►
Description
Legislative Assembly of Alberta
assembly.ab.ca
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
D
Thank
you
very
much.
Mr
chair
and
I'm
pleased
to
rise
and
speak
to
Bill
2.
The
inflation
relief
statutes
Amendment
act.
This
has
been.
This
is
my
first
opportunity
to
speak
to
the
Bell,
so
I'm
happy
to
address
a
couple
of
different
things
that
have
come
up
so
I
think.
D
Yeah,
let's
see
maybe
I'll
start
I'll
start
by
talking
about
the
changes
with
respect
to
age,
because
I
think
that
that
is
a
fairly
major
concern
to
a
number
of
albertans.
I,
in
fact,
have
a
personal
friend
who
is
on
age
and
has
experienced
a
lot
of
struggle.
The
last
few
years,
as
as
her
ability
to
pay
relative
to
inflation,
has
eroded
over
time.
D
I
think
it's
worth
setting
out
again
the
the
history
of
this
matter
on
the
record.
So
when
we
were
in
government,
we
brought
in
a
bill
to
index
Ace
to
inflation,
which
seems
only
fair,
otherwise,
people
are
getting
sort
of
further
and
further
behind.
We
indexed
a
number
of
other
things.
We
indexed
the
seniors
benefit
and
the
Child
Tax
Benefit
as
well
and
I'm,
probably
on
the
record,
saying
this
more
than
I've
ever
said
anything
on
the
record,
but
I'm
going
to
say
it
again.
Anyway.
D
D
And
ensuring
that
children
don't
go
hungry
in
a
province
as
rich
as
Alberta,
so
that
is
something
that
I
am
very
proud
of.
I
continue
to
be
very
proud
of,
and
of
course,
this
government's
members
who
were
members
of
the
UCP
caucus
when
we
were
in
government,
voted
in
favor
of
that
indexation
and
claimed
to
be
in
favor
of
it
and
then
as
soon
as
they
they
got
the
position
to
do
anything
about
it
immediately
revoked
it,
which
is
continuous
at
best
and
quite
harmful
to
a
number
of
people
throughout
the
province.
D
So
I
do
appreciate
that
this
is
a
step
in
the
right
direction,
but
I
think
we
all
know
that
inflation
has
been
at
record
highs
in
the
last
several
years.
This
year
in
particular,
and
I
mean
it's
outstripping.
Wage
growth
as
well
like
inflation,
is
a
problem
for
everyone,
but
particularly
for
individuals
who
rely
on
benefits
that
have
not
been
indexed
for
these
last
three
and
a
half
years.
D
It's
been
a
real
struggle,
so
I
appreciate
that
the
government
is
doing
this,
but
I
think
it
is
definitely
worth
noting
that
albertan
and
Alberta
living
on
H
is
three
thousand
dollars
behind
right
now,
three
thousand
dollars
a
year
behind
them
where
they
would
have
been,
and
for
someone
who
is
living
on
age.
D
That's
it's
a
it's!
A
real
struggle,
yeah,
like
I,
said
A
friend
of
mine,
is
on
Ace
for
anyone
who
has
loved
ones
or
friends
who
are
in
that
situation.
I'm
sure
and
and
I
expect
that
there
are
members
on
both
sides
of
this
house
that
have
this
experience.
D
D
I
actually
think
that
this
bill
could
go
a
lot
further
in
a
in
a
number
of
ways.
People
are
experiencing
significant
challenges
right
now.
Inflation
is
at
an
all-time
high
policy.
Provincial
government
policy
has
had
an
impact
on
that
I'm,
not
going
to
say
it's.
The
primary
driver
I.
Don't
think
that
that's
accurate,
but
it's
definitely
a
driver
forcing
up
things
like
car
insurance
and
tuition
and
access
both
Municipal
Taxes
and
income
taxes.
I
mean
income.
D
Taxes
was
the
inflation
thing
which
is
again
being
reversed,
but
you
know
people
are
not
getting
back
what
they
have
lost
over
the
last
three
and
a
half
years
in
terms
of
purchasing
power.
So
again
it's
a
thing
where
this
this
government
expects
to
be
congratulated
on
reversing
its
own
bad
decisions,
but
not
even
reversing
them
all
the
way.
D
So
I
think
that
that
is.
It's
problematic.
I
think
that
if
there's
anything
that
a
government
should
be
concerned
about-
and
maybe
I
think
about
that-
maybe
I
think
this,
because
it's
where
I
came
from
one
of
the
things
that
drove
me
into
politics
was
the
erosion
of
the
middle
class.
The
fact
that
the
cost
of
things
relative
to
average
salaries
has
been
growing
disproportionately.
D
We've
seen
massive
growth
in
the
incomes
of
those
at
the
very
wealthy
end,
but
the
sort
of
median
income
hasn't
been
increasing
as
fast
as
the
costs
of
Basics,
like
housing
and
and
food
and
school,
and
the
things
that
people
like
the
very
Basics
that
people
need
to
live
so
that,
in
my
view,
is
a
problem.
It's
a
challenge.
The
government
should
concern
itself
with,
because
government
policy
has
an
impact.
It
has
a
big
impact.
It
has
an
impact
not
only
on
inflation,
but
it
also
has
an
impact
on
wages.
D
D
If
we
are
creating
and
I
I
say
we
in
the
larger
sense
are
creating
a
province
in
which
person
on
the
median
salary
is
constantly
under
stress
is
unable
to
afford
a
comfortable
life
is
unable
to
afford
the
things
that
we
all
expected
is
unable
to
afford
food
and
shelter
and
clothing
and
education
for
their
kids.
D
That
is
that
is
a
problem,
and
we
are
getting
to
that
point
and
government
policy
absolutely
has
an
impact
things
like,
for
instance,
the
the
massive
cuts
that
have
been
made
to
MSI
the
downloading
massive
downloading
of
police
costs
onto
municipalities.
Municipalities
can't
run
a
deficit,
they
can't
act
as
a
shock
absorber.
Their
only
option
in
those
instances
is
to
raise
property
taxes,
and
they
have
done
so.
They
have
done
so,
and
that
is
absolutely
a
direct
result
of
government
policy.
D
Like
I
said,
the
changes
in
terms
of
minimum
wage
in
terms
of
overtime,
pay
in
terms
of
the
ability
of
workers
to
bargain
collectively
have
all
had
a
downward
pressure
on
wages,
and
that
is
why
we
are
seeing
even
in
a
place
of
record
inflation
wages,
just
not
keeping
Pace,
and
we
should
care
about
that,
because
the
majority
of
our
population
being
able
to
afford
a
decent
life
is
what
we
should
imagine
and
I
would
like
my
daughter
to
have
at
least
as
good,
if
not
better
than
what
I
had
I
would
like
her
to
live
in
a
world
where
she
can
afford
to.
D
D
I
I
hope
that
she's,
you
know
able
to
to
live
a
reasonable
Lifestyle
on
a
reasonable
wage
and
able
to
pursue
whatever
career
she
wants
and
I
would
like
her
to
be
able
to
do
it
here
in
Alberta,
if
that's
at
all
possible
and
I
think
that
those
things
are
very
reasonable
things.
So
yes,
this
this
bill
does
some
things.
D
Some
of
those
things
are
good
I
think
it
could
do
a
lot
more
I
feel,
like
I've,
said
this
about
almost
every
bill
in
this
session,
but
this
should
be
a
yes
ad.
It
should
be
yes,
and
there
should
be
more
more
in
terms
of
indexing
of
Asian,
giving
people
back
those
three
thousand
dollars
more
in
terms
of
the
erosion
of
of
taxes
that
this
government
has
as
foisted
onto
people
and
the
increases
in
taxes
and
more
well
more
in
terms
of
utilities
as
well.
D
D
So
essentially
what
the
government
is
doing
is
they're,
saying
for
everything
over
13
and
a
half
cents.
We
will
loan
you
the
money,
but
we'll
loan
it
to
you
collectively
as
a
pool.
D
So
if
people
move
out
of
Province
or
jump
off
the
RO
get
on
a
contract,
any
number
of
things
than
the
people
who
are
left
on
it
are
paying
not
only
their
loan,
but
other
people's
loans
as
well,
and
people
remain
on
the
RO
for
all
sorts
of
reasons,
often
because
they
don't
feel
empowered
with
sufficient
information
to
sort
of
assess
a
contract
and
make
that
decision.
Most
of
the
contracts
are
very
short-term,
but
I
mean
people
are
busy.
D
The
result
of
that
is
they
don't
always
have
the
time
to
make
these
assessments
and
the
idea
that
everything
should
be.
Buyer.
Beware
that
the
government
has
no
place
in
in
worrying
about
this.
Well,
obviously,
they
don't
think
the
government
has
no
place
because
they've
done
something
about
it,
so
they
can.
They
can't
claim
that
position,
but
the
the
idea
that
you
know
the
government's
ought
not
to
intervene
in
any
way.
I
think
it's
just
wrong.
D
So
essentially,
you
have
three
months
where
the
government
loans
you
money
for
electricity
costs
over
13
and
a
half
cents
a
kilowatt
hour
and
then
starting
in
so
that's
January,
February
March,
starting
in
April.
You
start
paying
it
back
with
this
Rider.
Now
people
might
not
notice
it
right
away
in
April,
because
prices
tend
to
be
low
in
April.
They
might
not
notice
it
right
away
in
May,
but
in
June
or
July,
as
prices
start
to
increase
again,
people
are
really
going
to
notice
this.
D
Coincidentally,
that
happens
to
be
after
the
next
election.
Interesting
little
policy
Quirk
there.
D
So
people
will
notice
this
at
some
point
and
the
people
who
have
the
ability
may
start
getting
off
the
RO
so
they're,
not
in
a
position
to
pay
that
back
and
what
that
means
is
that
increasingly,
the
people
who
are
left
and
those
will
be
those
who
are
probably
most
vulnerable
to
this
there'll
be
people
who
don't
have
you
know
sufficient
English
necessarily
to
be
able
to
to
get
on
a
contract
or
to
understand
what's
occurring
and
there'll
be
people
who
don't
have,
for
whatever
reason
the
ability
to
sort
of
understand
what's
happening
with
their
bill
and
there'll
be
people
who
don't
have
the
credit
rating
to
get
onto
a
fixed
room
contract,
and
so,
as
people
jump
off
more
fewer
and
fewer
people
will
be
left
to
repay
this
loan
that
the
government
has
saddled
them
with.
D
So
I
think
that's
problematic
for
a
number
of
reasons,
I
believe
it
was
described.
It
was
described
in
a
tweet
I
think
by
Blake
Shafer
as
a
death
spiral,
which
is
a
fairly
fairly
accurate
rendition
of
the
policy
issues
with
this,
so
I
think
I
mean
I.
Think
that's
really
problematic.
I,
don't
think.
There's
anyone
out
there
and
I
mean
it's
kind
of
hilarious,
because
this
is
a
government
who,
when
bringing
in
a
highly
politicized
curriculum
sort
of
tried
to
defend
it
by
saying
that
there's
financial
literacy
in
it.
D
Incidentally,
there
was
financial
literacy
in
the
expert
developed
curriculum
that
they
decided
to
highly
politicize.
Just
you
know
for
everyone's
awareness,
but
that's
how
they
tried
to
defend
it
and
I.
Think
if
there's
one
thing
that
financial
literacy
teaches
you,
it's
probably
that
payday
loans
are
not
usually
the
solution
to
your
problem.
D
In
fact,
you
know
when
we
were
in
government.
We
actually
acted
to
get
some
products
into
the
market
that
weren't
payday
loans,
because
people
were
stuck
in
this
horrible
cycle,
this
horrible
cycle,
where
they
had
one
thing,
go
wrong
and
they
can
only
get
this
loan
at
this
High
interest
rate
and
just
sort
of
spiraled
and
spiraled
and
spiraled.
D
That's
what
I
feel
like
this
policy
is
doing
it's
putting
people
in
exactly
that
position.
It's
saying
we'll
we'll
protect
you
now,
because
we're
worried
about
the
next
election,
but
you'll
have
to
pay
it
back
and
maybe
you'll
have
to
pay
someone
else's
loan
back
too
with
it.
It's
I
feel
like
deeply
flawed.
Is
an
understatement,
I'm
not
really
sure
what
else
to
say.
It's
deeply
flawed.
D
It's
deeply
flawed
from
its
Inception
all
the
way
through
I
think
it's
highly
problematic
and
I
really
I
really
do
find
the
timing
with
respect
to
the
repayment
just
a
little
too
coincidental
and
extremely
extremely
troubling,
so
I
think
I
mean
what
we're
looking
at
Mr
chair
is.
A
government
that
has
contributed
to
an
inflationary
cycle
has
contributed
to
the
fact
that
wages
are
not
growing
to
keep
Pace
with
inflation
that
has
raised
taxes
that
has
raised
tuition.
D
They've
been
needing
a
government
to
listen
for
a
year,
and
the
government
has
done
nothing
and,
coincidentally
enough,
six
months
before
an
election
they're
offering
people
a
law
that
they'll
have
to
repay,
mostly
after
the
election,
I
I
think
that
that's
extremely
problematic,
Behavior,
extremely
problematic,
Behavior
extremely
problematic
Behavior.
It
is
that,
is
that
is
my
mom
face.
D
Yeah
so
I
think,
to
sum
up,
I
would
say:
oh
before
I
sum
up,
that's
the
other
thing.
I
should
probably
point
out
the
hundred
dollars
a
month
leaves
a
lot
of
people
out.
D
A
lot
of
people
are
struggling
right
now:
young
people,
without
kids,
who
are
trying
to
pay
off
their
extra
high
tuition
from
this
government
with
their
extra
high
interest
payments
from
this
government
who
are
not
able
to
get
jobs
that
sort
of
pay
a
salary
commencement
with
people
coming
out
of
University
20
years
ago,
who
are
not
able
to
get
housing.
That's
nearly
as
affordable
as
people
say
20
years
ago,
are
some
of
the
most
stressed,
some
of
the
most
challenged
by
the
current
state
of
affairs,
and
they
are
completely
left
out.
D
As
I
mentioned
folks
on
h,
s
seniors
benefit
Child,
Tax,
Benefit
they're,
not
they're,
not
getting
back
for
the
people
on
age
that
three
thousand
dollars
a
year
that
was
eroded,
people
whose
taxes
have
gone
up
they're,
not
getting
that
money
back
either
and
I
would
be
remiss
if
I
didn't
point
out
that
the
government's
payments
utility
fifty
dollars
a
month
also
leaves
out
a
bunch
of
people
who
live
in
condos
because
of
the
way
that
the
condos
are
metered
and
they
don't
really
seem
at
all
interested
in
addressing
that
with
a
policy
fix.
D
So
overall
I
would
say
this
bill
is
far
too
little
and
far
too
late.
I
think
is
the
best
way.
To
sum
it
up,
it's
too
little
too
late
and
I
think
that
albertans
will
see
through
it.
Thank.
B
E
You
Mr
chair,
happy
to
rise
this
evening
and
provide
some
some
of
my
initial
thoughts
on
Bill,
too
I
haven't
had
a
chance
to
to
speak
to
that
in
a
second
reading,
but
that's
okay,
we're
in
committee
to
hold
here
now,
which
is
always
the
best
place
to
be
able
to
possibly
even
do
some
back
and
forth,
should
I
have
questions
which
I
do
around
a
bill
to
the
the
inflation
relief
statutes,
Amendment
act,
2022,
so
first
off
I
think
it
would
be
important
to
talk
a
little
bit
about
the
history
of
how
we
kind
of
got
here
a
little
bit
and
the
reasoning
behind
I
think
bringing
this
bill
forward,
and
so
this
is
the
government's
attempt
to
try
to
reduce
the
impact
that
you
know.
E
The
past
couple
of
years
has
had
literally
on
their
pocketbooks.
You
know
we
we're
talking
about
re-indexing
personal
income
tax
re-indexing,
the
child
benefit
reindexing,
H
I
think
it's
very,
very
important
to
remember
that
the
government
was
very,
very
adamant
earlier
in
the
30th
legislature
that
they
weren't
doing
that
we
weren't
de-indexing.
E
Well,
if
you
weren't
de-indexing,
why
are
you
re-indexing
now?
If
you
didn't
de-index
to
begin
with,
and
so
again,
I
I
find
myself
at
odds.
Mr,
chair
and
I
found
myself
at
odds
throughout
the
entire
30th
legislature.
You
know
I've
done
my
best.
I
haven't
always
been
successful
at
it,
but
it's
you
know.
What
does
the
legislation
say?
E
What
doesn't
it
say
and
what
have
you
been
saying
about
it
and
I've
noticed
a
persistent
and
consistent
effort
from
the
government
to
conflict
in
all
of
those
things,
so
when
I
was
trying
to
explain
to
them
that
they
were
de-indexing,
they
were
telling
me
they're
not
and
of
course,
I
was
I,
can't
remember
some
of
the
the
things
I
was
lighting.
My
hair
on
fire
was
fear-mongering.
E
I
was
go
ahead
and
insert
whatever
word
you'd
like
in
there
Mr
Mr,
chair,
I'm,
sure
it's
it's
it's
fitting,
but
then
here
I
am
seeing
we're
re-indexing,
so
was
I
wrong,
or
were
we
not
entirely
accurate
with
some
of
the
information
that
was
being
put
forward,
picking
those
words
very
very
carefully,
because
I
wouldn't
want
to
run
afoul
of
some
of
the
standing
orders
Mr
chair
so.
E
is
something.
Is
it
all
that
I
want?
Well,
no
because
I
think
you
have
a
lot
of
ground
to
make
up,
but
at
least
it's
something,
but
it
is
my
duty
to
remind
you
how
far
you're
falling
short
and
maybe
some
of
the
things
you
could
do,
because
we
still
have
the
chance
to
look
at
things
differently
in
certain
parts
of
the
bill.
At
least
you
know,
we
we've
seen
things
around.
E
E
You
know:
I've
I've
shown
that
just
one
of
my
constituents
one
month
saw
an
electricity
bill
of
of
six
hundred
dollars
and
yes,
200
would
would
help
going
towards
that.
But
what
about
the
next
600
Bill?
What
about
the
next
one?
After
that
that
maybe
is
500
or
maybe
a
700.?
Well,
we
we
ran
out
there
and
and
I
look
forward
to
the
minister
responsible
for
for
red
tape
to
participate.
You
know
when
he
gets
his
opportunity.
I
will
take
notes,
vigorously
and
I'm
sure
there'll
be
some
red
tape
in
there.
E
E
Know
we
we
see
some
relief
coming
in
terms
of
the
fuel
tax
again
I'll
take
what
I
can
get,
but
here's
the
problem
I've
got
constituents
who
have
parked
their
vehicles
because
they
can't
afford
their
insurance.
So,
if
they're
not
operating
their
vehicle,
how
do
they
benefit
from
the
fuel
rate
being
suspended?
The
tax
on
that
there's
no
benefit
to
that.
E
F
E
E
E
F
F
E
When
we
look
at
this
little
I
guess
it
is
a
bit
of
a
scheme
around
putting
off
the
payment
spreading
them
out
over
over
19
19
months.
Here's
the
thing.
F
E
F
F
E
As
my
friend
from
Calgary,
Mountain
View
had
pointed
out
the
way
this
is
being
set
up,
you
have
individuals
that
will
will
probably
temporarily
be
on
the
the
rate
regulation
option
right
until
the
point
they
realize
it's
not
to
their
advantage
and
they
have
the
ability
to
get
off
making
the
remaining
pool
of
individuals
that
actually
don't
have
the
option
because,
as
we
know,
there
are
criteria
when
you
start
to
go
on
to
some
of
these
fixed
rates.
Things
like
a
good
credit
score
and
the
reality
is
some
albertans.
E
Don't
have
that
not
through
any
fault
of
their
own
they've,
been
sitting
here,
maxing
out
their
credit
cards,
because,
oh
I,
don't
know
their
kids
decided
to
go
to
post-secondary
to
increase
their
education.
Their
student
loans
went
up
the
student
interest
rate
on
those
loans,
went
up,
their
insurance
went
up
and
trying
to
to
go
there
every
day
with
their
vehicle,
and
so
they've
run
they've
run
into
problems
and
so
or
they
just
simply
don't
have
the
deposit
to
be
able
to
put
towards
that.
E
It's
very,
very
difficult.
When
you're
trying
to
raise
a
family
on
minimum
wage,
we
already
know
that
that's
a
very,
very
difficult
thing
to
try
to
do,
and
you
just
don't
have
a
whole
lot
of
extra
money
to
spend,
and
so,
while
you
know
it'd
be
great,
if
they
had
that
money
to
put
the
deposit,
so
they
could
maybe
get
there.
But
then,
of
course,
that
problem
then
starts
to
expand
where
we
have
fewer
and
fewer
people
that
are
going
to
take
on
that
burden.
E
E
What's
the
plan
to
help
them
should
that
occur,
I
haven't
heard
anything
yet
that
doesn't
mean
there
isn't
I'd
be
happy
to
hear
more
about
that.
Should
that
opportunity
arise
and
I
will
definitely
take
take
notes
to
that.
F
E
Not
necessarily
opposed
to
Bill
two
I
kind
of
feel
like
I'm
I'm
in
that
corner,
where
I
at
least
have
to
accept
something
on
behalf
of
my
constituents
on
behalf
of
albertans,
so
they're
getting
at
least
something
but
I
think
that
there
is
more
that
could
have
been
done.
I
think
there
was
a
larger
opportunity
here
to
be
able
to
help
people.
E
So
it's
my
hope
that
maybe
some
of
the
folks
that
were
providing
some
interesting
commentary
during
my
commentary
might
be
able
to
pop
up
might
be
able
to
answer
some
questions.
E
Because
it's
albertans
are
the
ones
that
are
paying
the
price
and
really
the
rhetoric
that
you're
directing
at
me
you're
directing
at
them,
which
I
don't
think
is
very
fair.
So
hopefully
we
can
get
a
chance.
Maybe
to
look
at
this
like
I
said:
albertans
are
struggling
right
now
to
do
things
kicking
the
can
down.
The
road
is
not
going
to
help.
E
You
know
introducing
a
rate
cap
here,
which
is
you
know,
a
lot
higher
than
what
people
are
facing
right
now.
People
are
struggling
right
now
at
the
rate
that
it
is
and
we're
not
even
at
this
proposed
cap,
what
happens
when
it
gets
to
there
they're
already
in
trouble
here
so
hopefully
there's
a
plan.
I,
look
forward
to
hearing
that
more
and
perhaps
I'll
even
jump
up
again
as
I
furiously
write
notes
from
members
that
decide
to
jump
up.
B
G
Thank
you
very
much
Miss
Sharon,
perhaps
during
what
I
hope
is
a
riveting
10
minutes.
My
colleagues
acrossia
will
feel
inspired
to
speak
to
what
is
supposed
to
be
one
of
their
Flagship
pieces
of
legislation.
This
session
Bill
one
was
supposed
to
be
the
big
bill,
which,
of
course,
we
know
the
Government
tried
to
Ram
through
under
the
middle
of
the
night,
because
they
were
wildly
unsuccessful
in
their
attempts
to
communicate
how
their
job
killing
sovereignty
act
would
be
beneficial
to
the
people
offered.
G
Albertans
aren't
convinced,
that's
for
sure,
Mr,
Speaker
and
then
number
two
I
know
they
keep
heckling
about
how
much
money
they're
investing
through
this
bill,
but
certainly
the
many
many
albertans
who
have
weighed
in
on
this
are
saying
that
across
the
board,
Alberta
families
are
feeling
a
real
pitch
and
when
I
say
families
I
don't
just
mean
your
nuclear
family
I
mean
ordinary
everyday,
albertans,
retired
working
students.
G
Nobody
has
gotten
a
break
under
the
UCP
or
found
life
get
better
in
the
last
four
years
and
and
we're
hearing
regularly
from
people
that
they're
really
having
a
hard
time
making
ends
meet
so
Bill
2
was
brought
forward
to
this
place.
It's
titled
the
inflationary
relief
statutes,
Amendment
act
2022,
but
just
to
start
Mr
chair.
It
leaves
out
about
half
of
albertans.
G
It
leaves
out
about
half
of
the
people
of
this
province,
many
of
whom
are
young
and
working
or
are
in
school
and
have
seen
a
huge
budgetary
pressures.
I
was
really
happy
to
have
met
last
week
with
SEO
representatives
from
the
University
of
Calgary,
who
made
very
clear
how
disappointed
they
were
by
this
legislation
and
the
fact
that
we
have
seen
record
Food
Bank
usage,
including
the
food
bank,
at
the
University
of
Calgary
itself.
We've
seen
tuition
continue
to
escalate.
Just
in
the
last
two
years.
G
We've
seen
the
tuition
in
the
faculty
of
nursing
this
upcoming
year
and
this
past
year,
a
cumulative
increase
of
20
percent
20
increase
in
tuition
for
nursing
students
who
want
to
study
in
the
province
of
Alberta
at
the
University
of
Calgary,
who
would
like
to
probably
spend
their
careers
serving
the
people
of
Alberta,
or
at
least
that's
what
they
were
planning
on
doing.
We
know
how
difficult
it
can
already
be
to
get
into
these
programs,
and
now
the
government
for
those
who
are
able
to
get
in
is
jacking
up
their
tuition
by
20.
G
Approximately
was
10
last
year
at
eight
percent
this
year,
so
cumulative
of
approximately
20
over
two
years,
because
it
compounds
of
course
things
that
the
government
certainly
should
understand
and
making
life
incredibly
expensive
and
those
University
students
who
are
seeing
their
tuition
go
up.
Their
inflationary
pressures
about
six
percent
go
up
many
record
many
many
reporting
on
the
significant
increases
to
rent.
G
So
the
University
of
Calgary,
Students
Association,
rightfully
so,
was
really
disappointed
when
this
bill
came
forward
and
there
was
no
relief
for
University
students,
the
government
has
refused
to
cap
tuition
at
inflation.
That's
another
thing
that
they're
lobbying,
for
they
would
have
really
liked
to
have
seen
a
bill
that
would
have
capped
tuition
increases
to
inflation,
they'd
like
to
see
some
requirements
for
authentic
consultation,
and
they
would
like
to
see
some
relief
for
for
students
in
terms
of
their
costs,
but
also
their
income.
G
G
So
there
are
approximately
2
million.
Almost
half
of
albertans
who
are
left
out
of
this
I
was
mentioned
that
there's
a
lot
of
people
working
minimum
wage
and
there
absolutely
are
so.
Let's
look
at
the
income
for
somebody:
who's
working
full-time
37.5
hours
a
week,
minimum
wage
15
bucks
an
hour
52
weeks
in
a
year,
they're
taking
no
time
off
they're,
making
29
250
bucks
in
a
year
and
unless
they
have
children
or
unless
they're
a
senior,
they
don't
qualify
this
for
this
relief
in
this
bill
either.
G
So
that
is
ridiculous
to
have
somebody
make
less
than
thirty
thousand
dollars
a
year
working
full-time
and
for
the
government
to
not
even
pause
for
a
moment
and
to
think
that
person
might
be
in
need
of
some
relief
right
now
as
we're
seeing
such
significant
increases
to
the
cost
of
everything,
including
the
cost
of
food,
the
cost
of
rent
the
cost
of
Transportation
it
is
I
am
disappointed
that
there
was
it's
a
big
cabinet.
It's
a
big
cabinet.
There
are
a
lot
of
people
who
sat
around
the
table.
G
I
guess
something
is
better
than
nothing
and
I
typically
try
to
come
to
this
place
and
think
as
long
as
we're
not
moving
backwards.
I
can
probably
support
it
and
we
can
move
forwards
and
and
I
guess
it
is
a
step
forward.
G
But
at
a
time
when
we're
seeing
significant
record-breaking
revenues
do
in
no
way
to
the
decision-making
of
the
current
government,
we're
seeing
significant
revenues,
revenues
that
belong
to
the
people
of
albertans,
the
people
of
Alberta,
mostly
off
non-renewable
resource
Revenue
revenues,
including
royalties
through
the
royalty
framework
that
was
negotiated
under
the
last
NDP
government.
G
The
government
of
today,
though,
has
decided
that
they're
going
to
give
out
a
very
small
fraction
of
that
back
to
the
people
of
Alberta
and
instead
boast
about
how
fortunate
they
were
to
stumble
into
those
backwards
and
at
the
same
time
we
have
people
making
minimum
wage
working,
full-time
and
people
going
to
University
having
to
rely
on
the
food
bank
record
Food,
Bank
usage,
so
I
I
know
that
there
were
members
previously
who
spoke
about
how
great
it
is
that
the
UCP
is
giving
money
to
food
banks
and,
and
obviously
it
is
desperately
needed
right
now.
G
We've
never
seen
Food
Bank
usage
as
high
as
it
has
been,
and
and
the
member
for
Calgary
Glenmore
scoffed
at
that
and
said
well
of
course,
it
was
higher
when
the
NDP
was
in
government.
It
was
not
that
is
well
documented,
factual
that
food
bank
usage
has
never
been
higher
than
it
is
right
now
and
again
back
to
those
University
of
Calgary
students.
They
talked
about
how
International
students
in
particular
are
having
to
rely
on
the
food
bank
in
much
larger
proportions
than
ever
before
in
the
past,
and
why
well?
G
One
of
the
reasons
is
because
the
current
governments
decided
to
jack
up
tuition,
particularly
for
students
who
are
international
students
to
use
them
as
a
an
opportunity
to
make
more
money
to
support
programs
or
make
more
money
to
support
the
current
government.
I
guess
would
be
the
other
side
of
that.
The
other
piece
I
want
to
touch
on
in
my
brief
opportunity
here
tonight
is
around
the
regulator
rate
option
and
I
know
that
the
member
for
current
member
for
St,
Albert,
mornville
yelled
out
tell
them
about
the
regulated
rate
option.
G
I
will
tell
them
about
the
regulator
rate
option
because,
under
the
regulated
rate
option,
what
the
government
is
doing
through
this
utility
payday
lending
scheme
is
that
they're
creating
a
bigger
burden
for
those
who
are,
in
the
regulated
rate
option
to
pay
off
the
loan
for
those
who
are
still
stuck
in
the
current
Ro
when
the
load
comes
due
so
you've
heard
some
of
my
colleagues
talk
about
how
what
it
is.
Is
this
you
know
short-term
payday
loan
for
the
period
right
before
the
election.
Surprise.
G
The
government
right
now
is
wanting
to
find
a
way
to
earn
some
votes.
So
they're
telling
people
your
bills
are
going
to
go
down.
The
other
part
of
that
is
your
bills
are
going
to
go
way
way
up
pretty
much
right
after
the
election,
because
this
isn't
actually
forgiveness.
This
isn't
actually
easing
of
the
pressures.
This
is
deferral.
G
This
is
a
loan,
a
loan
that
will
see
those
who
are
still
stuck
in
the
RO
when
this
period
is
up,
have
to
shoulder
the
significant
burden
that
will
be
left
upon
them,
because
the
current
government
decided
to
bring
in
this
toxic
Loan
program.
So
it
definitely
is
not
about
making
life
more
affordable
in
the
long
term.
At
all,
it
is
simply
trying
to
put
a
very
small
Band-Aid
in
the
lead-up
to
the
election,
hoping
that
people
will
forget
about
all
the
harm.
G
G
I
also
can't
help,
but
reflect
on
about
four
years
ago,
when
we
brought
in
indexing
of
H
and
the
government
of
the
day,
the
IDP
was
really
proud
to
bring
in
indexing.
We
put
it
in
legislation.
This
was
going
to
happen
in
perpetuity
and
the
UCP
at
the
time.
Under
the
leadership
of
Jason,
Kenney
actually
voted
for
it
and
they
said
well.
Of
course
the
NDP
is
going
to
tell
you
that
we're
going
to
get
rid
of
indexing,
but
we
wouldn't
do
that.
G
Don't
be
mean
and
and
don't
spread
lies
to
people
who
are
low
income.
They
said
for
for
people
with
who
are
severely
handicapped,
don't
tell
them.
We
would
do
that.
Of
course.
We
wouldn't
do
that.
We
voted
for
the
bill.
The
premier
said
then
Premier
Jason,
Kenney,
Jason
Kenny,
said
we
voted
for
the
bill,
we're
absolutely
going
to
stand
by
indexing
and
we're
going
to
increase
everybody's
salaries
when
the
cost
of
living
goes
up.
G
It
was
the
eve
of
an
election
and
what
happened
almost
immediately
after
that
election,
the
summer
of
repeal
they
repealed
their
promises
is
what
they
did.
They
jacked
up
cost
of
living
and
they
got
rid
of
those
inflationary
protections
for
people
who
were
living
on
age,
but
here
they
are
on
the
eve
of
another
election
and
they
want
everyone
to
say.
Oh,
don't
worry,
trust
us
we're
going
to
increase
your
cost
of
living,
we're
going
to
give
you
an
increased
duration.
Don't
worry,
it's
all
going
to
be
good.
G
Don't
don't
tell
people
who
are
severely
handicapped
that
we
won't
do
that.
Don't
tell
them
to
look
at
our
record,
don't
tell
them
to
look
at
what
we've
actually
done
and
what
impacts
we've
had
on
their
lives.
Don't
worry
trust
us
this
time.
It's
going
to
be
different.
This
time.
Are
you
kidding
me?
G
They
could
have
sure
could
have
done
a
lot
more
in
this
bill
and
over
the
last
four
years
to
actually
address
the
pressures
that
everyone
has
been
telling
us
have
been
significant
on
them
and
their
families,
and
instead
the
government
wants
to
throw
about
a
sixth
of
what
the
Surplus
is
anticipated
to
be
at
half
of
the
population,
probably
the
half.
They
think
they
need
to
vote
for
them
and
say
good
enough.
Well,
that's
not
good
enough
Mr
Speaker,
Mr
chair!
It's!
G
It's
not
something
that
I
think
the
people
who
are
sitting
around
the
cabinet
table
drafting
they
should
be
proud
of.
I
think
they
should
be
ashamed
of
how
many
people
that
they've
left
out
and
the
huge
gaps
that
they're
going
to
only
further
through
their
failure
to
actually
protect
every
albertan
who
is
struggling
right
now,
but
with
that
I
guess,
I'll
support
the
bill.
B
H
You
Mr
chair,
it's
I
paused
there
for
a
moment
just
to
see
if,
if
any
of
the
government
members
would
want
to
speak
to
what
should
be
one
of
their
Flagship
bills,
we
also
know
they
were
pretty
cautious
about
speaking
to
their
actual
Flagship
bill,
which
was
Bill,
won
the
sovereignty
act
and
it
turns
out
they
don't
really
want
to
speak
to
this,
which
is
shocking
because
I
know
I
know.
My
caucus
colleagues
will
share
this
feeling.
I
mean
speaking
about.
H
Affordability
is
probably
one
of
the
top
issues
that
albertans
are
talking
about,
and
so
I
know
that
we
have
been
committed
to
speaking
to
these
issues
for
oh,
almost
a
year
now,
when
we
first
started
to
see
inflation
start
to
rise
significantly
in
the
fall
of
2021,
it
has
been
something
that,
on
this
side
of
the
house,
we
have
been
talking
about
non-stop.
Why
Mr
chair,
because
that's
what
albertans
were
talking
about
that?
H
That's
what
they
cared
about
deeply
was
seeing
that
their
ability
to
pay
for
the
things
they
needed
to
live
their
utilities
for
heat
and
electricity,
their
groceries.
They
need
to
drive
their
car,
their
car
insurance
they're,
seeing
they
were
seeing
all
those
go
up
while
at
the
same
time
not
seeing
their
income
or
their
wages,
go
up.
One
of
the
things
that
I
think
it's
really
important
to
to
keep
in
context.
H
Mr
chair,
as
we
as
we
think
about
this
bill
to
and
and
in
inflation
relief,
is
that,
while
we
have
heard
great
enthusiasm
from
the
government
caucus
to
talk
about
certain
aspects
of
economic
recovery,
what
they
failed
to
talk
about
is
that
wages,
wage
growth
actually
in
Alberta
is
the
second
slowest
in
the
country.
Right
now,
so
we
know
that
albertans,
while
they're,
seeing
their
costs,
go
up.
They're
not
seeing
their
income
go
up
and
we've
seen
that
reflected
in
the
challenges
that
all
households
are
facing.
H
H
H
They
know
that
the
Alberta
Andy
P
caucus,
as
well
as
myself,
will
take
to
heart
their
issues,
especially
as
they
raise
concerns
about
affordability,
so
I'm
very
proud
to
represent
so
many
people
right
now,
but
in
any
event,
Mr
chair
affordability
is
one
of
the
number
one
issues
that
we're
hearing
from
constituents.
It's
one
of
the
number
one
issues
that
I've
been
talking
about
and
I
know.
My
colleagues
have
been
talking
about
for
months,
so
I'm
glad
that
the
government
is
finally
bringing
in
some
inflation
relief
measures.
H
Unfortunately,
as
as
the
many
of
my
colleagues
have
shared,
I
want
to
give
a
shout
out
to
my
colleagues.
Who've
already
talked
already
the
member
from
Edmonton
Glenora
just
did
a
fantastic
job
articulating
some
of
those
challenges,
as
well
as
a
member
from
Edmonton.
J
H
Albert
the
other
day
and
Calgary
Mountain
View,
you
know
there
is
a
lot
of
concern
that
this
could
be
done
a
whole
lot
better
and
I.
Think
what
we're
seeing
is
a
pattern
of
behavior
Mr
chair
from
sort
of
the
rushed
way.
I
guess
we've
got
a
a
premier
who
is
very
enthusiastic
about
some
issues,
although
even
her
Flagship
issues,
she
didn't
give
much
thought
and
attention
to,
because
somehow
she
accidentally
gave
herself
and
her
cabinet
unbelievably
and
Democratic
powers
to
change
legislation.
H
That
was
oops
a
little
mistake,
and
so,
if
that
you
know
we
know
that's
a
blood
of
attention
that
she'll
pay
to
her
Flagship
bills,
that
we,
it's
not
surprising,
then
with
this
one,
which
has
not
been
a
priority
for
the
UCP
to
talk
about
or
for
this
current
Premier
when
she
was
running
for
leadership.
Rarely
ever
heard
her
talk
about
affordability,
so
maybe
it's
not
a
surprise
that
this
bill
came
forward
and
it
was
not
well
thought
out
now.
Certainly
I
think
we've
been
very
clear.
H
We
will
support
measures
that
will
address
some
of
the
affordability
issues
albertans
are
facing.
It
is
critically
important
that
we
take
some
action
and
I
will
take.
I
will
support
a
bill
that
does
take
some
action,
but
we,
our
job
in
this
assembly
Mr
chair,
is
to
give
some
critical
thinking
and
thought
to
the
legislation
that's
put
before
us
and
to
suggest
changes
and
point
out
where
things
could
have
been
done
better
and
because,
at
the
end
of
the
day
we
are
stewards,
not
only
in
terms
of
the
laws
that
we
pass
in
this
place.
H
But
we
are
stewards
of
Alberta's
taxpayers
dollars
as
well,
so
we
we
have
an
interest
in
making
sure
that
those
dollars
are
being
spent
effectively,
and
so
this
is
why
I
think
there
is
significant
concern
around
the
parameters
that
have
been
laid
out
in
Bill
2
and
the
eligibility
for
some
of
these
affordability
measures.
So
you
know,
first
of
all,
I
will
say
you
know.
The
threshold
that
was
chosen
here
of
the
180
000
to
have
a
minimum
income
is,
is
I.
H
Think
I've
heard
from
some
some
of
my
constituents
at
questioning
how
that
amount
was
determined
and
why
that
was
determined
to
be
the
threshold
for
for
providing
some
support.
Should
it
be
higher
should
be
lower
I.
You
know,
I
think
there
needs
to
be
some
clarity
around
that
I
understand
that
the
current
minister
of
of
affordability
and
utilities
will
indicate
that
it
was
based
on
the
household
income
used
for
the
Child
Care
Subsidy.
H
But
of
course
this
is
this.
Is
this
is
excluding
a
huge
number
of
albertans?
You
know
when
we're
talking
about
a
Child,
Care
Subsidy.
In
often
situations
we're
talking
about.
You
know
double
income,
of
course,
but
what
about
the
single
income?
Individuals
and
who
first,
but
don't?
Who
don't
have
children?
Who
now
don't
qualify
and
I
I,
have
to
tell
you
Mr,
chair
I,
know
many
of
them.
I
know
many
individual
visuals
who
are
been
struggling
with
affordability
issues.
H
H
Sure
many
of
the
mlas
in
this
chamber
have
constituency
staff,
for
example,
who
do
not
qualify
because
they
don't
have
children
or
they're,
not
seniors,
and
that
is
really
difficult
for
me,
even
as
an
as
an
employer
and
somebody
who's
who
works
myself
to
hear
that
they
don't
qualify
for
these
measures
because
they
don't
have
children
because
I
know
I
wish
I
could
pay
them
a
whole
lot
more
Mr
Speaker
Mr
chair
because
they
sure
are
worth
it
and
I
want
to
give
a
shout
out
to
them
right
now,
because
they're
fantastic
shout
out
to
Rick
and
to
Melissa
in
my
office
they
are
fantastic.
H
Human
beings
who
work
so
much
and
I
would
love
to
be
able
to
pay
them
what
they're
truly
worth,
but
they
don't
qualify
Mr
Speaker
because
they
don't
have
children
and
yet
I
know
in
the
circumstances
that
they
live
and
that
they
don't
they're
struggling
with
utility
bills.
They
are
struggling
with
groceries,
they're
struggling
with
a
lot
of
other
challenges
and
they
don't
qualify
at
the
same
time,
Mr
chair,
I,
have
to
tell
you
I
have
heard
from
constituents
in
my
in
my
writing.
H
Who
say
they
are
shocked
to
find
out
that
they
do
qualify
because
they
don't
believe
that
they
need
it,
and
they
say
they
would
rather
have
those
dollars
going
to
people
who
need
it
more
than
they
do
and
then
particular
I
know
a
number
of
seniors
who
qualify,
because
their
income
is
at
a
fixed
income
level
and
it's
lower,
but
they
have
a
number.
H
They
have
a
significant
amount
of
you
know:
savings
and
and
various
Investments
that
they're
doing
just
fine,
but
they
their
income
is
still
Falls
below
that
180,
000
and
they're
saying
why
do
they
qualify?
So
when
we
talk
about
ways
to
be
stewards
of
taxpayer
dollars,
we
needed
more
specificity
and
I.
Think
more
targeting
in
these
affordability
measures
to
make
sure
that
we're
being
really
clear
that
those
who
truly
need
it
get
it,
and
that
is
I,
think
the
problem
that
we're
seeing
to
me.
H
It's
about
making
sure
that
we
are
not
drawing
arbitrary
lines
that
we
are
not
making
assumptions
about
people
based
on
having
children
or
being
seniors
and
saying
they
can
or
cannot.
We
need
to
actually
look
at
need
and
I
do
believe.
Truly
Mr
chair
that
I
had
some
more
thought
been
given
more
attention.
H
If
this
had
been
at
all
a
priority
for
this
government
up
until
two
weeks
or
three
weeks
ago,
then
we
would
have
seen
a
more
thoughtful
bill
that
was
presented
in
a
more
thoughtful
program
that
would
have
been
clear
about
targeting
those
individuals
who
need
it
the
most,
and
so
that
is
one
of
my
critiques.
We
do.
It
is
a
significant
amount
of
money,
that's
being
spent
as
a
result
of
these
affordability
measures,
we
should
make
sure
they're
being
spent
where
they
can
do
the
most
good,
and
so
that
is
my
concern.
H
H
They're
also
concerned
that
you
know
that
it
not
only
that
it
hasn't
been
targeted
properly,
but
they
want
to
know
that
this
is
actually
going
to
go
to
support
the
people
who
need
it
the
most,
because
it
feels
like
to
them
that
this
is
just
an
attempt
to
to
buy
their
support
going
into
the
next
election
and
this,
and
so
it
sounds
like
many
albertans,
actually
believe
that
and
so
again,
I
think
I
don't
want
to
help
this
government
with
you
know
the
own,
the
the
very
cynicism
that
they
have
created
and
incubated
and
encouraged
in
albertans.
H
Yeah
and
so
I
think
that's
a
very
important
issue
that
would
have
given
them
more
credibility
and,
but
you
know
by
all
means,
I,
don't
think
it's
my
job
to
try
to
encourage
this
government
or
try
to
give
them
pointers
on
how
to
be
more
credible
because
we
know
they
won't
take
them.
H
So
certainly
I
think
that's
one
of
the
concerns,
but
you
know
there
we
it's
it's
a
way
to
make.
It
seem
like
this
is
actually
about
helping
albertans
and
I'm,
not
sure
that
the
thought
and
attention
has
gone
into
this
bill
and
this
program
to
ensure
that
I
also
want
to
mention,
of
course,
and
many
issues
that
my
colleagues
have
already
raised.
But
you
know
on
the
re
on
the
re-indexing
of
age
and
indexing
of
a
number
of
other
measures.
H
H
They
always
spoke
behind
closed
doors,
conveniently
where
there's
no
record
of
it
against
the
D
and
Xing
of
H,
and
you
know
that
also
relies
our
credibility,
but
but
they
all
voted
in
favor
of
it,
Mr
chair
enthusiastically,
in
fact,
and
and
heckled
and
critiqued
and
yelled,
and
we
said
you're
breaking
your
words
to
vulnerable
albertans
by
de-indexing
those
individuals
from
from
those
benefits
and
that
it
would
be
a
cut
to
her.
Oh
goodness,
I
can't.
Even
who
can
forget
it's
not
a
cut.
H
It's
not
a
cut
when
individuals
on
age
were
seeing
their
costs
go
up
and
their
benefits
stay
the
same.
It
was
a
cut,
and
this
semantics
that
was
played
by
members
of
the
government
caucus
on
that
issue.
H
Being
austere
and
they
were
going
to
rein
in
spending,
they
were
more
than
happy
to
all
support
D
indexing
individuals
who
are
on
age
shameful,
but
when
it
got
time
to
now,
when
it's
times
for
an
election
they're
more
than
happy
to
talk
about
their
goal,
it
was
really
a
terrible
idea
and
they're
going
to
re-index
and
I
think
Mr
Speaker
that
or
Mr
chair.
That
makes
it
very
clear
that
they
will
do
this
again.
That's
really
what
what
we
have
to
know.
We
will
run
into
tough
Economic
Times
again.
H
That
is
likely
going
to
happen.
That's
the
way
you
know!
That's!
We
you've
seen
that
happen
in
this
province
too
many
times,
and
when
that
happens
again,
albertans
can
rest
assured
that
every
single
member
of
this
government
caucus
will
vote
once
again,
yep
to
de-index
benefits
that
the
most
vulnerable
albertans
rely
upon.
Why
Mr
chair,
because
they've
done
it
already,
they've
made
it
very
clear,
they're
happy
to
balance
the
budget
on
the
backs
of
those
people
who
are
most
vulnerable
in
our
society.
J
H
Do
it
with
a
straight
face?
So
that's
why
it's
hard
to
to
cheer
and
clap
when
they're
now
saying
they're
going
to
index
what
they
never
should
have
de-indexed
in
the
first
place,
and
let's
also
be
clear
that
they're
not
talking
about
re-indexing
to
the
point
of
time
where
they
de-index
three
years
ago.
H
Three
years
ago,
during
a
pandemic,
we
saw
those
individuals
on
Ace
lose
their
lose,
absolutely
see
their
benefit
cut,
and
so
they're
not
talking
about
going
back
in
time
and
even
atoning
for
the
mistake
they
made,
and
we
know
that
those
individuals
have
lost
the
equivalent
to
three
thousand
dollars,
which
is,
by
the
way,
quite
a
significant
amount
of
money
for
somebody
on
age.
Yep
I
also
want
to
mention,
for
example,
the
indexing
of
of
the
child
and
family
benefit.
H
What
they
were
not
transparent
about
was
that
when
they
did
that
they
actually
cut
off
a
number
of
vulnerable
families.
Now
we
have
to
remember
the
the
families
that
are
eligible
for
this
benefit
are
very
low
income
families
and,
at
the
time
that
they
made
the
changes
in
2019,
they
actually
decreased
the
benefit
for
a
number
of
very
vulnerable
families.
H
In
fact,
the
University
of
Calgary
School
of
Public
Policy
did
an
analysis
of
the
changes
that
they
made
and
they
found,
for
example,
that
a
two-child
two-parent
family
in
2019,
under
the
new
benefit,
as
proposed
as
put
forward
by
the
government
who
lived
right
at
the
poverty
line.
We're
talking
about
you
know
under
forty
thousand
dollars
per
year,
two
children,
two
adults-
that
they
actually
lost
five
hundred
dollars
in
a
benefit
as
a
result
of
the
changes
that
the
UCP
made
so.
I
H
I'm
really
happy
to
hear
that
they're
going
to
index
the
Alberta
child
family
benefit
to
to
inflation,
but
let's
not
forget
that
they
actually
decrease
the
amount
of
support
to
vulnerable
families
back
in
2019.
once
again
we're
seeing
a
pattern
Mr
chair
of
trying
to
well,
they
can't
even
say
they're,
repairing
their
mistakes
because
they're
not
back
dating,
it's
not
retroactively
available,
but
they
want
some
credit
for
doing
the
decent
thing
that
they
never
should
have
done
in
the
first
place
that
they
shouldn't
have
done
in
the
first
place.
H
So,
and
so
certainly
we
know
going
forward,
we
know
what
they
we
know,
how
they
will
act.
We
know
what
they
will
do.
They
will
absolutely
go
after
the
most
vulnerable
once
again
to
balance
of
books.
Lastly,
I
want
to
speak
really
quickly:
Mr
chair
to
the
regulated
rate
option
and
the
changes
made
to
the
electricity
and
that
benefit
that,
while
it's
not
really
a
benefit,
that's
being
provided
because
I
had
to
you
know,
go
through
this
to
truly
understand
what
was
happening
here.
H
So
the
current
scheme
and
it's
pretty
clear
in
Bill
2-
is
that
essentially
what
they're
saying
is
yes
for
three
months,
they're
going
to
cap
that
that
rate
for
the
regulated
rate
option
the
RO
at
a
much
higher
rate
than
we
had
the
electricity
cap
on
when
we
were
in
government
at
13.5
cents.
So
they're
going
to
cap
it
at
that
point,
but
they're
not
going
to
cover
the
cost
of
the
difference
between
the
cap
and
what
the
actual
price
is.
H
They're,
not
actually
saying
we're
going
to
help
you
as
the
Alberta
Government
we're
going
to
cover
that
cost,
because
we
know
it's
it's
a
big
challenge
and
it's
it's
a
burden.
And
it's
costing
you
a
lot
of
money
at
a
time
when
your
wages
and
income
aren't
going
up
they're,
not
saying
they're,
going
to
cover
it.
H
They're
actually
saying
we're
actually
just
going
to
loan
that
difference,
that
money,
that
it
costs
us
as
the
government
we're
going
to
loan
that
to
the
electricity
companies
and
then
we're
going
to
let
the
electricity
companies
charge
you
back
for
that.
After
that
that
three-month
period
is
over.
So
it
means
those
individuals
on
the
regulated
rate.
Option
are
going
to
be
repaying
the
loan
that
essentially,
the
government
of
Alberta
has
given
to
utility
companies.
H
That
means
they
are
going
to
be
paying
it
back
over
19
months,
and
if
that
increases,
because
we
don't
know
what
those
prices
are
going
to
look
like,
we
don't
know
how
much
that's
going
to
cost.
They
won't
know
that
they're
going
to
see
their
costs
go
up
significantly
afterwards
and,
as
pointed
out
by
many
of
my
colleagues,
the
individuals
who
are
on
regulated
rate
options
sometimes
are
on
that
option.
A
because
they
don't
even
know
that
they
can
go
and
seek
out
a
contract.
H
I
mean
we
have
to
talk
a
little
bit
about
what
we're
doing
to
actually
educate
albertans
on
their
options,
but
also
it
means
that
their
individuals
may
not
qualify
to
go
onto
a
contract
because
they
may
not
have
great
credit
score.
So
those
are
the
individuals
who
may
be
struggling
already
financially
and
now.
This
government
is
asking
them
to
pay
back
the
loan
that
they've
taken
out
that
the
government
has
taken
out
on
their
behalf.
H
That
is
not
relief.
Mr
chair
that
is
not
actually
providing
a
benefit
to
albertans.
It's
actually
saddling
them
with
more
costs,
and
it
is
again
reflective,
I
think
of
poorly
thought
out.
Affordability
measures,
that's
actually
a
generous
interpretation
of
this
Mr
chair
is
that
they
did
this
because
they
didn't
think
it
threw
out
carefully.
H
H
I
wouldn't
be
surprised
and
I
I'd
like
to
err
on
the
side
of
thinking
that
it
was
just
an
oversight,
because
we've
seen
many
many
oversets
already
from
this
new
gov,
this
new
premier
and
her
government,
but
unfortunately
I
believe
they're
not
actually
looking
out
for
albertans,
because
they're
only
just
starting
to
talk
about
the
affordability
measures
that
albertans
have
been
talking
about
for
over
a
year
that
the
official
opposition
I've
been
talking
about
for
over
a
year
and
instead
what
they've
brought
forward
is
I
untargeted
relief
that
is
not
going
to
support
most
albertans
and
it's
going
to
cost
some
of
them
even
more
because
of
the
way
they've
decided
to
deliver
this
program.
H
D
Written
thank
you
very
much.
Mr,
chair
and
I
rise
to
move
an
amendment.
So
I
will
just
wait
for
that
to
get
to.
B
D
Thank
you
very
much
Mr
chair,
so
I
move
the
bill
to
inflation
relief
statutes.
Amendment
act
2022
be
amended
in
Section
3,
subsection
4
in
the
proposed
section
two
by
striking
out
the
rate
of
13.5
cents
per
kilowatt
hour,
wherever
it
occurs
and
substituting
the
rate
of
6.8
cents
per
kilowatt
hour.
So
I
guess
what
this
amendment
does
is
fairly
obvious.
D
Unfortunately,
it
was
difficult
to
solve
some
of
the
more
substantive
problems.
Shall
we
say
with
the
way
that
this
program
has
been
structured
by
the
UCP,
but
one
thing
we
could
offer
albertans
was
an
attempt
to
set
the
rate
cap
to
what
it
would
have
been
had
the
UCP
not
repealed
the
rate
cap
originally.
D
D
There
were
some
difficulties
with
sort
of
solving
the
substantive
problems
with
the
way
the
UCB
has
structured
this
loan,
but
one
thing
we
were
able
to
do
was
suggest
that
perhaps
albertans
deserve
a
little
more
relief
than
this
government
is
providing
them,
and
so
here
what
we
have
suggested
is
just
a
return
to
the
rate
cap
that
could
have
still
been
in
place.
D
Had
the
UCP
not
gone
and
repealed
this
and
I
think
at
this
point
it's
maybe
worth
talking
a
little
about
sort
of
I,
guess
I
would
say
tendency
of
this
government
to
do
one
thing,
and
then
you
know
three,
three
and
a
half
years
later,
reverse
the
thing
they
did,
and
you
know
try
to
do
a
Victory
lap
on
that
there
was
a
cap
in
place.
The
government
chose
to
remove
it.
D
There
was
a
cap
that
was
an
actual
cap
and
not
alone,
and
the
government
chose
not
to
structure
it
that
way,
and
now
they
want
to
do
a
Victory
lap
on
this
there
was
aish
was
indexed.
The
seniors
benefit
was
indexed.
The
Child
Tax
Benefit
was
indexed.
The
government
reversed
all
that
income
taxes
were
were
indexed
so
that
people
didn't
lose
money
with
inflation.
The
government
reversed
that
we
had
a
contract
with
doctors
that
was
negotiated
with
them.
D
The
government
tore
that
up,
and
so
this
government
just
has
a
history
of,
shall
we
say,
reversing
itself
and
not
apologizing
when
they
reverse
themselves,
which
is
very
strange.
They
can't
seem
to
admit.
Okay,
we
made
an
error,
they
just
reverse
themselves,
they
don't
apologize,
they
try
to
move
on,
but
it
doesn't
always
work.
We
saw
it,
incidentally,
with
Bill
10
too,
that
was
the
health
statutes
act,
that
the
government
had
to
walk
back.
A
massive
power
grab
first,
actually
much
like
the
sovereignty
ACT.
First,
it
wasn't
a
massive
overreach.
D
There's
no
way
it
could
be
a
massive
overreach.
It's
fear-mongering,
the
NDP
is
making
things
up.
It's
definitely
not
that
and
then
suddenly
it
was
that
but
they're
reversing
it
so
I,
don't
know
they
seem
to
have
a
dubious
relationship
with
the
facts.
Shall
we
say
a
dubious
at
best
relationship
with
the
facts,
so
this
is
an
attempt
to
at
least
provide
albertans
with
what
they
would
otherwise
have
had.
D
It
doesn't
do
all
the
things
that
I
think
we
ought
to
do.
It
doesn't
do
all
the
things
that
I
think
this
government
ought
to
do,
but
it
does.
It
does
give
them
the
opportunity
to
maybe
reconsider
and
give
albertans
just
a
little
bit
more
so
I
think
it's
an
incredibly
important
Amendment
I
think
that
albertans
are
struggling.
I,
think
I
mean
we've
been
hearing
from
folks
on
their
power
prices,
their
natural
gas
prices
for
at
least
a
year,
and
that's
again,
it's
additive
right.
D
It's
not
just
one
thing
that
does
it:
it's
increases
to
taxes
and
tuition
and
a
whole
bunch
of
other
things
that
this
government
has
allowed
to
happen,
but
people
really
are
struggling
because
electricity
is
a
basic
need.
You
can't
live
these
days
without
electricity
and
people
are
really
really
struggling
and
it's
usually
those
who
are
least
able
to
afford
it
who
are
on
the
regulated
rate
option
I.
Think
there
are
some
reasons
to
think
that
the
regulated
rate
option
itself
is
maybe
not
a
great
product.
D
I
would
encourage
people
to
get
on
a
fixed
rate.
I
think
that's
probably
a
better
way
to
go
that
that
wouldn't
be
the
advice
in
every
instance.
I
would
say
in
this
instance.
Certainly
yeah
I
would
say.
That's
probably
actually
been
good
advice
for
several
years
now,
but
you
know
the
product
itself.
D
D
Have
the
credit
to
get
on
one?
That's
also
a
problem
that
occurs
or
who
just
don't
understand
the
system,
whether
because
they're
new
to
the
country
or
they
don't
have
the
sort
of
language
facility
to
understand
I
mean
these
are
pretty
complex
things
or
because
they
just
haven't
done
it
in
any
event.
I
think
this
is
an
opportunity
for
the
government
to
show
that
they're
serious
to
to
go
back
to
what
would
have
been
otherwise
and
so
I
hope
that
all
members
will
vote
in
favor.
K
The
amendment
here
proposes
that
the
rate
be
changed
to
6.8
cents
a
kilowatt
hour
and
just
comparing
the
previous
government's
rate
cap,
which
in
this
case
would
cost
taxpayers
all
taxpayers
375
million
dollars
to
subsidize
39
percent
of
rate
payers
bills
for
three
months.
This
ceiling
and
deferral
will
cost
factors
in
that
12
million
dollars,
but
still
provides
great
pairs
on
the
RO
who
are
who
are
facing
extreme
volatility
at
high
prices
over
the
coming
winter
months.
K
K
Unfortunately,
the
members
opposite
have
proposed
a
rate
so
low
that
if
it
were
in
place
virtually
all
electricity,
consumers
would
would
likely
switch
to
the
arrow
away
from
fixed
rate
protection,
causing
instability
and
future
volatility
for
our
most
vulnerable
I.
Don't
think
that
was
their
intent,
but
we
certainly
don't
want
to
destabilize
our
entire
electricity
markets.
So
I
would
recommend
that
we
don't
support
this
amendment,
but
I
look
forward
to
the
members
supporting
the
broad
bill.
K
L
B
L
There
you
go
I
I'm
pleased
to
say
that
I'm
going
to
be
supporting
this
bill,
but
I
do
have
severe
reservations
about
it
to
Mr
chair.
We
did
just
go
through
an
exercise
where
we
brought
through
an
amendment
that
would
have
seen
the
rates
of
of
6.8
cents
per
kilowatt
hour
in
replacing
the
13.5
Cent
rate
in
the
legislation
that
was
defeated
to
by
the
the
the
government
with
claims
that
are
dubious
at
best.
L
It
is
reminiscent
to
Mr
Speaker
of
a
time
a
few
years
ago,
when
there
was
another
Premier
in
this
province
named
Ralph
Klein,
and
he
left
a
legacy
of
Ralph
bucks
and
I
think
that
we
may
be
headed
towards
the
same
type
of
Legacy
when
it
comes
to
the
Bucks
that
are
being
flowed
through
this
government's
hands
via
what
we're
looking
at.
As
when
we're
looking
at
rebates
and
we're
looking
at
affordability,
Comforts
or
affordability.
L
Efforts
to
to
cushion
albertans
at
a
time
when
they're
struggling
to
make
ends
meet
and
we
have
a
situation
where
perhaps
the
the
government
was
kind
of
gleeful
about
the
opportunity
to
pass
money
to
people
in
The,
Province
so
close
to
an
election
without
it
seeming
as
as
as
blatant
as
Ralph
Klein,
former
Premier
Club
Klein's
400
checks
that
he
gave
to
every
Albert
and
over
18
years
old
in
the
province
in
2006..
L
Now
that
announcement
they
were
called,
then
Prosperity
payments
and
the
the
election
was
being
lost
and
the
premier
at
the
time
Mr
Klein
had
this
great
idea
that
it
would
boost
popularity
and
he
could
perhaps
win
the
election
and
by
handing
out
these,
these
400
checks
and
it
did
actually
turn
the
election.
But
the
the
the
the
smile
on
their
faces
was
short
lived
in
the
in
the
in
Decline
Camp
Mr
chair,
the
Ralph
bucks
Legacy
is
talked
about
in
the
CTV.
L
A
news
article
and
I'll
quote
some
of
it
and
I'll
I'll
table
it
later.
It
says
that
even
even
with
the
oil
prices
down,
they'd
be
nowhere
near
the
deficit
if
they'd
take
in
corrective
action.
This
is
Scott
Hennig
for
the
Canadian
taxpayers
Association,
but
two
months
after
the
checks
were
mailed
out,
he
announced
his
intention
to
resign.
This
is
Mr
Klein,
the
premier,
two
months
after
the
checks
were
mailed
out.
L
He
announced
his
intention
to
resign
after
his
fourth
term
on
October
21
2007,
some
19
months
later
he
was
beginning
to
lose
his
Edge
as
Mr
Mensa
says
the
Ralph
edged
the
common
touch,
but
by
the
end
of
March,
the
progressive
conservatives
had
had
enough
with
delicates
giving
climb
an
underwhelming
55
percent,
an
underwhelming
55
percent
show
of
support
added
party
leadership
review.
That
number
seems
to
ring
true
to
the
type
of
numbers
and
levels
of
support
that
conservative
leaders
seemed
to
Garner
from
more
recent
leadership
contests
as
well.
L
He
was
done
in
by
the
party
establishment.
The
article
goes
on
to
say,
Klein
eventually
resigned
near
the
end
of
September
2005.
oil
prices,
Clash
crashed
in
2008
and
the
provinces
posted
deficits
in
every
year,
since
I,
don't
think
any
government
is
going
to
follow
that
path
again
said
Mensa.
That
path
was
unique
period
in
Alberta's
history,
when
the
government
was
simply
flushed
with
all
the
money
coming
in.
In
hindsight,
we
see
that
was
not
an
appropriate
approach,
given
what
we
are
now
facing
as
a
province.
L
L
Yet
here
we
are
in
2022
Mr
chair
looking
at
another
version
of
Ralph
bucks
and
I'll,
leave
it
to
others
to
give
a
prefix
as
to
what
kind
of
bucks
we're
seeing
right
now
handed
out
within
five
months
of
an
election,
in
the
hopes
that
the
public
will
once
again
reward
the
conservatives
with
a
victory
as
a
result
of
being
filled
having
their
pockets
filled
with
with
the
conserved
bucks.
So
what
I'm
hearing
at
the
doors
is
that
I
began
to
say?
L
L
What
I'm
saying
Mr
hearing
Mr
chair
is
is
that
the
public
is
seeing
this
as
a
very,
very
cynical
attempt
to
buy
them
with
their
own
money,
and
that,
indeed,
is
something
that's
gone
on
before
in
this
province,
as
I've
alluded
to
in
the
CTV
News
article,
but
and
it's
something
that
albertans
are
saying
very
clearly
of
the
doors
that
I've
been
knocking
on
in
my
constituency
in
Calgary,
in
Brooks,
Medicine
Hat
in
Laduke
in
morenville
and
other
places
upcoming
very
soon
I
I'm,
here
at
the
doors
Mr
chair,
that
that
happened
once
but
they're
not
going
to
be
falling
for
the
same
for
the
same
stunt
and
they
figure
it's
a
cynical
attempt
by
the
UCP
to
buy
support
with
their
own
tax
dollars
at
a
time
when
they
are
using
it
as
a
cover
for
putting
a
cushion
underneath
albertans
who
are
suffering
economically.
L
It's
a
happy
coincidence
for
the
conservative
party
I
think
they.
They
feel
that
they're
able
to
cloak
these
these
so-called
new
Ralph
bucks.
In
the
clothing
of
support
for
albertans
during
time
of
need
and
splashing
they're
splashing
around
the
dough
to
to
help
with
the
affordability
crisis
without
having
to
be
as
blatant
as
Ralph
Klein
was
when
he
handed
out
the
route
box.
Now
this
is
the
conservatives
vision
of
a
social
contract.
Mr
chair,
we
pay
you
you
vote
for
us.
L
It's
a
simple
contract,
Mr
chair,
but
I'm,
really
hearing
at
the
doors
that
people
aren't
falling
for
I
was
at
I'm
eating
Christmas
dinner,
actually
I've
conservative,
former
conservative
individuals
who
invited
me
to
come
and
join
them
at
a
local
seniors.
L
Residents
and
in
my
constituency
and
I
was
happily
surprised
to
learn
that
I
couldn't
find
any
one
of
them
amongst
the
30
attendees
who
were
going
to
be
supporting
the
the
conservatives
that
they
were
going
to
be
coming
over
to
the
new
Democrats
and
it
that
that
age
group
typically
will
be
having
a
few
more
conservative
supporters
in
it.
L
But
it's
very
clear,
given
that
anecdotal
response
amongst
a
group
of
former
conservative
supporters
who
voiced
actual
cynicism
about
specifically
what
we're
talking
about
tonight,
Mr
chair,
that
they
felt
that
all
of
these
dollars
that
were
flowing
to
so
called
cushion
albertans
against
the
cost
of
utilities
and
so
forth,
were
very,
very
cynical
dollars
that
were
being
used
to
Curry
their
vote
to
to
buy
their
vote
and
people
were
turned
off
by
it.
They
they
see
this
so-called
conservative
social
contract
is
to
pay
pay
for
play
conserve
the
contract.
L
This
new
Prosperity
bonus
to
help
them
over
this
period
of
economic
difficulty,
something
that
in
2005
that
worked
for
Ralph
Klein.
They
see
it
for
what
it
is
once
again.
Mr
chair
is
a
cynical
attempt
to
buy
their
votes
and
that
interpretation
is
not
my
imagination,
Mr
chair,
that's
exactly
the
way.
L
It
was
being
told
to
me
at
that
dinner
last
week
at
in
my
constituency
by
seniors
who
were
in
their
70s
and
80s,
who
have
now
switched
their
allegiance
and
they're
not
going
to
be
voting
for
somebody
who
looks
to
buy
their
vote-
and
you
know
this.
This
bill
was
supposed
to
be
a
flagship.
Mr
chair,
the
flag
is
drooping.
The
flag
is
drooping
Mr
chair,
because
people
have
have
seen
through
it.
It's
a
it's,
a
limp,
Rag
and
they're.
Saying
thanks
for
the
know.
L
This
is
what
folks
are
saying
in
my
constituency
thanks
for
the
dough,
but
we're
not
selling
you
our
vote
this
time.
We
we
see
right
through
what
you're
doing
so.
History
seems
to
be
repeating
itself
in
one
respect,
Mr
chair
and
that
the
conservatives
are
trying
to
use
what
was
a
tried
and
true
tactic
spill,
a
bunch
of
cash
into
the
pockets
of
albertans
prior
to
an
election
and
in
an
implicit
contract
that
they
would
then
in
turn
be
rewarded
with
their
votes.
L
But
it's
not
something
Mr
chair
that
is
going
over
very
well
in
my
constituency
and
dare
I
say
in
many
others
that
I've
campaigned
in
and
canvassed
in
very
recently,
so
the
inflation
relief
statutes
Amendment
act
certainly
is
something
that
will
put
money
into
pockets
of
Burtons,
but
indeed
the
the
motivation
behind.
It
is
something
that
I
I
seriously.
Question
and
I
can
tell
this
house
Mr
chair
that
the
reward
that
the
conservatives
hope
to
Garner
from
this
money
is
not
going
to
be
there.
L
The
the
voting
part
at
the
end
of
the
rainbow
is
is
not
going
to
be
the
same.
That
was
a
reward
to
Mr
Klein
in
2005.,
people
are
fed
up
and
they
are
tired
of
being
treated
as
though
their
vote
could
be
bought
and
they
see
other
things
that
are
motivating
them
to
choose
to
put
their
vote
elsewhere
other
than
the
conservatives
and
I
think
this
is
a
concern
probably
to
conservative
members
across
the
way.
L
Yet
they
don't
seem
to
have
quite
gotten
the
picture
yet,
and
that
will
become
very
clear
when
repeated
attempts
such
as
Bill
2,
to
try
to
use
the
royalty
Surplus.
That's
filling
the
Alberta
coffers
right
now,
when
conservatives
try
to
use
that
that
cash
to
make
other
attempts
to
buy
the
votes
of
albertans
with
their
own
tax
dollars.
So
that's
something
that
I
think
that
the
the
conservatives
will
probably
fail
to
to
comprehend
over
time
and
I.
I
hope.
L
That
is
something
that
albertans
remember
over
the
next
next
five
six
months,
because
you,
you
will
see
it
very
clearly
Mr
chair.
In
my
estimation,
in
a
number
of
ways,
the
current
government
will
be
incessant
in
its
attempt
to
throw
money
at
albertans
in
hopes
of
currying
their
their
votes
in
the
next
in
the
next
election
and
I
I.
Sorry,
I'm
not
focusing
on
the
the
amount
in
specific
dollar
amounts,
but
that's
not
what
I
was
hearing
at
the
doors
they.
L
Basically
the
constituents
are
saying
to
me
whether
it's
the
electricity
rebates
or
or
whether
it's
the
elements
that
will
help
them
in
other
ways,
re-indexing
income
tax
system.
The
government
is
not
going
to
end
up
with
the
benefit
they
hope
to
receive,
and
that,
of
course,
would
be
a
political
payoff
by
getting
reelected
in
in
the
spring.
L
If,
indeed,
the
government
decides
to
hold
the
election
into
spring,
because
that's
something
that
I
was
asked
about
at
that
meeting
as
well
Mr
chair
what
what
are
the
rules
and,
of
course
the
rules
are
that
a
government
under
Canada's
Constitution
is
unable
to
hold
a
an
election
every
five
years,
and
that
is
something
that
people
are
speculating
about.
Will
this
Premier
decide
to
go
longer?
Should
it
benefit
her
politically,
of
course,
which
is
what
Bill
2
is
all
about
political
benefits.
So
with
that,
madam.
M
And
I
was
really
hoping
that
some
of
the
ministers
or
some
of
the
government
members
would
have
some
answers
for
the
questions
that
were
posed
last
week,
actually
and
so
just
to
maybe
refresh
their
memory.
I
just
got
a
copy
of
one
of
the
press
releases
that
were
sent
out
that
was
sent
out
talking
about
the
huge
difference
for
vulnerable
albertans
that
this
particular
piece
of
legislation
will
make
huge
remains
to
be
seen.
M
But
let's
talk
about
this,
so
the
one
bullet
under
under
the
part
where
it
says
if
Bill
2
passes
it
talks
about
inflation
relief
statutes,
Amendment
act
will
enable
key
affordability,
support
measures
through
legislation.
So
if
you
go
down,
the
second
bullet
says:
upcoming:
targeted
relief
payments
to
vulnerable
albertans,
collecting,
assured
income
for
the
severely
handicap,
H
persons
with
developmental
disabilities,
PDD
and
income
support.
So
those
are
three
programs
now
two
of
these
things
are
Income
replacement
programs.
M
We
know
this
right
assured
income
for
severely
handicapped
and
income
support,
so
both
of
those
programs
are
Income
replacement.
Pdd
persons
with
developmental
disabilities
actually
pays
for
staff,
and
so
what
the
question
was
ask
for
clarification.
Now
this
release
says
going
to
be
indexed
so
I'm,
assuming
that's
about
six
percent.
The
way
that
you're
talking
about
the
other
products.
M
But
what
does
that
mean?
Is
it
six
percent
overall
over
the
total
budget,
because
that's
about
a
billion
dollars?
Is
it
going
to
the
service
providers
or
is
it
going
to
the
staff?
Do
you
know
who
the
staff
are?
How
are
you
going
to
do
that?
So
if
anybody
over
there
has
any
answers,
if
this
was
an
error,
a
mistake,
that's
cool.
M
Maybe
you
could
just
explain
that
because
people
don't
understand
and
if
you
think
it's
just
me,
let
me
just
draw
your
attention
to
a
statement
that
was
made
from
validator
that
I'm
sure
government
has
used
before
and
that's
inclusion
Alberta
and
on
November
the
24th
they
put
out
a
release
and
they
asked
the
very
same
question
that
I'm
asking
what
on
Earth?
M
Does
this
mean
so
you've
indexed
PDD,
but
you
know
PDD
is
a
collection
of
contracts
that
either
go
to
families,
so
there
are
the
financial
administrators
or
they
go
to
service
providers,
both
non-profit
and
for-profit,
who
then
pay
staff.
So
what
does
this
mean?
What
are
you
indexing
where's,
this
money
going
who's
getting
it
because
I
would
suggest
most,
if
not
all,
people
that
are
on
PDD,
that
use
PDD
as
a
staff.
Support
are
already
on
age
or
Income
Support,
so
a
little
bit
confused.
M
Now
what
inclusion,
Alberta
further
said
and
I
started
to
talk
about
this
last
week
when
I
spoke
to
this
bill?
Was
that
what
this
bill
doesn't
do
I
mean
you
all
can
give
yourself
some
pat
on
the
back,
if
you
like
for
undoing
extraordinary
damage
that
you
did,
and
let
me
just
remind
everybody
in
this
place
for
the
last
few
years,
what
we've
heard
from
this
government
we've
heard:
it's
not
a
cot,
it's
not
a
cut,
it's
not
a
cut
yeah.
We
heard
that
for
years
it
most
definitely
is
a
cut.
M
We
also
heard
it's
the
most
generous
benefit
in
Canada.
It
is
not
even
if
it
was
the
most
generous
benefit
in
Canada.
It
is
still
below
the
poverty
line.
That
is
nothing
to
be
proud
of,
but
anyway,
going
back
to
the
statement
that
was
put
out
by
inclusion
Alberta
about
Bill
2
inflation
relief
statutes,
Amendment
act
2022.
They
said
what
this
government
failed
to
do
is
address
the
wait
list
so
sure
you
may
have
indexed
benefits,
but
what
you
failed
to
do
was
index
or
was
to
address
the
wait
list.
M
So
if
the
six
percent
of
PDD
is
actually
meant
to
to
provide
more
support
to
people,
that
would
be
a
good.
That
would
be
a
good
start,
but
you
have
to
clarify,
because
this
isn't
clear
in
the
bill.
It
is
not
clear
in
the
release
that
you
put
out
and
nobody's
really
answered
any
questions.
So
nobody
knows
so
perhaps
someone
could
stand
up
and
answer
the
question,
but
you
could
also
address
the
wait
list
now.
M
Here's
what
magically
happened
under
the
last
minister
is
there
used
to
be
a
wait
list
that
was
recorded
for
family
supports
for
children
with
disabilities.
Now
that
program
was
left
of
this
bill.
You
included
PDD,
which
is
for
people
over
18
with
disabilities,
but
you
neglected
to
include
fscd,
which
is
family
supports
for
children
with
disabilities,
so
I'm
not
entirely
sure
why
you're
indexing
one
program
that
pays
for
staff,
but
you're
not
indexing
the
other
program
that
pays
for
staff.
So
is
this
a
mistake?
Do
you
have
something
to
clarify?
M
M
This
can
go
on
for
a
long
time
to
me
that
means
you're
waiting
for
service.
That's
a
wait
list,
but
this
government,
this
UCP
government,
has
seen
fit
to
mess
around
with
how
they
call
how
they
label
people
waiting
to
something
else.
So
it
looks
like
they
have
nobody
on
a
waitlist
when
in
fact
they
have
a
massive
wait
list.
So,
if
I
look
at
PDD
the
open
data
now,
unfortunately,
this
government
doesn't
update
very
often
so
all
I
have
is
December
of
21..
M
If
you
add
up
all
the
categories
where
they
messed
around
with
the
titles
and
the
definition,
you
can
even
look
at
the
data
descriptions.
They
have
a
total
of
2608
people,
waiting
for
service
or
service
planning
caseload.
That's
PDD,
I'm!
Sorry,
if
you
made
a
mistake
with
PDD
and
that
six
percent
was
supposed
to
increase
the
services
that
you're
providing
to
people,
that's
not
going
to
cut
it.
Fscd
is
even
worse
that
wait
list
has
completely
vanished.
It's
called
something
altogether
different,
it's
called
in
planning
or
it's
called
implanting
waiting
for
a
service
provider.
M
All
that
means
is
that
the
children
are
eligible.
The
families
are
eligible,
they
have
applied.
They
have
gone
through
the
steps
that
they
need.
They
know
they
need
support,
they
need
support
now.
Early
intervention
key
is
early
they're
waiting
for
support,
they're,
not
getting
support,
that's
a
wait
list
and
there
are
over
4
000
families
that
are
on
those
wait
lists.
Now
you
don't
call
them
wait
lists,
but
those
families
are
still
waiting,
so
you've
got
2,
000
adults
waiting
and
you've
got
4,
000,
Children
and
Families
waiting.
That's
about
6
000
people.
M
Now,
if
you're,
six
percent
error
about
PDD-
and
you
accidentally
left
out
fscd
just
explain
that
just
amend
this
bill
fix
it
or
change
your
release.
Put
something
out.
You
have
clearly
made
a
mistake:
we've
tried
to
identify
it.
We've
asked
questions
hoping
for
answers.
Now's,
the
Time,
I
hope,
there's
somebody
here
that
has
some
information
or
has
some
understanding
you're
spending
over
two
billion
dollars.
M
I
would
hope
that
you
know
what
you're
spending
it
on
so
Mr
chair,
I'm,
going
to
take
my
seat
and
really
hope
that
someone
well
actually
I'm
going
to
adjourn
debate.
Thank
you.
B
Anybody
wishing
to
add
comments
or
questions
to
the
main
bill.
I
see
The
Honorable,
member
for
Calgary
Mountain
View
has
risen.
D
Thank
you
very
much
Mr
chair
and
I'm
thrilled
to
get
another
chance
to
speak
to
Bill
4,
because
I
think
it's
is
just
really
thematic
of
this
government
bill.
For
so
this
bill
is
a
bill
which
reverses
a
previous.
This
is
funny
I
feel
like
deja
vu
all
over
again.
D
This
bill
is
a
bill
that
refers
reverses
a
previous
decision
of
this
government,
so
the
UCP
chose
to
give
themselves
the
power
to
tear
up
a
contract
with
doctors.
Now.
D
I
happen
to
think
contracts
are
important,
I
think
the
World
Turns
on
people
making
promises
and
then
living
up
to
the
promises
that
they
made
and
in
this
case
I
think
people
includes
governments
I,
think
it
includes
corporations
I
think
it
includes
a
lot
of
things.
So
I
think
it's
incredibly
problematic
that
the
government,
the
UCP
government,
chose
to
tear
up
that
contract
with
doctors.
D
Yeah
I'm,
not
sure
that
there
are
enough
words
to
suggest
how
bad
of
a
decision
it
was
and
well
we
have
to
add
to
that
is
the
context.
So
it's
bad
to
break
your
word
at
any
time.
In
my
opinion,
in
this
case
it
was
particularly
bad
because
we
were
headed
into
a
pandemic.
The
moment
at
which
this
government
chose
to
attack
Physicians
was
as
we
headed
into
a
pandemic,
and
everybody
knew
what
was
happening.
D
It
wasn't
like.
We
were
surprised
by
what
was
going
on
and
in
addition
to
tearing
up
the
contract,
the
government
was
incredibly
disingenuous
in
its
Communications
with
the
public
in
the
way
it
used
language.
D
You
know
the
government's
chose
to
attack,
in
particular
practitioners
of
family
medicine,
so
Primary
Care,
yes,
I
did
in
fact
say
disingenuous.
That
was
the
word
I
used.
Thank
you
very
much
to
the
members
for
that,
and
it
was
a
word.
I
chose
very
carefully
I.
Think
it's
a
word
that
accurately
reflects
the
situation.
D
I
think
that
what
was
disingenuous
about
it
was
that
this
Government
tried
to
make
it
out,
like
doctors
were
abusing
the
public
purse
in
some
way
they
tried
to
make
it
out
like
not
like
they
were
in
the
wrong,
not
like
they
were
choosing
to
break
their
word
to
go
back
on
their
contract.
They
chose
to
make
it
out
like
somehow
doctors
were
doing
something
wrong
and
that
they
they
deserved.
What
the
government
was
doing
to
them
and
I
think
that
that
is
extremely
problematic.
D
I
mean
it's
bad
enough
to
make
a
decision
like
that,
it's
worse,
to
try
to
essentially
blame
the
victim
for
what
is
happening
and
I
think
you
know
those
those
Physicians
felt
the
weight
of
that
at
the
moment
when
they
were
being
asked
to
stand
on
the
front
lines
to
deal
with
a
disease
that
we
didn't
yet
understand.
That
was
killing
a
lot
of
people
that
was
sweeping
through
the
population
where
we
didn't.
We
didn't
know
what
to
do
yet.
We
didn't
have
protocols
in
place,
yet
we
didn't.
D
We
didn't
really
understand
how
to
make
ourselves
safe.
There
were
no
vaccines
yet
to
attack
the
very
people
that
that
were
essentially
standing
on
the
front
lines
for
us.
In
that
moment,
I
mean
I.
Think
it's
a
choice
that
history
will
always
remember.
D
It's
a
choice
that
history
will
always
remember
and
it
wasn't
it
didn't,
stop
there.
It
didn't
stop
there.
This
government
threatened
to
lay
off
nurses
as
soon
as
the
pandemic
was
over
nurses
that
were
in
a
massive
shortage
right
now,
just
to
be
clear,
they
threatened
to
lay
off
nurses
when
the
pandemic
was
over.
They
tried
to
roll
back
the
wages
of
respiratory
therapists
and
other
health
professionals.
D
I
mean
the
lives
of
albertans
were
at
stake,
and
people
were
on
the
front
lines,
and
this
government
attacked
the
people
that
were
standing
on
the
front
lines.
I
think
that
that
is
a
decision
that
the
public
will
remember
and
I
do
think
hold
on
I.
Do
think
that
the
Public's
I
don't
think
the
Public's
memory
of
this
will
be
undone
by
the
government's
reversal
of
this
bill,
and
certainly
the
damage
that
has
been
done
to
the
public
will
not
be
undone
by
the
government's
reversal
of
this
decision.
D
D
Nobody
wants
to
be
in
a
place
where
your
government
talks
about
you
like
that.
Nobody
wants
to
be
in
a
place
where
your
government
treats
you
like
that,
and
doctors
are
difficult
to
train.
It
is
very
expensive.
There
is
four
years
of
underground
in
four
years
of
medical
school
and
there's
internships
and
residencies.
D
It
is
difficult
to
create
a
doctor
and
they
are
people
we
need
I.
Think,
right
now
we
are
seeing
more
than
ever
how
much
we
need
them.
The
number
of
albertans
who
lack
a
primary
care
physician,
the
number
of
people
who
can't
get
treatment,
it's
incredibly
problematic.
D
We
we
need
them
very
much,
and
this
this
government
chased
them
away
now.
I'm
sure
they're
going
to
get
up
and
they're
going
to
tell
tell
us
how
that
didn't
happen.
But
the
thing
is
the
problem
with
facts
on
the
ground
is
that
people
know
them
right.
Doctors
wrote
to
us,
they
told
us
they
were
leaving.
They
told
us
the
reasons
why
they
were
leaving.
D
We
heard
from
doctors,
I
heard
from
doctors
talking
about
how
the
family
Residency
program
didn't
feel
on
the
first
attempt
for
the
first
time
in
Alberta,
the
the
family
residency
program
in
Alberta
didn't
fail,
I
heard
from
doctors
who
who
speak
to
medical
students
who
were
looking
at
going
out
of
Province.
It
was
incredibly
problematic
the
actions
of
this
government,
and
this
doesn't
reverse
that
it
doesn't
reverse
the
breach
of
trust.
It
doesn't
reverse
the
fact
that
Physicians
left
the
fact
that
nurses
left
when
this
government
attacked
them.
D
The
fact
that
I
have
no
doubt
that
other
health
professionals
left
as
a
result
of
the
actions
of
this
government,
none
of
that
is
reversed
and
it
leaves
Alberta
in
a
dire
situation
and
I
know
the
government
is
going
to
get
up
again
and
say:
oh
it's
not
so
bad.
You
know
you
had
to
wait
two
and
a
half
hours
outside
of
the
Children's
Hospital
in
the
snow
and
the
cold,
with
your
child
who's
struggling
to
breathe,
but
it's
not
so
bad
because
it's
like
that
other
places.
That
is
not
an
adequate
response.
D
It's
difficult
to
describe
the
level
on
which
that
is
not
an
adequate
response.
D
This
government
was
handed
the
best
health
care
system
in
the
country,
possibly
in
the
world,
and
now
it's
like
it
is
in
other
places.
Well,
Mr,
chair,
I,
don't
know
I'm
a
pretty
proud
albertan
myself,
I
like
it
to
be
better
than
it
is
in
other
places,
I
like
to
think
it's
better
I
like
I
liked
a
healthcare
system
that
was
better
so
I
think
that
you
know
this
thing
that
the
government
is
suggesting
that
you
know
the
Public's
concern
is
somehow
misplaced,
because
it's
like
that
other
places.
D
I
think
that
albertans
deserve
a
government
that
recognizes
the
damage
that
they
did
and
that
apologizes
and
I
really
think
that
if
there
is
one
thing
that
is
missing
from
this
bill,
which
I
will
say,
I
support
because
it
reverses
a
bad
decision
but
again
I
feel
like
I,
say
this
over
and
over
with
this
government.
But
it
can
be
a
yes,
and
maybe
this
bill
could
come
with
an
apology.
At
least
that
would
be
a
start.
D
It
wouldn't
undo
the
damage
that
was
done,
but
maybe
it
could
come
with
an
apology,
Maybe
this
government,
one
of
the
most
Canadian
things
you
could
do.
Maybe
this
government
could
stand
up
and,
while
reversing
their
decision
tell
the
people
of
this
province
that
they're
sorry
tell
the
doctors
that
they're
sorry
for
the
way
that
they
talked
about
them.
For
tearing
up
the
contract,
tell
the
people
of
the
province
that
they're
sorry
for
the
damage
that
was
done
to
our
health
care
System.
D
D
Writing
a
bill
to
let
yourself
tear
up
a
contract,
tearing
up
a
contract,
attacking
doctors,
attacking
nurses,
leaving
every
person
in
this
province
with
worse
Health
Care
than
when
they
came
in.
That
is
something
for
which
an
apology
ought
to
be
offered
and
I
think
that
this
government
should
do
that.
Thank
you.
A
E
Well,
thank
you.
Mr,
chair,
I,
appreciate
you
that
you
were
able
to
pick
me
out
of
so
many
members
that
are
standing
up
in
the
house
this
evening
to
speak
to
Bill
4,
but
I
luckily
got
the
call
here.
So
thank
you
very
much
for
that
that
opportunity.
E
E
At
the
point
where
I
was
thanking
the
minister
of
Health
for
bringing
the
bill
forward
to
reverse
again
what
I,
characterized
quite
honestly
as
a
bit
of
a
childish
tirade
by
the
former
minister
of
Health
by
tearing
up
the
contracts
with
Alberta
doctors
and
so
certainly
Bill
4-
is
the
right
move
to
try
to
restore
that
relationship
with
doctors.
E
A
little
bit
here
and
I
know
that
at
the
time
our
current
minister
of
Health
was
minister
of
Labor
and
so
I
I
think
for
a
decision
to
tear
up
that
contract
would
have
probably
maybe
thrown
up
some
red
flags
for
the
minister
of
Labor
at
that
time,
because,
as
we
know,
that
kind
of
course
of
action
in
any
kind
of
negotiations
usually
never
would
solve
anything,
and
so
I'm
wondering
you
know,
was
there
at
some
point
in
time.
E
Maybe
some
advice
to
the
former
minister
of
Health
hang
on.
This
might
not
be
a
really
good
idea.
It
might
not
be
productive.
You
might
want
to
hold
up
on
that
decision
and,
if
not
I
have
to
ask
there
must
have
been
somebody
either
within
the
government
bench
within
the
government.
Caucus
that
fought,
perhaps
tearing
up
the
contract
with
doctors
was
a
little
bit
too
extreme,
or
even
one
of
the
many
amazing
bureaucrats
that
that
the
government
has
access
to.
E
E
So
definitely
the
right
decision,
but
some
of
the
again
some
of
the
comments
that
I've
heard
you
know
even
before
Bill
4,
but
as
well
during
here
I,
would
like
to
challenge
the
the
health
Minister
just
a
little
bit
with
with
some
of
those
thought,
thoughts
that
have
been
expressed
and
so
I
think
the
first
one
I'm
going
to
bring
forward
to
is
around
some
of
the
comments
we've
heard
about
the
amount
of
money
that
Alberta
is
spending
on
Health
Care.
We've
heard
remarks
that
have
said
well.
E
We
are
spending
the
most
money
we've
ever
spent
in
the
history
of
Alberta,
on
on
Health
Care
and
so
I'm
happy
that
you're
spending
all
of
that
money
I'm
not
prepared
to
quite
say
that
it's
because
of
the
goodness
of
your
heart,
I'm
wondering
if
perhaps
maybe
one
of
the
reasons
we've
seen
an
increase
in
health
bending
is
because
of
population
growth
within
Alberta
and
and
so
I
did
a
little
bit
of
a
research
here
and
looking
back
in
you
know,
1998
Mr,
chair
you're,
probably
wondering
well
why
1998?
E
That
was
because
that
was
the
year
that
the
Calgary
General
Hospital
was
blown
up
and,
as
it
probably
should
have
been
a
very,
very
old
building.
It
was
at
end
of
life
way
too
much
money
to
probably
try
to
fix.
It
was
easier,
probably
just
to
demolish
it,
and
so
at
that
time
there
were
2.8
million
albertans
in
the
province.
E
As
we
know,
it
was
previous
to
1998
that
the
last
hospital
was
built
in
Alberta
and
so
fast
forwarding
now
to
and
I'm
picking
2019,
because,
of
course
we
had
an
election
at
that
point,
a
change
in
government
there
was
4.3
million
albertans,
which
looks
to
me
just
about
you
know
double
and
in
2022
we
have
4.4
million
albertans
in
the
province
and
so
I'm
wondering
if
population
growth
has
had
anything
to
do
with
this
need
to
increase
spending
in
health
care,
not
just
simply
because
there's
a
desire
to
want
to
look
like
we're
spending.
E
So
that
was
one
of
the
thoughts
I
want
to
challenge
there,
one
of
the
other
things
so
obviously
thinking
back
when
we
tore
up
the
contract
with
doctors
created
that
Strife
created
that
that
very
confrontational
atmosphere,
it's
what
I
like
to
call
a
disruptive
decision,
and
so
these
disruptive
decisions
didn't
just
stop
there
now,
one
of
the
ones
that
we've
just
recently
seen-
and
we
can
certainly
get
into
a
debate
about
it
at
another
time
around
this,
but
it
is
the
firing
of
the
entire
AHS
board
the
reason
I'm
referencing
that-
and
so
you
know,
part
of
you
know
my
past
days
when
I
was
a
little
bit
younger,
a
little
bit
fitter
I'm
playing
basketball,
one
of
the
things
that
I
always
notice,
coaches.
E
When
they
were
substituting
players,
they
never
ever
substituted
the
entire
line
at
once.
The
reason
they
did
that
was
because
it
was
too
disruptive.
You
lost
that
flow.
All
of
a
sudden.
You
have
five
players
coming
onto
the
court.
They
may
have
been
sitting
there
for
a
little
while
their
bodies
are
cold,
they're,
not
quite
up
to
speed,
as
the
guys
that
are
are
coming
off.
E
So
what
would
happen
is
you
would
have
a
couple
players
come
into
the
game
and
then
after
30
seconds,
45
seconds
or
so
another
stoppage
in
play,
the
coach
would
put
in
maybe
another
player
and
then
finally,
the
other
two
rotating
all
five
off
at
that
point,
and
so
I'm
wondering
if
the
health
minister
is
considered
that
by
the
entire
board
being
fired,
that
we
might
not
have
created
yet
another
type
of
disruptive
situation.
Here
we
know
that
a
couple
of
the
Medical
Health
officers
have
recently
resigned.
I'm
I,
must
admit.
E
I
am
very
curious
as
to
what
all
of
a
sudden
brought
that
up
that
the
two
of
them
would
resigned
the
same
period
of
time.
I,
don't
know
if
there's
any
kind
of
relation
to
the
firing
of
the
board,
but
clearly
they
felt
the
need
that
their
place
there
was
no
longer
viable
for
them,
and-
and
so
when
you
you
make
these
disruptive
decisions,
it's
usually
albertans
that
end
up
having
to
kind
of
literally
pay
the
price
for
that.
E
So
I'm
always
happy,
of
course,
to
hear
from
the
minister
of
Health
around
that,
and
you
know
again
I'm
genuinely
looking
for
for
answers
here.
This
is,
you
know,
Committee
of
the
whole,
and
we
get
the
chance
to
to
explore
those
kinds
of
things.
E
I
know
throughout.
You
know
trying
to
be
fiscally
responsible
and
one
of
the
things
that
decision
that
was
made
earlier,
which
the
current
health
Minister
you
know
decided
to
to
reverse
I'm.
Very
grateful
for
that.
I
brought
this
up
on
on
many
occasions
prior,
but
that
was
around
reducing
costs
for
Diagnostic
Imaging.
E
So
what
happened
was.
Is
there
was
a
call
to
do
that?
It's
going
to
save
us
a
bunch
of
money.
It
was
very,
very
clear
and
proven
from
the
physiotherapists
and
the
Chiropractic
professions
that
that,
indeed
was
not
the
case.
It
was
costing
the
province
more.
E
It
was
also
costing
albertans
not
only
in
money,
because
they,
if
they
needed
that
Diagnostic
Imaging,
they
either
had
to
go
pay
for
it
themselves,
or
they
would
have
to
go
to
their
own
doctor
to
get
that
Diagnostic
Imaging,
then,
hopefully,
those
that
paperwork
was
sent
back
to
the
chiropractor
or
the
physiotherapist,
for
instance,
and
then
hopefully
get
treatment
after
that,
and
so
quite
frankly,
that
was
a
bunch
of
red
tape
which
again
you
know,
I'm
glad
that
that
has
been
reversed
and
albertans
are
now
getting
care,
much
more
prompter
than
what
was
happening
under
that.
E
But
again,
you
know
a
bit
of
a
disruptive
decision.
All
you
know
seeking
trying
to
find
some
Financial
constraints
rather
than
actually
Consulting
with
those
with
those
professions.
E
So,
while
I
I'm
I'm
definitely
going
to
to
vote
in
favor
a
bill
for
proceeding,
as
I
said,
there
were
some
thoughts
that
I
did
want
to
to
share
with
the
minister
challenge
some
things
that
were
that
were
said
before.
E
My
hope
is
that
you
know,
should
cabinet,
be
looking
at
more
kinds
of
disruptive
decisions
that
perhaps
maybe
we'll
we'll
hear
the
opportunity
from
folks
that
actually
realize
that
might
be
a
problem
and
and
to
hopefully
stop
it
before
it
happens,
because,
as
We
Know,
this
whole
contract
tearing
up
didn't
work
out.
I.
Thank
the
minister
for
changing
that
and
trying
to
repair
that
relationship,
because
we're
going
to
need
it
going
forward.
E
I
know
you
like
to
mention
that
you
know
we
have
more
doctors
than
ever
on
the
list,
but
there's
a
difference
between
having
them
registered
to
practice
and
actually
practicing,
because,
if
we've
had,
if
we
actually
have
more
doctors
than
we
ever
have,
why
are
we
still
experiencing
challenges
within
the
system?
E
I
can
only
surmise
that
we
don't
have
as
many
actually
practicing
as
we
have
on
the
list
and
that's
certainly
the
feedback
that
I
have
received
but
appreciate
the
chance
to
expand
on
a
couple
of
the
other
items
that
I
missed
in
that
first
minute
and
a
half
that
I
had
at
second
reading
and
I
look
forward
to
any
further
debate
here
on
Bill
4th.
Perhaps
I
might
even
jump
up
with
some
more
ideas
and
thoughts.
G
So
as
we
consider
bill
for
the
Alberta
Health
Care
insurance
Amendment
act,
I
have
to
say
that
I
do
want
to
say
that
every
albertan
deserves
to
have
the
right
care
and
the
right
place
at
the
right
time,
and
while
that
was
consistently
our
goal,
while
we
were
in
government
just
a
few
years
ago,
although
it
feels
like
a
lot
longer
some
days,
it
doesn't
seem
that
that
has
been
the
goal
of
the
current
government.
We
know
how
headstrong
they
were.
I
was
trying
to
think
of
something
parliamentary
to
say,
I.
G
Think
headstrong
is
parliamentary
in
in
trying
to
attack
in
erode
Public
Health,
Care
and
the
way
that
they
dealt
with
Physicians
was
one
key
piece
among
that
and,
of
course,
the
relationship
with
the
patient
Health
home
with
the
the
primary
care
provider
with
the
physician
family
physician
was
incredibly
problematic
and
it
included
a
specific
incidents,
including
yelling,
at
doctors
in
their
driveway,
as
well
as
more
General
incidents
of
the
type
of
disrespect
that
was
seen
at
the
bargaining
table
and
through
this
house
through
legislation
that
was
brought
in.
G
So
it
is
a
significant
concern
for
many
albertans
I
think
that
the
current
government
could
have
taken
this
opportunity
through
a
government
bill
to
bring
forward
something
that
would
have
resulted
in
improved
outcomes
for
patients.
Maybe
something
like
was
proposed
by
a
private
member
for
Edmonton
Strathcona,
the
leader
of
his
Majesty's
official
opposition
around
having
specific
benchmarks
and
metrics
and
guarantees
for
the
people
of
Alberta
in
terms
of
making
sure
that
we
are
actually
making
improvements
to
the
Health
Care
System.
G
But
instead
what
we
have
here
is
a
quite
thin
Bill
to
undo
some
of
the
harm
that
they
brought
in.
In
the
first
place
just
a
couple
of
years
ago,
so
it
definitely
isn't
kind
of
sweeping
Improvement
that
I
think
most
albertans
would
expect,
but
it
is
a
small
bill
that
does
undo
a
very
small
piece
of
the
harm
that
the
current
government
already
caused.
So
I
guess
with
that
that
I
can
speak
and
support
and
we'll
vote
accordingly.
Thank
you.
B
N
I
Thank
you,
Mr
Speaker,
the
committee
of
the
whole
has
under
consideration
certain
bills.
The
committee
reports
the
following
Bill
Bill
four,
the
committee
reports,
progress
on
the
following
Bill
Bill,
2.
Mr,
Speaker
I,
wish
to
table
copies
of
all
amendments
considered
by
the
committee
of
the
whole
on
this
date
for
the
official
records
of
the
assembly.
P
A
terrible
Minister
of
Justice
well,
thank
you,
Mr,
chair,
Mr,
Speaker
and
pleased
to
be
able
to
rise
and
to
move
through
Reading
of
Bill.
Three
I.
First
just
want
to
thank
the
the
member
for
Highwood,
the
the
now
minister
of
mental
health
and
addiction,
and
all
those
who
served
on
the
the
committee
for
the
select
special
committee,
for
you
know,
property
rights
and
for
their
recommendations,
their
various
recommendations.
P
This
is
one
of
the
the
recommendations
that
government
proceed
with
the
great
work
that
was
done
by
that
committee,
but
as
well
by
the
Alberta
law
reform
Institute
that
recommended
in
April
2020
that
adverse
possession
be
abolished
and
as
well
Mr
Speaker
some
of
the
the
work
that
was
done
by
the
law,
reform,
Institute
and
and
others
who
had
engaged
albertans
for
for
many
years
and
a
shout
out
as
well
to
Ken
Allred,
who
previously
had
proposed
abolishing
adverse
possession
and
his
private
members
bill
in
in
2012..
P
It's
taken
this
long,
though,
for
for
this
to
to
get
to
this
point,
but
thank
you
to
Ken
for
starting
the
conversation.
He
had
been
a
passionate
advocate
for
abolishing
average
possession
in
his
career
as
a
land
surveyor,
for
he
says
50
years,
but
some
of
the
the
feedback
that
was
received
by
albertans
and
the
concerns
that
people
had
with
adverse
possession
and
wanted
to
abolish
it.
I'll
advise
the
house
through
you,
Mr
chair,
whoever
holds
title
to
the
land
should
be
entitled
to
keep
it.
P
No
one
should
be
able
to
take
Land
from
the
person
who
paid
for
it
and
one
respondent
who
who
sent
in
to
one
survey.
Adverse
possession
is
theft
and
the
law
should
not
reward
bad
behavior
and
we're
very
pleased,
Mr
Speaker,
to
have
now
a
piece
of
legislation
to
amend
the
Land,
Titles
Act,
the
law
of
property
Act
and
the
limitations
act
for
the
act
of
of
advert
or
the
practice
of
adverse
possession
to
be
abolished
in
the
province
of
Alberta.
P
L
Thank
you
very
much
Mr
Speaker
pleasure
to
rise
and
speak
to
Bill
3
on
third
reading
this
evening
and
of
course,
I
have
always
enjoyed
the
debate
whenever
it
was
around
the
topic
of
land
and
property
rights
in
this
province.
L
Having
been
a
member
of
the
Alberta
Real
Estate
Association
for
over
30
years
in
an
active,
real
estate
career
and
of
course,
I
can
tell
you,
Mr
Speaker
that
this
issue
of
of
colloquially
is
called
squatters
rights
or
adverse
possession
has
been
something
that
has
been
discussed
in
real
estate
circles
since
I
had
was
a
realtor
for
the
first
time
in
1980s
and
before
then
it's
been
a
debated
topic
and
finally
we're
getting
around
to
getting
rid
of
it
as
a
right
in
out
in
Alberta.
L
So
it's
something
we
support
here
on
this
side
of
the
house.
Finally,
abolishing
squatters
rights.
It
was
something
that
was
actually
a
correction
to
Bill
206
that
UCP
brought
forward
in
2020,
which
really
failed
to
address
many
of
the
concerns
that
albertans
had
been
calling
for,
and
we
will
be
watching
Mr
Speaker
for
some
matters
that
may
not
be
fully
enveloped
or
encompassed
by
this
legislation's,
Bill,
3
and,
of
course,
I'm
speaking
right
now
about
the
effect
upon
treaty
rights
that
this
legislation
may
have.
L
Whether
or
not
the
consultation
really
revolved
closely
with
indigenous
population
to
arrive
at
a
spot
where
they
felt
the
treaty
rights
were
properly
protected
under
this
legislation,
and
we
will
continue
our
conversations
with
the
individual
indigenous
leaders
to
ensure
that
they
see
no
conflicts
in
the
operation
of
this
bill.
Should
it
pass
this
evening
or
in
future
sittings
of
this
house.
L
The
problem
is
that
we
may
see
individuals
who
are
malicious
in
their
intent,
taking
it
upon
themselves
to
drag
out
this
negotiation
process
in
every
way,
shape
and
form,
so
that
Mr
Speaker
is
something
that
I
think
we
are
very,
very
much
going
to
be
paying
close
attention
to,
because
we
don't
want
to
have
individuals
who
would
still,
for
all
intents
and
purposes
be
making
claims
or
or
acting
as
if
they
they
still
own
the
land.
L
L
They
underlying
concern
that
I
always
have
with
respect
to
property
rights
is,
of
course,
the
Alberta
land
titles
registration
system
that
we
hold
so
dear
in
this
province,
especially
those
who
are
practitioners
in
the
industry,
whether
it
be
Realtors,
whether
it
be
property
managers,
whether
it
be
real
estate
lawyers,
mortgage
companies,
Banks
appraisers,
you
name
it
Mr
Speaker.
Anybody
in
the
province
relies
upon
a
fully
functioning
and
up-to-date
land
titles
registration
system,
which,
of
course,
we
do
not
have
at
this
point
in
time
now.
L
Mr
Speaker
we're
looking
at
months
rather
than
weeks
for
registration
time.
In
this
province-
and
that
is
a
very,
very
large
cost
to
the
economy
of
the
province,
a
fundamental
backbone
of
an
economy
is
the
ability
to
transact
in
land
and
if,
indeed,
there's
a
hold
up
time
lag
on
the
registration,
it
could
cost
money
for
everybody.
There's
there's
potentially
interest
on
the
unpaid
balance
until
registration
is
achieved.
If,
indeed,
there
is
a
system
of
ensuring
the
land
title.
There's
cost
of
insurance
that
companies
and
individuals
have
to
undergo.
L
That
uncertainty
created
by
the
lack
of
investment
over
a
long
period
of
time
in
the
Land,
Titles
infrastructure,
computer
infrastructure,
as
well
as
the
recent
firing
of
many
of
the
individuals
who
worked
at
Land,
Titles
and
now
rehiring
by
this
government
to
try
to
catch
up
because
they
created
a
backlog
as
a
result
of
that
is,
is
com
combined
to
create
a
a
an
unhealthy
delay
in
a
Land
Title
system
and
it
shakes
the
confidence
of
business
communities
in
what
has
been
historically
a
very,
very
proud
system
of
land
registration.
No
Mr
Speaker.
L
When
I
began
my
real
estate
career
in
1985,
we
were
still
dealing
then
with
a
paper
system.
And
now
you
go
to
the
brownly
building
on
97th
Street
and
fill
out
a
three-piece
carbon
form
to
order
a
land
title
and
I
think
it
cost
a
buck
or
two
then
now
they're
up
to
10
or
12
dollars.
But
we've
did
that
transpire
or
transform
into
a
computer
system.
But
it's
it's
still
very,
very
archaic.
L
Mr
Speaker
I
think
most
albertans
would
be
shocked
to
know
that
it's
a
system
that
actually
shuts
down
over
the
weekends
and
after
a
certain
time
at
night,
you
can't
buy.
Can
you
imagine
you
know,
Staples
or
or
a
Costco,
we're
shutting
down
their
their
store
their
online
purchases
overnight?
It
doesn't
happen
and
it
shouldn't
happen
with
the
land
titles
registration
system,
Mr
Speaker,
but
it
does
because
the
system
was
archaic.
L
The
the
the
hardware
is
in
need
of
updating
this
and
we
need
a
revamping
of
our
computer
system
and
it's
the
Spin
2
system,
which
is
the
the
means
by
which
people
search
for
Land
Titles
is
something
that
is
underrated
and
undervalued
and
is
certainly
under
maintained
and
and
under
modernized
and
I
would
hope
to
see
that
rectified
in
the
very
near
future.
L
We
have
particularly
real
estate
lawyers
and
corporate
lawyers
tearing
their
Herald,
because
it's
taking
months
for
a
land,
titled
transaction
or
registration
happened
at
Land
Titles
and
even
though
there
have
been
some
instruments
of
title
insurance
made
available
and
including
the
Western
protocol
that
lawyers
use
to
close
transactions
they're
reaching
the
end
of
their
rope.
Their
end
of
their
capacity
to
do
that,
and
there
are
some
of
the
title-
insurance
companies,
Mr
Speaker,
which
you're
saying
no
more.
L
L
This
critical
delay
that
we're
suffering
right
now,
which
is
largely
caused
by
themselves
by
getting
rid
of
a
lot
of
the
Land
Titles
staff
and
now
hiring
back
I'm,
hoping
they're
not
going
to
use
that
delay
here,
Mr
Speaker
to
try
to
privatize
the
land
titles
registration
system.
So
as
part
of
the
comment
that
I
have
on
the
property,
Rights
Amendments
act,
I
I
suggest
that,
while
abolishing
squatters
rights
is
certainly
something
that
has
been
a
long-standing
desire
of
of
practitioners
in
the
real
estate
industry
and
I
think
to
pretty
much
everybody.
L
Because
it's
an
Antiquated
instrument.
There
have
been
other
things
that
we
we
look
forward
to
seeing
in
the
real
estate
World
in
Alberta,
and,
of
course
one
of
them
is
the
land
titles
registration
system,
modernization
that
can't
come
soon
enough,
as
well
as
the
along
with
the
bill.
3
changes
that
will
abolish
the
adverse
possession,
and
you
know
one
of
the
things
that
we've
seen
in
whether
it
be
corporate
registrations
or
in.
L
Residential
real
estate
contracts
is
that
most
of
the
adverse
possession
claims
or
the
the
disputes
which
took
place
were
not
necessarily
malicious
disputes.
L
One
recent
example
near
the
end
of
my
real
estate
career.
Well,
it
happened
at
an
acreage
property
Mr
Speaker
everywhere
a
well
a
water,
well
appeared
on
the
real
property
report
of
a
property.
I
had
listed
for
sale
and
it
was
in
an
odd
location
quite
near
the
property
line
of
the
neighboring
property
and
far
away
from
the
house
that
I
was
about
to
list
for
sale
and
I
asked
the
landowner
whose
listing
I
was
about
to
take
I
said.
Why
is
that
well
over
there?
L
L
Well,
you're
gonna
have
to
deal
with
that
now
because
you're
selling
the
property
and
if
indeed,
you
want
to
sell
it,
you're
going
to
have
to
get
some
kind
of
agreement
entered
into
with
the
the
person
who
put
that
well
in
the
property,
because
they're
relying
that
well
for
their
water
for
their
acreage
property
and
the
current
owner
and
their
lawyer
or
the
sorry.
The
the
prospective
buyer
and
their
lawyer
are
going
to
have
some
real
issues
about
liability.
With
respect
to
that.
Well,
and
you
may
have
some
real
trouble
selling
this
property.
L
So
those
are
the
types
of
inadvertent
errors
that
have
had
to
have
been
dealt
with
and
we're
sort
of
lumped
in
with
the
more
malicious
and
sort
of
newsworthy
stories
of
adverse
possession,
but
Luisa.
These
are
the
the
lingering
compensation
matters
that
I
referred
to
earlier
in
my
remarks,
where
it's
very
concerning
as
to
how
indeed,
the
the
two
parties,
the
land
owner
who
wishes
to
sell
the
property
to
somebody
and
the
individual
who,
in
this
case,
built
that.
L
Well,
how
will
they
come
to
terms
that
are
mutually
agreeable
to
compensate
either
the
person
for
the
well
or
perhaps
have
the
individual
give
up
rights
to
the
well
there's
a
number
of
ways
things
like
that
can
be
dealt
with,
but
you
may
have
a
willing
party
who's
Cooperative
or
you
may
have
somebody
whose
ones
that
rag
their
feet
and
it
could
cause
that
landowner.
Who
is
fighting
the
adverse
possession
claima
or
the
compensation
claim
from
that
individual
who
had
a
historic
adverse
possession
claim
on
that
land?
L
L
We
certainly
on
this
side
of
the
house
will
be
watching
very
closely
to
what
what
transpires
with
respect
to
these
negotiations
and
if
we
are
seeing
a
a
number
of
claims
and
disputes
that
seem
to
be
going
unresolved,
with
incessant,
malicious
behavior
on
the
part
of
some
claimants
and
trying
to
extend
their
compensation
to
avoid
having
to
do
anything
at
all.
L
Then
we
would
like
to
see
that
issue
addressed
in
this
legislature,
so
I
think
there
may
be
others
Mr
Speaker,
who
wish
to
address
their
concerns
and
or
make
comments
with,
in
fact
to
this
bill.
So
I'll
take
my
seat
and
look
forward
to
that.
That
comment.
N
Thank
you,
Mr
Speaker.
It's
a
pleasure
to
rise
again
after
a
committee
the
whole
week
from
yesterday
to
address
Bill,
3
property
rights,
statutes,
Amendment,
act
2022
or
what
I
like
to
think
of
is
the
abolition
of
adverse
possession,
which
has
been
something
under
discussion
in
this
chamber
for
a
number
of
years.
N
I
wanted
to
take
an
opportunity.
Actually
there's
been
a
lot
of
work
done
on
this
through
the
years
on
both
sides
of
the
house
and
I
wanted
to
thank
everyone
who
has
done
so,
but
I
think
it
would
be
remiss
of
us
not
to
mention
the
Alberta
law
reform,
Institute,
Senator,
Peterson
and
Stella
varvis,
who
have
done
some
great
work
on
this
and
made
many
recommendations
through
the
years
for
the
abolition
of
adverse
possession
that
took
us
a
little
while
to
get
around
to
in
this
house.
Property
rights
Advocate
has
done
considerable
work
on.
N
It
has
made
many
recommendations
as
well,
and
those
recommendations,
of
course,
were
brought
through
the
resource
stewardship
committee,
who
also
made
numerous
recommendations
for
us
to
abolish
adverse
possession.
Finally,
ending
up
with
my
colleague
from
from
Highwood,
who
chaired
the
special
select
committee
on
Wheel
property
rights,
again
with
a
recommendation
for
us
to
finally
abolish
adverse
possession.
Surprise
that
we're
getting
there
I
mentioned
the
other
night.
N
That
I
was
brought
into
the
idea
and
the
whole
issue
of
adverse
possession
through
one
of
my
constituents
and
I
said
in
my
previous
speech
that
it
is
time
now,
but
it's
too
late
for
Jim
mcindo.
Who
was
my
constituent
who
brought
this
to
my
attention
in
2016.
because
he
lost
about
140
000
of
his
Urban
property
Suburban
property
because
of
a
fence
in
the
wrong
place.
N
Next
to
to
a
neighbor
who,
as
I
said
before,
maybe
did
not
exercise
the
best
Good
Neighbor
policy
and
when
he
said
we
should
rebuild
the
fence
and
put
on
the
right
property
line.
I
was
served
with
a
a
adverse
possession
claim
of
adverse
possession
on
that
property,
which
can
happen
to
any
of
us
because
I
bet
you
there's
not
a
lot
of
fences
in
an
urban
environment
that
are
actually
in
exactly
the
right
spot
and
you
pull
the
fence
post
out.
N
You
put
a
new
fence
in,
and
the
survey
error
is
not
called
in,
so
maybe
a
reminder
to
us
to
check
those
real
property
ports
to
possibly
occasionally
get
a
landsaver
surveillance,
if
you're
not
sure
where
those
are
and
drop
those
pins
back
back
in
that
maybe
have
been
buried
for
30
40
years
and
make
sure
that
you
know
where
your
fence
line
is
also
to
watch
out.
I.
Think
as
it
was
mentioned
by
The
Honorable
member,
opposite
that
those
improvements
when
you're
making
improvements,
make
sure
it's
on
your
land.
N
I
think
we
can
solve
this
problem,
because,
if
you're
going
to
do
improvements,
make
sure
it's
on
your
land
make
sure
that
you've
got
the
real
property
report
and
the
surveys
to
prove
it.
And
before
you
do
those
improvements.
Yes,
there
can
be
some
extenuating
and
some
some
unusual
circumstances,
but
quite
frankly,
when
I
see
what
happened
to
my
constituent,
Jim
mcindoe
in
that
particular
circumstance,
I'm
willing
to
take
the
risk
that
they
can
sort
that
out
with
the
improvements
on
those
lands
in
a
Equitable
manner.
N
N
In
my
case,
for
my
constituent
I
know,
he's
going
to
be
happy
to
hear
and
I
hope
we
can
pass
this
bill
tonight
here
and
get
this
moving
forward
again
too
late
for
him
too
late
for
many
others.
But
let's
make
sure
that
this
egregious
piece
of
legislation
can
no
longer
harm
hard-working
law-abiding
law,
land
owning
citizens
in
this
province
and
I
just
say
this
is
not
inadvertent.
N
These
some
of
these
are
very,
very
deliberate
moves
to
take
somebody
else's
land
and
it's
very
sad
that
that
happens,
we'd
like
to
think
that
we're
pretty
good
neighbors
in
this
in
this
province,
but
that
is
not
always
the
case
and
they're.
Unfortunately,
when
there's
legal
remedies
and
ramifications
ramifications
of
that,
that's
a
problem.
Lastly,
as
was
mentioned
by
the
the
minister
former
MLA
Ken
Allred,
the
former
MLA
for
Saint
Albert,
he
was
brought
a
motion
forward
in
2011,
which
actually
passed
in
the
legislature
was
was
not
enacted
upon.
N
He
had
private
members
built
two
thousand
or
204
in
2012
that
was
was
died
after
second
reading
due
to
Pro
roguing
recognized
Pat
steer
from
Livingston
McLeod,
who
brought
forward
also
another
bill
204
in
2017.,
so
in
2018
I
was
able
to
bring
forward
another
bill
204
and
that
was
sort
of
punted
down
the
road
and
pushed
back
to
more
research
and
more
study.
So
Mr
Speaker,
it's
time
it's
past
time
for
some,
unfortunately,
a
little
late
for
others.
But
it's
time
for
us
to
pass
this
bill.
N
H
Thank
you,
Mr
Speaker.
It's
a
pleasure
to
rise
in
third
reading
of
Bill
3
the
property
rights
amendment
act.
I
simply
wanted
to
add
my
voice
to
the
to
the
colleagues
across
the
aisle
and
and
here
on
our
side
as
well,
shout
out
to
the
member
from
Edmonton
McClung
for
his
very
thoughtful
comments.
He
has
a
lot
of
experience
with
respect
to
these
issues
and
I
appreciate
it
very
much.
H
Last
week,
Mr
alwed
reached
out
to
me
and
thanked
me
for
my
comments
and
I
had
the
great
opportunity
today
to
actually
meet
Ken
Allred
in
person
at
the
reception
for
former
and
current
mlas,
and
it
was
a
pleasure
to
meet
him
and
I
want
to
thank
him
for
his
persistence
on
these
issues
and
for
bringing
forward
his
thoughtful
admissions
to
the
committee
as
well,
and
I
also
want
to
take
this
opportunity
to
thank
the
Alberta
law
reform
Institute
because,
as
you
may
recall,
Mr
Speaker
the
form
former
Minister
of
Justice
and
solicitor
general
under
the
NDP
government
had
reached
out
to
the
Alberta
law
reform
Institute
for
their
thoughts
and
recommendations
as
to
how
to
implement
legislatively
changes
to
remove
adverse
possession.
H
And
what
would
the
what
the
recommendations
were
on
how
to
do
that
thoughtfully
across
pieces
of
legislation?
And
of
course,
they
brought
forward
a
very
thoughtful
long,
137
page
I
believe
report
as
to
how
to
properly
you
know,
amend
legislation
in
Alberta
to
really
bring
us
up
to
speed
with
where
other
provinces
across
Canada
have
been
in.
Ensuring
that
we
have
a
very
clear
process
for
dealing
with
disputes
related
to
improvements
that
are
made
by
somebody
on
land.
H
That
is
not
the
registered
lab
but,
of
course,
most
more
importantly,
to
ensure
that
albertans
can
be
assured
that
that
their
rights
to
their
property
are
Undisputed
and
are
not.
You
know,
are
not
affected
by
somebody
who
may
have
been
making
use
of
the
land
without
having
the
proper
right
to
do
so
for
years
at
a
time,
so
removing
the
limitations
act
clarifying
the
process
under
Section
69
of
the
act
and
really
just
making
it
very
clear
after
thoughtful
consultation
as
well
with
albertans
who
are
who
have
raised
this
issue
for
some
time.
H
It
is
a
pleasure
for
us
to
speak
in
favor
and
support
the
good
work
that's
been
done
and
to
thank
all
those
who
contributed
to
making
sure
that
this
bill
was
finally
ready
and
with
that
Mr
Speaker,
I
I
I'm
pleased
to
say
that
we
will
I'll
be
supporting
Bill,
three
and
third
reading
and
I
encourage
my
colleagues
to
do
so
as
well.
So
thank
you
very
much.
Mr
Speaker
are.
Q
There
others
seeing
none
I,
am
prepared
to
call
the
minister
to
close
the
base.
Honorable
members,
The
Honorable,
the
Minister
of
Justice
justice,
has
moved
Bill.
Three
property
rights,
statutes,
Amendment
act
2022
at
third
reading,
all
those
in
favor,
please
say
aye
any
opposed.
Please
say
no,
my
opinion,
the
eyes
have
it
that
motion
is
carried
and
so
ordered.
R
Thank
you,
Mr
Speaker,
it's
an
honor
to
be
here
with
this
evening
and
honor
to
be
with
all
the
members
as
well
I
Rise
to
move
second
reading
of
Bill
7
miscellany
statutes,
Amendment
act,
2022
number,
two,
just
a
couple
details
of
members
above
build
number
seven.
It
proposes
some
amendments
needed
as
a
result
of
the
government.
Reorganization,
the
good
bill
amends
97
acts,
97
Mr
Speaker,
the
Amendments
fall
into
three
categories:
first,
category
direct
updates
to
minister
Department
titles,
for
example,
Minister
of
Justice
and
solicitor
general
is
now
updated
to
Minister
of
Justice.
R
Second,
adding
and
updating
definitions
to
eliminate
the
need
to
refer
to
specific
titles,
for
example,
adding
definition
of
the
minister
that
refers
to
the
minister
responsible,
as
per
the
government
organization
act
and,
lastly,
certainly
not
least
other
ad
hoc
changes
directly
related
to
changes
in
titles
and
responsibilities,
for
example,
updating
wording
to
eliminate
an
outdated
reference
to
a
minister
or
department,
but
not
substituting
an
updated
title.
We
have
consulted
with
the
official
opposition
as
per
custom
and
therefore
recommended
all
mlas
in
this
chamber
swiftly
pass
the
second
reading
of
Bill
number
seven.
Thank
you.
J
All
right
what
an
absolute
honor
to
rise
and
speak
to
Bill,
seven,
the
miscellaneous
statutes,
Amendment
act
2022.,
you
know
what
I
actually
I
I'm
through
through
the
chair.
I
was
just
asked
by
a
member
from
Carson
City.
If
I'd
read
it,
I
actually
do
have
it
open
on
my
laptop
and
I
have
to
say
yes,
this
is
absolutely.
This
is
absolutely
a
miscellaneous
statutes.
Amendment,
that's
that!
That's
for
sure.
J
You
know
what's
interesting,
it's
hard
to
follow
that
that
commentary
on
second
reading,
but
what's
interesting,
is
the
the
main
reason
for
Bill.
Seven
is
due
to
the
fact
that,
under
this
new
premiere,
this
cabinet
is
the
largest
in
recent
history.
A
J
Exactly
you
know
what-
and
this
is
this
is
truly
a
dramatic
expansion
of
of
cabinets.
You
know,
and
because
of
that,
because
of
that,
it's
not
just
a
change
in
title,
which
you
see
multiple
times
throughout
Bill
seven,
it
comes
with
pay
increases,
oh
budgetary
adjustments,
wow
Staffing
changes,
cars,
legislative
assignments
and
to
to
paraphrase
a
journalist
from
the
Calgary
son
Ricky
long.
He
said
that
everyone's
a
VIP
in
in
Smith
government,
but
unfortunately
there
are
a
few
that
that
aren't.
C
G
J
Of
them,
oh,
my
apology,
sorry
I
was
just
getting
so
passionate.
Thank
you.
Mr
Speaker
I
would
not
want
to
say
a
name,
but
the
point
being
and
in
all
seriousness
here
most
of
this
bill
bill
7
would
not
be
necessary
if
it
weren't
for
this
premier's
bloated
cabinet.
J
You
know
this
government,
in
its
reallocation
of
Duties
and
and
Collective
back
padding
forgot
to
assign
certain
key
pieces
of
legislation
to
a
minister.
In
fact,
you
know,
we've
tried
there
were
a
few
times
that
we
were
trying
to
figure
out
who
was
responsible
for
what
and
it
was
awfully
awfully
confusing
and
I'm
not
sure
could
be
wrong,
I'm,
not
sure,
actually,
if
they're
totally
certain
who's
in
charge
of
what.
So,
but
again
when
you
have
the
largest
cabinet
in
recent
history,
I
can
understand
that
there
would
be.
There
would
be
some
confusion.
J
So
again,
not
only
do
they
have
the
largest
cabinet
in
recent
history.
They
failed
to
do
the
one
key
step
in
assigning
all
pieces
of
legislation
to
a
relevant
Minister,
but
you
know
Ricky,
government,
one-time
government,
I'm
sure
you
know
one
of
the
things
was
actually
really
interesting
because
I'm
thinking
about
my
colleague
from
Edmonton
Mill
Woods
is
the
fact
that
for
weeks
it
was
just
one
example:
there
was
no
Minister
responsible
for
the
labor
code.
What
wow
that's
big
right
or
the
occupational
health
and
safety
act?
What
no
Frank!
That's.
J
L
J
J
J
Right
I
mean
along
with,
along
with
what
was
it
again:
11
parliamentary
Securities
secretaries,
27
11,
but
no
you're
right
to
the
member
from
St
Albert
11
parliamentary
secretaries,
but
not
not
one
for
francophone
albertans
who
we
know
are
key
stakeholder
in
this
province
and
should
be
acknowledged.
Two
Deputy
premiers
I
know
I
mentioned
that
earlier,
but
thought
I'd
get
it
on
the
record
again
and
of
course
27
ministers.
J
J
I
made
the
point:
I've
made
my
point
quite
clear
that
Bill
seven,
while
we
will
agree
to
pass
it
much
of
this
bill
would
not
be
necessary
if
it
weren't
for
the
incompetence
and
the
fiscal
irresponsibility
of
a
government
that
insisted
on
having
the
largest
cabinet
in
recent
history.
Thank
you,
Mr
here.
Q
R
I
will
be
briefly
closing
debate
based
on
the
remarks
from
the
member
from
Imogen
Highlands
Norwood.
This
must
be
the
most
controversial
miscellany
statutes.
Amendment
act,
I
have
ever
heard
introduced
in
this
chamber.
The
reality
is
Mr
Speaker.
The
premier
has
done
a
wonderful
job
managing
this
government,
since
she
was
elected
as
leader
and
has
chosen
a
cabinet,
she
feels
will
take
us
forward
and
to
continue
serving
albertans
in
the
best
manner
possible.
R
I'm,
not
sure
why
the
members
officer
heckling
this
is
this
is,
but
in
any
event,
I
will
simply
close
by
saying
I
reject
almost
in
a
whole.
What
the
member
from
Evans
and
how
the
north
was
said
about
this
bill
and
I
encourage
all
members
to
support
it
and
I
suspect,
without
trying
to
presuppose
the
outcome
that
they
will
so
I'm,
not
sure
how
that
all
those
comments
were
necessary
but
appreciate
the
participation
and
without
a
close
debate.
Q
Honorable
members,
The
Honorable,
the
government,
Health
leader,
has
moved
second
reading
of
Bill
7th
the
miscellaneous
statutes.
Amendment
act,
2022
number,
two,
all
those
in
favor
of
the
motion
for
second
reading,
please
say
aye
any
opposed.
Please
say
no,
in
my
opinion,
the
eyes
have
a
demotion
is
carried
and
so
ordered
your
option.
P
Thank
you,
Mr
Speaker,
and
thank
you
for
the
opportunity
for
me
to
rise
and
and
be
able
to
speak
with
a
new
speech
from
the
throne.
I
was
inspired
to
be
able
to
rise
with
the
the
passing
of
Hurley
Majesty
the
queen
recently
and
and
look
even
before
her
passing
Mr
Speaker
for
years
before
her
passing
folks
through
the
Commonwealth
had
speculated
that,
perhaps
with
her
passing.
P
If
it
ever
did
happen
that
there
might
be
a
growing
interest
or
appetite
in
republicanism
in
in
the
Commonwealth,
and
indeed
we
have
seen
those
conversations
as
well.
We
have
seen
protests
in
this
province
that
that
I
saw
alarming
with
flags
of
saying
Republic
of
Alberta.
I
think
that
our
friends
opposite
I
hope
wouldn't
consider
me
to
be
uncharitable
by
Perhaps
Perhaps
describing
their
interest
in
in
the
monarchy
as
one
of
disinterest.
P
Perhaps
is
that
unfair
for
me
to
say
I'm,
looking
at
my
okay,
this
I'm
sure,
okay
well,
but
I,
though
on
one
side
of
the
political
Spectrum,
seeing
protests
and
flags
of
saying
the
Republic
of
Alberta
on
the
other
side
of
the
political
Spectrum,
often
see
folks
of
the
left
side
of
political
Spectrum,
perhaps
I
I
would
say
perhaps
not
our
friend's
opposite,
they're,
obviously
loyal
to
his
majesty,
but
perhaps
not
always
having
the
the
same
type
of
interest
in
in
the
monarchy
that
well
anyways
Mr,
Speaker,
I.
P
I
thought
it
was
important
for
us
to
perhaps
in
this
chamber,
have
a
case
for
constitutional
monarchy
to
continue
in
this
country
and
I
I
wanted
to
be
able
to
stand
and
to
to
make
a
point
that
it
is
important
for
a
system
of
government
to
separate
the
chief
of
the
executive
from
the
head
of
state
and
to
separate
what
Churchill
called
you
know.
He
described
it.
P
But
in
the
Unwritten
aspects
of
our
Constitution,
which
we
inherited
from
the
United
Kingdom,
the
wisdom
is,
is
in
placing
the
the
supreme
position
in
the
state
beyond
the
reach
of
of
private
ambition
and
again,
quoting
Churchill
or
perhaps
not
quoting
of
a
paraphrasing
him
that
he
made
the
case
that
a
constitutional
monarchy
is
the
most
practical
and
effective
means
through
which
the
democracies
in
the
Commonwealth,
including
a
democracy
like
ours
in
Canada,
can
preserve
against
dictatorship
and-
and
why
is
that?
Mr
Speaker?
It's
because
in
a
constitutional
monarchy
like
ours?
P
No
one
again,
this
is
going
to
be
a
quote
from
Churchill,
no
quote.
No
one
can
presume
to
set
themselves
up
as
a
national
representative
against
the
hereditary
rights
of
the
King
end
quote
and
Mr
Speaker.
We
dwell
in
our
constitutional
monarchy
more
happily
more
safely,
more
prosperously
and
more
progressively
than
those
who
do
so
in
either
an
oligarchy
or
a
republic.
And
it's
because
of
that
that
we
need
to
continue
to
preserve
constitutional
monarchy.
P
This
tradition
that
we
have
in
Canada
and
I
hope
that,
with
the
accession
of
his
His
Majesty,
we
will
continue
to
see
support
for
for
the
monarchy.
Continue
with
this
tradition
and
with
that
Mr
speaker.
Thank
you
for
the
opportunity
for
me
to
speak.
Q
The
are
you
calling
governor
of
Washington.
Q
Honorable
members
saw
the
motion,
as
proposed
by
The
Honorable
member
for
Calgary
Falcon,
Ridge
and
seconded
by
The
Honorable
member
for
Calgary
for
Camrose.
All
those
in
favor
of
the
motion,
please
say
aye
stay
opposed.
Please
say
no.
In
my
opinion,
the
eyes
have
a
demotion
is
carried
and
so
ordered.