►
Description
Legislative Assembly of Alberta
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
D
D
This
is
a
government
that
doesn't
understand
albertan's
priorities
and
that
is
refusing
to
listen
to
the
people
of
this
problems,
who
just
don't
see
themselves
in
this
government's
agenda.
The
throne
speech
made
it
clear
that
this
government
is
focused
above
all
on
the
job-killing
sovereignty.
Act
they're,
not
going
to
address
the
crisis
in
Children's
Health
Care
they're,
going
to
generate
a
whole
new
constitutional
crisis,
they're
not
going
to
support
albertans
facing
an
affordability
crisis,
they're
going
to
create
a
maid
in
the
premier's
office
economic
crisis.
D
But
the
truth
is
when
this
government
finally
introduced
the
full
text
of
the
job-killing
sovereignty
act
on
Tuesday
today,
part
of
yesterday,
part
of
me
was
glad
because
it
gave
albertans
the
full
picture.
What
of
what
is
at
stake?
Not
just
our
economy,
but
our
democracy
itself,
Madam
speaker.
We
already
knew
that
the
sovereignty
act
would
be
catastrophic
for
Alberta
before
it
was
introduced.
D
D
They
didn't
know
that
it
would
severely
limit
the
rights
of
Alberta
citizens
to
challenge
the
acts
extraordinary
powers
in
court.
The
fact
is,
the
job-killing
sovereignty
act
seeks
to
upend
Canada's
constitutional
order.
It
undermines
the
rule
of
law,
it
undermines
our
democracy
and
it's
going
to
be
a
disaster
for
our
economy.
D
Calgary
is
the
engine
of
Alberta's
economy,
but
this
legislation
is
going
to
be
a
disaster
for
my
city
and
for
the
entire
province.
It
will
interfere
with
our
ability
of
track
workers
because
no
one
wants
to
come
to
a
province
where
the
premier
is
trying
to
set
herself
up
with
virtually
dictatorial
powers.
D
It
will
undermine
new
investment
by
creating
uncertainty,
and
it
will
leave
many
Calgary
businesses
looking
to
set
up
in
more
stable
jurisdictions,
whether
whether
they
are
local,
small
businesses
or
large
companies
with
head
office
in
Calgary,
as
the
Calgary
Chamber
of
Commerce
CEO,
Deborah
Yedlin,
said
quote,
there
is
no
shred
of
evidence
that
this
act
will
lead
to
economic
growth.
End
quote
Madam
speaker.
We
don't
have
to
shoot
ourselves
in
the
foot
with
this
disastrous
bill.
D
There
is
a
better
way.
The
Alberta
NDP
opposition's
alternative
Throne
speech
sets
out
a
vision
of
a
better
future
for
Alberta.
With
the
help
of
ATV
former
Chief
economists,
senior
Economist
Todd
Hirsch,
we
will
build
a
resilient
economy
with
good
jobs
that
albertans
can
rely
on
for
Generations.
We
will
release
a
new
investment
framework
which
will
outline
how
we
can
incentivize
private
sector
investment,
pursue
Innovation
and
grow
Alberta
companies
by
fostering
economic,
certainly
certainty
with
a
competitive
regulatory
environment.
D
B
E
E
It's
a
speech
from
the
throne
I
think
that
was
intended
to
placate
albertans
and
Madam.
Speaker
I
think
that
that
is
the
worst
thing
this
government
could
be
doing,
because
albertans
need
real
help.
They
need
a
government
that
is
focused
on
solving
the
problem,
not
pretending
to
solve
the
problem
or
pretending
that
there
is
no
problem.
This
is
a
government
that
you
know
claims
to
care
about
health
care,
but
picked
fights
with
doctors
picked
fights
with
nurses
drove
the
Health
Care
system
to
the
brink
of
collapse.
E
Repeatedly
we
have
a
premier
who
has
mused
about
bringing
in
healthcare
spending
accounts
that
maybe
pay
for
other
things,
but
maybe
pay
for
your
doctor.
She's
been
back
and
forth
and
all
over
the
map
won't
give
a
clear
message,
and
it's
incredibly
concerning
because
albertans
deserve
to
know
that
those
services
will
be
there
for
them.
I
am
a
parent
of
a
child,
Madam
speakers
I
know
you
are.
You
are
a
parent
as
well
and
I
speak
to
other
parents,
and
people
are
worried.
E
They
are
worried
that
their
children
will
get
sick
and
that
they
will
spend
hours
waiting
outside
a
hospital
to
get
triaged
because
of
the
actions
of
this
government
and
this
government,
rather
than
being
laser,
focused
on
solving
that
problem
on
fixing
the
crisis
in
hospitals
on
giving
the
people
of
this
province.
Confidence
that
if
their
children
get
sick,
the
Health
Care
system
will
be
there
for
them
that
they'll
be
able
to
go
to
the
emergency
room
or
call
an
ambulance
or
see
their
family
doctor.
E
So
I
think
that
that
is
an
enormous
problem.
This
is,
you
know,
a
government
that
came
forward
and
talked
about
affordability
that
pretends
to
be
doing
something
about
the
crisis,
but
their
measures
are
entirely
short-term
and
temporary
fixes.
We
see
no
attempt
to
solve
the
larger
problem,
which
is
that
inflation
is
high
and
wages
aren't
keeping
Pace.
We
see
no
attempt
to
reverse
their
damaging
policies.
Insurance
skyrocketed
under
this
government
electricity
rates
skyrocketed
under
this
government.
E
E
They
certainly
haven't
done
anything
about
the
policies
of
theirs
which
have
forced
property
taxes
up
throughout
the
province.
The
Cutting
of
MSI,
the
downloading
of
policing
costs
onto
municipalities.
These
things
raise
people's
property
taxes.
This
you
know
in
in
some
rural
areas
with
their
policing
thing
up
to
400
a
household.
That's
a
lot
of
money,
Madam
speaker.
So
this
is
a
government
that
is
all
about
lift
service
and
not
at
all
about
Solutions
albertans
are
looking
to
see
their
future
here.
E
The
problem
is
that
investors
want
to
look
to
this
province
and
be
able
to
know
what
the
laws
are.
That's
not
I
think
a
huge
request.
We
see
this
the
world
over
when
there
is
uncertainty
about
what
the
laws
in
a
jurisdiction
are
investment
flees,
and
that
is
exactly
what
is
happening
and
what
will
continue
to
happen
here
in
Alberta,
because
this
government
has
introduced
an
act
that
will
allow
them
to
overwrite
laws.
Laws
of
this
legislature
in
cabinet.
E
That's
a
huge
problem.
It
means
laws,
could
change
on
a
moment's
notice.
It
means
investors,
look
to
this
jurisdiction
and
say
we
can't
predict
with
the
outcome
of
our
investment
will
be,
and
that
is
a
huge
problem
going
forward
into
the
future.
If
there
is
one
thing
that
industry
has
been
asking
for
consistently,
it
is
certainty
they
want
to
know
what
the
rules
will
be,
so
they
can
make
investment
decision
on
that
basis.
That
is
not
an
unreasonable
request.
It
kind
of
feels
like
in
an
advanced
democracy.
E
It
uses
the
same
language
that
caused
albertans,
so
much
concern
when
this
government
passed
it
in
Bill
10
and
apparently
has
learned
zero
lessons
from
that,
so
I
would
say
Madam
chair
at
the
end
of
the
day.
My
concern
with
this
Throne
speech
is
that
it
does
not
address
the
pressing
issues
which
presently
face
albertans
and
they
are
incredibly
pressing
issues.
We
have
emails
into
my
office.
E
All
the
time
of
people
who
can't
find
doctors
who
can't
get
an
ambulance
who
are
terrified
that
their
children
will
get
sick
and
that
they
will
be
waiting
outside
the
Children's
Hospital.
We
have
messages
every
day
of
people
who
can't
keep
up
with
the
cost
of
living,
much
of
which
was
created
by
decisions.
This
government
made
to
raise
taxes
to
raise
insurance
rates,
to
allow
electricity
rates
to
Skyrocket,
to
force
up
tuition
and
interest
on
student
loans
and
all
sorts
of
costs
at
a
time
when
albertans
can
least
afford
them.
E
Add
to
that
the
fact
that
wages
are
nowhere
near
keeping
pace
and
people
are
concerned
about
their
their
jobs
and
about
having
jobs
that
can
cover
their
mortgage,
and
this
government
has
chosen
not
to
do
anything
about
that
either
to
make
the
situation
worse
by
creating
uncertainty
that
will
drive
away
investment
and
and
drive
out
jobs.
So
I
would
say.
I
am
incredibly
concerned.
E
Madam
speaker
about
this
speech
from
the
throne.
I
would
say
it
is
an
attempt
to
pay
at
best
lip
service
to
the
real
and
pressing
and
Urgent
concerns
of
the
people
in
this
province.
People
that
every
single
one
of
us
in
this
room
was
sent
here
to
serve
and
I
would
urge
the
members
opposite
to
consider
that
solemn
Duty
that
has
been
placed
in
us
and
and
take
some
real
action
on
the
real
problems
that
face
their
constituents.
Thank
you.
F
You,
madam
speaker,
very
pleased
this
evening
to
rise
and
speak
to
the
throne
speech
and
join
the
debate
that
has
been
started
by
members
on
my
side
of
the
house.
I
I'll
start
by
talking
about
some
reactions
to
the
lead
up
to
the
throne
speech
that
I've
heard
in
my
constituency,
and
they
are
not
my
adjectives,
Adam
speaker.
They
are
those
words
used
by
constituents
in
my
writing,
as
I
was
door
knocking
and
in
places
that
normally
I
wouldn't
expect
to
have
heard
these.
These.
These
adjectives
words
like
nuts
crackers
whackle
dangerous.
F
Never
Madam
speaker
had
an
80
or
a
90
year
old
woman,
former
conservative
voter
declared
to
me
that
they
were
never
going
to
vote
conservative
again
and
use
words
like
nuts
and
Wacko
and
crackers
to
quote
directly
from
them
talking
about
their
conservative
government
that
they
feel
has
been
has
been
hijacked
and
indeed
Madam
speaker.
The
tale's
been
wagging
the
dog
for
a
while
in
the
in
the
party.
F
That's
currently
making
government
policy
right
now
and
it
seems
to
be
the
fact
that
the
the
tale
is
actually
at
the
front
bench
and
that's
the
the
rump
of
the
party
is
making
those
decisions,
and
indeed
there
seems
to
be
some
truth
to
the
word
hijacked
in
the
the
words
of
the
constituents
I'm
talking
to
in
terms
of
who's
actually
in
control
of
policy
making
in
the
party
and
it's
albertans
who
will
suffer
as
a
result
of
this.
This
hijacking
Madam
speaker
the
uncertainty
that
the
standing
up
to
Ottawa
portion
of
the
job-killing
sovereignty
act.
F
The
focus
should
be
on
looking
after
those
seniors
who
are
concerned
about
their
livelihood,
making
sure
students
feel
that
they
can
have
a
job
to
go
to
after
they
graduate
if
they
decide
to
go
to
university
here
in
the
province
at
all.
The
people
who
are
on
H,
who
now
are,
are
asked
to
give
thanks
to
government
for
giving
back
what
they
what
they
took
from
them
before,
in
fact,
leaving
them
three
thousand
dollars
less
well
off
than
they
otherwise
would
have
been
under
an
NDP
policy.
F
It's
like
drilling
a
hole
in
a
boat
and
then
asking
the
passengers
to
thank
you
for
throwing
them
a
life
preserver.
That's
the
the
analogy
that
comes
to
mind
when
I
think
of
what
the
government
has
done
with
respect
to
benefits
like
Asia,
the
the
cruelty
of
it
and
it
behooves
me.
Why,
indeed,
would
a
the
premier
decide?
It
was
a
good
thing
to
do
to
seek
the
thanks.
F
A
generous
Good
Will
of
the
people
who
are
now
getting
age
benefits,
re-indexed
When
in
fact,
they're
three
thousand
dollars
less
well-off
than
they
otherwise
would
have
been
I,
can
think
of
some
Choice
words
that
those
constituents
might
use
at
the
doorsteps.
Regarding
the
government
policy
and
the
sovereignty
act,
that's
going
to
kill
jobs
because
the
uncertainty
it
creates
in
this
province.
But
why
now?
What
for
is?
Is
the
big
question?
I'm
hearing
at
at
the
doors
standing
up
to
Ottawa
sure
protects
you
aren't
just
sure,
but
focus
on.
F
In
this
province,
the
uncertainty
that
the
sovereignty
act
that
is
involved
in
included
in
the
speech
from
the
throne
is
creating
is
being
heralded
as
the
exact
wrong
thing
for
the
province
to
be
considering
right
now,
when,
in
fact,
we're
we're
coming
out
of
a
pandemic,
Madam
speaker
we're
we're,
hopefully
going
to
be
seeing
a
an
incidence
of
smaller
numbers,
filling
our
our
emergency
Wars
and
children's
emergency
Wards.
But
that's
not
happening
right
now.
F
We
have
people
who
can't
get
medication
for
their
children,
pilgrims
whose
surgery
are
being
postponed,
and
these
are
life-threatening
issues
and
what
we're
having
the
government
focused
on
Madam
speaker
are
creating
a
fight
with
with
Ottawa,
and
that
is
something
that's
leaving.
People
scratching
their
heads,
not
only
the
seniors
in
my
writing,
but
students
and
business
owners
as
well
again.
F
What
in
the
world
is
the
priority
of
this
government
doing
looking
at
something
like
a
picking
a
constitutional
fight
with
with
Ottawa,
when
in
fact,
we've
got
some
serious
business
at
home
to
look
after
and
jobs
economy,
Health,
Care,
affordability,
these
things
should
be
the
focus
of
of
the
government.
Yet
the
government
is
telling
us
with
respect
to
this
sovereignty
act,
and
indeed
it
doesn't
do
what
we
say.
It
does,
in
fact,
what
it
does.
F
G
G
These
rights
are
not
in
most
cases,
constrained
by
the
federal
government
or
overseen
by
the
federal
government.
They
are
not
given
to
the
provinces
by
the
federal
government,
and
so
they
are
the
provinces,
Sovereign
rights,
for
instance,
the
federal
government
oversees
the
funding
and
the
deployment
of
the
Canadian
Armed
Forces
and
the
protection
of
our
national
sovereignty.
G
G
In
short,
in
the
short
time
that
this
bill
has
been
before
the
house,
his
Majesty's
official
opposition
has
exaggerated
and
mischaracterized
this
bill.
It
is
therefore
time
to
set
aside
the
spurious
objections
of
the
NDP
and
time
to
address
how
the
Alberta
sovereignty
within
the
United
candidates
Act,
should
it
be
passed
through.
This
legislature
will
actually
function
and
work.
G
In
section
2
of
the
sovereignty,
the
Alberta
sovereignty
within
the
United
Canada
Act
the
bill
clearly
states.
Nothing
in
this
act
is
to
be
constructed,
constructed
as
a
authorizing
any
order.
That
would
be
contrary
to
the
constitution
of
Canada.
Full,
stop
I,
hope
the
opposition
is
listening,
authorizing
any
directive
to
a
person
other
than
a
provincial
entity.
That
would
compel
the
person
to
act
contrary
to
or
otherwise
in
violation
of,
Henry
federal
law.
G
This
act
is
saying
that
no
one
can
be
forced
to
break
the
law-
oh
and
abrogating,
or
derogating
from
any
existing
Aboriginal
and
treaty
rights
of
the
Aboriginal
people
of
Canada
that
are
recognized
and
affirmed
by
section
35
of
the
Constitution
Act.
There
goes
away
another
one
of
those
arguments
that
we're
taking
away
the
Canada's
first
Nations
rights.
G
G
No
action
by
the
government
of
Alberta
when
enacting
the
provisions
of
this
bill
will
be
contrary
to
the
constitution
of
Canada.
This
bill
will
not
let
the
Alberta
Government
pass
legislation
or
enact
regulations
that
will,
unlike
the
actions
of
the
federal
government,
intervene
in
the
rights
of
an
in
an
unconstitutional
fashion
with
another
level
of
government.
This
bill
will
not
direct
any
person
or
provincial
entity
or
business
to
be
in
violation
of
any
federal
law,
and
this
bill
recognizes
and
affirms
Aboriginal
treaty
rights
under
Section
35
of
the
Constitution
Act.
G
Now
this
act
from
the
province
of
my
birth
is
meant
to
confirm
its
exclusive
provincial
authority
over
its
natural
resources.
Yet
there
is
one
key
difference
between
the
two
Acts
Saskatchewan's
Act
sets
up
a
tribunal
independent
from
the
government
to
determine
if
a
federal
measure
is
harmful
or
unconstitutional,
and
that
tribunal
makes
recommendations
to
cabinet.
G
G
G
The
Alberta
Act
gives
the
authority
to
decide
if
something
is
constitutional
or
unconstitutional
to
the
members
of
the
legislative
assembly,
and
that
just
makes
sense
we're
the
ones
that
have
been
elected,
we're
the
ones
that
should
be
looking
at
it
we're
the
ones
that
should
be
deciding
on
the
interest
on
on
behalf
of
the
people
of
Alberta.
Whether
or
not
this
should
move
forward,
and
we
should
look
at
whether
an
act
or
a
bill,
that's
been
passed
through.
The
federal
Parliament
is
actually
unconstitutional.
G
And
lastly,
if
it
identify,
it
will
have
to
identify
a
measure
that
the
lieutenant
governor
and
Council
should
consider
taking
in
respect
of
the
federal
initiative.
Three
things
regardless
of
the
fear-mongering
surrounding
this
bill.
It
clearly
states
in
this
bill
that
it
must
have
the
Democratic
support
of
the
legislature.
G
Mature
democracies
have
a
system
of
checks
and
balances,
and
the
Alberta
soverty
within
the
United
Canada
ensures
that
this
happens
by
building
in
a
judicial
review
within
30
days
after
the
date
of
the
decision
or
act.
While
some
will
suggest
that
30
days
is
not
long
enough,
I
would
argue
that
it
is
long
enough
and
quite
possibly,
for
a
Judicial
challenge
to
move
forward
within
this
period
of
time.
G
G
G
G
E
E
E
A
ticking
time
long
for
the
ucp's
future,
that's
the
Minister
of
Finance
it'll,
create
constitute
it'll,
create
constitutional
and
economic
crisis
that
will
hurt
Alberta,
that
is
the
minister
former
minister
of
transportation
and
current
minister
of
doesn't
matter.
Okay,
the
minister
of
economic
developments.
E
E
E
E
Look
at
those
investment
decisions
very
seriously.
They
look
to
the
jurisdiction
they
are
about
to
invest
in
and
do
you
know
what
one
of
the
first
things
they
look
at
is
whether
or
not
the
rules
will
continue
to
be
the
rules
into
the
future?
Whether
or
not
they
can
have
certainty
that
the
rules
under
which
they
make
their
investment
decisions
will
continue
to
be
the
rules
that
govern
that
decision,
while
the
investment
is,
is
recouped
and
begins
producing
revenues.
E
E
Yes,
and
thank
you
very
much
to
my
honorable
colleague
for
the
question-
the
bill
has
started
having
an
effect
already.
That
is
what
we
are
hearing
from.
People
in
the
business
sector,
from
people
in
the
oil
and
gas
sector
is
that
the
impact
on
investment
was
being
felt
before
the
bill
was
even
introduced.
E
Now
that
may
seem
odd,
but
again
the
problem.
Madam
speaker
is
the
destabilizing
effect,
and
it
has
that
destabilizing
effect,
regardless
of
what
the
actual
impacts
are
so
bringing
forward
a
bill
on
behalf
of
the
government
that
is
essentially
intended
to
allow
the
government
to
overwrite
different
jurisdictions
in
different
legislation
is
incredibly
problematic.
E
E
They
can
pass
whatever
act,
they
want
on
the
government
side
and
it
won't
change
that
fact.
The
division
of
powers
is
set
out
in
the
Constitution
acts
that
Federal
and
provincial
governments
undertake
are
illegal
or
they
are
not.
What
the
sovereignty
act
does
do
is
create
Mass
uncertainty.
It
means
that
people
invest
and
then
someone
can
challenge
the
law
or
the
government
can
attempt
to
overwrite
the
law
and
they
have
to
Sue
and
they
are
tied
up
in
court
for
years.
E
I,
don't
know
Madam
speaker
if
you've
ever
been
involved
in
illegal
action,
but
especially
in
large
commercial
actions.
They
can
take
years
to
make
their
way
through
the
court
system
and
in
the
interim
that
money
that
has
been
invested
is
not
generating
a
return.
So
why
would
anyone
ever
choose
to
invest
their
money
where
it
could
be
tied
up
in
years
of
legal
action
having
no
returns?
While
we
try
to
sort
out
whether
or
not
the
government
can
overwrite
the
Constitution,
they
can't.
E
That
will
be
the
answer,
but
that
doesn't
mean
that
it
won't
take
an
incredibly
long
time
for
this
to
go
through
the
system.
So
that's
where
I'd
like
to
begin
I'd
like
to
also
turn
to
the
act,
because,
fortunately
it's
incredibly
short
so
I've
had
the
opportunity
to
read
it
as
since
it
was
introduced
multiple
times,
it's
true.
E
So
the
substance,
the
substance
of
the
ACT
is
in
section
four
and
what
it
allows
the
government
to
do
is,
and
these
are
the
operative
words.
So
the
lieutenant
governor
and
Council
that's
cabinet
can
suspend
or
modify
the
application
or
operation
of
all
part
or
part
of
an
enactment
or
specify
or
set
out
Provisions
that
apply
in
addition
to,
or
instead
of
provisions
of
any
enactment
and
an
enactment
is
legislation
that
means
that
executive
Council,
I.E
cabinet
is
essentially
deleting
and
rewriting
legislation.
E
D
E
Helpful,
thank
you
very
much
to
my
honorable
colleague
for
that
question.
That's
a
delightful
legal
nerd
question!
So
I'm
happy
to
answer
it.
So
a
Henry
VII
Clause
is
entitled
after
Henry
VIII,
because
he
essentially
attempted
to
circumvent
the
parliament
so
to
allow
himself
to
legislate
without
without
the
parliament
or
the
legislative
branch,
and
that's
exactly
what
this
does,
and
these
things
are
referred
to
as
Henry
VII
Clauses
when
they
make
an
attempt
to
work
around
the
legislative
branch,
because
in
our
system
of
democracy,
the
legislature
serves
a
certain
function.
E
Now
it
happens
to
be
the
case
that
when
you
have
a
majority
government,
they
can
normally
get
their
legislation
passed,
but
I
think
the
opposition
still
serves
an
incredibly
important
Democratic
function,
regardless
of
who
sits
in
opposition
because
they
do
several
things
they
can
propose
amendments.
Maybe
those
amendments
get
voted
down,
but
this
place
this
room,
everything
we
do
and
say
in
this
room
is
on
the
record,
and
what
that
means
is
that
the
citizens
of
this
province,
who
are
governed
by
those
laws,
can
listen
to
what
we
say.
E
They
can
read
what
we
say
the
media
can
come
in
to
this
place.
They
can
hear
what
we
say
and
they
can
report
on
it,
and
that
means
that
the
public
knows
what's
going
on
in
here.
The
public
does
not
know
what's
going
on
in
cabinet.
Those
discussions
occur
behind
closed
doors.
Even
government.
Private
members
aren't
necessarily
privy
to
the
discussions
that
are
occurring
into
in
that
room
to
the
decisions
that
are
being
made
in
that
room.
E
So
circumventing
the
legislature
is
incredibly
problematic
for
democracy,
because
it
means
that
laws
are
becoming
laws
before
the
public
has
had
a
chance
to
see
them.
The
the
thing
about
the
legislative
branch
is
that
it
takes
a
while
to
legislate.
It
takes
a
while
for
acts
to
pass
through
this
house
and
the
importance
of
that
isn't
what
we
all
in
here
get
to
say
about
the
acts.
E
It's
that
that
information
gets
to
the
public
people
in
the
public
who
understand
the
area
of
law
who
will
be
governed
by
these
laws,
have
the
opportunity
to
stand
up
and
object
and
say
you
know
that
that's
not
going
to
work
for
the
following
reason:
they
have
the
the
opportunity
to
bring
their
values
and
their
expertise
to
bear
and
to
to
essentially
shine
sunlight
on
on,
what's
going
on,
and
then
other
people
can
object,
and
that's
I
mean
that's
how
democracy
is
supposed
to
work
at
its
core.
So
that's
incredibly
problematic.
E
Now,
as
the
member
stated
in
order
for
cabinet
the
lieutenant
governor
and
Marine
Council
to
have
this
power,
we
have
to
press.
We
have
to
pass
a
motion
in
this
house,
but
I
think
the
important
distinction
here
is
the
motion
doesn't
say
what
the
law
that
cabinet
ultimately
writes
is
going
to
do.
It's
just
a
motion
that
says
we
think.
Essentially,
we
think
what
the
federal
government
did
was
bad.
E
The
motion
is
not
what
my
constituents
sent
me
here
to
debate.
My
constituents
did
not
send
me
here
to
bless
a
motion
that
says
we
don't
like
some
law
of
the
federal
governments
and
then
have
that
law
Rewritten
behind
closed
doors
in
the
privacy
of
a
cabinet
room.
That
is
not
how
democracy
is
intended
to
work,
and
it
is
fundamentally
anti-anti-democratic.
H
There
is
a
committee
of
the
whole
process,
there
is
transparency
and
we
are
all
involved
in
that
and
it's
it's
a
lot
of
work,
but
a
single
government
motion
to
then
kick
off
a
cabinet.
Making
changes
to
laws
is
a
completely
different
thing
and
I.
Don't
think
we're
talking
about
Apples
to
Apples
we're
talking
about
something
else
entirely
insane
that
the
motion
is
sufficient.
Strikes
me
as
ridiculous.
Does
the
legislation
I
ask
my
colleague
to
find
how
the
motion
needs
to
breed.
E
E
E
So
what
it
means
is
that
there's
two
different
paths
potentially
for
this
motion
to
come
through
the
house
and
it
doesn't
necessarily
need
to
set
out
and
need
to
set
out
exactly
what
the
problem
is.
It
could
just
say
that,
in
the
opinion
of
the
legislative
assembly,
it's
unconstitutional
knowledge,
I
mean
some
of
the
legal
opinions
we've
been
hearing
in
here
today
is
I
would
say
deeply
troubling.
E
It
also
talks
about
identifying
measures
that
they
should
consider.
Well,
I
mean
that's
not
helpful
again,
should
consider
it
doesn't.
It
doesn't
in
any
way
impede
on
cabinet's
ability
to
do
a
lot
more
or
a
lot
less
than
that,
so
that
is
highly
problematic.
It
also
again,
emotion
is
different
than
an
act.
An
act
has
to
be
debated
at
multiple
stages,
and
it's
not
about
the
number
of
hours
of
debate.
It's
about
the
number
of
hours
that
the
thing
is
before
the
house,
because
the
real
Democratic
process
isn't
just
occurring
in
here.
E
It's
occurring
out
there
in
the
public.
It
means
that
reporters
need
to
be
live
to
the
concern.
They
need
to
write
stories,
stories
that
get
to
the
public
people
talk
to
each
other.
More
stories
are
generated,
people
call
their
mlas,
mlas,
say
things
in
the
house.
It
goes
to
more
story
like
that's
that's
how
democracy
is
supposed
to
work
and
that
sort
of
public
media
portion
of
that
is
absolutely
critical.
E
E
Now
the
members
also
seem
to
like
to
mention
this
interpretation
section
section
two,
which
I
would
honestly
call
basically
the
legal
equivalent
of
an
incantation
as
if
the
government
thinks
that
it
can
wave
its
hand
over
something
and
say
unconstitutional,
and
that
somehow
renders
it.
So
that's
not
how
it
works.
Madam,
speaker,
it's
not
how
it
works.
You
can't
just
the
way
the
ACT
operates
is
either
unconstitutional
or
it
isn't
simply
naming
it
constitutional.
They
could
have
called
it
the
constitutional
act
that
wouldn't
have
changed
it
either.
E
The
operation
of
the
ACT
is
what
renders
it
constitutional
or
unconstitutional,
calling
it
that
is
entirely
unhelpful,
so
I
think
you
know.
Obviously
the
government's
I
mean
attempting
attempting
to
achieve
something
here,
but
I
I
think
they're.
Failing
on
the
clear
substance
of
the
issue,
it's
also
worth
talking
about
the
judicial
review,
Provisions
I
know.
My
honorable
colleague,
who
spoke
before
me,
was
saying
that
30
days
is
plenty
of
time.
I
would
I
would
beg
to
differ
first
of
all,
it's
30
days
not
just
to
file
but
to
serve.
E
E
In
addition,
I
think
one
of
the
things
that's
funny
about
this
it's
worth
noting
anyway,
is
that
the
government
has
suggested
that
the
standard
of
review
to
be
applied
by
the
court
is
patent
unreasonableness.
The
interesting
thing
is
is
that
in
2008
the
Supreme
Court
did
away
with
the
three
standards
review,
so
there
used
to
be
correctness,
reasonableness
and
patent
unreasonableness,
and
the
court
said
you
know
this
is
a
bit
silly
to
have
these
three
standards
we're
just
going
to
have
like
either
you're
reviewing
it
for
correctness
or
you're.
E
Reviewing
it
for
reasonableness
now,
I'm,
not
saying
that
the
legislature
can't
put
that
language
in
they
certainly
can.
But
it's
a
really
obvious
and
transparent
attempt
to
try
to
oust
the
Constitutional
jurisdiction
of
the
Court
as
much
as
possible.
It's
essentially
the
government
saying
we
don't
think
our
decisions
would
stand
up
to
a
normal
standard
of
review,
so
we're
going
to
try
to
impose
this
additional
standard
of
review
and
we're
going
to
try
to
shorten
the
time
frame
as
much
as
possible
to
to
keep
people
out
all
of
these
steps.
K
Thank
you,
madam
speaker
and
Madam
speaker.
It
is
an
honor
for
me
to
rise
to
speak
to
Bill
one,
the
Alberta
sovereignty
within
a
United
Canada
Act.
This
bill
will
be
one
of
the
most
important
put
forth
by
this
government
and
I
am
proud
to
speak
and
be
a
part
of
this.
Its
review
in
this
house
to
start
with
I,
would
like
to
read
the
preambles
to
give
a
sense
of
the
purpose
of
of
the
bill
and
the
reasons
for
introducing
this
act.
K
So
the
Preamble
States,
whereas
albertans
possess
a
unique
culture
and
shared
identity
within
Canada
I,
would
agree.
And
whereas
it
is
the
role
of
the
legislative
assembly
of
Alberta
and
the
government
of
Alberta
to
preserve
and
promote
this
unique
culture
and
shared
identity.
And
whereas
the
Constitution
Act,
1867,
Constitution,
Act,
1930
and
the
Constitution
Act
1982
are
foundational
documents
that
established
the
rights
and
freedoms
of
albertans
and
the
relationship
between
the
provincial
and
federal
orders
of
government,
including
the
division
of
legislative
powers
between
them.
K
K
And
whereas
actions
taken
by
the
parliament
of
Canada
and
the
government
of
Canada
Canada
have
infringed
on
these
Sovereign
provincial
rights
and
Powers
with
increasing
frequency
and
have
unfairly
Prejudiced
albertans.
And
whereas
actions
taken
by
the
parliament
of
Canada
and
the
government
of
Canada
have
infringed
on
the
rights
and
freedoms
of
albertans,
enshrined
in
the
Canadian
Charter
of
Rights
and
Freedoms
in
an
unjustified
and
unconstitutional
manner.
K
According
to
their
individual
judgment,
Mr
Speaker,
our
government
was
elected
to
represent
the
interests
and
values
of
albertans.
However,
when
our
government
is
prevented
from
exercising
its
full
capacity
to
govern,
it
must
take
the
necessary
steps
to
regain
its
power
for
too
long
Alberta
has
been
a
victim
of
federal
overreach
within
multiple
areas
of
our
jurisdiction.
K
K
The
sovereignty
act
addresses
this
by
providing
a
mechanism
for
our
Province
to
identify
areas
where
the
federal
government
has
been
reaching
Beyond
its
jurisdiction
or
significantly
harming
albertans
from
there.
The
house
would
debate
resolutions
and
regain
our
rightful
authority
over
the
decision-making
process.
K
K
For
example,
the
federal
government
has
recently
vowed
to
reduce
Canadian
agriculture
emissions
by
30
percent
by
2030,
with
no
clear
plan
to
get
there
in
seven
short
years.
They
expect
to
reduce
agricultural
missions
by
30
percent,
but
Mr
Speaker.
To
me
this
is
a
clear
display
of
their
complete
lack
of
understanding
and,
if
I
can
be
quite
Frank,
the
complete
devaluation
of
Alberta's
farming
industry,
Mr
Speaker
in
the
name
of
reducing
GH
G
emissions
by
.045
of
a
percent.
The
federal
government
is
supporting
a
project
that
will
harmers
and
put
Alberta's
food
supply
at
risk.
K
The
price
of
fertilizer
has
already
gone
up
due
to
many
factors.
One
of
them
is
the
increasing
energy
costs
and
others
Global
instability
and
trade
sanctions
with
Russia
and
the
export
curbs
in
China
two
of
the
world's
largest
fertilizer
exporters.
But
now
farmers
are
being
told
that
these
necessary
supplies
are
Trudeau's.
Next
Target
fertilizer
use
directly
improves
crop
yield.
K
We
all
know
that
when
agricultural
production
suffers,
the
price
of
food
increases,
this
means
that
in
dish,
in
addition
to
the
financial
difficulties
facilitated
by
poor
Federal
inflation
policy
and
the
rising
cost
of
gas
and
energy,
grocery
bills
will
continue
to
rise
once
again,
working
albertans
will
suffer
the
consequences
of
tone.
Deaf
federal
goals,
Mr
Speaker
albertans,
are
exhausted
from
the
constant
War
the
federal
government
is
waging
on
our
pivotal
Industries
I
am
proud
to
be
a
part
of
a
government
that
refuses
to
sit
back
and
have
our
province's
economy
Stripped
Away.
K
That
is
why
Bill
one
exists.
It
is
not
just
Farmers
that
the
Alberta
sovereignty
within
a
United
Canada
Act
aims
to
protect.
It
is
Firearms
owners.
It
is
those
who
want
to
choose
their
own
Medical
Treatments.
It
is
everyone
affected
by
the
stunting
of
Alberta's
energy
sectors,
from
business
owners
to
the
Oil
Workers.
It
is
all
albertans
who
are
tired
of
being
left
behind,
forgotten
and
disregarded
until,
of
course,
it
is
time
for
the
federal
government
to
come
collect
their
taxes.
K
Mr,
Speaker.
I
am
sure
all
members
in
this
house
are
immensely
proud
to
call
Canada
home
I,
wake
up
every
day,
with
gratitude
for
the
opportunity
to
live,
work
and
be
a
part
of
History
within
this
great
country,
in
allowing
our
provincial
government
to
act
in
accordance
with
our
constitutional
jurisdiction.
K
K
K
J
L
L
It
is
just
the
quality
of
debate
that
we're
hearing
tonight
from
the
UCP
members
that
will
confirm
that
Mr
Speaker,
because
they
clearly
do
not
understand
the
Constitution.
They
do
not
understand
the
rule
of
law.
They
do
not
understand
that
their
role
as
legislators
when
it
comes
to
enacting
legislation
and
reviewing
legislation.
They
do
not
understand
the
separation
of
powers
between
the
executive,
legislative
and
judicial
branches
of
our
government.
L
They
do
not
understand
the
separation
of
the
the
federalism
and
division
of
powers,
Mr
Speaker,
so
clearly
the
current
members
of
the
government
caucus
are
not
qualified
to
be
making
any
sort
of
determination
about
whether
or
not
you
know
what's
constitutional.
What
causes
harm,
because
I
can
tell
you
Mr
Speaker
that
for
my
position
when
I
think
about
what
causes
and
is
causing
harm
to
albertans
right
now,
it's
perhaps
this
government's
ignoring
of
a
crisis
in
Children's
Health
Care
that
is
causing
harm
child
burdens,
but
they
don't
seem
to
be
caring
about
that.
L
So
I
don't
really
trust
the
government's
judgment
when
it
comes
to
making
determinations
about
what
causes
harm
to
albertans
when
they
are
the
ones
causing
harm.
So,
let's
go
back
because
it's
been
very
interesting
to
hear
members
of
the
the
government
caucus
pick
and
choose
sort
of
the
the
Clauses
of
the
bill
that
I
clearly
they've
been
told
to
read
out
to
show
that
this
is
a
constitutional,
Bill
and
it'll
be
fine,
and
it's
not
so
bad
without
actually
getting
into
the
meat
of
the
bill.
L
Now
I
know
that
not
all
members
of
the
cabinet
had
actually
even
read
the
bill
before
they
declared
they
were
going
to
support
it.
We
know
that
the
deputy
Deputy
Premier
co-deputee
Premier
second
to
the
right-hand
man
of
the
right-hand
man
of
the
Premier,
not
entirely
sure
what
the
member
for
Lethbridge
east's
current
title
is,
but
he
acknowledged
publicly
that
he
had
not
even
read
the
bill
before
he
decided
that
he
was
going
to.
L
He
was
in
support
of
it
so
to
help
him
along
and
any
other
members
of
the
UCP
caucus
that
haven't
taken
the
lengthy
amount
of
time
it
takes
to
read
seven
pages
Mr
Speaker
of
their
government
bill,
one
we'll
help
them
out,
because
I
think
it's
very
important
that
all
albertans
are
clear
about.
What's
actually
contained
in
this
bill,
so,
first
of
all,
let's
begin
by
citing
out
reading
out
the,
whereas
Clauses
that's
very
flowery
and
very
nice,
but
that
is
not
actually
the
the
meat
and
potatoes
of
the
act.
L
The,
whereas
Clauses
are
very
nice
to
sort
of
set
the
tone,
but
they
are
actually
not
legally
enforceable.
The
way
members
of
this
legislative
assembly
on
the
government
side
would
like
to
believe.
Similarly,
simply
in
section
two
stating
that
don't
worry,
this
is
all
constitutional.
Don't
worry,
we're
not
going
to
abrogate
or
derogate
from
any
existing
Aboriginal
rights
does
not
make
it
so
Mr
Speaker
they
it's
just
like
saying
this
is
a
lawful
law,
does
not
make
it
lawful.
L
You
actually
have
to
look
at
the
rest
of
the
provisions
of
the
bill
and
in
the
act
and
see
how
they
would
be
applied,
how
they
be
interpreted,
how
they
will
be
in
operation
to
actually
determine
whether
or
not
it's
constitutional.
So
let's
do
that.
Mr
Speaker,
because
I
think
that's
critically
important.
L
But
it
was
very
clear
that
that
it
was
from
the
technical
briefing
and
from
everything
we've
heard
since
that
the
press,
the
media,
political
scientists,
constitutional
lawyers
across
this
province
across
this
country
have
been
very
clear
that
the
intent
of
this
act,
the
implications
of
this
act
and
actually
how
it
will
be
operationalized,
is
not
only
an
affront
to
the
Constitution
Mr
Speaker.
But
it's
an
affront
to
democracy
and
to
the
rule
of
law,
so
they
can
try
to
pin
this
on
the
opposition.
L
H
Colleague
and
I
just
was
going
to
suggest
that,
yes,
there
have
been
so
many
lawyers
and
analysts
reporters
who
have
written
stories
and
doing
analysis
on
this
bill.
I
was
just
looking
at
one
titled
Daniel
Smith
in
the
war
against
Ottawa
measures,
act
that
has
nearly
9
000
comments
with
the
most
liked
comment
being
incredibly
Draconian
attempt
at
a
paragraph
from
an
embarrassing
political
party.
H
This
is
just
one
of
hundreds
of
Articles
and
commentary
pieces
that
lawyers
and
many
many
others
are
putting
out
there
because
of
how
badly
this
impacts
Alberta's
ability
to
go
forward
and
to
be
seen
as
a
great
place
to
do
business.
It
is
putting
a
chill
on
investment,
and
people
are
watching
very,
very
closely.
The
debate
that
is
happening
here
in
this
place
and
the
concerns
that
are
being
raised
so
I
I
simply
wanted
to
say
that
I
think
it's
important
to
note
that
yeah.
L
I
want
to
thank
you
for
for
adding
to
my
comments
to
the
member
from
Edmonton
Mall
Woods,
because
it's
true
it
is
widespread
concern
and
and
frankly
outrage
frankly
from
albertans
and
Canadians
about
the
content
of
this
bill.
So,
what's
important,
you
know,
Mr
Speaker
is
I,
read
the
sort
of
tortured,
clarification
or
explanation
that
came
out
from
the
premier
today
trying
to
clarify
how
this
bill
will
work,
but
none
of
what
was
clarified
is
actually
what's
in
the
content
of
the
bill.
L
So
let's
be
clear
that
the
bill
in
section
three
indicates
that
emotion
may
be
brought
forward
by
a
Cabinet
member
and
that
the
Legislative
Assembly
May
approve
that
mention
at
that
motion
and
contrary
to
what
the
member
from
Drayton
Valley
Devin
said,
it's
not
a
unanimous
motion
that
needs
to
be
passed.
It's
merely
by
a
majority
and
then
that
and
that
that
the
Legislative
Assembly
can
simply
pass
a
motion
saying
we
believe
something's
unconstitutional
or
we
believe
it
is
quote,
causes
or
is
anticipating
to
cause
harm
to
albertans.
L
This
is
important,
Mr
Speaker,
because
today
we
heard
the
premier
try
to
claim
that
in
the
motion,
any
amendments
that
would
happen
to
an
enactment
any
changes.
Any
suspensions
would
be
contained
in
the
motion
that
is
passed
by
the
ledge
of
state
of
assembly,
and
that
is
frankly,
Mr
Speaker,
not
what
is
in
the
bill.
The
bill
actually
frames
it
very
clearly
in
subsection
D
that
the
motion
that
would
be
passed
by
the
Legislative
Assembly
would
be
a
recommendation.
L
J
Mr
Speaker.
Thank
you
thank
you
for
that.
You
know.
I
had
to
jump
up
because
I
I
had
the
honor
of
sitting
in
while
the
premier
spoke
to
to
this
bill
on
first
reading
earlier,
and
you
know,
I
should
have
looked
at
Hansard,
but
I
was
you
know.
I
was
actually
paying
fairly
close
attention
and
she
said
something
along
the
lines
of
being
open
to
work
with
opposition,
and
you
know
being
open
to
discussion
here
in
the
chamber
floor
and
so
to
your
point.
J
L
H
L
L
And
those
ones,
Mr,
Speaker
I,
think-
would
have
a
vested
interest
in
making
sure
that
their
rights
as
an
elected
member
of
this
house
and
their
privileges
to
be
able
to
debate
legislation
are
preserved,
because
this
is
my
challenge:
Mr
Speaker,
to
the
government
members
if
they
are
so
okay
with
this
idea.
This
idea
that
changes
to
legislation
can
be
made
solely
by
cabinet
on
the
recommendation,
perhaps
of
the
legislative
assembly.
L
L
Alberta
NDP
cabinet
yeah,
because
this
is
precisely
this
bill.
I
know
that
this
government's
pretty
short-sighted
and
how
it
makes
decisions
and
how
it
implements
things
and
how
it
brings
forward
things
but
they're
bringing
this
forward
to
to
Really
centralized
power
in
the
cabinet
and
the
premier
Mr
Speaker.
That's
what
this
does.
L
It
allows
the
cabinet
to
make
legislation
and
to
take
away
the
Privileges
of
private
members
and,
if
they're
not
concerned
about
it
now,
because
they're
the
government
I
ask
them
to
think
how
they'll
feel
six
months
from
now
when
some
of
them
are
still
here
as
opposition
members
and
they
think
of
the
prospect
of
an
Alberta,
NDP
government
doing
the
same
thing.
Mr
Gateway.
J
Yes,
thank
you
and
you
know
I
just
wanted
to
quickly
jump
in
and
then
we
won't
intervene
anymore,
I,
promise
and
and
Echo
that
point,
because
it
was
actually
our
colleague
from
Lethbridge
West,
who
has
been
quite
vocal
on
on
on
Bill
one
and
I'd
like
to
just
quote
her.
She
mentioned
the
very
similar
Point
saying
that
if
the
NDP
went
in
May,
would
the
UCP
want
us
to
have
these
grossly
undemocratic
and
dictator-like
Powers?
J
If
not,
why
did
the
UCP
think
it's
a
good
idea
that
they
have
them
and
so
fear-mongering
sure
this
is
the
heckling
that
we're
hearing
from
the
other
side
I'd
love
to
hear.
Perhaps
you
know
the
member
from
Lethbridge
East
he
might
want
to
weigh
in
but
but
has
been,
as
has
been
noted
also
by
my
colleague
from
latbridge
West,
the
deputy
Premier
supports
the
ACT,
although
he
admitted
he
hadn't
read
it
at
all
and
he
did
mention
that
the
premier's
office
didn't
tell
him
how
to
vote
on
it.
J
L
Well,
thank
you
to
the
member
from
Edmonton
Islands
Norwood.
You
know
it's.
Actually
it's
it's
as
I
mentioned
I'm
willing
to
maybe
even
read
it
out
to
the
member
from
Jesus.
It
won't
take
very
long,
it's
a
very
short
bill,
but
you
know
it
is
important
to
note
that
you
know
this
is
this
is
the
key
point
I
think
for
the
government
members?
We
we
hear
the
minister
for
and
I'm
sorry
I'm
gonna
forget
he
was
infrastructure.
L
I
I
can't
keep
up
now
with
all
the
changes,
but
the
member
for
Calgary
Curry
had
talked
about
how
this
is
fear-mongering
right,
and
you
know
that
member
I
believe
is
also
a
lawyer,
I
understand
and
so
I
wonder
you
know
what
he
thinks
about
the
idea
of
section
four
of
the
bill.
Section
A,
1A,
subsection
a
actually
says.
L
So
if
the
lieutenant
governor
and
council
is
satisfied
that
doing
so
is
in
the
public
interest
again,
that's
cabinet
May,
director
Minister
responsible
for
an
enactment
under
the
minute
under
the
government
organization,
Act
2.
By
order
and
those
two
words
Mr
Speaker
by
order
are
carrying
a
lot
of
weight
because,
basically,
what
it
says
is
that
buy
an
order
and
Council
cabinet
can
quote,
suspend
or
modify
the
application
or
operation
of
all
or
part
of
an
enactment
or
to
specify
or
set
out
Provisions
that
apply
in
addition
to,
or
instead
of
any
provision
of
enactment.
L
That
basically
means
Mr,
Speaker
and
we've
been
through
this
as
this
legislature.
This
group
of
mlas
has
been
through
this
before
Mr
Speaker.
This
is
the
same
language
that
appeared
in
the
public
health
act
that
granted
emergency
powers
to
Cabinet
to
change
legislation.
This
is
the
same
language
of
legislation
that
Drew
the
outrage
and
ire
not
only
of
generally
of
albertans,
but
particularly
of
members
of
the
UCP
party
Mr
Speaker
members,
who
are
on
the
far
right.
Who
said
this
is
the
centralization
of
too
much
power
into
cabinet
and
into
the
premier's
hands.
L
L
We
ended
up
having
a
committee
and
a
review
and
I
tried
to
and
they
tried
to
reverse
and
they
did
most
of
the
changes
that
they
made,
because
it's
so
outraged,
Canadian,
albertans
and
Canadians.
So
when
members
now,
this
government
caucus
say
that
we
are
fear-mongering,
this
is
the
exact
same
language
that
caused
them
no
end
of
grief.
So
you
know
what
Mr
Speaker
honestly
I
sit
here
and
I.
Think
I
don't
want
to
convince
these
members
to
change
their
mind.
L
They
clearly
haven't
been
convinced
by
the
law
by
their
by
their
constituents
by
you
know
the
business
Community
he's
saying:
you're,
absolutely
creating
uncertainty,
you're
going
to
be
creating
economic
chaos,
you're
going
to
drive
away
investor
investors
and
and
development
and
growth.
There's
nothing
in
this
act.
That's
going
to
actually
contribute
to
economic
growth,
they're,
not
listening
to
that.
That's
fine
I
would
like
all
of
these
UCP
mlas
to
be
on
the
record,
as
they
already
are
in
support
of
this
bill,
because
that
is
showing
albertans
who
they
truly
are.
L
In
particular,
Mr
Speaker
I
have
to
highlight
the
Stellar
cast
of
leadership
candidates
who
all
went
on
the
record,
true
to
say
how
outrageous
the
sovereignty
Act
is
the
economic
uncertainty
that
chaos
that
this
is
going
to
be
for
sure,
an
election
loser
for
them.
The
current
minister
of
Municipal
Affairs,
the
current
Minister
of
Finance
I,
can't
remember
the
current.
L
And
Northern
development
of
trade
and
immigration,
all
those
candidates
stood
up
and
talked
about
how
much
how
bad
the
sovereignty
act
would
be
for
Alberta
how
bad
it
would
be
for
their
party
and
yet
who
would
title
change
in
the
name
of
the
of
the
bill
or
I,
don't
know,
maybe
being
given
a
cushy
cabinet
position
and
then
not
just
given
a
cushy
cabinet
position,
but
given
all
these
powers
under
the
sovereignty
act
as
a
Cabinet
member
to
be
able
to
make
legislative
changes
well,
we
know
how
strong
their
principles
and
How
Deeply.
They
run.
L
Mr,
Speaker
and
now
they're
on
record
to
show
albertans.
Now,
we've
always
in
this
in
the
opposition,
we've
been
pretty
clear
as
to
what
we
believed
their
values
of
this.
This
party
is,
which
frankly,
has
been
really
hard
to
follow.
They
don't
seem
to
be
guided
by
values
but
by
self-preservation,
although
honestly,
clearly
they're,
not
even
very
good
at
that,
because
I
don't
think
this
bill
is
going
to
help
them
with
that
at
all.
L
L
Speaker
I
can
tell
you
that
in
my
constituency
nobody
brings
this
up.
Nobody
cares
about
this
and
actually
Mr
Speaker
I
should
mention
not
just
in
my
constituency.
I
spent
a
fair
bit
of
time
in
constituencies
all
across
this
province
from
Fort
McMurray
to
Calgary
all
over
Calgary
to
Lethbridge
to
Medicine,
Hat
and
I've
talked
to
constituents
all
over
this
province
and
guess
what,
though,
what
they
care
about?
Is
they
care
about
affordability?
They
care
about
making
being
able
to
pay
for
their
bills?
L
They
care
about
being
able
to
access
health
care
for
their
senior
parents
for
their
own
needs
and
for
their
children.
That's
what
they
care
about.
They
care
about
a
resilient
jobs
economy,
not
scaring
away
investment,
not
scaring
away
Talent
Mr
Speaker.
If
you
listen
to
any
anybody
in
in
Calgary
right
now,
who's
talking
about
the
number
one
challenge
they
face
with
their
economy.
L
It
is
attracting
Talent,
that's
where
it's
all
at
who
is
going
to
want
to
come
and
invest
their
dollars,
their
life,
their
family
in
Alberta,
when
they
have
a
dictatorial
provincial
government
who
is
creating
incredible
uncertainty
and
a
lack
of
predictability.
We've
already
seen
the
implications
of
that,
so
the
the
UCP
members
of
this
car
of
this
of
this
assembly
want
to
focus
on
putting
their
name
on
the
record
for
centralizing
power
in
the
growing,
maybe
cabinet.
That's
fine,
Mr
Speaker,.
M
M
M
Mr
Speaker,
when
we
take
a
look
at
when
Al
Burns,
take
a
look
at
this
at
at
these.
These
types
of
legislations,
I
I,
think
that
they
need
to
take
a
look
at
what
what
is
their
litmus
test.
What's
the
litmus
test
that
albertans
can
use
to
determine
which
way
to
go
on
on
this
issue,
even
Mr
Speaker
I
recommend
that
they
read
or
watch
CBC.
M
A
M
What
we've
heard
here
tonight,
even
in
this
chamber,
is
the
NDP
constantly
going
with
their
leader,
jagmeet
Singh
and
his
close
friend
and
Ally
and
Coalition
member
Justin
Trudeau
to
continue
to
stop
what
is
the
Alberta
Advantage?
The
NDP
here
in
Alberta
had
four
years
to
be
able
to
prove
to
albertans
whether
or
not
they
could
do
it
better
and
in
2019,
Mr,
Speaker
albertan
said
a
million
albertans
said
no
more.
We
won't
do
that
again.
Hasta
la
vista.
D
M
M
M
What
did
we
receive
back
Mr
Speaker
29.5
billion
dollars
in
expenditures
into
Alberta
that
comes
in
in
the
health
transfers,
social
transfers,
but
what's
the
difference,
Mr
Speaker
17.2
billion
dollars
stayed
in
Ottawa.
What
did
they
do
with
it
wasted
it?
Did
they
take
that
to
make
it
a
better
Canada?
Did
they
make
it
a
better
place?
No,
they
used
it
to
buy
votes
in
Eastern
Canada,
Mr
Speaker.
This
is
what's
bothering
albertans
and
has
been
bothering
albertans
for
decades.
D
M
That
they
need
to
stay
in
their
own
lane.
We
have
enumerated
constitutional
rights.
This
constitution
shows
us
as
equal
Partners
in
Confederation,
but
Mr
Speaker.
We
have
seen
anything
but
an
equal
partnership
now
in
in
the
50s
and
60s
and
1950s
and
60s
I'll,
give
you
an
example
in
terms
of
health
health
spending.
M
The
feds
gave
us
back
50,
so
in
other
words,
we
transferred
money
over.
They
gave
us
back
50.
Well,
that's
that's
terrible,
you'd
think,
because
we
should
get
back
the
full
hundred
percent.
We
don't.
They
gave
us
back
50,
but
is
that?
Is
that
bad?
It's
bad,
but
you
know
what
it's
worth
today:
Mr
Speaker!
They
only
give
us
back.
21.5
percent
for
health
transfers
back
into
our
Province
today,
where's
the
rest
of
the
money,
Mr
Speaker
this
this
is
what's
bothering
albertans.
M
M
What
would
this,
what
would
the
the
federal
response
be?
Mr
Speaker
if
we
decided
to
move
outside
of
our
Lane
and
go
into
federally
protected
constitutional
rights?
What
if
we
went
and
collected
our
own
income
tax
and
said
you
know
what
we'll
give
you
we'll
cut
you
a
check
for
what
you're
worth?
Maybe
albertans
might
be
okay
with
that,
but
that
is
not
our
constitutional
right,
Mr
Speaker,
and
that's
why
we
don't
do
it.
M
M
Not
only
do
they
do
that,
Mr,
Speaker
and
I've
just
showed
you
that
this
health
transfer
funds
are
they
giving
us
less
for
the
money
that
we
send
over
there,
but
also
any
money
that
we
actually
do
give
them,
there's
always
strings
attached
to
it
that
we
have
to
do
it
their
way.
Well,
Mr
Speaker!
The
things
that
are
done
in
Alberta
are
different
than
they
are
done
in
Toronto.
M
We
need
to
recognize
that
our
society
here
runs
differently
than
it
does
over.
Maybe
the
NDP
do
the
same
thing
as
in
Toronto,
and
maybe
they
should
move
there
if
they
want
to,
but
Mr
Speaker
here
in
Alberta
we'd
like
to
be
able
to
keep
what
we
have
and
we'd
also
like
to
be
able
to
make
sure
that
we
have
good
quality
products,
services
and
health
education.
M
Keeping
some
of
that
money
here
to
be
able
to
provide
for
the
albertans
needs
is
what
I'd
like
to
see.
Mr
Speaker,
you
know
all
too
well
the
Golden
Rule.
He
who
has
the
gold
makes
the
rules,
and
unfortunately,
this
is
what
we've
seen
from
Ottawa
on
a
regular
basis.
They've
got
the
ability
to
tax,
they
take
the
money
and
they
decide
what's
going
to
happen
in
Alberta,
and
this
is
what's
bothering
albertans.
M
Mr
Speaker
I
want
to
finish
with
a
couple
of
with
an
example
here
in
my
riding
Atlantic
sugar
or
better
known
as
Roger
sugar
is
the
only
place
that
they
actually
produce
sugar
beets
to
create
sugar,
and
so
we
compete
at
Atlantic
sugar
in
Tabor
Alberta
against
cane
sugar,
which
comes
from
other
jurisdictions.
We
don't
obviously
produce
cane
here
in
Canada
and
Mr
Speaker
on
a
regular
basis.
I
have
these
guys
the
owners
of
Atlantic
sugar
telling
me.
M
M
I
am
always
seeing
businesses
saying.
Why
would
we
go
down
over
to
the
Border?
They
don't
have
a
carbon
tax
down
there
that
we
have
a
federal
government
that
thinks
the
solution
is
to
Triple
that
carbon
tax
Mr
Speaker.
That
is
that
the
solution
to
be
able
to
keep
Atlantic
sugar
and
Tabor
Alberta
is
that
the
the
the
the
the
answer
to
keep
businesses
in
Edmonton
that
these
members
opposite
are
supposed
to
be
Champion
apparently
I,
doubt
it
Mr
Speaker.
M
We've
chased
too
many
businesses
out
of
this
province
through
the
carbon
tax
through
bad
policy
when
the
NDP
were
in
there.
In
fact,
I
think
there
was
a
an
interesting
part
that
I
read
a
few
years
ago.
That
said
that
the
NDP,
when
they
were
in
in
power,
chased
over
billions
tens
of
billions
of
dollars
out
of
this
province
through
the
carbon
tax,
the
introduction
of
the
carbon
tax
and
other
egregious
pieces
of
legislation.
M
M
They
chased
out
tens
of
billions
of
dollars
because
of
their
poor
businesses,
businesses,
horrible
understanding,
horrible,
so
Mr,
Speaker,
Madam,
speaker
I,
just
want
to
finish
by
once
again
stating
where
what
I
started
with
it
is
my
pleasure
to
be
able
to
support
the
Alberta
sovereignty
within
a
United
Canada
Act
to
hopefully
hold
out
hold
Ottawa
in
their
Lane,
so
that
we
can
have
a
strong
Canada
Foundation
to
be
able
to
build
a
prosperous
Society
for
all
people
rather
than
having
them
dictate
to
us.
How
we
should
do
things
in
Alberta.