►
Description
Legislative Assembly of Alberta
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
D
Thank
you
very
much.
Mr
Speaker
I
rise
to
speak
I
believe
in
favor
of
the
motion
as
part
of
our
overall
position,
that
we
are
very
much
posed
to
Bill,
one
as
I
believe
members
of
the
opposition
or
members
of
the
government
have
since
become
aware
of
so
I.
Think
I
have
a
fair
amount
of
time
to
talk
about
this
tonight,
we'll
see
how
how
long
it
takes.
D
Think
some
long-standing
concerns
that
both
the
current
government
and
the
previous
government,
that
being
the
one
that
I
led
the
concerns
that
we
had
with
what
at
the
time
was
called
bill.
C69,
which
is
the
the
government's
the
federal
government's
environment,
protection
act
and
so
I
think
it
is
fair
to
say
that
there
is
some
common
concerns
shared
there.
I
would,
however,
also
argue
that
the
behavior
of
this
UCP
government
since
they've
been
elected,
doesn't
actually
align
with
the
behavior.
You
would
expect
to
see
from
a
government
that
was
truly
pursuing
Solutions.
D
Now
there
was
an
emissions
cap
that
our
government
had
proposed
with
the
climate
leadership
plan,
which
was
considerably
higher
than
the
one
that
is
currently
being
put
forward
by
the
federal
government.
Now
it
is
actually
true
that
if
the
provincial
government
had
maintained
provincial
jurisdiction
in
the
matter,
that
is
a
shared
jurisdiction
around
Environmental,
Protection
and
the
way
in
which
efforts
to
reduce
emissions
impacted
the
oil
and
gas
sector
if
they
had
maintained
a
sense
of
ownership
and
responsibility.
With
respect
to
those
issues.
D
Movement
both
ensuring
that
the
the
outcomes
were
reasonable
for
the
oil
and
gas
industry
and
were
actually
achievable
in
a
way
that
did
not
negate
production
and
didn't
negate
the
jobs
of
hard-working
albertans
and,
at
the
same
time,
pushed
the
oil
and
gas
sector
to
truly
invest
aggressively
in
those
kinds
of
innovations
that
would
bring
about
the
kind
of
important
emissions
reductions
that
all
of
us
in
Alberta,
as
well
as
across
Canada
and
across
the
world,
need
to
see.
And
we
could
have
gotten
there
and
through
that.
D
We
would
also
have
eliminated
the
uncertainty
that
currently
exists
and
is
percolating
around
right
now
on
this
topic.
But
you
see
we're
not
at
that
point
Mr
Speaker
and
we're
not
at
that
speaker
at
that
point,
because
this
government
decided
instead
to
engage
in
a
whole
series
of
statutory
and
and
Regulatory
and
and
Communications
based
temper
tantrums
not
to
achieve
an
outcome,
but
rather
to
speak
to
and
maintain
support
amongst
a
certain
base
within
Alberta
Their
audience
was
always
Alberta
voters.
D
It
was
never
the
people
who
we
should
have
been
working
with
in
order
to
achieve
an
outcome.
That
would
give
greater
certainty
and
better
outcomes
for
industry
as
well
as
our
environment,
and
so
they
didn't
do
the
job
and
they
abandoned
the
space.
So
I
agree
that
we
are
now
in
a
position
where
we
have
a
federal
government
offering
up
a
a
draft
emissions
cap
which
is
problematic
for
the
industry
and
problematic
for
albertans.
But
what
I
will
and
I
will
speak
more
about
how
this
act
does
absolutely
nothing
to
address
that
issue.
D
Instead,
now
the
other
one
that
the
members
talk
about,
of
course,
is
you
know
responding
to
the
elements
of
the
environmental
legislation
that
was
amended
as
a
result
of
Bill
c-69,
and
on
that
there
were
common
positions
again
between
the
UCP
government
and
our
government.
Indeed,
we
did
detailed
submissions
to
the
federal
government
and
to
the
senate
about
why
that
bill
should
not
go
ahead
and
ultimately,
I
believe
this
UCP
government
adopted
our
submissions
once
they
were
elected
now.
D
Obviously
that
was
not
successful
and
the
matter
has
gone
to
court
and
we
will
see
where
that
ultimately
is
where
it
lands.
Once
the
Supreme
Court
of
Canada
has
a
chance
to
adjudicate
on
that
matter
and
likely
we'll
get
some
version
of
an
answer,
next
fall,
but
this
act
does
not
in
any
way
shape
or
form
appear
to
provide
any
tools
to
albertans
or
those
people
impacted
by
that
piece
of
federal
legislation
and-
and
so
once
again
it
is
completely
disconnected
from
the
purported
objective
and
I.
D
What
what
do
most
people
think
about
it?
Well,
we
just
got
a
poll
a
few
days
ago
that
suggests
that
53
of
albertans
do
object
to
the
statement
that
this
act
is
an
important
tool
for
standing
up
for
albertan's
interests
and
only
32
percent
of
albertans
agree
with
the
statement
that
this
act
is
an
important
tool
for
supporting
albertan's
interests.
So
clearly,
this
government
is
not
actually
focused
on
representing
the
desires
or
the
wants
of
albertans.
So
that's
not
what's
going
on
here.
D
Leadership
contests
invite
people
to
use
their
inside
voice
and
or
their
slightly
more
accountable
and
transparent
voice,
and
so,
let's
you
know
just
do
a
little
walk
down
memory
lane
in
terms
of
what
members
of
the
UCP
now
cabinet,
or,
in
some
cases
back
benches,
had
to
say
about
the
concept
of
a
sovereignty
Act,
the
minister
of
jobs
and
economic
development
and
Northern
development
said
the
sovereignty.
Act
is
nothing
more
than
quote
virtue.
Signaling,
a
quote
fiscal
fairy
tale
end
quote
that
doesn't
make
any
sense
and
won't
work.
D
The
minister
of
trade
and
immigration
and
multiculturalism
said
that
the
sovereignty
act
will
create
quote
an
unconstitutional
delusion
that
will
lead
the
United
conservative
party
and
Alberta
down
a
dangerous
path.
End
quote
the
minister
in
charge
of
Municipal
Affairs
called
it.
The
Anarchy
act
quote
a
false
dream
that
will
turn
into
a
nightmare.
End
quote
the
Minister
of
Finance
said
the
sovereignty
act
would
take
us
backwards
because
it
would
create
chaos,
and
he
also
shared
a
graphic
that
called
the
legislation,
a
quote
ticking
time
bone
and
whoa.
D
The
member
for
sundry,
Rocky,
Mountain
House
called
it
quote
very
problematic
and
went
on
to
say
that
it
would
break
the
law,
spook
the
markets
and
would
be
impossible
to
deliver
on
and
finally,
the
member,
the
current
environment,
Minister
environment
ministers
said
that
the
ACT
would
quote,
create
instability
and
Chaos.
It
is
already
doing
that
I
had
International
investors
concerned
about
their
Assets
in
Alberta,
asking
what
was
going
on
with
it
and
quote
so.
That
is
the
conversation
that
preceded
the
introduction
of
the
actin
and
just
to
be
clear.
D
It
didn't
work
out
very
well
for
folks,
so
it's
a
bit
of
a
mess
and
how's
it
been
since
then.
Well,
of
course,
the
the
Act
was
introduced,
Mr
Speaker
last
Tuesday.
It
was
introduced
last
Tuesday
or
and
and
debate
on
it
began
last
Wednesday
and
interestingly
by
Wednesday,
not
even
24
hours
after
it
was
actually
introduced
immediately.
Following
reading
of
the
throne
speech,
Mr
Speaker,
the
government
caucus
was
rushing
out
to
provide
quote,
unquote
clarification.
D
Well
that
ought
to
make
the
folks
over.
There
feel
super
confident
about
how
well
this
puppy
was
thought
through.
What
I
will
tell
you
is
it
certainly
did
not
make
investors
or
albertans
feel
confident
about
it.
So,
obviously
that
day
and
the
subsequent
day,
members
of
the
opposition
raised
several
concerns
about
the
Act,
and
the
first
thing
that
we
raised
was,
of
course,
the
fact
that
the
ACT
included
this
concept.
D
D
Mr
Speaker
and
what
followed
was
the
profound
level
of
either
on
one
hand,
confusion
or,
on
the
other
hand,
disturbingly
thoughtful
efforts
to
lead
this
assembly
to
believe
a
state
of
facts
which
did
not
align
with
the
language
of
the
act
that
she
was
introducing,
and
so
in
fact,
I
asked
her
today.
So
that
was
one
of
two
things
just
happened
there
either
she
was
intentionally
trying
to
slide
that
Henry
VIII
Clause
right
past
members
of
this
assembly.
Without
us.
D
Knowing
nothing
to
see
here,
don't
worry,
I'm
just
going
to
make
assurances
one
or
two
times
tell
you,
you
don't
know
what
you're
reading
it's
not
in
the
act.
You
know
that
black
and
white
stuff,
black
and
white
are
awkward
colors,
just
ignore
them
blur
your
vision
read
into
what
it
is
that
I
meant
trust
me
do
not
read
the
actual
words
that
appear
in
the
legislation.
D
That's
what
she
said
and
was
she
saying
that
because
she
wanted
us
to
not
notice
that
she
was
doing
an
unprecedented
Democratic
or
undemocratic
Power
grab
and
Democratic
overreach?
Was
that
it
or
and
here's
the
thing,
Mr
Speaker
I've
been
sort
of
sitting
around
watching
and
thinking
about
this
and
I'm
only
speculating,
but
I
actually
believe
it
was.
The
second
thing,
I
think
she
literally
didn't
read
her
signature
bill.
I
literally
think
Flagship
Bill
somebody
in
her
office
briefed
her
on
it
and
she
literally
didn't
read
it.
E
The
speaker,
the
the
person
speaking
just
made,
allegations
against
a
number
another
member,
not
against
the
party
but
against
an
individual
member
under
23h,
makes
allegations
another
member
and
I
of
imputes
false
motive
of
motives
to
another
member
and
Jay
uses
abusive
or
insulting
language.
I
I
know
the
The
Honorable
member
is
having
a
good
time
revising
history,
forgetting
about
the
fact
that
she
had
a
minister
walk
in
here
with
a
five-page
bill
and
came
in
a
couple
days
later
with
an
eight
page
Amendment.
F
You
Mr
Speaker
I,
think
it's
not
a
point
of
order.
Honorable
member
was
just
going
through
how
the
person
won
the
leadership,
what
they
wanted
the
bill
to
look
like
what
they
tried
to
do
initially
now
they're
agreeing
to
change
that
bill.
That's
all
in
public
all
part
of
public
record
in
a
matter
of
debate
and
I.
Think
earlier,
the
government
even
clarified
that
they
will
be
making
changes.
So
we
are
just
talking
about
things
that
are
on
public
record
and
all
these
things
are
that
are
public
debate.
G
B
I
I
would
say
that
the
member
is
being
as
creative
as
possible
to
imply
that
the
premier
was
doing
something
that
you're
not
allowed
to
do
in
this
house,
and
she
knows
that
you
can't
do
indirectly
what
you
can't
do
directly
and
so
I
would
just
provide
some
caution
there,
as
well
as
the
use
of
what
some
people
might
consider
direct
personal
attacks
in
terms
of
seeing
statements
like
she
arrogantly
or
otherwise.
It
certainly
sounds
directed
at
the
premier
and
and
not
through
the
speaker.
D
Well,
thank
you
very
much
Mr
Speaker.
Well.
Just
allow
me
then,
to
to
clarify-
and
my
apologies
I
certainly
meant
only
to
recount
the
the
the
history
where,
when
I
asked
the
premier
why
it
was
that
this
type
of
clause
appeared
in
the
act.
The
premier
stood
up
and
told
me
that
it
did
not
appear
in
the
act
and
then
accuse
me
of
not
having
read
the
ACT.
D
In
this
case,
because
what's
happening
now,
is
we
have
a
bill
that
is
creating
massive
economic
uncertainty
across
the
country
internationally
and
certainly
across
the
province
now
the
first
ground
for
that
uncertainty
of
course
exists
by
way
of
the
history
that
I
just
just
out
loud.
The
fact
that
there
was
such
a
clear
inability
of
members
opposite
to
describe
what
it
was.
D
They
were
asking
the
people
of
this
province
to
give
them
the
authority
to
do
by
way
of
this
legislation
the
fact
that
they
seemed
unaware
of
what
appeared
in
the
legislation
Mr
Speaker
and
when
you
have
folks
talking
about
rewriting
federal
laws
arbitrarily
in
our
Province
relative
to
the
rest
of
the
country.
You
definitely
want
to
know
that
you
have
confidence
that
those
folks
know
what
they're
doing,
and
that
certainly
is
not
what
we've
heard
thus
far.
D
Understand
or
in
this
country
understand
that
the
failure
to
begin
every
effort
and
initiative
by
speaking
with
and
and
gaining
consent
from
indigenous
leadership
and
respecting
treaty
rights.
They
have
to
understand
that
that
is
a
recipe
for
profound
economic
uncertainty
and
yet,
once
again,
Bill
won
the
the
premier's
first
bill.
What
did
she
do?
D
She
manages
to
somehow
generate
full-throated
opposition
from
leadership
in
both
treaty
six
and
treaty
eight,
and
that
is
a
wrong
in
principle,
just
because,
obviously
of
the
principle
that
we
should
all
be
respecting
treaty
rights
and
also
adds
to
this
concern
that
I'm
identifying
around
economic
uncertainty
now.
We
also,
of
course,
get
uncertainty
arising
from
the
questionable
nature
of
the
legality
of
this
piece
of
legislation.
D
So
we've
heard
that
there
are
a
number
of
constitutional
Scholars
who
have
primarily
identified
that
they
believe
at
first
glance,
that
this
is
going
to
run
into
trouble
at
the
in
the
courts.
Now
there
are
a
couple
of
exceptions
to
that
rule:
Premier
herself
is
identifying
them
former
Supreme
Court
Justice
Jack
major
in
a
very
sort
of
you
know,
two-paragraph
interview
with
CBC
said:
oh,
you
know,
I,
don't
know
it
might
not
be
too
bad
and
of
course
another
constitutional
scholar
from
UBC
suggested.
D
Oh
well,
maybe
it'll
be
okay
and
then,
of
course
you
know
the
the
lawyer
for
the
the
Convoy
protesters
thinks
it's
absolutely
constitutional.
So
there
you
go
there.
That's
certainly
a
source
you
want
to
be
dining
out
on,
but
there
are
a
number
of
other
constitutional
Scholars
who
object
to
those
assertions
and
I
think
we're
going
to
see
more
and
more
detailed
analyzes
of
exactly
why
that
is,
and
I
had
and
I'm,
not
saying
that
what
I'm
about
to
outline
is
absolutely
accurate.
D
Mr
Speaker,
it's
just
one
of
several
opinions
that
I've
heard
from
a
well-known
constitutional
Scholars
and
so
I
wanted
to
sort
of
walk.
You
through
one
of
the
the
the
concerns
that
has
been
relayed
to
me
by
a
constitutional
scholar,
and
essentially
he
argues
that
this
whole
concept
of
inviting
the
legislature
to
make
a
determination
of
constitutionality
is
in
and
of
itself
a
breach
of
section
96
of
the
Constitution
section.
D
96
is
the
clause
which
has
had
a
tremendous
amount
of
common
law
consideration
by
the
court,
which
essentially
sets
out
that
responsibility
is
divided
between
the
federal
government
and
the
provincial
government
and
the
job
of
determining
which
is
which
rests
with
the
courts.
That's
what's
in
section
96,
and
by
calling
upon
this
legislature
to
suddenly
say
nope
we're
not
going
to
wait
for
the
courts.
We
are
going
to
make
a
decision
in
place
of
the
courts.
We
are
in
effect
running
into
some
constitutional
problems.
D
Now,
obviously,
a
government
implicitly
makes
the
determination
that
their
own
legislation
is
constitutional,
but
for
one
level
of
government
to
offer
up
opinion
about
another
level
of
government's
constitutionality.
That's
where
I
am
told
we
run
into
problems
and
that's
where
we
start
to
run
into
questions
around
the
rule
of
law.
Well,
how
does
that
happen?
You
ask
I,
know
you're
asking
you're
fully
engaged
in
this
conversation.
I
can
tell
how
does
that
happen?
D
D
D
D
Thank
you,
Mr
Speaker.
We
have
this
idea
that
this
act
allows
the
government,
the
provincial
government
to
direct
a
whole
series
of
organizations
to
just
ignore
federal
laws,
so
that
we'd
be
in
a
situation
where
federal
laws
apply
the
other
nine
provinces,
the
other
three
territories,
but
not
in
Alberta.
D
Well,
nothing
says
certainty
to
a
potential
International
investor,
then
that
kind
of
ridiculousness,
nothing
nothing.
So
we
have
laws
that
apply
elsewhere,
but
maybe
they
don't
apply
here
well,
who
don't
they
apply
to?
Well,
it's
only
a
really
small
group.
Is
it
well
not
really
because
the
legislation
is
written
in
such
a
vague
way?
It
may
well
be
that
if
you
actually
just
give
an
organization
a
grant
the
grant,
the
the
government
provincial
government
now
has
the
authority
to
direct
that
organization
to
ignore
the
law.
D
I
am
trying
to
see
how
you
actually
get
to
a
place
where
this
act
does
anything
with
respect
to
the
problems
that
it
is
claiming
to
fix.
Or
is
it
because
Sun
poor
God
of
royalty
credit?
Are
they
now
somebody
that
the
government
can
direct
to
to
to
ignore
federal
laws?
Is
that
what
the
ACT
means
I
don't
know?
It's
very
very
hard
to
tell
so
that
kind
of
uncertainty
is
very,
very
worrisome.
You
know
we
just
had
an
announcement.
D
I
think
this
member's
opposite
were
very
happy
to
see
that
announcement
about
a
joint
project
that
was
introduced
or
going
ahead
in
in
the
industrial
Heartland.
It
was
a
transformative
problem
or
sorry,
a
transformative
project
that
was
focused
on
Net,
Zero
and
and
hydrogen
development
very
exciting
1.3
billion
dollars
with
Air
Products
in
in
the
industrial
Heartland.
D
Whatever
act
in
play
that
we
may
or
may
not
think,
is
legal
or
not
legal,
which
may
or
may
not
be
constitutional,
which
may
or
may
not
run
afoul
of
treaty
rights,
which
may
or
may
not
direct
that
very
investor
to
break
federal
laws
with
one
of
the
partners
they're
hoping
to
get
support
from
I.
Don't
know
to
me
that
is
the
recipe
for
why
this
so
foundationally
undermines
economic
certainty
here
in
this
province.
So
sorry,
you're,
oh,
oh
I,
see
welcome
to
the
channel
yeah
I
know
yeah.
B
D
Order,
I'm,
good
I'm,
good,
all
right,
that's
how
it
works
so
anywho,
the
other
thing
when
we
talk
about
how
we're
not
sure
about
who
this
applies
to
and
how
it
would
apply.
We've
heard
the
premier
talk
a
lot
about
the
gross
Injustice
of
the
federal
government,
trying
to
give
albertans
hundreds
of
millions
and
over
a
billion
or
in
some
cases,
multiple
billions
of
dollars
to
support
child
care.
D
Now,
I'm
sure
members
opposite,
you
know
will
recall
that,
in
my
view,
properly
funded
accessible,
high
quality,
affordable
child
care
is
probably
the
singularly
most
effective
economic
stimulus.
Any
government
can
ever
do
anywhere
and
now,
suddenly
we
have
the
premier
suggesting
that
the
federal
child
care
agreement
is
a
horrific
intrusion
into
Alberta
jurisdiction.
Oh
my
lord,
it's
awful,
the
sky
is
falling.
D
The
pearls
are
clutching
it's
awful
Mr
Speaker
and
indeed
this
may
be
a
place
where
it
will
be
necessary
for
the
government
to
use
this
new
act
to
show
the
federal
government
whose
boss
well.
What
that
likely
says
to
me
is
that
we're
going
to
see
some
delay
in
rolling
out
a
critically
important
program
that
helps
regular
Alberta
families.
D
Deal
with
out
of
control
affordability
cross,
as
well
as
ensuring
that
investors
see
Alberta
as
a
place
where
they
can
bring
their
investment
dollars
and
also
their
employees,
because
they
have
a
high
quality
of
life
and
they
can
get
affordable
child
care
and
now
suddenly
that
is
at
risk.
According
to
the
premier's
own
description
of
why
it
is
we
need
this
act
now,
I,
don't
exactly
see
how
it's
going
to
work
again.
D
We
all
over
here
remain
very
unsure
about
how
this
act
is
actually
supposed
to
work,
but
since
the
premier
herself
has
talked
about
child
care,
Mr
Speaker
I
would
argue
that
it's
very
concerning
so
bottom
line
is:
who
does
this
act
apply
to?
The
answer
is
not
clear.
The
lack
of
clarity
creates
uncertainty,
uncertainty
freezes,
investment
dollars,
freezing
investment
dollars,
slows
economic
recovery.
D
Thankfully,
they
ultimately
reached
got
the
same
legal
advice
that
we
had
been
sending
over
there
and
you
know
having
all
our
flurried,
sometimes
rather
heated
conversations
over,
and
instead
they
determined
that
they
would
take
the
matter
to
the
courts
which
they
did
and
the
court
said
yeah
Alberta's
right,
you
cannot
refuse
to
issue
permits.
This
has
been
done
lawfully
and
the
pipeline
will
go
ahead.
D
If
they'd
had
their
version
of
this
act,
we
would
not
be
11
months
away
from
having
that
pipeline
built.
We
would
probably
be
36
to
48
months
away
from
having
that
pipeline
built
and
the
investment
that
was
needed
and
attracted
by
seeing
the
successful
determination
of
that
pipeline
being
built
would
not
be
with
us
right
now.
D
So
it
shocks
me
that
nobody
over
there
seems
to
understand
the
consequences
of
doing
this
and
creating
the
uncertainty
not
only
here
but
encouraging
other
provinces
to
do
the
same.
If
we
don't
have
consensus
about
how
to
do
big
projects
that
cross
borders
yet
not
a
word
over
there,
not
a
word.
Nobody
seems
to
remember
that
conversation.
Nobody
seems
to
remember
that
debate.
D
It
is
so
incredibly
poorly
thought
out
so
I'm
starting
I'm,
getting
close
to
wrapping
up
Mr,
Speaker
I'm
sure
sure
folks,
over
there
will
be,
will
be
very
pleased,
but
I
just
want
to
summarize.
The
bottom
line
is
this:
this
is
a
bill
that
is
well
I,
won't
quote
all
the
the
Horan,
the
extremely
critical
things
that
have
been
said
by
so
many
of
of
the
scholars
who
have
have
described
it.
Members
opposite
their
own
former
Premier
called
it
catastrophically
stupid,
it's
kind
of
a
good
short
version.
D
D
All
three
of
those
features:
Mr
Speaker
undermine
the
confidence
of
investors,
confidence
of
that
investors
in
Calgary
the
confidence
of
investors
in
Toronto,
the
confidence
of
investors
in
New
York,
the
confidence
of
new
investors
in
London.
It
makes
us
look
ridiculous
and
it
also
undermines
our
ability
to
kick-start
that
economic
growth
which
so
many
albertans
are
counting
on.
So
it
doesn't
help
business.
It
hurts
business.
D
We've
already
reviewed
the
fact
that
most
albertans
do
not
believe
this
is
a
necessary
or
advisable
tool
to
use
to
defend
albertan's
interests,
so
albertans
are
not
behind
it
and
Mr
Speaker.
The
one
thing
that
I
haven't
had
a
chance
to
fully
talk
about
too
much
yet,
but
I
will
touch
on
very
briefly
all
the
time
that
we
spend
talking
about
this
ridiculous
Act
is
time
that
we
do
not
spend
talking
about
the
real
crises
that
are
facing
albertans.
D
Last
week
we
tried
to
have
an
emergency
debate
about
the
crisis
in
Children's
Health
Care.
Today,
after
hearing
over
the
weekend,
Mr
Speaker
about
how
a
children's
hospice
that
took
care
of
palliative
patients
and
took
care
of
exceptionally
medical,
medically
fragile
children
and
gave
respite
to
their
exhausted
parents,
how
the
staff
working
there
were
redirected
to
deal
with
the
crisis
that
is
occurring
in
our
hospitals
and
the
Ministry
of
Health
got
up
and
said:
oh,
it's
not
so
bad,
it's
just
as
bad
everywhere
else!
D
D
Your
your
bill,
one
that,
rather
than
engaging
in
all
this
economic
chicanery,
would
actually
engage
us
all
in
a
thoughtful
conversation
about
how
to
come
together
to
make
our
Health
Care
system
better
for
people
not
only
in
downtown
Calgary,
downtown
Edmonton,
but
also
people
in
Northern,
Alberta
and
Southern
Alberta
in
Lethbridge,
in
Medicine
Hat
in
the
Bow
Valley
in
Red
Deer
in
communities
all
between
that's
what
we
should
be
talking
about,
Mr
Speaker.
That
is
what
our
bill
would
have
allowed
us
to
do,
and
instead
members
opposite
decided
to
use
their
majority
in
a
way.
D
D
We
have
affordability,
crises
that
are
that
are
hurting
Alberta
families
and
and
a
complete
failure
to
engage
in
any
long-term
Solutions.
With
respect
to
those,
we
have
very
serious
concerns,
Mr,
Speaker
and
also
we
have
an
economy
that
is
in
desperate
need
of
thoughtful
efforts
to
diversify
and
to
innovate
and
to
grow
long-term,
sustainable
resilient
jobs,
but
instead,
what
are
we
doing?
We're
ignoring
the
health
care
crisis,
we're
ignoring
the
crisis
in
education,
we're
ignoring
the
number
of
kids
that
are
getting
sick
right
now,
we're
ignoring
the
affordability
crisis.
D
We
are
ignoring
Our
obligation
to
grow
the
economy.
Instead,
what
we
are
doing,
what
is
it
15,
000
jobs
lost
last
month,
I
think
yeah.
Instead,
what
are
we
doing?
We
are
spending
all
our
time
fighting
about
a
poorly
written
incompetently,
written
unconstitutional,
unclear
economy,
upending
piece
of
legislation
that
has
been
characterized
by
many
as
the
worst
piece
of
legislation
introduced
into
this
house
in
90
years,
Mr
Speaker.
D
So
for
that
reason
there
is
no
way
that
we
can
support
this
bill
and
I
would
urge
members
opposite
urge
them
to
take
it
back
to
the
drawing
board,
to
restore
a
semblance
of
good
governance,
to
listen
to
indigenous
leaders.
Who'd
so
desperately
want
their
treaty
rights
to
be
respected,
to
listen
to
business
folks
who
want
the
chaos
to
stop
and
instead
to
focus
on
the
issues
that
albertans
really
care
about.
Mr
Speaker.
D
B
D
H
Now,
we've
had
many
discussions
over
the
last
few
days
in
regards
to
what
we're
hearing
on
this
side
of
the
house
about
this
piece
of
legislation,
and
it's
only
been
a
couple
days,
and
yet
we've
seen
investor
after
investor
business
owner,
whether
it
be
big
business,
small
business,
International
investors
coming
forward
and
saying
that
this
bill
is
creating
such
uncertainty
in
the
future
of
Alberta
and
the
future
of
our
economy.
That
they're
concerned
about
being
able
to
bring
investment
into
the
province.
H
Now
you
know,
I
find
it
very
interesting
when
I
look
at
some
of
the
commentary.
That's
come
forward
from
people
that,
as
you
know,
the
premier
had
had
said
in
one
of
her
questions
aren't
are
not
typical
allies
of
the
NDP,
and
yet
they
agree
with
what
we're
saying,
because,
ultimately
it
is
just
common
sense
and
so
to
continue
to
have
this
debate
to
continue
to
try
to
encourage
the
government
to
recognize
that
a
mistake
was
made,
and
you
know
it's
it's
good
to
come
back
and
say
you
know
what
we
made
a
mistake.
H
We
should
throw
this
bill
out
and
we
should
really
focus
on
what
matters
to
albertans
would
be
a
step,
probably
in
the
right
direction,
for
this
government,
but
over
the
last
I
would
say
three
and
a
half
years,
and
it
doesn't
matter
if
you
have
a
new
leader
or
an
old
leader,
the
behavior
hasn't
changed.
The
government
continues
to
push
forward
on
their
agenda,
ignoring
the
issues
that
really
matter
to
the
very
people
of
this
province.
We've
been
talking
about
on
this
side
of
the
house,
the
affordability
crisis.
H
Let's
introduce
new
pieces
of
legislation
and
what
does
the
government
do
introduces
a
piece
of
legislation
that
creates
economic
uncertainty
and
completely
ignores
the
issues
that
albertans
are
talking
about?
How
do
I
pay
my
bills?
How
do
I
have
a
good
paying
job?
Is
the
economy
stable
and
who's
taking
care
of
my
children
at
the
local
hospital?
H
None
of
that
is
in
here,
and
in
fact
we
even
heard
today
and
I'm
going
to
quote
this
Mr
Speaker
from
a
former
comps
director
for
The
Honorable
prime
minister
Harper,
as
well
as
campaign
director
for
the
current
Premier
in
Ontario
and
I
quote
well.
I
know
this
was
part
of
a
leadership
campaign,
commitment
and
playing
to
a
portion
of
the
conservative
base
in
Alberta.
H
But
you
know
there
are
a
few
challenges,
one
it's
not
broadly
supported
by
albertans,
and
so
it
baffles
me
as
a
campaign
manager
why
they
would
put
this
as
Bill
one
and
put
it
so
front
and
center
in
an
election
campaign,
a
re-election
campaign
that
is
just
around
the
corner
this.
This
is
so
off
topic
and
I.
H
Don't
know
how
you
can
fix
this
bill
because
or
why
you
would
want
to,
because
it's
fundamentally
unconservative
you're
trying
to
pass
a
piece
of
legislation
to
make
another
level
of
government
respect
the
Constitutional
Constitution
more
by
doing
something
that
is
profoundly
unconstitutional
in
itself.
Like
I,
don't
know
how
you
square
that
Circle
I
think
there's
I,
think
the
UCP
and
albertans
are
on
the
right
track.
H
In
saying
the
federal
government
is
overreaching
on
a
number
of
issues
around
the
resource
sector,
but
where
they're
acting
in
an
unconstitutional
way,
that's
heavy-handed,
but
the
solution
to
an
unconstitutionality
is
not
more
on
unconstitutionality.
Like
you
know,
I
think
this
is
going
to
go
down
in
history
as
one
of
the
most
ill-conceived
pieces
of
policy
and
legislation
and,
frankly,
as
a
conservative,
I
am
I,
find
this
profoundly
unconservative
I
quote
so
from
many
of
your
lovely
colleagues
who
find
it
very
unconservative.
H
It's
a
quote,
and
it's
a
quote
from
The
Honorable
comms
director
for
former
Premier
prime
minister
Harper,
pretty
interesting
quote.
I
would
say
I
think
the
government
is
having
a
crisis,
and
maybe
we
could
even
say
it
might
be.
An
identity
crisis,
don't
quite
know
where
they
belong,
even
their
own.
H
Entrenched
people
who
have
had
long
histories
of
working
within
the
conservative
movement
are
calling
this
piece
of
legislation
unconservative
as
a
Libertarian
for
those
who
are
Libertarians
on
that
side.
I,
don't
know
how
you
understand
this
piece
of
legislation
and
that
it
even
resonates
with
your
fundamental
beliefs.
It
is
such
a
significant
overreach,
so
there's
that
piece,
there's
an
identity
crisis
that
I
think
that
this
current
government
is
having
now.
H
On
top
of
that,
though,
I
have
spent,
since
this
bill
was
introduced,
calling
stakeholders
long
conversations
great
weekend
really
having
a
lovely
chat
about
where
people
think
they're
headed,
what's
going
to
happen
with
their
future
Investments.
What
they're
concerned
about-
and
you
know
I
haven't
heard
a
single
person
say
that
they're
okay
with
this
piece
of
legislation,
in
fact
all
I've
heard,
is
there's
so
much
uncertainty.
H
H
H
It
doesn't,
and
so
because
it
doesn't
ins
in,
encourage
and
show
the
investment
community
that
we
have
a
stable
democracy
in
this
province.
It
creates
economic
uncertainty.
It
just
naturally
does
we
saw
the
same
thing
happening
with
Quebec
and
the
minister
might
want
to
cheer
that
on
too.
But
if
you
look
at
their
bonds
and
what
happened
with
their
bonds
when
they
started
to
get
into
the
whole
sovereignty
discussion,
Ontario
Bonds
were
at
10.,
quebecs
had
to
go
up
to
17..
It
took
forever
for
their
bonds
to
drop
back
down.
H
There
were
significant
economic
impacts
that
were
happening
in
the
jurisdiction
of
Quebec
during
the
discussion
around
what
they
were
planning
on
doing.
Small
businesses
were
impact,
local
markets
were
impacted
in
Quebec
because
they
didn't
know
if
they
were
going
to
be
able
to
get
their
markets
outside
of
the
province.
I
My
concern
is
about
the
specific
Clauses
of
the
law
of
this
potential
law,
but
just
really
the
concept
and
I'm
glad
you
were
speaking
about
other
jurisdictions
that
went
through
this
process
and
I
know
that,
of
course,
initially
people
would
say
well
if
Quebec
was
trying
to
separate,
but
you
know
the
sovereignty
law
that
they
did
bring
forward
in
1976
right
was
a
precursor
to
that
Continuum
towards
referendum
on
separation.
Now
we're
not
necessarily
saying
that
that's
happening
here,
although
I
have
my
doubts
right,
but
just
the
word.
I
Putting
in
a
sovereignty
act
into
place
right
triggers
a
whole
series
of
decisions
that
businesses
will
make
and
once
that
moves,
then
something
else
moves.
It's
almost
like
a
glacier
melting
and
I'm
just
wondering
in
the
agriculture
sector,
if
you've
reflected
on
how
that
might
affect
that
industry.
H
Well,
you
know
in
relation
to
the
agriculture
industry,
I
think
one
of
the
things
that-
and
you
know,
I
I-
wish
we've
had.
We
had
heard
from
the
minister
in
regards
to
this
piece
of
legislation
which
we
haven't
as
of
yet
and
and
maybe
he
he
will
be
able
to
speak
to
it
at
some
point,
is
specific
to
agriculture.
Is
that
it's
so
intertwined
with
the
federal
government?
H
There
are
many
regulations
and
policies
that
overlap.
A
lot
of
the
investment
that
comes
into
Alberta
comes
through
federal
grants
and
supports
the
irrigation
project,
which
this
government
continues
to
to
re-announce
and
re-announce
about
doing
more
irrigation
and
saying
it
was
them.
It
was
actually
funded
primarily
by
the
federal
government,
and
so
there
are
many
projects
and
many
relationships
that
exist
between
the
current
Province
well
between
the
province
and
the
federal
government.
When
we
start
looking
at
even
trying
to
Champion
our
International
markets,
we
know
when
there's
volatility
in
our
democracy.
H
When
things
are
said
out
of
context,
our
International
Partners
will
shut
down
their
trade
orders.
We've
seen
it
with
pulses,
we've
seen
it
with
our
beef
market.
We've
seen
it
with
our
pork
exports,
when
we
are
not
working
in
collaboration
between
all
levels
of
government,
we
will
impact
those
International
markets
and
again
I,
haven't
heard
from
the
minister
as
to
how
he's
planning
on
protecting
those
International
markets.
H
H
Does
that
create
economic
uncertainty?
When
we
see
a
government
saying
well,
we
don't
want
to
work
on
those
things
or
we
don't
want
to
work
in
collaboration.
Does
that
create
a
stable
democracy?
Absolutely
not!
It
does
not,
and
it
also
makes
it
very
difficult
to
have
adult
conversations
and
to
try
to
get
things
done
and
Agriculture
and
Forestry
for
that
matter,
and
we
start
looking
at
the
softwood
lumber
dispute
and
looking
at
our
trade
agreements
with
the
United
States.
Those
things
have
to
be
done
across
intergovernmental
relationships.
They
have
to
be
so.
You
know.
H
Have
we
heard
that
Cap's
not
happy
about
this
Bill?
Yes,
we
have.
We
heard
the
Chamber
of
Commerce
say
the
same
thing,
whether
it
be
the
Canadian
Chamber
of
Commerce
or
the
Calgary
Chamber
of
Commerce
we
absolutely
have,
but
what
we're
waiting
for
and
what
I
hope
to
hear
from
this
government
is
how
are
they
protecting
our
border
in
the
sense
of
making
sure
that
our
Market
are
open,
that
our
products
are
not
going
to
be
impacted
by
the
decisions
that
this
government
is
making
under
this
piece
of
legislation?
H
That
motions
that
are
being
drafted
according
to
the
premier
by
ministers
isn't
somehow
going
to
prevent
the
market
and
our
products
to
get
to
Market
through
the
international
markets
or
even
our
local
markets,
because
it's
complicated
it's
not
as
simple
as
saying.
Well,
we
disagree.
We
don't
like
what
you're
doing
and
therefore
we're
going
to
stop
it.
H
We
know
that
doesn't
work
for
dairy,
it
doesn't
work
for
chicken,
it
doesn't
work
for
beef,
it
doesn't
work
for
pork
and
now
we're
trying
to
look
at
value-add
with
the
agri-food
industry
trying
to
encourage
investment
to
come
to
Alberta
and
not
Saskatchewan
and
not
Manitoba
is
going
to
become
a
struggle.
If
we
continue
to
see
this
piece
of
legislation,
the
way
that
it
is
so
I
won't
support
it.
H
Mr
Speaker,
because
I
actually
believe
that
there
is
going
to
be
significant
economic
impacts,
that
none
of
the
ministers
have
been
able
to
mitigate
and
have
been
able
to
explain
to
the
rest
of
us
in
this
house.
How
that's
not
going
to
impact
the
economic
investment
opportunities
that
we've
been
working
so
hard
to
make
sure
are
coming
to
Alberta,
I,
believe
in
a
diversified
economy,
I
believe
in
diversifying
our
AG
sector
and
that
value-add
and
that
Agri
processing.
H
Well,
thank
you,
member
I.
You
know
one
of
the
things
that
that
I
enjoy
most
about
my
job
is
being
able
to
go
outside
of
Edmonton
and
go
into
rural
communities
and
I.
Think
part
of
it
is,
is
that
I
come
from
a
small
town
and
so
I'm
really
passionate
about
making
sure
that
our
smaller
communities
have
a
strong
and
vibrant
vibrant
economy.
H
Now,
what
do
we
know
about
Alberta?
Well,
most
of
our
smaller
economies
are
driven
by
our
resource
sector,
whether
it
be
oil
and
gas,
whether
it
be
forestrying,
whether
it
be
agriculture,
and
we
need
to
ensure
that
those
economies
continue
to
thrive
and
that
those
economies
continue
to
be
able
to
be
good,
paying
jobs
for
our
local,
smaller
communities
and
and
I'm
I
won't
lie
I'm
worried
about
what
it's
going
to
do.
H
If
we
don't
see
the
investment
coming
into
those
communities,
if
we
don't
see
the
value-added
processing,
if
we
don't
see
oil
and
gas
companies
investing,
if
we
don't
see
our
Green
Tech
companies
investing
greenhouses
for
that
for
that
matter,
looking
at
expanding
their
their
businesses
in
these
local
economies,
we're
going
to
see
a
retraction
and
I
don't
want
to
see
a
retraction
in
the
smaller
communities.
I
believe
that
supporting
smaller
towns,
where
people
can
grow
up,
raise
their
kids
and
continue
to
work.
H
There
is
what
we
should
be
doing,
and
so
you
know
I
think
this
act
has
a
significant
issue
in
in
sending
us
the
wrong
signal
when
it
comes
to
that
piece
now,
as
you
know,
my
my
leader
also
mentioned
I
do
think
it
also
ignores
a
major
conversation.
That's
also
happening
I.
Think
all
members
of
this
this
chamber
will
acknowledge
no
matter
what
community
you
come
from,
that
Health
Care
is
a
problem.
H
We
just
had
the
recent
story
of
the
individual
from
Lac
lebish
that
had
to
come
down
into
Edmonton
for
dialysis,
because
the
dialysis
clinic
is
full,
and
so
there
is
a
significant
problem
that
needs
to
be
addressed,
and
that
should
be
the
fundamental
priority
for
this
government,
not
a
bill
that
actually
doesn't
do
anything
for
the
people
that
elected
us
to
be
here
doesn't
drive
our
economy,
ensure,
doesn't
address
health
care
and
really
doesn't
address
the
affordability
issue.
It
ignores
all
of
those
things.
H
It
is
a
sad
Bill
one
and
it's
kind
of
a
mess
and
I
would
really
encourage
the
government
to
retract
it
and
to
refocus
and
make
their
bill.
One
about
fixing
Health
Care
make
their
bill
one
about
the
affordability
mechanisms
that
they're
telling
us
they're
going
to
do
figure
something
else
out
that
actually
speaks
to
the
people
of
this
province,
because,
right
now
the
majority
of
albertans
do
not
support
this
bill
and
I.
Think
that
is
the
fundamental
issue
here
is
that
the
government
is
offside
with
the
rest
of
albertans
I.
J
J
J
So
the
word
of
caution
that
I
want
us
to
really
consider
when
it
comes
to
sovereignty,
Act
and
we've
already
seen
it
Mr
Speaker
at
the
Coots
border
now
I
know,
none
of
the
members
on
the
other
side
again
would
actually
encourage
albertans
to
break
the
law.
I
know
that
never
mind
actually
commit
a
crime
that
would
actually
lead
to
the
death
of
of
an
individual.
J
Now,
you're
asking
okay:
well,
why
am
I
bringing
up
the
new
Cobb
Mountain?
Why
am
I
bringing
up
the
barbaric
cultural
practices
again,
because
what
I'm
getting
at
here,
Mr
Speaker,
is
that
the
policies
and
ideas
that
we
present
within
legislatures
and
parliaments
have
a
particular
impact
on
the
general
population.
J
Now
this
to
me
is
what
I
would
I
would
consider
that
we'd
be
concerned
about
when
we,
when
we
debate
regarding
Bill
one
because
that's
in
the
back
of
my
head,
I
will
I'll
admit
Mr
Speaker,
that
that
it
is
a
concern
of
mine,
but
getting
more
to
the
point
and
to
the
recent
Amendment
and
why
I
do
not
support
Bill.
One
I
would
say
that
and
it's
nothing
new
Mr
Speaker,
because
we've
seen
it
with
a
number
of
pieces
of
legislation
that
have
been
brought
inside
of
the
house.
J
It's
an
action
that
is
actually
eroding
democratic
principles,
our
democratic
values
that
we
have
here
in
Alberta
by
actually
putting
more
and
more
hands
in
the
power
of
ministers
and
not
only
yeah
that
Mr
Speaker.
But
the
ACT
allows
a
member
of
cabinet
to
bring
a
resolution
to
the
assembly
that
states
that
a
federal
initiative
is
unconstitutional
or
causes
harm
or
is
anticipated
to
cause
harm.
And,
of
course,
the
leader
of
the
opposition
went
spoke
briefly
about
this
particular
aspect,
and
that
is
something
that
is
decided
by
the
courts.
J
And
no,
and
especially
Mr
Speaker,
though
we're
all
equal
under
the
law
now
I
know
that
we
have
a
long
way
to
go.
There's
a
number
of
issues
with
our
Judicial
System.
Some
people
get
more
representation
than
others.
You
know
I'm
sure
that
members
of
this
house,
when
it
comes
to
actually
seeing
the
experience
of
indigenous
people
now
you
know
I'm
going
to
get
in
a
little
bit
more
into
that
with
this
particular
bill.
J
J
B
K
Well,
thank
you
Mr
Speaker,
facing
the
truth.
I
would
like
to
understand
the
members
position
on
subsection
section.
2
interpretation
quote
nothing.
This
act
shall
be
construed
as
a
authorizing.
Any
order
would
be
contrary
to
the
constitution
of
Canada
B
authorizing
any
director
of
person
person
other
than
provincial
entity.
That
would
compel
a
person
to
act
contrary
to
the
violation,
otherwise
in
violation,
federal
law
or
C,
abrogating
or
derogating
from
any
existing
Aboriginal
and
treaty
right
of
Aboriginal
peoples
of
Canada
that
are
recognized
and
affirmed
by
section
35
of
the
Constitution
Act
1982..
K
So
looking
for
a
constructive
criticism
here,
that
is
like
Point
Blank,
clear
in
terms
of
what
this
block
should
be
interpreted
as
what
is
the
constructive
criticism
facing
the
truth
that
you'd
like
to
see
other
than
absolute
black
and
white,
clear
print
that
this
will
be
constitutional
and
it
will
not
abrogate
or
derogate
from
the
rights
of
those
individuals.
In
section
35.
L
Thank
you
I
just
like
to
take
an
opportunity
to
intervene
in
the
conversation,
because
I
know
that
you
are
very
concerned
about
responding
to
the
question
of
his
desk
and
it
gives
me
a
good
opportunity
to
to
reiterate
some
of
the
I'm
sorry
to
reiterate
some
of
the
things
that
we
have
discussed
about.
The
fact
that
Chief
Tony
Alexis,
for
example,
has
consulted
with
his
lawyers,
and
they
have
very
clearly
said
that
section
2C
does
not
in
fact
eliminate
everything
else
that
happens
in
the
act
and
I
think
you
know
that.
L
But
again,
you
know
I
feel
it's
important
to
be
able
to
respond
to
the
question
that
the
the
the
section
in
2C
talks
about
the
desire
for
people
not
to
assume
that
that's
what's
going
to
happen,
but
then,
when
you
go
on
to
actually
do
something,
it
doesn't
matter
if
you
say
well,
I'm
not
trying
to
insult
you,
sir.
If
you
go
on
to
then
and
help
them,
you
know
we
see
this
happening
all
the
time
you
know
in
our
normal
dialogue
and
I.
J
Thank
you
very
much
Mr
Speaker
and
thank
you
to
the
member
for
Amendment
and
Rutherford
for
sharing
the
the
particular
response
of
an
indigenous
leader
to
the
bill,
and
my
response
is
the
fact
that
the
bill
itself
says
one
thing
in
one
place,
but
doesn't
doesn't
necessarily
address
it
further
on,
and
this
is-
and
this
is
characteristically
Mr
Speaker
Mr
Speaker.
This
is
characteristically
the
attitude
of
mainly
conservative
governments
throughout
several
jurisdictions
in
in
this
country.
J
J
Now,
if
they
would
have
consulted
with
indigenous
leaders,
Mr
Speaker,
then
perhaps
we'd
have
a
bill
that
at
least
you
can
say:
okay,
well,
they
consulted
with
the
indigenous
leaders,
but
we
don't
even
have
that
Mr,
Speaker
right
and
again,
I
go
back
to
the
the
whole
issue
at
hand.
Is
that
again
we
see
that
and
and
I'm
reminded
Mr
Speaker
that
yeah
members
on
the
other
side?
J
Oh
well,
they're
claiming
that
we
didn't
even
read
the
bill,
Mr
Speaker
and
then
now
we
have
members
on
the
other
side,
including
the
premier
herself,
saying
okay,
yeah
yeah,
we're
going
to
have
to
introduce
some
amendments
here
in
order
to
make
this
change
the
whole
idea,
Mr
Speaker.
The
whole
idea
of
this
bill
gives
no
confidence
to
the
people
of
Alberta
that
this
government
knows
what
they're
doing
and
how
it's
actually
going
to
impact
communities
when
it
comes
to
the
rule
of
law.
J
M
J
J
J
J
How
can
we
get
this
thing
done
and
the
magic
word
there
Mr
Speaker
is
cooperation
is
bringing
all
the
stakeholders
together
and
having
them
cooperate.
How
can
we
make
this
a
reality?
How
can
we
get
the
Trans
Mountain
pipeline
done
and
from
what
I've
seen
over
the
last
three
years?
Mr
Speaker
is
a
government
that,
rather
than
create
the
conditions
for
cooperation
between
different
levels
of
government
between
different
stakeholders
between
different
indigenous
communities,
rather
than
create
cooperation
or
creating
division,
we
should
be
working
towards
Unity.
J
N
Thank
you,
Mr
Speaker,
and
whether
it's
you
know,
members
of
this
side
of
the
house,
raising
the
issue,
whether
it's
the
many
constitutional
experts
or
investors,
who
have
come
forward
as
the
member
was
just
speaking
to
again
and
again
Beyond.
You
know
ensuring
that
we
are
creating
an
environment
where
there
is
incentives
to
to
be
here
whether
it's
through
taxation,
whether
it's
through
grants
and
otherwise.
N
N
That
would
be
contrary
to
the
constitution
of
Canada
and
again,
I
would
go
back
to
the
idea
that,
just
because
you
write
it
here
does
not
make
it
so
and
going
further
to
page
seven
in
Section
8
that
no
cause
of
action
lies
against
and
no
action
or
proceeding
may
be
commenced
against,
and
it
goes
on
to
talk
about
crowns
or
agencies
that
are
within
this
act.
That
may
take
action.
That
might
be
contrary
to
the
Constitution
because
of
just
a
decision
that
was
made
through
motion.
Oh
I
didn't
quite
get
there.
N
M
J
O
Thank
you
very
much
Mr
Speaker
and
it's
my
pleasure
to
join
the
debate
on
Bill
one
and,
of
course
we're
on
Amendment
ra1.
A
recent
Amendment
and
I'll,
be
speaking
in
support
of
this
amendment,
and
certainly
you
know,
we've
heard
far
and
wide
from
the
business
Community
indigenous
leaders,
academics,
journalists
and
even
elected
representatives
from
the
governing
party
that
the
sovereignty
Act
is
legislation
that
will
hurt
albertans.
O
O
Besides
hurting
our
business
sector
by
creating
significant
uncertainty,
which
has
already
been
created,
we've
created
some
fear
amongst
investors.
We've
already
heard
from
investors
saying
that
with
this
kind
of
legislation
that
creates
instability-
and,
of
course
we
know
businesses
Thrive
when
there's
stability
and
so
I
know
sort
of
I'm
kind
of
confused
by
the
UCB
who
who
declare
themselves.
You
know
champions
for
business
that
they
would
actually
move
to
create
this
instability
in
the
economy
and
the
business
community.
O
O
But
the
official
opposition
I
just
want
to
highlight
did
something
we
rarely
do
when
bills
are
introduced,
and
that
is
we
voted
against
the
first
reading
by
convention.
We
generally
vote
in
favor
first
reading
of
bills.
We,
however,
did
not
do
this
on
the
in
our
first
reading,
because
we
knew
this
bill
was
so
deeply
flawed.
We
voted
against
it
and
since
doing
so,
the
albertans
Canadians
that
I've
just
mentioned
at
the
outset
has
spoken
far
and
wide
supporting
that
action.
O
You
know
people
across
this
country
see
How
Deeply
flawed
this
bill
and
how
it
needs
to
not
pass,
and
that,
of
course,
why
I'm
speaking
in
support
of
the
reasoned
Amendment,
so
just
for
a
bit
of
History
I,
just
thought
it'd
be
interesting
to
share
with
the
legislature.
We're
voted
against
first
reading
of
two
other
bills.
During
this
30th
session
of
the
legislative
assembly,
the
first
one
was
Bill:
nine,
a
public
sector
wage
arbitration
deferral
Act
just
to
remind
members
of
the
assembly.
O
O
But
one
of
the
things
I
want
to
say
it
was
just
a
very
stunning
show
of
disrespect.
Well
here
we
are
all
these
years
later
and
Jason.
Kenney
is
no
longer
the
premier,
despite
his
profession,
that
he
wanted
a
legislative
decorum.
He
stoked
disrespect
of
the
public
discourses,
saying
one
thing
and
doing
another,
and
certainly
there's
a
word
that
we
all
know
for
this
type
of
behavior.
O
So
that
is
another
situation
when
we
voted
against.
First
reading,
like
we
have
done
for
Bill
one
and
again
I
just
want
to
reiterate
that's
why
I
think
it's
important
that
we
support
the
reasoned
Amendment
and
I
and
I
did
say
that
we
had
it
done
at
two
previous
times.
So
then,
the
second
time
we've
done
it
before
was
we
voted
against
first
reading
in
this
30th
legislature,
Bill
22
reform
agencies,
board
and
commissions,
and
government
Enterprises
act
2019.
O
O
We
were
assured
that
the
investigation
would
continue
by
Premier
Kenny,
but
what
actually
happened
is
that
everything
went
dark.
In
fact,
some
members
may
remember
that
the
leader
of
the
official
opposition
was
removed
from
this
chamber
because
she
accused
the
government
of
obstructing
justice
by
firing
the
election
commissioner.
O
So
these
are
two
very
significant
examples
of
our
NDP
caucus
voting
against
previous
legislation
in
this
30th
legislature,
because
those
bills
were
so
egregious
absolutely
stand
with
the
decisions
of
my
caucus
regarding
that-
and
we
have
done
that
again-
we
did
that
on
Throne
Speech
day,
which
was
November
29th,
yes,
and
against
this
sovereignty
act.
Bill
won
because
it's
hard
to
sort
of
talk,
some
of
what
I've
just
articulated,
but
this
bill
one
is
going
to
create
much
more
havoc
and
much
more
distress.
O
Although
these
bills
obviously
created
significant
difficulties
for
workers,
really
a
deep
betrayal
of
an
agreement.
The
government
had,
with
members
of
the
Alberta
Union
of
provincial
employees
and
just
created
new
legislation
to
override
that,
and
then
of
course
the
second
one
is,
you
know
an
investigation
into
their
own
allegations
of
improper
donations.
O
O
You
know
an
issue
with
Staffing
and
firing
the
board,
putting
in
sort
of
a
UCP
supporter
to
be
an
administrator
and
I'm
sure
that
he
won't
have
much
power
in
his
position,
but
we'll
be
doing
exactly
what
the
cabinet
tells
him
to
so
there's
so
many
key
issues
that
need
to
be
addressed,
and
so
that
is
definitely
why
I
think
it's
very
important
for
us
to
support
this
recent
Amendment.
Yes,
sir,.
O
Right
thanks,
thank
you
very
much
for
the
intervention,
and
certainly
yes,
that
that
is
a
concern.
And,
of
course,
we
know
that
in
the
throne
speech
at
the
sort
of
the
end
of
the
last
page
or
so,
the
UCP
did
talk
about
some
programs
that
there
thought
that
the
federal
government
had
too
much
interference
in
in
their
own.
O
You
know
in
the
provincial
jurisdiction
they
identify
Health
Care,
they
identify
child
care,
they
identify
education.
These
are
just
three
examples:
they
don't
say
housing,
but
it
could
easily
be
housing
and
I
I
mean
one
of
the
major
concerns.
I
have
certainly,
as
the
former
minister
of
seniors
in
housing
is
just
the
lack
of
you
know.
Investment
lack
of
action
on
that
file
at
all
and
I
have
met
with
stakeholders
across
the
province
and
people
needing
affordable
housing,
and
you
know
the
province
is
just
missing
an
action.
O
There's
no
investment,
they
did
do
a
report,
but
nothing
has
really
happened.
Nothing's
has
changed,
so
people
are
going
ahead
without
the
province
because
the
province
isn't
there.
Municipalities,
different
non-profits
are
working
directly
with
the
federal
Partners.
Will
that
be
outlawed
by
this
bill?
Will
that
be
not
allowed?
If
that
means
projects
won't
go
ahead,
and
we
know
that
Alberta
has
you
know
we
don't
even
have
average
access
to
affordable
housing,
it's
provincially
across
Canada,
it's
about
4.3
percent,
but
in
Alberta
we
only
have
2.9
percent
of
affordable
housing.
O
We
need
so
much
more
and
what
so
this
bill
could
really
jeopardize
and
put
us
even
further
behind
and
I'm
I'm
hoping.
The
minister
is
thinking
about
these
questions
and
you
know
addressing
them
with
his
colleagues
with
the
cabinet,
because
we
need
investment
in
these
areas,
and
will
this
bill
mean
that
the
UCP
is
going
to
tell
people
who
are
wanting
to
work
with
the
federal
government?
No,
you
can't
do
that
because
you
know
they
shouldn't
be
mucking
around
in
our
stuff
or
whatever.
O
So
my
colleague
when
he
asked
me
about
the
question
about,
for
example,
housing,
seniors
housing,
maybe
more
particular
he
sort
of
led
me
to
look
at
sort
of
you
know
the
three
sort
of
key
issues.
I
think
with
this
bill
and
my
colleagues
have
spoken
at
length
about
issues
but
I'll
just
do
a
quick
summary
and
highlight
some
of
the
things
that
I've
seen
and
they've
articulated
as
well.
O
So
we
already
know
about
the
Henry,
the
eighth
clause,
which
is
actually
section
four
of
the
act,
and
this
gives
extraordinary
powers
to
Executive
Council
it.
If
the
Legislative
Assembly
approves
a
resolution
brought
forward
by
a
minister,
then
the
executive
Council
then
has
the
powers
to
support,
suspend
or
amend
that
legislation.
This
limits,
democracy,
which
I've
heard
the
members
opposites
say
on
so
many
occasions,
is
of
utmost
important
to
them
so
that
behind
closed
doors
in
executive,
Council,
they'll
be
making
decisions.
O
That
really
should
be
made
in
this
chamber
with
all
members
who
are
elected
87
of
us
who
represent
our
diverse
communities,
but
instead
this
legislation
really
has
this
extraordinary
power
to
let
the
cabinet
make
those
decisions.
So
that,
of
course,
is
one
egregious
mistake:
the
second
ones
that
this
legislation
is
too
wide-ranging.
O
It
confers
powers
to
defy
federal
law
when
the
UCB
feels
offended
by
the
federal
government.
So
they
just
Define
like
a
federal
initiative,
is
a
law,
a
program,
a
policy,
an
agreement
or
action
and,
as
I
was
saying
in
the
throne
speech,
they
do
list.
Federal
programs
such
as
provincial
Health,
Care,
Child,
Care
education,
I
just
spoke
briefly
about
what
does
that
mean
for
housing
and
sort
of
shared
some
ramifications
about
that
and
then
the
third?
Yes,
honorable
member.
J
Thank
you
very
much.
I
I
know
that
you
do
a
lot
of
door
knocking
in
your
constituency
and
then
in
other
constituencies
across
the
province,
because
you
you
lend
a
hand
in
in
others
as
well,
and
particularly
when
it
comes
to
affordable
child
care.
I
was
hoping
that
you
could
share
a
little
bit
about
that
regarding
the
door
knocking
that
you've
done
and
what
you've
heard
from
albertans
and
how
important
that
is.
P
O
Well,
thank
you
thanks
for
that
reminder.
Madam,
speaker
and
absolutely
Child.
Care
is
a
key
issue
for
families.
We
know
it
is
expensive,
high
quality
child
care,
and
we
know
that
without
that
we
don't
have
full
employment
a
lot
of
times
of
women
because
they
tend
to
be
the
primary
caregivers,
not
always,
but
still
largely
women.
More
than
men
do
stay
home
with
kids,
and
you
know
it
becomes
prohibitive
for
them
to
actually
go
out
and
work,
even
if
they
want
to.
O
Even
if
they're
wanting
to
you
know,
get
back
within
their
profession
or
whatever
work
they
did
previous
to
having
children
feel
that
they
can't
do
that
because
it
is
so
extraordinary
expensive.
So
the
federal
program
that
invested
significant
significant
funds
in
a
program
has
been
a
real
game.
Changer,
for
so
many
families,
and
you
know,
I
have
three
sons
of
my
own.
All
of
them
are
adults
now,
but
certainly
when
I
was
a
young
mom
and
working
and
a
single
mom
at
times
I
I
struggled.
It
was
hard.
O
O
It
still
made
sense
for
me
to
work
with
in
terms
of
the
kind
of
job
I
had,
but
it
was
very,
very
difficult,
so
the
federal
government
has
really
stepped
up
and
the
affordable
child
care
program
is
so
key
and
I
know
it's
a
really
important
program,
and
will
this
be
one
of
the
initiatives
that
the
UCP
will
say:
Well
they're
mucking
around
in
our
stuff,
and
we
want
it
this
way
or
that
way.
So
it's
hard
to
know
what
this
is
and
that's
why
it
is
too
wide-ranging.
O
You
know
that's
sort
of
the
second
critique
of
this
legislation
and
then
a
third
one
is
that
it's
completely
impractical,
it's
so
Broad
in
scope,
provincial
entities
that
the
UCP
could
say.
Okay,
you
have
to
defy
federal
law
like
one
of
those
Federal
initiatives
it
could
be,
a
law
could
be
a
program,
could
be
a
service
but
provincial
entities-
and
this
is
a
big
broad
definition-
include
almost
any
body
that
receives
provincial
funding,
including
municipalities,
school
boards,
universities
and
police
forces,
and
you
know
they
could
be
ordered
to
defy
federal
laws.
O
This
certainly
throws
a
lot
of
chaos
into
the
Alberta
community,
and
you
know,
frankly,
this
bill
really
makes
Alberta
look
ridiculous.
It's
kind
of
a
bit
of
a
lack
laughing
stock
if
you've
seen
any
of
the
media
in
the
last,
while
Alberta
is
really
taking
a
step
in
a
direction
that
others
constitutional
Scholars
are.
N
Thank
you,
madam
speaker.
It's
a
privilege
to
rise
this
evening
to
speak
to
Bill
one
more
specifically
the
amendment
before
us
again,
just
looking
at
it
that
this
act
be
not
now
read
a
second
time,
because
the
Assemblies
of
the
view
that
the
bill
is
negatively
impacting
investment
decisions
and
the
Alberta
economy
and
should
not
proceed
in
order
to
protect
the
economic
well-being
of
albertans.
Now,
we've
heard
quite
a
fulsome
discussion
this
evening.
N
Whether
you
know
a
variety
of
issues
that
might
come
up
in
the
near
future
and,
unfortunately,
again
through
the
discussions
that
this
government
has
has
or
press
conferences
that
this
government
and
the
premier
and
this
ministers
have
have
come
forward
with.
Unfortunately,
there
hasn't
been
much
further
Clarity,
since
it
was
introduced
again
a
number
of
concerns.
The
massive
amount
of
power
that
this
government
is
is
trying
to
give
itself
in
this
cabinet
is
trying
to
give
itself.
N
You
know
we
we
saw
this
play
out
in
regards
to
Bill
10,
and
there
was
a
massive
uproar
from
from
a
variety
of
different
experts
on
the
left
on
the
right,
academic
cons
or
academics
and
constitutional
experts.
A
variety
of
people
came
forward
and
shared
their
concerns
about
Bill
10
and
the
additional
powers
that
that
was
going
to
authorize
under
the
Alberta
Public
Health
Act
and
eventually
the
UCP
came
back
and
the
the
premier
at
the
time,
Jason
Kenny
I,
believe
I
can
use
his
name
now.
N
Correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
Madam
speaker
but
Jason
Kenny
came
forward
after
that
legislation
was
in
the
past
and
said
over
the
past
year.
It
has
become
clear
that
this
power,
the
power
provided
by
Bill
10,
is
not
necessary.
I've
always
been
uncomfortable
with
this
idea
of
the
executive
part
of
government
being
able
to
modify
legislation.
N
I'm
sure
that
when
we
reflect
back
on
Bill
one
and
the
time
that
has
passed
since
then
in
the
massive
amount
of
new
people,
who've
been
added
to
cabinet
that
there's
probably
fewer
private
members
that
are
concerned
about
giving
the
cabinet
more
power.
Since
there
is
so
many
of
them
now,
but
I
sure
hope
that
there
are
still
at
least
a
few
private
members.
N
We
will
wait
and
see
Madam
speaker,
of
course,
I'm
not
sure,
based
on
the
amount
of
you
know,
backtracking
that
a
number
of
leadership
contestants
at
the
time
now
cabinet
ministers
the
amount
of
backtracking
that
they've
done.
Of
course,
the
now
Deputy
Premier
took
it
one
step
further
and
said:
I'm
I'm
sure
there
are
safeguards
in
place,
and
this
is
in
in
reference
to
the
member
from
Lethbridge,
East
I.
N
Think
no
matter
who
you
are,
what
side
of
the
political
Spectrum
you're
from
that
that
should
be
concerning,
and
so
it
was
interesting
that
that
member
and
the
deputy
Premier
had
a
Moment
of
clarity
there
and
decided
to
share
that
they
had
not
actually
read
the
legislation
a
few
days,
at
least
after
it
had
been
introduced
now
again.
Other
leadership
contestants
that
we've
seen
the
the
now
Finance
Minister
called
this
legislation,
a
time
bomb.
N
N
N
Well,
a
member
opposite
brought
forward
the
idea,
through
an
intervention
regarding
section
two,
that
nothing
in
this
act
is
to
be
construed
as,
and
they
were
specifically
looking
at
to
see
there.
But
this
entire
section.
Nothing
in
this
act
is
construed
to
be
or
is
to
be
construed
as
a
two-way
authorizing
any
order.
That
would
be
contrary
to
the
constitution
of
Canada
I
mean
this
is
absolutely
ridiculous.
Madam
speaker,
if,
if
we
had
the
ability
to
just
write
into
legislation
it
for
a
b
to
become
true,
then
why?
N
Any
failure
to
do
something
when
that
person
has
discretionary
authority
to
do
something,
but
does
not
do
it
or-
and
it
goes
on
so
again
a
piece
of
legislation.
That's
saying
nothing
in
this
act
is
is
unconstitutional,
but
further
in
saying,
if
somebody
acts-
and
it
is
potentially
to
be
considered
unconstitutional-
that
no
course
of
action
should
be
taken
against
them
and
I.
Think
I
see
an
intervention
here
which
I
will
take.
I
I
Then
in
fact
the
other
another
part
of
the
bill
in
fact
enables
a
cabinet
to
make
arbitrary
kind
of
decisions
without
bringing
laws
or
bills
or
alterations
to
for
debate
in
the
legislature,
and
so
you
know
the
perhaps
the
best
illustration
of
that
duplicity
that
I've
seen
in
the
last
72
hours.
This
is
all
unfolding
very
quickly.
It's
like
watching
it
a
car
crash
in
slow
motion
right
and
is
where
I
heard
the
the
premier
say
that
you
know
I
would
we
would
maybe
ever
never
even
use
this
legislation
right.
I
N
N
I
mean
Madam
speaker
if
it
wasn't
so
dangerous
and
and
so
concerning
to
the
business
community
in
terms
of
the
uncertainty
that
it
raises
between
the
relationship
between
not
only
the
federal
government
and,
of
course,
our
Municipal
governments
and
our
school
boards,
duly
elected
representatives
on
several
different
levels
across
the
province
that
might
be
caught
in
a
constitutional
battle,
because
the
provincial
government
is
upset
about
a
certain
decision
or
funding
agreement
that
may
or
may
not
have
been
put
forward.
I
see
another
intervention,
Madam
speaker
so
I
will
take
that.
Q
You
very
much
honorable
member
I'm
curious
to
know
the
members
thoughts
on
if
other
provinces
across
the
country
decided
to
introduce
a
similar
Act.
How
would
Alberta
who's
a
landlocked
Province?
Get
our
resources
to
Tidewater
I'm,
a
big
proponent
of
LNG
I.
Think
there's
a
significant
opportunity
for
Alberta
to
export
LNG
globally.
I
think
there's
a
huge
need.
N
Think
the
member
from
Edmonton
Manning
brought
this
issue
or
this
point
forward,
but
I
thought
there
was
Libertarians
left
in
the
conservative
caucus,
but
their
silence
on
this
issue
proves
otherwise
or
or
the
fact
that
they,
you
know,
have
been
promoted
to
the
front
bench
and
now
have
become
silent.
So
many
of
them,
but
specific
to
that
issue,
Madam
speaker
I,
think
it's
important
again
further
in
the
legislation.
N
Looking
at
judicial
review,
I
mean
if,
if
the
province
makes
a
decision-
and
you
know
somebody
wants
to
bring
forward
a
judicial
review-
which
of
course
is
is
their
right
again.
Looking
at
Bill
one
reducing
the
normal
period
of
seeking
that
review
from
six
months
to
30
days,
and
so
somebody
concerned
about
constitutionality,
of
something
whether
it
be
funding
agreement
that
potentially
the
provincial
government
has
has
backed
out
of
because
they're
upset
with
the
the
federal
government
or
policy
regarding
energy
or
agriculture
or
emissions
whatever.
N
It
might
be
that
somebody
is
concerned
about
the
constitutionality
of
it
is
now
also
from
this
government
and
Bill
one
having
their
period
to
gather
all
of
their
legal
documents
and
put
forward
their
legal
team
going
from
six
months
to
30
days
again.
These
are
changes
that
do
not
support
the
idea
of
strengthening
the
rule
of
law.
If
anything,
they
are
attacking
it
and
again
and
again.
Stakeholders
from
all
sides
of
the
political
Spectrum
have
said
that
this
at
the
end
of
the
day,
is
going
to
hurt
economic
opportunities
within
our
province.
N
I
know
that
and
Madam
speaker
I
just
do
want
to
take
one
more
moment
to
again
recognize
that
we
are
on
a
reason,
Amendment,
that
this
legislation
not
now
be
read
a
second
time,
because
the
Assemblies
of
the
bill,
the
view
that
the
bill
is
negatively
impacting
investment.
So
I
am
supporting
this
motion
and
how
much
time
do
I
have
Madam
speaker.
If
you
don't.
N
N
Of
course,
Madam
speaker,
that's
hypothetical,
but
with
this
Premier
and
this
legislation
we're
just
left
completely
unsure
and
again
we
look
at
the
instability
that
this
legislation
has
created
and
the
uncertainty
that,
through
several
press
conferences
and
through
discussions
in
the
legislature.
Thank
you.
There.
P
R
R
A
bill
that
is
is
outside
of
the
scope
or
their
arguments
are
that
that
they
must
use
arguments
that
that
say
that
the
bill
is
what
is
the
bill
about?
What
is
it
supposed
to
be
about
they're
supposed
to
deal
with
the
bill?
What
is
it
about?
What
is
it
trying
to
do
and
that
the
reasoned
Amendment,
the
reasons
that
they
use,
must
stay
within
the
scope
of
that
bill?
R
R
Bill
number
one:
the
primary
purpose
of
this
bill
is
to
enforce
the
Canadian
Constitution's
division
of
powers,
that's
his
primary
purpose
to
ensure
that
the
Canadian
that
the
federal
actions
that
the
federal
laws
passed
by
the
federal
government
do
not
encroach
on
provincial
constitutional
rights
and
it
shifts
the
burden
bill
number
one
bill.
One,
the
Alberta
sovereignty
within
the
United
candidate
act
shifts
the
burden
to
the
federal
government
to
legally
challenge
Alberta's
refusal
to
enforce
unconstitutional
or
harmful
Federal
legislation
foreign.
R
R
R
R
I've
been
doing
some
reading
about
whether
it's
unconstitutional
here's
some
quotes
that
I'd
like
to
read
this
kind.
One
comes
from
Eric
Adams
from
the
University
of
Alberta
no
province
has
ever
tested
whether
the
Constitutional
Authority
exists
for
a
legislature
to
order
entities
within
the
province
which
would
include
police
forces,
cities
and
towns.
Provincial
public
agencies
not
to
comply
with
federal
laws.
R
Hasn't
been
tested
yet
I
would
suggest
that
bill.
One
is
just
a
very
creative
way
of
trying
to
defend
and
create
a
shield
for
albertans
to
be
able
to
use,
to
protect
our
economy
and
to
protect
us
from
a
government,
a
federal
government
that
is
often
overreached
in
the
passage
of
its
federal
laws
he
continues.
Adam
suggested
there
would
be
a
stronger
argument
for
a
province
to
refuse
to
enforce
unconstitutional
Federal
legislation.
R
There
are
times
when
a
provincial
or
Municipal
jurisdiction
has
set
priorities,
ignored,
federal
or
existing
laws,
for
example
in
the
1970s
Quebec
stopped
Prosecuting
Henry
morgenthaler
for
what
was
at
the
time
performing
illegal
abortions
and
The
Vancouver
Police
Force
has
also
said
at
times.
It
would
stop
charge
charging
for
possession
of
marijuana.
R
It
would
appear
that
we
have
a
situation
where
the
recent
amendment
is
that
they
should
stop
the
bill
because
it's
unconstitutional-
and
yet
here
is
a
professor
from
the
University
of
Alberta,
which
is
saying
well.
It's
not
particularly
unconstitutional
lots
of
provinces
have
chosen
to
cooperate
with
the
federal
government
or
not
cooperate
with
the
federal
government
and
either
enforce
or
not
enforce
Federal
legislation.
R
R
R
So
if
the
argument
for
this
recent
amendment
is
that
we've
got
a
bill
here
that
isn't
constitutional,
all,
here's
the
head
or
the
director
of
ubc's
Center
for
constitutional
law
and
legal
studies,
which
is
saying,
oh
guess,
what
and
that's
totally
constitutional
The
Province
didn't
say
that
they're,
the
final
Arbiter
they
didn't
say
that
the
courts
have
nothing
over
this.
They
didn't
say
you
can
disobey
a
judge.
It's
not
saying
we're
not
going
to
listen
to
you
courts
and
we're
not
going
to
listen
to
the
federal
government.
R
Maybe
a
little
later
provinces
aren't
allowed
to
break
federal
law,
but
they've
always
been
able
to
pick
and
choose
which
parts
if
they
feel
like
taking
seriously
The
Province
can
decide
to
nullify
a
new
enactment
simply
by
refusing
to
prosecute
cases
brought
under
the
law.
This
law
Alan
Young
an
associate
professor
at
Osgood
Hall,
Law
School,
and
he
says
again
after
the
Trudeau
government
announced
a
series
of
11th
Hour
amendments
that
would
effectively
criminalize
most
types
of
semi-automatic
rifles.
R
R
Madam
speaker,
if
you're
going
to
go
and
argue
for
a
reasoned
Amendment,
and
if
that
recent
amendment
has
to
stay
within
the
scope
of
the
bill,
and
it
has
to
show
that
the
reasons
for
not
going
forward
show
that
the
bill
is
fatally
flawed.
In
other
words,
that
it
can't
just
raise
a
series
of
objections
that
could
be
dealt
with
by
submitting
amendments
at
the
committee
stage.
Then
my
argument
would
be
that
this
bill
needs
to
be
rejected
by
this
house
as
a
recent
Amendment.
Thank
you,
madam
speaker.
S
Thank
you,
madam
speaker.
It's
my
pleasure
to
rise
this
evening
to
speak
to
the
reasoned
amendment
ra1
that
was
introduced
by
The
Honorable
member
from
Edmonton,
Beverly
Clearview,
and
it
says
to
move
that
the
motion
for
second
reading
of
Bill
1
Alberta
sovereignty
within
a
United
Canada
Act,
be
amended
by
deleting
all
of
the
words
after
that
and
substituting
the
following.
S
Bill
1
Alberta
sovereignty
within
a
United
Canada
Act
be
not
now
read
a
second
time,
because
the
assembly
is
of
the
view
that
the
bill
is
negatively
impacting
investment
decisions
and
the
Alberta
economy
and
should
not
proceed
in
order
to
protect
the
economic
well-being
of
albertans.
While
we
got
a
rather
interesting
definition
of
what
a
reasoned
amendment
is,
I
find
it
baffling
that
members
of
the
government
can
stand
up
and
deny
that
this
bill
is
completely
creating
chaos
within
industry
within
our
economic
investors.
S
We've
heard
from
so
many
across
the
province
and
Across
the
Nation
about
the
concerns
with
this
piece
of
legislation.
While
the
leadership
review
was
going
on,
we
had
members
of
this
now
current
cabinet
that
spoke
quite
openly
about
their
concerns
and
the
devastation
and
the
impact
that
this
would
negatively
have
on
Alberta's
economy.
Yet
here
we
are
in
the
chamber
speaking
to
Bill
one
and
there's
been
nothing
that
has
created
a
sense
of
stability,
a
sense
of
confidence.
S
I
Member
from
Castle
towns,
I
appreciate
your
perspective
and
what
I'm
curious
and
I
just
want
to
bring
it
back
to.
Of
course,
the
Amendments
and
the
scope
of
the
amendment
is
to
protect
the
economic
well-being
of
Alberta
albertans
and
negatively
impacting
investment
decisions
on
the
Alberta
economy
and
so
I
I
know
you've
been
following
the
culture
Ministry
closely
over
this
last
number
of
years
and
there's
a
number
of
areas
within
the
culture
Ministry
that
have
a
significant
contribution
to
our
economy.
Right
Madam
speaker.
I
We
have,
for
example,
the
film
and
television
industry,
which
is
a
burgeoning
industry.
It's
growing
quite
quickly,
but
I
know
from
experience
as
culture
Minister
that
it
can
move
and
it
can
go,
go
to
one
place
and
then
leave
very
quickly
right.
If
there's
circumstances
change
in
the
film
and
television
industry,
they
can
just
simply
pack
up
and
leave.
S
Thank
you
to
The
Honorable
member
for
for
that
contribution.
I
I
wholeheartedly
agree
that
there's
so
many
potential
projects
that
are
at
risk
because
of
this
piece
of
legislation,
there's
so
many
investment
that
comes
from
film
and
television
from
outside
of
the
province
that
employees
directly
individuals
from
The
Province.
We
have
Crews,
we
have
lighting,
we
have
costume.
There
are
so
many
things
that
happen
once
a
big
production
decides
to
come
to
Alberta
when
this
piece
of
legislation
is
signaling
to
investors,
that
there's
chaos,
uncertainty
and
it's
not
stable.
S
It
creates
a
space
where
investors
simply
might
not
want
to
come
here
when
they
can
go
next
door
to
a
province
that
has
no
sovereignty
act
before
its
legislature,
they're
not
going
to
sit
around
and
wait
to
see
what.
If
what
happens,
the
very
fact
that
this
piece
of
legislation
was
introduced,
despite
outcry
from
albertans
from
Business
Leaders
from
Industries,
saying
that
this
mere
introduction
of
the
legislation
of
the
Alberta
sovereignty,
Act.
S
S
That
will
change
that
perception,
regardless
of
how
you
change
it
or
add
to
it
or
remove
it
like
some
of
the
members
would
like
you
to
believe
when
asked
about
their
their
flip
of
stance
from
being
vehemently
opposed
to
it,
prior
to
the
leadership
review
to
now
being
in
cabinet
and
and
agreeing
with
it.
You
know
we
heard
things
like
well,
there's
things
that
are
different.
S
Some
of
the
stuff
is
different.
Well,
things
and
stuff
is
not
very
reassuring
language,
but
the
language
that
this
bill
has
has
already
signed.
Signaled,
significant
concern
to
investors
and
the
only
way
Madam
speaker
that
you're
going
to
instill
investor
confidence,
is
to
kill
this
bill.
It's
to
support
this
Amendment
and
let
it
die.
S
Cost
of
groceries
has
gone
up
insurance
rates
tuition
people
are
accessing
the
food
bank
at
record
numbers
Madam
speaker
and
the
very
first
piece
of
legislation
that
this
government
introduces
completely
creates
more
chaos,
more
instability
to
investors.
When
we're
trying
to
draw
investment
into
this
province,
it's
hard
to
argue
that
a
company
should
come
here
and
invest
here.
S
S
It
continues
Madam
speaker,
we
we've
heard
from
so
many
Health
Care
Professionals
across
the
province,
tell
us
that
they
were
leaving.
They
didn't
feel
supported.
They
didn't
feel
like
this
government
was
making
decisions
that
were
in
the
best
interest
of
albertans,
and
here
we
are
again
with
Bill
one
talking
about
legislation.
That
is
scaring
investors.
That
is
creating
instability.
Yes,
I'll,
give
way
to
the
to
the
member.
H
S
S
So
I
I
have
a
few,
my
son,
my
youngest,
when
he
was
born.
He
lived
at
the
stallery
I
lived
there
with
him.
He
was
a
very,
very
sick
baby
and
through
the
immediate
reaction
of
our
pediatrician
at
the
time
we
were
able
to
have
him
admitted
and
they
were
able
to
find
a
place
for
me
to
be
able
to
stay
with
him.
S
I
can't
imagine
what
the
parents
are
going
through
right
now,
Madam
speaker,
and
to
have
this
absolute
crisis
in
Children's
Healthcare,
absolutely
unacceptable,
and
for
the
very
first
piece
of
legislation
that
this
government
introduces
in
amongst
this
crisis
is
this
sovereignty:
Act
is
so
out
of
touch.
It
is
creating
more
and
more
chaos,
and
stress
and
I
can
tell
you
that
those
parents
that
are
sitting
perhaps
in
a
trailer
waiting,
15
20
hours
for
their
child
to
see
a
an
Emergency
doctor,
they're
outraged
absolutely
outraged
with
the
complete
disregard
from
this
government.
S
We
are
hearing
absolutely
devastating
stories
on
this
side
of
the
house
and
I
know
that
members
of
government
are
also
hearing
these
stories.
You
can't
understand,
what's
going
on
and
support
this
as
Bill
one
it
it
just,
it
makes
absolutely
no
sense
while
there
is
so
much
chaos
and
crisis
happening
in
the
province
for
so
many
albertans.
S
S
We,
we
can't
in
good
conscience,
know
what's
happening
in
the
province
with
our
children
that
are
requiring
emergency
Health
Care
and
proceed
on
this
piece
of
legislation.
Our
government,
our
opposition,
made
two
attempts
In
This
Very
chamber,
to
discuss
the
crisis
because
we
knew
it
wasn't
going
to
be
addressed
in
their
first
bill
that
this
is
clearly
not
a
government
priority.
S
S
S
S
S
It's
going
to
create
too
much
stress
and
discomfort
and
harmful
intentions
to
those
that
are
in
possibly
looking
at
coming
to
Alberta
to
invest.
Why
would
this
government
continue
to
to
want
to
put
this
forward
and
risk
that
I,
just
I
I,
don't
understand
they
talk
about?
You
know
the
NDP
standing
up
and
and
creating
chaos?
Well,
a
lot
of
this
isn't
our
words
Madam
speaker.
S
S
Yet
here
we
are
debating
a
bill
that
this
premier
is
insisting
go
ahead,
despite
not
understanding
it
when
it
was
introduced
and
saying
that
we
were
inaccurate
and
then
changing
some
of
her
language
to
say.
Oh
no,
we
didn't
intend
that
it's
too
late.
The
damage
is
already
done.
This
bill
was
introduced.
Investors
are
worried.
S
S
I
Well,
thank
you,
madam
speaker.
I
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
say
a
few
words
in
regards
to
this
recent
amendments,
which
says
in
essence
that
the
United
Alberta
sovereignty
within
a
United
candidate
not
be
read
a
second
time
because
of
the
negative
impacts
on
investment
decisions
and
the
Alberta
economy
not
proceed
in
order
to
protect
the
Alberta
economic
well-being.
So,
as
I
listened
with
interest
to
the
member
from
train
Valley
talking
about
Constitution
I
mean
I
think
that
there
are
constitutional
problems
with
this
Alberta
sovereignty
act.
I
But
this
particular
recent
amendment
is
talking
about
economic
impacts
specifically,
and
so
I've
asked
a
number
of
speakers
during
this
evening
about
their
own
ministerial
or
critic
areas
that
they
are
responsible
for
to
speculate
on
how
this
Alberta
sovereignty
act
might
have
a
negative
impact
on
that
particular
part
of
the
Alberta
economy
and
the
area
that
I
know
something
about.
Madam
speaker
is
in
regards
to
post-secondary
education
and
our
26
colleges.
I
That's
a
real
impact
on
potentially
the
economy
of
our
province,
and
this
is
a
long-standing
way
by
which
our
colleges,
universities
and
polytechnics
that
have
been
founded
over
many
decades
right
really
since
the
beginning
of
Confederation
and
to
somehow
interfere
with
that
process
with
a
false
sense
of
of
sovereignty.
Act,
I
think
is
a
real
problem
and
I
will
certainly
give
way
to
The
Honorable
member
for
Emerson.
I
J
I
Yeah,
no
thanks,
honorable
member
from
Remington
Ellerslie,
and
indeed
you
know
it
doesn't
have
to
be
a
generational
change.
In
fact,
things
can
move
quite
quickly
right,
because
when
people
make
choices,
around
investment
really
grants
and
and
choices
that
are
made
around
post-secondary,
it's
it's
it's
an
investment
too,
sometimes
tens
or
even
hundreds
of
millions
of
dollars.
You
look
at
the
nano
technology
that
the
federal
government
has
put
into
the
University
of
Alberta.
I
Here,
for
example,
I
mean
that
has
tangible
long-term
consequences
in
a
positive
way,
but
by
compromising
the
Integrity
of
the
relationship
between
the
federal
government
and
the
provincial
government,
it
can
have
a
pretty
fast
effect
on
students
choosing
to
study
here
in
the
province
of
Alberta
if
they
feel
like
there's.
Some
element
of
instability.
I
see
students
all
of
the
time
in
my
life,
my
own
professional
life,
my
own
personal
life,
you
know
they're
pretty
mobile
right.
I
They
can
move
from
one
place
to
another
or
choose
a
an
acceptance
to
a
you
know
to
a
department
or
studying,
for
a
degree
post-secondary
degree
all
around
all
over
the
world.
At
this
point
in
time-
and
you
know
we-
we
respect
that
choice,
but
we
want
them
to
have
a
top
quality
world-class
choice
right
here
in
the
province
of
Alberta.
If
they
want
to
do
that,
and
so
while
it
takes
generation
for
apps,
it
takes
Generations
or
a
long
time
to
build
up
the
reputation
of
a
post-secondary
institution.
I
You
can
lose
that
in
a
matter
of
months,
even
if
something
like
the
sovereignty
act,
you
know
rears
its
ugly
head
and
you
know
you
find
that
people
are
are
having
a
second
guess
about
Alberta
and
Alberta's
commitment
to
the
provincial
Federal
relationship
that
has
helped
to
build
what
what
a
wonderful
place
that
we
have
to
live
here
today
and
wonderful,
post-secondary
institutions
that
we
have
to
study
in
here
today
as
well.
So
those
are
the
kinds
of
things
you
got
to
think
about.
I
You
know,
and
you
know
it's
not
just
what
the
individual
contents
of
this
particular
sovereignty
Act
is,
but
the
scary
idea
of
having
a
bill
around
sovereignty
as
well.
That
really
has
an
a
an
actual
effect
and,
as
I
said
briefly
in
comments
interventions
here
earlier
this
evening,
you
know
I
know
that
there's
substantive
differences
between
sovereignty,
legislation
that
was
enacted
in
the
province
of
Quebec
right
from
1976
onwards
and
to
you
know
even
from
time
to
time
to
this
present
day
under
different
circumstances.
I
Right
then
Alberta,
but
just
the
idea
of
the
sovereignty,
our
sovereignty
legislation
period.
You
know
is
enough
for
people
to
vote
with
their
feet.
You
know
and
once
one
thing
moves,
then
other
things
start
to
move
too
right.
Let's
say
you
know
again.
This
is
an
example
from
Quebec
Frank's
Sun,
Sun
Life
decided
to
close
their
headquarters
in
the
city
of
Montreal.
I
So
let's
dip
it
in
the
bud
here
now.
I
think
it's
not
such
a
bad
thing
to
do
right
to
recognize
when
you
need
to
change
direction.
I
know
it's
awkward
because,
of
course
this
was
the
flagship
bill
of
a
new
premier
and
governments
and
so
forth,
but
you
know
I
think
when
you
look
at
not
just
the
nuts
and
the
bolts,
but
the
overall
concept
and
direction
I
think
there's
lots
of
better
ways
in
which
we
can
move
at
this
juncture
in
the
history
of
our
Province,
we
have
unprecedented
inflation
right.
I
J
I
Imagine
having
a
young
child
in
grade
school
right
now
with
really
an
unprecedented
flu
season,
just
getting
started
and
already
literally
flooding
our
hospitals
and
our
emergency
rooms
and
our
capacity
to
deal
with
severe
flu
symptoms
right
again,
just
two
examples
of
some
something:
that's
literally
Happening
by
the
minute
in
real
time
all
around
us
that
we
need
to
deal
with
using
this
legislative
power
and
the
power
of
the
government
of
Alberta
to
many
mitigate
the
affordability
crisis
in
this
province.
To
look
for
ways
to
build
capacity
in
our
public
health
system.
I
In
order
to
reassure
public
confidence
in
this
government
to
be
able
to
deal
with
issues
like
that.
Does
it
instill
confidence
in
a
government
when
you
are
faced
with
two
obvious
crises
right
in
front
of
your
eyes?
And
then
you
choose
to
have
this
as
your
first
bill.
I
think
not
I
would
have
a
giveaway
too.
L
Thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
intervene,
I'm
very
interested
in
in
your
perspective
on
you
know
what
is
important
versus
what
is
not
important
in
terms
of
the
government's
time.
I
know
that
you
are
one
of
the
longest
serving
mlas
in
this
house
at
the
present
time,
and
you
certainly
would
have
some
perspective
on.
I
Well,
thanks
honorable
member
from
Edmonton,
Rutherford
and
yeah
I
mean
it
might
seem
contradictory,
then
why
we
would
be
dwelling
on
Bill
one
when
of
course
we're
probably
bringing
up
these
issues
that
are,
you
know
it's
like
a
house
on
fire
right,
and
why
would
you
be?
You
know,
dwelling
on
Bill
one?
Let's
just
move
past
it,
but
you
know
you
have
to
deal
with
what's
before
you
and
you
know.
Hopefully
we
can
recalibrate
what
is
most
important
here.
I
At
this
moment,
then,
you
have
to
deal
with
that
too
right
and
so
that
you
can
move
past
and
find
what's
really
most
important
and
what
gives
a
best
value
back
to
albertans
and
Alberta
society
as
well.
And
so
you
know,
I
appreciate
this.
Amendment
I
think
that
talking
about
the
economic
impacts
is,
is
self-evidence
and
I've
I've
seen
lots
of
people
with
a
very
quick
analysis,
but
a
very
decisive
analysis
that
yeah
it
can
literally
Shake
markets.
I
We
live
in
a
very
sophisticated
society
that
we
should
all
be
proud
of,
and
we
should
invest
in
those
strengths.
Every
step
of
the
way
right
and
the
fundamental
strengths.
Madam
speaker
is
that
when
we
work
together
in
the
broadest
possible
way,
we
work
within
Confederation
and
we
work.
Of
course,
you
know
there's
things,
issues
that
the
federal
government
do
so
that
we
have
to
push
back
against
right.
I'm
no
fan
of
the
Liberals
Lord
knows
and
certainly
have
my
concerns
about.
I
I
To
know
that
there's
stable
government
here
to
deliver
for
all
of
those
things
and
other
issues
as
they
come
forward,
so
that
as
Alberta
new
Democrats
is
what
we
seek
to
to
do
to
provide
stability
to
provide
a
stable
government,
and
this
Alberta
sovereignty
act
simply
does
not
fit
into
to
that
model.
And
thus
we
would
suggest
for
all
albertans
and
this
house
to
vote
for
this
amendment,
which
would
refer
this
bill
to
not
be
read
at
this
time.
Thanks
a
lot.
F
First,
the
cost
of
living
across
this
province
has
gone
up
because
of
inflation
and
UCP
the
UCP
policies
albertan
wants
them
to
address.
That
second
thing
is
that
Alberta's
Health
Care
is
in
crisis
and
in
Calgary
the
government's
solution
is
to
put
trailers
outside
Children
Hospital
to
provide
care.
F
F
F
F
F
G
F
F
F
F
F
F
I
think
section
96
would
dictate
that
neither
Parliament
nor
any
legislature
can
pronounce
and
decide
on
constitutionality
of
any
enactment.
That
role
has
been
reserved
for
the
courts,
not
for
the
legislature.
That's
in
the
Constitution
section,
96
and
I
urge
members
to
look
up
its
interpretation
by
the
Supreme
Court
of
Canada.
F
F
F
Three
in
ten
Canadian
were
in
favor
of
that
then
premier
now,
the
leader
of
the
official
opposition
went
all
across
Canada
to
make
a
case
about
that
pipeline
about
our
energy
sector
and
at
the
end
of
that
tour,
7
in
10
Canadians
were
in
favor
of
that
project
and
when
BC
and
when
some
other
groups
tried
to
throw
roadblocks
who
were
able
to
push
federal
government
to
buy
that
Pipeline,
and
now
we
are
a
few
months
away
from
that
project
to
be
completed.
There
will
be
first
pipeline
to
title
virus.
F
F
They
failed
to
stand
up
for
the
set
and
now
they're
coming
up
with
this
unconstitutional
and
completely
third
piece
of
legislation
that
will
not
do
anything
to
help
us
in
a
metal
speaker.
There
is
in
other,
pretty
interesting
thing
about
this
bill
that
this
bill
gives
30
days
for
anyone
to
challenge
government
decision
in
courts
and
that's
usually
six
months,
but
the
decreased
it
to
30
days
and
when
Court
review
government
decisions
default
standard
is
reasonableness.
P
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
I
I
N
P
I
P
P
S
Thank
you,
madam
speakers,
my
pleasure
to
rise
tonight
to
speak
to
the
main
Bill,
the
Alberta
sovereignty
within
a
United
Canada
Act
I'm
disappointed
that
it
was
not
supported.
Our
motion
I
thought
that
it
was
foreign,
quite
quite
good
in
in
the
fact
that
it's
represented
what
albertans
are
asking
for,
that
this
bill
die
so
I'm,
just
I'm
I'm
hopeful
that,
as
we
move
through
debate
tonight,
that
government
will
do
the
right
thing
and
perhaps
support
us
in
another
amendment.
S
We've
already
been
able
to
articulate
many
reasons
why
this
bill
is,
is
not
what
Alberta
needs.
We
talked
about
the
importance
of
having
a
stable
and
reliable
government,
and
unfortunately,
this
bill
has
signaled
to
so
many
International
investors.
That
Alberta
is
not
a
stable
place
to
bring
investment,
and
that's
quite
concerning
we've.
We've
heard
from
the
three
treaty
Chiefs
that
this
bill
cannot
proceed
yet
this
government
is
not
listening
to
to
so
many
that
are
coming
forward.
S
Talking
about
the
concerns
that
this
bill
brings
simply,
in
its
title,
never
mind
the
overreach
and
the
the
gross
powers
that
this
government
has
has
put
into
this
bill,
but
many
things
that
is
alarming:
to
albertans,
to
investors,
to
International
investors
to
business
communities,
there's
an
endless
list
of
people
who
have
come
out
and
spoke
against
this
bill
proceeding
and
degree
the
opposition
is
listening
and
we
attempted
to
put
forward
a
reasoned
amendment.
That,
unfortunately,
was
was
just
defeated.
Madam
speaker,
so
I
would
like
to
move
an
amendment
and
I.
P
S
S
Bill
one
Alberta
sovereignty
within
the
United
Canada
Act
be
not
now
read
a
second
time,
because
the
assembly
is
of
the
view
that
the
government
has
failed
to
adequately
consult
with
non-profit
organizations
and
municipalities
on
the
potential
risks.
This
bill
presents
to
Federal
funding
for
their
projects,
including
critical
infrastructure
and
housing
initiatives.
S
So
Madam
speaker,
it
may
come
as
a
surprise
to
members
of
the
UCP
caucus
and
perhaps
even
members
of
the
cabinet,
but
consultation
didn't
happen
prior
to
the
introduction
of
this
bill.
We
shouldn't
be
surprised
that,
based
on
reports
that,
even
after
introduction,
many
of
the
members
of
cabinet
hadn't
read
the
bill.
Clearly
there
was
an
adequate
consultation
with
the
members
of
the
government
caucus,
so
it
should
come
as
no
surprise
that
Municipal
leaders
and
non-profit
organizations
were
not
consulted
with.
S
Now
I
encourage
members
of
this
assembly
to
look
into
who
is
listed
as
a
provincial
entity
under
one
e,
a
municipal
Authority,
an
entity
that
receives
a
grant
or
other
public
funds
from
the
government
that
are
contingent
on
the
provision
of
a
public
service
for
each
member
across
the
aisle.
How
many
of
you
have
an
entity
in
your
riding
that
fits
this?
S
S
S
S
There
are
so
many
non-profits
across
this
province
that
should
have
voice.
These
are
individuals
that
are
relying
on
grants.
They're
relying
on
support
from
their
government
they're
relying
on
stability,
the
non-profits
in
Alberta
I,
would
argue,
have
been
here
prior
to
even
the
making
of
the
province.
S
S
S
How
can
we
in
good
faith,
move
forward
with
a
piece
of
legislation
that
has
not
been
consulted
on
we've?
Seen
over
the
past
few
days,
government
argue
that
we
were
that
we
were
wrong
about
the
interpretation
of
this
bill.
We
heard
ministers
come
forward
after
they've
said
that
this
bill
would
destroy
the
economy,
change
their
tune,
but
couldn't
articulate
why
and
what
was
better?
S
S
S
We
need
to
be
able
to
to
look
to
International
investors
and
to
small
businesses
and
say
we
heard
you.
We
value
the
Insight
that
you
bring
to
this
table
the
expertise
that
you
bring
to
this
table.
We've
heard
you
loud
and
clear
and
we
are
not
going
to
proceed
with
the
Alberta
sovereignty
within
a
United
Canada
Act.
S
That
is
the
only
solution
in
this
mess
that
was
created
by
this
government.
It
should
not
be
read
a
second
time.
I
would
plead
with
members
of
government
to
vote
in
support
of
this
reasoned
Amendment
and
show
albertans
that
they're
listening
that
they
want
to
see
success
in
Alberta.
They
want
to
see
an
economy
thrive
and,
at
this
point,
Mr
Speaker
the
only
way
to
do
that
and
to
to
signal
to
International
investors
and
anybody
considering
coming
to
Alberta
that
they
heard
them.
S
This
is
something
that's
deeply
concerning
that
this
is
the
very
first
piece
of
legislation.
That's
coming
forward
from
this
government
when
there's
so
much,
chaos
already
happening
in
the
province
and
to
add
to
that
chaos
simply
doesn't
make
sense.
The
only
way
to
stop
is
to
not
proceed
with
reading
this
bill
a
second
time.
S
There's
so
many
projects
that
are
in
the
process
right
now
of
coming
to
Alberta
I
would
be
curious
to
know
how
many
are
paused,
because
of
this
act,
how
many
investors
are
looking
at
what's
happening
in
the
province
and
not
even
remotely
considering
coming
to
Alberta
how
many
investors
are
being
scared
away
because
of
the
simple
introduction
of
this
piece
of
legislation
and
that
damage
can't
be
undone?
If
we
proceed
with
this
piece
of
legislation,
no
matter
how
they
want
it
to
reframe
it
or
introduce
amendments,
it's
not
possible.
S
S
S
Q
You
very
much
Mr
Speaker
and
I
smiled,
because
I
heard
from
the
other
side,
someone
would
love
to
call
the
question.
I
could
talk
about
this
bill
all
night
and
in
fact,
when
it
moves
to
committee,
I
will
and
I
hope
the
minister
will
be
in
chamber,
because
I
will
talk
your
ear
off
and
in
fact,
through
the
speaker.
Q
Think
too
often
in
this
chamber,
as
of
late
we've
gotten
away
from
debating
policy
and
giving
arguments
as
to
why
we
accept
or
refute
the
other
side's
opinion
and
and
points
and
we've
gotten
into
a
name
calling
hyper
partisan
discussion
which,
quite
frankly,
I
don't
think
albertans
have
the
appetite
for
it.
I
think
they're,
tired
of
it
I
think
rightly
so.
I
didn't
get
into
this
job
to
call
people
names
it's
about
building,
and
so
the
reason
that
I
support
this
amendment
to
stop
this
bill
is
not
about
the
constitutionality
of
it.
Q
For
me,
the
the
challenge
with
this
bill
and
regardless
Mr
Speaker.
If,
if
the
government
and
the
premier
brings
in
amendments
to
fix
some
of
the
more
challenging
sections
of
the
bill,
that's
not
the
issue
I
have
with
it.
The
issue
I
have
with
it
is
the
province
of
Alberta,
putting
forward
a
sovereignty
Act
to
be
able
to
have
two
different
sets
of
rules
to
play
by
is
going
to
be
a
deterrent
to
investors
coming
to
Alberta,
because
when
they
look
at
Canada
and
they
look
at
the
different
provinces.
Q
Investors
want
certainty,
they
want
stability,
they
want
predictability
and
when
you
have
one
order
of
government
bringing
forward
a
bill
that
challenges
the
authority
of
another
order
of
government
in
name
that
that's
a
red
flag
and
I,
don't
expect
our
International
investors
to
go
through
the
bill
and
read
it
and
understand
the
nuances
and
translate
it
they're
going
to
see
and
rightly
or
wrongly,
meet.
The
media
has
covered
this
bill
enough.
Q
Q
We
need
that.
We
absolutely
need
that.
We
need
to
be
able
to
hold
the
Federal
Government
to
account.
We
need
to
be
able
to
ensure
that
they
don't
overreach,
and
there
have
been
times
and
many
times
in
Alberta's
history,
where
we've
challenged
the
federal
government
and
we've
been
successful
as
we
should.
We
need
to
protect
Alberta's
interests.
We
need
to
stand
up
to
the
province.
All
of
us
in
this
chamber
agree
with
that.
Q
Q
Q
That
that
will
deter
investors
from
selecting
Alberta
it
will
investors
want
to
know
that,
there's
stability,
let
me
let
me
let
me
give
you
an
example.
Okay,
so
there
are
lots
of
energy
companies
that
when
Donald
Trump
came
into
power
that
talked
about
how
he
was
going
to
reverse
all
the
climate
policies
and
allow
coal
to
continue
under
under
his
government
in
perpetuity.
Q
Do
you
think
the
companies
opened
a
whole
bunch
of
of
coal
mines
and
continued
down
that
path?
No,
you
know
why,
because
they
recognize
that
that
kind
of
investment
is
a
50-year
investment
and
Donald
Trump
will
be
long
gone
and
it's
not
even
about
Donald
Trump
I'm,
not
attacking
him.
Any
politician
will
be
long
gone
over
a
50-year
span,
so
these
companies
are
looking
at
what
is
the
long-term
investment.
Q
Q
Q
Q
The
risk
still
exists
that
you
have
a
piece
of
legislation
called
the
Alberta
sovereignty,
Act
and
I
can
tell
you
and
I
know
that
very
few
people
that
I'm
looking
at
in
this
chamber
have
spoken
to
International
investors
in
the
whites
of
their
eyes
in
their
home
country,
I
mean
largely
in
part.
This
is
not
attack
on
the
government.
Covid
has
inhibited
them
from
traveling
internationally.
Q
Give
the
minister
who
loves
to
chirp
when
I
speak
a
great
example
which
government
initiated
the
regulations
to
phase
out
coal
in
this
country.
It
was
Jason
Kenney
and
Stephen
Harper,
and
if
you
shake
your
head,
go
and
look
at
Federal
Hansard
they
initiated
six
out
of
18
coal-fired
plants
were
to
be
phased.
B
Out
I
hesitate
to
interrupt
my
good
friend
from
Edmonton
Beverly
clairview.
However,
we
are
on
Amendment
ra2,
which
very
specifically
speaks
to
the
Assemblies
of
the
view
that
the
government
has
failed
to
adequately
consult
non-profit
organizations,
municipalities
on
the
potential
risks
of
the
bill.
It
goes
on.
It
says
very
little
about
any
of
the
topics
in
which
he
has
discussed
up
to
this
point
and
I
provided
a
pretty
wide
latitude.
Q
L
Thank
you
remember,
I,
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
ask
you
a
little
bit.
I
noticed
that
you
were
talking
earlier
about
the
fact
that
Quebec
has
has,
over
the
years
made
a
number
of
moves
in
this
particular
direction.
But
one
of
the
things
that
we've
learned
in
the
evaluation
of
Quebec
is
that
they
really
haven't
recovered
properly
from
their
sovereignty.
L
Q
Thank
you
colleague,
Mr
Speaker.
Do
you,
sir
know
roughly
how
much
time
I
have
left
in
this
four
minutes
and
37
seconds?
Okay,
can't
wait
until
this
bill
goes
into
Committee
of
the
whole,
in
which
case
bring
bring
your
pajamas
Mr,
Speaker
and
I
want
to
thank
the
member
for
referencing
Quebec,
because
here
is
here,
is
a
very
important
example
of
what
happened.
So
the
members
talk
about
Quebec
and
how
Quebec
has
stood
up
for
the
sovereignty.
Q
Are
the
members
aware
and
the
Minister
of
Finance
is
looking
at
me
and
I
appreciate
that
he
will
know
this
Montreal
and
Quebec
used
to
be
the
headquarters
of
all
of
the
major
financial
institutions
in
Canada.
All
of
them
were
in
Quebec
until
they
brought
in
a
bill
like
this
and
all
of
the
headquarters
moved
out
of
Quebec
and
into
Toronto.
Q
How
many
have
moved
back?
None,
how
many
are
going
to
move
back,
none
they're
going
to
stay
in
Toronto,
and
so
the
concern
I'll
give
way
in
a
moment.
Remember
the
concern
is
that
a
bill
like
this
could
have
long-term
long-reaching
effects,
where
we
know
that
Alberta
and
Calgary
is
the
home.
Is
the
number
two
City
for
headquarters
for
our
financial
sector
a
bill
like
this
could
chase
them
out
of
Alberta
I'll,
give
way
well.
K
Thank
you,
member
for
giving
away,
and
you
you
your
premise
of
the
speech
is
that
there's
one
set
of
rules
for
the
province
and
another
for
the
federal
government
will
cause
confusion
and
investment
will
flee.
I.
Don't
accept
that
premise!
I
think
that's
factually
wrong,
but
if
we
give
that
to
you-
and
we
say
this
bill
is
not
amendable-
we
say
it's
not
about
the
constitutionality
and
this
isn't
a
partisan
question.
It's
purely
pragmatic
about
investment
I
think
that
evidence
I
will
posit
the
historical
record
of
the
NDP
government
in
2015
and
I.
K
Remember
in
Peace
River.
You
guys
brought
forward
your
first
budget
and
the
day
after
shell
pulled
out
of
the
Carmen
Creek
investment,
a
12
billion
dollar
Mega
project
gone,
no
more
investment
came
in
afterwards.
So
whatever
hypothetical
you
think,
is
true
here.
How
do
you
justify
if
it's
purely
practical-
and
it
has
nothing
to
do
with
partisan
politics?
No,
not
coming
to
this
side
of
the
chamber
and
disavowing
your
role
in
the
last
government
for
the
factual,
flee
of
capital
out
of
this
province
so
much
more
devastating,
so
much
more
devastating
than
any
hypothetical.
K
Q
It's
factually
incorrect.
Second
of
all,
as
I've
I've
said,
I've
spoken
with
a
number
of
Executives
from
some
of
the
largest
oil
and
gas
companies
in
Alberta
and
Canada,
who
have
said
that
the
Albert
NDP
did
more
of
the
oil
and
gas
sector
than
the
current
UC
government
has
in
the
last
three
and
a
half
years.
No
laugh
it
up
because
you've
drank.
Q
Q
We
incentivized
oil
and
gas
companies
to
continue
through
the
life
of
the
well
when
productivity
declined
because,
previous
to
our
more
our
royalty,
modernization,
most
companies
sealed
off
Wells
because
they
paid
the
same
royalty
level
when
the
well
was
producing
100
percent,
as
it
was
producing
as
it
tailed
it
off,
and
so
they
capped
it.
We
modernized
it.
Q
We
listened
to
the
oil
and
gas
sector
and-
and
let
me
tell
you
there
are
lots
of
new
democrat
members
who
are
quite
frustrated
with
us,
because
they
thought
we
were
giving
too
many
breaks
to
the
energy
sector.
What
we
did
was
we
charted
a
course
that
was
fair
to
our
oil
and
gas
producers,
but
also
ensured
that
they
would
continue
through
the
life
of
the
well,
which
was
also
a
boon
for
Alberta
taxpayers.
Q
I
can
tell
you
that
this
bill
in
its
current
state,
regardless
of
what's
written
in
it,
has
chilled
investment
and
I
appreciate
the
member
from
Peace.
River
respectfully
disagrees,
but
this
is
where
I
will
say
to
the
member
of
Peace
River.
Are
you
talking
to
the
International
Investment
Community,
the
way
that
we
are
and
I'm
not
trying
to
pull
a
card
I'm
saying
as
a
former
minister
of
Economic
Development
trade,
I'm
speaking
to
International
investors
that
I
spoke
to
when
we
were
government
and
they
are
scared.
Q
The
sovereignty
Act
has
just
placed
question
marks
into
the
viability
of
investing
in
Alberta
and
that
even
questioning
of
is
Alberta.
A
predictable
place
to
invest
in
has
chilled
investment,
and
so
therefore
our
government
I
won't
give
away
this
time.
Remember
our
our
party
will
not
sorry.
This
is
why
we
brought
forward
a
second
reason:
Amendment,
because
no
matter
what
amendments
the
government
brings,
the
Chill
on
investment
will
not
end
until
this
bill
is
repealed.
Q
I
love
this
province,
I'm
in
Alberta,
born
and
raised
here.
I
do
not
want
our
Province
to
suffer
for
decades
because
of
a
bill
that
maybe
was
good
intentioned
but
is
not
going
to
deliver
the
outcomes
that
the
current
government
thinks
it's
going
to,
and
the
unintended
consequences
far
outweigh
the
benefits
that
this
government
may
think.
This
bill
is
going
to
deliver
for
Alberta
and
for
those
reasons,
Mr
Speaker
I'm,
supporting
this
recent
Amendment
and
cannot
support
this
bill.
Moving
forward.
B
So
it
will
be
a
requirement
of
members
if
they
want
to
propose
multiple
reasoned
amendments
that
they
speak
specifically
to
the
amendment,
not
just
broadly
speaking,
as
we
just
saw
from
The
Honorable
member
for
Edmonton
Beverly
Clearview
about
about
the
main
motion.
There
will
be
plenty
of
time
for
that
in
the
future
The
Honorable
member
for
Drayton
Valley
Devin.
Should
he
choose
to
speak
to
the
amendment.
Thank.
R
You
Mr
Speaker
I,
won't
take
long,
but
I
would
like
to
speak
to
the
recent
Amendment
here.
The
as
you
readily
have
pointed
out.
The
reason
Amendment
here
is
dealing
with
the
potential
risks
this
bill
presents
to
Federal
funding
for
the
projects,
including
critical
infrastructure
and
housing
initiatives.
R
R
this
young
social
studies,
teacher
or
younger
social
studies,
teacher
I
went
from
being
in
his
classroom
on
the
day.
The
election
was
called
in
2015
to
a
month
later
being
in
his
constituency
office
and
within
the
first
couple
to
three
months.
I
think
I
had
five
oil
and
gas
companies
their
CEOs
coming
into
my
office
and
I'm
going.
R
This
is
not
a
sword.
Bill
one
is
not
a
sword.
It's
a
shield.
It's
about
protecting
albertans
from
the
overreach
of
a
federal
government
that
has
refused
to
recognize
that
it.
It
has
certain
constitutional
lanes
that
it
has
to
stay
in
and
then,
when
it
doesn't
you're
right,
it
does
affect
the
predictability
and
the
stability,
and
so
we've
had
to
come
and
yeah.
R
If
you
are
going
to
pass
legislation,
that's
going
to
threaten
the
economy
of
Alberta,
that's
going
to
create
instability,
that's
not
going
to
allow
for
businesses
to
have
predictability.
If
you
are
going
to
do
that,
then
we
as
the
legislature
of
Alberta,
will
use
this
act
to
protect
us
and
to
protect
the
citizens
and
the
businesses
and
the
constitutional
rights
of
albertans.
B
I
hesitate
to
interrupt
the
member,
but
what
is
fair,
for
the
goose,
in
fact,
is
fair
for
the
gander
and
I
I
having
a
hard
time
understanding
how
your
comments
specifically
relate
to
ra2,
which
very
specifically
discuss
about
consultation
with
non-profit
organizations,
municipalities,
the
potential
risk
that
the
bill
presents
if
the
member
wants
to
speak
to
the
main
Bill
he's
welcome
to
do
so.
If
he
wants
to
speak
to
the
amendment,
particularly
now
that
we're
moving
into
additional
reasoned
amendments,
he
ought
to
be
speaking
specifically
to
the
amendment
The
Honorable
member
for
Drayton
Valley,
deaf.
R
H
Well,
thank
you.
Mr
Speaker
and
I
will
try
to
stick
to
the
amendment
that
is
currently
in
front
of
us,
and
you
know
I
believe
that
that
it's
important
that
this
be
supported
in
the
house
and
part
of
that
is
it's
the
consultation
with
non-profit
organizations
and
municipalities
on
the
potential
risk
that
this
bill
presents
to
Federal
funding
for
their
projects,
including
the
infrastructure
and
the
housing
initiatives.
H
But
if
we
look
at
the
section
that
it's
referencing,
it
actually
speaks
to
section
1
e,
which
includes
municipal
authorities
and
an
entity
that
receives
a
grant
or
public
funds
from
the
government
that
are
contingent
on
the
provision
of
a
public
service,
which
is
what
this
amendment
is
speaking
to
or
this
referral
is
speaking
to
now.
The
reason
that
I
feel
like
this
is
very
important
is
that
I've
spent
again
like
I,
said
earlier
today,
since
this
bill's
been
introduced.
H
The
very
funding
that
they
receive
would
include
the
Canadian
Alberta
jobs
Grant.
They
receive
the
Energy
savings
Grant
they
get
funded
by
Farm
Safe.
They
get
funded
for
local
Festival
grants.
They
get
community
anniversary
grants
they
get
Canadian,
Greener
homes
grants.
Many
of
those
grants
are
Partnerships
between
the
province
and
the
federal
government.
H
Now
we've
heard
from
the
premier
in
recent
weeks
about
mandate,
letters
that
have
been
sent
to
ministers
and-
and
she
spoke
even
in
this
house
during
question
period-
about
encouraging
her
ministers
to
come
up
with
motions
that
would
speak
specifically
under
this
act.
That
could
be
addressed
well
when
that
happens,
and
we
look
at
the
grants
funding
that
is
being
offered
to
many
of
these
non-profits
that
are
under
The
Minister's
purview.
H
There
raises
questions
around
what
is
going
to
happen
with
that
partnership
with
the
federal
government
and
the
provincial
government
when
it
comes
to
securing
those
grants
now
again,
because
the
industry
hasn't
been
consulted,
we
are
talking
about
critical
infrastructure.
We
can
look
at
the
irrigation
partnership
that
is
being
funded
under
the
cap
program.
60
of
that
is
federal.
40
of
that
is
provincial
with
a
little
bit
of
the
municipalities
Partnerships.
H
That
is
a
direct
partnership
and
relationship
between
the
federal
government
and
the
provincial
government.
Those
projects,
those
planning
grants,
all
of
the
things
that
are
associated
with
the
irrigation
Network,
specifically
as
one
example,
could
be
something
that
should
be
discussed
with
the
irrigation
networks
prior
to
looking
at
this
act
and
explaining
to
the
irrigation
networks.
What
this
means
for
the
partnership
that
the
minister
is
going
to
have
to
have
with
the
federal
government?
H
Is
this
going
to
be
a
motion
that
he
may
have
to
bring
forward
into
the
house
to
talk
about
area
management
agreements,
Land
Management,
the
partnership
that
the
federal
government
has
around
endangered
species
or
protecting
them
looking
at
invasive
species?
Those
issues
directly
relate
to
the
partnership
with
the
irrigation
networks,
which
directly
relates
to
the
grant
money.
That
directly
relates
to
this
specific
Amendment
saying
that
those
consultations
never
occurred.
H
I'd
be
curious
from
the
minister
if
he
sat
down
and
had
a
conversation
with
the
irrigation
networks
about
the
potential
impacts
on
the
sovereignty
act
and
what
that
means
for
their
investment.
So
that's
just
one
example.
We
could
look
at
if
we
want
to
go
back
to
the
annual
report
for
Agriculture
and
Forestry
and
look
at
the
fact
that
42
million
dollars
was
was
given
through
the
cap
funds
invested
in
21-22,
and
that
was
42
million
dollars
for
sector
capacity.
H
How
are
we
going
to
ensure
that
the
conversations
that
are
happening
that,
when
we're
working
with
cfia
around
our
food
inspection,
then
our
export
markets
that
our
International
Partners
believe
that
Alberta
is
still
standing
up
and
doing
the
appropriate
things?
Many
of
those
things
are
Partnerships.
Many
of
those
individuals
are
producer
groups
that
are
going
to
be
significantly
impacted
if
the
government
chooses
to
start
using
motions
in
this
house
and
start
creating
disagreements
with
the
federal
government.
This
is
a
significant
amount
of
investment
money.
H
I
do
want
to
acknowledge,
though,
that,
because
of
all
the
money
that
was
transferred,
maybe
The
Minister's
not
as
concerned,
because
he
actually
didn't
use
the
full
Federal
transfer
budget
last
year,
so
left
some
money
on
the
table.
It's
in
your
report
Minister
that
there
was
a
shortfall
it
didn't
actually
all
get
spent.
Now
under
the
cap
we
saw
three
billion
dollars
of
federal,
provincial
and
territorial
funding
investment
into
agriculture
in
the
agri-food
sector,
that
was
from
effective,
April
1st
18
to
2023..
H
Now
more
than
400
million
of
that
will
be
invested
over
the
five-year
period
for
agri-food
and
Agri
product
based
Industries.
But
again,
sixty
percent
of
that
funding
is
coming
from
the
feds
40
of
that
is
coming
from
provincial
governments
so
again,
working
closely
with
our
with
our
producer
groups,
as
indicated
Within.
H
The
annual
report
that
the
minister
will
continue
to
work
closely
with
the
industry
to
support
growth
and
diversification
using
that
Federal
Dollar
Transfer.
So
was
the
consultation
happening.
What
is
going
to
guarantee
these
organizations
that
are
currently
going
to
be
receiving
that
amount
of
money
through
their
Grant
transfers
that
they're
going
to
continue
to
have
that?
Has
that
guarantee?
Has
that
conversation
happened
with
those
producer
groups?
H
Now
they
receive
grants,
so
they
qualify
under
this
amendment.
That
was
part
of
the
consultation
piece
when
I
talked
to
stakeholders,
they
haven't
had
those
conversations
they're,
not
aware
of
all
these
different
impacts
that
are
going
to
happen.
Of
course,
we
could
talk
about
Ager
stability
and
eager
recovery
and
the
Partnerships
that
happen
with
that,
and
the
fact
that
you
know
322
producers
had
to
sign
up
due
to
this
severe
drought
and
that
1.5
million
dollars
was
paid
out
in
the
2021
program
year.
H
We
could
also
talk
about
the
Canadian
Federal
provincial
territorial
agreement
that
happened
on
the
reference
margins,
also
significant
Federal
transfers
that
impact
direct
producers.
We
could
also
talk
about
the
9.28
million
dollars
that
was
required
that
was
used
to
help
with
the
livestock
producers
crop
and
forage
producers,
beekeepers
and
mixed
Farmers
all
which
should
have
been
consulted
with
under
this
legislation
before
it
was
introduced.
H
Now,
of
course,
400
million
of
dollars
was
also
allotted
from
the
federal
government
for
Agri
recovery
specific
to
livestock
feed
the
initiative
which
I
believe
the
minister
just
put
some
more
money
into.
Thank
you
for
that.
But
again,
that
is
a
grant
program
that
is
administered
by
the
law
by
the
livestock
feed
Association
through
a
grant
which
is
dependent
on
the
relationship
between
the
federal
government
and
the
province.
H
H
Things
impacts
many
of
the
minister
stakeholders
now,
on
top
of
that,
there's
also
Federal
funding
to
support
farmsmart,
which
includes
vegetation
management,
prescribed
fire
fire,
smart
planning
and
general
Wildfire
prevention
projects
with
indigenous
communities,
and
we've
already
heard
from
many
of
our
colleagues
here
that
the
indigenous
communities
are
not
feeling
like
they've,
been
consulted
on
this
piece
of
legislation,
and
in
fact
that
is
a
significant
investment.
1.3
million
dollars
to
work
with
indigenous
communities
on
fire
significant,
but
yet
clearly
from
my
colleague,
it
was
mentioned
that
the
indigenous
Community
doesn't
feel
like
they
were
consulted.
H
H
Also
significant
funding
that
comes
from
the
federal
government.
One
million
dollars
was
allotted
to
help
control
60
million
dollars.
Sorry
was
the
cost
share,
with
the
federal
provincial
agreement
to
enhance
the
Mountain
Time
mountain
pine
beetle
Management
program,
with
additional
funds
also
being
obtained
by
one
million
dollars
from
our
lovely
colleagues
in
Saskatchewan,
because
they
don't
want
the
mountain
pine
beetle.
So
what
does
that
look
like?
H
H
Sort
of
like
reading
the
bill
minister
yeah
just
like
reading
the
bill,
clearly
not
paying
attention
so
again
as
I'm
speaking
to
this
there
there
is
significant
transfers
that
are
happening
between
the
different
provinces.
Now.
The
other
thing
that
I
think
is
significant.
That
we
need
to
look
at
is
a
revenue
from
the
government
of
Canada
was
270
million
dollars
more
than
budgeted
in
the
last
budget
by
the
minister,
and
part
of
that
was
because
of
the
fact
that
we
had
such
a
significant
drought
in
the
last
season.
H
So
there
was
another
increase
of
another
253
million
dollars
for
agriculture,
income
support
for
the
Canadian
Alberta
livestock
feed
assistance
program
in
response
to
the
provincial-wide
drought,
an
increased
funding
of
22
million
dollars
for
agar
Insurance,
due
to
increased
commodity
prices
and
insured
Acres.
Now,
additional
funding
of
2
million
was
also
provided
due
to
increased
Wildfire
activity
on
Federal
Land.
So
the
feds
helped
us
out.
That's
good
Sarah
Bland
and
these
increases
were
partly
offset
by
lower
funding
of
the
pine
beetle.
So
there
was
actually
significant
changes
from
the
2021
actuals.
H
I
Well,
thank
you,
honorable
member
from
Evanston
Manning,
and
you
know
what
you've
been
describing
in
regards
to
the
Federal
grant.
Funding
and
you
know,
weather,
has
the
potential
risk
for
the
this
funding
to
to
be
gone
right.
Using
this
new
sovereignty
act,
and
you
know,
I
would
like
to
just
ask
two
things
or
put
two
things
out
like
how
do
we
haven't
perhaps
an
aggregate
of
how
much
money
is
it
at
stake
in
the
agriculture
industry?
H
Well,
thank
you.
Honorable
I
actually
do
have
the
numbers
yeah
yeah,
so
the
total
budget
for
the
federal
transfers
was
46.8
million
dollars.
It
was
not
fully
spent
to
give
the
minister
some
leeway.
It
was
due
to
supply
chain
disruptions,
but
that
were
experienced
by
many
of
the
grant
recipients,
partly
because
of
coven.
So
I'll
give
you
that
so
42
was
spent,
42
million
was
spent,
but
not,
and
there
was
46.8
million
in
total
that
was
transferred.
H
Clove
had
got
in
the
way
Supply
chains
got
in
the
way,
but
all
of
that
is
grant
funding.
That
is
significant
amount
of
money.
Now,
on
top
of
that,
we
also
have
the
Alberta
employment
training
funding
program,
so
the
Canadian
Alberta
Grant
job
Grant
is
a
federal
provincial
partnership
under
which
Alberta
employers
and
government
share
the
cost
of
training
new
and
existing
employees,
and
the
program
contributes
up
to
about
15
000
per
trainee
per
employee,
again
partnership
that
exists
for
agriculture
and
other
jurisdictions
in
regards
to
supporting
new
employment
growth
in
The
Province.
H
On
top
of
that
see,
Alberta
jobs
now
program,
which
is
about
370
million
dollars
to
private
non-profit
businesses.
Just
so
the
members
of
where
I'm
talking
about
nonprofits
to
support
much
needed
jobs
for
underemployed
and
unemployed
albertans
across
the
province,
employers
will
be
able
to
apply
for
the
grant
that
covers
25
percent
of
an
employee,
salary
or
training
costs
up
to
a
maximum
of
25
000
per
employee.
H
The
second
applicant
intake
for
this
program
is
actually
at
the
end
of
the
month,
so
those
are
a
couple
other
Grant
programs
that
have
significant
impact
for
our
nonprofits.
They
help
get
people
into
the
workforce,
and
yet
nobody
was
consulted
with
that.
Now
we
look
at
the
Federal
Pro
Federal
transfers
that
also
exists,
so
the
accelerated
investment
incentive
another
one.
The
accelerary
investment
incentive
was
introduced
in
2018
as
a
means
to
encourage
investment
in
capital
assets.
H
H
So
again,
for
those
who
are
looking
at
Agri
food,
any
of
those
investment
companies
any
any
of
our
producer
groups
that
are
trying
to
look
at
trying
to
set
up
greenhouses
any
of
our
Horticultural
Industries
any
of
those
things.
Much
and
I
have
many
many
more,
but
I
see
I
am
running
out
of
time.
Thank
you.
L
L
However,
in
the
actual
construction
of
the
bill,
it
is
clear
that
it's
only
a
shield
for
a
very
select
few
of
people
for
everyone
else.
It's
a
sword
for
everyone
else
that
the
outcome
is
likely
to
be
that
they
will
find
themselves
at
the
losing
end
of
this
situation
and
the
reason
why
is
because
the
bill
is
talks
about
the
fact
that
they
will
only
use
it
to
protect
the
public
interests
here
in
Alberta.
L
But
what
it
doesn't
do
is
it
doesn't
clearly
outline
what
public
interest
means
and
and
I'm
not
asking
for
a
definition
of
public
interest.
What
I'm
I'm
saying
is
that
the
non-profits
and
the
First
Nations
and
the
farmers
and
other
groups
in
the
province
of
Alberta
have
learned
quite
clearly
that,
often
when
the
public
interest
is
raised
as
a
reason
for
some
kind
of
action
on
the
part
of
the
government,
it
turns
out.
L
It
is
not
in
fact
The
Wider
public
interest,
but
the
interest
of
a
very
narrower
select
few
within
the
public,
and
this
government
has
been
really
consistent
on
that
consistently
moving
money
from
the
poor
to
the
rich,
moving
power
from
the
collective
to
individuals
within
government
and
and
that
has
made
people
nervous.
You
know
I
had
a
chance
earlier
in
the
house
today
to
talk
about
Grant,
Chief,
Arthur
noskey,
saying
that
they
learned
from
the
first
bill
brought
in
by
this
government
that
that
the
bills
were
not
written
for
First
Nations.
L
I've
certainly
heard
that
too,
when
I
go
around
around
the
province,
that
this
government
has
made
the
decision
not
to
accept
federal
dollars
because
they
want
to
stand
off
from
them,
and
the
consequence
is
that
people
here
in
this
province
lose
out.
I
know,
for
example,
that
this
this
provincial
government
is
one
of
the
very
last
governments
in
this
province
to
accept
any
kind
of
a
deal
at
all
on
child
care,
which
meant
for
months
even
up
to
a
year.
L
For
example,
the
Calgary
methy
Family
Services
was
that
their
lowest
income
participants
in
their
child
care
were
actually
charged
more
money
under
the
Alberta
program
than
they
were
previously
to
the
Alberta
program
coming
in.
So
the
very
poorest
of
the
poor
were
the
ones
who
ended
up
by
paying
more.
They
did
not
feel
like.
They
were
part
of
the
public
interest
at
that
time,
and
that's
the
reason
for
this
amendment.
L
The
amendment
is
that
this
government
has
not
consulted
appropriately
with
a
wide
range
of
albertans
to
ask
how
they
might
understand
public
interest
to
include
that
wide
range
of
albertans
and
as
such,
the
fear
across
non-profits
and
across
First
Nations
across
institutions
in
the
in
the
province
of
Alberta,
is
that
this
government
isn't
really
interested
in
the
broader
public
interest,
but
only
the
interests
of
a
few
within
the
public.
And
if
the
government
can't
understand
that
they
simply
need
to
go
to
the
communities
out
there.
L
That
have
been
telling
us
over
and
over
again
that
that
is
the
problem.
So
we
know,
for
example,
in
the
First
Nations
community
that
they
have
articulated
deep
concerns
about
how
this
might
affect
their
treaty
rights.
And
we
know
that
section
2C
was
an
attempt
to
say
it
won't
affect
treaty
rights,
but
we
also
know
that
that
doesn't
hold
any
sway
when
the
rest
of
the
bill
actually
does
affect
treaty
rights
and
they're.
They're.
Saying
that
that
that's
what
that's?
What
concerns
us
and
that's?
L
What
is
is
going
to
be
the
reason
why
they
are
standing
up
repeatedly
to
to
ask
that
this
bill.
Be
stopped
Chief,
Tony,
Alexis
from
the
Alexis
First
Nations,
for
example,
said
please
at
least
stop
the
bill
until
the
time
of
an
election,
because
what
he's
asking
for
is
a
broad
consultation
about
how
will
this
affect
the
interests
of
the
public
whose
public
interest?
That's
the
question
that
they're
all
asking
whose
interests
are
involved
in
the
public
interest?
L
I
Well,
thank
you,
honorable
member
from
Evanston
Rutherford
and
I
I,
like
the
way
that
you
are
contextualizing
this
through
the
speaker
of
course,
because
if,
if
it's
not
for
so
many
people
that
you
just
described
and
in
immediately
your
description
made
me
think
about
you
know,
to
what
degree
is
it
for
post-secondary
for
students
for
support
staff
for
research,
professors
for
endowment
contributors
to
post-secondary
institutions?
And
again
you
know
you
see
this
Insidious
reach
by
this
UCP
government
over
the
last
three
years
of
you
know
dictating
where.
I
L
Thank
you
very
much.
Member
I
appreciate
the
intervention
and
I
think
it's
important
that
we
recognize
that
there
are
a
wide
range
of
institutions
in
this
province
and
post-secondarily
clearly
is
one
set
of
of
interests
in
this
province,
but
those
interests
are
unique
to
post-secondary.
They
aren't
necessarily
the
same
interests
that
would
be
of
concern
to,
for
example,
non-profit
Societies
or
may
not
be
the
same
as
the
interests
of,
for
example,
people
who
are
wishing
to
make
investments
in
the
Pro
in
the
province
from
a
profit
motive.
L
Each
group
has
different
concerns
that
they
need
to
protect
and
each
group
will
have
to
live
with
the
consequences
of
this
government
deciding
on
their
behalf
what
public
interests
are
and
what
we've
seen
with
this
government
is
that
they
don't
have
the
same
values
around
post-secondary,
for
example,
that
the
post-secondary
institutions
have
the
post-secondary
institutions
have
seen
a
massive
serious
Cuts
in
this
province.
The
University
of
Alberta
has
lost
somewhere
in
the
neighborhood
of
700
million
dollars
under
this
government's
control
and-
and
they
clearly
do
not
feel
like
that
is
been
doing.
L
Anything
for
the
benefit
of
their
faculty
of
their
students
of
or
their
staff,
and
but
they
have
no
control,
because
this
government
has
decided
what's
in
the
public
interest
and
has
not
allowed
the
people
who
actually
know
the
most
about
education
at
the
post-secondary
level
to
make
the
decision
about
what
public
interest
is.
They
have
taken
that
power
and
brought
it
into
the
government
where
it
should
rest
in
the
community
and
that's
exactly
the
fundamental
issue
inherent
in
this
bill
is
that
this
government
is
continually
taking
powers
and
moving
it
into
the
government.
L
We've
seen
them
do
this
repeatedly
over
the
last.
For
almost
four
years
now
and
and
each
time
we
stand
up
and
say
this
is
anti-democratic,
you
are,
you
are
giving
the
power
to
ministers
to
make
decisions
about
things
that
should
be
in
the
public
sphere,
especially
in
a
Westminster
democracy.
It
should
be
brought
into
this
house,
it
should
be
debated
in
this
house.
It
should
reflect
the
concerns
and
and
and
desires
of
people
in
in
the
community,
but
this
government
has
continually
made
the
decision.
No
we're
not
going
to
do
that.
L
We're
not
going
to
involve
the
people
in
the
decision
making
we're
going
to
bring
it
in-house
we're
going
to
make
the
decision
in
our
cabinet
room
and
in
this
bill,
they're
actually
attempting
tempted
to
do
that
without
any
reference
to
the
Westminster
democracy
of
which
we're
all
apart.
They've
been
caught
on
that
and
apparently
there
is
a
possibility
that
we
might
see
some
some
changes
to
the
bill
over
the
next
little
while.
But
of
course
we
haven't
seen
any
yet.
L
So
we
we
can't
really
think
that
that
is
actually
going
to
happen
until
it
does
no
evidence
of
it.
So
far
and
and
I
think
that
all
we
can
go
on,
then
is
what
is
the
government's
previous
Behavior,
because
the
best
predictor
of
future
behavior
is
past
behavior
and
in
this
case
we've
seen
a
government
that
has
undermined
Community.
Values
I,
see
that
there's
an
intervention.
J
Thank
you
very
much,
member
from
Edmonton
Rutherford
and
through
you,
Mr
Speaker,
to
him
I
I,
just
like
to
do
highlight
the
fact
that
again
this
is
this
is
not
new.
With
this
government.
Over
the
last
three
years,
we've
seen
a
number
of
bills
being
proposed
in
this
house,
where
it's,
the
centralization
of
decision-making,
Powers
put
directly
in
the
hands
of
ministers
and
I,
would
like
your
opinion,
like
I,
mean
the
only
reason
why
I
would
think
that
that
this
government
would
do.
J
L
He
was
a
campaign
manager
said
it's
quote,
it's
fundamentally
unconservative
and
he
said
quote:
the
solution
to
unconstitutionality
is
not
more
unconstitutionality,
and-
and
here
we
are
saying
this
over
and
over
again-
that
we
list
the
people
who
are
conservatives
in
every
other
aspect
saying
this
does
not
reflective
of
Who
We
Are.
However,
you've
defined
public
interest
is
not
reflected
not
reflecting
the
conservative
values
or
understanding
of
what
public
interest
is.
L
So
if
the
left
is
saying
this
is
not
public
interest.
If
the
non-profits
are
saying
this
is
not
public
interest.
If
the
first
nations
are
saying
this
is
not
public
interest
and
the
conservative
Community
is
saying
this
is
not
public
interest
whose
interest
is
it
it's
a
very
narrow
ideological
group
of
people
that
are
having
their
interests
being
put
forward
and
that's
the
fundamental
problem
here
in
this
particular
case
I
mean
we
did
see
Minister
after
Minister
come
out
against
this
particular
Bill.
L
We
saw
the
minister
of
Treasury
the
treasury
board
in
finance,
come
out
against
it.
We
saw
the
minister
of
trade,
immigration
and
multiculturalism
come
out
against
it.
We
saw
the
minister
of
jobs,
economy
and
Northern
development
come
out
against
it.
We
saw
the
minister
of
environment
and
protected
areas
come
out
against
it.
We
saw
the
minister
of
Municipal
Affairs
come
out
against
it.
We
know
all
of
them
voted
against
the
person
who
was
going
to
bring
this
in.
L
They
tried
to
stop
it,
and
not
one
of
them
has
stood
up
and
told
us
what
it
specifically
is
different
about
this
bill
than
the
one
that
they
they
voted
against.
We
know
that
the
CEO
of
the
Calgary
Chamber
of
Commerce
has
come
out
against
it.
We
know
that
the
CEO
of
the
Canadian
Chamber
of
Commerce
has
come
up
against
it.
We
know
that
the
CEO
of
capped,
the
Canadian
Association
of
petroleum
producers,
come
out
against
it,
and
now
we
have
be
very
successful
campaign
manager
of
the
2022
PC
campaign
in
Ontario.
L
L
B
T
Thank
you,
Mr
Speaker
pleasure
to
rise
and
speak
to
this
amendment.
There's
been
a
lot
of
discussion
over
the
last
few
hours,
it's
hard
to
remember
where
we
started,
but
as
in
in
regard
to
this
amendment
and
needing
to
consult
with
non-profit
organizations,
municipalities.
A
lot
was
said
previously
about
agriculture.
Specifically
I
can
say
you
know,
70
different
industry
groups,
one
of
the
groups
that
was
mentioned
previously,
the
irrigation
districts
I
actually
spoke
to
them.
Today
they
were
so
concerned.
They
brought
it
up
zero
times.
T
While
we,
while
we
went
through
a
laundry
list
of
things
that
they
were
concerned
about,
that
were
working
working
towards
much
much
was
brought
up
about
the
relationship
with
the
federal
government
and
the
provincial
government
in
regards
to
the
cap
program.
What
going
forward
will
be
the
s-cap
program
and
I
can
assure
the
opposition.
I
know
they're
very
concerned
I
think
they.
They
believe
they
their
misunderstand
that
they
think
money
was
left
on
the
table.
That's
not
the
case.
T
The
60
40
relationship,
it's
an
important
one
between
the
federal
government,
the
provincial
government.
It
touches
on
a
lot
of
things
it
touches
on.
You
know
things
things
that
they
want
to
see
moving
forward,
maybe
Protections
in
the
environment,
maybe
efficiencies
and
irrigation,
but
also
the
business
risk
management
Suite,
which
are
all
very
concerned
about
and
want
to
ensure,
is
very
robust
for
our
producers
and
can
kind
of
answer
changing
Landscapes
economically
for
for
farmers
in
every
different,
every
different
part
of
the
sector.
T
Something
I
did
in
a
big
way
before
I
went
to
Saskatoon
and
eventually,
after
a
lot
of
I
would
say.
Hard-Fought.
Negotiation
on
behalf
of
the
province
was
consult
with
all
of
those
industry
groups
about
the
federal
provincial
relationship
and
that
agreement.
Specifically,
we
held
our
own
roundtables
during
the
Calgary
Stampede
Where
They
begged
me.
Don't
even
sign
it.
T
When,
when
we
get
those
bad
years,
they
wanted
to
ensure
that
the
federal
government
kept
that
out
of
those
programs.
So
they
were
actually
still
actuarially
sound
and
made
sense.
That
was
the
commentary
and
feedback
that
I
heard
in
what
I
would
call
extensive
consultations,
but
we
did,
we
did
go
to
Saskatoon.
We
did
sign
an
another
five-year
deal.
I
think
there
was
a
lot
of
a
lot
of
give
and
take.
In
fact,
at
this
on
the
side
of
the
road
over
over
a
zoom
call.
T
I
spoke
to
all
of
those
industry
groups
again
to
just
explain
to
them
the
rationale
behind.
Why
we
why
we
said
yes
to
the
things
we
did,
what
we
gained
on,
what
were
our
Hills
to
die
on,
so
to
speak,
and
how
we
how
we
came
to
an
agreement
and
in
the
end
the
program
was
substantially
increased.
It
hadn't
seen
an
increase
in
over
a
decade,
certainly
not
during
the
time
when
the
NDP
signed
an
agreement,
we
were
able
to
see
the
money
increased
we
were
able
to.
T
So
if,
if
we
have
to
worry
about
a
five-year
agreement
that
we
signed
on
to
in
in
good
in
good
faith
to
deal
with
all
of
these
things
from
production
Insurance
to
the
to
the
environment,
and
these
these
Pursuits
that
both
of
us
both
of
us
share,
if
if
those
are
truly
in
Jeopardy,
what
what
are
we
talking
about
here?
I
think
we
have
a
far
bigger
problem
and
I
would
say
that
I
didn't
hear
from
any
of
those
groups
that
they
were
concerned
that
they
were
concerned
about.
T
Unless,
unless
that's
your
intention,
if,
if
that's,
if
that's
what
you're
saying
then
come,
then
come
out
and
say
it.
But
all
I
would
say
this.
This
amendment
is
silly.
This
bill's
been
talked
about
we're
here
to
stick
up
for
Alberta,
we're
here
to
treat
it
like
a
shield
and
if
any
of
those
things
are
in
Jeopardy,
we
have
a
far
bigger
problem.
N
Thank
you,
Mr
Speaker,
it's
privilege
to
rise
early
in
the
morning
in
the
Legislative
Assembly
here
to
speak
to
the
amendment
before
us.
The
recent
Amendment
again
stating
that
bill
won
the
Alberta
sovereignty
within
a
United.
Canada
Act
be
not
now
read
a
second
time
because
the
Assemblies
of
the
view
that
the
government
has
failed
to
adequately
consult
with
non-profit
organizations
and
municipalities
on
the
potential
risks.
This
bill
presents
to
Federal
funding
for
their
projects,
including
critical
infrastructure
and
housing
initiatives.
N
You
know
we
see
even
in
Edmonton
here,
my
counselor
has
been
vocal
about
their
concerns
regarding
Bill
one.
You
know
kind
of
relating
it
back
to
imagine.
If
we
gave
these
types
of
powers
to
obviously
Municipal
governments
are
a
little
bit
different,
but
if
we
gave
these
types
of
powers
to
the
current
mayor
or
the
next
mayor,
what
kind
of
you
know
concerns
that
might
raise?
N
And
so
again
we
have
our
own
Municipal
Partners
raising
concerns.
It's
not
only
this
battle
that
this
government
is
is
considering
taking
up
with
the
federal
government,
but
in
whether
it's
a
an
innocent
bystander
or
not.
Mr
Speaker
are
our
municipalities
that
are
going
to
be
stuck
right
in
the
middle
of
this.
N
And
the
previous
member
made
an
important
point
about
housing
that
the
city
of
Edmonton
is
now
having
to
fund
for
themselves,
because
the
provincial
government
is
not
willing
to
take
up
their
role
as
a
partner.
And
you
know
at
that
time
when,
when
those
discussions
have
been
happening
over
the
last
weeks,
the
Finance
Minister.
The
only
thing
that
they
could
you
know
put
together
was
that
there
might
be
more
funding
in
the
next
budget,
which
is
obviously
an
inadequate
answer.
N
Considering
we
are
losing
lives
right
now,
and
this
relates
back
to
our
relationship
with
municipalities
and
the
need
to
adequately
consult
with
non-profit
organizations.
Because,
again,
when
we
look
back
to
the
relationship
that
this
government,
this
UCP
government
has
had
with
the
federal
government
over
the
last
several
years
and
and
especially
through
the
pandemic,
obviously
coming
from
very
different
directions.
N
A
report
at
the
time
I
believe
it
was
January
2021
showed
that
the
provincial
government
left
more
than
675
million
dollars
in
federal
money
on
the
table
for
a
number
of
programs,
essential
worker
wage,
top-ups,
job
training
and
hard
hit
sectors.
Rapid
housing
initiatives,
long-term
care
supports,
as
well
as
help
for
Early
Childhood,
Educators
and
I'm
sure.
That
list
is
an
extensive.
N
But
again,
when
we
look
at
the
decision
of
this
government
to
not
support
the
city
of
Edmonton
in
ensuring
that
there
is
adequate
shelters
and
adequate
funding
for
potentially
temporary
housing,
they
had
an
opportunity
to
fix
this
and-
and
there
was
federal
dollars
on
the
table
through
the
pandemic,
specifically
earmarked
for
Rapid
housing
initiatives.
But
I.
Think
in
this
instance,
the
provincial
government
didn't
have
an
adequate
plan
in
place
to
access
the
entirety
of
those
fundings,
and
the
minister
for
housing
can
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong.
N
Maybe
he
wants
to
make
clear
how
many
federal
dollars
were
actually
left
on
the
table
again.
Looking
at
the
report,
it
does
say
that
it
was
because
there
wasn't
an
adequate
plan
in
place
to
access
those
additional
dollars,
and
so
when
we
look
at
the
relationship
between
the
federal
and
provincial
government
and
how
it
relates
to
Bill
one
as
well
as,
of
course
how
that
is
going
to
affect
our
municipalities,
who
have
to
bear
much
of
the
costs
of
unhoused
population
I.
N
Think
it's
important
to
point
out
that
the
provincial
government
had
an
opportunity
to
work
with
the
federal
government,
but
for
one
reason
or
another
did
not
access
those
tens
of
millions,
if
not
hundreds
of
millions
of
dollars,
for
specifically,
in
this
case,
rapid
housing
initiatives.
And
now
we
find
ourselves
in
a
situation
where
municipalities
are
having
to
fund
that
themselves.
N
When
we
look
at
the
issue
around
affordable
housing
or
or
shelter
space
or
even
further,
when
we
talk
about
you,
know,
Rehabilitation
and
the
direction
that
this
government
has
taken.
I
have
grave
concerns.
If
the
federal
government
is
putting
money
on
the
table
that,
because
of
a
disagreement
about
who
should
be
being
able
to
accept
that
money,
the
the
type
of
person
whether
they
are,
you
know
trying
to
get
out
of
addiction,
whether
they
are
just
at
the
the
front
end
of
that
process.
N
There
are
so
many
questions
left
to
be
answered
about
what
this
government
again
in
in
Section
3
under
resolutions
describes
as
anticipated
to
cause
harm
to
albertans
I
mean
I.
Again,
it
is
such
a
general
concept
or
or
general
subsection
that
they've
included
in
here
and
and
beyond
that,
of
course,
Mr
Speaker
and
I
see
an
interjection
that
I'm
happy
to
take.
Thank
you.
I.
J
Want
to
thank
Mr
Speaker
through
you
to
the
member
from
West
10
day,
I'd
like
to
Express
my
my
gratitude
and
really
to
all
the
members
who
have
gotten
up
and
spoken
to
this
recent
Amendment
and
highlighting
the
implications
of
Bill
one
and
how
it
could
have
a
really
drastic
impact
on
individuals
within
our
own
Province.
Here,
and
you
know,
the
the
member
from
Edmonton
Rutherford,
you
know,
was
expressing
how
well
it's
not
in
the
interest
of
indigenous
people.
J
It's
not
in
the
interest
of
the
non-profit
organizations,
and
now
the
member
from
West
hendy
is
talking
about
people,
the
most
marginalized
people
in
our
society,
people
that
need
access
to
housing.
Now,
I,
don't
think
this
government
has
given
it
enough
thought
about
the
implications
that
this
sovereignty
Act
and
in
the
relationship
that
we
have
with
the
the
federal
government
and
and
I
just
find
it
astounding
that
that
hundreds
of
millions
of
dollars
of
being
left
on
the
table
by
this
government.
N
N
How
do
you
quantify
that
Mr
Speaker
anticipated
to
we're
talking
about
about
changes
that
the
federal
government,
not
only
in
this
legislation,
clearly
shows
that
they
have
already
taken
that's
one
thing,
of
course
Mr
Speaker,
but
that
they
are
anticipated
to
take.
So
we
don't
even
know
that
they're
planning
to
do
it.
We
haven't
seen
the
legislation
that
the
cabinet
and
and
provincial
UCP
is,
is
saying
that
they
might
be
doing.
N
This
current
government's
Direction
compared
to
the
federal
government
compared
to
previous
provincial
governments
or
municipalities.
So
it's
quite
clear
that,
through
the
discussions
that
we've
had
on
Bill
one
this
evening
and
and
previously
that
this
government
and
this
Premier
has
not
adequately
consulted
with
municipalities,
that
has
become
very
clear
from
the
the
comments
that
have
been
made
by
Municipal
leaders
in
Edmonton
and
across
the
province.
This
government
has
not
been
able
to
show
adequate,
adequate
evidence
that
non-profit
organizations
have
been
consulted
on
this.
N
It
seems
quite
clear
that
they
haven't
been
and
again
Beyond
municipalities
that
are
potentially
going
to
be
affected
by
this.
As
previous
members
have
said,
non-profit
organizations
have
a
lot
to
lose
in
this
fight
that
this
current
UCP
government
wants
to
start
as
well
and
again.
I
understand,
as
previous
members
have,
that
there
are
grievances
that
we
have
with
the
federal
government
by
no
means
do
I
agree
with
many
of
the
decisions
that
they
make,
but
the
fact
is
when
we
talk
about
leaving
money
on
the
table.
N
It
has
impacts
on
Alberta
families,
as
well
as
non-profit
organizations
in
our
communities
Beyond.
Some
of
those
issues
that
I've
brought
up
I
I
know
that
the
issue
of
climate
change
and
taking
action
to
whether
it
be
lowering
emissions
or
lower
our
electricity
bills
because
of
the
extensive
growth
of
our
bills
across
the
city
and
across
the
province.
N
You
know
decisions
around
emissions
or
we
don't
agree
with
your
decisions
around
how
you're
funding
green
initiatives
in
our
community.
So
we
are
not
going
to
match
those
funding
agreements
that
is
going
to
have
a
negative
impact
on
our
community
as
well,
and
so
it
really
goes
back
to
the
priorities
of
this
government
that
they
aren't
willing
to
adequately
consult.
N
Over
the
weeks
that
we've
been
discussing
this
legislation
that
this
government
has
not
adequately
consulted
with
non-profit
organizations
with
municipalities
and
that
there
is
a
grave
concern
about
critical
infrastructure
and
housing
initiatives
across
this
province,
we've
seen
previously
I
think
that
we
had
a
little
bit
of
clarity
this
afternoon
in
question
period
from
the
premier
that
there
isn't
a
plan
to
go
back
on
the
the
Spring
Bank
Dam
project.
But
you
know
that
apparently
was
only
cleared
up
today
and
there's
many
other
initiatives.
Whether
we're
talking
about
the
green
line
in
Calgary.
N
The
funding
around
that
for
a
moment
in
Edmonton
the
Valley
Line
West
LRT
that
we
had
committed
the
provincial
funding
to
match
the
federal
funding
under
our
time
in
in
government.
There
was
a
moment
where
there
was
some
concern
around
that,
because
decisions
and
comments
that
the
minister,
the
UCP
minister,
at
the
time,
was
making
and
so
again
when
we
look
at
these
important
infrastructure
projects
that
could
be
put
in
Jeopardy
because
of
a
disagreement
between
the
federal
and
provincial
government.
N
That
is
very
concerning
to
me
and
and
should
be
very,
concerning
to
all
albertans
and
I.
Think
from
the
pushback
that
we've
seen
again
from
from
all
sides,
not
simply
from
progressives,
you
know
we
we've
seen
many
conservatives
very
concerned
with
this
as
well
about
what
it
might
do
to
our
or
what
it
will
do
to
our
economic
environment,
the
stability
ensuring
that
the
rule
of
law
is
upheld
in
our
province.
That
is
not
going
to
have
negative
impact
on
our
relationships
between
stakeholders.
Mr
speaker,
thank
you.
O
Thank
you
very
much,
Mr
Speaker
and
I'm
happy
to
join
the
debate
on
ra2,
which
indicates
that
we
should
not
now
read
a
second
time
Bill
one,
because
the
assembly
is
of
the
view
that
the
government
has
failed
to
adequately
consult
with
non-profit
organizations
and
municipalities
on
the
potential
risks.
This
bill
presents
to
Federal
funding
for
their
projects,
including
critical
infrastructure
and
housing
initiatives,
and
to
even
go
more
broadly
than
this
amendment.
O
O
Municipalities
are
impacted,
but
it's
also
even
broader
than
what
we're
suggesting
here.
It's
talking
about
public
agency,
as
defined
in
the
Alberta
public
agency's
governance
act,
a
crown
controlled
organization
has
defined
the
financial
Administration
act,
an
entity
that
carries
out
a
power
Duty
or
function
under
enactment
and
entity
that
receives
a
grant
or
other
public
funds
from
the
government
that
are
contingent
on
the
provision
of
a
public
service,
a
regional
health
authority
I'm.
Not
even
half
done
like
this
list
is
ex
is
extensive.
O
These
are
the
things
that
this
legislation
is
supposed
to
regulate
and
that
are
you
know,
extremely
I.
Don't
know
really
a
very
broad-ranging
significant
number
of
organizations
in
this
province
would
be
impacted
and,
of
course,
as
many
of
my
colleagues
have
spoken
about
already
so
many
federal
initiatives
based
on
the
definition
I
just
read,
are
you
know
intersecting
with
all
of
these
organizations
that
serve
albertans?
O
So
if
we
even
just
look
at
one
area,
let's
look
at
affordable
housing.
The
annual
report
of
seniors
in
housing,
2021
22
talks
about
Federal
money
that
they
get
talks
about.
The
Canada
infrastructure
program,
the
Canada
housing
benefit
for
people,
don't
know
that's
the
rent,
supplement
program,
Capital
grants
from
National
Housing
strategy
and
the
social
housing
agreement,
and
these
programs
in
one
year
alone,
invested
from
the
federal
government
91
million
dollars
approximately.
O
So
we're
not
talking
about
just
a
little
bit
of
money,
we're
talking
about
a
significant
amount
of
money
that
is
fundamental
to
albertan.
Alberta's
housing,
affordable
housing
in
our
province
that
serves
vulnerable
albertans,
and
this
legislation
really
shakes
that
all
up
and
makes
those
bodies
that
receive
that
funding
very
concerned.
We
already
have
difficulties
Mr
Speaker
in
terms
of
the
provincial
government
willing
to
work
with
the
federal
government
on
these
programs.
You
know
one
of
the
things
that
the
UCP
did
when
they
first
came
into
government.
O
Is
they
cut
the
rent
supplement
program
by
about
16
million
dollars
and,
of
course
we
have
matching
funds
with
the
federal.
So
if
we
cut
it
here,
then
we're
not
going
to
get
the
federal
money
and
I've
heard
time
and
time
again
from
so
many
stakeholders
that
they,
the
the
province,
is
missing
in
action.
They
actually
are
going
directly
to
the
federal
government
working
with
their
local
municipalities.
I
hear
this
from
so
many
housing
management
bodies
non-profits
all
across
this
province.
O
They
say
the
province
is
missing
in
action:
they're
not
investing
they.
What
did
they
do
since
they've
become
government?
They
wrote
a
report,
that's
about
all
they've
done
and
they
talked
about
privatizing,
affordable,
housing
and
selling
off
a
whole
bunch
of
our
assets
in
doing
a
real
estate
review
to
see
where
they
can,
you
know,
get
rid
of
assets,
and
then
they
say
this
is
back
to
Bill
78,
and
then
they
say
that
that
will
go
back
into
affordable
housing.
O
Get
the
legislation,
of
course
never
indicated
that,
and
so
that
was
an
amendment
that
we
brought
forward
for
that
to
support
affordable
housing
in
our
province.
Regardless
this
government
is
really
dropped.
The
ball
on
housing
and
I
mean
I,
suppose
it.
It
seems
kind
of
ridiculous
for
me
to
say
this,
but
it
perhaps
indicates
how
little
this
government
cares
about.
Affordable
housing
is
they've
even
just
Amalgamated
a
whole
bunch
of
stuff
into
one
Ministry,
so
seniors
and
housing
are
all
in
seniors
and
Community.
O
O
O
You
know
extremely
concerned
about
this
legislation
and
that's
why
this
amendment
to
Bill
one
re2
is
so
important
and
I
urge
all
the
people
in
this
legislature
to
a
vote
in
favor
of
it,
because
we
really
haven't
given
voice
to
those
housing
management
bodies
to
non-profits
in
the
sector-
and
you
know
I've
said
this
many
times
in
the
house.
We
know
that
we
have,
you
know
less,
affordable
housing
that
it
that
is
needed
in
our
in
our
Province.
O
We
have
less
than
the
national
average
about
4.3
percent
of
of
housing
is
Affordable
here
in
Alberta.
It's
only
2.9
we're
behind.
We
need
to
invest
significantly,
but
sadly,
this
government
has
not
chosen
to
and
if
they're
not
going
to
work
with
the
federal
government
and
their
robust
programs,
like
the
ones
I've
indicated
to
you
here,
the
Canada
housing
benefit
Capital
grants
from
the
National
Housing
strategy
and
the
social
housing
agreement.
O
We're
not
going
to
have
the
housing
we
need,
and
indeed
that's
our
situation
at
the
moment
and
municipalities
are
doing
the
best
they
can
I
mean
we
know
we're
in
a
CRI
when
a
crisis,
it's
it's
I,
don't
know
what
did
someone
say
to
me?
It's
like
with
the
wind
chill
and
everything
it's
you
know
more
than
-30
below
you
know
today,
or
something
something
like
that
this
evening
and
I
know
that
people
are
living
rough
out
in
the
community
in
in
the
Edmonton
area,
and
they
need
that
housing.
O
They
need
permanent,
Supportive
Housing,
because
we
know
that
vulnerable
people
with
mental
health
and
addiction
issues
providing
them
just
with
the
bricks
and
mortar
of
a
building
is
not
enough.
We
must
provide
them.
Wraparound
services
and
the
City
of
Edmonton
has
been
crying
honestly
literally
for
a
long
time
trying
to
move
this
government
to
see
the
importance
and
their
asks
haven't
even
been
that
significant.
You
know
I
think
it
was
about
nine
million
dollars.
O
O
So
that's
why
ri2
voting
in
favor
of
that
is
so
important,
because
we
need
every
dollar
we
can
get
and
we
need
the
province
to
step
up,
but
for
some
reason
they
haven't
decided
that
this
is
an
important
part.
Even
though
we
have
a
significant
Surplus,
it's
not
an
important
part
of
what
they
see
is
a
key
for
helping
our
our
city,
our
Province.
We
know
that
you
know
costs
more
to
for
someone
to
live
rough.
O
G
O
Have
has
the
UCP
consulted
with
the
housing
management
bodies?
We
have
greater
Edmonton
Foundation
here
that
serves
seniors
over
about
4
000
seniors
live
in
lodges
across
the
greater
Edmonton
area.
In
Calgary
we
have
silver,
which
does
amazing
work
serving
seniors
in
keeping
them
well
housed
and
supported.
We
also
have
sort
of
our
affordable
housing
Partners
like
Savita
and
the
Calgary
housing
company,
and
these
are
sort
of
the
big
four.
O
We
call
them
that
do
significant
work
to
support
albertans,
who
are
vulnerable
and
has
the
UCP
spoken
to
them
about
any
concerns
that
they
might
have
regarding
how
this
legislation
will
impact
the
receipt
of
dollars.
Also
I
wasn't
not
long
ago.
I
was
at
a
grand
opening
of
a
facility
in
Calgary,
and
it
wasn't
a
kind
of
a
unique
joint
venture
between
home
space
and
from
the
cold
and
Calgary
City
of
Calgary
put
in
millions
of
dollars.
The
feds
put
in
millions
of
dollars
and
the
province
was
put
in
very
minimal.
O
People
are
overcompensating
for
the
province
and
so
the
province
stepping
up.
So
a
lot
of
you
know
some
of
the
what
this
bill
could
create
even
more
difficulty.
In
the
sector
seems
to
be
already
manifesting,
and
it's
not
only
in
this
area
but
other
non-profits
that
certainly
do
tremendous
work,
certainly
nonprofits
that
work
with
vulnerable
albertans
that
use
drugs,
Jasper,
Place,
Wellness
Center.
Certainly
some
of
the
inner
city
agencies
like
oil,
Community,
Services,
Bissell
Center
those
places.
O
Those
are
also
non-profits
that
are
so
important
to
making
sure
vulnerable
albertans
are
supported,
but
we
know
that
because
of
the
ucp's,
very
narrow
view
of
what
needs
to
happen
for
people
who
use
substances,
use
use
drugs.
Of
course,
we
know
that
we,
you
know,
evidence
shows
that
we
need
a
Continuum
of
services.
We
certainly
do
need
to
have
detox
centers.
We
need
to
have
resident
mental
treatment.
O
We
need
all
sorts
of
the
things
that
UCP
likes
to
call
the
recovery,
but
we
need
harm
reduction
Services
too,
and
that's
one
area
that
UCP
wants
to
cut
back
in
and
has
already
so
much
so
that
we
already
know
that
they
have
cut
Federal
funding
or
have
not
received
Federal
funding
to
to
they
have
not
received
Federal
funding
or
they
have
received
Federal
funding
that
they
have
rejected.
That's
already
happened.
O
We
know
that
the
different
harm
reduction
programs
or
they've
delayed
harm
reduction
programs
because
of
their
very
narrow
ideological
view
on
what
people
need
who
are
using
drugs.
But
we
know
I
mean
one
of
the
things
that
we
certainly
say
is
that
how
can
anybody
go
into
recovery
if
they're
dead?
We
need
to
support
people
where
they're
at
so
harm
reduction
services
are
fundamental
and
right.