
a
wide
range
of
topics.
O
O
So
certainly
I
think
it's
important
that
when
we
are
bringing
forward
a
piece
of
legislation
like
this,
which
indeed
is
doing
a
good
thing
again
to
be
clear,
I
support
the
principle
of
the
legislation
and
the
removal
of
adverse
possession.
But
we
will
need
to
be
absolutely
sure
that,
as
we
do,
that
there
has
been
the
proper
consultation
and
that
nothing
in
this
act
will
in
fact
impact
those
treaty
rights.
O
So
we
certainly
do
have
the
question
and
I
apologize.
If
perhaps
during
the
debate,
when
I
have
not
been
present
in
the
house,
if
a
member
of
government
has
stood
or
perhaps
the
minister
of
indigenous
relations
or
the
Minister
of
Justice
has
stood
and
explained
what
consultation
took
place
with
First
Nations,
but
certainly
I.
Think
that
would
be
important
to
put
on
the
record
in
this
house.
O
O
With
funding
for
legal
aid
for
individuals
that
may
not
be
able
to
afford
a
lawyer
or
in
certain
situations,
if
we
do
not
have
an
opportunity
for
them
to
seek
some
other
resolution,
then
if
then,
in
effect,
the
change
that's
being
made
in
law
is
ineffective.
For
them,
it
is
not
accessible
to
them
because
they
do
not
have
the
means
to
be
able
to
actually
access
the
justice
that
they
are
entitled
to
now.
O
O
It's
my
understanding
that
the
committee
that
was
undertaking
the
review
that
has
led
to
this
legislation
indeed
heard
from
many
landowners
on
the
context
of
surface
rights,
specifically
like
this
situation,
for
my
constituent,
where
an
oil
or
gas
well
has
been
orphaned
or
abandoned,
or
where
companies
have
tax
arrears
and
money.
That's
owed
to
the
property
owners.
O
So
it
would
be
helpful
to
get
a
bit
more
clarity
on
how
or
if
this
legislation
will
actually
help
these
individuals
as
they
are
seeking
remediation
of
their
property
or
seeking
to
be
compensated
for
the
arrears
that
they
are
owed
and
if,
in
fact,
this
bill
is
not
going
to
help
them
to
get
there.
The
question
is,
then:
what
steps
is
this
government
intending
to
take?
O
P
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
Thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
speak
to
Bill
number
three
start
with
a
couple
of
words.
It's
time
and
I'll
probably
end
with
the
same
words
Madam
chair,
I
first
became
aware
of
adverse
possession
in
about
2016.
When
one
of
my
constituents
was
facing
a
claim
of
adverse
possession.
Oddly,
we
always
think
of
adverse
possession
squatters
rights
in
a
rural
context,
but
this
was
in
an
urban
context
in
my
constituency
and
sadly,
the
Good
Neighbor
policy
is
not
something
to
be
presumed.
P
In
this
case,
a
fence
had
been
in
the
wrong
place
for
about
10
years.
It
was
just
reading
up
on
the
the
law
reform
institute's,
citing
of
this
mortar
versus
mcindo
Jim
mcindo,
is
my
constituent,
as
was
the
The
More
Mr
Moore
as
well,
but
that
fence
had
been
in
place.
They
knew
it
was
in
the
wrong
place
for
the
10
years
plus
a
date.
It
was
a
little
bit
longer
than
that
and
the
the
person
who
claimed
the
adverse
possession
was
not
an
easy
neighbor.
P
So
hence
they
knew
the
defense
was
in
the
wrong
place,
but
they
left
that
in
place.
But
when
the
defense
was
starting
to
become
a
little
bit
decrepit,
they
contacted
the
neighbor
and
said
it's
time
to
to
move
that
fence
to
to
rebuild
it,
which
they
would
pay
the
half
cost
of
and
to
put
it
in
the
appropriate
place.
P
Shortly
thereafter,
they
received
a
claim
of
adverse
possession
against
about
800
square
feet
of
his
land,
which
then
resulted
in
my
getting
involved
with
that
I
was
in
2016..
It
was
all
for
my
support.
A
constituent,
just
the
other
one
gained,
was
to
lose
about
800
square
feet
of
his
lot.
Now
it
happens
to
be
a
lot.
That's
on
a
lake
fairly
expensive
property.
P
If
you
look
back
a
little
bit
as
early
as
1989
the
Alberta
law
reform,
Institute
took
a
look
at
that.
In
fact,
Sandra
Peterson
did
a
full
report
in
1992.
guess
what
that
report
was
basically
coined
as
something
for
nothing
and
that's
exactly
what
my
constituents
neighbor
got
something
for
nothing
in
fact,
that
neighbor
had
been
cited
previously
for
encroaching
on
some
Community
lands,
which
was
the
lake
access
before
and
had
been
sued
and
had
to
move
his
fence.
P
So
this
was
not
only
somebody
who
was
not
a
great
neighbor,
but
they
were
a
Serial,
not
great
neighbor,
very
sad
for
the
situation
at
that
time.
So
the
Alberta
law
reform
Institute
took
a
look
at
that
in
in
1989
1992
2003,
where
in
fact
one
of
the
quotes
in
their
report
was
the
recognition
that
the
proposition
of
adverse
possession
was
absurd.
P
In
2012
Emily
Ken
Allred,
who
I
actually
interacted
with
significantly
on
this,
he
happens
to
be
a
land
surveyor
by
profession
as
well.
In
2012
he
had
motion
507,
which
was
actually
passed
but
was
never
taken
forward.
He
then
in
2000
and
sorry
that
was
in
2011
2012.
He
managed
to
get
a
draw
of
Bill
204
and
that,
unfortunately
made
it
past
second
reading
and
was
was
ended
through
a
pro
roguing
of
the
legislature.
At
that
time.
P
We
also
know
that,
interestingly
enough,
Bill
204
seems
to
be
a
magic
number,
because
Pat
steer
brought
that
forward
in
2017
and
then
I
actually
had
Bill
204
draw
in
2018,
which
was
actually
pushed
back
to
the
Alberta
law
reform
Institute
by
the
then
Minister
of
Justice
and
and
was
again
delayed
again
so
I'll
use
those
words
that
I
started
with
it's
time
since
that
time
and
watching
it
very
closely.
There's
been
obviously
research
done
by
the
Alberta
law,
reform,
Institute
and
many
other
bodies
in
July
2019.
There
was
an
interim
report.
P
April
of
2020.
We
had
a
full
report
again.
Number
one
recommendation
was
the
abolition
of
adverse
possession
with
some
conditions
on
some
of
the
other
legislation
that
needed
to
be
changed
with
it.
We've
had,
you
know,
repeated
recommendations
for
abolition
of
adverse
possession
from
the
Alberta
property
rights
Advocate
from
the
resource
stewardship
committee,
based
on
many.
In
most
cases,
the
reports
from
the
Alberta
property
rights
Advocate.
P
Interestingly
enough,
there
was
another
article
around
that
time
done
by
Miller,
Thompson
Law
Firm
and
their
title
of
their
report
for
the
Public's
consumption
was
what's.
Yours
is
mine,
and
that
is
what
adverse
possession
has
been
in
this
province.
P
Sadly,
and
it
is
outdated
and
it's
time
to
move
it
on
Madam
chair
when
we
look
at
some
of
the
the
quotes
around
some
of
the
the
issues
there
and
the
what
yours
is
mine,
it
says
the
reader
is,
is
then
transported
back
in
time
to
Medieval
England
to
Bear,
witness
as
historical
forces
forged
the
law
into
twin
principles
of
Extinction
and
acquisition
from
the
Regal
Court
of
Henry
II.
So
here
we
reach
back
into
history
and
see
where
this
came
into
play.
P
When
are
you
going
to
stop
this
happening
to
one
of
my
neighbors
one
of
your
constituents
and,
and
many
of
you
may
know,
I
was
in
the
Home
Building
business.
So
when
we
start
thinking
of
this
in
an
urban
context,
just
think
about
it,
so
you've
got
an
infill
lot.
That's
25
feet
wide.
The
fence
on
one
side
goes
a
little
bit
short
six
inches
back
in
into
the
wrong
side,
and
the
one
on
the
other
side
goes
for
10
years.
You
get
adverse
possession
claims
on
both
sides.
P
Now
the
people
have
a
24
foot
lot
and
they
don't
meet
setbacks
anymore.
So
legally
the
city
could
come
and
say
your
your
lot
doesn't
reach
setbacks,
anymore.
Tear
the
house
down.
This
is
a
time
bomb
waiting
to
hit
us
in
the
urban
environment.
We
think
of
it
in
a
rural
environment,
but
if
it
hits
somewhere
and
people
don't
you
know
the
fence
goes
in.
Where
do
fences
usually
go
you
pull
the
old
posts
out?
P
You
put
the
new
ones
back
in
the
same
hole,
because
it's
the
easiest
thing
to
do
goes
the
decade
after
decade
after
decade,
in
communities.
How
often
do
they
call
a
server
here
and
say?
Could
you
make
sure
we're
right
on
the
center
of
the
line?
It
doesn't
happen,
but
it
can
be
as
as
we
found
out
in
this
situation,
that
a
neighbor
who
is
maybe
not
exercising
The
Good
Neighbor
policy
says
that
thanks,
it's
mine,
I'll,
take
it
with
zero
compensation.
P
Then
they
have
to
go
to
the
city
and
they
actually
have
to
have
a
subdivision
appeal
which
shouldn't
be
allowed.
He
said
to
me:
well
if
they
can,
if
they
can
take
like
eight
feet
of
my
land
and
a
foot
and
a
half
at
the
front
off,
maybe
I
should
just
split
my
land
into
two
sell
them
for
two
million
dollars
a
lot
and
we'll
build
a
couple
of
nice
condos
on
this
spot
on
the
lake.
P
So
it
gets
from
the
ridiculous
to
The
observed
Madam
chair.
It
is
past
time,
I
really
I'm
appreciative
of
the
work
done
by
the
Minister
of
Justice.
To
finally
take
this
and
put
it
to
paper.
I
know
that
MLA
Ken
Allred
was
is.
Is
there
cheering
us
on
to
get
this
done
once
and
for
all?
He
and
I
have
been
talking
almost
consistently
since
2016,
when
I
first
became
aware
of
this
all
the
fits
and
starts
of
trying
to
get
this
pass
and
we're.
Finally
there.
P
In
fact,
my
property,
my
constituents
at
all
of
our
constituents,
property
so
Madam,
chair.
Now
is
the
time
it's
time
for
us
to
get
this
done
for
us
to
quit.
Delaying
for
us
to
quit.
Punting
it
down
the
road
and
to
pass
this
legislation
I'll
be
voting
for
it.
I
hope
everybody
else
in
this
chamber
will
do
so
as
well.
Thank
you.
Q
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
It's
my
pleasure
to
rise
in
the
house
to
speak
to
Bell
property
rights,
amendment
Act,
bl3,
property,
Rights,
Management,
Act,
absentee
landlord
or
adverse
possessions.
I
was
actually
searching
before.
Actually
speaking
to
this
bill,
I
was
searching
the
information
and
looking
at
the
context
like
why
these
girls,
who
are
in
place.
Q
So
it
goes
back
to
centuries,
as
my
friend
actually
a
member
from
across
the
Isles,
actually
tried
to
give
some
examples:
examples
from
the
the
Britain
and
other
European
countries
in
U.S,
the
Homestead
Act,
the
absentee
landlord
and
the
adverse
possession.
Q
Q
So
there
was
a
public
demand.
There
was
a
lobbying
Union
activism,
intellectual
schools
and
that
bill
has
done
a
lot
to
provide
the
rights
to
purchase
the
land,
to
landless
leverage
working
for
working
on
the
properties
for
Generations
without
having
the
right
to
on
the
land,
not
only
that
that
also
provided
the
opportunity
very
first
time
the
opportunity
to
African-American
and
slaves
to
purchase
the
land
before
it
goes
to
the
auction.
Q
Q
And
I
just
wanted
to
say
for
the
record
that
we
do
support
this
legislation
to
bring
property
rights,
remedies
in
line
with
legislation
in
other
provinces
in
the
country,
but
I
also,
while
I'm
sporting.
This
bill
I
just
wanted
to
say
how
the
government
missed
the
approach,
the
same
approach
and
understandings
man.
They
brought
Forward
Bell
one.
Q
The
the
importance
of
the
clear
rules
within
the
across
jurisdictions
can
help
create
economic
certainty
and
good
relationship
between
the
neighbors
and
Sport
businesses,
and
this
bill.
The
property
rights
amendment
Act,
is
a
clear
example
of
a
bell
drafter
after
consultation,
the
importance
of
the
consultation.
That's
what
we
asked
number
of
time
in
this
house
and
the
government
failed
to
recognize
that,
while
debating
dbl1.
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
I'm
just
going
to
see
so
most
probably
the
landowners
in
the
context
are
of
surface
right,
so
the
people
basically
who
participated
specifically
were
related
to
oil
and
gas,
Wells
yeah,
the
bills
that
have
been
orphaned
or
abandoned,
and
also
where
companies
have
tax
areas
money
out
to
property
owners.
So
these
are
my
very
important
question.
I
would
like
to
see
in
next.
You
know
opportunity
to
debate
this
bill.
Q
The
I
would
be
happy
to
see
the
government,
the
minister
or
any
government
member
answering
these
concerns
that
if
the
indigenous
Nations
were
consulted
on
this
well
or
not
and
their
treaty
rights
are
respected
in
this,
these
are
very
important
concerns.
I.
Think
the
government
house
members.
B
Are
there
others
to
join
the
debate?
Bill
3
decide
when
the
question
is
called
I
will
call
the
question
Bill
three
on
the
bill.
Three,
the
property
rights
statute,
Amendment
act,
2022
on
the
Clauses
of
the
bill.
You
agreed
any
opposed,
carry
it
on
title
and
Preamble.
Are
you
agreed
any
opposed?
It's
carried,
shall
the
bill
be
reported
or
you
agreed
any
opposed
that
is
carried
The
Honorable
government
house
here.
B
M
R
Thank
you,
madam
speaker,
I
Rise,
to
ask
for
unanimous
consent
to
wave
standing
order
39
in
order
to
allow
Bill,
7
miscellaneous
statutes.
Amendment
act,
2022
number
two
be
introduced.
R
R
Thank
you,
madam
speaker.
I
request
leave
to
introduce
bill
number
seven.
The
miscellaneous
statutes
Amendment
act,
2022
number
two,
as
this
is
my
first
Bill
I'm
honored,
to
rise
and
move
this
piece
of
legislation
that
will
make
minor
amendments
to
a
number
of
statutes
in
order
to
reflect
recent
changes
in
government
reorganization.
What
a
time
to
be
alive.