►
Description
Legislative Assembly of Alberta
assembly.ab.ca
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
We
are
speaking
to
an
amendment
that
was
brought
forward
by
by
my
colleague,
The
Honorable
member
from
Calgary
buler
McCall,
which
is
an
amendment
related
to
essentially
when
complaints
can
be
brought
and
who
they
can
be
brought
against
from
under
the
police.
So
I
want
to
begin.
I
have
had
an
opportunity
at
Mr
chair
to
actually
speak
to
this
bill
and
I
know
we're
on
the
amendment
tonight.
I
certainly
will
be
speaking
to
the
amendment
it's
very
related,
but
just
more
generally,
for
those
you
know
who
are
interested
in
knowing
what's
happening.
B
B
That's
perceived
as
well,
as
is
fair,
is
to
provide
that
civilian
oversight
of
complaints
that
are
made
against
police
and
so
Bill.
Six
does
a
great
deal
in
terms
of
establishing
the
police,
review,
commission
and
processes
for
handling
certain
complaints
that
are
made
in
particular
it
I
noted.
You
know
that
it's
established
what
they
kind
of
call
level
one
two,
three,
four
complaints,
so
certain
complaints
level,
one
complaints
which
are
you
know,
an
allegation
that
you
know
and
I
actually
I'm
not
going
to
try.
B
To
paraphrase
it
Mr
Mr
chair,
because
I
think
it's
important
to
be
accurate,
but
it
does
say
that
a
level
one
complaint
is
where
an
incident
has
occurred,
involving
Serious
injury
to
or
the
death
of
any
person
that
may
have
resulted
from
the
actions
of
a
police
officer
or
a
complaint
alleges
that
serious
injury
to
or
the
death
of
any
person
may
have
resulted
from
the
actions
of
a
police
officer
or
B.
There
is
a
matter
of
a
serious
or
sensitive
nature
related
to
the
actions
of
a
police
officer.
B
So
those
are
level
one
complaints.
They
will
be
continue
to
be
investigated
by
what
we
all
know
as
as
a
search,
but
it
will
now
be
done
under
the
auspices
of
the
police
review
commission.
There
are,
then,
a
number
of
other
levels
of
complaints
that
can
be
made
as
set
out
in
this
bill,
based
on
the
seriousness
and
the
nature
of
the
allegations
so
again,
very
supportive
of
the
idea
of
an
independent
body
reviewing
complaints
made
against
police.
That's
actually
good
for
for
everyone.
It
is
good
for
albertans.
It
is
good
for
police
officers.
B
It
is,
it
is
really
the
best
outcome,
and
this
is
really
something
that
you
know
had
been
initiated
when
we
began
the
review
of
the
police
act
as
the
NDP
back
in
I
believe
it
was
2017
or
2018..
I
may
have
my
dates
wrong.
My
apologies
Mr
chair,
but
this
was
really
one
of
the
impetus
behind
that
those
that
review
of
the
police
Act
was.
How
do
we
provide
better
oversight
of
police,
but
also,
how
do
we
ensure
that
albertans
have
confidence
in
those
processes
to
make
sure
that
they
are
fair?
B
So
in
that
Spirit
Mr
chair
really
the
amendment
that
was
put
forward
by
my
by
my
colleague,
the
member
from
Calgary
Buller
McCall,
was
really
to
go
further
than
perhaps
what
the
ACT
has
suggested
to
ensure
that
a
police
officer
cannot
sort
of
of
escape
a
complaint
being
made
or
being
investigated
by
the
police
review
commission
by
virtue
of
either
quitting
the
police
force
or
moving
to
another
police
force.
So
essentially
what
the
amendment
does
is
you
know
it
it?
It
clarifies
and
proposes
an
amendment
to
the
proposed
section.
B
42.2
of
the
bill
by
adding
the
following,
which
is
sub,
would
be
subsection
10
for
greater
certainty.
A
complaint
may
be
filed
with
respect
to
a
former
police
officer
under
this
section.
If,
at
the
time,
the
subject
matter
the
complaint
occurred,
the
former
police
officer
was
a
police
officer
and
it
goes
on
by
adding
in
section
43
another
subsection
10,
which
again
for
greater
certainty.
The
chief
executive
officer
of
the
police
review
commission
may
not
dismiss
a
complaint
under
this
section
with
respect
to
a
former
police
officer.
B
If
at
the
time
the
subject
matter
of
the
complaint
occurred,
the
former
police
officer
was
a
police
officer
and
there
is
no
other
basis
for
dismissing
the
complaint.
It's
pretty
straightforward.
It's
simply
to
say
that
if
an
allegation
and
a
complaint
is
made
against
a
police
officer,
they
can't
just
quit
and
and
that
and
that's
the
end
of
the
complaint
that
doesn't
provide
resolution
to
the
complainant
or
the
individuals
who
may
have
been
affected
by
simply
saying.
B
B
You
would
not
want
that
person
to
just
Escape
sort
of
any
investigation
or
outcome
or
resolution
simply
because
they
they
have
either
been
fired,
or
they
have
resigned
from
their
position
because
that
conduct
doesn't
just
fall.
It's
not
just
a
matter
that
affects
that
individual
police
officer.
If
a
police
officer
has
engaged
in
conduct
that
is
worthy
of
finding
of
it
of
a
complaint,
that's
calling
into
question
the
very
trust
that
albertans
have
in
that
police
force
more
generally.
B
It's
why
the
complaint
process
must
still
be
able
to
apply
to
police
officers,
even
if
they've
stepped
down.
So
this
is
what
this
the
intent
of
this
amendment
is
about,
and
I'm
really
hopeful
that
you
know
this
is
not
a
partisan
issue.
In
our
view,
this
is
something
to
Simply
clarify
the
language
of
the
event
of
of
the
bill,
to
be
clear
that
this
is
what
that
they're
still
going
to
be
held,
some
accountability
held
when
somebody
steps
down
as
a
police
officer,
again
very
similar
to
what
happens
in
the
medical
profession.
B
Simply
if
a
doctor
stops
practicing,
it
doesn't
mean
that
their
conduct
is
no
longer
investigated.
It
is
important
to
have
that
trust.
That
is
what
I
believe
the
intent
is
behind.
Bill
6
is
to
actually
encourage
trust
in
our
police,
provide
that
oversight
and
the
intent
of
this
amendment
is
simply
to
provide
Clarity
for
our
for
our
burdens
and,
unfortunately,
Mr
Speaker
or
Mr
chair
I
think
we
have
an
example
that
is
very
top
of
mind
for
many
of
albertans,
particularly
albertans,
who
are
in
Calgary,
where
they
have
a
sitting.
B
City
councilor,
who
has
actually
not
even
disputed
that
he
engaged
in
inappropriate
conduct
with
a
minor
when
he
was
a
police
officer
in
fact
tried
to
imply
that
there
was
some
kind
of
consent
at
least
or
something.
But
you
know
it
is
quite
egregious
that
we
have
a
sitting
City
councilor
Who
as
a
police
officer,
sexually
assaulted.
Really,
let's
be
clear.
B
Mr
chair
a
minor
while
in
performing
his
duties
as
a
police
officer-
and
we
would
not
I-
think
feel,
satisfied
that
that
person
that
individual
should
be,
you
know
not
held
accountable
for
what
they've
done,
simply
because
they're
no
longer
a
police
officer.
In
fact,
that
is
a
breach
of
public
trust
and
we
certainly
deserve
albertans
deserve.
I
can
say:
calgarians
deserve
to
be
able
to
hold
Mr
Sean
Chu
accountable,
not
only
as
a
former
police
officer
but,
of
course
also
as
a
city.
B
Its
cabinet,
particularly
its
minister
of
Municipal,
Affairs
and
Minister
of
Justice,
to
take
action,
because
I
think
calgarians
have
spoken
out
loud
and
clear
that
they
expect
Sean
Chu
to
be
held
accountable
and
I
can
say.
I
certainly
do
as
well
Mr
chair.
So
the
other
piece
I
want
to
add
to
this,
which
is
not
necessarily
part
of
this
amendment,
but
we
do
I
hope
we
will
have
an
opportunity
to
bring
forward
another
amendment
to
address
the
limitation
periods
that
are
in
Bill
six
So.
B
Whichever
occurs
later
so
in
plain
language,
it
essentially
means
that
the
complaint
must
be
brought
against
a
police
officer
within
a
year
and
and
if
it's
not
brought
within
that
year,
when
either
the
event
occurred
or
when
the
complaint
it
became
aware
of
the
complaint,
the
circumstances
leading
to
the
complaint,
then
it
will
be
dismissed
and
I
want
to
remind
albertans
that
level.
Two
complaints
include
those
that
a
police
officer
may
have
committed
an
offense
under
an
act
of
the
parliament
or
the
legislature
or
level.
B
Three
is
a
complaint
alleges
that
a
police
officer
has
committed
a
contravention
of
the
regulations
governing
the
discipline
of
police
officers.
So
these
are
still
significant
concerns
and
right
now,
Bill
sex
puts
in
a
one-year
limitation
period
on
that
and
I
would
I
would
suggest
Mr
chair
that,
particularly
when
we're
talking
about
allegations
of
sexual
violence
against
a
police
officer
that
we
there
should
be
no
limitation
period.
B
Honestly
I
think
we
all
know
in
this
house
enough
about
the
challenges
both
emotionally
psychologically.
Administratively.
All
the
reasons
why
there
are
challenges
in
bringing
sexual
assault
allegations
and
claims
forward
in
a
timely
fashion,
not
the
least
of
which
is,
of
course,
that
too
often
those
who
bring
forward
sexual
assault
or
sexual
violence
allegations
are
not
believed.
They
believe
they're
treated
very
poorly
through
the
whole
process.
Honestly
Mr
chairs,
since
we
are
talking
about
the
context
of
police,
we
do
know
that
many
fear
bringing
allegations
to
the
police
itself.
A
B
Add
on
Mr
chair
that
we're
talking
about
potentially
allegations
of
sexual
violence
being
brought
to
police
against
a
police
officer.
We
can
imagine
that
that
provides
an
even
additional
barrier,
a
huge
additional
barrier
for
individuals
to
bring
forward
those
complaints.
So,
given
that-
and
of
course,
we
often
know
that
there
are
so
many
emotional
factors
that
go
into
why
a
person
may
not
be
able
to
bring
an
allegation
immediately
after
the
event
takes
place.
We
know
that
there's
a
multitude
of
complex
factors
that
go
into
that.
B
You
know
I
do
think
it's
important
that
the
government
consider
reviewing
the
limitation
period
as
set
out
in
Bill
six
and
consider
removing
the
limitation
period
for
allegations
or
complaints
against
police
officers
that
relate
to
sexual
violence.
In
fact,
I'm
very
proud
that
the
NDP
government,
when
they
were
in
government
when
they
were
government
I
brought
forward
changes
to
the
limitation
periods
for
civil
claims
of
of
sexual
violence
and
actually
removed
the
limitation
period
recognizing
exactly
what
I
just
spoke
about.
B
Mr
chair
the
challenges
of
bringing
forward
those
complaints,
I
bring
that
in
the
context
of
this
amendment
Mr
chair,
because
when
we're
talking
about
a
former
police
officer,
we
want
to
ensure
that
simply
no
longer
being
employed
as
a
police
officer
should
not
prohibit
somebody
from
bringing
a
complaint.
Likewise,
if
the
allegation
is
about
sexual
violence
that
may
take
place
somewhere
long
after
the
fact
and
I
think
those
two
amendments
are
pretty
important
to
consider
together
because
they
certainly
would
apply.
For
example,
Mr
chair
to
the
example
of
of
Sean
Chu
in
Calgary.
B
So
I
think
we
understand
in
this
assembly
how
important
it
is
to
offer
those
protections
to
individuals
who
may
be
subject
to
that
kind
of
violence
and
enable
them
to
be
able
to
access
this
process
which
I
again
go
back
to
believing
was
brought
with
the
intention
of
providing
greater
transparency,
accountability
to
the
public
for
the
actions
and
conducts
of
police.
So
if
that
is
the
objective
Mr
chair,
I'd
argue
that
the
members
in
this
house
should
vote
in
favor
of
this
amendment
and
if
they
are
not
going
to
vote
in
favor.
B
I
would
really
genuinely
like
the
members
of
the
government
caucus
who
may
vote
against
to
stand
up
and
express.
Why
why
they
would
not
support
an
amendment
that
would
say
that
former
police
officers
are
also
going
to
be
held
accountable,
I
genuinely
hope.
We
often
have
the
situation
Mr
chair,
where
we
bring
forward
thoughtful
amendments
and
they're
voted
down,
and
we
don't
even
hear
why
and
I
think
albertans
need
to
have
an
explanation.
B
I,
certainly
would
not
like
it
to
be
that
it
is
voted
down
simply
because
it
was
brought
forward
by
the
official
opposition,
because
this
is
a
thoughtful
amendment
that
is
intended
to
improve
accountability
to
meet
the
objective
set
out
by
by
this
government
in
this
bill
and
I
should
be
given
due
consideration
and
I
do
hope
that
the
members
of
the
government
will
vote
in
favor
of
this
amendment.
Thank
you,
Mr,
chair
here
here.
Thank.
C
D
You
Mr
chair,
I,
appreciate
that
I
just
wanted
to
add
that
you,
you
can't
quit
your
job
and
run
away
from
criminal
allegations
if,
if
a
crime
has
occurred,
simply
resigning
as
a
police
officer
doesn't
absolve
you
of
responsibility,
you
can
still
be
investigated
for
that.
So
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
that
was
clear
for
everybody
here,
because
I
think
it
sounded
like.
If
somebody,
you
know
say
20
plus
years
ago,
had
committed
a
sexual
assault.
D
They
could
still
be
charged
for
that,
whether
they're
employed
as
a
police
officer
or
not
or
if
it's
under
the
police
act
you've
still
committed
a
criminal
code
offense.
So
you
could
still
be
held
responsible
for
that.
Just
wanted
to
clarify
that
as
well
and
I.
Think
that's
the
only
thing
I
want
I
really
wanted
to
touch
on,
because
I
think
it
insinuated
that
you
could
somehow
do
something
criminal,
while
a
police
officer
and
simply
resign
and
you've
absolved
yourself
without
responsibility.
D
D
I
think
having
a
provincial
body
has
is
proposed
in
the
in
the
main
bill
is
important,
so
people
understand
how
to
make
a
complaint,
how
to
do
it
quickly
and
I
think
we
should
get
to
those
complaints
and
investigate
them
well
to
make
sure
that
if
any
discipline
needs
to
happen
that
it
does
happen,
if
any
training
needs
to
happen,
it
does
or
changes
in
practices
is
also
important.
But
there
are
many
lawyers
who
wait
one
year
less
a
day,
simply
for
their
favor
as
well.
So
having
that
one
year
limitation,
it
does
exist.
D
B
Thank
you,
Mr,
chair
and
I
appreciate
the
member
speaking
and
responding
I
just
want
to
clarify
the
police
review.
Commission
is
not
a
criminal
body.
I.
Don't
think
that
anything
in
Bill
6
suggests
that
this
is
proving
criminal
allegations.
The
purpose
of
the
police
review
commission
is
to
carry
out
investigations
and
conduct
disciplinary
hearings.
What
we're
saying
is
that
a
former
police
officer
should
not
be
able
to
avoid
a
disciplinary
hearing
and
a
review
of
their
conduct
simply
because
they're
no
longer
employed
it's
very
different
than
criminal
Provisions.
B
That's
not
what
this
bill
is
about.
It's
actually,
it
cannot
be
establishing
a
criminal
process.
The
police
review
commission
is
about
disciplinary
hearings.
What
we're
saying
is
that
all
member,
certainly
it
is
possible
under
the
reading
of
the
bill.
That's
currently
before
us
that
a
member
who
is
no
longer
a
police
officer
has
has
stepped
down,
has
resigned,
has
been
terminated,
cannot
have
their
conduct
reviewed
for
disciplinary
purposes
as
a
result
of
the
way
Bill
6
is
drafted.
B
So
what
we're
suggesting
is
is
that
that
former
police
officer
should
still
be
able
to,
within
the
time
period
and
time
limitation
period
set
out
in
the
bill,
be
subject
to
disciplinary
investigation
and
a
hearing
and
we're
also
saying
and
I
want
to
go
back
to
the
limitation
period,
the
limitation
period
one
year
when
we
don't.
You
know
we're
not
necessarily
objecting
to
one
year
as
a
limitation
period.
What
we're
saying
is
there
should
be
an
exception
made
for
those
who
are
making
allegations
around
sexual
violence.
That
was
my
point
Mr
chair.
B
We're
saying
that,
in
those
circumstances
where
an
allegation
is
made
around
sexual
violence
and
the
additional
barriers
that
exist
to
bringing
those
claims
in
a
timely
fashion,
many
of
which
are
compounded
when
those
complaints
are
being
made
against
a
police
officer
and
they're
we're
expecting
somebody
who's
experienced
sexual
violence
to
go
to
the
police,
to
complain
about
conduct
done
by
a
police
officer.
Those
are
compounding
issues
which
would
create
additional
barriers.
B
So
for
sexual
violence,
which
we
have
recognized
in
civil
law,
that
the
limitation
period
should
not
apply
the
same
way
as
other
allegations,
we're
simply
suggesting,
and
it's
I
put
forward-
it's
not
in
an
amendment
right
now
before
the
house,
but
I
certainly
hope
it
will
be.
But
I
put
forward
that
that
is
the
consideration.
B
I
just
want
to
be
very
clear
and
I
do
appreciate,
though,
members
of
the
of
the
government
standing
up
to
respond
be
because
I
think
this
is
the
purpose
of
Committee
of
the
whole
is
to
have
this
opportunity
to
engage
back
and
forth.
This
is
a
good
intention,
well-intentioned
Amendment,
simply
to
make
sure
that
the
police
review
Commission
in
its
authority
to
conduct
a
disciplinary
hearing
can
include
former
police
officers.
Thank
you,
Mr,
chair
you're,
here.
C
E
Bill
Mr,
chair
and
I'm
very
happy
to
see
it
arrive
at
long
last
in
front
of
the
house.
This
is
a
process
that
we
know
began
in
2018.,
and
this
is
an
act
that
has
not
seen
significant
review
or
full-scale
update
since
1988.,
and
certainly
in
the
Years
between
1988
and
today
we
have
seen
significant
shifts
in
many
aspects
of
our
society,
certainly
how
we
view
the
treatment
of
many
members
of
our
population.
E
We
have
learned
a
lot
about
inequities
that
exist
in
many
of
the
systems
that
each
of
us
live
under
every
day,
and
certainly
we
have
seen
that
there
are
disproportionate
impacts
within
the
justice
system
and
certainly
that
also
affects
policing.
Of
course,
the
changes
we're
making
today
are
not
solely
about
those
addressing
those
sorts
of
inequities.
E
The
concerns
around
systemic
racism,
but
they
are
certainly
a
large
part
of
the
conversation
we've
been
having
over
I'd
say
the
last
decade,
certainly
as
we've
seen
the
conversations
that
arose
as
we
began
to
see
the
conversations
around
black
lives
matter
with
the
killing
of
a
number
of
young
unarmed
black
men
in
the
United
States
concerns
that
we've
seen
around
that
that
have
occurred
here.
Indeed,
you
know
we
have
seen
that
here
in
Alberta
the
death
of
in
Calgary
in
the
last
year.
E
The
concern
that,
when
a
citizen
brings
a
complaint
forward,
that
complaint
then
is
then
considered
within
the
same
Police
Department
in
which
the
individual
to
which
the
complaint
is
addressed
is
working
and
frankly,
what
we
have
heard
clearly
is
that
police
themselves
no
longer
want
to
be
put
in
that
position
where
police
officers
have
to
think
about
how
their
decision
on
one
of
their
fellow
police
members
is
going
to
be
taken
by
others
within
the
force.
What
is
the
impact
that's
going
to
have
on
relationships?
What
are
the
repercussions
going
to
be
within
there?
E
They
would
prefer
that
this
is
taken
out
of
their
hands
and
put
with
an
independent
body
to
remove
that
challenge,
and
certainly
that
is
what
we
hear
from
citizens
and
others
who
have
raised
concerns
about
policing
that
this
should
be
in
the
hands
of
an
independent
body
who
themselves
will
not
be
influenced
by
relationships
that
they
may
have
already
and
what
are
pre-existing
or
biases.
That
may
come
from
being
in
similar
circumstances
or
knowing
these
individuals.
E
E
That
allows
for
more
trust
and
faith
in
the
decisions
that
are
made
and
that
allows
hopefully
then
for
a
better
quality
of
justice
and
certainly
the
feeling
of
a
better
quality
of
Justice
because
again
Mr
chair
what
we
talk
about
so
often
we
talk
about
concerns
around
conflicts
of
interest,
and
that's
really
what
this
boils
down
to
when
police
are
investigating
police
and
holding
police
accountable.
The
concern
of
conflict
of
interest
that
we
not
must
not
only
have
Justice
be
done,
but
it
must
be
seen
to
be
done.
E
So
that
means
Mr
chair
that
we
go
above
and
beyond
to
ensure
that
all
involved
can
be
sure
that
there
is
no
bias
in
this
system,
and
this
is
important,
Mr
chair
and
you
know,
when
we
talk
about
this.
It's
easy
for
I
think
folks
to
speak
up
and
misconstrue
or
misunderstand
and
suggest
that,
by
having
these
conversations
or
bringing
these
things
forward,
that
people
are
denigrating
police
or
that
by
suggesting
that
there
needs
to
be
a
heightened
level
of
accountability
that
we
are
targeting
police.
E
E
E
E
I
would
note
that
there
have
been
some
comments
about
the
way
this
is
instruct
you
to
a
friend
of
mine,
Dr
tamitopio
again,
if
we're
going
to
talk
about
be
honest
about
conflicts
of
interest.
I'll
note
that
Dr
oriola
is
a
friend
of
mine.
I
have
a
lot
of
respect
for
them.
We
have
some
good
conversations,
but
he
provided
advice
to
the
previous
Minister
of
Justice.
E
Now
the
deputy
Premier,
he
was
tasked
as
a
special
advisor
and
he
provided
a
report
to
the
minister
at
the
time,
and
he
is
speaking
now
and
giving
his
opinion
on
this
particular
Bill
and
what
he
has
stated
about
this
independent
oversight
body
is.
He
has
raised
a
concern
that,
unlike
other
jurisdictions,
unlike
this,
what
he
says
is
the
standard
amongst
our
peer
countries
around
the
world.
E
E
E
That
officer
has
been
given
my
understanding
a
suspended
sentence,
but
the
thing
is
Mr
chair
at
that
court
trial,
where
this
officer
was
summarily
found
guilty
of
inappropriate
behavior.
The
news
report
says
at
least
15
Calgary
police
officers
attended
the
court
that
day
to
support
that
officer
dozen
of
the
more
in
uniform
and
after
the
court
ruling.
They
greeted
the
officer
with
smiles,
hugs
and
handshakes
to
celebrate
the
fact
that
he
did
not
go
to
prison.
E
E
E
She
notes
that
those
groups
need
people
who
understand
the
local
area
and
its
people
and
policing
needs
and
there's
certainly
nothing
in
the
provisions.
The
government
is
giving
itself
that
says
they
have
to
appoint
anybody
locally
or
who
knows
that
Community
or
is
involved
with
that
Community.
What
she
said
was
anything
that
takes
away
from
our
local
autonomy
as
municipalities.
E
Now
the
minister
did
note
that
well
in
BC,
that
is
the
case.
The
BC
government
has
the
ability
to
appoint
members
to
local
police
commissions,
and
that
is
true,
but
I
would
note
Mr
chair
that
it
is
a
very
different
process.
The
minister
did
not
know
that
it
is
not
the
minister
by
regulation
sitting
in
his
office
by
stroke
of
a
pen
that
simply
appoints
them.
E
E
That
said,
I
do
appreciate
some
of
the
other
aspects
that
are
brought
forward
in
this
legislation
and
some
of
the
other
pieces
that
are
being
put
in
place.
Certainly,
the
requirement
for
police
to
develop
Community
Public
Safety
plans
report
annually
on
their
progress
in
achieving
their
goals.
I,
certainly
report
greater
public
transparency
and
accountability.
Indeed,
that's
what
we
attempted
to
bring
forward
for
our
Health
Care
system
in
Bill,
one
recent,
our
bill,
201
pardon
me,
which
this
government
chose
to
defeat,
but
certainly
in
principle,
I
agree
with
having
greater
data
and
accountability.
E
E
F
F
Mr
chair
just
wanted
to
state
from
the
record
I
know.
Many
of
my
colleagues
have
said
similar
words
that
the
elvada
NDP
Sports
civilians,
oversights
of
law
enforcement
in
order
to
ensure
policing
is
responsive
to
the
needs
and
diversity
of
our
communities.
And
there
is
a
time
like
we
took
some
initiatives
in
this
house
and
I.
Regretfully,
remember
those
moments
but
not
supported
by
the
government
house.
Members.
F
F
The
police
activity
was
started
under
the
NDP
government
and
in
general,
this
logically
legislation
is
on
the
right
track,
but
there
are
a
number
of
issues
that
will
have
to
be
addressed
in
a
committee
for
us
to
support
it.
There
are
some
questions,
concerns
I
know
many
of
my
colleagues
and
my
colleagues
from
Edmonton
City
Center
highlighted
those
in
the
house.
I
would
just
wanted
to
as
well.
You
know
on
behalf
of
my
constituents
and
it
went
in
medal,
would
like
to
be
on
the
record,
so
this
Bell
leaves
too
many
questions.
F
F
One
of
the
main
stated
goal
for
the
Bell
is
independent
oversight,
but
this
bill
technically
looking
at
it,
but
it
proposes
a
centralizing
too
much
power
and
Discretions.
With
the
provincial
minister
said,
the
review
of
the
police
act
started
under
the
NDP
government
in
the
gcp
state
that
this
legislation
is
a
result
of
the
findings
of
that
review
and
subsequent
report.
F
F
F
The
powers
and
the
duties
of
Provincial
Police
Advisory
Board,
will
have
the
duties
and
functions
set
out
in
the
regulations
and
why
this
important
work.
Why
are
these
being
left
to
regulations
and
therefore,
subject
to
the
political
well
of
the
government,
The
Advisory
Board
is
intended
to
represent
communities
served
by
RCMP
under
the
Provincial
Police
service
agreement
and
according
to
the
materials
provided
by
government,
it
is
not
clear
for
this.
Representation
will
happen
for
many
communities
are
covered
under
the
service
agreement.
F
Will
there
be
a
formal
changes
to
required?
Alberta
agreement
with
our
cmpk
divisions
proposed
section
21
of
the
bill
proposed
an
amendment
to
section
30.
ministerial
Intervention,
which
would
allow
the
minister
to
intervene
with
the
council.
This
section
of
the
ACT
already
allows
the
minister
to
intervene
in
the
instance
that
adequate
or
effective
policing
services
are
not
being
maintained
or
intervening
the
act
or
regulations,
but
other
areas
does
the
minister
and
vision
needing
to
drag
the
council
regarding
policing
that
is
not
already
covered?
F
F
Propose
section
22
of
the
ACT
would
amend
the
responsibilities
of
a
police
commission
to
include
to
new
reporting
requirements,
reporting
of
policing
priorities
and
annual,
or
on
request
reporting
of
the
programs
and
service
to
implement
these
priorities.
Wealthy
government
be
increasing
financial
support
for
policing
to
ensure
that
councils
have
the
ability
to
provide
adequate
resources
to
the
commission
to
meet
the
requirements
of
the
ACT.
F
We
have
seen
that
many
times
the
governments
has
brought
bills
forward
and
passed
the
legislations,
even
in
many
cases,
set
the
timelines
but
did
not
provide
the
required
amount
of
resources
to
implement
those
legislations
with
that
Mr
chair
I
would
like
to
move
Amendment
on
behalf
of
my
colleague
on
a
real
member
from
Calgary
Buller
McCall
I
think
you
could
call
probably
this
A3
Amendment
A3
moved
to
that
bill.
Six.
C
F
You
Mr
chair,
so
Amendment
A3
reach
as
well
as
Bill.
Six
policemenament
act
2022
be
amended
as
follows.
In
section
17b
in
proposed
section
25
by
striking
out
subsection,
1.1
and
1.2
and
substituting
the
following
1.1,
the
minister
May
appoint
additional
members
to
Regional
police
commission.
Every
Minister
considers
its
necessary
necessary,
provided
that
the
total
number
of
members
appointed
by
the
Nestor
does
not
exceed
25
percent.
F
F
F
F
G
Floor,
thank
you,
Mr,
chair
for
the
opportunity
to
rise
this
evening
to
speak
to
such
an
important,
Amendment
and
important
piece
of
legislation.
As
has
been
mentioned
by
previous
speakers.
It
is
a
piece
of
legislation
that
has
been
long
coming
and
one
that
was
initiated
by
a
review
that
under
the
NDP
in
2018,
was
begun,
and
the
UCP,
of
course,
has
stated
that
this
legislation
is
a
result
of
findings
of
that
review
and
subsequent
reports.
G
So
we
certainly
would
like
to
see
that
report
being
made
public
by
the
UCP
and
finding
out,
if
indeed,
that
report
did
show
what
the
rationale
was
for
stacking,
the
commissions
with
up
to
50
percent
of
provincial
Representatives
appointed
by
the
minister.
So
that's
the
the
basics
of
the
the
amendment
Mr
chair
is
to
actually
get
at
the
concern
that
we
have
in
the
opposition
about
the
percentage
of
commission
members
who
the
Minister
would
be
able
to
appoint
and
thus
affecting
the
perception
of
the
public
in
terms
of
the
impartiality
of
the
commission.
G
The
the
police
have
a
rather
rather
special
obligation
and
it
seems
to
have
been
lost
in
recent
years
to
uphold
to
a
higher
level
a
perception
of
impartiality
to
the
public,
and
that
I
think,
is
something
we're
revisiting.
Hopefully,
with
this
amendment
Mr
Chair,
by
ensuring
that
the
minister
is
limited
to
25
percent,
total
number
of
commission
members
that
he
or
she
has
the
ability
to
appoint,
because
public
trust
is
absolutely
sacrosanct.
When
it
comes
to
many
things,
and
it
really
really
includes
the
the
police.
G
Protectors
of
the
law
and
when
it
gets
to
a
police
commission
hearing
Mr
chair,
if
indeed
the
the
component
membership
of
a
police
commission
is,
is
not
deemed
in
its
Inception
to
have
been
fair.
Then
of
course,
the
public
faith
and
public
trust
in
the
outcome
of
the
commission's
findings
when
they
are
considering
conduct
of
police
and
disciplinary
actions
will
be
suspect
as
well,
and
that's
something
we
cannot
allow
to
happen.
So
it
was
very,
very
critical
that
we
make
sure
that
we
don't
do
anything.
G
G
Where
there's
an
expectation
of
of
Innocence,
not
a
sort
of
innocent,
but
the
expectation
that
the
the
the
the
officer
will
be
absolved
of
responsibility
or
guilt.
The
expectation
of
a
conviction
of
a
police
officer
is
not
something
the
public
has.
They
there's
no
surprise
expressed
by
almost
any
member
of
the
public.
G
So
that
I
hope
is
something
that
the
government
is
one
is
really
wanting
to
address
and
to
rectify,
because
it
is
something
that
I
I
can't
imagine.
The
police
would
want
otherwise,
as
well.
Police
officers
are
part
and
parcel
of
many
families
of
members
of
this
legislature,
and
you
don't
have
to
go
very
far
beyond
in
anybody's
family
to
know
that
there
are
police
officers
close
to
one's
family,
so
they
they
live
amongst
us
and
we're
grateful
for
their
service.
G
But
they
are
the
we,
the
first
ones
to
know
that
the
public
Trust
is
what
they
need
to
have
in
order
to
function
properly.
Often
you
heard
it
you
hear
it
said
that
the
police
officers
best
defense
is
their
mouth,
in
other
words
talking
and,
and
you
don't
gain
somebody's
trust
without
being
able
to
communicate
properly
and
that
at
the
very
basic
street
level,
I'm
sure
most
police
officers
will
agree.
G
If
that
initial
trust
isn't
there,
then
you've
got
a
very,
very
much
more
difficult
job
ahead
of
you
to
to
form
relationships
which
will
help
you
in
your
policing
on
the
street
or
at
higher
level
investigations.
So
the
limitations
that
we
are
proposing
in
this
amendment,
Mr
chair,
will
go
a
long
ways
to
ensuring
that
the
public
trust
in
the
whole
process
is
encouraged
or
is
is
augmented
by
the
changes
to
the
police
act
that
we
were
contemplating
under
Bill.
G
Six
I
I
hesitate
to
say
that
this
in
and
of
itself
will
cure
the
lack
of
trust
that
many
people
have
in
the
oversight
system
that
we
have
in
this
province
of
the
police,
services
and
I.
Think
that,
if
indeed
we
would
have
a
different
composition
of
police
commission
members,
we
might
have
ended
up
potentially
with
different
outcomes
and
findings.
G
In
some
of
the
cases
that
have
been
before
them
in
the
most
recent
years
and
even
the
past
years,
because
we
shouldn't
be
in
a
situation
where,
in
a
a
a
judgment,
situation
in
a
police
commission
hearing
where
the
outcome
is
almost
going
before,
where
there's
no
expectation
that
there
may
be
a
finding
of
guilt,
I
know
that
those
who
are
in
more
vulnerable
populations
than
myself
certainly
have
about
zero
faith.
In
ever.
G
They
don't
want
to
have
a
an
overabundance
of
members
on
a
commission
and
they
want
the
public
trust
in
the
whole
process,
and
the
last
thing
that
police
officers
is
want
is
they
is
the
disconnect
between
themselves
and
the
public,
because
that,
once
that
is,
trust
is
gone.
Their
their
job
is
almost
impossible
to
do
and
their
job
is
a
difficult
one.
G
I
mean
I've
been
on
a
ride
along
I
was
a
one-day
contract
for
a
dollar
when
I
was
a
volunteer
in
the
solicitor
General's
Court
intake
unit
and
that
in
and
of
itself
was
a
bit
of
an
eye-opener,
but
there's
police
officers
in
my
family.
My
sisters,
married
to
an
RCMP
officer,
who's
retired
now
after
25
years
and
so
I've
had
through
him
and
his
experiences
as
that
of
his
brother
who's,
a
city
Constable
now
retired
and
many
others
who
I
grew
up
with
in
in
Edmonton,
I.
G
Think
half
of
the
recruited
members
for
the
year,
1975
to
1980,
probably
came
from
my
neighborhood
of
Wellington
Park
under
the
Edmonton
Police
Service,
because,
as
we
go
down
the
street,
there
was
10
or
12
members
from
my
graduating
class.
That
actually
went
into
the
police
service,
so
I
mean
there's
a
there's.
A
large
understanding
that
you
know,
police
officers
are
us
and
we
are
them,
but
not
necessarily
in
communities
that
are
found
more
closer
to
the
inner
city.
G
It's
something
that
we
feel
strongly
about
on
this
side
of
the
house
and
I
think
that
it
should
be
accepted
by
other
members
of
this
legislature
and
the
government
members
as
a
very
respectful
and
carefully
considered
amendment
that
will
help
heal
the
trust
issue
that
exists
in
Alberta
between
the
public
and
the
police.
The
attempts
that
have
been
made
in
the
past
to
to
do
this
perhaps
have
been
stymied.
G
Why
some
of
the
issues
of
the
membership
makeup
of
police
commissions
and
I
I
hope
that
the
goal
of
the
government
isn't
to
to
centralize
the
appointment
process
so
that
it
rests
primarily
to
the
minister
to
appoint
police
commissions.
Although
that
seems
to
be
part
of
the
underlying
philosophy.
The
local
nature
of
police
commissions,
I,
think,
is
their
strength,
as
is
something
that
the
have
a
long-standing
tradition
of
and
I,
don't
think
it's
a
problem
that
needs
to
be
solved.
G
I
think
that
the
minister
is
perhaps
creating
another
problem
that
didn't
have
to
be
created
in
creating
another
source
of
distrust
with
the
public
by
reserving
unto
himself
or
herself
the
ability
to
nominate
or
or
appoint.
50
percent
of
the
members
of
a
police,
commission,
I
foreign,
can't
think
that
it
was
anything
but
a
deliberate
attempt
but
and
I
hope
they
will
reconsider,
chat
amongst
themselves
as
a
caucus
and
come
up
in
support
of
this
amendment
and
look
at
it
in
the
spirit
as
to
which
it
was
brought
forward.
G
So
I
I,
don't
know
if
there's
are
any
other
members
who
wish
to
speak
to
this
amendment
and
I'd
like
to
encourage
members
from
the
other
side
to
do
so,
because
I'd
I'd
like
to
hear
their
opinions
as
to
are
well
considered.
Offer
of
limiting
the
the
percentage
of
members
to
a
police
commission
that
a
minister
might
appoint
so
I
think
I
see
members
opposite
rushing
to
stand
to
speak
so
I'll
yield
my
my
seat.
D
Whip
all
the
many
titles
tonight
Mr
chair,
thank
you
first
off
I
just
want
to
agree
that
public
trust
is
extremely
important.
Being
impartial
is
extremely
important,
but
when
we're
talking
about
public
trust,
I
I
think
that
you
can
damage
public
trust
by
openly
speculating
that,
if
only
there
were
different
people
at
the
time
there
would
have
been
different
outcomes
in
a
conviction
without
more
examples.
I,
don't
doubt
that
they
exist,
but
I
think
talking
about
it
like
disciplinary
hearing
or
going
before.
A
judge
is
a
predetermined
outcome.
D
It
just
isn't,
isn't
accurate.
There
probably
are
examples
of
it,
but
I
think
to
say
that
they
they
are
all
like
that.
It
just
isn't
true,
and
people's
perceptions,
though
may
be
of
that
and
I
think
we
need
to
work
on
that.
But
I
think
how
we
phrase
it.
We
need
to
be
somewhat
careful
on
so
that
we're
just
not
perpetuating
that
misconception
because
I
know
officers
who
have
been
before
discipline
area
hearings
who
have
gotten
in
trouble.
D
Who've
had
additional
training
who
have
been
fined
who
have
been
fired
that
all
exist,
people
who
have
been
convicted
of
crimes.
These
things
all
happen
and
I
think
we
need
to
make
sure
that
the
public
is
aware
that
when
somebody
is
performing
poorly
or
they
do
something
egregious
or
something
criminal
that
they
should
be
held
accountable
for
that
and
I
think
we
can
all
agree
on
that.
D
Don't
agree
that
having
the
minister
of
Public
Safety,
you
know,
we
know
who
it
is
today
or
five
years
from
now
or
ten
years
from
now
is
simply
going
to
use
that
mechanism
to
be
able
to
skew
outcomes.
I
just
don't
agree
with
that.
I
I
think
that
there
are
enough
checks
about
balances
in
our
system
to
to
make
sure
that
those
people
who
are
appointed
to
that
are
are
vetted
are
are
watched.
And
if
that
there
are
issues
that
it
is
that
it
is
dealt
with.
D
So
I
just
wanted
to
add
that
I
I
think
that
having
provincial
appointments
to
these
boards
is
important
as
well,
because
we
are
looking
at
a
provincial-wide
complaint
system.
Having
some
provincial
input
and
feedback
to
the
province
can
be
helpful
in
making
sure
that
the
system
is
working
for
the
public.
C
H
Oh
thank
you
Mr
chair,
it's
my
pleasure
to
rise
and
speak
to
speaking
committee
to
Bill
six
police
Amendment
act
2022,
and
that's
unfortunate
that
that
these
amendments
continue
to
be
defeated.
It
was
you
know
my
my
hope.
I
think
that
this
new
front
bench
and
new
sort
of
collection
of
of
people
that
are
in
charge
would
be
a
little
bit
more
open
to
making
their
legislation
better
or
working
with
the
opposition
to
try
to
make
it
better
and
that
just
doesn't
seem
to
be
the
case,
which
is
unfortunate.
H
But
in
any
event,
what's
what
I
would
like
to
say
and
add
my
voice
to
to
what
my
colleagues
have
said
is
it
is
profoundly
disappointing,
Mr
chair
that
that
this
government
has
once
again
demonstrated
that
they
basically
have
earplugs
or
earbuds
or
whatever.
We
want
to
call
it
earplugs
in
their
ears
and
they
are
just
not
listening
to
albertans
and
I.
Think
albertans
have
been
very,
very
clear
over
the
last
while
I,
don't
recall
the
exact
date
where
the
UCP
started
to
talk
about
a
Provincial,
Police
Force,
but
I.
H
Think
albertans
on
the
whole
have
been
fairly
clear
that
it's
not
something
they're
interested
in
I.
Think
organizations
like
Alberta
municipalities
for
the
urban
Municipal
rural
municipalities
have
been
fairly
straightforward
and
fairly
clear
about
this
is
not
their
priority,
and
so
it
is
unfortunate,
but
not
too
surprising
that
we
see
once
again
that
the
UCP
is
is
just
unwilling
to
hear
from
albertans
and
hear
what
they
want
and
it's
been
significant
opposition.
H
So
let
me
just
put
on
the
record
once
again
that
the
community
that
I
represent,
which
is
Saint
Albert,
the
mayor
and
Council,
and
the
people
of
Saint
Albert,
have
been
crystal
clear
that
this
is
not
something
that
they're
interested
in
pursuing
they're
quite
satisfied
with
the
way
things
are
right
now
in
Saint
Albert,
and
they
have
some
really
heavy
priorities
for
the
next
few
years
over
the
next
few
years.
As
all
municipalities
do,
they
have
numerous
challenges
and
they
recognize,
as
do
others,
Mr
chair
that
there's
a
there's,
a
huge
cost.
H
There's
a
huge
price
tag
to
this.
But
you
know
this.
This
UCP
government
doesn't
seem
to
be
too
concerned
about
spending
a
lot
of
money.
Spending
a
lot
of
taxpayer
money
on
things
that
albertans
taxpayers
don't
actually
want.
You
know
like
a
pipeline
to
nowhere
because
they're
betting
on
Trump
getting
reelected
or
a
ridiculous
war
room,
but
yet
they'll
tell
disable
albertans
that
they
need
to
tighten
their
belt
because
we're
having
rough
Financial
Times
right
now,
so
they're
going
to
DX
de-index
their
measly
little
Disability
Pension,
and
they
just
need
to
suck
it
up.
H
But
you
know
what
Provincial
Police
Force
no
problem.
We
got
the
money
for
that.
That
is
unfortunate,
so
St
Albert
has
been
very
clear
that
mayor
and
Council
have
been
very
clear
that
this
is
not
something
they're
interested
in
I.
Think
they've
also
been
very
clear
that
there
has
been
very
little
to
zero
consultation
with
the
communities
that
will
be
impacted
in
St.
Albert
is
one
of
those
communities:
Saint
Albert.
We
don't
have
a
St
Albert
Police
Force.
H
We
actually
use
RCMP
and
there's
actually
a
terrific
relationship
with
the
RCMP
on
the
whole
I
think
they
have
done
a
lot
of
work
over
the
last
few
years
and
and
as
I'm
going
to
sort
of
touch
on
some
of
the
work
that
they've
done.
I
would
just
like
to
thank
the
women
and
men
who
serve
in
Saint
Albert.
The
RCMP
Detachment
in
St
Albert
I
have
had
a
chance
to
meet
with
their
commander
and
the
women
and
men
that
work
there
and
I
think
they
do
extraordinary
work.
And
certainly
it's
always.
H
You
know
in
the
news
when
we
hear
about
problems,
or
you
know
those
bad
apples
or,
or
you
know,
officers
that
are
choosing
to
do
things
that
are
against
the
law.
But
for
the
most
part,
the
people
in
St
Albert
anyway
I'm
deeply
grateful
for
their
service
and
I
I'm
thankful
that
they're
there,
when
we
need
them
and
they're
always
there
when
we
need
them
in
St,
Albert,
so
again,
I
think
the
women
and
men
who
serve
with
the
RCMP.
H
So
what
happened?
You
know
one
of
the
things
that
this
bill
purports
to
do
as
I
was
looking
through.
You
know
some
of
the
notes
about
this
particular
Bill,
one
of
the
things
that
you
know
it
almost
seems
like
a
bit
of
an
afterthought.
Mr
chair
and
I,
like
it
I'm,
not
going
to
say
I,
don't
like
it,
because
I
actually
appreciate
that
it's
in
here,
so
one
of
the
things
that
the
legislation
it
would
require
police
to
develop
diversity
and
inclusion
plans.
H
That's
awesome,
that's
fantastic,
I,
think
developing
diversity
and
inclusion
plans
is.
Is
terrific,
but
I
find
it
really
really
strange
that
this
particular
government
has
paid
so
little
attention
to
supporting
diversity,
inclusion
in
their
other
work,
but
yet
this
is
something
that
they
feel
is
so
important.
You
know
I'm
just
going
to
give
you
a
really
a
small
example
of
that
now.
Inclusion
is,
is
a
can
include
all
kinds
of
things.
I
guess!
That's
the
whole
point
of
the
word.
H
It's
a
bit
of
an
action
word,
it's
a
verb
in
some
instances,
but
it
requires
measurement.
So
it
requires
a
goal
and
it
requires
measurement.
Then
it
requires
thoughtful
evaluation
and
then
it
requires
more
work
and
so
in
the
in
the
portfolio
that
I
am
fortunate
to
be
critic
of
with
seniors
and
community
and
Social
Services
inclusion
is
is
vitally
important,
is
vitally
important
in
education
in
healthcare
in
every
in
every
area
really.
H
But
what
this
government
has
failed
to
do-
and
we
know
this
because
we
have
been
repeatedly
asking
questions
to
different
Ministries
through
Public
Accounts
for
years
now,
Mr
chair
when
we're
in
session
every
single
Tuesday
morning
there
we
are
asking
questions
of
officials
of
different
Ministries
and
of
course,
as
you
can
imagine
frequently,
my
questions
are
around
inclusion
and
diversity
and
about
measures.
So
you
say
you
have
spent
this
many
millions
in
advanced
education
to
promote
the
education
and
therefore
future
employment
of
people
with
disabilities.
That's
terrific
that
you're
investing
all
these
millions.
H
Where
are
your
metrics?
Are
they
getting
employed
after
finishing
after
graduating?
Are
they
graduating
at
what
rate?
But
we
don't
get
any
of
that,
because
this
government
doesn't
seem
really
interested
in
in
doing
a
deep
dive.
So
certainly
to
see
this
mentioned
in
a
piece
of
legislation,
just
diversity
and
inclusion.
Great
idea,
love
it
love.
It
would
love
to
see
it
everywhere,
but
you
know
Mr
chair,
I'm
a
little
disappointed
that
their
track
record
is
so
sad.
H
So
you
know,
I
will
have
a
chance
to
stand
up
a
little
later
and
chat
a
bit
more,
but
I'm
going
to
talk
about
the
policing
Committee
in
St
Albert,
and
so
this
act
proposes
a
number
of
changes
to
work
with
committees,
but
St
Albert
is
so
far
ahead
in
this
work
in
terms
of
their
goals
and
their
plans
and
their
monitoring
and
their
reporting,
it
they're
reporting
to
council
and
the
community.
It
is
transparent
and
open
and
why
I
will
spend
some
time
focusing
on.
H
C
I
Thank
you
very
much
Mr
chair
and
it's
a
pleasure
to
rise
and
speak
to
you
Bill,
six
in
Committee
of
the
whole-
and
this
is
my
first
opportunity
to
speak
to
this
bill,
so
I'm
just
going
to
make
some
some
broad
comments
initially
and
then
I
do
have
an
amendment
to
introduce,
but
I'll
make
some
comments
to
begin
with,
starting
with
Bill.
Six
does
have
some
some
positive
steps.
Inside
of
it,
and
certainly
the
the
Albert
NDP
supports
civilian
oversights
of
law
enforcement.
I
We
need
to
make
sure
that
policing
is
responsive
to
the
needs
of
our
community
and
the
police
act,
and
its
revisions
is
something
that's
been
a
priority
both
under
the
NDP
government
when
a
review
was
started
and
that
work
has
continued
through
under
the
UCP
government,
where
this
legislation
has
been
introduced.
Now
there
are
a
number
of
issues
with
Bill
6
that
through
the
committee
of
the
whole
process,
the
official
opposition
is
trying
to
address.
Now
often
we
see
legislation
that
leaves
too
much
to
regulations
that
are
not
yet
developed.
I
He
ensure
that
these
principles
are
included
because
we
know
they
are
key
to
creating
a
safe
Community
for
everyone.
That
Amendment
would
have
ensured
that
intersectionality
and
to
racism.
Trauma-Informed
practices
were
a
Cornerstone
for
Community
safety
and
policing
structures
and
certainly
I
know.
A
lot
of
my
colleagues
spoke
significantly
towards
that
earlier
today.
I
We
also
offered
Amendment
A2
talking
about
making
sure
that
the
jurisdiction
of
police
commissions
for
review
of
the
conduct
of
a
police
officer
is
protected
as
well
as
just
recognizing
that,
in
line
with
other
professions
and
other
regulated
bodies
like,
for
example,
the
medical
profession,
making
sure
that
an
individual
cannot
avoid
Justice
by
quitting
being
fired
or
moving
to
a
different
police
force.
So
that
was
Amendment.
A2
and
Amendment
A3,
which
I
thought
my
honorable
colleagues
from
Ebbets
Meadows
and
Edmondson
McClung,
did
an
excellent
job.
I
I
I
If
the
complaint
relates
to
a
sexual
assault
or
battery
B,
any
misconduct
of
a
sexual
nature
other
than
a
sexual
assault
or
battery.
If,
when
the
subject
matter
of
the
complaint
occurred,
I
the
complete
complainant
was
a
minor
II.
The
complainant
was
in
an
intimate
relationship
with
the
person
who
is
the
subject
of
the
complaints
III.
The
complainants
was
dependent,
whether
financially,
emotionally
physically
or
otherwise,
with
the
person
who
is
the
subject
of
the
complaint
or
for
the
complainant
was
a
person
Under
Disability
C.
I
By
striking
out
subsection
4
and
substituting
the
following
four:
if
a
complainant
in
a
level
two
or
level
three
complaint
refuses
or
fails
to
participate
in
an
investigation,
the
chief
executive
officer
of
the
police
review
commission
may
dismiss
the
complaint
if
a
the
complainant
has
been
provided
with
a
reasonable
opportunity
to
participate
in
the
investigation
and
B.
The
chief
executive
officer
is
satisfied
that
the
refusal
or
failure
of
the
complainant
to
participate
is
not
the
result
of
intimidation
by
the
person
who
is
the
subject
of
the
complaint,
so
Mr
Speaker.
I
This
amendment
is
doing
two
distinct
things.
First,
you
will
note
in
the
section
A
it
is
striking
at
one
year
and
substituting
two
years
so
aligning
the
time
limit
on
filing
a
complaint
against
a
police
officer
with
the
statute
of
limitations
on
similar
conduct
for
wrongdoing.
That
is
not
of
a
criminal
nature.
I
Here
we
are
asking
for
those
timelines
to
be
removed
when
we
were
talking
about
this
complaint
process
as
part
of
Bill
six,
and
this
again,
like
I,
said
in
section
A
and
section
B.
This
aligns
the
complaint
procedure.
Time
limits
with
the
same
statute
of
limitations
that
ensure
police
officers
are
held
to
the
same
standards
of
justice
as
lay
people
and
so
I
know.
I
have
other
colleagues
who
would
like
to
speak
to
this,
and
so
I
will
conclude
my
remarks
with
that.
I
Only
to
say
that
I
hope
that
the
government
will
will
seriously
consider
the
context
and
the
situations
that
we
are
talking
about
with
this
amendment
A4,
because
I
think
this
is
one
where
we
can
come
to
an
agreement
and
improve
Bill
six
when
it
comes
to
Res
the
complaint
timelines
and
we'd
be
pleased
to
work
with
the
government
to
be
successful
with
Amendment
A4.
So
thank
you,
Mr
chair,
thank.
B
Thank
you,
Mr
chair.
It's
a
pleasure
to
rise
and
speak
in
support
of
the
amendment
just
proposed
by
my
colleague,
the
member
from
Edmonton
woods,
I've,
already
placed
on
the
record
this
evening.
My
thoughts
about
why
it's
critically
important
that
we
remove
any
limitation
period
related
to
allegations
of
sexual
assault,
sexual
battery
sexual
violence
against
a
police
officer.
This
is
a
very
thoughtful
Amendment.
B
That's
meant
to
align
with
really
measures
that
were
already
taken
by
when
we
were
in
government
to
remove
limitation
periods
for
or
complainants
to
bring
forward
claims
of
sexual
violence
in
Civil
Court.
We
it.
It
does
not
need
to
be
said
again
that
it
is
very
clearly
established
the
multiple
layers
of
challenges,
of
bringing
timely
sexual
assault
allegations
from
for
a
variety
of
very
complex
reasons
and
I
will
come
back
to
Mr
chair
the
example
of
Sean
Chu
City
councilor.
B
If
this
assembly
will
note
the
allegations
that
actually
were
founded
and
were
the
basis
of
reprimand
by
counselor
Chu,
when
he
was
a
police
officer,
that
was
because
of
conduct
sexual
conduct,
that
was
made
against
a
minor
a
16
year
old
in
1997.,
now
I
believe
in
this
circumstance
that
young
woman
was
incredibly
Brave
and
came
forward
with
those
allegations
quite
quickly.
But
one
can
imagine
a
16
year
old
may
not
be
in
a
position
to
be
able
to
bring
forward
such
an
explosive
allegation
against
a
police
officer.
B
Somebody
in
a
position
not
only
of
trust
but
of
power.
It
is
I
think
we
can
all
imagine
how
many,
how
many
young
people
would
not
be
able
to
bring
forward
an
allegation
like
that,
particularly
not
within
a
year
a
year
from
when
this
incident
took
place
that
young
woman
was
only
17.
yeah.
We
cannot
expect
that
somebody
who
has
suffered
sexual
violence
from
a
police
officer
should
only
have
a
year
to
bring
forward
that
complaint
again,
not
for
criminal
proceedings
but
for
disciplinary
purposes
against
a
police
officer.
Mr
chair.
B
This
is
simply
I
believe
a
common
sense
Amendment.
As
my
colleague
mentioned,
we
are
absolutely
willing
to
work
with
government
to
make
this
happen.
We
are
simply
wanting
Clarity
that
there
is
no
limitation
period
for
a
complaint
to
be
made
against
a
police
officer
on
the
basis
of
sexual
assault
or
sexual
battery.
This
is
the
decent
thing
to
do
again.
B
It
is
about
ensuring
that
the
public
can
have
trust
in
its
police,
that
there
is
accountability
and
that
that
we
continue
to
respect
those
police
officers
who
do
conduct
themselves
in
Professional,
Standards
and
and
perform
their
duties
well
to
serve
albertans
and
in
their
local
communities
as
well.
We
owe
them
as
well
an
obligation
to
make
sure
that
when
there
are
police
officers
who
do
not
conduct
themselves
in
that
way
that
there
is
accountability,
it
ensures
that
the
public
has
faith
in
those
who
are
protecting
them,
so
I
I,
certainly
I.
B
J
Thank
you
Mr
chair,
and
thank
you
truly
to
my
colleagues
who've
spoken
tonight
on
on
Bill
six
and
on
the
Amendments
I
I
tweeted
about
it.
I
just
noted
that
she's
really
proud
to
be
able
to
serve
with
with
colleagues
who
are
you
know
just
sharing
such
eloquent
thoughts,
and
you
know
my
colleague
from
City
Center
bringing
forth
a
lot
of
really
powerful
ideas
related
to
the
impacts
on
racialized
communities
and,
of
course,
he's
done.
J
As
was
noted,
this
amendment
aligns
the
time
limit
on
filing
a
complaint
against
a
police
officer
with
the
statute
of
limitations
on
similar
conduct
and
increases
the
time
limit
for
two
years.
That
is
not
of
a
criminal
nature.
So
what
that
essentially
means
is
that
you
know
there
won't
be
a
time
limit
at
all
when
it
comes
to
say
sexual
assault
and,
let's
I,
want
to
just
bring
this
chamber
back
to
conversations
that
we
had
in
this
in
this
very
house.
J
J
Victims
of
crime
was
a
piece
of
legislation
that
we
pushed
back
against,
because
one
of
the
things
that
it
did
is
it
narrowed
the
window
for
survivors
to
report
and
we
talked
about
we
stood
up.
We
had
people,
we
had,
we
had
I,
remember
I
I
talked
to
two
young
women
on
social
media
who
are
willing
to
share
their
stories
and
they
they
basically
said
in
incredibly
powerful
stories.
One
of
them
who'd
never
shared
her
experience
of
horrific
sexual
assault.
J
She
shared
it
publicly
in
the
hopes
that
this
government
would
change
their
mind
so
that
they
would
remove
that
window.
They
didn't
they
didn't.
However,
fast
forward.
Two
plus
years
we've
seen
through
some
of
the
consultations,
that's
been
done
on
victims
of
crime
that
they've
reversed.
That
decision,
which
was
the
right
thing
to
do,
which
had
never
been
done
in
the
first
place,
but
the
point
is
bringing
it
back
to
this
amendment
is
we
know
that
survivors
need
time?
J
They
need
time
and
that's
a
fact-
and
you
know
this
government,
this
current
Minister
responsible
for
status
of
women-
that
that
that
that
fellow
has
gone
on
the
record
even
just
today,
talking
about
gender-based
violence
and
talking
about
how
his
government
is
is
taking
this
seriously
and
I
applaud
that
I
I
support
that
we
need
to
see
A
Smith.
We
need
to
see
investment,
housing
and
prevention.
The
list
the
list
goes
on
I
support
that.
J
They
have
the
they
might
not
hold
those
titles
now,
but
they
can
be
leaders
and
they
I
know
both
of
them.
I,
remember
speaking
to
both
of
those
those
individuals
and
their
roles
and
I'm
not
putting
it
just
on
them
as
women,
absolutely
not,
but
they
both
held
those
roles.
I
spoke
to
both
of
them
about
the
importance
of
addressing
sexual
violence
and
gender-based
violence
and
I
know
both
of
them
took
that
seriously.
J
The
case
of
Sean
Chu
is
a
great,
is
a
great,
is
a
horrific
example
and
I
don't
want
to
talk
about
him
too
much
more.
But
what
what
a
perfect
case
study
and
why
why
we
need
to
amend
Bill
six
and
why?
Why
all
of
us
working
together
can
do
the
right
thing
not
just
for
the
Survivor
involved
in
that
situation,
but
for
future
survivors
as
well.
J
Like
I,
said:
I've
had
the
opportunity
to
to
hear
from
a
lot
of
of
survivors
in
my
role
as
a
Critic
for
status
of
women
and
two
slgbt
plus
people,
and
and
that
that's
a
reminder
to
me
as
well
that
again
we're
not
just
talking
about
women
who
are
survivors
or
victims
of
of
sexual
assault
or
sexual
violence.
We
know
that
members
of
the
2s
lgbtq
plus
Community,
are
disproportionately
impacted.
J
We
know
that
as
an
example,
racialized
trans
folks
experience
the
highest
levels
of
violence
and
discrimination.
We
know
that
indigenous
women
experience
far
higher
levels
of
violence
and
discrimination
than
their
Caucasian
counterparts
here
in
Canada.
We
know
that
Alberta
has
the
second
highest
number
of
missing
and
murdered
indigenous
women
and
girls
right.
So
we've
got
a
lot.
We've
got
a
lot.
We
need
to
work
on
here
in
Alberta
we
do
and
I
know.
Everybody
in
this
house
is
aware
of
that
and
I
heard
the
minister
for
indigenous
relations.
J
I
heard
him
stand
in
this
house
and
deliver
a
powerful
statement
and
in
his
statement
he
too
talked
about
the
need
to
address
violence
against
indigenous
women
and
using
the
words
I
think
the
words
that
I've
used
way
too
many
times
in
this
house
and
many
of
many
of
you
as
well
who've,
delivered
either
ministerial
or
member
statements.
Saying
that
words
aren't
enough.
J
We
need
action
right
and
I
know.
I,
know
I'm
a
broken
record
on
that.
Fortunately,
my
role
as
an
opposition
MLA
I
do
have
to
use
words.
A
lot
and
I
do
have
to
urge
this
government
to
to
do
the
right
thing
and
to
in
this
case
accept
our
Amendment
and
I'm
hopeful.
They
will
I've
heard
a
rumor
that
they're
looking
at
it
and
that
they
are
that
they
are
assessing
it.
I
won't
presuppose
the
outcome
of
this
house,
but
that
that
makes
me
hopeful,
I'd.
Also
love
to
see
you
know.
J
Perhaps
more
members
just
speak
to
not
just
amend
this
amendment,
but
the
bill
broadly,
because,
as
I've
heard,
both
in
second
reading
and
in
committee
as
well,
I've
I've
heard
a
lot
of
really
important
questions
being
asked
around
Bill
six
and
you
know
not
not
getting
a
lot
of
answers
because
I
can
again
say
and
I
know.
I'm
obviously
biased,
but
I
can
again
say
that
you
know
the
side
of
the
house.
We've
had
we've
done
a
lot
of
consultations.
J
We've
done
a
lot
of
consultation
with
with
racialized
communities
with
women
with
the
2s
lgbtq
plus
community.
So
it's
not
just
us.
It's
not
just
me.
It's
not
just
me
a
white
cisgender
woman
with
a
whole
heck
of
a
lot
of
privilege
asking
you
to
do
the
right
thing.
It's
it's
all
of
us
and
so
Mr
Speaker
I
would
just
Mr
chair.
Pardon
me.
I
would
just
really
urge
urge
this
entire
house
to
to
do
the
right
thing
tonight
and
to
support
us
in
in
this
amendment.
C
D
You
Mr,
chair
and
I
I
think
that
the
members
opposite
have
made
some
good
points.
I,
don't
disagree
with
that
I
my
time
in
policing.
It
can
take
victims
of
sexual
violence
many
years,
if
not
decades,
to
come
forward
and
to
and
to
report
an
incident
that
has
occurred
to
them.
Some
early
on
don't
want
to
be
re-traumatized,
they
are
intimidated.
D
There
are
many
factors
to
that
individual
that
might
might
dictate
when
and
how
they
decide
to
come
forward
and
I'd
like
to
just
point
out
that
section,
subsection
2,
it
says,
despite
subsection
one,
the
chief
executive
officer
of
the
police
review
commission
may
extend
the
time
for
making
a
complaint
in
accordance
with
the
regulations
and
I
know
that
the
members
opposite
often
say
that.
Well,
we
don't
see
the
regulations
or
we
don't
trust
what
The
Minister's
going
to
put
in
the
regulations.
D
I
Thank
you,
Mr,
chair
and
I
appreciate
the
the
government.
Responding
on
this
I
will
say,
sounds
like,
rather
than
removing
timelines
for
someone
who
is
potentially
the
the
victim
of
sexual
assaultier
battery
they're,
asking
that
person
to
go
through
additional
Hoops
to
to
get
an
exemption
to
a
process
that,
by
default
they
would
potentially
try
to
make
a
complaint.
I
Be
told
that
the
the
timeline
has
expired
and
then
have
to
do
additional
work
and,
and
that's
the
type
of
barrier
that
that
this
amendment
is
trying
to
avoid
in
line
with
what
we've
seen
for
other
court
processes
and
other
legislation.
So
I
appreciate
that
the
government's
response,
but
it
does
not
address
what
we
are
trying
to
do
here
by
increasing
access
to
Justice
and
recognizing
the
impact
of
these
types
of
traumatic
incidents
when
it
comes
to
somebody
reporting
and
seeking
that
justice.
So
thank
you.
Mr,
chair,
I,.
D
You
Mr
chair,
I,
don't
want
to
see
the
regulations
put
in
additional
Hoops
either
I
I
think
it
needs
to
be
clear
what
the
expectations
are,
and
so
that
that
is
also
clear
to
the
public,
but
the
one
to
two
year,
making
that
the
cap
then
would
put
additional
like
if
it
is
additional
Hoops.
They
would
then
come
at
the
two-year
plus
Mark.
So
the
regulations
need
to
cover
these
kinds
of
things
off.
K
You
I'll
just
be
quick
and
thank
you
very
much
for
this
discussion
and
thank
you
to
our
government
members
for
answering
back
to
you.
I.
Think
one
of
the
things
that
is
really
important,
and
particularly
when
we're
talking
about
the
Sean
Chu
incident,
is
that
multiple
times
this
person
went
back
to
try
and
actually
change
the
course
of
that
situation.
So
what
what's
happening
right
now
is
we're
actually
giving
parameters
around
the
work
that
actually
has
to
be
done
initially,
which
I
think
actually
changes
the
outcome,
particularly
in
that
situation.
K
At
that
beginning
part,
there
has
to
be
a
way
for
the
system
to
be
actually
able
to
manage
and
help
out
initially
and
that's
how
the
system
failed.
This
particular
person
who
was
assaulted
when
she
was
16.,
so
I
really
think
that
this
is
a
great
jumping
off
point
to
understand
and
I
think
as
we
go
forward
and
understand
how
it's
going
to
I
mean.
Unfortunately,
when
we're
dealing
with
this,
the
person
has
already
is
already
a
Survivor.
K
C
Other
members
wishing
to
speak
to
Amendment
A4
see
none
I'm
prepared
to
call
the
question
on
Amendment
A4,
as
proposed
by
The
Honorable
member
from
Edmonton
Millwoods
and
opposition
house
leader
on
Amendment
A4.
Are
you
agreed
all
in
favor,
say
aye,
all
those
opposed,
please
say
no
I
believe
the
no's
have
it.
The
division
has
been
called
call
in
the
members.
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
C
C
C
E
You
Mr
chair,
I,
appreciate
the
opportunity
just
to
say
a
few
brief
words.
As
I
mentioned
earlier,
I
was
looking
forward
to
this
legislation
coming
forward.
It's
been
a
long
time
coming,
there's
some
very
important
things
here
for
many
communities,
I've
spoken
with
in
terms
of
addressing
some
long-standing
issues
and
making
some
very
important
updates
and
how
we
approach
policing
in
the
province
of
Alberta.
E
It
has
been
disappointing
to
see
government
members
turned
down
every
Amendment.
We
have
brought
forward
some
reasonable
amendments
around
providing
more
time
for
folks
who
have
who
are
in
particular
situations
such
as
having
suffered
sexual
assault
or
minor
other
things,
to
have
more
time
to
be
able
to
report
to
making
changes
to
the
number
of
individuals.
E
The
minister
would
be
able
to
appoint
to
a
commission
to
ensuring
that
a
police
officer
could
not
simply
choose
to
move
to
a
different
jurisdiction
to
escape
a
disciplinary
hearing
and,
ultimately,
other
concerns
have
been
raised
by
folks
in
the
community.
Indeed,
I
know
that
one
treaty-
six
Chief,
has
spoken
out
saying
that
this
bill
would
alter
their
relationship
with
law
enforcement
and
they
had
not
been
consulted
by
this
government
on
that.
E
Certainly
I
recognize
that
this
government
has
a
majority
and
has
the
ability
to
move
forward
with
Those
portions,
and
so
things
like
an
independent
investigatory
body.
Despite
the
concerns
I
have
will
still
have
the
opportunity
to
move
forward
in
the
province
of
Alberta
but
again
on
point
of
principle.
I
feel
that
I
cannot
vote
in
favor
of
this
legislation,
but
should
we
have
the
opportunity
to
form
government
in
the
next
election
certainly
would
look
forward
to
being
able
to
make
some
of
those
changes
and
improve
on
this
act.
Thank
you.
Mr
chair.
C
C
B
You
know
this
is
I
mentioned
this
in
my
comments
on
second
reading,
and
it
I
think
it
needs
to
be
said
again
because
there's
no
doubt
about
it
that
this
is
one
of
the
most
pressing
issues
that
albertans
have
been
have
been
speaking
about,
which
is
affordability
when
we
think
about
the
rise
in
inflation.
This
is
not
a
surprise.
B
I
always
say
any
provincial
politician
who's
going
to
stand
at
your
door
and
tell
you
that
they're
going
to
solve
Global
inflation
is
not
being
honest
with
you,
because
those
are.
These
are
complex
issues
as
a
result
of
lots
of
geopolitical
factors,
including
obviously,
the
horrific
war
in
Ukraine
the
supply
chain
issues
going
back
to
the
pandemic.
There's
lots
of
complex
reasons,
but
what
provincial
elected
officials
can
do
is
two
things
Mr
chair,
it's
what
I
I
keep
selling
my
constituents.
B
One
thing
is:
we
can
certainly
ensure
that
we
do
not
make
things
more
expensive
for
outbursts.
We
do
not
increase
what
the
things
that
we
have
control
over,
such
as
things
like
car
insurance,
think
of
things
such
as,
usually
where
we
have
the
capacity
to
make
things
less
expensive.
We
should
also
do
that
Mr
Mr
chair,
so
the
two
things
are:
don't
make
things
more
expensive
and
when
you
can
make
them
less
expensive,
do
so
pretty
simple,
put
more
money
into
the
pockets
of
albertans.
That's
what
they
care
about
right
now.
B
They
are
not
seeing
their
wages
and
income
go
up
the
same
way,
and
so
we
have
to
be
really
certain
that
we
are
focused
on
those
issues
right
now,
because
that's
what
albertans
are
focused
on
and
so
knowing
those
those
two
things
you
know
we
have
to
look
at
the
complex,
the
various
choices
that
this
government
has
made
to
date
that
have
added
costs
on.
They
did
not
cause
inflation.
B
I'm
not
going
to
stand
here
and
say
that,
because
that
is
not
true,
but
this
government
has
done
a
number
of
things
to
make
things
more
expensive
for
albertans,
not
just
in
this
High
inflationary
period
that
we've
seen
over
the
last
year,
but
prior
to
that
in
many
many
ways
that
we've
all
spoken
about
quite
a
big
deal.
Quite
often
in
this
in
this
house.
You
know
we
saw,
of
course,
the
removal
of
the
tuition
cap
freeze.
We
saw
the
removal
of
utility
caps,
the
car
insurance
caps.
B
We
saw
and
I
know,
albertans
and
I
know.
Edmontonians
are
feeling
this
right
now
and
calgarians
are
feeling
this
because
of
the
massive
underfunding
and
cuts
to
municipalities
where
albertans
across
this
province
are
seeing
their
their
Municipal
Taxes
go
up
because,
of
course,
municipalities
do
not
have
the
ability
and
should
not
to
be
able
to
carry
debt,
and
so
because
of
that
they
have
to
if
they
do
not
have
enough
Revenue
to
provide
the
services
they
are
for.
B
They
are
in
many
situations,
are
forced
not
only
to
increase
property
taxes
but
to
Now
cover
the
taxes
it
through
their
taxes,
things
that
the
that
the
UCP
are
no
longer
funding,
so
we've
seen
downloaded
costs
onto
municipalities.
For
so
many
things,
including
you
know,
policing
which
we
were
just
speaking
about
in
the
previous
Bill
debate,
Mr
chair,
so
we
also
know
school
fees
have
gone
up
and
we
had
a.
We
had
a
limit
on
school
fees
when
we
were
in
government
we've
seen
all
of
these
costs.
B
Oh
in
tuition,
let's
not
even
talk
about
tuition,
but
actually,
let's
talk
about
tuition,
because
so
many
students
are
seeing
their
tuition
astronomically
increased
over
the
last
few
years,
Mr
Speaker,
Mr
chair.
Why
is
that?
Because
this
government
does
not
value
and
does
not
support
and
does
not
invest
in
our
post-secondary
system.
So
you
know
this
used
to
be
a
place
where
Alberta
would
have
high
quality,
post-secondary
institutions
and
they'd
have
low
tuition.
It
was
a.
B
It
was
a
perfect
opportunity
to
really
attract
and
draw
people
to
Alberta
post
secondaries
for
our
outstanding
programs.
I
myself
am
a
proud
graduate
from
the
University
of
Alberta,
but
it
is.
It
is
heartbreaking
for
me
to
see
not
only
the
cuts
that
have
been
instituted
by
this
government
on
the
University
of
Alberta
I'm
so
proud
to
to
graduated
from
there
and
just,
but
to
see
the
effect
that
that
has
on
so
many
of
the
staff
who
work
at
the
University
of
Alberta
but,
of
course,
directly
on
students
as
well.
B
Now,
we've
already
indicated
we
support
measures
to
do
that,
but
we
it
is
our
job
to
stand
here
and
and
and
call
to
account
how
the
government
has
chosen
to
deliver
that,
and
we
see
some
serious
challenges
in
in
the
way
that
the
affordability
programs
have
been
implemented,
are
proposed
to
be
implemented
and
what's
set
out
and
build.
Two
we
have
raised
already
in
this
house
and
I
will
continue
to
do
so.
B
How
many
albertans
are
excluded
from
these
supports,
so
many
albertans
albertans,
two
million,
don't
receive
the
direct
100
per
month
supports
that
are
are
outlined
in
the
in
this
bill
now.
Some
of
those
albertans,
of
course,
will
will
be
well
over
the
hundred
and
eighty
thousand
dollar
income
threshold
and
I.
Think
we
can
agree
that
that's
probably
not
appropriate
to
provide
Financial
supports
where
it's
not
needed,
but
the
problem
is
there.
Are
there
are
a
significant
number
of
Outboards
who
are
in
need
who
do
not
qualify?
B
B
Apparently,
you
know
told
to
make
do
with
if
they
drive,
because
not
all
of
them
do
many
of
them
take
if
we
think
about,
for
example,
post-secondary
students
and
they
they
take
transit,
for
example,
they
may
they
may
get
some
relief
from
fuel
tax
exemptions,
but
that's
only
if
they
drive
many
of
them.
Don't
and
many
of
them.
That's
not
a
direct
input
into
their
their
bank
account,
which
is
what
they
need.
They
actually
need
to
have
some
additional
support
and
I'll.
Add
Mr
chair
that
it's
you
know.
B
It
is
not
responsible
stewardship
of
of
taxpayer
dollars
to
be
giving
to
be
giving
these
this
money
and
the
support
to
people
who
don't
need
it,
but
excluding
so
many
who
do
and
so
I
will
continue
to
raise
those
concerns
about
that
issue
and
then,
just
as
we
saw
with
I
believe
it
was
Bill
4,
which
is
before
this
house
still
or
maybe
it's
past
I'm,
not
even
sure.
It's
still
before
this
house.
B
It
was
cruel,
it
was
heartless
and
it
was
contrary
to
the
stated
position
of
a
number
of
these
UCP
mlas
who
claimed
that
they
had
compassion
and
they
supported
the
idea
of
indexing
age
benefits.
Let's
remember
Mr
Mr
chair
that
we're
talking
about
a
benefit.
That's
just
over
1600
a
month.
Yeah
right!
It's
not!
It
is
not
a
lot
of
money,
and
yet
they
voted
in
favor
three
years
ago
of
de-indexing
that
support
So.
B
But
there
is
a
more
profound
impact
that
it
has
on
albertans
when
you
break
their
trust,
and
you
tell
them
that
they're
not
valued,
and
that
is
another
consistency
between
this
government's
action.
When
it
broke
the
contract
with
doctors
unilaterally
and
what
they
did
to
individuals
on
age,
they
broke
the
trust
they
told
albertans
severely
disabled
albertans.
B
You
are
not
valued
that
we
will
happily
make
your
struggles
worse
to
be
able
to
Crow
about
a
balanced
budget
and
to
show
that
we're
tough,
the
same
government
who
had
no
problem
throwing
away
over
a
billion
dollars
on
a
pipeline
that
everybody
knew
was
going
to
fail,
trumpy
and
that
don't
and
no-
and
no
apologies
for
that.
No
apologies
for
that,
but
yet
they
looked
at
disabled
albertans
and
said:
yeah
you're,
not
worth
it
to
us.
B
You
don't
have
the
value
of
a
pipeline
that
wasn't
going
anywhere
so
we're
willing
and
what
it
says
as
I
mentioned
Mr
chair
is.
It
is
that
broken
trust.
It
means
that
when
times
are
tough
again
albertans
and
those
on
H
can
be
certain
that
this
government
will
take
from
them
again
and
will
cut
their
supports
again
and
that
will
decide
to
balance.
Try
to
balance
a
budget
they'll
make
terrible
financial
decisions
on
all
fronts,
but
they'll,
look
and
they'll
stand
proudly
and
say
I'm
a
fiscal
conservative.
B
B
And
so
it's
not
surprising,
then,
when
they
want
to,
you
know,
try
to
fix
their
it's,
not
a
mistake.
They
don't
think
it's
a
mistake.
They
did
it.
They
used
it
for
the
doctors
they
didn't.
They
didn't
really
speak
to
that
either
why
they
no
longer
think
that
was
the
right
thing
to
do
and
I
think
that's
the
same
here
we
are
not
hearing
any
UCP,
MLA,
say:
I'm.
Sorry,
we
got
it
wrong
when
we
de-indexed
H
well,
we.
B
I,
don't
know
what
that
reason
is,
but
it's
not
my
job
to
give
that
explanation
to
albertans.
It
is
every
single
UCP
MLA
who
voted
in
favor
of
de-indexing
H.
It
is
their
responsibility
to
stand
up
and
explain
why
they
did
when
they
now
try
to
quote
fix
their
mistake,
because
it
can
only
be
considered
a
mistake
if
they
actually
call
it
that
and
acknowledge
that
that's
what
it
is,
but
if
they
don't-
and
they
say,
oh
secretly,
behind
closed
doors,
I
express
my
concern
about
it.
B
How
many
leadership
candidates
do
we
hear
whisper
behind
closed
doors?
Yeah?
Oh,
what
courage?
What
courage
to
stand
behind
closed
doors?
We
only
know
we
all
hear
the
stories
about
what
happens
behind
closed
doors
and
UCP
meetings.
In
fact,
we
used
to
know
from
the
Western
Standard
they
used
to
live.
B
But
there
certainly
wasn't
that's
well.
The
Western
Standard
never
captured
any
of
those
mlas
standing
up
and
speaking
out
against
the
indexing
H.
So
if
there
is
transparency,
maybe
it
never
happened,
Mr
chair,
maybe
they
never
did
actually
speak
out
against
closers.
Maybe
they
just
maybe
lost
a
couple
weeks
of
sleep
at
night,
but
in
any
event,
that
is
not
an
apology,
and
that
does
nothing
for
the
individuals
who
are
on
age
who
lost
out
on
three
thousand
dollars
during
a
pandemic,
an.
B
B
I
think
I
heard
that
today,
that
is,
that
is
also
not
an
apology,
but
would
be
happy
to
counsel
or,
or
you
know,
I
don't
know
edit
they're
they're
prepared
apologies,
although
I'm
not
going
to
hold
my
breath
that
they're
coming
so
I.
Just
with
that
Mr
Mr
chair,
you
know,
I've
spoken
and
I
could
speak
at
length
on
on
Bill
2
and
continue
to
speak
at
length.
B
What
I
want
to
say
to
albertans
is
that
that,
for
over
a
year
the
NDP
caucus
has
heard
your
concerns,
we've
put
forward
countless
proposals
to
this
government
to
either
reverse
cuts
that
they
have
made
to
put
caps
back
in
place
on
things
like
utilities
and
car
insurance.
To
do
things
to
raise
your
income
to
support
your
wage
increases,
we've
put
forward
countless
measures
to
ensure
that
you
do
have
more
money
in
your
pockets,
especially
those
who
need
it
the
most,
and
we
will
continue
to
do
that
advocacy.
B
C
H
They
understand
what
this
is
about,
and
let
me
tell
friends
that
are
watching
online
I
can
tell
you
that
this
UCP
government
has
continued
to
ignore
any
amendments
that
we've
tried
to
bring
forward
to
make
these
bills
better,
particularly
I.
Think
there's
only
one
for
Bill
2,
but
I'll
tell
you
they
aren't
speaking
to
this
bill.
They
aren't
defending
this
bill,
particularly
as
it
relates
to
Asian
income
support
and
those
income
replacement
benefits.
H
In
fact,
I'd,
say
they're
hard-pressed
to
make
eye
contact,
so
not
not
surprising,
but
that's
the
way
that
it
is
right
now
now
let
me
paint
a
picture
for
you,
Mr,
chair
and-
and
this
is
where
we
are.
So,
let's
start
in
2019..
If
you
have
something
to
say,
stand
up
and
say
it
I'll,
let
you
go
so
Mr
chair.
H
So
let
me
tell
you
in
2019
one
of
the
first
things
that
this
government
did
was
decide
that
belt
tightening
was
required,
but
they
didn't
do
that
to
themselves
Mr
chair.
They
didn't
say
you
know,
let's
just
put
our
plans
aside
for
the
War
Room
that
we're
going
to
direct
120
million
dollars
to
over
four
years.
Let's
put
that
aside,
because
people
are
having
a
hard
time,
no
one
of
the
very
first
things
they
did
was
shove.
H
The
income
support,
aish
and
seniors
benefit
into
a
huge
Omnibus
Bill
that
did
a
whole
bunch
of
other
things
that
were
very
damaging,
but
they
instantly
de-index
these
benefits.
Now
all
of
these
benefits
all
of
these
income
replacement
or
income
augmentation
programs.
All
of
these
programs
are
for
some
of
the
poorest
people
in
this
province
and
some
of
the
most
vulnerable
people
in
this
province
and
I'll
tell
you
if
you've
never
looked
at
age
eligibility
or
the
process
to
apply
for
H,
do
yourself
a
favor
and
look
at
it.
H
It
is
not
easy,
it
is
time
consuming,
and
you
know
what
in
many
cases,
people
describe
it
as
humiliating
to
go
through
those
difficult
assessments,
but
at
any
event,
these
are
people
that
are
poor
that
are
struggling
and
that
have
disabilities,
and
these
are
benefits
that
this
government
decided
to
cut.
They
spent
the
next
few
years
saying
that
they
didn't
cut
it,
but
we
know
it
was
a
cut,
so
they
did
that
in
2019.
poof
we
get
a
global
pandemic.
H
All
of
these
unknowns.
All
of
these
things
that
we
were
learning
as
we
went,
and
what
did
we
learn
was
one
of
the
first
things
that
we
learned
about.
Covid
is
who
was
very
vulnerable
and
who
was
vulnerable
people
with
disabilities,
people
with
pre-existing
health
conditions
comorbidities?
These
were
the
vertical
that
were
extremely
vulnerable
and,
of
course,
we
know
they
always
have
extra
expenses.
They
have
medical
expenses
instantly.
They
were.
People
were
frightened
to
go
to
the
grocery
store.
There
were
extra
fees
for
ordering
food
for
having
it
delivered.
H
They
had
difficulty
with
Transportation
sitting
on
a
packed
bus,
wasn't
really
an
option
instantly.
These
expenses
went
up
instantly
tack
onto
that
generational
levels
of
inflation
that
drove
the
cost
of
everything
up.
We
know
this
not
to
mention
the
things
that
the
UCP
made
worse,
but
you
know
I'm
not
going
to
speak
to
insurance
and
things
like
that,
because
the
vast
majority
of
folks
that
wasn't
an
issue
that
I
was
hearing
from,
but
they
were
struggling
with
expenses
and
all
along
the
official
opposition
stood
up.
H
We
did
press
conferences,
we
brought
in
people
to
talk
about
look
at
what's
happening,
I'm
going
to
lose
my
apartment,
I'm,
going
to
get
evicted.
I
can't
pay
the
rent
I'm
going
to
the
food
bank
every
single
week
now
and
they
won't.
Let
me
come
more
and
I
can't
feed
myself
and
my
family.
These
were
things
that
we
heard
all
the
time
you
know.
I
did
something
a
few
years
back
that
you
know.
I
wasn't
like
super
excited
to
do
it,
because
it
wasn't
about
me,
but
I
thought.
H
You
know
what
it's
probably
a
good
reminder,
so
for
one
little
month
and
I
have
enormous
privilege,
but
for
one
month
I
tried
sort
of
keeping
my
expenses
down
to
be
in
line
with
what
somebody
on
age
would
live
with,
so
how
much
they
were.
Spending
on
groceries,
I
took
the
bus
for
a
month,
because
I
couldn't
afford.
I
A
H
Of
people,
it's
not
cool,
you
have
somebody
say,
stand
up,
I'll
acknowledge
you,
but
what
happened
in
2019
we
saw
covid,
we
saw
inflation
and
then
surprise
we
find
out
homeless.
Counts
are
doubling
in
rural
communities
that
are
struggling
with
homelessness.
That
did
not
struggle
like
that.
Before
we
saw
that
happening
why
people
are
losing
their
homes,
it
makes
sense.
We
saw
Food,
Bank
usage,
explode,
explode.
People
cannot
afford
food.
You've
got
over
70
000
people
on
age.
You
have
over
a
hundred
thousand
seniors
that
rely
on
that
extra
money.
H
Well,
they
shouldn't
have
caught
it
in
the
beginning,
but
they
can't
seem
to
get
it
right.
The
first
time
they
did
not
undo
the
damage
all
the
damage
had
they
done
that
they
would
have
re-indexed
this
right
to
the
point
that
they
cut
it.
They
would
have
made
these
folks
whole,
not
only
that
they
would
have
looked
at
the
other
cuts
that
they
did
so
sneakily
through
the
last
few
years.
Not
only
did
they
cut
Income
Support
by
de-indexing,
they
also
started
kicking
people
off
supplemental
benefits
that
made
Income
Support
even
viable.
H
Now,
that's
under
900
a
month
that
these
folks
are
living
on
sixty
thousand
people.
They
were
living
on
that
because
they
got
little
bits
of
extra
money
like
rent.
They
got
another
three
hundred
and
seven
dollars
for
rent
or
they
got
an
extra
99
for
medical
transportation,
particularly
for
people
who
live
outside
of
the
large
urban
areas.
H
They
need
that
for
transportation
to
get
to
doctors
to
get
to
Ace
assessments
to
get
to
places
where
they
can
start
to
look
for
work
any
of
those
things,
but
those
things
were
cut
and
once
again,
this
government
makes
a
big
cut
and
gives
a
little
back
and
says.
Look
at
us.
Yeah
I
was
always
a
big
advocate
for
not
cutting.
That
is
bunk.
H
H
When
I
tried
that
little
experiment
trying
to
keep
my
budget,
my
personal
budget
at
under
1700
a
month,
I
couldn't
do
it
and
I
thought
I
was
you
know
pretty
good
and
I
have
enormous
privilege
and
I
have
a
lot
of
skill
to
be
able
to
budget
like
that
and
I
couldn't
do
it
I
could
not
do
it.
So
imagine
somebody
trying
to
live
on
that.
They
can't
live
on
that.
That's
why
this
time
of
year
is
so
dangerous
for
them.
H
So
it
is
part
of
the
record
I
actually
heard
from
about
I
think
it
was
about
11
or
1200
albertans
from
right
across
Alberta
who
shared
some
of
their
own
struggles
and
at
the
time
they
weren't
de-indexed
to
the
point
where
they
were.
They
are
now
because
that
was
a
while
ago,
but
they
were
already.
They
were
struggling
before.
Let's
be
honest
at
1685
they're
struggling
try
to
live
on
that,
it's
very
difficult,
so
they're
already
struggling.
We
heard
from
people
from
all
over
this
isn't
just
a
city
problem.
H
I
would
suggest
that
actually
people
that
live
outside
of
the
large
urban
areas
have
far
more
stress
and
far
more
difficulty
than
people
that
live
in
the
bigger
cities
that
have
access
to
better
programming,
more
programming,
easier
access,
they're.
Just
used
to
the
volume
it's
just
a
different
situation
and
so
some
of
the
most
heartbreaking
stories
still
to
this
day,
I
hear
from
smaller
communities.
So
people
are
saying
you
know
what
I'm
about
to
lose
my
apartment,
my
apartment,
that
you
know
I
used
to
be
able
to
afford,
but
the
rent's
gone
up.
H
Let's
say
it's
11
or
1200.
Imagine
you're
living
on
1700
and
your
rent
is
that
much
and
then
you
have
to
factor
in
in
food,
just
the
basics,
just
food,
maybe
a
phone,
and
you
just
can't
do
it
yeah,
it's
not
doable
and
so
for
this
government
to
be
unwilling
and
they've
demonstrated
this
well
for
years,
but
they've
demonstrated
in
this
particular
session.
They
have
demonstrated
their
unwillingness
to
hear
from
anybody,
but
their
own
little
bubble.
H
And
so
you
know
I,
don't
know
step
two
of
Dome
disease.
When
you
only
listen
to
friends
and
insiders,
is
you
don't
actually
hear
the
scope
of
the
problem?
And
let
me
tell
you
the
scope
of
the
problem,
which
is
poverty,
is
huge
and
it's
getting
bigger
and
if
you
don't
think
that
the
growth,
the
explosion
of
the
need
of
food
banks,
isn't
a
symptom
and
honestly
I
I
know
this
government
will
say
well,
you
know
we're
we're
making
a
big
commitment
to
food
banks.
Let's
be
honest
about
that.
H
Mr
chair:
it's
a
20
million
dollar
commitment
over
three
years,
when's
the
election
five
months
five
months
and
it's
going
through
fcss
or
some
some
stuff.
Something
like
that.
So
there's
a
matching
component
when
food
banks
need
money
now
there's
over
a
hundred
food
banks
in
this
province.
There
are
two
massive
food
banks
that
really
act
as
feeder
food
banks
for
many
many
smaller
food
banks
and
what
are
they
going
to
get
I'm
hearing
like
what
under
three
hundred
thousand
dollars
each
that's
insufficient?
That
is
not
going
to
cut
it.
That's
not
enough!
H
H
J
C
You,
honorable
member
others,
wishing
to
speak
to
Bill
2.,
seeing
that
I'm
prepared
to
call
the
question
on
Bill
number
two:
the
inflation
relief
statutes,
Amendment
act,
2022
on
the
Clauses
of
the
bill.
Are
you
agreed
opposed
carried
on
the
title
and
Preamble?
Are
you
agreed
opposed
carried?
Shall
the
bill
be
reported?
Are
you
agreed
opposed
and
that
is
carried.
O
You
Mr
Speaker,
the
committee
of
the
whole
has
had
under
consideration
certain
bills.
The
committee
reports,
the
following
bills:
bill
5,
Bill,
7,
Bill,
6
and
Bill
2.
Mr,
Speaker
I,
wish
to
table
copies
of
all
amendments
considered
by
Committee
of
the
whole
on
this
day
date
for
the
official
records
of
the
assembly
does.
N
I
I
True
when
the
oics,
the
orders
and
Council
to
do
the
government
reorganization
came
out
in
occupational
health
and
safety
in
the
Labor
Relations
code
were
forgotten
for
many
many
days.
The
importance
of
the
ministry
of
labor
and
their
files
really
slap
someone
in
the
face
right
off
the
bat
when
I
and
stakeholders
and
people
who
find
this
ministry
and
their
work
critically
important
and
valuable
when
to
try
to
determine
whether
which
of
the
two
new
ministers
was
responsible
for
what
and
in
key
pieces
of
that,
Ministry
had
not
been
assigned.
I
Fortunately,
that
information
came
out
days
later
in
a
new
OIC,
but
I
think
it
proves
the
point
that
workers
were
forgotten
in
this
cabinet
Shuffle,
so
27,
ministers,
Mr
speaker
and
to
be
very
clear.
The
previous
five
premiers
have
never
had
more
than
20
ministers.
Now
we
have
27
of
them
and,
of
course,
having
a
minister
comes
with
it.
Additional
pay
additional
benefits,
additional
staff.
I
It's
certainly
appears
that
this
Premier
has
put
about
half
of
caucus
into
cabinet
has
given
themselves
titles
that
no
one
in
the
public
understands
and
made
it
harder
to
know
which,
minister,
to
speak
with
I
know
political
scientist,
Wayne
Bratt
said
when
you
need
to
satisfy
two
goals:
party
unity
and
rewarding
loyalty.
You
get
a
large
cabinet
and
that's
what
we
seem
to
see
here
and
from
a
group
who
felt
it
was
critically
important
that
they
all
be
called
honorable
for
the
rest
of
their
lives.
I
N
Government
Health
Center,
thank
you,
Mr
Speaker
again
our
rise
to
respond
to
members
opposite
with
regards
to
Bill
7,
the
miscellany
statutes,
Amendment
Act,
striking
that
this
is
one
of
the
most
controversial
Miss
stats
bills
as
legislatures
ever
seen
in
response
to
the
movie
quote:
solid
movie
quote,
but
the
reality
is
Mr
Speaker.
This
cabinet
was
selected
by
The
Honorable
Premier
in
response
to
the
needs
that
she
feels
Alberta
has,
that
is
the
job
of
this
government
to
respond
and
I
think
we're
doing
exactly
that.
N
Recognizing
that
we're
facing
a
number
of
issues
in
this
province,
particularly
an
inflation
crisis,
created
by
our
our
friends
in
Ottawa,
the
members
opposite
in
their
leaders.
There
are
federal
leaders,
have
chosen
to
take
a
path
that
is
contrary
to
our
conservative
principles
and
we
believe
it's
the
wrong
path,
and
in
response
to
that,
the
premier
has
chosen
individuals
to
be
part
of
her
cabinet
who
she
thinks
are
best
fit
to
address.
The
issues
facing
Alberta
today.
With
that
said,
Mr
Speaker
I
do
believe
this
is
a
good
bill.
P
L
E
E
E
There
is
nothing
in
the
master
agreement
that
was
signed
in
September
that
could
not
have
been
signed
at
the
negotiating
table
two
years
ago,
but
really
that
is
kind
of
the
record.
The
history
of
this
government
on
so
many
fronts,
Mr
Speaker,
coming
in
with
Incredible
arrogance,
buried
by
certainly
a
notable
election
win.
Certainly
we'll
give
them
credit
for
that,
but
based
on
that,
having
the
idea
that
they
could
go
ahead
and
Bully
and
bulldoze
their
way
through
reform
of
the
Health
Care
system.
E
E
E
The
minister
stands
and
talks.
He
says.
Well,
you
know
this
is
the
situation
we
have
in
every
Pro
every
province
in
Canada.
Everybody
is
having
challenges
recruiting
Physicians
right
now
everybody
has
an
exhausted
Health,
Care,
Workforce
and
Mr
Speaker.
You
know
what
it's
true:
every
jurisdiction
is
struggling
right
now
and
I
will
give
this
government
credit.
It
didn't
start
the
fire,
but
they
sure
heaped
on
the
kindling
in
added
fuel
repeatedly.
E
E
E
E
When
the
minister
talks
stands
and
talks
well,
we
have
more
doctors
in
Alberta
than
ever
before,
Mr
Speaker.
Well,
we
also
have
a
larger
population
than
we
ever
had
before,
and
we
don't
know
exactly
how
many
of
those
doctors
are
actually
practicing
or
where
they're
practicing
or
what
discipline
they're
practicing
in
so
frankly,
it
is
a
useless
number
Mr
Speaker,
when
we
know
that
we
still
have
multiple
rural
sites
across
this
province
at
a
fully
closed
or
partially
closed
emergency
rooms.
E
E
E
We
could
have
been
doing
that
collaborative
work.
We
lost
two
years
of
time,
two
years
of
work
that
we
could
have
been
doing
and
we
are
having
to
start
over
at
the
beginning,
because
this
government
chose
to
adapt
this
aggressive
posture
against
Physicians
and
try
to
bully
and
bulldoze
its
way
through
to
a
reform
of
the
Health
Care
system
and
what
this
government
had
in
mind
to
replace
it.
E
E
They
play
an
important
role
in
conjunction
with
Physicians,
with
family
doctors,
with
nurse
practitioners
with
a
number
of
others.
Indeed,
there
is
some
independent
work
that
pharmacists
can
do,
but
a
pharmacist
does
not
replace
a
family
physician,
they
cannot,
but
what
we
have
with
his
government.
It
was
quite
clear
with
Bill
30
that
they
brought
forward
giving
corporations
the
ability
to
bill
in
the
same
way
that
an
individual
doctor
could
that
what
this
government
had
in
mind
was
a
replacement
of
family
physicians
with
Corporate
Care.
E
E
Now,
let's
be
clear,
they
actually
did
underpay
Family
Physicians
during
the
course
of
the
two
years
of
the
pandemic,
folks,
who
were
dependent
on
having
to
use
Virtual
appointments
to
see
their
patients
and
were
being
paid
for
15
minutes,
regardless
of
how
much
time
they
spent
with
those
patients.
So
if
they
were
providing
complex
Care
for
Seniors
or
mental
health
support
or
other
things,
they
still
got
paid
for
a
15-minute
appointment
if
they
spent
30
minutes
or
40
minutes
or
50
minutes
with
that
patient
and
doctors
were
putting
care
first,
so
they
did
so
yeah.
E
E
E
Who
achieved
the
position?
She
has
by
again
denigrating
the
folks
who
operate
our
Health
Care
system.
This
is
the
government
Mr
Speaker
that
fired
Dr,
Verna
Yu,
the
CEO
of
Alberta
Health
Services,
who
my
colleague
the
member
for
Edmonton
Glenora
awarded
the
Queen's
Platinum
Jubilee
medal
just
this
week,
and
she
was
incredibly
deserving
of
that
Mr
Speaker.
E
E
J
Thank
you
Mr,
Speaker
and
gosh.
It
is
always
very
difficult
to
follow
the
member
from
Edmonton,
City,
Center
and,
of
course,
the
health
critic
as
well,
so
I'm
not
sure
how
I
can
possibly
follow
that
and
do
do
this
justice,
but
I
will
I
will
make
my
best
effort.
It's
good,
to
see
some
support
from
the
members
opposite
over
there.
Thank
you
for
your
attention.
Calgary
Hayes
I
am
I,
am
honored
to
to
rise
and
to
speak
to
Bill.
J
Four,
not
not
because
I'm
deeply
appreciative
of
this
government's
record
on
on
Health
Care,
but
because
I
too,
like
the
member
from
Edmonton,
City,
Center,
can't
say
enough
about
the
health
care
providers.
The
healthcare
workers
in
this
province
who,
day
in
and
day
out,
have
just
yeah
they
they
truly
are
heroes
and
I.
J
J
One
of
the
things
that
I
wanted
to
do
was
share
and
and
like,
like
my
colleagues,
we've
all
been
inundated
by
stories
from
folks
on
the
front
lines
from
healthcare
workers
and
I
committed
to
somebody
that
I
would
share
briefly,
and
it
is
connected
closely
to
to
Bill
4
as
well
share
briefly
a
letter
that
she
wrote
to
her
UCP
MLA,
who
may
or
may
not
be
in
this
chamber.
I
would
not
want
to
refer
to
his
presence
or
absence,
but
perhaps
he
will
have
read
this.
J
This
email
and
she's
given
me
permission
to
share
I'm
not
going
to
share
her
name,
but
I
will
I
can
table
it
once
again,
I
find
myself
sending
an
email
because
I
feel
like
it's.
The
only
thing
I
can
do
yet
it
continues
to
feel
futile
because
very
little
response
is
received,
but
I
do
it,
because
I
feel
like
I,
owe
it
to
my
colleagues
and,
most
importantly,
our
patients
I've
been
a
registered
nurse
for
almost
16
years.
J
Currently,
I
work
in
ER
and
over
the
past
year
we
are
watching
our
health
care,
System
crumble
and
no
one
in
your
party
UCP
seems
to
care.
The
UCP
continues,
turn
a
blind
eye
and
more
drastically
chose
to
fire.
The
entire
AHS
board,
literally
the
people
who've
been
managing
the
failing
system
through
a
global
pandemic.
I'd
love
for
you
to
rationalize
that
decision.
More
importantly,
I
want
you
to
understand
the
absolute
suffering
that's
taking
place
within
the
walls
of
our
Hospital.
J
Over
the
past
several
months
we
have
seen
patients
waiting
upwards
of
seven
hours,
sometimes
more
than
12
hours,
to
be
seen
by
a
physician
you.
These
people
are
in
pain,
vomiting,
absolutely
suffering
and
unfortunately
dying.
We
have
seen
unprecedented
numbers
of
cardiac
arrests
happening
in
our
waiting
rooms
over
the
past
several
months.
J
Imagine
the
distress
of
those
other
patients
waiting
to
be
seen
watching
someone
collapse
and
receive
chest
compressions
or
how
about
the
adults
or
child
that
begins
seizing
in
the
waiting
room
or
how
about
the
patient
undergoing
chemotherapy
that
presents
with
a
fever
no
immune
system
now
febrile
and
surrounded
in
a
cramped
waiting
room
by
other
infectious
people.
Would
you
wish
that,
upon
your
wife,
sister
mother
friend,
what
about
the
gentleman
that
comes
in
in
obvious
distress
passing
a
kidney
stone,
no
carespace
for
him
to
be
seen
and
given
pain
control?
J
Is
that
something
you
believe
to
be
acceptable,
because
the
inaction
from
your
party
leads
me
to
believe
that
this
past
week
we
had
15
pediatric
admissions
in
our
18
care
spaces
in
the
stullery
ER
two
of
the
available
care
spaces
are
mental
health
beds
and
not
equipped
to
safely
manage
the
acutely
medically
ill
child
that
gives
our
physicians
one
bed
to
CER
patients.
I
wonder
who
you
would
pick
who
gets
that
precious
space
at
any
given
time?
J
How
would
you
respond
if
you
called
9-1-1
for
your
child
or
wife
and
was
told
there
was
no
ambulance
in
the
area
to
respond?
We're
trained
medical
professionals
with
years
of
experience
assigned
to
sit
at
triage
for
hours,
watching
people
suffer
before
our
eyes,
knowing
their
condition
is
serious
and
they
need
to
see
a
physician
and
yet
knowing
we
have
no
place
to
put
them.
It's
absolutely
morally
distressing
and
our
mental
health
is
suffering,
but
we
continue
to
show
up
for
albertans
each
day,
because
we
know
you
and
your
party
won't
there's.
No
wonder.
J
Nurses
are
quitting
and
leaving
the
profession.
Eventually
you
can't
do
it
anymore
so
as
she
closes
she
would
like
to.
She
would
like
both
her
MLA
and
the
minister
to
help
her
understand
how
you
all
think
this
is
okay
for
our
Province
and
in
the
meantime,
myself
and
my
colleagues
would
welcome
you
to
come
sit
in
the
waiting
room
for
eight
hours
to
witness
a
suffering
yourself
and
she
concludes
by
saying
over
the
past
several
weeks.
I've
heard
so
many
people
say
I've
never
voted
anything
but
conservative,
but
I
can't
vote
for
them
anymore.
J
I,
pray.
This
province
turns
orange
because
the
UCP
continue
to
fail
every
albertan
day
in
and
day
out
and
that
those
are
the
words
from
a
registered
nurse
here
in
Alberta.
It
is
a
really
great
letter
and
it
was
a.
It
was
a
hard
one
to
read
and
I
can
tell
you
myself
and
my
colleague
from
Edmonton
City
Center.
All
of
us.
We
get.
We
get
letters
like
that.
We
get
messages
like
that.
All
the
time.
J
J
It
was
two
Fridays
ago
when
we
learned
of
the
discharging
of
respite
pediatric
respite
patients
from
the
rotary
Flames
house
in
Calgary
I
heard
from
nurses
who
work
there,
who
aren't
allowed
to
speak
publicly
for
fear
of
of
reprimand,
just
how
incred
and
they
even
shared
they
shared
that
you
know
it's
it's
even
worse
than
what's
being
reported
right
and
it
never
needed
to
to
be
there.
It
never
needed
to
get
to
that
place
and
what
kind
of
Province
are
we
in?
J
Where
we're
accepting
the
fact
that
we
have
to
limit
services
for
palliative
children?
How
did
we
get
here?
Well,
we
know
how
we
got
here
and
Bill
4
attempts
to
try
to
address
some
of
that
and
I
think
about
I.
Think
about
the
family,
doctors
and
the
nurses
that
we've
heard
from
who
are
also
leaving
this
province
in
large
numbers.
J
J
So
we
saw
a
government,
and
the
minister
start
to
realize
that,
like
they're
in
their
choices
were
having
a
tangible
effect
on
on
Physicians,
it
wasn't
just
the
NDP
fear
and
smear.
The
data
was
showing.
The
data
was
showing
that
doctors
were
leaving.
140
doctors
left
the
province
in
2021,
I,
don't
know
if
the
member
from
Calgary
Hayes
who's
who's,
hackling
right
now
knocks
on
doors
or
talks
to
constituents,
but
I
guarantee
I,
don't
know,
I,
don't
know
because
he
doesn't
join
debate,
but
I
guarantee
you
I
guarantee
you
that
his
patients
are
concerned.
J
His
constituents
are
concerned
about
health
care.
They
absolutely
are
and
he's
saying
for
folks
watching
at
home,
who
can't
hear
he's,
saying
fear
and
smear
kind
of
rhetoric
that
does
nothing
to
address
Health
Care
in
in
this
province,
and
we
are,
the
numbers
are
clear:
the
data
is
clear:
we've
lost,
Physicians,
we've
lost
nurses,
we've
lost
health
care
providers.
J
One
of
the
things
that
I
think
about
is
the
loss
of
healthcare
services
as
well,
so
not
just
the
workers,
but
it's
tied
into
that.
So,
for
instance,
the
last
the
the
loss
of
obstetric
services,
yeah
we've
seen
obstetric
Services
close
across
this
province.
My
hometown,
a
bar
had
put
into
the
member
from
Al
at
the
basketball
at
Westlock,
is
one
example:
Fort
Saskatchewan,
bonnieville,
Cold,
Lake
I,
don't
have
a
list
in
front
of
me,
but
it
is
an
extensive
one.
J
J
Exactly
at
a
time
when
you're
already
experiencing
a
great
deal
of
stress
and
having
to
add
on
those
extra
layers
of
of
anxiety,
simply
not
acceptable
and
again,
it
didn't
need
to
be
there
and
most
of
the
times
that,
when,
when
releases
were
put
out
about
the
reason
why
staffing
issues
unable
to
staff
some
of
those
rural
hospitals,
people
have
left
Health.
Care
Providers
have
left
that,
and
that
is
a
fact
and
I.
J
And
not
get
us
into
a
place
where
you're
having
to
fix
the
mistakes
of
the
past,
and
you
know
what
I
won't
conclude
as
eloquently
as
my
colleague,
the
member
from
Edmonton,
City
Center,
but
I.
Think
it's
a
clear,
clear
reminder:
albertans
have
seen
a
lot
it's
hard
to.
Remember
everything.
It's
hard
to
remember
all
the
the
the
many
attacks
on
Health
Care
in
this
province
by
this
UCP
government.
P
Honorable
members
on
the
question
of
third
reading
bill
for
moved
by
The
Honorable,
the
minister
of
healthy
Alberta,
Health,
Care
insurance,
Amendment
act,
2022,
all
those
in
favor
for
third
reading,
please
say
aye
any
opposed.
Please
say
no,
in
my
opinion,
the
eyes
have
it
that
motion
is
carried
and
so
ordered.
M
N
The
government
house
leader,
thank
you,
Mr
Speaker,
it's
my
pleasure
to
rise
on
behalf
of
the
Minister
of
Justice
and
move
third
reading
of
Bill
five,
the
Justice
statutes
Amendment
Act
Mr
Speaker.
This
proposed
amendment.
This
supposed
bill
piece
of
legislation,
changes
six
laws,
the
legislative
assemblies
act,
Perpetual
courts,
act
into
jurisdictional
support,
orders,
act,
referendum,
acts,
sales
of
goods
act
in
the
trustee
act,
Mr
Speaker
changes,
the
Legislative
Assembly
active,
allowed
legislative
assembly
security
to
be
considered
peace
officers.
As
a
result,
they
would
have
legislative
authority
to
carry
firearms
for
their
arm.
N
They
would
receive
necessary
training
to
handle
the
use
of
firearms.
This
change
will
bring
our
burden
in
line
with
many
of
the
jurisdictions.
Next,
it
proposed
changes.
The
provincial
courts
act,
Mr
Speaker.
We
are
advocating
to
increase
the
Civil
claims
limit
of
matters
that
can
be
filed
through
the
provincial
courts.
To
be
clear.
What
we're
proposing
today
doesn't
actually
increase
the
limit.
This
is
just
about
making
sure
the
government
has
the
ability
to
do
so.
The
decided
that
the
amount
should
increase.
Currently
the
limits
for
small
claims
court
is
fifty
thousand
dollars
changes.
N
This
means
moral
burdens
could
choose
to
represent
themselves.
At
the
same
time.
This
would
free
up
time
and
resources
in
the
court
of
King's
bench
to
focus
on
more
complex
matters,
to
make
it
easier
for
our
Birds
to
collect
child
and
use
spouses
support
Bill
5
includes
recommendation,
recommended
changes
to
the
inter-jurisdictional
support
orders
act.
This
would
help
families
receive
financial
support.
They
are
owed
from
ex-partners
and
spouses
when
they
live
in
different
parts
of
the
country.
N
N
This
will
also
be
amending
the
sale
of
goods
act
to
require
good
title
of
grain
right
now
to
acquire
a
good
title
to
grain
right
now.
A
buyer
must
keep
a
record
of
the
kind
of
vehicle
delivering
the
Grain
and
its
license
number.
These
changes
were
requested
by
the
agriculture
stakeholders.
Changes
will
eliminate
redundant
record-keeping
requirements
for
buyers
when
grain
is
sold
and
delivered
to
a
grain.
N
Elevator
sale
of
goods
act,
dates
back
to
1919
is
a
while
ago,
and
this
provision
regarding
grain
sales
originated
in
com,
English,
common
law,
which
was
carried
over
to
into
provincial
legislation
when
Alberta
became
a
province
in
1905.
This
is
now
met
by
other
such
records
around
this
is
his
need,
is
now
met
by
other
such
records
as
the
bill
of
sale.
N
Final
change
proposed
to
this
bill
rather
to
this
legislation,
would
amend
the
new
trustee
act
that
comes
into
Force
next
year
and
proposed
changes
will
make
it
clear
that
a
trust
will
not
fail
if
there
is
a
temporary.
If
there
is
temporarily
no
trustee,
we've
removed
the
transfer
of
trust
properties
to
the
court,
allowing
the
trust
property
to
move
directly
to
the
new
trustee
once
appointed
Mr
Speaker.
N
All
these
changes
mean
that
our
burdens
will
now
have
more
choices
and
an
improved
experience
when
dealing
with
legal
or
the
court
process,
and
you
can
look
forward
to
more
safe
and
positive
experience
when
visiting
the
legislature.
I'd
also
like
to
give
a
shout
out
to
the
security
officers
here,
as
they
do
a
tremendous
amount
of
work
on
our
behalf.
Thank
you
for
them
and
with
that
Mr
Speaker
I
ask
for
support
of
third
reading
and
Bill
5
the
Justice
Texas.
G
P
G
Non-Constitutional
ref
referendums
requiring
motion
to
be
passed
by
the
assembly
first,
and
this
I
think
is
a
mistake.
Anything
that
is
important
enough
to
be
decided
by
a
referendum
in
the
province,
I
think
needs
to
be
formulated
via
legislation
via
the
legislature.
I
think
that
the
legislature
should
be
formulating.
That
question
at
least
speak
to
the
the
issue
of
the
the
referendum
question
at
hand
and,
of
course
the
government
will
still
have
its
majority,
but
indeed
to
anything,
that's
important
enough
to
go
before
the
the
province
in
the
referendum.
G
Question
should
be
run
through
this
house
first
and
I
really
will
be
watching
that
carefully.
Of
course,
we've
known
we've
seen
two
referendums
in
the
time
frame
that
I've
been
a
member
of
this
legislature,
a
constitutional
referendum
on
Equalization,
for
which
a
an
order
of
council
was
issued,
August,
9,
2021
and
then
the
daylight
saving
time
referendum
and
non-constitutional
referendum,
but
both
of
those
were
important.
The
daylight
saving
time
was
very,
very
controversial
and
engaged
a
lot
of
albertans
anything
that
is
important
enough
to
go
to
a
referendum
in
our
representative
form
of
democracy.
G
It
should
be
running
through
this
legislature.
First,
we
don't
have
a
direct
democracy,
and
that
is
what
a
referendum
is
is
a
an
element
of
direct
democracy.
It's
a
bit
of
a
clash
with
a
representative
system,
therefore
I
think
when
we
do
depart
from
our
representative
system
and
go
towards
a
an
element
or
a
tool
of
a
referendum
with
some
common
upon
us
to
make
sure
that
the
legislature
speaks
to
it
by
having
it
run
through
legislature.
First,
so
I'll
end
my
remarks
there.
Thank
you.
F
This
bill
means
six
pieces
of
legislations
and
have
some
good
changes.
You
know
I
will
acknowledge
that,
and
certainly
some
of
the
questions
around
a
few
of
the
changes
proposed
in
this
well,
so
the
Bell
Mains
introduced
sectional
sport,
orders,
Act
and
also
provincial
Kodak
and
referendum
act.
As
my
colleague
said
in
trustees,
act
I
do
support
changes
into
the
trustees
act
as
I
have
personally
experienced.
F
F
But
there
are
questions
like
working
with
sport.
They
are
providing
and
the
sources
they're
providing
to
improve
the
capacity
of
the
lower
court
to
handle
the
these
cases,
and,
interestingly,
I
really
wanted
to
say
this
for
the
record
that
for
the
past
almost
four
years,
like
more
than
three
and
a
half
years
under
this
UCP
government
and
two
premiers,
we
have
discussed
the
justice
act
many
times.
But
you
know
it's
surprising
to
see
that.
F
So
what
every
time
we
were
discussing
is
just
how
you
call
it?
Probably
you
can
call
or
step
of
the
ice
work.
It
was
not
something
really
that
albertans
are
looking
at
the
government
to
make
changes
particle
only
for
those
folks
or
albertans
who
who
feel
the
pain
and
experience
fell
through
the
cracks
or
they
are
looking
at
the
government
to
make
changes
to
improve
the
access
to
the
justice
system.
F
Not
only
this
government
I
remember
those
moments
when
the
Justice
misters
himself
are
discussing
the
findings
of
these
governments
that
how
the
justice
system
requires
the
improvements
by
investing
into
hiring
more
judges
and
ground
prosecutors
and,
furthermore,
there's
a
lot
more
to
do
in
the
justice
system
by
expanding
these
Services
into
the
different
languages
or
hiring
more
interpreters,
hiring
more
translators.
So
there's
a
lot
more
to
do,
but
it
was
very
discouraging
to
see
or
the
complete
the
exhibits
on
this
government's.
F
How
should
I
see
lack
of
understanding-
or
you
know,
lack
of
commitment
being
able
to
really
or
lack
of
ability
to
address
the
people's
merry
issue.
They
are
they're
aware
of
I
will
say
what
I
want
to
see
on
the
record
GUI
as
well
as
NDP.
We
conducted
the
consultation
for
10
months
from
2020
to
2021
and
heard
from
the
mostly
the
racialized
and
marginalized
communities
and
Business,
Leaders
and
I
wanted
to
say
we
are
determined
to
raise
their
voices
and
address
their
issues.
F
A
P
M
P
P
Q
Well,
thank
you
very
much
Mr
Speaker,
and
it
is
both
an
honor
and
a
privilege
to
rise
this
evening
on
behalf
of
the
minister
of
affordability
and
utilities,
to
move
third
reading
of
Bill,
two,
the
inflation
relief
statutes,
Amendment
Act
2022.,
Mr
Speaker.
This
legislation
will
ultimately
help
millions
of
albertans
deal
with
the
affordability
crisis.
Q
Mr
Speaker.
There
has
been
a
lot
of
good
debate
in
this
chamber
from
all
members
of
this
house
and
I
appreciate
the
input
that
we've
already
received
and
because
of
that
input,
Mr
Speaker.
We
are
already
working
on
regulations
and
online
systems
to
help
facilitate
and
deliver
those
financial
payments.
Q
A
P
R
R
One
aspect
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
hearings.
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.
R
R
We
also
heard
from
many
communities
that
the
existing
requirements
to
establish
a
policing
Committee
in
the
police
act
were
too
onerous
and
came
with
two
high
price
tags
for
smaller
municipalities.
These
amendments
will
fix
that
by
eliminating
the
requirement
to
hire
specific
staff
for
the
committee
and
by
allowing
smaller
communities
to
share
these
administrative's
costs
through
Regional
committees.
R
This
legislation
will
require
diversity
and
inclusion
plans
that
outline
steps
police
are
taking
to
reflect
their
communities
and
to
educate
officers
about
the
distinct
cultural
needs
of
the
people
that
they
work
with.
We
believe
that
improving
those
ties
will
result
in
better
outcomes
between
police
and
the
people
they
serve
foreign.
R
The
provincial
government
has
a
legislative
responsibility
to
ensure
adequate
policing
in
Alberta,
and
this
is
a
logical,
logical
extension
of
that
mandate.
The
key
proposals
in
this
legislation
are
a
product
of
listening
to
a
broad
range
of
albertans,
from
all
corners
of
the
province,
from
a
variety
of
backgrounds
and
occupation.
It's
important
if
this
legislation
is
passed,
that
we
continue
to
listen
to
stakeholders
as
we
move
to
implement
it
for
Alberta.
R
This
bill
is
a
fundamental
shift
that
reimagines
police
as
an
extension
of
the
community
and
provides
a
variety
of
practical
and
realistic
reforms
aimed
at
getting
us.
There.
I
hope
that
all
members
on
both
sides
of
this
house
will
be
able
to
support
this
legislation,
which
will
ensure
police
are
more
accountable
to
the
public
and
more
responsive
to
its
needs.
Ultimately,
police
services
that
are
more
in
tune
with
the
people
they
serve
will
help
build
safer
communities
for
everyone
in
Alberta,
no
matter
where
they
live.
P
M
N
Leader,
thank
you,
Mr
Speaker,
I
Rise
to
move
government
motion
17
on
the
order
paper
and
it
reads
as
follows:
be
resolved
that,
pursuant
to
section
3
of
the
statutes
repeal
act,
essay
2013,
cs-19.3
the
following
statutes
appearing
on
the
list
of
statutes
to
be
repealed,
which
was
tabled
in
the
assembly
by
the
clerk
of
the
assembly.
On
behalf
of
the
then
Ministry
of
justice
and
solicitor
general
on
March
14
2022
sessional
paper
24-2020
not
be
repealed.
N
P
P
N
Thank
you.
Mr
Speaker
got
a
little
ahead
of
myself
there
for
a
moment:
I
Rise
to
move
government
18
government
motion
18
on
the
order
paper,
be
it
resolved
that
a
the
2021-2022
annual
report
of
the
office
of
the
child
advocate
be
referred
to
the
standing
committee
on
legislative
offices
for
review
B.
The
committee
made
without
leave
of
the
assembly
sit
during
a
period
when
the
assembly
is
adjourned
or
perod,
see
in
accordance
with
section
21b
of
the
child
and
youth
Advocate
act.
N
P
P
P
N
Honorable,
the
government
house
leader,
thank
you,
Mr
Speaker,
I
Rise,
to
move
government
motion
19
on
the
order
paper,
be
it
resolved
at
a
the
2019-2021
annual
report
of
the
Alberta
property
rights
advocate
office,
be
referred
to
the
standing
committee
on
Alberta's
economic
futures
for
review
B.
The
committee
May
without
leave
of
the
assembly
sit
during
a
period
when
the
assembly
is
adjourned
or
peroged,
see
in
accordance
with
Section
55
of
the
property
rights
Advocate
act.
The
committee
shall
report
back
to
the
assembly
within
60
days
of
the
report
being
referred
to
it.
P
Honorable
members
government
motion
19
is
a
debatable
motion
pursuant
standing
order,
18
1
I
is
there
anyone
wishing
to
join
in
the
debate,
seeing
none
I
am
prepared
to
call
in
the
government
house,
leader
to
close
the
bay
to
The
Honorable
government
Health
leader
The
Honorable,
the
government
house
leader
has
moved
government
motion
19
all
those
in
favor
of
the
motion,
please
say
aye
any
opposed.
Please
say
no,
my
opinion
in
the
eyes
have
it
that
motion
is
carried
and
so
ordered
the
honorable,
the
government
house,
leader.