►
Description
Legislative Assembly of Alberta
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
D
Thank
you,
Mr
Speaker
I
Rise
to
move
government
motion
12
on
the
order
paper
be
resolved
at
legislative
assembly.
A
concur
in
the
report
of
the
select
special
Ombudsman
and
public
interest.
Commissioners
search
committee
tabled
on
December
5th
2022,
sessional
paper,
17,
2022
and
B
recommend
to
the
lieutenant
governor
in
Council
that
Kevin
Brzezinski
be
appointed
as
Ombudsman
and
public
interest.
Commissioner
for
the
province
of
Alberta
for
a
five-year
term
commencing
on
December
30th
2022.
B
B
D
You
Mr
Speaker
I
Rise
to
move
government
motion
13,
be
it
resolved
that,
when
further
consideration
of
Bill
one
Alberta
sovereignty
within
a
United
Canada
Act
is
resumed
not
more
than
one
hour
shall
be
lauded
to
any
further
consideration
of
the
bill
in
second
reading,
at
which
time
every
question
necessary
for
the
dispose
of
the
bill
at
this
stage
shall
be
put
forth
with
now.
Mr
Speaker
I've
had
quite
a
lot
of
debate
on
Bill
one.
Thus
far,
we've
heard
Cries
From
the
members
opposite
on
how
Bill
one
is
unconstitutional
and
how
they
don't
believe.
D
D
We
have
heard
feedback
and
on
Monday,
our
government
caucus
met
to
discuss
and
propose
clarifying
amendments
to
this
bill.
Proposed
amendments
include
clarifying
that
any
legislative
change
to
existing
Alberta
statutes
are
outlined
in
a
resolution
and
introduced
and
passed
by
the
Legislative
Assembly
under
the
ACT
must
also
be
introduced
and
passed
separately
through
the
regular
legislative
process.
D
These
this,
these
proposed
amendments
reflect
feedback
we
have
received
from
albertans
who
want
to
see
aspects
of
Bill
1
clarified
and
ensure
it
gets
across
the
finish
line.
I'm
pleased
the
voices
of
our
mlas
and
our
burdens
are
being
heard
and
I
in
respected,
I,
look
forward
to
making
sure
those
changes
are
made.
This
evening
we've
debated
Bill
one
now
for
nine
hours,
that's
plenty
of
time
to
discuss
and
debate
on
things
that
are
important
job
burdens,
but
it's
time
to
get
to
the
conversation
about
amendments.
D
D
First
reading,
allows
a
bill
to
be
formally
brought
before
the
house
printed
and
made
available
publicly
at
this
point.
That
is
the
assigned.
It
is
assigned
a
specific
bill.
Number
passage
of
the
motion
for
first
reading
involves
no
commitment
on
the
part
of
the
house
Beyond,
agreeing
that
the
bill
be
made
generally
available
for
the
information
of
Parliament
and
the
public
for
the
public
Mr
Speaker.
We
work
for
our
burdens.
It
is
on
their
best
interest
that
they
see
the
legislation
that
we
are
proposing.
D
Sadly,
the
member's
opposite
shows
that
that
was
not
the
best
course.
Yet
every
single
member
of
the
NDP
decided
that
they
felt
that
they
knew
better
and
that
no
member
of
the
public
deserved
to
see
a
copy
of
this
bill.
So
I
think
it's
Rich
for
members
opposite
now
to
embark
on
a
process
of
delaying
this
bill.
They
made
amply
clear.
D
Mr
Speaker
amply
clear
that
they
had
no
interest
in
even
seeing
printed
with
no
interest
in
reading
the
bill
before
even
voting
against
it,
and
here
the
members
opposite
saying,
nine
hours
isn't
a
delay,
tactical
filibuster
and
yet
we're
in
the
second
second
reason,
amendment
to
anyone
with
an
ounce
of
parliamentary
experience.
It's
facts
delaying
tactics
on
a
bill.
They
have
no
intention
of
allowing
to
get
to
a
vote
while
I
encourage
healthy
debate,
their
actions
since
the
introduction
of
Bill
one
have
been
slightly
disingenuous,
Mr
Speaker.
D
There
has
been
plenty
of
time
for
members
to
speak
and,
while
I
do
believe,
debate
by
the
opposition
is
important.
In
fact,
consensual.
Our
burdens
have
already
told
this
government
what
they
want
to
see
changed
and
nearly
nine
hours
of
discussion
for
Bill
one
is
more
than
enough
time
to
discuss
those
requests
time.
The
government
did
was
promised
upwards,
would
do
this
fall
and
get
things
done
with
Bill.
D
One
I
encourage
and
quite
enjoy
healthy
debate
in
this
chamber,
but
when
time
is
used
to
Simply
delay,
the
Democratic
process
of
passing
legislation
I
encourage
all
members
of
the
chamber
to
listen
to
the
feedback
from
the
voices
of
everyday
burdens,
the
people
that
we
serve
and
the
men
and
women
that
elected
us
to
represent
them
and
move
forward
with
the
process
this
evening.
Thank
you,
Mr
Speaker,
honorable.
E
Thank
you,
Mr
Speaker,
and
thanks
for
the
opportunity
to
speak
to
this
motion
this
evening
and
just
a
number
of
points,
first
being
with
this
bill,
it's
not
just
any
bill.
It's
the
flagship
bill
of
this
new
premier,
I
have
this
new
cabinets
and
so
forth,
and
there
was
a
lot
of
expectation,
I,
think
amongst
the
public
and
considering
all
of
the
issues
that
needed
to
be
dealt
with
here
in
the
province
of
Alberta,
with
affordability,
Health,
Care
crisis
and
so
forth,
and
so,
when
this
bill
one
did
come
forward.
E
Everybody's
Jaws
literally
dropped
Mr
Speaker,
not
just
figuratively,
because
here
within
a
scant
few
pages,
was
this
hopeless
jumble
of
rhetoric
around
freedom
and
and
so
forth.
You
know
directly
brought
from
some
some
Fringe
elements
and
very
poorly
executed
right
with
plenty
of
error
built
within
and
so
the
very
short
time
that
we've
had
with
the
bill.
Thus
far,
both
the
official
opposition
and
the
general
public
at
large
has
found
plenty
of
problems
with
Bill
one
and
so
probably
the
best
way
that
by
which
we
could
air.
E
E
Every
day
we
learn
more
things
about
just
how
the
implications
of
this
bill
on
on
funding
at
different
levels,
its
effect
on
the
the
relationship
with
the
First,
Nations
peoples
and
and
so
forth,
and
so
I
think
that
it
would
be
wise
to
reconsider,
having
closure
at
this
juncture
on
the
bill
one.
We
know
that
that
the
the
you
know
they
again
the
house
house,
leader
from
the
opposite
talks
about
first
reading
and
how
uncommon
it
is
for
someone
to
perhaps
vote
against
something
on
first
reading.
E
I
would
suggest
number
one
I
saw
this
same.
Ucp
caucus
do
the
very
same
thing
when
we
were
governments
not
so
long
ago,
so
I
mean
certainly
you
know,
don't
talk
about
both
sides
of
your
mouth
as
they
say,
Mr,
Speaker
and
number
two.
The
very
existence
of
a
sovereignty
act
as
it
sits,
is
enough
to
send
disquiet
amongst
the
markets
amongst
the
economy,
amongst
relationships
with
First
Nations
relationships
between
different
levels
of
government.
Those
two
words
are
enough
to
trigger
all
kinds
of
concern.
E
Have
some
people
voting
against
this
bill
in
first
reading
and
we
stand
by
in
fact,
I
think
it
started
a
very
strong
analysis
of
Bill,
one
that
took
place
in
the
public
here
right
across
the
province,
and
people
are
still
as
I
say,
picking
up
their
jaws
off
the
desk
as
to
the
astounding
ineptitude
of
this
bill,
so
humbling
and
persuasively,
hopefully,
I
would
suggest
all
members
to
vote
against
closure
here
this
evening.
Thank
you.
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
F
The
Honorable
Mr
lowen
The
Honorable
Mrs,
Savage,
The,
Honorable,
Mr,
newdorf,
The,
Honorable,
Mr,
Scout,
hello,
Mr,
Madu
they're,
almost
her
Gene
The
Honorable
Ms
Armstrong
hamanok,
now
Mr
McIver,
The,
Honorable,
Mr,
Millikin,
The,
Honorable,
Mr,
Nelly,
The,
Honorable,
Mr,
Jeremy
Nixon.
You
know:
Ms
Schultz,
yeah,
well,
Mr,
Jones,
The,
Honorable,
Mr,
Rutherford,
The,
Honorable,
Mr,
nicolaidi,
The,
Honorable,
Mr,
Horner,
Mr,
tour,
Mr,
Yao,
Ms,
Isaac,
Mr,
Stefan,
The,
Honorable,
Mr,
Hunter,
Mr,
Singh,.
B
G
Thank
you,
Mr
Speaker
I'm
pleased
to
rise
and
offer
my
thoughts
on
the
amendment
to
the
job-killing
sovereignty
act
which
states
that
bill
one.
The
Alberta
sovereignty
within
the
United
candidate
act
be
not
now
read
a
second
time,
because
the
assembly
is
of
the
view
that
the
government
has
failed
to
adequately
consult
with
non-profit
organizations
and
municipalities
on
the
potential
risks.
This
bill
presents
to
Federal
funding
for
their
projects,
including
critical
infrastructure
and
housing
initiatives.
G
Mr
Speaker,
first
of
all,
I
have
to
say
that
it
is
a
tremendous
privilege
to
be
able
to
speak
in
this
house,
especially
considering
that
Bill
one,
if
passed
in
its
current
form,
will
essentially
render
us
completely
redundant.
We
won't
even
get
the
opportunity
to
speak
to
legislation
or
even
propose
amendments,
because
the
bill
is
it's
currently
written
condenses
all
of
that
power
into
the
executive
branch
of
government,
eliminate,
bypasses
the
contributions
of
private
members
of
of
the
legislature
completely,
and
we
will
have
nothing
to
say.
G
Now,
of
course,
Mr
Speaker
recognizing
your
guidance.
This
amendment
really
focuses
on
the
threat
that
bill
one
poses
to
funding
for
projects
including
critical
infrastructure
and
housing
initiatives,
because
we
know
that
the
government
is
through
Bill
one,
giving
itself
the
power
to
completely
disregard
the
federal
government
and
and
any
initiative
or
even
proposed
initiative-
that
it
seems
to
think
would
be
harmful
to
the
people
of
Alberta.
B
If
we
interrupt
The,
Honorable
member
and
my
apologies
for
doing
such
I
hear
a
number
of
private
conversations
happening
around
this,
the
chamber
this
evening.
There's
lots
of
space
for
those
to
happen
in
in
the
lounges
in
your
offices.
Ask
that
you
provide
your
even
if
I,
even
if
it's
not
your
attention
at
least
you're
quiet
to
The
Honorable
member.
G
Thank
you,
Mr
Speaker
I
would
suggest
that
probably
all
of
the
private
members
are
as
equally
concerned
about
their
ability
to
speak
to
bills
as
I
am
disappearing
and
so
they're
getting
all
of
their
speaking
in
right.
Now,
all
at
the
same
time
before
that
power
is
taken
away
from
them
completely
by
Bill.
One.
G
But
the
point
I
was
trying
to
make
was
that
I'm
in
favor
of
this
amendment,
because
it
threatens
Federal
and
I
know
that
my
colleagues
here
in
the
official
opposition
have
made
a
a
lot
of
arguments
supporting
this.
But
I
I
would
just
like
to
raise
one
issue
in
particular
that's
very
important
to
the
people
of
Edmonton
gold
bar,
certainly
but
to
the
francophone
population
in
Alberta.
G
Now
that
lawsuit,
of
course
continues
to
hang
over
the
government,
but
in
the
meantime,
the
federal
government,
as
well
as
well
as
the
provincial
government
and
the
University
of
Alberta
itself,
have
come
to
an
agreement
to
keep
the
lights
on
at
faculty.
St
John,
with
the
federal
government
announcing
a
10
million
dollar
injection
of
funding
over
the
next
three
years.
G
G
So
what?
What
would
that,
if
Bill
one
is
passed?
What
would
that
mean
for
federal
funding
of
an
institution
like
faculty,
Saint
John,
and
what
would
that
mean
for
the
future
of
francophone
education
here
in
the
province
of
Alberta?
I
can
tell
you
that
francophones
here
in
Alberta
are
terrified
at
what
this
might
mean
for
the
future
French
language
education
in
this
province.
G
During
its
tenure
and
and
it
has
no
reason
to
believe
that
it
will
continue
to
that,
it
will
change
its
course.
I
mean
on
the
issue
of
hostility
towards
francophone
education.
It
was
only
this
spring
when
I
brought
parents
from
Gabrielle
was
school.
In
my
riding
to
come
to
the
gallery
and
observe
be
introduced
in
an
observed
question
period,
we're
in
I
asked
the
education
minister.
G
G
E
Thanks
member
honorable
member
from
gold
bar-
and
you
know
when
we
talk
about
The
Province
interfering
with
a
Cooperative
relationship
between
the
federal
government
and
the
provincial
government,
I
mean
I
just
get.
You
have
to
wonder
what
the
purpose
is,
but
there's
quite
often
a
dollar
amount
associated
with
that
too
right
I
mean
it's
one
thing:
to
try
to
make
a
political
point
about
what
have
you
but
I
mean,
for
example,
with
francophone
education?
E
It
seems
clear
that
not
just
this
current
UCP
governments,
Mr
Speaker,
but
a
long
line
of
conservative
governments
here
in
the
province
of
Alberta,
have
refused
to
openly
accept
French
as
a
official
second
language
here
in
the
province
of
Alberta
right
they
so
we
say
and
other
languages
sort
of
thing,
and
so
you
know
and
again
you
know
maybe
making
some
political
points,
but
otherwise
undermining
French
education.
Here
in
Alberta.
G
Thank
you,
Mr
Speaker,
to
my
friend
from
Edmonton
Northwest.
For
that
intervention.
He
knows
full
well
how
important
it
is
to
fund
and
and
support
the
francophone
education
system
here
in
Alberta,
because
he
did
a
marvelous
job
at
that
when
he
was
the
minister
of
education
and
our
government
has
a
a
track
record
of
expanding
and
actively
protecting
the
rights
of
French
speakers.
G
Here
in
the
province
of
Alberta,
we
were
the
first
government
in
the
history
of
this
province
to
fund
or
to
create
a
French
language
policy,
a
policy
that
has
been
incredibly
important
to
francophones
here
in
in
Alberta
and
continues
to
do
so,
but
it
it
has
not
lived
up
to
its
full
potential.
Shall
we
say
under
the
current
UCP
government
and
and
certainly
Bill
one
is
as
currently
written,
threatens
to
throw
all
of
that
out
the
window.
G
G
You
know
it's,
it's
incredibly
frustrating
to
me
that
other
critical
infrastructure
initiatives
have
continued
to
be
unfunded,
because
the
government
refuses
to
play
ball
with
the
federal
government.
I
have
two
Supportive
Housing
units
in
my
riding
one
in
Mill
Creek
and
one
in
the
Capilano
neighborhood
that
up
until
very
recently
sat
empty
because
the
government
refused
to
work
with.
G
The
federal
government
had
already
come
to
the
table
with
the
city
of
Edmonton
to
provide
money
to
make
sure
that
that
those
facilities
were
built
and
could
operate,
to
provide
Supportive
Housing
for
people
in
desperate
need
of
Supportive
Housing
in
the
city
of
Edmonton.
But
what
did
this
provincial
government
do?
G
The
housing
the
houselessness
numbers
in
in
Edmonton
have
skyrocketed
over
the
last
three
years
and
you
only
need
to
take
a
quick
walk
through
either
Mill
Creek
Ravine
or
the
North
Saskatchewan
River
Valley
to
come
across
dozens
and
dozens
of
people
living
in
tents,
freezing
to
death.
Intense
tonight,
I
have
no
doubt
that
there
is
going
to
be
somebody
who
wakes
up
dead
tomorrow,
because
they
cannot
find
a
house
right
now
and
this
government
Bears
The
Lion's
Share
of
the
blame
because
they
haven't
come
to
the
table
with
money
for
Supportive
Housing
and
so.
D
Yeah,
thank
you.
Mr
Speaker
I
rise
on
23
hij,
specifically
the
portion
about
using
language
that
causes
disruption
within
the
chamber.
I
recognize
that
there
are
10
cities
in
this
in
this
city
and
that
there
are
those
who
are
going
without
homes
but
to
place
the
blame
on
the
deaths
of
those
who
may
be
outside
this
evening
tragically
on
this
government
squarely
is
totally
inappropriate
and
that
kind
of
language
is
not
appropriate
or
should
be
used
in
this
chamber
and
I
know
that
member
knows
better.
This
is
not
his
first
term
as
an
MLA.
H
Thank
you,
Mr
Speaker.
This
is
a
matter
of
debate.
This
is
not
a
point
of
order.
I
think
it
is
a
fact
that
all
orders
of
government
bear
a
certain
level
of
responsibility
as
far
as
taking
care
of
its
citizens
and
so
as
far
as
the
degree
to
which
one
order
of
government
bears
that
responsibility
or
not
that's
what
we
debate
in
this
chamber
all
the
time
through
budget
estimates
Etc,
and
so,
although
I
appreciate
the
fact
that
the
government
house
leader,
feels
as
a
point
of
order,
this
is
a
matter
of
debate.
B
I
would,
without
the
benefit
of
previous
rulings,
because
I
know
from
experience
speaker
wanner,
had
much
to
say
about
this
particular
issue
in
some
members,
perhaps
of
the
opposition
making
accusations
about
the
government
being
responsible
for
the
death
of
albertans
and
and
certainly
he
had
much
to
say
on
this
particular
issue.
Without
the
benefit
of
those
rulings,
I
will
provide
caution
to
The
Honorable
member
for
Edmonton
gold
bar
that
that
making
statements,
as
he's
made,
certainly
have
the
potential
of
being
disruptive
and
I
hope
that
he
will
endeavor
to
keep
them
more
broader.
G
G
And
there
is
also
no
doubt
in
my
mind,
Mr
Speaker,
if
the
government
had
met
with
the
federal
government's
Financial
commitments,
so
we
wouldn't
be
in
this
position
and
so
I
urge
all
members
to
vote
in
favor
of
keeping
the
federal
government
at
the
table
providing
funding
for
these
and
vote
in
favor
of
this
amendment.
Thank
you
very
much.
B
Honorable
members,
before
the
assembly
as
amendment
ra2
I,
would
like
to
provide
some
clarity
on
comments
that
I
made
at
the
beginning
of
the
honorable
member
for
everyone
to
Gold
Bar
speech,
with
respect
to
relevance
and
on
the
amendment
of
ra2.
I
would
just
like
to
say
in
light
of
the
passage
of
government
motion.
13
I
am
happy
to
provide
a
little
bit
more
swath
with
respect
to
relevance
and
the
amendment
to
members
who
are
speaking
this
evening.
I
Thank
you,
Mr
Speaker,
and
it's
my
pleasure
to
rise
and
speak
to
this
amendment,
which,
of
course
contemplates
that
the
bill
won
not
be
read
a
second
time,
because
the
assembly
is
of
the
view
that
the
government
has
failed
to
adequately
consult
with
non-profit
organizations
and
municipalities
on
the
risk
that
this
bill
bill
presents
to
Federal
funding
for
their
projects.
Now
it's
it's
useful
to
go
and
have
a
look
at
what
the
bill
actually
says.
I
Anybody
there's
lots
of
delegated
authorities
within
the
government
of
Alberta,
an
entity
that
receives
a
grant
or
other
public
funds
from
the
government
that
are
contingent
on
prevention,
provision
of
public
service.
So
there
we
have
contracted
service
providers,
many
of
well
all
of
all,
many
of
which
are
are
non-profits.
We
have
here
a
public
post-secondary
institutions,
school
boards,
municipal
authorities,
Municipal
and
Regional
Police
Services,
so
Mr
Speaker.
What
happens
here
is
the
the
the
legislature
could
take
a
notion.
I
I
There
are
our
fed
Prof
initiatives
across
government
and
there
are
always
the
big
wheels
of
government
turning
and
changes
perhaps
anticipated,
and
there
are
always
nefarious
actor
or
actors
out
there.
Spinning
a
yarn,
Mr
Speaker
about
what
might
be
coming
and
those
are
political
determinations
and
they
certainly
have
no
place
in
an
act
and
then
contemplates
based
on
what
might
happen
in
the
future,
a
scare
tactic
than
yanking
funding
away
from
non-profits.
I
That
is
why
this
bill
should
not
be
read
a
second
time,
and
that
is
why
non-profits
were
scandalized
and
so
were
municipalities
and
others.
When
this
bill
came
came
out,
you
know
many
people
thought
I
was
among
them,
Mr
Speaker,
that
that
perhaps
this
government
would
attenuate
this
deeply
unpopular
sovereignty
act
misadventure.
In
fact,
we
can
have
a
look
at
the
numbers.
Leger
has
just
reported
out,
and
you
know
their
horse.
Race
numbers
are
probably
the
least
important
or
interesting
part
of
the
of
the
polling
set.
I
They
find,
of
course,
that
29
percent
of
calgarians
and
27
percent
of
edmontonians
are
supportive
of
the
sovereignty
Act,
meaning
it's
within
the
margin
of
error
for
Calgary
and
Edmonton,
and
even
the
rest
of
Alberta.
So
only
the
support
there
is
only
at
39
still
61
of
their
sample
for
the
entire
rest
of
Alberta,
outside
of
the
Municipal
census.
Districts
of
Edmonton
and
Calgary
are
not
supportive
of
this
legislation
and
no
wonder
Mr
Speaker.
I
Given
the
expansive
nature
of
this
piece
of
legislation,
it
is
not
that
any
action
has
been
taken
towards
anyone
outside
of
our
borders.
What
this
piece
of
legislation
is
and
why
it
has
provoked
such
strong
backlash
from
all
aspects
of
Alberta's
Society,
is
that
it
is
a
war
on
ourselves
we're
not
teaching
anyone
a
lesson
we're
not
standing
up
to
anyone.
I
There
is
no
question
that
this
is
extremely
ill-conceived
on
the
unconstitutionality.
That's
why
it
has
been
variously
described
as
written
and
prey
on
the
worst
legislation
in
Canadian,
history
and
so
on,
and
so
forth
and
modern
constitutional
history
anyway,
and
that
is
why
it
should
not
be
read
a
second
time.
I
We
need
everyone
to
be
pulling
in
the
same
direction
on
this
issue.
It
is
-30
out
there
tonight
and
it's
minus
20
something
down
in
Lethbridge
2,
where
we
too
have
tent
cities.
This
is
an
urgent,
urgent
issue
that
requires
a
short,
medium
and
long-term
solution
at
all:
orders
of
government
Municipal,
provincial
and
Federal.
I
It
also
requires
Mr
Speaker,
very
careful
and
thoughtful
policy
for
municipalities
and
The
Province
on
how
to
ensure
that
the
private
sector
will
also
invest
in
housing,
stock
and
expanding
that
housing
stock
and
in
the
affordable
and
accessible
in
particular.
The
province
has
a
a
duty
that
they
have
entirely
abrogated
around
accessible
housing,
certainly
and
social
housing.
Certainly,
but
there
is
a
whole
category
of
affordable
housing,
Mr
Speaker,
where
the
private
sector
then
works
with
other
orders
of
government
to
ensure
that
we
have
that
housing
stock
available.
I
So
too,
this
affects
municipalities.
There
are
a
number
of
initiatives
that
rely,
planning
decisions
and
so
on
in
municipalities
that
rely
on
federal
funding.
I'll
just
give
a
a
really
small-
and
you
know
otherwise,
perhaps
insignificant
and
unremarkable
example
of
some
some
more
active
Transportation
grants
that
have
come
from
the
federal
government.
I
noticed
the
other
day.
There
was
some
bike
path,
Federal
funding
that
came
through
for
Less
virgin
area
and
through
for
the
county
as
well.
I
This
makes
people
safer
and,
unlike
Edmonton,
you
know,
Southern
Alberta
and
Lethbridge
in
particular,
is
that
you
know
we
actually
have
nice
weather
down
there
and
we
can
ride
our
bikes.
Quite
often,
these
are
the
kinds
of
Arrangements
that
then
communities
are
planned
around
oftentimes.
The
communities
are
planned
around
recreational
infrastructure,
commuting
infrastructure,
schools
and
so
on.
So
it
goes
to
our
property
values.
I
It
goes
to
our
our
decisions
that
developers
are
making
decisions,
that
municipalities
are
making
around
their
property
assessment
and
their
Capital
Investments
all
the
rest
of
it.
Why
would
we
be
putting
all
of
this
at
risk,
because
the
legislature
takes
a
notion
that
they
don't
like
a
particular
anticipated
Federal
decision?
Not
even
one
that's
been
made,
but
maybe
they
heard
tell
of
something
they
don't
like
it.
I
I
I
Nonprofits,
don't
have
time
to
navigate
the
morass
of
what
the
a
majority
of
the
mlas
on
the
other
side
of
the
house
might
be
thinking
on
any
given
day
on
federal
programming
and
whether
they
should
bother
trying
to
seek
out
those
funds
or,
if
they're,
going
to
be
putting
their
provincial
supports
at
risk
when
they
do
so,
they
don't
have
time
for
that.
They
don't
time
for
lengthy
Court
battles.
I
They
don't
have
time
for
knowing
the
ins
and
outs
of
you
know
whether
this
legislation,
as
we
have
learned
today,
is
a
complete
overstep
on
Section
96
and
the
role
of
the
Courts.
That's
not
non-profits
jobs,
it's
not
municipalities,
jobs
and
that's
why
this
amendment
contemplates
ensuring
that
this
bill
is
not
read
a
second
time
on
those
grounds.
I
Not
this
municipalities
have
been
begging
for
this
they've
been
saying:
look.
We
have
issues
with
attracting
and
retaining
Healthcare
professionals.
We
have
issues
with
respect
to
ensuring
that
we've
got
good
EMS
response
times.
The
last
thing
that
municipalities
need
to
be
in
is
some
sort
of
bun
fight
with
the
provincial
government
over
their
Municipal
funding,
because
they're
also
party
to
a
federal
initiative
that
may
change
sometime
in
the
future,
because
that's
what
this
legislation
forces
them
to
do.
I
I
I
E
Thank
you,
Mr
Speaker,
and
thanks
to
the
last
speaker,
honorable
member
from
Lethbridge
West,
to
about
a
very
apt
comparison,
I
think
in
regards
to
I
guess
there
has
to
be
some
kind
of
tactic
behind
this
sovereignty
act,
but
you
know,
as
I
said
from
my
earlier
comments,
that
it's
just
so
poorly
executed
that
I
don't
there's
no
way.
You
could
demand
your
way
out
of
it
quite
frankly,
because
there's
a
structural
problem
in
that
it
undermines
different
levels
of
governments.
E
When
a
provincial
government
wants
to
choose
to
pull
the
trigger
to
enact
that
conflict
and
deem
it
to
be
somehow
Against
The
Sovereign
interests
of
the
province,
and
so
you
know
it's
it's
I
guess
it
has
a
certain
Elegance
in
its
trickery
right
because
you
know
it
dislodges
and
and
moves
sort
of
the
130
years
or
more
of
good
governance
here
in
the
province
of
Alberta
and
suddenly
puts
everybody
on
edge.
It's
like
okay,
what's
going
to
happen
next
right,
are
they
going
to
invoke
us
sovereignty?
E
You
know
challenge
against
this
funding
that
I'm
trying
to
get
for
affordable
housing
for
people
in
our
area.
You
know
in
Edmonton.
Does
it
undermine
the
research
funding
that
someone
wants
to
choose
to
go
to
do
in
one
of
our
colleges
or
polytechnics
because
it
somehow
doesn't
fit
in
with
the
ideology
of
the
governments
of
the
province
of
the
day?
I
mean
all
of
these
things.
You
don't
take
them
frivolously
or
you
don't
think
that
oh
you've
created
such
a
clever
trick.
You
know:
aren't
we
clever
to
make
something
like
this
right?
E
It
literally
unravels
the
fabric
of
how
we
make
decisions
here
in
the
province
of
Alberta,
and
of
course
you
can
make
changes
to
those
things
and,
of
course
you
can
have
conflict
between
those
things
too
right.
Lord
knows
the
federal
government
needs
to
be
carefully
watched
at
all
junctures
in
regards
to
their.
E
You
know,
interpretation
of
the
power
between
provinces
and
and
the
FEDS
I
mean
that's
part
of
our
job
and
I.
Think
we
do
a
pretty
good
job
here
in
Alberta.
Generally,
but
you
don't
need
to
have
this
half-baked
sovereignty
act
to
suddenly
you
know
cause
conf.
You
know
chaos
in
in
the
way
by
which
we
execute
our
right,
our
responsibility
to
fight
for
the
powers
that
we
are
entitled
to
here
in
the
province
of
Alberta.
E
E
I
mean
that's
not
what
people
want
at
this
point
in
time.
Probably
anytime,
really,
you
know
the
affordability
crisis
is
literally
blown
a
hole
in
people's
monthly
grocery
budgets.
It
is
literally
made
it
unaffordable
for
many
young
people
to
move
ahead
and,
to
you
know,
pay
for
tuition
and
pursue
post-secondary
education.
E
The
health
care
crisis
is
literally
given
us
all
pause
that
our
security
has
been
undermined
by
emergencies
and
admissions
into
hospitals
that
we
can't
count
on
right
from
Red
Deer
to
Edmonton
and
Calgary,
and
all
points
in
between
boil
Alberta
right
and
so
those
are
the
things
we
need
to
deal
with
and
you
need
to
have
all
hands
on
deck
in
dealing
with
those
things
we
can't
just
say:
okay,
let's
give
it
a
try
and
we'll
try.
You
know
a
little
money
here
and
there
we
need
the
municipalities.
We
need
the
federal
government.
E
At
the
time
right
I
mean
that's
not
the
way
to
run
a
government,
that's
not
the
way
to
meet
an
affordability
or
a
Health
crisis,
it's
just
a
recipe
for
for
chaos
and
disaster,
and
so
we
can
do
better
right.
You
know
having
a
bill.
One
I
guess
you've
already
used
that
name
now,
so
you
kind
of
stuck
right,
but
I
mean
you
can
have
a
bill
1A
or
one
new
and
improved
Bill.
E
One
I
guess:
I,
don't
know
that
deals
with
affordability
that
deals
with
things
that
people
are
concerned
about
right,
the
Safety
and
Security
of
families.
That's
undermined
by
a
health
care,
the
system-
that's
that's
tottering,
right,
Safety
and
Security
around
you
know
our
roads
and
schools,
making
sure
that
it's
post-secondary
is
Affordable.
All
of
those
things
are
wide
open
for
a
beautiful
new
refreshed,
better
Bill
one
right-
and
you
know,
certainly
that
would
be
the
the
wisest
choice
at
this
juncture
for
this
government
to
to
to
pursue.
E
E
You
have
to
take
these
guys
to
court
and
drag
them
around
and
bang
on
their
door
before
they
decide
to
actually
do
something
right
for
two
and
a
half
million
dollars.
I
think
was
the
end
product
of
all
of
that
efforts,
and
you
know
it's
almost
like
a
pattern.
We've
seen
with
this
government
without
actually
having
the
sovereignty
act
in
their
hand,
but
had
they
had
it
in
their
head
with
withholding
funding
for
matching
grants
for
initiatives
here
over
the
last
three
and
a
half
years.
E
E
We
deserve
to
I,
recognize
the
value
of
free
and
open
debates
here
in
this
legislative
assembly,
and
we
need
more
and
first
and
foremost,
to
respect
the
people
of
Alberta
to
a
understand,
what's
really
written
down
in
some
of
these
bills
and
not
just
think
you
can
pull
the
wool
over
their
eyes
because
they
you
haven't.
It's
been
categorically
unsuccessful
and
number
two
respect
the
needs
and
the
responsibilities
of
governance
to
ensure
the
safety
and
security
of
our
burdens
from
now
and
in
the
future
as
well.
So
I
would
respectfully
suggest
everyone
to.
B
B
B
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
F
F
Terrible
Mr
lowen,
you
know
Mrs
Savage,
that
over
Mr
Noodle
Mr
scowl,
now
Mr
Madu,
no
Mr
Gene
The
Honorable
Ms,
Armstrong,
hamanok,
General,
Mr,
McIver,
The,
Honorable,
Mr,
Milliken,
General,
Mr,
Nelly,
yeah;
well,
Mr,
Jeremy
Nixon.
You
know
Miss
Schultz,
The,
Honorable,
Mr
Jones.
You
know:
Mr
Rutherford,
hello,
Mr,
nicolaides,
the
other
Mr
Horner
Mr
tour,
Mr,
Yao,
Ms,
Isaac,
Mr,
Stefan,
The,
Honorable,
Mr,
Hunter,
Mr,
Singh,.
B
Honorable
members,
that
amendment
is
defeated
pursuant
to
government
motion
13
standing
order,
21-3
the
time
for
debate
and
second
reading
has
now
concluded.
I
am
required
to
put
all
questions
to
the
assembly
to
dispose
of
second
reading.
Having
heard
the
motion,
as
proposed
by
The
Honorable,
the
pre
by
The
Honorable,
the
premier
for
second
reading
of
Bill,
one
Alberta
sovereignty
within
a
United
Canada
act
as
the
assembly
agree
to
the
motion.
If
so,
please
say
aye
any
opposed.
Please
say
no.
B
B
B
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
F
General
Mr
lowen,
hello,
Mrs
Savage,
not
only
Mr
new
door.
You
know
Mr
scowl,
The,
Honorable,
Mr,
maddu,
hello,
Mr,
Gene,
The,
Honorable,
Ms,
Armstrong,
promenok,
The,
Honorable,
Mr,
McIver,
The,
Honorable,
Mr
militia
The,
Honorable,
Mr,
Nelly,
hello,
Mr,
Jeremy,
Nixon,
The,
Honorable,
Ms,
Schultz,
The,
Honorable,
Mr,
Jones,
The,
Honorable,
Mr,
Rutherford,
The,
Honorable,
Mr,
nicolaides,
The,
Honorable,
Mr,
Horner,
Mr
tour,
Mr,
Yao,
The,
Honorable,
Ms,
Isaac,
The,
Honorable,
Ms,
Furr,
Mr,
Stefan,
The,
Honorable,
Mr,
Hunter,
Mr,
Singh
and
The
Honorable,
Mr,
Jason,
Nixon.
F
J
J
J
J
J
K
K
The
goal
of
this
process
was
to
consider
the
bill
even
to
consider
how
to
make
the
bill
better
and
that
during
the
committee
of
the
whole,
there
would
be
amendments
placed
before
the
house
by
either
the
government
or
the
opposition.
With
that
end
in
mind,
the
goal
was-
or
at
least
it
should
have
been
for
all
elected
members,
to
consider
how
to
make
a
bill
better
and
tonight
I
placed
an
amendment
before
this
house,
which
I
believe
will
clarify
this
bill.
K
Bill
won
and
the
intent
of
this
bill,
the
Alberta
sovereignty
within
a
United,
Canada,
Act
or
Bill.
One
has
on
the
government
side
of
the
house,
had
a
great
deal
of
discussion.
The
premier
has
listened
carefully
to
her
caucus
and
the
amendment
set
out
before
the
house
or
a
reflection
of
these
conversations.
K
The
amendment
before
this
house
tonight
is
to
help
clarify
that
any
changes
to
existing
Alberta
statutes
that
are
outlined
in
a
motion
and
introduced
and
passed
by
the
Legislative
Assembly
under
the
act
under
Bill.
One
must
also
be
introduced
and
passed
separately
through
the
regular
legislative
assembly
process.
K
A
K
K
Five,
nothing
in
this
act,
abrogates
any
Authority
or
power
vested
in
the
Legislative
Assembly,
or
the
lieutenant
governor
and
Council
by
any
other
enactment
or
by
operation
of
law,
including
any
Authority
or
power
of
the
lieutenant
governor
and
Council,
to
take
action
with
respect
to
the
federal
initiative.
This
amendment
now
addresses
perhaps
one
of
the
concerns
that
have
been
expressed
by
some
of
my
constituents
as
well
as
some
of
the
people
in
this
house.
K
This
amendment,
like
many
amendments
to
any
bill,
is
the
result
of
listening
in
careful
consideration.
These
amendments
are
the
result
of
much
discussion
amongst
the
government
caucus
as
they
listen
to
constituents
and
stakeholders
across
Alberta.
These
amendments
are
exactly
the
kind
of
amendments
that,
as
a
teacher
I
helped.
My
students
to
understand
would
be
part
of
the
passage
of
a
bill.
This
amendment
meets
the
criteria
of
what
a
good
amendment
should
do.
It
is
the
result
of
listening
and
feedback
from
albertans
through
their
elected
representatives,
and
it
strengthens
the
bill.
K
So
I
would
encourage
the
house
to
support
these
amendments.
I
would
encourage
the
opposition
to
carefully
consider
the
wisdom
of
these
amendments
and
to
support
these
amendments
and
in
the
process
fulfill
their
Duty
as
his
Majesty's
official
opposition
for
their
duty
is
not
to
Simply
oppose
for
the
sake
of
opposing,
but
to
help
strengthen
the
bill
to
make
it
better
for
the
people
of
Alberta.
K
H
Thank
you
very
much
Madam
chair.
It's
my
pleasure
to
rise
and
speak
to
this
amendment.
I
appreciate
the
previous
members
words.
As
far
as
the
role
of
the
official
opposition,
one
of
our
roles
is
to
keep
the
government
hold
the
government
accountable
for
their
actions.
I
will
speak
about
the
fact
that
for
a
bill,
one
a
flagship
bill
of
the
Premier
that
she
campaigned
on
to
win
leadership
of
the
UCP
to
bring
in
a
bill
that
gave
the
government
broad
sweeping
powers.
H
H
I'm.
Well
with
that
cabinet
process,
chair
I
I
find
it
very
difficult
to
believe
that
the
Premier
wasn't
aware
of
the
broad
sweeping
powers
that
the
bill
that
was
tabled
that
she
was
unaware
of
and
that
cabinet
was
unaware
of.
We
have
incredible
men
and
women
who
serve
in
the
Civil
Service,
who
do
The
Province
great
Justice,
who
take
their
jobs
seriously.
They
have
chosen
the
life
of
service
within
the
Civil
Service,
and
their
job
is
to
provide
the
best
possible
advice.
H
H
H
Now
I've
I've
said
this
before,
and
I
spoke
at
a
Senior's
home
this
morning
and
said:
I
agree
with
the
government
that,
when
the
federal
government
overreaches
into
provincial
jurisdiction
that
there
needs
to
be
a
process
and
Alberta
needs
to
stand
up
for
ourselves
and
push
back
on
the
federal
government
and
in
areas
of
the
development
of
our
natural
resources,
that
is
provincial
jurisdiction.
Similar
to
our
education
or
our
Health
Care
system,
in
fact
Madam
chair.
These
are
the
exact
reasons
that
I
decided
to
run
for
provincial
politics.
H
I
never
ran
as
a
municipal,
counselor
I
never
ran
in
federal
politics,
and
the
reason
is
that
I
believe
our
provinces
have
significant
Authority
and
jurisdiction
and
those
three
areas:
the
development
of
our
natural
resources,
our
health
care,
System,
the
delivery
of
our
Health
Care
system
and
the
delivery
of
our
education
system.
Those
are
three
priorities
for
me
and
that's
why
I'm
an
MLA
so
I
agree
that
when
the
federal
government
overreaches,
we
not
only
need
to
slap
their
hand
that
there
needs
to
be
swift.
H
Action
and
I
can
point
to
numerous
examples
in
Alberta's
history,
when
the
government
of
Alberta
has
taken
action,
we
have
tools
at
our
disposal,
including
taking
the
federal
government
to
court.
We
have
a
court
system
which
is
arm's
length
from
our
political
system
where
they
will
make
these
decisions
and
I
trust
in
our
judicial
system.
I
have
faith
in
it
that
we
have
set
up
the
right
processes
for
that,
and
so
the
challenge
with
this
act.
Regardless
of
what
amendments
are
brought
forward,
we
still
have
an
act.
H
H
They
will
look
at
other
jurisdictions
within
Canada
if
they
are
looking
at
Canada
and
Canada
makes
their
top
five
list
of
potential
areas
to
invest
in
globally,
and
if
there
is
a
perception
that
the
province
has
a
different
set
of
rules
from
the
federal
government
that
immediately
puts
in
uncertainty
into
the
decision
of
whether
or
not
they
should
invest
in
Alberta,
and
that
in
and
of
itself
has
already
happened.
It's
happened
since
the
premier
started
talking
about
the
sovereignty
Act.
H
This
amendment,
although
within
the
walls
of
this
chamber
and
for
albertans,
understand
that
the
government
is
attempting
to
amend
the
unilateral
powers
that
they
granted
themselves
in
this
bill
for
the
International
Investment
Community.
You
still
have
a
piece
of
legislation
that
causes
them
to
question.
H
H
H
H
H
I
appreciate
the
government's
brought
up
examples
of
Quebec
and
what
they've
done
I
can
tell
you
that
for
50
years,
Quebec
went
backwards
when
they
brought
in
legislation,
Quebec
and
Montreal
used
to
be
the
home
to
all
of
the
headquarters
for
major
financial
institutions.
Montreal
was
the
headquarters
in
Canada
when
Quebec
brought
in
a
bill
like
this
to
declare
Quebec's
sovereignty.
H
All
of
those
headquarters
moved
out
of
Montreal.
Where
are
they
all
in
Toronto?
Will
they
ever
move
back?
Nope
I
mean
I,
don't
know,
I
haven't
spoken
to
the
CEOs,
but
I'm
in
a
wager.
I
guess
that
they're
unlikely?
Well,
here's
the
challenge
and
I
appreciate
the
minister
just
said:
well,
they
come
to
Alberta.
Calgary
is
home
this,
the
second
largest
city
of
headquarters
of
financial
institutions.
This
bill
is
potentially
jeopardizing
that
that.
H
The
risk
of
driving
out
major
Financial
headquarters
out
of
our
province
is
not
worth
appeasing
point:
five
percent
of
Alberta's
population-
that's
who
this
is
appeasing
I,
can
tell
you
that
when
I
talk
to
businesses,
they're
not
clamoring
for
a
sovereignty
Act,
do
they
get
frustrated
when
the
federal
government
overreaches
a
hundred
percent,
do
they
want
to
see
the
province
stand
up
for
Alberta
100?
So
do
we?
H
This
is
not
the
tool
to
do
it.
This
is
going
to
have
significant
unintended
consequences.
I
was
asked
this
morning
at
a
senior's
residence.
Should
the
NDP
form
government
in
the
spring?
Will
you
repeal
this
bill?
If
the
government
continues
with
this
100,
we
will.
But
the
problem
is
what
damage
will
already
be
caused
between
today
and
that
day
now,
we'll
have
the
numbers
by
then
will
know
how
much
damage
was
caused.
H
H
And
I'm,
in
the
process
of
speaking
to
my
network,
that
I've
developed
internationally
of
investors
and
the
impact
that
this
bill
is
already
having
and
I,
can
tell
you
that
companies
are
not
translating
this
bill
in
its
entirety
to
try
to
understand
what
it
means.
What
they
see
is
Alberta
has
tabled
some
ACT
called
the
sovereignty
act.
That
means
that
they
will
have
a
different
set
of
rules
than
the
federal
government
and
that
that
is
causing
concern.
H
So,
for
those
reasons,
honorable
members
I
I
struggle
to
support
an
amendment
that
I
get
addresses
some
of
the
issues
that
were
raised
within
this
chamber,
we're
in
committee
and
so
to
the
minister.
Well
as
soon
as
I
sit
down,
sir
you're
through
you,
madam
chair,
the
minister
is
welcome
to
get
up
and
speak
and
friends.
We
will
be
debating
this
bill
for
some
time
this
evening
and
tomorrow
and
the
next
day
and
the
next
day.
But
it's
for
those
reasons.
I
I
mean
this
in
all
sincerity.
H
J
L
L
The
Amendments
also
see
to
clarify
that
the
harms
addressed
by
the
ACT
are
limited
to
Federal
initiatives
that,
in
the
opinion
of
the
legislative
assembly,
are
unconstitutional,
affect
or
interfere
with,
albertus
constitutional
areas
of
provincial
jurisdiction
or
interfere
or
violate
the
Charter
of
Rights
of
albertans
I
read
some
discussions
and
comments
that
the
bill
will
be
likely
challenged,
particularly
on
constitutionality,
Madam
chair.
Anybody
can
raise
that
concern
to
any
federal
or
provincial
legislation,
but
they
cannot
just
accept
the
constituency
of
the
bill
based
on
their
own
perception
alone.
L
L
This
will
prove
that
this
bill
does
not
permit
any
order.
That
is
against
the
Constitution.
That
makes
me
support
the
bill
Madam
chair
as
it
respects
the
Constitution.
Likewise,
the
resulting
orders,
resolutions
or
masses
are
needed
to
be
constitutional
and
it
upholds
and
respects
our
foundational
and
supreme
law.
L
Madam
chair,
I
might
immigrated
to
Canada
with
a
view
in
mind
that
I
will
raise
and
support
my
family
better
and
to
provide
a
healthier
future
to
my
children.
Canada's
respect
to
rule
of
law
in
higher
regard
to
human
rights
makes
this
nation
and
is
citizenry,
prosper
and
live
a
better
life
as
compared
to
some
jurisdictions.
L
Canada
is
also
third
in
the
world
with
oil
reserves,
which
is
mostly
located
in
Alberta,
and
the
whale
and
guest
industry
in
Canada's
top
export
export
product
I
have
made
things.
I
have
many
things
to
speak
of
Alberta,
but
I
don't
want
to
go
away
from
the
amendment
Madame
chair,
great
things,
I
just
mentioned
about
Alberta
Madam
chair,
are
only
few
of
the
reasons
that
makes
a
lot
of
albertans
stay
here.
Work
hard
and
live
a
happy
life.
L
However,
with
disturbing
Federal
government's
legislations
and
policies,
Alberta
has
been
put
into
disadvantages
position,
causing
hundreds
of
billions
of
dollars
to
flee
the
province
to
other
jurisdictions.
Over
the
past
decade,
Bill
won
the
Alberta
sovereignty
within
a
United.
Canada
Act
will
enforce
the
Canadian
Constitution's
division
of
powers,
in
recognition
of
both
the
federal
and
provincial
governments,
respective
exclusive
and
Sovereign
Sovereign
areas
of
constitutional
jurisdiction,
opportunities
for
building
national
awareness
of
federal
intrusion
into
provincial
areas
of
exclusive
jurisdiction.
L
After
many
challenging
years
of
Economic
and
pandemic
hardship,
Albert
is
finally
moving
forward.
Once
again,
the
government's
Focus
responsible
fiscal
management
and
Relentless
pursuit
of
economic
growth
has
put
the
province
on
a
more
sustainable
fiscal
trajectory,
creating
expanded
Financial
capacity,
resulting
in
additional
government
revenues.
L
L
In
albertans,
like
I
mentioned
a
while
ago,
Madam
chair,
the
approach
of
albertus
albertus
government
is
working
and
is
getting
more.
Albert
is
walking
and
bringing
our
finance
back
in
the
plaque.
Through
many
provincial
government
initiatives,
we
are
experiencing
broad
base
investment
economic
diversification
in
our
province.
L
The
Amazon
web
services
announced
his
plan
to
establish
a
second
cloud
computing
Hub
in
Calgary,
amounting
to
4.3
billion
dollars,
while
Infosys
has
recently
opened
this
digital
Center
in
Calgary
and
is
committed
to
create
housing,
jobs
and
Memphis
is
also
opened
their
Canadian
headquarters
this
year
in
Calgary
with
200
jobs
and
will
expand
to
create
1000
jobs
of
tech.
Jobs.
L
Northern
petrochemical
also
announced
a
2.5
billion
dollar
project
in
the
municipal
District
of
Greenview
in
Dao
chemical
plans
to
work
on
a
project
that
would
be
the
wolves,
Fest
Net
Zero
carbon
emissions
petrochemical
plant,
which
is
predicted
to
cost
about
10
billion
dollars.
Another
huge
investment
that
has
landed
in
Alberta
is
links
here.
Madam,
chair,
Canada's,
newest,
low-cost
Ali
is
joins
Flair
in
WestJet,
as
albertus
based
Airlines
there's
just
some
of
many
Investments
creating
jobs
in
Albert
Alberta,
boosting
our
economy
Madam
chair,
as
we
saw
the
unemployment
rate
deep
down
to
5.2
percent
in
October.
L
We
are
also
seeing
the
continue
with
entry
of
job
creatives
in
our
province,
whether
new
businesses
or
business
expansions
Alberta's
government
is
helping
employers
create
exciting
futures
for
albertans
Madam
chair.
We
do
not
want
to
be
stopped
or
pushed
back
by
federal
government
legislations
and
policies
as
we
continue
to
bring
more
prosperity
to
Alberta's
economy.
L
L
M
M
J
J
M
J
J
M
You,
madam
chair,
to
start
with
I,
wish
to
be
be
clear.
The
Alberta
sovereignty
within
the
United
Canada
act
bill
number.
One
is
a
bill
that
I
personally
support,
as
do
most
albertans
and
many
many
of
the
good
folks
of
Cyprus
medicine
had
now
Madam
chair.
This
is
a
relatively
simple
and
straightforward
sub
Amendment
to
the
government's
Amendment,
and
it
is
designed
to
clear
up
some
of
the
public
misconceptions
regarding
this
proposed
legislation
and
some
of
the
legitimate
concerns.
M
Well,
this
concern
may
be
inconvenient
for
the
government.
The
fact
is,
this
concern
is
not
limited
to
just
supporters
of
the
official
opposition.
In
fact,
I've
repeatedly
heard
this
concern
from
voters
that
I
would
personally
describe
as
lifelong
conservatives
and
given
the
events
of
the
past
three
years.
This
should
not
come
as
a
surprise
to
anyone.
M
M
M
My
sub
Amendment
is
designed
to
ensure
that
any
legislative
changes
proposed
by
cabinet,
even
when
they
are
made
at
the
assembly's
request,
must
ultimately
be
ratified.
Again
by
the
assembly,
with
a
majority
vote
and
by
making
this
one
small
change,
I
believe
we
can
put
to
rest
the
largest
concern
that
most
non-partisan
albertans
have
about
this
legislation.
M
So
I
ask
you,
my
fellow
members
of
the
assembly.
What
ultimately
makes
a
stronger
statement,
an
order
delivered
by
cabinet
following
a
closed-door
meeting
or
the
democratically
expressed
wishes
of
the
people's
Representatives
delivered
in
this
chamber
for
the
whole
world
to
see
for
the
whole
world
to
see
Madam
chair
democracy
doesn't
matter
less
when
you're
dealing
with
difficult
issues
like
Alberta's
autonomy.
In
fact,
it
matters
more.
M
M
So
my
sub
Amendment
in
it's
course
for
Section
a
one
and
then,
if
we're
1.1
states
that
a
minister
may
not
make
an
order
under
subsection
1A
until
each
of
the
following
occurs
in
successive
order,
the
minister
tables
the
copy
of
the
order,
as
proposed
in
the
legislative
assemble
assembly
within
seven
calendar
days
of
the
tabling
made
under
Clause.
A
the
Legislative
Assembly
approves
the
resolution
that
confirms
that
the
proposed
order
is
consistent
with
the
resolution
approved
under
Section
3,
to
which
it
relates.
M
So
the
minister
has
oversight
when
it
comes
to
implementation
of
the
sovereignty
Act
from
the
87
representatives
of
Alberta
and
section
4,
a
subsection,
1
1.2
lieutenant
governor
Council
may
not
make
an
order
under
subsection
1
to
direct
a
minister
under
Clause
b
or
issue
a
directive
under
Clause
C.
Until
each
of
the
following
occurs
in
successive
order
again,
a
member
of
executive
Council
tables
a
copy
of
the
order,
as
proposed
to
this
legislature,
to
the
87
of
us
within
seven
calendar
days
and
that's
1.2
B,
and
we
at
our
opportunity
to
ratify
it.
M
M
M
N
You
so
much
Madam
chair,
Madam
chair.
It
is
privilege
for
me
to
speak
to
the
amendment
sa1
that
has
just
been
tabled
by
the
member
for
Cyprus
Medicine
Heart
Madam,
chair
I
want
to
begin
by
attacking
the
member
for
taking
a
hard
look
at
the
bill,
one
before
this
assembly
and
his
interest
in
making
sure
that
we
get
the
bill
right.
That
I
think
that
is
something
that
all
of
us
can
agree
with,
but
Madam
chair,
I.
N
There
is
going
to
be
a
resolution
passed
in
this
assembly.
That
resolution
will
spell
out
what
it
is
that
executive,
the
members
of
executive
Council,
might
act
on
or
direct
a
cabinet
minister
or
the
lesbian
governor
in
Council,
in
which
case
the
cabinet,
to
make
an
order
or
to
deal
with
either
by
a
ministerial
order
or
by
an
other
encounter
now.
I
think
that
is
where
the
member
from
Cyprus
medicine
had
got
it
wrong.
We
can
never
confuse
the
role
of
executive
Council
and
the
role
of
the
legislative
assembly.
N
N
A
copy
of
the
order
that
is
made
by
the
executive
Council
has
to
be
then
brought
back
to
the
assembly
when
the
that
particular
order
is
man.
It's
made
a
punctuant
to
a
resolution
of
the
legislative
assembly
and
that
resolution
will
spell
out
the
nature
of
what
cabinet
is
to
act
on
that
really
is,
is
the
is
the
is
the
intention
of
your
amendment
that
responsibility
is
that
of
the
lieutenant
governor
in
cancer
that
power.
That
role
is
resolved
under
our
system
to
the
leftover
governor
and
Council,
which
is
cabinet.
N
What
the
role
of
the
assembly
is
a
number
one
on
the
r
system
and
on
the
under
the
how
the
one
is
designed
number
one
is
to
say
any
resolution
per
person
to
build.
One
has
to
be
made
by
the
assembly
number
two
that
push
one
to
their
memory.
We've
made
may
not
Amanda
a
statute
that
is
meant
to
come
before
this
assembly
as
a
bill.
N
I
think
to
the
member
for
Cyprus
Medicine
Heart,
the
amendment
that
we
have
made
and
the
rose,
the
difference
between
the
rules
of
the
secretary
Council
and
the
assembly
have
taken
care
of
the
intentions
behind
the
amendment
to
put
forward
on
that
particular
basis.
I
will
urge
the
members
of
this
assembly
to
vote
against
amendment
sa1.
M
I,
don't
see
this
as
a
situation
where
the
legislative
is
legislature
is
interfering
with
with
a
cabinet
decision
we're
just
ratifying
it
and
in
my
remarks
I
talked
a
lot
and,
and
the
official
opposition
has
been
quite
clear
on
on
many
many
albertans
either.
Don't
support
this
yet
or
don't
understand
it.
So,
to
me,
one
of
the
best
ways
to
gain
support,
especially
five
years
ten
years
20
years
from
now,
is
to
give
a
greater
opportunity
to
shine
some
light
on
this.
M
So
so
I'm
wondering
why
why
cabinet
would
be
concerned
about
saying
here's,
here's,
the
mechanism
that
we've
decided
to
put
in
place,
ratify
that
for
us
I
mean
Ottawa.
The
Constitution
I
mean
this
is
this
is
a
100
year
and
more
situation
where
and
it's
a
continual
situation
where
we
will
consistently
going
to
have
to
fight
and
have
albertans
strive
for
a
better
deal
for
Alberta
within
a
United
Canada.
M
So
so
why
would
we
we
minimize
that
and
when
I,
especially
think
of
the
a
situation
where
cabinet
May
direct
a
minister
to
send
a
directive
to
an
Alberta
agency?
You
know,
my
goodness,
you
know
look
at
how
many
strong
good
agencies
we
have
with
hard-working
people
that
are
their
their
fingers
are
in
everyday
of
our
lives
and
I
mean
afsc
ATV
Alberta
petroleum
commission,
which
is
three
that
I
mentioned
when
I
spoke.
M
So
why
not
give
albertans
those
that
built
this
great
Province,
those
that
pay
taxes,
those
that
raise
the
family?
Why
not
give
them
through
the
87
of
us
the
the
extra
the
extra
opportunity
to
do
that?
Why
not
have
have
that
extra
oversight,
because
I
I
guess
I'd
say
I?
Disagree
with
your
remarks
in
the
sense
I'm
not
suggesting
that
that
I
should
interfere
with
the
cabinet
decision.
A
cabinet
discussion,
but
I
should
have
the
opportunity
to
stand
up
and
and
put
in
my
my
yes
or
no
and
and
have
my
vote
Ash
at
all.
M
J
G
I
think
thank
you,
madam
chair
I'm,
pleased
to
rise
and
offer
some
thoughts
on
the
Amendments
that
the
government
has
brought
forward
to
its
job,
killing
sovereignty,
Act
and
the
amendments
seek
to
clarify
the
powers
of
executive
council
with
respect
to
the
powers
of
the
legislature,
but
in
fact,
does
very
little
to
clarify
anything,
that's
in
the
bill
and
in
and
I
don't
think
that
anybody
should
trust
this
Premier
or
this
government
to
do
what
it
says.
It's
going
to
do
with
respect
to
this
piece
of
legislation,
sure
and
nor.
G
More
importantly,
this
amendment
doesn't
address
some
of
the
significant
concerns
that
the
bill
has
created
on
the
issue
of
the
power
of
executive
council
with
respect
to
the
power
of
the
legislature.
It's
interesting
Madam,
chair
to
have
heard
the
Deputy
Premier
give
the
member
from
Cyprus
Medicine
Hat
a
lecture
on
separation
of
powers
and
division
of
powers
in
in
the
Canadian
federal
system.
While
supporting
a
bill
that
upends
all
of
those
things.
G
It
it
it
boggles
the
mind
chair
that
that
the
deputy
Premier
seems
so
confident
in
his
understanding
of
how
the
Canadian
democratic
system
works,
that
he
can
lecture
at
length.
The
member
from
Cyprus
Medicine
Hat,
who,
in
his
defense,
is
trying
to
get
this
government
back
on
the
rails
when
it
comes
to
the
to
to
Bill
one,
and
yet
his
own
cabinet
is
bringing
forward
this
bill
that
seeks
to
completely
throw
all
of
that
out
the
window
and
consolidate
executive
power.
G
So
this
bill
doesn't
really
address
any
of
those
concerns.
Now
the
government
I've
heard
the
government
member
stand
up
and
say:
well
now,
we've
backed
away
from
this
attempt
to
seize
legislative
power
and
put
that
in
the
hands
of
the
cabinet,
and
now
we're
only
going
to
clarify
that
it's
only
regulatory
power
that
we
can
exercise
which
the
government
already
has.
G
So
one
wonders
why
this
amendment
is
even
this
section
of
the
bill
is
even
necessary
if
it's
amended
to
reflect
this
wording
when
that
is
the
role
of
executive
Council,
but
I
want
everyone
watching
tonight
and
every
albertan
who
has
concerns
about
the
sovereignty
Act
to
make
sure
that
they
do
not
rest
easy,
because
the
government
has
passed
this
amendment,
because
we
know
that
this
government
has
tried
and
failed
a
couple
of
times
to
give
itself
unprecedented
Powers.
We
saw
that
in
built
in
a
couple
of
sessions
ago.
G
We
saw
it
here
when
the
original
form
of
Bill
one
and
that
I
have
no
reason
to
believe
Madam
chair
that
that's
the
end
of
it.
What
I
think
will
happen
well
now
we
will
see
instead
of
executive
Council
being
able
to
create,
modify
or
suspend
any
enactment
they'll
just
create
enabling
legislation
here
in
the
legislature.
That's
so
vaguely
worded,
hey
give
itself.
All
of
the
powers
of
that
should
belong
to
the
legislature,
to
itself
through
regulations
and
subvert
the
power
of
the
legislature.
G
G
G
G
G
Federal
legislation
that
is
properly
the
role
of
the
Courts
and
I,
had
to
laugh
when
I
heard
the
member
from
Calgary
East
talking
about
Shifting
the
burden
from
The
Province
to
the
federal
government
to
take
one
another
to
court
over
laws
that
they
thought
was
unconstitutional.
Well,
that's
not
the
intent
of
the
bill.
G
But
more
what
was
also
hilarious.
Madam
chair
was
that
he
suggested
that
that
would
somehow
speed
up
the
court
process
that,
rather
than
going
through
the
lengthy
process
of
a
province
taking
the
federal
government
to
court
when
they
believe
that
something
that
the
federal
government
did
was
unconstitutional.
G
G
G
The
regulatory
Powers
give
cabinets
even
more
ability,
even
broader
ability
to
to
spell
out
who
is
considered
a
provincial
entity
and
who
isn't
it.
It
can
direct
those
provincial
entities
and
its
members
officers
and
agents,
as
well
as
the
crown
and
its
ministers
and
agents
in
respect
of
the
federal
initiative
to
disobey
the
federal
law.
G
G
G
Will
businesses
working
in
Alberta
be
required
to
pay
federal
taxes?
Well,
we
don't
know
because
the
legislature
could
decide
that
just
by
the
motion
of
the
members
that
those
don't
apply,
what
currency
we
will
use
is
potentially
a
threat.
We've
heard
time
and
again,
members
of
the
government
caucus
go
on
about
the
wonders
of
of
cryptocurrency.
G
G
A
G
But
if,
in
the
opinion
of
a
majority
of
the
members
of
the
legislative
assembly
of
Alberta
bankruptcy
laws,
don't
apply
here
in
Alberta,
well,
then
what
will
businesses
do
when
they
need
to
be
protected
from
their
creditors?
Nobody
knows
patents
and
copyrights.
This
is
incredibly
important
to
the
post-secondary
sector,
research
and
development.
G
G
O
G
D
G
G
P
I
honestly
am
a
little
bit
flabbergasted
by
the
the
last
statement
there
by
the
member
for
Edmonton
goldbar
to
just
completely
dismiss
this
amendment
and
an
opportunity
to
address
the
concerns
that
we've
been
hearing
from
the
opposition
over
the
last
couple
days.
This
amendment
does
just
that
is
it
perfect?
Does
it
address
all
the
concerns
of
the
opposition?
No,
but
this
does
address
many
of
the
concerns
that
we've
heard
from
the
opposition,
and
this
is
an
opportunity
for
us
right
now
to
improve
this
bill.
P
I
think
it's
important
to
note
and
and
the
member
for
Drayton
Valley
was
was
talking
about
this
earlier,
but
the
the
obligation
of
the
opposition
at
the
end
of
the
day.
This
isn't
just
the
obligation
of
the
opposition.
This
is
the
obligation
of
this
house.
All
of
us
everybody
here
to
work
towards
improving
this
bill,
to
make
it
the
best
Bill
it
possibly
can
be
whether
or
not
you
vote
for
the
bill
in
the
end.
P
That's
that's
beside
the
point.
We
have
an
amendment
in
front
of
us
right
now
to
improve
this
bill,
to
make
this
bill
better
for
albertans
to
ignore
that,
to
just
say:
oh
I,
don't
like
the
overall
Bill
I'm
going
to
vote
against
this
amendment,
I
think
as
a
failure
to
represent
your
constituents,
because
at
the
end
of
the
day,
take
a
look
at
the
merits
of
this
amendment
and
we
we
have
an
obligation
right
now,
Madam
chair,
to
improve
this
bill.
P
P
Thank
you
to
the
member
for
Beverly
clairview
for
for
stating
that
for
making
it
clear
that
the
federal
government
has
stepped
Beyond
its
boundaries,
we
know
that
and
albertans
know
that
albertans
have
an
expectation
whether
or
not
they
understand
or
agree
with
this
bill.
They
have
an
expectation
right
now
that
the
members
of
this
chamber
this
legislature,
their
representatives,
step
up
and
protect
us
albertans
from
federal
government
overreach.
We
need
to
push
back
on
that
and
it's
not
just
Alberta.
P
We
are
not
the
only
Province,
that's
frustrated
with
federal
government
overreach
right
across
this
country.
Provincial
governments
are
pushing
back
because
they're
frustrated
with
the
federal
government
coming
in
and
stepping
up
stepping
into
provincial
jurisdiction.
These
are
constitutionally
protected
rights
of
provinces.
The
federal
government
has
started
to
to
to
push
back
on,
and
so
we
have
an
obligation
as
a
legislature
as
representatives
of
of
albertans,
to
make
sure
that
we
are
addressing
that
concern.
The
concern
brought
up
by
the
Edmonton
for
Beverly
Claire,
View
that
the
federal
government
has
overreached.
P
They
have
overstepped,
they
have
pushed
into
provincial
jurisdiction,
and
we
members
of
this
legislature
have
an
obligation
to
address
that
concern
period.
Full
stop!
That's
our
job,
so
if
this
bill
as
it
is
written,
doesn't
do
that,
then
I
anxiously
await
members
of
the
opposition
to
propose
ideas
for
a
how
we
fix
this
bill.
P
How
we
make
this
bill,
do
that
or
otherwise
to
be
able
to
push
back
on
the
federal
government
and
get
a
better
deal
for
albertans
to
make
sure
that
we're
standing
up
for
albertans
I,
look
forward
in
the
next
election
door,
knocking
and
telling
my
constituents
that
I'm?
Oh,
don't
don't.
You
worry,
I've
already
started
door,
knocking
I,
look
forward
and
I
have
been
telling
my
constituents.
This
government
is
going
to
stand
up
for
albertans
last
election.
P
P
My
constituents
expected
me
at
the
very
least,
to
read
this
and
figure
out.
How
do
we
help
make
this
bill
support
albertans,
as
we
push
back
on
the
federal
government
for
their
overreach
and
again,
let's
go
back
to
that
point
of
agreement.
I,
don't
know
if
all
the
members
of
the
opposition
agree
on
this,
but
I
sincerely
thank
Edmonton
for
Beverly
Clearview
for
his
stance,
his
recognition
that
the
federal
government
has
overreached
and
so
I
challenged
the
opposition
right
now
challenged
them
and
all
government
members.
P
If
this
bill
doesn't
get
it
done,
then
we
have
an
obligation
right
now
to
have
a
Frank
conversation,
partisan
politics
aside,
because
this
is
too
important
to
talk
about.
How
do
we
use
this
bill?
How
do
we
fix
this
bill?
How
do
we
build
this
bill
to
make
sure
that
we
are
standing
up
for
albertans
so
fix
it?
You
guys
sorry,
madam
chair,
there
is
a
general
refusal
right
now
by
the
opposition
to
even
propose
sincere
amendments
or
to
look
at
sincere
amendments
to
make
this
bill
better.
P
This
is
a
great
Amendment.
This
bill
makes
this
this.
This
amendment
makes
this
bill
better
and
and
just
to
Simply
dismiss
it.
I
think
is
shameful
and
I
think
and
I
hope
that
the
constituents
of
of
Edmonton
gold
bar
consider
that
as
they
vote
in
the
next
election,
the
other
thing
I
wanted
to
talk
about
the
member
for
Edmonton
Clearview
brought
it
up
our
Flagship
bill.
This
is
our
Flagship
bill.
P
Flagship
bill
of
this
government
was
Bill
one
to
repeal
the
carbon
tax,
because
the
carbon
tax
has
been
extremely
harmful
for
albertans,
among
other
things
and
guards
just
a
general
increase
of
concept.
A
large
part
of
why
we
are
where
we
are
is
because
of
the
carbon
tax.
The
carbon
taxes
increase
the
cost
of
everything
not
just
for
albertans,
but
for
Canadians.
P
P
Here
we
have
an
obligation
right
now
to
put
partisan
politics
aside,
to
take
a
look
at
this
bill
to
take
a
look
at
this
amendment
and
sincerely
have
a
conversation
right
now
about
how
we
are
going
to
improve
this
bill
so
that
we
can
better
represent
albertans,
that
we
can
make
sure
that
albertans
interests
are
kept
in
mind
that
we
can
put
Ottawa
in
its
Lane,
because
there's
an
agreement,
at
least
among
some
of
the
members
over
there,
that
Ottawa
has
overreached
and
make
sure
that
albertans
are
best
represented.
So
take
a
look
at
it.
P
Q
Well,
thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
it's
an
honor
to
rise
and
to
speak
to
the
amendment
that
the
government
has
put
forward
in
regards
to
their
bill.
One
Alberta
sovereignty
within
United,
Canada
Act
now
I
just
do
want
to
follow
up
with
some
of
the
comments
that
the
minister
just
made
actually
in
regards
to
representation
of
our
constituents
and
how
there
is
an
expectation
by
the
people
of
Alberta
that
the
government
listen,
that
the
government
work
in
collaboration
with
the
opposition
and
ensure
that
we
are
standing
up
for
the
people
of
this
province.
Q
I,
don't
disagree.
I,
think
that
there
is
an
opportunity
to
ensure
that
we
are
getting
the
best
opportunities
that
we
can
and
that
the
federal
government
is
listening
to
the
expectations
from
the
province.
But
what
I
can
also
say
is
that
when
the
minister
says
well,
the
people
of
Alberta
expect
that
we
listen
and
expect
that
we
are
standing
up
for
them
and
they
expect
that
the
government
is
working
on
their
behalf.
Then
this
bill
shouldn't
exist
because
I
can
tell
you
right
now,
based
on
the
polling,
there's
only
30
percent
of
albertans.
Q
That
actually
agree
with
this
act,
so
what
that
tells
you
is
that
the
majority
of
albertans
disagree
and
they
disagreed
with
this
legislation
before
it
was
ever
introduced.
Because
albertans
don't
agree
with
this
tactic.
They
don't
agree
with
it.
Minister
and
you
can.
You
can
argue
across
the
floor
with
me
about
the
reality
of
it
is,
but
that
is
what
is
happening.
Albertans
didn't
agree
with
this
direction
before
this
legislation
was
introduced.
Q
They
understand
that
there
needs
to
be
adults
at
the
table
being
willing
to
engage
in
conversations
that
there
are
mechanisms
that
currently
exist
within
the
the
way
that
our
legislation
Works
within
the
court
process
and
the
judicial
system
that
works,
and
they
do
not
agree
with
a
bill
like
this
being
introduced
into
this
chamber,
and
this
tactic
that
the
government
has
decided
to
use
as
the
tool
do.
They
agree
that
we
need
to
have
a
different
relationship
with
the
federal
government.
Absolutely
and
I.
Q
Don't
think
anybody
in
this
chamber
disagrees
with
that,
but
the
mechanism
that
this
government
has
chosen
to
use
through
this
sovereignty
Act
is
not
the
mechanism
that
albertans
agree
with.
So,
as
the
minister
clearly
said,
if
we
were
listening
to
our
constituents
in
this
chamber,
if
every
member
in
this
chamber
was
listening
to
their
constituents,
they
would
say
that
this
bill
should
not
proceed.
Q
It
should
not
proceed
even
as
amended,
because
the
reality
of
it
is
is
that
albertans
disagreed
with
it
before
they
even
saw
it.
So
what
happened
was
the
opposition
listened
to
albertans
heard
that
they
did
not
agree
with
this
move
talk
to
the
majority
of
albertans
and
said
you
know
what
this
isn't
the
tool
that
albertans
expect
us
to
use.
Q
Only
30
of
albertans
agree
with
this,
and
we
know
that
if
the
government
actually
was
listening
to
albertans,
they
would
know
that
only
30
percent
of
albertans
agree
with
this.
The
economy
and
the
people
that
are
trying
to
invest
in
our
Province
disagree
with
this
that
it
is
creating
economic
uncertainty
in
our
Province.
So
not
only
are
the
people
that
are
going
to
vote
in
the
next
election
saying
this
is
a
bad
idea.
This
should
not
proceed.
Q
Investors
are
saying
the
same
thing
with
in
Alberta
and
outside
of
Alberta.
So
I
would
think
that
this
week
would
have
educated
the
government
to
say
you
know
what
well.
We
definitely
need
to
amend
this,
but
in
fact
maybe
we
should
just
admit
we
made
a
mistake
and
get
rid
of
it.
The
amendment
doesn't
fix
the
concerns,
because
if
the
amendment
fixed
the
concerns,
then
the
government,
the
bill
would
just
not
be
read,
because
that
is
what
albertans
are
telling
all
of
us
in
this
chamber.
Q
You
know
we
we
hear
ministers
stand
up
and
talk
about
well,
when
I
go
door,
knocking
we
people
talk
to
me
about
this.
Well,
I'm,
really
curious
what
people
are
hearing,
because,
when
I'm
door,
knocking
I,
can
tell
you
right
now,
people
are
choked
about
this
piece
of
legislation.
They
do
not
like
it.
They
don't
trust
this
government
to
be
open
and
transparent
with
them
about
what
they're
doing
behind
closed
doors.
Q
That
is
the
fundamental
underlying
issue
related
to
this
piece
of
legislation,
but
really
the
government
as
a
whole
albertans,
don't
trust
this
government.
They
don't
trust
this
Premier.
They
don't
believe
that
with
how
this
piece
of
legislation
is
written,
even
with
the
amendments
to
be
clear
that
there
will
be
an
openness
and
transparency
to
albertans
about
what
this
government
is
choosing
to
do.
What
fights
are
they
choosing
to
pick?
How
are
they
going
to
battle?
Q
Q
This
legislation
does
not
demonstrate
a
stable
democracy
and
a
relationship
between
the
cross-jurisdictions.
It
just
doesn't
no
usurps
the
courts,
you
want
I
mean
the
ministers
can
all
laugh
across
the
floor,
but
the
reality
of
it
is.
We
just
clearly
heard
the
minister
say
that
a
Court
ruling
from
the
Supreme
Court
of
Canada
isn't
a
good
enough
response
for
this
government
and
so
they're
going
to
be
looking
at
trying
to
figure
out
a
different
way
to
deal
with.
Q
It
clearly
said
it:
carbon
tax,
Supreme,
Court,
Canada,
already
decided
get
it
government,
you
don't
like
it,
but
the
minister
clearly
said
well:
we've
got
a
plan
to
get
around
that
curious.
What
that's
going
to
be
so
you're
just
going
to
ignore
the
Supreme
Court
of
Canada
now
create
your
own
piece
of
legislation
under
the
sovereignty
act,
create.
Q
They've
had
the
opportunity
to
bring
motions
into
the
into
the
house.
They
do
it
all
the
time
they
used
to
do
it
significant,
like
almost
weekly
last
session,
there's
Court
challenges
that
are
currently
happening
in
relation
to
decisions
that
the
federal
government
have
made
that
the
provinces
decide
they
don't
like
and
yet
for
some
reason
the
government
has
decided:
that's
not
good
enough.
Q
So,
if
using
the
tools
that
exist
underneath
under
our
democracy
aren't
good
enough,
then
what
exactly?
Is
the
plan
by
this
government
to
supersede
those
tools
to
ignore
them,
to
ignore
court
rulings
to
try
to
create
new
regulations
that
somehow
find
a
way
to
go
around
the
current
Court
rulings?
I
know
it
bothers
the
minister
when
I
speak
of
these
things,
but
those
are
the
mechanisms
that
exist.
They
exist.
That's
how
this
bill
is
written.
Even
with
the
changes
of
this
amendment.
Q
They
don't
fix
those
those
questions
and
the
reality
is,
is
that
the
minister
wants
to
continue
to
speak
over
me
and
yell
over
me,
because
he
doesn't
actually
like
what
I'm
saying,
because
the
truth
sometimes
hurts
everything,
and
so
here's
the
reality
right.
We
know
that
when
governments
start-
and
we
hear
ministers
start
heckling
across
the
floor,
it's
because
you've
hit
the
nerve
and
they
don't
like
it.
Q
Q
They
don't
want
to
talk
about
it
anymore
when
it's
good.
Let's
talk
about
it
forever
right,
but
the
reality
of
it
is.
Is
that
they're
hearing
the
same
things
that
we're
hearing
on
this
side
and
well
I
mean?
If,
if
the
minister
wants
to
mock
being
from
capped,
then
I
guess
that's
a
problem
for
the
minister
I,
don't
know
why
that
would
be
a
fun
Hackle
I
mean
oil
and
gas
being
upset
and
being
concerned
about
investment
opportunity
should
be
a
concern.
Q
There
are
no,
it's
not
just
cap
we're
hearing
from
Chambers
of
Commerce
that
are
speaking
about
this
we're
hearing
from
investors,
we're
hearing
from
investment
capitalists,
we're
hearing
from
people
who
access
grants
through
Federal
governments
that
are
concerned
about
whether
or
not
their
grant
funding
is
going
to
be
removed.
We're
hearing
from
indigenous
communities
that
feel
like
they've,
been
ignored.
Q
The
government
has
actually
managed
to
create
allies
among
groups
that
have
never
been
allies
before
I
mean
good
on
you.
I
I
appreciate
the
allyship
that
is
coming
and
talking
to
us,
but
that
is
the
reality
when
there
is
a
reality
of
the
fact
that
I
don't
know
why
they're
so
fixated
on
cap
but
anyway,
the
reality
of
it
is,
is
that
30
percent
of
Albert
and
support
this?
The
majority?
Q
Don't
if
the
government
doesn't
like
that-
and
they
want
to
continue
to
yell
over
me,
because
they
feel
that
that
is
the
best
thing
then
I
would
encourage
them
to
stand
up
and
walk
albertans
through
why
this
makes
sense.
Why
is
this
going
to
be
good
because
they
don't
think
it
is
and
they
need
the
government
really
needs
to
understand.
Q
Madam
chair
that
albertans?
Just
don't
trust
the
government.
That's
why
they
don't
like
this
bill,
because
they
don't
actually
believe
they
actually
don't
believe
that
this
government
has
had
the
capacity
to
be
open
and
transparent
throughout
their
whole
ability,
as
Government
I
mean.
We
saw
this
under
Bill
10
when
there
was
actionary
extraordinary
powers
being
brought
forward
under
the
health
legislation
that
this
government
introduced,
which
was
then
later
repealed,
because
the
government
realized.
Oh,
we
made
a
mistake.
We
may
have
overreached
on
that
bill.
Q
81
attempted
to
subvert
the
Democratic
process
and
resulted
in
numerous
UCP
caucus
members
speaking
out
against
the
bill
and
voting
against
it
and
then
having
their
voices
silenced
in
the
legislature.
And
now
we've
got
Bill
one
significant
overreach,
and
yet
you
know
we've
heard
from
leadership
contestants
that
spoke
about
the
fact
that
they
didn't
like
this
bill
and
and
I
continue
to
hear
from
one
of
the
ministers
across
the
way
that
continues
to
obviously
have
strong
feelings
about
this
piece
of
legislation.
Q
Q
They
don't
trust
the
premier
and
the
reality
of
it
is,
is
that
this
bill
is
going
to
hurt
our
economy
and
it's
going
to
create
havoc
and
Chaos
for
albertans,
and
what
this
government
should
have
been
focusing
on
is
dealing
with
the
crisis
in
health
care,
making
sure
our
kids
are
taken
care
of
when
they
have
to
go
to
hospital,
and
they
should
have
been
addressing
the
issues
that
albertans
are
facing
when
it
comes
to
trying
to
pay
their
bills.
That
should
have
been
Bill
one
taking
care
of
the
priorities
that
matter
to
albertans.
Q
R
Thank
you,
madam
chair
I,
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
address
this
amendment
and
some
of
the
comments
that
have
been
made
over
the
course
of
this
evening.
I
will
clearly
be
speaking
to
not
to
accept
this
amendment
and
the
fundamental
reason.
Why
is
it
really
does
not
address
the
issues
that
were
inherent
in
the
bill
itself
and
it
doesn't
fix
what
needs
to
be
fixed
now.
R
Clearly,
in
reading
the
amendment,
the
government
has
come
to
accept
the
that
that
which
they
denied
for
the
first
week
and
a
half
after
introducing
this
this
bill.
That
is,
that
it
actually
does
infringe
on
constitutionality
and
that
it
this
bill
allowed
extraordinary
powers
to
the
provincial
government.
R
Now
I
understand
that
they
didn't
understand
what
they
were
doing
and
that,
after
being
educated
by
people
who
do
understand
the
law,
that
they
decided,
that
they
must
come
back
into
the
house
and
get
rid
of
the
the
famously
you
know
when
I
say
Henry,
VII
Clause.
That
would
allow
this
provincial
government
to
do
extraordinary
things
outside
of
the
democratic
process.
R
So
we
know
that
they,
they
clearly
didn't
understand
what
they
were
doing
and
they
fixed
that
one
piece,
but
I
want
to
suggest
that
there
are
a
variety
of
other
things
that
this
does
not
address.
So
therefore,
it's
not
a
a
successful
Amendment,
it's
just
too
much
there
and
so
much
so
that
I
know
that,
in
speaking
with
the
the
representatives
of
the
First
Nations,
who
have
been
calling
me
in
droves
over
the
last
little
while
that
they
simply
are
asking
this
government
not
to
proceed
with
this
bill
at
all.
R
They're,
not
saying,
would
you
please,
you
know,
make
some
amendments?
Would
you
make
some
changes?
They
very
clearly
said
publicly
that
they
would
like
to
see
some
sub.
So
you
see
this
bill
removed
completely
from
the
legislature
and
and
and
because
this
amendment
doesn't
do
that
we
offer
that
to
the
to
the
house,
but
they
didn't
pick
it
up.
So
you
know
we.
R
We
are
in
this
position
now
of
not
being
able
to
proceed
with
the
things
that
need
to
actually
happen
with
this
bill,
and
that
is
to
put
it
aside
to
fix
the
multiple
problems
that
are
in
the
Bill
and
then
consider
its
return,
perhaps
after
an
election
in
the
spring.
But
let
me
talk
about
some
of
the
particulars
that
are
of
concern
here
now.
We've
already
talked
about
the
fact
that
there
is
that
there's
an
issue
of
constitutionality
with
the
bill
itself.
R
That
is,
can
a
a
provincial
legislature
deny
the
laws
established
by
a
federal
legislature,
and
that's
that's
been
brought
up
many
times
and,
of
course
the
vast
majority
of
constitutional
lawyers
in
the
country
have
said.
Indeed,
this
bill
is
problematic
and
another
analysis
has
just
come
out
over
the
last
day
or
so
by
orzinski
and
banks.
That
says
that,
let
me
just
quote
a
little
piece
of
it
here.
Just
for
our
our
conversation,
the
the
article
by
the
way
is
entitled
running
a
file.
R
The
separation,
Division
and
delegation
of
powers,
the
Alberta
sovereignty
within
a
United
Canada
Act
by
olzinski
and
Banks
I,
will
submit
copies
to
the
house
in
due
course.
The
piece
that
I
think
is
very
important
here
is
is
the
the
section
where
they
say
quotes
in
an
entire
legislative
scheme.
That
is
constitutionally
suspect.
Subsection
2A
amounts
to
a
constitutional
fig
Leaf,
especially
when
the
provision
is
merely
directed
at
interpretation
brackets.
Nothing
is
to
be
construed.
Close
brackets
subsection
to
B
is
more
significant.
R
R
In
other
words,
it
doesn't
mean
anything
just
because
you
say
in
your
own
words.
Well,
this
doesn't
break
the
law,
it
doesn't
mean
it
doesn't
break
the
law,
it
does
break
the
law.
It's
like
when
you're
having
an
argument
with
someone
and
they
say
to
you
well
I-
do
want
to
be
insulting
but
you're
an
idiot.
R
You
know
they
can
say,
they're
not
insulting
you,
but
they
are
insulting
you
and
that's
exactly
what
all
the
Constitutional
lawyers
are
saying
about
this
bill.
That's
your
saying
one
thing
at
the
beginning,
but
then
you
go
on
to
defy
your
own
statement
for
the
rest
of
the
bill
and
that's
why
the
bill
has
to
be
withdrawn.
It's
not
merely
one
section
of
the
bill.
R
It's
multiple
sections
of
the
bill
that
are
doing
this
and
I'll
I'll
go
through
a
few
of
them
here,
one
of
them
that
I
I
think
continues
to
be
a
deep
concern
to
the
First
Nations.
Is
this
section
two
that
I've
just
referred
to
here
that
while
it
says
nothing
is
to
be
construed
as
somehow
abrogating
indigenous
treaty
rights?
R
We
know
from
this
interpretation
that
I've
just
read
to
you
that
that
doesn't
mean
anything,
because
the
bill
goes
on
to
actually
suggest
that
they
will
be
doing
that
very
thing
that
they
will
be
abrogating
treaty
rights
and
I
know
that
that
the
first
nations
are
very
concerned
about
well
what
is
the
intention
of
this
bill?
What
are
the
kinds
of
things
that
the
federal
government
might
do
that
this
provincial
government
might
suggest
is
somehow
not
in
the
interests
of
the
people
of
the
province
of
Alberta?
R
And
the
first
thing
that
comes
to
mind
when
the
first
nations
are
talking
to
me
is
they're,
saying
it's
going
to
be
about
environmental
legislation?
Isn't
it
that
when
the
federal
government
comes
forward
and
says
that
we
want
to
protect
our
air,
our
water
and
our
lands
that
this
provincial
government
will
take
the
position
that
wait
a
minute
if
we
have
to
protect
our
air
water
and
lands,
we're
going
to
lose
some
money,
and
so
we
don't
want
to
do
that.
It's
not
in
the
interest
of
the
public
and
the
First.
R
Nations
communities
are
saying
to
me.
So
what
you're
saying,
then,
is
that
if
we
have
interests
in
protecting
the
air
and
water
and
land,
we
don't
count
as
part
of
the
public
that
you're
trying
to
protect
that
you
are
going
to
use
this
as
a
chance
to
undermine
the
environmental
legislation
that
is
being
brought
forward
by
the
federal
government
in
the
protection
of
the
lands
that
we
are
responsible
for.
R
That's
why
they're
concerned
about
it?
That's
why
they're
saying
you
can't
proceed
with
this
bill,
because
it's
not
just
that
it's
unconstitutional,
but
even
if
it
does
the
things
that
you
want
it
to
do,
you're
going
to
be
subverting
the
interests
of
the
First
Nations
communities,
and
so
therefore
they
cannot
stand
with
it.
R
And
if
you
are
trying
to
subvert
laws
that
protect
that
land,
because
you're
afraid
that
you
will
lose
some
money.
If,
if
you
enact
those
those
laws,
the
the
environmental
laws,
then
you
are
taking
a
stance
against
the
First
Nations
people
and
they've
clearly
said
to
me.
Over
and
over
again,
this
bill
is
predicated
on
a
single
Clause
of
only
taking
steps
when
it's
in
the
public
interest.
R
But
there
is
no
clarity
as
to
what
public
interest
is,
or
more
importantly,
I
guess,
perhaps
whose
public
interest
is
being
supported
and
protected
here
that
they
know
that
you'll
be
very
interested
in
supporting
the
public
interests
of
Industries,
but
they
do
not
know
that
you'll
be
interested
in
supporting
the
public
interests
of
First
Nations
people.
So
that's
the
concern
here.
R
R
We
know
that
sometimes
the
federal
government
is
going
to
do
things
that
make
us
unhappy
in
the
province
of
Alberta.
We
get
that
nobody's
ever
said.
That's
not
true!
On
this
side
of
the
house.
We
know
that.
Sometimes
you
have
to
stand
up
to
the
federal
government
and
say
we
do
not
like
what
you're
doing,
but
lo
and
behold,
it
turns
out.
We
already
have
a
mechanism
for
doing
that.
R
The
mechanism
is
twofold.
One
of
them,
of
course,
is
to
stand
up
and
to
say
to
the
federal
government.
We
do
not
like
this,
and
we
expect
to
be
sitting
down
at
a
table
with
you
and
having
the
conversation
about
what's
wrong
with
this.
This
bill
that
you're
trying
to
enact
or
this
regulation
that
you
have
and
asking
you
to
change
that
in
the
constructive
way
that
parliamentarians
are
supposed
to
be
able
to
do
now.
That
would
be
the
natural
First
Step.
R
R
They've
taken
things
issues
that
they
have
with
the
federal
government
to
the
courts
and
the
courts
have
made
decisions,
and
lo
and
behold,
sometimes
the
courts
actually
decide
that
the
provincial
government
is
wrong
and
that
the
federal
government
is
well
within
their
jurisdiction
to
make
these
kind
of
decisions
and
has
every
right
to
proceed
in
the
way
they
do
and
what
this.
So,
what
does
provincial
government
is
saying
the
courts
only
count
if
we
win.
R
You
know
I,
remember
playing
football
with
friends
when
we
were
in
grade,
you
know
seven
and
eight
and
that's
how
rules
were
made
back
then.
Well,
if
I
don't
get
my
way,
then
we
can't
play
I'm
going
to
take
my
ball
and
go
home.
That's
not
how
a
provincial
government
should
be
acting.
You
should
not
create
legislation
merely
because
you
have
sour
grapes
about
losing
at
the
highest
court
in
the
land.
R
In
fact,
it's
suggesting
that
it
will,
as
as
the
quote
I
just
read
earlier,
that
will
actually
compel
provincial
entities
to
engage
in
an
act
that
would
be
contrary
to
federal
law,
so
you're
actually
suggesting
that
citizens
of
the
province
of
Alberta
engage
in
illegal
activities,
and
then
you
go
on
in
Section
8
to
say:
don't
worry,
we'll
protect
you.
That
is,
if
you
do
something
under
this
act,
you
won't
be
breaking
the
law
in
the
province
of
Alberta.
That
doesn't
mean
you're,
not
breaking
the
law
in
the
country
of
Canada.
R
The
federal
government
can
charge
people
federal
government
can
enforce
their
laws,
so
we
are
in
a
very
dangerous
place,
we're
in
a
place
where
the
province
is
trying
to
act
outside
the
Democratic
process
and
the
provinces
is
trying
to
encourage
citizens
to
act
outside
the
legal
process,
and
then
they
say
well.
Can
you
work
with
us
to
fix
this
bill
and
I
could
certainly
tell
you
we
tried
twice
yesterday
twice.
We
introduced
recent
amendments.
R
R
They
they
tried
to
subvert
the
Democratic
process,
which
actually
resulted
in
some
of
their
own
people
voting
against
their
own
bill,
something
we
almost
never
see
in
this
house,
and
yet
they
haven't
learned
that
the
people
who
are
trying
to
overstep
the
bounds
of
their
Authority
in
this
country
is
not
the
federal
government.
It
is
the
provincial
government.
This
provincial
government
is
consistently
and
routinely
tried
to
overstep
its
Authority
with
regard
to
the
Democratic
process
and
the
laws
in
this
province.
R
I
worked
hard
to
get
myself
into
a
place
where
I
could
write
new
laws
through
the
Democratic
process
and
successfully
did
so
I'm
very
proud
of
the
laws
that
we
brought
in,
but
that's
the
process
that
we
have
designed
in
democracy.
If
you
don't
like
it,
you
fight
it
in
The,
Ballot
Box.
You
do
not
fight
it
by
ignoring
the
institution
of
democracy
and
the
institution
of
the
rule
of
law,
and
this
is
what
this
government
is
doing.
R
This
is
why
it's
problematic-
and
this
is
why
we
stand
here
saying
you
cannot
fix
this
bill-
it's
not
about
sort
of
being
misdirected,
it's
not
about
just
simply
one
that
needs
a
little
tweak
or
a
little
fudge
along
the
way.
This
is
a
bill
that
is
trying
to
pervert
what
we
have
created
in
Western
democratic
systems
throughout
the
world
and
as
such,
we
cannot.
We
cannot
stand
here
and
play
games
of
move.
R
S
Thank
you
very
much
Madam
chair
and
it's
my
pleasure
to
join
the
bait.
The
debate
on
Amendment
A1
regarding
the
regarding
Bill
one,
the
sovereignty
act,
and
certainly
we
have,
as
my
colleagues
have
shared
already
heard,
far
and
wide
from
the
business
Community
indigenous
leaders,
academics,
journalists
and
even
elected
representatives
from
the
governing
party
that
the
sovereignty
Act
is
legislation
that
will
hurt
Alberta.
S
So
this
amendment
to
Bill
one
and
of
course
we
know
that
this
is
the
leading
Bill
Bill
one
of
the
new
premier
of
the
UCP.
She
campaigned
on
this
bill
saying
it
was
very
important
for
Ken
for
Alberta
to
have
a
sovereignty
act
and
she
wanted
to
challenge
the
federal
government
because
she
believed
they
had
overreach
into
our
Province,
and
so
she
was
going
to
create
legislation
that
indeed,
did
actually
challenge
the
constitution
of
our
country,
and
so
here
it
is.
S
She
said
no,
no,
no
we'd
always
come
back
to
the
legislative
branch
of
government
and
make
sure
that
you
know
enactments
of
of
new
laws
and
and
legislation
would
go
through
that
process,
but
indeed
this
amendment
says
very
very
loudly
that
that
was
not
indeed
the
case,
because
it
would
not
have
been
brought
forward.
If
the
legislation
you
know
did
have
those
checks
and
balances.
Of
course,
any
healthy
democracy
has
different
branches
of
government
that
have
we
call
them
checks
and
balances.
S
It's
just
the
it's
just,
not
the
executive
branch,
not
just
the
executive
Council,
the
ministers,
the
premier,
who
make
decisions.
They
must
bring
that
information
back
to
the
legislature
for
all
mlas
to
scrutinize
and
certainly
speak
to
debate.
But
for
some
reason
you
know
what
and
I
mean
the
premier
herself
said
very
clearly.
No,
no
those
checks
and
balances
are
in
place.
S
But
here
we
are,
you
know
a
week
later
and
we
have
this
amendment
before
us
indicating
to
us.
Indeed
that
was
not
the
case,
and
there
was
some
mistake.
So
there's
been
some
type
of
a
failure
here
by
the
UCP
government.
It
could
be
a
failure
that
the
premier
just
didn't,
read
the
legislation
and
didn't
understand
it
or
she
wasn't
properly
briefed
by
people
in
her.
S
You
know
in
the
in
the
public
service
or
her
political
staffers
people
who
are
supposed
to
be
obviously
supporting
the
legislation
that
she
wants
to
bring
forward
so
there.
So
it
does
look
like
a
bit
of
a
schmaus.
Really
it's
a
it's
a
it's
a
big
mess.
What
schmuzzle
so
but
I
mean
you
know
this
amendment
before
us
today.
A1
is
living
proof
that
our
concerns
are
valid
as
the
official
opposition
that
indeed,
this
legislation
was
dangerous.
S
S
Who
speak
have
spoken
out
about
this
legislation
and
I
myself
in
my
own
constituency
have
received
many
calls
emails,
so
I'm
really
engaged
concerned
constituents
that
this
legislation
is
creating
all
sorts
of
havoc
in
our
Province
and
that
it
should
not.
You
should
not
go
ahead
even
with
this
amendment,
although
I
will
give
you
that
this
amendment
does
make
it
better,
because
again,
it
restores
some
level
of
democracy
to
this
to
this
legislation.
S
S
Okay,
16th
century
Sovereign.
Thank
you
for
that
correction
that
had
you
know
significant
sort
of
dictatorial
ways
of
operating
in
his
in
his
rulings
or
reigning,
and
so
the
amendment
changed
that
section
so
that
executive
Council
doesn't
have
the
sweeping
powers
of
enactment,
which
is
an
important
Amendment,
giving
back
the
legislative
accountability
to
the
process.
Restoring
some
level
of
democracy
to
Alberta
I
believe
that
we
in
the
opposition
have
every
right
to
really
distrust
this
government
because
of
this
type
of
legislation
that
they
brought
forward
and
previous
ones
within
this.
S
This
mandate,
this
mandate
that
they
got
in
2019,
not
only
Bill
one
but
other
UCP
pieces
of
legislation
give
excessive
powers
that
we've
seen
you
know
here,
and
so
that's
why
it's
so
important
our
role
as
the
official
opposition
that
we
bring
up
these
concerns.
We
know
that
back
in
2020,
the
UCP
brought
forward
Bill
10,
the
public
health
emergency
Powers,
Amendment,
Act
2020.,
and
this
bill
gave
new
power
to
create
laws
without
legislative
assembly
approval.
S
Bill
10
was
pushed
through
by
the
UCP
in
48
hours,
48
Hours,
it
was
it
was
just
rammed
through
this
legislature,
and
the
bill
gave
cabinet
ministers
unilateral
Authority,
without
consultation,
to
impose
new
laws
on
the
citizens
of
Alberta.
So,
despite
the
ucp's
profession
of
you
know
wanting
to
create
more
democracy
wanting
to
be
sure
to
make
sure
that
citizens
of
Alberta
have
involvement
and
input
into
the
process.
S
This
legislation
built
in
and
Bill
1,
which
we
see
before
us
right
now
both
are
sort
of
flying
the
face
of
that
and
are
absolutely
not
creating
more
democracy
in
their
in
our
Province,
but
really
hindering
that
again
as
Bill
one
just
did.
Bill
10
ignored
the
legislative
branch
of
government
and
gave
all
authority
to
the
executive
branch
and,
as
we
did
back,
then
the
official
opposition
stood
up
against
this
undemocratic
legislation.
S
S
One
I
want
to
talk
about
now
is
Bill
78,
the
Alberta
housing
Amendment
act
that
gave
the
minister
power
to
Define,
affordable
housing.
So
no
criteria
was
specified
in
the
bill.
It's
so
the
minister
can
designate
what
units
are
affordable
or
not,
and
again
it's
just
like
these
sweeping
powers
given
to
well
the
in
this
case
one
member
of
the
executive
branch
and
without
any
kind
of
criteria
or
understanding
about
what
that
actually
means,
and
quite
frankly,
I
mean
one
of
the
things
that
is
extremely
disturbing
about
what
is
happening
in
housing.
S
S
Positive
progress
is
being
made
in
that
area
and,
frankly,
there
isn't
any
positive
progress
in
that
area.
We're
in
a
housing
crisis
in
this
province,
and
it
is
getting
worse
every
day
and
you
know
we
see
it
on
our
streets.
Certainly
in
the
city
of
Edmonton,
we
know
so
many
people
are
living
in.
You
know
horrific
conditions,
considering
how
cold
it
is
outside
and
we
know
that
albertans
are
dying.
We
know
that
there's
been
amputations
because
of
being
in
the
cold.
S
For
long
periods
of
time-
and
these
folks
need
that
social
housing,
they
need
that
permanent
Supportive
Housing,
but
this
government
just
is
not
stepping
up
up
to
support
them
in
that
way.
So,
I
guess
these
are
just
examples
of
legislation
that
the
UCP
government
brought
in
previously.
That,
of
course,
are
not
really
respecting
the
Democratic
process
in
our
Province,
and
these
are
these
are
key
issues.
So,
of
course,
the
amendment
to
take
back
some
of
this
Henry
VII
extraordinary
power
is,
is
a
step
in
the
in
the
right
direction.
S
However,
it
is
it's
not
enough
with
in
terms
of
making
this
bill
better.
This
bill
still
is
a
deeply
flawed
piece
of
legislation
and
that's
why
we
voted
against
it
in
first
reading,
which
we
know
is
a
rare
event
in
this
house
and
it's
not
something
that
we
took
lightly,
but
we
looked
at
the
legislation
and
we
saw
that
this
legislation
did
warrant
because
it
was
deeply
flawed
and
it
would
hurt
albertans.
S
So
we
stood
up
and
we're
very
proud
of
that,
and
that
this
amendment
shows
how
right
we
were
to
do
that,
because
this
is
fundamentally
flawed
and,
as
I
said,
this
is
only
one
aspect
of
the
difficulties
with
this
bill
and
and
just
for
you
know,
I
think
it's
important
for
us
to
have
some
perspective
on
what
we
do
and
we're
not
just
focusing
on
this
bill.
But
there
is
a
whole
well
I
mean
the
UCP
does
have
a
legacy
a
bit.
Now,
three
and
a
half
years
about
of
of
governance.
S
We
can
call
it
a
legacy.
Maybe
I
don't
know,
that's
the
right
word
exactly,
but
we
voted
against
two
other
pieces
of
legislation
in
first
reading
as
well,
and
that
was
bill.
Nine,
the
public
sector,
wage
arbitration,
deferral
act
and
then
Bill
22,
the
reform
agency's
board
and
commissions
and
governance,
Enterprise
act,
2019
and
just
to
help
some
of
the
members
in
this
assembly
remember
why
we
voted
against
those
in
first
reading,
like
we
did
about
Bill
one,
and
we
we
do
this.
S
Rarely
so
I
guess
it's
been
three
bills
in
this
entire
three
and
a
half
years
of
UCP
rule.
But
these
are
very
egregious
pieces
of
legislation,
and
so
that's
why
we
decided
to
vote
in
first
reading
against
them
and
so
of
course,
Bill
Nye.
The
public
sector
wage
arbitration
deferral
act
imposed
a
delay
on
wage
talks
for
Frontline
workers
who
took
pay
freezes
in
the
first
years
of
their
contracts
and
then
had
the
right
to
reopen
pay
negotiations
with
arbitration
if
needed
in
2019..
S
But
of
course
this
bill
stopped
all
of
that
they
weren't
allowed
to
open
their
contracts,
and
this
betrayed
many
Alberta
Union
of
provincial
employee
members
that
were
employed
at
Alberta,
Health
Services,
the
government
of
Alberta,
post-secondary
education
boards
and
agencies.
And,
of
course,
we
wanted
to
vote
against
that,
and
we
did
because
this
is
really
adding
salt
to
the
wound
of
this
betrayal
of
workers.
Here
they
have
an
agreement.
S
You
know
that
the
government
is
supposed
to
respect,
but
instead
they
bring
in
legislation
to
wipe
that
off
so
that
they
don't
have
any
kind
of
Integrity
in
that
legislation,
and
you
know
our
mind
members
again,
there
was
such
a
an
air
of
arrogance
during
that
debate,
that
Premier,
Kenny
and
I
can
say
his
name
because
he's
no
longer
in
the
in
the
chamber
walked
around
and
handed
out
earplugs
to
his
members,
so
he
they
didn't
have
to
listen
to
the
debate.
So
I
don't
know,
that's
nothing
to
be
proud
of.
S
That's
that's
to
me,
that's
disgusting,
but
that
is
incumbent
of
a
government
that
thinks
that
they
don't
have
to
listen
and
they
do
it
literally
I
mean
it
was
I,
think
kind
of
a
nightmare
for
them
in
terms
of
communications
afterwards,
because
it
showed
just
how
Cavalier
and
uncaring
they
were,
and
we
knew
that
legislation
would
hurt
workers
deeply.
Just
like
we
know
that
bill
one
is,
is
hurting.
Alberta,
businesses
and
I
know
that
the
UCP
reports
to
say
that
they
do
absolutely
support
business
much
more
than
than
we
do.
S
S
and
the
key
concern
we
had
was
the
bill
terminated
the
contract
of
Alberta's
election
commissioner
Lauren
Gibson,
and-
and
why
was
the
easy
be
wanting
to
do
that?
Well,
they
did
that
because
there
is
an
investigation
into
the
allegations
of
illegal
donations
in
the
2017
UCP
leadership
race,
and
we
were
assured
that
the
investigation
would
continue
by
Jason
Kenney
at
the
time.
S
But
what
actually
happened
is
that
everything
went
dark
and
in
fact
some
members
may
remember
that
the
leader
of
the
official
opposition
was
even
removed
from
this
chamber,
because
she
accused
the
government
of
obstructing
justice
by
firing
the
elections.
Commissioner.
So
these
are
the
three
Bells
during
this
mandate
that
we
have
voted
against
in
first
reading
and
as
I
explain
those
three
bills
to
this
house.
I
feel
proud
of
the
opposition
caucus
that
we
stood
up
and
said:
no,
it's
not
all
right
for
these
bills
to
go
ahead.
S
You
know
the
Betrayal
of
workers,
stopping
investigation
into
legal
donations
and
the
UCP
leadership
rate,
because,
if
they're
taking
away
the
person
who's
running
that
investigation
and
now
the
sovereignty
act,
which
sort
of
defies
any
kind
of
logic,
that
I
understand
myself
about,
what's
a
way
to
be
part
of
a
of
a
country
and
serve
the
citizens.
This
is
creating
quite
a
bit
of
instability
in
many
sectors
and
of
course
we
talk
a
lot
about
the
business
Community.
S
S
That's
that's
horrific.
It's
such
a
program
that
should
actually
really
be
expanded,
but
that's
one
of
the
first
things
they
did
was
cut
the
the
rent
supplement
program
by
24.
They
cut
53
million
in
maintenance
in
for
a
housing
management
bodies
over
three
years,
starting
in
the
2020
budget.
Again,
you
know
are.
T
T
T
So
we
have
a
government
that
continues
on
this
pattern
of
first
of
all,
not
Consulting
on
the
legislation
that
they're
putting
forward
not
necessarily
even
reading
it
and
then
standing
up
to
defend
it,
and
we
see
that
again
and
again
from
other
members
of
the
government
caucus
and
cabinet.
It's
been
put
on
the
record,
but
the
current
Finance
Minister
during
the
leadership
debate,
saying
that
this
was
a
ticking
Time
Bomb,
the
jobs
Minister.
The
now
jobs,
Minister
saying
that
this
legislation
was
a
fairy
tale
and
I
continue
to
wonder.
T
You
know
without
seeing
it
at
that
point
and
and
still
being
willing
to
stand
up
against
it
at
that
time,
even
without
seeing
the
legislation
and
now
that
we've
seen
it
and
I
think
in
in
many
cases
it
is
worse
than
most
people.
The
majority
of
albertans
might
have
expected
it
to
be,
and
yet
these
ministers
and
these
caucus
members
within
the
UCP
government
have
completely
flip-flopped
I
when
reflecting
on
the
amendment
that
is
being
put
forward,
it
does
not
fix.
T
I
would
argue
that
it
really
doesn't
fix
anything
within
the
legislation,
Madam
speaker
and
even
if
we
were
to
take
it
at
face
value
that
it
is
going
to
potentially
add.
You
know
one
extra
step
that
the
government
has
to
bring
forward
to
the
legislature.
The
fact
is,
even
with
what
is
being
amended
or
proposed
in
this
amendment.
There
are
ways
to
circumvent
it
and
we
will
continue
to
see
the
exact
same
thing
that
is
originally
proposed
in
the
legislation.
T
So
I
don't
think
that
the
issue
that
it's
particularly
trying
to
solve
is
being
solved
in
itself.
I.
Think
the
member
from
Edmonton
gold
bar
raised
a
very
fair
point
that
all
this
government
needs
to
do
is
bring
forward
a
piece
of
enabling
legislation,
something
very
general.
You
know.
Sovereignty
against
the
federal
government
or
federal
government
is
wrong
act
and
all
of
a
sudden
they're
able
to
put
forward
regulations
and
and
add
pieces
within
that
act
without
having
to
come
before
the
house.
T
So
when
we
look
at
this
amendment,
we
have
to
recognize
that
it
is
part
of
a
bigger
picture
and
even
if
we
were
to
accept
this
amendment
and
do
do
what
it
is
asking,
even
though
further
the
the
government
at
the
time
and
the
premier
when
bringing
this
forward
said,
there
was
absolutely
nothing
wrong
with
this
legislation.
The
powers
that
the
opposition
and
many
albertans
are
bringing
forward
concerns
around
is
not
a
power
that's
actually
enabled
by
the
legislation.
T
T
Foreshadow
or
I
guess
foresee
how
the
government
might
vote
on
this
I'm,
suspecting
that
the
government
caucus
with
all
of
the
many
people
who
have
previously
spoken
against
being
able
to
enact
regulation
without
consultation,
I.
Imagine
that
they
are
going
to
vote
in
favor
of
this
amendment.
Unfortunately,
I
will
not
because
again,
even
if
this
were
or
is
going
to
be
accepted
and
were
to
be
accepted.
T
Saying.
Oh
you
know
this
isn't
unconstitutional.
This
isn't
how
it
works
that
we
in
the
legislature
should
have
the
ability
to
debate
whether
something
is
constitutional
or
not.
And
of
course,
that
is
what
this
government
is
is
trying
to
move
forward
with
here.
But
the
fact
is,
as
I
said
previously,
just
because
you
write
in
the
legislation
that
it
is
following
the
Constitution
or
it
is
not
in
violating
or
intruding
on
the
Constitution
of
Canada
that
just
because
you
wrote
it
in
here,
it
doesn't
make
it
the
the
case.
U
T
Again,
the
the
main
concern
here
when
we
are
discussing
this
is
the
the
driving
away
of
investment
through
this
legislation
and
this
amendment
by
no
means
fixes
the
concerns
within
this
legislation
that
this
this
Premier
and
this
government
has
potentially
trying
to
overreach
I.
Think
that
we've
we've
heard
through
the
debate
and
and
through
the
decisions
of
this
government
yesterday
well
I
guess
it
was
today
at
this
point.
T
Earlier
very
early
this
morning,
I
I
had
raised
a
point:
the
fact
that
this
government
has
left
so
many
dollars
on
the
table
from
the
federal
government
around
particularly
wage
top
up
through
the
pandemic
dollars
that
the
federal
government
had
provided
to
many
provinces
and
in
several
cases,
to
the
tune
of
tens
of
millions
of
dollars.
If
not
hundreds
of
millions
of
dollars.
T
But
what
this
UCP
government
is
trying
to
argue
is
that
they
believe
they
should
have
the
power
to
make
that
decision,
that
the
Legislative
Assembly
should
have
had
the
ability
to
make
that
decision,
which
is
simply
not
the
case.
As
has
been
said
again
and
again,
we
have
a
support
system
to
make
those
decisions,
and
this
government
has
tried
to
challenge
the
constitutionality
of
decisions
that
the
federal
government
has
made
in
the
past
and
I
have
concerns
as
I'm
sure
many
albertans
do,
and
investors
across
across
Canada,
but
across
all
jurisdictions.
T
Internationally
are
I'm
sure
concerned
about
how
this
legislation
is
going
to
in
affect
the
investment
environment
a
bit
of
a
Freudian
slip
there,
because
again,
this
government
potentially
trying
to
use
unconstitutional
and
undemocratic
powers
to
challenge
the
federal
government
in
places
where
they
simply
should
not
in
in
in
many
cases
that
was
sort
of
double
entender,
that
they
should
not
be
challenging
the
federal
government
in
this
legislature,
because
of
course,
that
is
very
likely
going
to
be
unconstitutional
or
would
not
hold
up
in
court.
But
they
should
be
doing
that
in
the
courts.
T
And
so
when
we
talk
about
a
government
who
is,
is
going
to
try
and
unilaterally
make
decisions
about
the
constitutionality
of
things
you
know
it.
It's
very
concerning
again
for
for
me,
as
a
as
a
citizen
and
as
a
member
of
the
the
legislature
and
and
to
investors
across
the
world,
because
what
it
kind
of
reminds
me
of
of
a
situation
of
of
something
that's
come
up
in
the
past.
T
We
are
not
supporting
that
in
our
opinion
of
the
legislative
assembly,
which
really
shouldn't
be
making
these
decisions
at
all.
We
find
this
to
be
an
unconstitutional
decision
that
it's
it's
within
our
you
know
ability
to
make
decisions
around
this
and
municipalities
among
other
entities
that
are
listed
here,
whether
it
be
post-secondary
institutions
within
the
post-secondary
learning
Act,
whether
it
be
police
forces
within
the
police
act.
The
the
entities
that
are
are
listed
in
here
again.
T
Anyone
that
is
receiving
a
grant
or
other
public
funds
from
the
government
that
are
contingent
on
the
provision
of
a
public
service.
The
list
is
long,
and
so
many
organizations
and
municipalities
and
other
government
organizations
are
going
to
be
affected
and
are
affected
by
the
relationship
between
the
provincial
and
federal
government
and
are
going
to
be
forced
to
make
decisions
based
on
the
powers
that
this
UCP
government
is
trying
to
give
themselves
and
again,
this
amendment
does
not
address
those
concerns
by
any
means.
T
Even
if
this
amendment
were
to
go
through,
we
continue
to
see
a
bill
that
gives
this
UCP
government
extraordinary
powers
in
this
cabinet,
extraordinary
powers
and
and
again
I.
Just
wonder
what
happened
to
the
many
members
of
caucus
in
the
government
that
were
willing
to
speak
out
against
this
legislation.
The
fact
is,
we
saw
during
the
leadership
contests
with
the
current
government
in
this
current
Premier
that
the
the
premier
was
barely
able
to
get
this
idea
across
the
finish
line
within
their
own
party.
T
T
Coming
from
the
federal
government,
whether
it
be,
you
know
how
that
money
is
being
spent,
I
think
that
many
members
have
have
talked
about
this
issue
through
this
debate,
but
again
going
back
to
the
fact
that
it
doesn't
mean
just
because
we
disagree
with
something
that
it
is
unconstitutional.
But
I
have
grave
concerns
and
I
think.
T
Many
pieces
within
this
legislation,
whether
it
be
around
the
judicial
review,
section,
changing
timelines
or
changing
standard
of
reviews
or
trying
to
put
in
immunity
for
for
cabinet
and
and
for
members
of
the
legislature.
In
case
a
directive
is
carried
out
that
actually
was
against
the
law.
I
mean
it's.
It's
just
ridiculous.
T
Madam
chair
that
we've
gotten
to
a
point
where
this
government,
again
with
with
all
of
the
libertarian
tendencies
that
I
thought,
were
in
that
caucus
that
are
willing
to
give
themselves
so
much
power
to
create
so
much
uncertainty
within
the
investment
environment
within
the
rule
of
law.
The
the
list
is
long
for
reasons
of
why
we
should
not
be
moving
forward
with
this
legislation
and,
of
course
again.
This
amendment
does
not
fix
any
of
that.
T
Just
hearing
the
name,
the
idea
of
a
sovereignty
act,
members
of
the
government
were
willing
to
reject
it
and
say
that
it
was
going
to
have
grave
consequences.
Yet
now,
when
I
stand
here
to
support
the
points
that
they
had
brought
forward
at
the
at
that
time,
they
Heckle
me
Madam
chair.
It's,
it's
really
unbelievable.
How
much
changes
over
a
couple
months
and
a
couple
cabinet
promotions.
T
U
U
An
important
part
of
this
debate
is
how
we,
as
a
province,
are
asserting
our
Authority
and
how
we
are
asserting
our
rights
Madam
chair
over
our
areas
of
exclusive
jurisdiction
and,
in
particular
over
our
ability
to
develop
our
natural
resources
and
to
exercise
the
powers
that
are
given
to
us
within
the
Constitution
that
are
clearly
defined
and
delineated
to
be
areas
of
provincial
con
provincial
power
and
authority.
Earlier
Madam,
chair,
I
went
for
a
walk
and
not
very
far.
U
U
U
In
particular,
I
want
to
draw
a
particular
attention
to
a
former
member
of
the
legislative
assembly,
the
member
elected
to
the
elect
electoral
District
of
Alexander,
who
served
only
one
term.
That's
all
when
Bromley
Moore,
as
I
mentioned,
he
was
elected
for
just
one
term.
He
was
elected
in
1909
and
served
until
1913.
a
year
after,
of
course,
he
was
no
longer
in
the
legislative
assembly.
U
In
1920,
though
Madam
chair
at
the
conclusion
of
the
war,
the
federal
government
did
indeed
commit
in
principle
to
give
Alberta
exclusive
rights
to
its
natural
resources,
but
it
would
take
several
years
until
that
would
actually
be
developed.
It
took
several
years
of
wrangling
and
political
back
and
forth
until
that
could
finally
be
accomplished.
It
wouldn't
be
until
1929
that
a
deal
would
be
reached
during
the
tenure
of
Premier
John
Edward
Brownlee,
to
have
full
authority
over
our
natural
resources.
U
Brownlee
was
celebrated
as
a
hero,
in
fact,
when
he
returned
to
Alberta
when
he
arrived
back
in
Edmonton
at
the
rail
station
in
Edmonton,
over
3
000
albertans
came
to
greet
him
and
welcome
him
and
welcomed
him
as
a
hero,
their
stories
of
fireworks
of
bonfires
of
live
music.
To
celebrate
this
important
milestone
in
the
development
of
this
great
Province,
the
ability
for
us
to
have
exclusive
control
and
jurisdiction
over
our
natural
resources,
truly
critical
to
the
development
of
our
Province
and
to
our
our
prosperity,
but
unfortunately
Madam
chair.
As
we
see
here
tonight.
U
The
conversation
continues,
despite
the
success
of
so
many
of
these
great
albertans
questions
around
our
ability
to
develop.
Our
natural
resources
continue
to
remain
at
the
very
top
of
debate
as
we're
seeing
here
today,
which,
of
course,
is
the
foundational
premise
of
the
bill
that
we're
discussing,
which
is
to
assert
Alberta's
jurisdiction
over
our
ability
to
develop
our
natural
resources
and
our
exclusive
rights
on
other
areas
that
are
outlined
in
the
Constitution.
U
The
federal
government
unfortunately
continues
to
intrude
on
our
ability
to
develop
those
resources.
What
good
is
it
if
we
have
exclusive
jurisdiction
over
our
natural
resources,
but
cannot
get
those
resources
to
Market
good
question
but
cannot
develop
them,
and
so
the
federal
government
has
made
it
very
clear
what
their
intention
is
and
what
they
would
like
to
see
happen
in
Alberta.
The
federal
government
has
made
it
very
clear
that
they
want
to
phase
out
the
oil
sense
it
wants
to
phase
out
and
limit
our
ability
to
develop
our
resources,
but
Madam
chair.
U
Of
course,
actions
always
speak
louder
than
words.
So
it's
important
for
us
to
reflect
on
some
of
the
more
recent
actions
that
have
taken
place
over
the
last
few
decades,
including,
for
example,
we're
all
aware
of
the
of
the
national
energy
policy
in
the
1980s,
under
the
leadership
of
Pierre
Trudeau,
who
tried
to
nationalize
our
energy
sector
intruding
on
our
ability
on
our
exclusive
jurisdiction
to
develop
our
resources.
U
V
Excuse
me,
you
know,
we've
been
talking
about
this
bill
and
albertans
are
talking
about
this
bill
and
unfortunately,
it
doesn't
matter
what
type
of
amendments
are
proposed
by
this
government.
The
mere
introduction
of
this
piece
of
legislation
is
signaling
to
International
investors.
That
Alberta
has
a
different
set
of
rules
than
the
rest
of
Canada
and
and
that
is
very
troubling
and
is
chasing
away.
Investment
out
of
Alberta
I,
just
I'm
confused.
Why?
When
the
official
opposition
put
forward
two
amendments,
two
reasoned
amendments
in
the
last
two
days,
they
were
both
voted
down.
V
We
were
speaking
on
behalf
of
so
many
albertans
that
are
concerned
whether
it's
Business
Leaders
economists,
lawyers,
indigenous
communities,
there's
no
amount
of
resources
that
we've
been
able
to
tap
into
to
talk
about
the
devastating
impacts
on
the
economy
of
this
piece
of
legislation.
Yet
here
we
are
debating
a
a
bill
with
an
introduction
that,
frankly,
doesn't
do
anything.
V
The
only
clear
solution
to
proceed
with
this
piece
of
legislation
is
to
kill
the
bill,
but
we're
here
to
talk
about
Amendment,
A1
and
so
I'm
I'm,
going
to
do
that
Adam
or
Madam
chair,
and
so
we've
been
hearing
from
albertans
that
this
is
a
piece
of
legislation
that
is
quite
concerning,
and
we
know
from
a
recent
poll
that
it's
only
32
percent
of
albertans
Madam
chair.
This
support
this
piece
of
legislation,
32
percent.
V
V
And
it's
still
moving
forward.
It's
been
loud
and
clear
that
this
piece
of
legislation
creates
chaos
and
instability,
and
it
is
signaling
to
investors
that
Alberta
is
a
an
unsafe,
unstable
economic
place
in
uncertainty,
whether
or
not
they
should
be
investing
in
in
Alberta,
and
we
know
that
businesses
Thrive
when
there
are
some
some
simple
things.
Madam
chair,
the
rules
and
regulations
are
reasonable
and
transparent,
and
unfortunately,
this
piece
of
legislation
has
not
been
transparent.
V
V
It
is
not
signaling
to
business
and
investors
that
this
is
a
safe
place
to
invest
right
now.
What's
happening
is
it's
it's
creating
absolute
chaos
when
we
look
at
the
potential
of
funding
and
grants
being
left
off
the
table
from
the
federal
government,
we're
talking
about
things
that
albertans
need
right
now
things
like
affordable
housing,
things
like
support
for
newcomers.
V
We
know
that
Federal
funding
can
support
so
many
things,
and
we
haven't
heard
that
so
many
of
albertan
organizations,
non-profits
Charities,
are
confident
that
that's
going
to
remain.
We
have
a
province
that
has
people
that
are
struggling,
people
that
are
hurting
the
Health
Care
system
is
in
crisis.
V
V
We
haven't
heard
who
this
government's
consulted
with,
who
have
they
talked
to
who
who's
asking
for
this
piece
of
legislation,
because
we've
heard
loud
and
clear
from
members
of
their
their
government
their
cabinet,
with
what
their
thoughts
were.
Regarding
this
legislation,
I
I
would
ask
government
as
we're
in
Committee
of
the
whole,
who
do
they
consult
with.
Who
was
it
that
that
said
that
this
is
what
Alberta
needs
right
now,
in
the
middle
of
this,
this
absolute
affordability,
crisis
I.
Think
it's
a
fair
question
who
who
is
asking
for
this?
V
What
is
is
projecting
for
our
economic
impact.
Has
a
study
been
done
because,
when
we're
listening
to
people
talk
about
the
economy,
they're
saying
that
this
is
completely
disruptive,
it
is
not
going
to
draw
investment
into
the
province,
so
I
I
would
like
to
hear
who
who's
saying
that
this
is
the
right
step.
This
is
what
Alberta
needs
right
now
to
create
economic
stability,
because
when
we
listen
to
albertans
and
we
listen
to
The
Experts
all
around
the
province,
this
is
not
it.
V
V
We
have
a
Health,
Care
System
right
now
with
Children's
Health
Care,
absolutely
in
Dire
Straits.
We
have
Children's
Hospitals,
setting
up
trailers
15
to
20
hour
weights
for
kids.
I.
Can't
imagine
a
CEO
talking
to
their
potential
employees
to
come
and
saying
this
is
what's
happening
in
the
province
of
Alberta.
V
Not
only
is
the
economic
impact
of
this
piece
of
legislation
frightening,
but
everything
else
that
this
government
is
simply
ignoring
it's
frightening.
It's
scary-
and
it's
just
really
concerning
that.
This
is
what
we're
we're
here
talking
about
today,
so
I
will
not
be
supporting
this
amendment.
A1
and
I
would
really
urge
the
rest
of
the
members
in
this
chamber
to
not
support
it
either
and
with
that
Madam
chair
I
would
like
to
adjourn
debate.