►
Description
Legislative Assembly of Alberta
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
Honorable
members
I
would
like
to
call
Committee
of
the
whole
to
order.
The
committee
of
the
whole
has
under
consideration
government
Amendment
A1
in
the
Alberta
sovereignty
within
a
United
Canada
Act.
Are
there
any
comments,
questions
or
amendments
to
be
offered
with
respect?
Amendment
I
see
The
Honorable
member
for
Edmonton
City
Center.
Well,.
D
D
D
D
You
mix
it
in
with
a
little
bit
of
cocoa
that
he
found
and
covered
it
with
a
bit
of
cane
sugar
and
he
baked
it
over
an
open
fire
and
he
took
that
pie
and
he
went
out
and
knocked
on
the
door
in
the
community
and
when
the
homeowner
came
to
answer
the
man
declared
hey.
This
is
your
lucky
day,
sir.
You
have
a
chance
to
be
the
first
to
try
my
special
recipe,
wisdom,
pie.
D
The
homo
in
the
homeowner
said
well,
I
hope
was
the
Bible.
What's
what's
that
the
poor
man
said?
Well,
it's
the
most
wonderful
thing.
You
know
it's
a
magical
pie.
It's
made
from
the
freshest
natural
ingredients,
it's
guaranteed
to
give
you
a
tremendous
burst
of
energy,
to
raise
your
awareness
and
give
you
a
long
memory
and
all
this
from
a
single
bite.
D
Well,
the
homeowner
was
impressed.
He
thought
it
sounded
like
a
wonderful
thing,
so
he
haggled
with
the
seller
for
a
few
minutes
before
they
settled
on
a
price
for
the
pie
and
seller
quickly.
Hurried
off
with
his
money,
homeowner
went
inside
to
sample
this
amazing
purchase,
he
cut
a
slice
and
he
took
a
bite
as
soon
as
he
tasted.
D
What
was
in
that
pie,
he
instantly
sat
up
and
ran
out
the
door
to
chase
that
Cellar
down
and
he
found
the
cellar
a
few
streets
over
and
he
started
giving
him
a
pretty
good
chewing
out
saying
you
know,
he'd
been
cruelly
tricked
and
the
seller
said
no,
no,
no,
not
at
all.
You
see
clearly
one
bite
of
that
pie.
I
gave
you
a
tremendous
burst
of
energy.
That
allowed
you
to
run
here
so
quickly,
you're,
clearly
far
more
aware
than
you
were
before
and
I'm
sure.
D
In
them,
in
spice
and
extra
sugar
changes,
what
is
at
the
heart
of
this
bill?
It
does
not
change
what
is
at
the
heart
of
that
wisdom
pie.
You
know,
I.
Think
back.
Mr
chair
be
back
to
this
spring
when
I
had
the
honor
of
introducing
a
private
member's
bill
and
I.
Remember
at
that
time
being
told
my
bill
was
not
worthy
of
debate.
D
The
minister
went
on
to
say,
rather
than
taking
into
consultation,
different
communities,
they
propose
an
unwieldedly
bill
that
would
make
it
harder
for
government
departments
to
function
a
political
football.
He
called
it
Mr
Speaker
and
said
on
that
side
of
the
aisle.
They
were
not
interested
in
party
and
foolish
politics.
D
D
This
bill
is
an
embarrassment,
is
going
to
be
an
incredibly
damaging
to
our
economy,
and
the
government
should
be
ashamed
of
ever
having
brought
it
into
this
house.
You
know:
we've
been
down
this
road
before
now.
The
bill
is
being
abandoned
and
the
amendment
is
removing
sweeping
powers
that
this
government
chose
to
award
to
itself
now.
The
ministry
of
course
tried
to
deny
this
multiple
times
on
social
media,
but
the
fact
is
he
is
now
they
are
now
essentially
admitting
it
is
true
because
they
are
mending
to
take
it
out
now.
D
You
know,
I
think
back
Mr
Speaker
this
again.
This
is
a
government
that
has
a
it's
very
fond
of
awarding
itself
extraordinary
powers.
We
have
another
build
in
front
of
this
house
right
now,
Bill
four,
in
which
this
government
is
taking
back
a
power
that
they
said
well.
When
they
brought
the
bill
in
Bill
21,
they
said
well
we're
just
clarifying
the
power
that
we
always
feel.
We
had
this
being
the
government
Mr
Speaker,
that
is
pretty
presumptive,
arrogant,
entitled
I,
think
those
are
appropriate
words.
D
Think
back
to
Bill,
10,
Mr,
Speaker
I.
Remember
the
debate
on
built-in,
where
they
award
try
expanded
the
powers
that
they
had
that
were
similar
to
this
under
the
public
health
Act,
going
even
beyond
what
they've
tried
to
award
themselves
here
in
Bill,
one
going
so
far,
so
allow
themselves
to
create
entirely
new
legislation
without
ever
setting
foot
in
the
legislature.
Now
at
least
then
Mr
Speaker
there
are
Mr
chair
that
was
within
the
context
of
a
public
health
emergency.
D
So
at
least
there
was
some
boundaries
on
it
there
as
embarrassing,
as
that
was,
and
as
much
as
they
in
the
end
then
had
to
go
and
walk
that
entire
thing
back
strike.
An
entire
legislative
committee
spend
weeks
with
multiple
mlas
to
undo
that
bit
of
arrogance
that
they
refused
to
listen
to
when
we
were
debating
it
here
in
the
chamber,
and
we
told
them
exactly
what
they
were
doing,
but
it
blew
back
on
them
from
their
own
supporters.
Now.
D
D
It
is
not
a
duty
to
say
we'll
pass
the
legislation,
we'll
put
it
in
place,
we'll
put
a
little
clause
in
saying
we
promise
to
be
nice
to
you.
Just
trust
us
and
that's
good
enough-
the
duty
to
come
down
with
dignity
and
respect
with
indigenous
Leaders
with
First
Nations,
and
you
talk
to
them
about
what
you
are
thinking
of
doing
or
what
you
are
intending
to
do
you
genuinely
listen
to
their
feedback
in
a
way
that
allows
them
to
actually
participate
in
the
process
before
you
attempt
to
move
legislation
that
affects
them.
D
This
government
did
none
of
those
things,
because
this
government
was
in
such
a
rush
to
bring
in
this
Flagship
bill.
It's
clear
that
they
barely
even
sat
down
and
thought
it
through.
They
were
so
desperate
to
try
to
fulfill
this
radical
promise
of
the
Premier
that
she
was
going
to
give
Alberta
the
power
to
never
have
to
listen
to
anything.
The
federal
government
ever
said
again.
D
Taken
from
a
cockeyed
idea
from
Alberta
separatists
who
intentionally
wanted
to
pick
a
political
fight,
a
constitutional
fight
who
said
yep
absolutely
this
legislation
is
100
unconstitutional
and
that's
the
point.
So
the
premier
had
to
try
to
find
a
way
in
a
few
short
weeks
to
adapt
that
hot
mess
into
this
hot
mess
into
something
that
she
could
somehow
get
past.
D
D
D
D
D
It
was
killed
because
they
tried
to
do
a
run
around
on
the
duty
to
consult
to
do
it
shorthand
find
a
shortcut
skip
their
homework
and
they
got
called
out
by
the
courts,
and
you
know
what
even
the
liberal
government
when
they
came
in
and
we're
working
on
getting
TMX
through.
Even
they
had
to
go
back
and
backtrack
and
make
sure
they
did
that
consultation.
Of
course,
they
were
having
to
work
on
a
rather
the
poor
Foundation
that
had
been
laid
before
them.
D
But
the
fact
is,
it
still
came
down
to
the
only
reason
that
we
have
a
pipeline
to
Tidewater
that
will
be
in
operation
next
year
is
because
a
liberal
government
sat
down
and
redid
that
consultation.
Our
current
mayor
here
in
the
city
of
Edmonton,
actually
mayor
amazing
soe
in
his
role
as
the
minister
of
Natural
Resources,
sat
down
and
redid
that
consultation
and
made
sure
it
was
done
thoroughly
and
before
the
fact,
and
that
got
the
approval
to
allow
that
pipeline
to
be
built.
D
D
Again,
that
was
certainly
the
largest
concern
that
was
raised,
but
it's
not
the
only
one
and
multiple
constitutional
Scholars
have
spoken
out
with
concerns
about
now.
Of
course,
this
government
has
dug
deep
and
spent
days
working
to
find
the
one
in
ten
dentists
that
will
say
that
sugar
does
not
cause
cavities.
D
They've
managed
to
find
a
handful
of
those,
but
we
know
the
vast
majority
of
constitutional
Scholars
lawyers.
Individuals
have
spoken
out
and
said
what
we
are
saying
this
bill
is
a
hot
mess,
it's
something
that
never
should
have
seen
the
light
of
day
in
the
legislature
and
it's
something
that
will
cause
Untold
headaches
and
costs
for
albertans
and
potential
damage
to
our
economy.
D
In
the
words
of
Ian
Holloway
dean
of
the
law
school
at
the
University
of
Calgary,
if
I
was
grading
one
of
my
first
year
law,
students
on
the
actual
writing
of
the
bill,
I
give
them
a
c
minus
at
best.
It's
so
poorly
drafted,
so
riddled
with
internal
contradictions
is
trying
to
thread
a
needle,
it's
very
hard
to
be
threaded.
D
D
And
Mr
chair:
this
is
what
this
government
makes
its
built
one
it's.
What
it's
obsessed
with.
It
is
what
is
pouring
all
its
energy
into
at
a
time
when
we
have
real
problems
here
in
the
province
of
Alberta,
a
health
care
crisis,
a
health
care
crisis
for
children.
Mr,
chair
on
that
this
Premier
has
next
to
nothing
to
say
other
than
perhaps
we'll
get
you
some
Tylenol
in
four
to
six
weeks.
D
D
Even
with
removing
the
sweeping
Powers
with
the
government
awarded
itself
in
this
bill,
and
then
attempted
to
say,
did
was
not
in
fact
actually
awarding
itself
and
then
said.
Well,
maybe,
and
then
said:
oh
oops,
sorry
we'll
pull
that
out,
even
without
that
there
are
several
legal
problems
that
remain
that
make
it
very
likely
that
this
bill
is
utterly
unconstitutional.
D
D
D
Mr
chair
then
saying
our
opinion
should
carry
the
weight
of
the
rule
of
law.
Now,
of
course,
we
as
legislators
are
given
enormous
power
to
indeed
introduce
debate
and
to
pass
laws,
and
for
that
there
is
no
requirement.
There
is
no
IQ
test.
There
is
no
experience
requirement
because,
of
course,
we
want
people
of
all
experience
knowledge.
Skill
sets
to
have
the
opportunity
to
represent
the
people
of
this
province,
but
it
is
a
far
far
different
thing,
Mr
chair
to
say
that
anyone
elected
to
this
legislature.
D
D
D
We
have
a
system
in
place
if
there
is
an
issue
of
constitutionality.
If
we
question
whether
or
not
something
is
constitutional,
then
we
go
to
the
courts
and
the
folks
that
are
appointed
to
do
that.
Work
who
have
decades
in
some
cases
of
experience
knowledge
training
in
making
these
a
group
of
them
together,
will
make
that
determination.
D
D
D
B
E
Don't
know
internal
problems
that
this
UCP
government
might
have
or
internal
problems
within
their
caucus
whatever,
but
here
it
is
foisted
upon
the
people
of
Alberta.
We
have
to
deal
with
this
here
in
the
legislature,
and
you
know
I've
learned
over
the
years
as
a
legislator
that-
and
you
only
really
have
two
most
valuable
Commodities
available
to
you.
You
have
time,
and
the
time
is
rapidly
ticking
down
on
this
government.
E
Yes,
of
course,
a
government
has
to
step
up
to
Ode.
Well,
I
mean
provinces.
Do
it
all
the
time?
It's
an
important
thing.
We
did
it
as
Government
and
we
will
continue
to
do
so
again
when
we
form
the
government
again,
but
to
put
up
these
half-baked
bills
right
they're,
more,
like
a
call
to
Arms
to
I,
don't
know
what
some
Fringe
group
of
our
society
is
is
a
terrible
waste
of
time
yeah.
E
E
If
people
don't
believe
that
your
integrity
is
intact
and
that
you're
serving
the
people
of
this
province,
then
it
doesn't
matter
what
you
bring
forwards
once
your
integrity
is
gone,
they
simply
won't
believe
you.
So
this
is
a
huge
dose
of
Integrity
compromise
Bill
one,
and
this
amendments
does
nothing
to
fix
that.
It
looks
it
feels,
like
you
know,
you're
trying
to
bail
out
the
boat
with
a
with
a
cup,
somehow
right,
and
it
just
keeps
on
getting
worse
and
it's
just
not
working
working.
Yes.
Indeed,
so
I
have
categorical
problems.
E
I've
said
it
before
right
of
the
very
existence
of
the
sovereignty
acts
being
brought
forward
into
this
legislature.
Those
very
words
cause
turmoil.
They
cause
issues
around
Integrity,
of
course,
but
also
around
people
just
not
sure.
What's
going
to
happen
next
right,
the
implications
and
the
responsibility
of
this
provincial
body
extend
to
post-secondary
institutions
to
non-profits
to
all
of
the
associations
we
have
with
federal
government
and
the
funding
of
important
programs
that
we
are
responsible
for.
It
puts
all
of
those
things
into
question.
E
People
have
to
sort
of
say:
okay,
are
they
going
to
bring
forwards
some
sovereignty
tribunal
to
look
and
see
whether
they
should
build
that
affordable
housing
in
Lethbridge
or
should
they?
You
know,
think
twice
it
it?
Just
it's.
It's
not
governance.
It's
just
somehow
subverting
the
whole
notion
of
governance
and
people
don't
like
it
right,
I
mean
maybe
sure
they
say.
Oh,
you
know
ottawa's
encroaching
on
our
our
Province
and
you
know.
E
Sometimes
we
have
a
right
to
think
that
for
sure
and
we
need
to
fight
back
on
it,
but
this
is
not
fighting
back.
This
is
a
lazy
Way
by
which
to
make
people
angry
or
try
to
make
people
angry.
But
you
know
what
they're
getting
angry
for
the
wrong
reasons:
they're
not
getting
angry
about
this.
The
issue
of
Ottawa
they're,
getting
angry
with
the
government
not
doing
their
job.
That's
what
they're
angry
about.
E
So
you
know
I
always
am
happy
to
give
free
advice,
and
my
advice
to
this
government
now
is
to
pull
back
on
this.
Now
we
can
see
in
Saskatchewan
they're
doing
the
same
thing
right,
they're,
whatever
Saskatchewan,
First,
Act
or
whatever
is
you
know
not
even
that,
obviously,
in
the
same
league
as
this
one
in
terms
of
offensive
breaches
of
constitutionality
and
so
forth,
and
you
know
their
watered-down
version
of
Saskatchewan
first
they're
backing
off
on
it
right,
they
say.
E
From
groups
like
it's
Just,
Happening
Here
in
in
Alberta,
the
afn,
for
example,
assembly
First
Nations,
spoke
out
in
the
most
clear
terms
possible
that
this
Bill
one
sovereignty,
acts
and
Saskatchewan
First
Act
need
to
be
dumped
immediately
that
they
do
not
they're
illegal.
They
breach
the
terms
of
treaties
across
this
country
and
in
Alberta
and
Saskatchewan
specifically,
and
they
are
it's
an
insult
quite
frankly
to
the
premise
of
treaties
and
the
agreements
signed
therein.
E
We
know
that
investors
are
shaken
by
this
as
well,
and
we
know
that
all
of
the
institutions
that
are
under
the
purview
of
this
provincial
body
are
also
shaken
and
wondering
as
well
they're
coming
to
me
from
the
poor,
secondary
sector,
they're
saying:
okay,
what
on
Earth
can
they
overrule?
Are
they
going
to
overrule
on
Research?
Are
they
going
to
overrule
on
expansion?
Are
they
going
to
determine?
E
You
know
what
we
have
to
teach
and
otherwise
pull
back
on
those
things
in
some
ways.
I
think
that
this
UCP
government
has
been
practicing
for
the
sovereignty
act
over
the
last
three
and
a
half
years
right
with
all
of
these
leaving
money
on
the
table
with
the
federal
government
dictating
which
courses
need
to
be
taught
at
post-secondary
institutions,
you
know
backing
off
on
so
many
promises
and
responsibilities.
It
almost
feels,
like
it's
just
been
kind
of
a
warm-up
to
this
this
this
bill.
E
E
You
know
just
as
a
one
more
couple
of
words:
I
mean
I
certainly
will
speak
on
it
again,
but
I
mean
it
just
seems
to
show
a
a
lack
of
understanding
of
the
separation
of
powers,
and
it
makes
the
legislative
body
in
the
cabinets,
judge,
jury
and
executioner
for
a
whole
range
of
initiatives
that
we
need
to
deal
with
in
the
normal
way
of
that.
The
Westminster
system
does
lay
out
over
a
period
of
120
years
here
and
probably
400
years
in
throughout
the
world.
E
F
Well,
thank
you
very
much.
Mr
chair
I'm
pleased
to
be
able
to
rise
to
speak
on
this
matter
in
Committee
of
the
whole
and
and
to
speak
as
well
about
the
the
relevance,
the
impact,
the
import
of
the
amendment
to
Bill,
one
that
are
being
put
forward
by
this
government.
Let
me
start
from
the
overarching
position
to
just
review
relatively
quickly.
Why
it
is
this
act
as
a
whole
is
a
bad
idea,
and
why,
as
a
whole,
it
is
quite
unfixable.
F
In
essence,
this
act
Mr
chair,
generates
unprecedented
amounts
of
uncertainty
in
the
province
relative
to,
in
essence,
the
rule
of
law,
and
it
does
so
in
a
way
that
undermines
investor
certainty,
not
only
here
in
Alberta
but
outside
of
Alberta
in
the
rest
of
Canada
and
indeed
outside
of
Canada
amongst
investors
internationally,
and
it
does
through
so
through
a
number
of
different
means,
Mr
chair.
First
of
all,
quite
honestly,
the
whole
rollout
of
this
premier's
Flagship
bill
is
a
is
a
a
lesson
in
legislative
incompetence.
F
The
fact
that
it
was
there
leading
up
into
to
last
night
when
the
government
finally
introduced
an
amendment
which
we
are
discussing
today.
That,
in
part
included,
the
elimination
of
that
clause
generate
confidence
in
no
way
shape
or
form,
and
I've
heard
that
from
from
so
many
folks
across
the
province
over
the
course
of
the
last
seven
days,
they
truly
worry
about
who
is
at
the
helm
and
what
they
know
about.
F
The
job
they've
been
asked
to
do
by
the
one
percent
of
the
population
that
selected
the
premier
to
lead
the
government
caucus
last
month,
and
so
that
display
in
and
of
itself
drives
a
tremendously
deep
level
of
uncertainty
across
this
province
now
there
are
also,
of
course,
things
in
the
legislation
that
create
a
tremendous
amount
of
lack
of
clarity.
This
whole
issue
of
of
who
it
is
the
government
can
direct
the
language
around
anyone
with
a
fiscal
relationship
with
with
the
government.
F
It's
actually
not
clear
to
us
how
far
and
deep
into
the
private
sector
the
government
would
purport
to
go
with
this
bill
so
once
again,
of
course,
that
creates
a
lack
of
clarity.
The
consequences
of
this
government
declaring
that
federal
laws
are
not
applicable
or
not
enforceable
here
in
Alberta.
That,
of
course,
creates
a
tremendous
lack
of
just
Clarity.
F
In
terms
of
what
the
bills
intended
to
do,
then,
of
course,
uncertainty
also
is
driven
by
the
the
likely
unconstitutionality
of
elements
of
this
legislation
and
the
member
from
Edmonton
Center,
as
well
as
the
member
from
Edmonton
Northwest.
We're
just
outlining
those
those
points
again
today,
even
and
I
will
say
and
I'll
talk
in
just
a
moment.
F
There
is
nothing
in
these
amendments
that
appear
to
undo
the
primary
concerns
around
the
constitutionality
of
this
piece
of
legislation,
and
then,
finally,
it
is
very
clear
to
us
that
we
have
a
very,
very
serious
problem
embedded
within
this
legislation,
as
it
relates
to
treaty
rights
in
this
in
this
province,
and
that
also
creates
a
tremendous
amount
of
uncertainty
now
Mr
chair.
This
is
not
me
sitting
around
coming
up
with
fun,
exciting
ways
to
suggest
that
this
bill
creates
uncertainty.
This
is
me
listening
to
albertans.
F
We
have
heard
from
the
head
of
cap
that
any
bill
that
creates
uncertainty
for
investors
is
a
bill.
That
is
a
bad
idea
for
the
province.
We
have
heard
from
the
Calgary
Chamber
of
Commerce
that
this
bill
creates
uncertainty
for
many
members.
A
range
of
members
within
the
Calgary
Chamber
of
Commerce
and
I
understand
the
premier
likes
to
talk
about
those
Anonymous
folks
who
allegedly
called
her
one
day
and
said
that
they
don't
agree
with
the
head
of
the
chamber.
F
But
I
will
say
that
you
know
we
dispatched
three
of
our
mlas
to
go
to
a
chamber
function
a
couple
of
days
ago,
and
they
spoke
to
a
multiplicity
of
chamber
members
at
that
function
and
actually,
they
all
kind
of
agreed
with
the
head
of
the
Calgary
Chamber
of
Commerce
and
said
yeah.
No.
This
is
very
very
concerning
and
it
creates
a
lot
of
Economic
and
investor
uncertainty.
They
spoke
actually
to
investors.
In
fact,
we
also
heard
from
the
Canadian
chamber
of
commerces
who
also
said
that
this
bill
creates
tremendous
economic
uncertainty.
F
Because
we
are
in
a
place
right
now
where
everybody
is
competing
for
International
Investment
dollars.
And
we
are
only
one
jurisdiction
and
we
are
doing
the
exact
opposite
of
delivering
a
message
that
this
is
the
place
where
those
dollars
should
come.
So
that
came
from
the
former
Bank
of
Canada
Governor
favorite
Dodge,
someone
who
just
to
review,
served
under
former
Prime
Minister
Stephen
Harper.
F
So
the
final
problem,
with
this
bill
as
a
whole,
of
course-
and
it
has
again
been
touched
on
by
other
members
of
my
caucus-
is
that
it
is,
to
a
large
degree
diverting
this
government's
attention
from
the
issues
that
actually
do
matter
to
albertans,
and
there
have
been
now
multiple
polls
that
have
been
both
publicly
and
and
quietly
published.
On
this
issue
and
I
know
members
opposite
get
access
to
some
of
those
private
non-published
polls
that
we
do,
that.
F
That
reinforce
the
fact
that
this
is
absolutely
not
what
the
people
of
this
province
want
to
hear
their
government
talking
about
right
now
and
yet
that's
what
they
are
doing
and
what
does
that
mean?
Well,
it
means
that,
in
the
midst
of
the
probably
single
most
damaging
flu,
colvid
RSB
epidemic
impacting
children
in
decades.
In
this
province
we
have
a
premier
who,
on
one
hand,
is
unwilling
to
stand
and
recommend
that
children
get
the
flu
vaccine
and,
on
the
other
hand,
was
unable
to
answer
the
question.
F
I
asked
her
yesterday
about
the
resignation
of
the
two
deputy
chief
medical
officers
of
Health.
Why?
Probably
because
she
was
spending
so
much
time.
Tryingly
trying
to
finally
understand
what
the
bill
she
had
introduced
meant
after
she
finally
decided
to
read
it.
But
the
point
is:
is
that
what
she
wasn't
doing
was
finding
out
or
being
briefed
on
the
fact
that
we
actually
had
the
top
three
Public
Health
positions
in
this
province?
Right
now
are
vacant
I
mean
yeah.
We
have
someone
who's,
theoretically
called
the
chief
medical
officer
of
Health,
but
he's
got
a
God.
F
I'm
job
already
reckon
this
literally
off
the
side
of
his
desk.
Without
his
extra
scent
so
he's
a
volunteer
and
then
every
other
two
positions
we
have
resignations
with
both
of
them
and
we
have
a
premier
who
apparently
didn't
know
that
that
was
happening
at
a
time
when
our
emergency
rooms
are
overwhelmed
with
far
too
many
children,
desperate
for
medical
care.
F
So
that's
what
happened
when
the
government
is
diverted
from
the
issues
they
should
be
dealing
with.
So
now
we
have
a
government
that
has
introduced
amendments
and
let
me
be
perfectly
clear
about
the
consequences
of
these
amendments.
I
will
say
on
the
first
matter
no
question
the
Amendments
now
effectively
eliminate
the
Henry
VIII
Clause.
It
now
clarifies
that
we
are
no
longer
dealing
with
statutes
pieces
of
legislation,
but
rather
we
are
dealing
with
regulations,
and
that
is
fine.
That
is
good,
good
step
forward.
F
I,
don't
know
why
we
needed
to
be
subjected
to
so
much
arrogant,
insult
insults
from
the
premier
I
wish.
On
the
first
day,
when
we
had
pointed
out
what
she
had
done,
that
she
would
have
risen,
apologized
thanked
us
for
pointing
out
the
mistake
and
just
indicated
right,
then
that
she
would
fix
it,
but
no
apparently,
we've
not
quite
learned
the
lessons
she
claims
to
have
learned
from
former
Premier
Ralph
Klein.
Nonetheless,
so
that's
the
first
thing
that
this
amendment
does,
and
that
is
good.
F
It
does
not,
however,
for
all
the
reasons
I've
just
outlined
address
the
much
bigger
bigger
problems
embedded
in
this
bill.
The
second
thing
that
this
amendment
does
is
it
attempts
to
limit
the
lack
of
clarity
in
one
element
of
the
bill
by
more
directly
defining
what
amounts
to
harmful
and
I
thought
what
they
had
done.
F
Actually,
when
I
first
heard
about
these
amendments,
Mr
chair,
what
I
actually
thought
they'd
done
was
actually
eliminated
reference
to
harmful
altogether
and
otherwise
just
said
you
know,
this
will
just
be
a
matter
that
is
brought
before
the
house
when,
in
the
opinion
of
the
house,
we
think
there
that
there's
been
a
a
an
unconstitutional
act
on
the
part
of
the
federal
government,
but
no
turns
out.
No,
that's
actually
not
what
they
did.
F
They
didn't
actually
even
do
that
either
they
kept
the
possibility
of
passing
a
resolution
if
it
is
harmful
and
then
they
went
on
to
say
and
harmful
means
that
the
range
of
actions
that
are
covered
by
this
piece
of
legislation
that
the
federal
government
may
take
affect
something
that's
in
provincial
jurisdiction.
That's
all
that
has
to
happen.
Then
it's
harmful.
It
affects
it.
That's
what
the
legislation
says
just
want
you
to
be
clear.
It
doesn't
have
to
hurt
something:
that's
in
provincial
jurisdiction.
F
F
Yep
sure
does
it
does
Mr
chair,
but
that
is
how
they
have
changed:
the
definition
to
include
harmful
or
to
be
harmful.
So
in
fact,
they've
not
limited
the
scope
of
this
word
harmful
at
all,
and
in
fact
it
still
in
fact
could
even
relate
to
things
that
the
premier
has
has
articulated
her
extreme
displeasure
with
like,
for
instance,
the
billions
of
dollars
that
the
provincial
government
is
receiving
in
order
to
support
young
families
across
this
province
through
finally
bringing
in
a
robust
Child
Care
Program.
F
They
have
not
actually
touched
in
one
bit
well,
not
by
one
iota
the
most
offending
part
of
this
legislation,
as
it
relates
to
that
particular
head
of
unconstitutionality.
So
there
is
no
change
here.
They
still
allow
themselves
the
ability
to
to
make
a
motion
that
says
in
the
brilliant
opinion
of
this
UCP
majority
government.
F
So
it's
this
kind
of
thing,
Mr
chair
that
says,
drives
investors
to
say
yeah,
you
know,
I
could
open
my
tech
company
or
my
digital
media
company
in
Calgary
or
I
could
just
go
to
BC,
where
they're
a
little
less
close
to
the
edge
of
diving
into
off
the
deep
end
and
where
I've
got
a
better
sense
of
what
the
laws
are.
That
I'm
afraid
is
what
one
of
the
consequences
of
this
horrible
piece
of
legislation
is
going
to
be
now.
F
That's
not
done
here.
We
have
a
moral
obligation
to
pursue
genuine
reconciliation
by
refusing
to
speak
to
a
single
one
of
the
grand
Chiefs
of
the
treaties.
Here
in
Alberta,
the
premier
has
failed
to
demonstrate
any
modicum
of
reconciliation
by
repeatedly
claiming
that
she
has
one
person
that
she's
spoken
to
and
then
at
the
same
time,
failing
to
apologize
for
the
fact
that
her
Minister
claimed
to
have
spoken
to
the
actual
representatives
of
the
treaties,
failing
to
apologize
for
the
fact
that
he
claimed
to
do
that
when
he
had
not.
F
F
Acknowledging
treaty
rights
and
pursuing
reconciliation
does
not
mean
that
you
say
to
indigenous
albertans
will
give
you
this
one-time
opportunity
to
partner
with
us
on
this
one
economic
deal
that
we
picked.
That
is
not
reconciliation,
that
is
not
treaty
rights.
They
have
an
opportunity
to
partner
yes,
but
they
have
a
right
to
choose
not
to,
and
instead
to
ask
that
they
be
treated
as
the
treaty
leaders
that
they
are,
and
this
government
failed
to
do
that.
F
F
G
G
When
one
looks
at
the
free
Alberta
strategy,
one
can
just
read
what
they
have
said,
which
is
the
federally
appointed
judges
are
accused
in
that
strategy
of
quote
blatant
judicial
activism
and
bias
against
the
constitutionally
enshrined
jurisdictional
rights
of
Alberta,
which
is
I,
guess
an
odd
thing
to
say
about
a
supreme
court.
That
remains
a
majority
appointed
by
a
Stephen
Harper.
G
But
here
we
are.
The
fact
of
the
matter
is:
is
that
this
bill
has
its
provenance
out
of
a
wing
of
the
conservative
movement
that
has
become
more
prominent.
That
has,
in
fact
taken
over
the
conservative
movement
in
this
country,
and
that
has
no
regard
for
the
rule
of
law,
for
the
separation
of
powers
and
for
our
institutions
of
liberal
democracy.
G
In
fact,
it
is
sui
generis
to
this
movement
that
they
undermine
those
aspects
of
what
makes
for
a
good
life
for
all
of
us
at
every
available
turn,
and
so
here
in
this
bill,
and
the
leader
of
the
official
opposition
just
spoke
at
too
many
of
its
its
implications
in
terms
of
investment
and
so
on.
I
want
to
I
I.
G
Do
something
that
probably
she
wishes
that
she
could
do
because
I
I
know
her
well
enough
by
now,
which
is
I'm
going
to
get
into
a
little
bit
of
detail
about
separation
of
powers.
Let's
buckle
up
here,
one
of
the
core
functions
of
any
liberal
democracy
and
any
place
that
grounds
itself
in
the
rule
of
law
is
that
the
Judiciary
is
independent
and
in
Canada
of
course.
G
Of
course,
it's
not
just
judicial
Independence
for
the
purposes
of
of
staying
away
from
the
sort
of
feckless
and
Reckless
flightiness
of
elective
legislatures.
No,
it's
also
intimately
bound
up
in
the
con
in
the
concept
of
jurisdiction
since
Confederation,
and
so
the
Court's
concerns
for
protecting
that
Independence
is
not
just
to
protect
us
all
from
from
decisions
that
might
Target
one
group
of
individuals
or
one
a
region
or
so
on
and
and
upset
the
balance
in
that
way
that
balance
of
our
own
individual
security,
the
person
in
various
Collective
rights.
G
It
also
has
to
do
with
intrusion
from
provincial
legislatures
over
the
years
into
the
the
levels
of
of
the
federal
Judiciary
and
there's
and
Banks
and
alzinski,
which
my
friend
from
Edmonton
Rutherford,
tabled
earlier
this
afternoon.
I
go
into
some
detail
on
this
that
and
so
I'll
quote
from
it,
grounded
in
the
judicature
provisions
of
the
Constitution
Act
1867
and
just
as
you
know,
to
open
a
bracket
here.
We've
heard
the
premier
variously.
G
You
know,
go
on
and
on
about
the
founders
as
if
we
live
in
America
and
the
the
Integrity
of
our
foundational
documents,
which
is,
of
course,
the
Constitution
Act
of
1982,
brought
in
by
a
pre-electric
Trudeau.
But
she
over
looks
that
because
the
rhetorical
flourish
mix,
I
guess
her
feel
better
about
what
she's
about
to
do.
But
both
legislative
and
executive
bodies
are
incapable
of
intruding
upon
the
court
jurisdiction
of
Superior
Courts
or
infringing
upon
the
independence
of
the
Judiciary.
G
One
of
the
reasons
for
this
is,
of
course,
that
concern
of
federalism,
which
has
always
integral
to
everything
that
we
do
in
this
a
giant
place.
We
often
call
a
country,
but
it's
also
because
then
it
avoids
the
the
development
of
a
shadow
court
system,
a
parallel
court
system,
that
is
to
say
there
is
only
one
place
where
decisions
get
made.
So,
for
example,
if
you
are
the
parent
of
two
teenage
boys,
there
is
only
one
place
where
the
decisions
get
made
and
that
is
Mom.
G
G
Writing
for,
in
fact,
the
dissent
in
the
the
carbon
tax
reference
wherein
Suzanne
Cote
wrote
that
the
the
infringing
upon
the
independence
of
the
Judiciary
includes
the
duty
to
maintain
the
rule
of
law,
protect
citizens
from
an
arbitrary
action
by
supervising
state,
that
is
to
say
there
is
a
final
Arbiter
on
any
capriciousness
that
may
come
out
of
a
legislature.
As
we
are
seeing
right
now
now,
Bill
one
may
not
remove
Accord
jurisdiction
as
Banks
and
olezinski
write
from
a
section
96
Court.
G
I
would
argue
that
this
attack
on
the
Judiciary
as
I,
quoted
that
so-called
free
Alberta
strategy
is
in
fact
a
feature
and
not
a
bug.
This
is
of
a
piece
of
the
entire.
It's
not
even
an
ideology,
it
is
a
grab
bag
of
ideas,
but
insofaradism
is
an
ideology.
It
involves
the
attack
on
Collective
knowledge
on
the
rule
of
law,
on
liberal
Democratic,
Institutions
and,
ultimately
on
trust,
which
is
what
our
entire
system
runs
on
from
property
rights
to
security
of
the
person
to
traffic
laws.
Our
entire
system
runs
on
trust.
G
This
is
of
a
piece,
and
you
know
that,
because
all
you
have
to
do
is
listen
to
this
Premier.
She
has
variously
attacked
science,
Public
Health,
our
national
security
establishment.
Oh
just
asking
questions
about
Ukraine.
You
know
flood
mitigation,
amnesty
for
people
who
broke
the
law-
that's
not
a
thing
in
Canada
just
so
that
we're
all
clear,
so
she's,
just
asking
questions.
Just
kicking
down
the
foundations
of
everything
that
has
led
to
the
longevity
equality,
individual
liberties
protected
us
for
reckless
or
feckless
Decisions
by
those
in
power
that
protect
our
security.
G
The
person,
our
section
7
Charter
rates
are
property
rights
all
of
it.
This
is
to
an
attack
on
every
aspect
of
civil
society.
That
amount
remains
unamended
in
this
legislation.
How
do
you
know
that
you
look
at
section
one
of
this
bill?
This
is
not
a
war
with
Ottawa.
This
is
going
to
war
with
ourselves.
It
disrupts
the
activities
of
non-profits
crown
agencies,
housing
authorities,
municipalities,
delegated
authorities,
Police
Services.
No
wonder
it's
so
deeply
unpopular,
that's
just
the
politics
of
it,
not
even
the
constitutionality
of
it.
G
G
G
So
you
know
I,
guess
ultimately,
on
the
one.
On
the
one
hand,
this
is
very
bad
for
democracy
and
I
will
use
a
a
quote
to
talk
about
that
from
a
member
from
across
the
way
quote
to
present
to
albertans
in
any
way
that
there
is
some
magical
solution
that
the
legislature
could
pass
tomorrow.
That
would
somehow
make
all
these
problems,
that
is
to
say,
fed
Prof
relations.
Go
away
is
not
factual.
G
That
person
also
suggested
the
sovereignty
bill
would
not
only
lead
to
uncertainty
for
business
investment,
but
also
Foster
bad
blood
with
party
members
and
voters
by
promising
something
that
can't
be
fulfilled
quote
the
number
one
way
to
make
albertans
mad
at
us
would
be
to
promise
that
you
can
do
things
with
certain
legislation
that
you
cannot
do
and
then
not
deliver.
That
will
make
them
very
upset.
Like
that's
almost.
G
It
would
be
call
calling
for
the
breaking
of
the
law,
which
is
just
not
something
the
legislature
would
do.
Well,
maybe
not
that
member,
the
member
for
brimby
Rocky
Mountain
host
sundry,
who
said
those
words
during
the
campaign,
but
certainly
apparently
the
legislature,
will
do
it
and
everyone
will
just
get
in
line
The
Proposal
is
no
different
by
the
way
what
those
members
were
responding
to
and
was
actually
put
before
us.
G
There
is
no
difference
so,
ultimately,
this
is
bad
for
democracy
in
the
ways
that
the
member
for
rimby,
Rocky,
Mountain,
House,
Century
I,
cannot
believe.
I
am
saying
this
I
agree
with
him.
I
I
describes
here,
yeah,
yeah
yeah
everybody
just
hold
on
because
the
fact
of
the
matter
is
it
does
make
people
mad
to
promise
something
that
you
can't
deliver,
and
that
is
exactly
what
this
has
happened.
G
There
is
no
question
that
the
amendment
or
set
of
amendments,
or
whatever
this
several
pages
is,
does
not
save
the
fundamental
and
constitutionality
of
this
bill.
It
does
not
save
the
over-promising
by
the
premier.
It
does
not
save
the
the
facts
that
this
is
just
a
continuation
of
grievance
politics
by
a
fringe
of
the
far
right
that
has
now
adhered
itself
to
the
conservative
movement
in
this
province.
G
There
is
no
question
that
this
bill
remains
a
fundamental
attack
on
institutions
and
groups
of
people
and
decision
makers.
Within
the
boundaries
of
Alberta
not
outside
Ottawa
is
unmoved
by
this
particular
appearance
of
clown
shoes.
On
the
floor
of
the
Alberta
legislature,
however,
municipalities,
Crown
agencies
any
contracted
service
provider,
they
are
not
unmoved,
they
are
nervous.
They
are
I,
have
a
lot
of
questions
about
the
priorities
of
this
government.
G
They
have
not
obviously
been
listened
to.
As
the
honorable
leader
of
the
official
opposition
has
gone
on,
I
I,
described
at
some
length
in
terms
of
treaty
rights
and
I
think
albertans
are
noticing
just
what
a
devastating
error.
This
was
both
an
error
in
judgment,
an
era
of
priorities
and
error
in
law
that
this
bill
is
and
remains
with.
G
This
is
the
equivalent
and
I
think
it
was
my
my
very
erudite
friend
from
Calgary
Mountain
View,
who
said
this
that
this
is
the
equivalent
of
driving
down
the
highway
at
200
kilometers
an
hour
and
saying
I'm,
not
breaking
the
law.
Well,
now
we
have
the
amendment.
We
got
rid
of
the
Henry
VII
Clause,
so
now
we're
driving
down
the
highway
at
190
kilometers
an
hour
saying
the
same
thing,
the
bill.
It
doesn't
matter
that
you
say:
oh,
it's
not
unconstitutional.
G
When
then
it
goes
on
to
detail
a
number
of
ways
in
which
it
is
unconstitutional,
it
does
not
save
it
it
does
it
matters
what
the
bill
actually
does.
Just
as
in
this
life,
it
matters
what
you
do
a
little
more
than
what
you
say
and
what
this
bill
does
is
distract
us
fundamentally
from
the
really
pressing
concerns
of
our
time.
We
Face
40-year
High
inflation.
We
just
had
another
rate
hike
from
the
Bank
of
Canada.
G
You
know
headlines
that
swirl
in
the
business
news
and
in
the
reporting
out
of
Russia
and
Ukraine
and
so
on.
What
we
know
is
that
life
is
getting
more
complicated,
that
people
have
been
to
Hell
and
back
many
people
have
during
the
pandemic,
through
jobs
and
health
and
kids
being
home
and
all
of
these
challenges
they
feel
like
they
are
bearing
down
on
us.
And
what
is
our
government
doing?
G
I
mean
you
can't
even
explain
it
to
people.
There's
not
even
like
people
say
to
you
like
what
is
happening
over
there.
Do
you
say
whatever
mind
you
know
like
tell
me
about
your
concerns
about
health
care,
about
affordability,
about
Economic
Development.
Tell
me
about
your
ideas,
because
I
cannot,
even
you
know,
do
you
have
a
half
an
hour
to
go
through
the
Days
of
Our
Lives
of
this
particular
bill?
G
It's
it
is
so
far
removed
from
ordinary
people's
lives,
and
all
they
see
is
once
again
we're
into
you
know
year.
Three
plus
of
this
people
just
focused
a
government
that
should
be
just
focused
on
the
just
the
doing
the
business
of
Health
Care
and
education
Social
Services,
all
that's
hard
enough
folks,
you
can
just
stick
to
your
knitting
and
do
the
hard
things
because
running
those
systems
is
a
big
deal
and
it
matters
to
people.
G
We
have
a
government
who
won't
do
that.
They
just
are
wandering
around
all
the
time
looking
at
their
own
drama,
focused
on
themselves
talking
about
their
own
jobs
instead
of
people's
jobs.
Talking
about
you
know
their
own
weird
ideas
about
health
care
rather
than
what
we
know
in
public
health
matters
and
what
people
are
looking
for
and
what
I
I
doctors
and
experts
and
others
are
telling
us.
G
So
it
is
for
that
reason
that
I
mean
Amanda
weigh
this
hot
mess.
Express
is
I.
I
began
my
comments.
It
does
not
save
it
unless
this
bill
is
entirely
pulled,
pass
as
many
motions
as
you
like,
as
you
know,
government
motions
saying
mean
things
about
various.
You
know
people
outside
of
at
the
legislature.
If
that's
how
you
want
to
spend
your
time,
that's
also
fine.
That
is
completely
within
our
role
as
as
legislators,
you
know,
and
when
it
comes
time
to
really
stand
up
to
Ottawa.
G
G
G
Let's
focus
on
that
the
really
hard
stuff
which
is
Healthcare
education,
keeping
people
healthy,
helping.
You
know,
as
I
always
say
that
people's
money
is
for
little.
Babies
and
old
people
focus
on
the
really
really
hard
stuff,
the
important
stuff
that
people
are
asking
us
to
do
not
this
stuff.
That
undermines
the
fabric
of
who
we
are
and
goes
to
war
with
our
own
institutions
and
and
our
own
ways
of
making
sure
that
we
are
building
a
good
life
for
all
albertans.
Thank
you,
Mr,
chair.
B
I
H
This
fall
session
and
I
now
rise
again
to
highlight
once
again
the
fact
that
the
opposition
members
continue
to
filibuster
a
bill
that
they
made
amply
clear
that
they
had
no
interest
in
even
seeing
printed
didn't
want
albertans
to
see
the
bill
as
a
reminder.
Mr
Speaker,
the
official
opposition,
also
made
it
abundantly
clear.
They
had
no
interest
in
reading
the
bill
before
they
voted
against
it.
H
Members
of
the
opposition
have
decided
to
prolong
the
legislative
process
on
Bill
1
continuing
debate
over
14
hours.
How
much
time
do
they
really
need
to
announce,
or
rather
sorry,
how
much
time
do
they
need
when
they
already
announced
that
they
would
not
support
any
amendments
that
the
government
put
forward?
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
F
Thank
you
very,
very
much
Mr
chair
I
will
try
not
to
take
very
much
time,
but
I
was
not
quite
finished
when
I
last
spoke
to
the
many
challenges
that
are
embedded
in
the
fact
that
this
government
is
jamming
forward.
This
legislation
this
evening,
notwithstanding
the
clear
opposition
of
the
grand
Chiefs
of
the
treaties
here
in
Alberta
and
and
treaty
leadership
in
particular
the
minister
himself
acknowledged
today.
Perhaps
we
didn't
consult
enough
now.
F
The
answer
to
that
obvious
failure
is
to
wait
and
to
refer
this
to
committee
and
then
take
the
time
to
actually
engage
in
meaningful
consultation.
Anybody
who
knows
anything
about
engaging
in
meaningful
consultation
understands
that
there
must
be
a
little
bit
back
and
forth.
Perhaps
you
don't
ultimately
agree
on
everything,
but
it
is
not
a
mere
notification
process.
Nor
is
it
a
we'll
talk
to
you.
F
After
we've
done
the
thing
we've
already
decided
on
and
passed
the
legislation
that
was
the
point
I
was
trying
to
make
before
I
got
a
chance
to
make
that
point.
The
members
opposite
decided
to
engage
in
the
motion
of
time
allocation,
limiting
our
ability
to
talk
about
this
issue
to
a
further
one
hour.
Rather
unprecedented.
This
bill
was
only
introduced
last
Tuesday,
first
reading
or
second
reading
began
on
Wednesday.
F
So
I
would
just
like
to
take
this
moment,
given
that,
instead
of
doing
that
that
we
are
rushing
forward
at
an
unprecedented
unwarranted
accelerated
speed
to
jab
through
this
incredibly
unconstitutional
disrespectful
piece
of
legislation,
I
would
like
to
take
the
opportunity
to
read
into
the
record
the
quotes
from
several
treaty
leaders
from
today
Chief
Tony
Alexis,
who
has
been
designated
to
speak
on
behalf
of
treaty.
Six
as
a
whole
says.
Let's
be
honest.
This
all
comes
down
to
land
and
resources.
F
F
If
you
have
a
provincial
government
fighting
with
the
federal
government
who
is
not
including
our
first
nation
with
a
lot
of
disrespect
within
it,
will
not
be
easy
to
bring
investment
to
this
environment,
it
will
hurt
the
economic
fabric
of
our
Commerce
Commerce
in
all
regions,
a
portion
of
Bear's,
paw,
First,
Nation,
Chief,
Daryl,
Dixon's,
sorry,
Chief,
Daryl,
Dixon
or
sorry
Chief,
Daryl
Dixon
from
Bear's
paw,
First
Nation
said
this
about
the
ACT
quote.
This
is
a
warning
to
Canadians.
F
F
That
may
be
true,
but
we
see
in
it
a
disguised
attempt
to
disregard
treaty
and
as
a
way
to
gain
unlawful
access
to
our
lands
without
restrictions
similar
to
what
they
have
attempted
already
with
the
Alberta
police
act
to
overreach
an
attempt
to
gain
access
in
jurisdictions
where
they
do
not
belong
and
therefore
cause
more
harm
to
communities.
We
understand
that
the
vast
majority
of
treaty
rights
have
in
practice
been
honored
through
the
actions
of
the
federal
government.
F
Today
we
have
an
uncertain
declaration
that
this
government
will
unlock,
interfere
with
any
range
of
undetermined
actions
on
the
part
of
the
federal
government.
They
have
done
this
without
engaging
with
treaty
Chiefs.
They
have
done
this
without
consulting.
They
have
now
taken
that
error,
and
rather
than
trying
to
apologize
and
putting
things
off
say,
for
instance
like
in
Saskatchewan,
where
the
whole
matter
has
been
deferred
until
March.
F
Instead,
what
we
have
is
this
group
trying
to
jam
it
through
through
time
allocation
motions
at
five
after
nine
on
Wednesday
night,
seven
days
after
this
bill
first
was
introduced
for
second
reading.
So
this
is
an
incredible
affront.
It
will
spark
an
incredible
deterioration
in
relations
between
the
government
of
Alberta
and
treating
leadership
across
this
province.
F
It
is
a
black
mark
on
the
record
of
this
government
with
the
government
that
actually
has
a
lot
of
black
marks
on
the
record,
but
this
one
this
one
is
pretty
darn
historic
and
I,
would
once
again
ask
members
of
the
government
opposite
to
vote
with
their
conscience,
to
think
about
what
the
long-standing
legacy
of
the
relationship
is
with
treaty
leadership
in
this
province
and
vote
against
this
bill
in
committee.
Thank
you,
Mr
chair.
B
K
You
Mr
chair
glad
to
rise
and
Committee
of
the
hold
speak
this
evening
to
Bill
one
and
I
know
what
we've
just
witnessed.
Mr
chair
is
something
that
is
a
pretty
shocking
and
disappointing
to
most
albertans,
who
have
a
respect
for
these
institutions
that
we
serve
particularly
here
in
the
legislature
or
judicial
system,
or
our
court
system
and
I
know
that
traditionally
Mr
chair
I
mean
students.
K
Alberta
students
in
grade
six
will
be
invited
to
come
to
the
legislature
to
spend
time
here
to
do
a
school
at
the
legislature
to
understand
the
workings
of
our
our
parliamentary
system.
Our
Westminster
system
and
part
of
that
day
that
they
may
spend
here
Mr
chair
is
spent
in
study
of
that
Westminster
system
and
one
of
the
guides
they
use
used
to
be
called
a
Citizens
guide.
K
It's
fairly
Elementary
Mr
chair
because
it
is
designed
for
elementary
students
to
to
read
and
it's
an
introductory
system
to
our
Westminister
system
of
government,
which
goes
on
to
say
and
I
quote
from
it.
The
Westminster
system
there's
a
style
of
government
with
an
executive
branch
Premier
and
ministers,
a
legislative
body
made
up
of
elected
officials,
a
judicial
branch
and
in
court,
impartial
court
system
and
a
ceremonial
head
of
state.
The
lieutenant
governor.
The
name
derives
from
the
Palace
of
Westminster.
K
In
London
England,
where
Parliament
developed
and
remains
today
and
that's
what
our
grade
six
students
are,
are
taught
about
our
Westminster
system
of
government
and
the
next
element
of
the
the
guide.
It
goes
on
to
talk
about
the
separation
of
powers
and
in
Alberta,
and,
of
course,
they
outline
and
delineate
the
Executive
Branch
the
legislative
branch
and
do
judicial
branch
and
the
the
various
responsibilities
Laden
upon
each
of
those
branches
of
our
parliamentary
system
and
in
grade
six,
the
Mr
chair.
K
We
expect
our
students
to
grasp
these
tenets
of
our
parliamentary
democracy,
yet
our
government
doesn't
seem
to
have
them
nailed
down
as
a
government
of
Alberta
and
had
they
taken
the
time
to
even
read
six
parliamentary
guide.
That's
a
fable
on
our
legislative
assembly
website
and
I'll
table
it
for
them
tomorrow.
If
indeed,
they
would
like
to
read
it
if,
indeed
they'd
follow
that
they
probably
would
not
have
gone
through
with
the
legislation
that
they
are
now
trying
to
salvage
by
amending
it.
Albertans
are
are
ashamed
and
embarrassed
about
it.
K
There
may
be
an
element
of
support
for
the
legislation,
but
that's
found
in
The
Fairly,
far
extreme
right
wings
of
the
UCP
support
for
their
party
and
I
used
to
describe
that
transition
has
taken
place.
Mr
chair
as
the
now
tail
wagging
the
dog
and
just
trying
to
describe
how
the
the
party's
been
hijacked
by
the
extreme
right
wing
of
their
of
their
their
political
caucus
of
their
political
membership.
But
in
fact,
Mr
chair,
I
think
I
need
to
amend
that
analogy
and
suggest
that
now
detail
has
become
the
dog.
K
In
fact,
if
you
look
at
the
front
benches
to
see
who's
closest
to
the
premier
and
the
new
arrangement
of
the
deck
chairs
on
the
UCP
Titanic,
those
closest
to
the
premier
are
not
surprisingly,
the
most
extreme
right
flank
of
the
former
party
known
as
conservatives,
so
indeed
that
the
the
deck
chairs
on
the
UCP
Titanic
are
being
rearranged
and
what
we
have
as
a
result
of
the
leadership
being
taken
over
by
an
extreme
right-wing
flank.
Islam
legislation
such
as
Bill
one
and
fortunately
part
of
it's
been
walked
back
now.
K
The
time
allocation
that
we've
just
seen
imposed
upon
this
legislature
or
Bill,
one
accusing
the
government
in
justifying
it
an
accusing
story
of
the
opposition
of
of
misusing
the
time
of
the
house
and
therefore
justifying
time
allocation
totally
to
the
contrary,
Mr
chair.
Indeed,
it's
the
primary
responsibility
of
all
of
us
as
legislators
to
protect
our
Charter
of
Rights
and
our
constitutional
rights
and
the
rights
as
we
stand.
Guardian
for
for
the
for
our
constituents.
K
The
government
is
acting
as
with
a
total
disregard
for
our
Constitution
and
because
it
suits
their
own
political
ideological
agenda
cabinet
was
about
to
give
themselves
the
right
to
make
laws
unto
themselves
without
further
passage
by
the
legislature
of
the
pieces
of
legislation
that
was
referred
to
cabinet
for
consideration,
and
indeed
they
were
given
law-making
abilities.
That
was
the
prerogative
of
this
legislature
and
that,
thankfully,
has
been
amended
and
brought
back
so
the
so-called
Henry
VII
Clause
is
no
more
part
of
this
bill,
but
it
doesn't
make
it
palatable.
K
Mr
chair
to
have
this
legislation
still
contain
elements
which
disregard
the
the
courts
and
because
that
is
one
of
the
elements
of
our
fundamental
democracy,
our
Westminster
system
and
the
separation
of
powers
that
we
even
we
expect
a
grade
six
student
to
to
understand.
So
indeed,
Mr
Speaker,
the
the
power
of
the
the
courts,
is
still
being
circumvented
by
this
piece
of
legislation
which,
in
the
opinion
of
legal
Scholars
such
as
Martin
rosenski
and
knightville
Bank.
K
There
are
still
serious
and
persistent
legal
problems
with
the
bill
and
therefore
the
bill
remains
unconstitutional
and,
as
such
should
be
referred
to.
The
Alberta
court
of
appeal
to
rule
on
the
constitutionality
of
the
bill.
Why,
in
fact,
would
the
government
not
be
willing
to
do
this?
Why
are
we
looking
at
imposing
a
Time
allocation
on
such
an
important
fundamental
piece
of
legislation
to
the
government?
K
They
see
no
need
to
proceed
with
caution.
They
see
no
need
to
refer
it
to
the
Alberta
court
of
appeal
to
rule
under
constitutionality
of
the
bill,
perhaps
because
they
are
trying
to
give
the
right
to
themselves
and
cabinet
to
determine
what
is
constitutional
and
what
is
not.
We,
in
fact,
as
legislators
here,
are
not
expected
to
be
the
court.
We
are
a
separate
branch
of
government
Mr
chair,
we,
the
legislative
branch,
and
there
is
another
branch
of
government
under
our
separation
of
powers
in
the
Westminster
system.
K
But
in
any
case,
Mr
chair,
the
courts
exists
for
a
reason
and
to
circumvent
the
courts
or
attempt
to
do
so
to
fulfill
the
political
agenda
that
you
have,
because
it's
inconvenient
to
to
do
otherwise
is
a
very
sad
commentary
on
the
dedication
or
commitment
to
our
parliamentary
system.
Our
Westminster
system
that
this
government
has
in
fact
it's
a
total
disregard
for
it
and
I
I,
don't
know,
indeed
what
say
students
coming
to
to
their
do
their
one
day.
K
Tour
of
the
legislature
tomorrow
are
going
to
face
when
those
tour
guides
and
those
instructors
and
the
teachers
that
are
along
with
them
are
trying
to
explain
what's
happening
in
the
legislature
now
as
they
go
to
the
Parliamentary
education
guide
and
talk
about
our
separation
of
powers
in
Alberta
and
they
explain
or
try
to
explain
to
students.
Well,
you
know
what
this
is
the
way
it's
supposed
to
work.
K
This
is
the
way
it's
laid
out,
but
currently
we
have
a
government
right
now,
that's
kind
of
mixing
them
up
and
looking
at
maybe
giving
this
power
of
judicial
oversight
to
themselves
so
that
they
can
determine
what
indeed,
will
become
a
law
without
further
oversight
by
the
courts,
and
that's
something
that
a
grade
six
students
will
probably
scratch
their
head
at
Mr
chair
and
wonder
all.
How
can
they
actually
do
that?
K
Well,
the
fact
is
Mr
chair
that
probably
will
be
found
not
to
be
able
to
do
that,
and
the
courts
will
actually
be
asked
to
rule
and-
and
this
legislation
is
going
to
be
held
up
in
court
for
a
long
time
and
I,
don't
know
if
the
government
would
be
granted
if
this
legislation
actually
passes
the
opportunity
to
have
it
continue,
while
indeed
the
the
court
passes
judgment
on
it,
but
what
it
does
create.
Mr
chair,
not
only
in
the
minds
of
the
grade
six
students
trying
to
understand
exactly
what
their
government
is
doing.
K
In
contrast
to
what
the
separation
of
powers
in
the
government's
own
website
suggests
should
be
done.
Listen
to
the
the
comments
of
people.
Most
recently
that
I
heard
at
the
Piper
law
event
recently
the
piper
law
winter
reception,
I
I-
was
there
a
little
bit
later
on
in
the
reception
which
was
held
a
few
days
ago
at
a
local
hotel.
The
premier
had
given
her
speech
and
left
and
I
was,
in
the
wake
of
the
Premier.
K
Listening
to
some
comments
about
what
folks,
who
had
listened
to
her
had
said,
and
they
were
construction
people
at
high
levels.
They
were
lawyers
fairly,
bi-powered
lawyers,
investors,
project
stakeholders
and
the
room
had
been
packed
when
the
premier
was
there,
because
they
of
course
want
to
hear
what's
going
on,
and
it
was
such
a
devastating
blow
to
democracy
in
the
works
and
in
fact
what
what
people
were
saying
to
me
is
all
it's
up
to
the
premier
to
convince
this
crowd.
K
This
is
the
crowd
that
they
have
to
convince
well,
I
beg
to
differ
slightly
with
that.
I
think
the
whole
population
of
Province
needs
to
be
convinced,
but
this
crowd
of
lawyers,
high-flower
lawyers,
project
stakeholders,
construction,
people,
investors
were
waiting
to
be
convinced
that
what
the
premier
was
was
up
to
was
in
fact,
going
to
be
useful
and
and
productive,
and
they
were
not
convinced.
Mr
chair
that
room
full
of
folks
who
they
went
there,
hoping
to
have
the
premier
convince
them,
remained
skeptical
and
concerned
for
people.
K
Whether
the
court
challenge
is
going
to
be
the
result
of
the
intrusion
by
the
province
into
the
judicial
process,
so
that
in
and
of
itself
Mr
chair
has
sent
a
chill
down
the
spine
of
the
the
business
community
in
this
province.
Notwithstanding
the
reassurances
of
the
Premier
and
other
ministers
who
try
to
get
up
and
say,
no,
don't
worry,
they're,
okay
with
it.
No
problem
whatsoever,
we've
got
the
governor
former
governor
of
the
Bank
of
Canada,
expressing
concerns
about
this,
and
you
know
the
government's
trying
to
shoot
the
messenger
on
it.
K
But
the
fact
is
that
the
Mr
David
Dodge
was
appointed
and
served
under
conservative
Prime
Ministers
as
well,
and
his
reputation
is,
is
pretty
unsullied
so
to
have
a
former
governor
of
the
Bank
of
Canada.
Tell
the
public
and
be
willing
to
stand
and
say
publicly
that
this
is
damaging
to
the
economy.
It
creates
uncertainty.
I
think
has
to
be
taken
pretty
seriously
so
Mr
chair,
I
I'm,
pretty
concerned
even
about
the
legislation
as
it
stands
before
us
today,
in
its
amended
form
and
I.
K
I
hope
that
the
government
still
sees
fit
to
to
pull
it
from
the
order
paper
and
perhaps
do
as
the
government
of
Saskatchewan
has
done,
take
a
time
out
and
really
address
what
the
feelings
of
the
the
population
of
the
province
are
are
for
real
and
respect.
Indeed,
the
opinions
of
legal
Scholars
of
constitutional
experts
who
are
saying
this
is
going
to
be
very,
very
damaging
legislation
and
the
government
of
Saskatchewan
have
seen
fit
to
do
that.
K
Perhaps
they
will
so
back
back
it
out
of
the
public
View
later
on
right
now,
they've
they've
suspended
their
legislation
until
the
spring
I
invite
the
the
government
to
do
the
same
thing,
and
perhaps
they
can
just
simply
let
it
die
in
the
order
paper
or
realize
and
respect
the
government,
the
the
province's
population.
That
says
this
is
not
what
we
want.
K
This
is
not
what
we
expect
at
a
time
when
we
have
a
unprecedented
number
of
people
occupying
our
emergency
rooms,
particularly
children,
when
families
are
scared
about
having
to
make
ends
meet
on
a
day-to-day
basis,
when
the
indigenous
population
in
particular,
is
saying
you're
trampling
all
over
our
constitutional
rights.
You
have
failed
to
consult
with
us
and
it's
a
constitutional
right.
K
Mr
chair,
it's
evidence
that
they
haven't
learned
a
thing
and
you
can
hear
them
talking
about
the
relationship
that
they
think
they
have
with
First,
Nations
leadership
and
and
populations
in
the
in
the
province
when
they
announce
Partnerships
on
Project,
a
or
Project
B.
But
those
one-off
projects
Mr
chair
are
not
reconciliation.
Those
are
business
Partnerships,
but
indeed
overarching.
All
of
that,
you
have
to
have
a
consultation
progress.
K
That
is
the
process
that
is
respectful,
and
that
means
a
an
open
dialogue
and
a
back
and
forth
exchange,
and
we
have
a
government
here
telling
us
that,
after
the
fact
they're
going
to
they're
going
to
actually
speak
to
to
to
indigenous
leadership,
they're
saying
that
tomorrow,
maybe
tomorrow
afternoon,
we'll
we'll
go
ahead
and
have
deeper
consultations.
In
fact,
if
we
add
up
the
number
of
hours
of
debate
that
we
might
have
left
here,
Madam
Madam
chair,
there
could
maybe
be
total
passage
of
this
bill,
one
before
the
end
of
the
night.
K
If
the
government
decide
to
keep
on
on
talking
tonight,
and
that
consultation
is
not
going
to
happen,
so
I
can
only
imagine
the
the
legal
battles
and
the
money
that's
going
to
be
spent
the
wasted
dollars
on
both
the
part
of
the
indigenous
leadership
and
and
their
organizations
and
in
the
government,
and
trying
to
defend
us
this
foolhardy
legislation.
This
is
totally
unnecessary.
K
Absolutely
unnecessary!
There's,
there's
no
way
in
the
world
that
albertans
are
are
looking
at
this
government
with
respect
and
saying
this
is
what
we
needed
right
now.
They
they're
looking
at
their
their
wallets
and
they're,
saying
I
can't
afford
rent
they're
looking
at
their
their
children
and
thinking
holy
smokes
I,
hope
to
God
one
of
my
kids:
don't
get
sick
and
end
up
in
the
hospital,
because
there's
a
20-hour
wait
and
potentially
no
bed
for
them
to
to
go
into
into
care.
Children's
hospitals
are
overflowing.
K
The
emergency
Wards
there's
a
trailer
being
used
as
a
waiting
room
in
one
of
our
emergency
Wards
in
this
province.
It's
unprecedented.
It
doesn't
matter
where
you're
going
to
Province
and
the
government
will
say.
Well
goodness,
gracious!
That's
that's
all
over
the
country.
That's
all
over
the
world!
Well,
tell
you
what
this
government's
responsible
for
what's
happening
in
their
part
of
the
world.
It's
called
Alberta
and
they
have
to
take
responsibility
and
take
action.
That's
meaningful!.
M
M
M
We
were
discussed
this
morning
and
my
colleague
from
MLA
from
Edmonton
matulang
mentioned
the
Parmer
governor
of
the
bank
Canadian
bank.
They
are
Dodge
and
the
former
senior
Economist
with
ATV
and
the
biggest
thing
that
the
the
majority
of
the
UCP
leadership
contendered
did
not
only
oppose
it,
but
but
God
together.
Rally
together
against
this
narrative
and
the
the
premiers
leadership.
M
A
M
But
understand
she
was
not
elected
on
this
mandate
and
not
only
this
during
the
race.
You
know
looking
at
the
first
ballot,
it
was
not
only
the
even
UCP
members
kindly
you
will
see
voted
for
this
issue.
The
majority
of
the
UCP
members
in
the
race
actually
voted
against
the
premier
on
this
on
this
issue,
so
it
is
surprised
to
see
that
the
UCP
is
not
willing
to
learn
from
their
past
experience
and
their
so
intentful
to
you
know,
keep
carrying
their
legacy.
As
you
know,
they
have
been
in
the
past
in
this
province.
M
They
are,
you
know,
pressured
to
leave
the
position
and
same
thing
has
happened
in
in
this
province
not
long
ago,
and
that
was
quite
the
surprise.
It's
surprising,
to
see
the
some
of
these
UCP
leadership
contenders
sitting
on
the
executive,
Council
being
deaf
tone
for
the
last
three
and
a
half
years,
but
but
touching
those
issues
they
were
imported
in
the
province
during
the
leadership
race.
But
as
soon
as
they
came
back
to
the
cabinet
tables,
they
have
changed
their
mind
again.
M
M
So,
but
this
this
Bell,
this
Bell
basically
is
not
going
to
help
all
of
our
teams
and
what
I
wanted
to
say.
It
will
not,
of
course,
help
United
conservative
party
and
the
government
caucus
members,
because
albertans
are
very
upset
and
they're
waiting
for
May,
2023
or
maybe
any
time
before
when
they
have
opportunity.
M
They
will
definitely
give
their
answer,
and
that
is
what
I'm
hearing
in
my
community
in
my
riding
from
my
constituents
and
one
way
the
Premier
is
talking
about
sovereignty
and
sovereignty
and
I
would
say
the
inverted
commas,
with
United
Country
sovereignty
in
the
United
Country,
similar
to
what
the
minister
Finance
said.
This
often
broad
but
targeted
and
focused
so
so
surprising
terms,
they're
coming
up
bad
seems
like
they
are
not
understanding
what
they
are
saying
or
what
they
are
trying
to
do.
As
you
are
talking
about
sovereignty
of
the
province.
M
They
don't
certainly
move
in
one
Province
and
there's
a
lot
more
to
do
to
help
those
individuals
that
they
are
not
being
exploited,
they're,
feeling
safe.
They
are
able
to
contribute
to
our
economy
in
their
full
capacity.
Instead
of
touching
the
real
issues
that
the
United
conservative
government
actually
came
up
with,
this
I
would
call
political
stunt
political
Gambit.
M
M
The
conservative
government
did
not
understand
what
they
were
doing
in
past
three
and
a
half
years.
Then
they
were
just
you
know:
basting
taxpayers,
money
and
the
corporations
were
taking
their
businesses
out
out
of
the
country
out
of
the
provinces
to
the
East
and
same
thing
will
happen
again.
The
in
the
chamber,
Calgary
business
of
Chambers
at
warning
and
business
organizations
are
calling
for
it,
but
it
seems
to
be
that
the
government
I
will
say
some
members,
actually
don't
have
guts
actually
anymore,
to
stand
up
on
behalf
of
their
constituents.
M
What
they
are
saying
during
the
leadership
debate
for
those
albertans
and
those
UCP
members
who
trusted
them
and
boarded
them
under
that
position
and
all
of
a
sudden
they
came
back
to
the
cabinet
tables
and
they
lost
the
whole
interest
of
representing
those
view
abused
within
their
own
party
during
their
own
party.
So.
I
M
Use
this
opportunity
to
be
half
of
my
constituents
in
this
house
that
my
constituents
majority
of
my
constituents
and
and
most
of
those
who
came
to
my
office
after
seeing
this
Bell
moving
forward
and
the
people
in
racialized
communities
openly
speaking
against
it,
like
I,
wanted
to
be
on
the
record
that
we
strongly
post
this
bill.
The
reason
for
the
opposition
to
this
is
this
is
not
helping
albertans.
M
This
is
not
helping
a
word
economy
that
will
destroy
the
economy,
and
that
is
also
against
the
the
Mandate
of,
as
my
colleague
just
you
know,
already
said
it
very
effectively.
It's
against
the
Mandate
of
the
best
ministers,
parliamentary
process
and
procedures,
and
that's
what
I've
learned
you
know.
I
got
the
opportunity
to
be
at
the
CPA
Commonwealth
parliamentary
associations,
seminar
in
England
London,
with
some
of
the
geocp
members
and
some
conservatives,
member
parliaments,
and
that's
not
what
was
being
discussed.
M
We
were
discussing
more
about
how
to
build
collaborations
coalitions
with
equal
representations
on
the
committees
to
help
the
society
at
large,
but
this
is
not.
We
are
seeing
this
bill
is
doing.
On
the
contrary,
this
is
actually
attacking
that
very
process,
our
Democratic
process
that
has
took
centuries
and
centuries
to
come
to
this,
and
what
this
bill
is
trying
to
do,
replace
the
role
of
judicial
branch
to
interpret
what
is
legal
and
what
is
not
legal.
M
More
of
this
give
the
unilateral
power
to
the
one
person
in
the
house,
the
ministry
to
write
what
is
legal
and
what
is
not
legal
and
what
is
to
follow
what
is
thought
to
follow
and
further
go.
You
know
beyond
this
and
direct
the
provincial
agencies
not
to
follow
what
it
seems
to
him
is
not
illegal
in
the
benefit
of
in
in
the
in
the
in
the
best
interest
of
the
province.
So
this
is
very
dangerous
move.
This
is
not
supported
by
anyone,
particularly
not
by
the
majority
of
avoidance
and
Indigenous.
M
Leadership
is
not
even
frightened,
but
very
angry,
so
how
this
bill
is
trying
to
impinge
their
treaty
rights,
and
this
move
is
very
much
misguided
and
this
is
not
benefit
to
The
Province.
It
will
kill
our
economy,
it's
killing
jobs
already,
and
it
will
not
help
the
UCP
at
all,
but
this
I
will
I
conclude
my
remarks
and
I
I
I
will
request.
M
Actually
the
members
of
this
house
on
both
sides
look
at
once
again
what
we
are
debating
here,
so
it's
going
to
change
the
direction
and
the
political
Direction
in
this
province
for
the
next
six
months
that
will
be
very
harmful
for
the
province
and,
of
course,
our
future
Generations.
Thank
you
again
and
oppose
this
bill.
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
N
N
The
member
from
Edmonton
gold
bars
mom
that
sort
of
thing,
but
tonight
I
actually
know
there
are
a
whole
heck
of
a
lot
of
people
tuning
in
because
they've
told
me
that
they
are
including
folks
from
indigenous
communities,
including
folks
who've
written
us
as
mlas
calling
on
us
to
oppose
Bill
one
and
so
I'm
grateful
for
those
people
who
are
tuning
in
tonight.
Like
I,
said
I
know
there
are
a
lot
of
them.
N
You
know
and
that's
part
of
why
we
took
the
not
unprecedented,
but
the
rare
step
of
voting
against
Bill
one,
the
sovereignty
Act
first
reading
and
yeah,
and
you
know
what
the
the
member
from
Edmonton
Glenora
just
said.
Heck,
yes,
and
you
know
I
I
can
say
there
were
people
that
read
right
away,
that
that
responded
to
us
saying.
Well,
why
would
you
do
that?
We
knew
we
knew
that
it
was
going
to
be
damaging.
We
knew
that
it
was
going
to
be
dangerous.
N
Did
we
know
that
it
would
be
this
incredibly
damaging
and
Incredibly
dangerous
to
to
burdens
to
future
of
our
province
to
in
investors,
who
are
speaking
out
to
Business
Leaders
to
Chiefs,
as
I
alluded
to
earlier
I,
don't
think
any
of
us
predicted.
It
would
be
just
this
bad
now.
This
is
in
fact,
my
first
time
speaking
to
this
bill,
so
I
gosh,
it's
hard
to
know
where
to
begin
you'd
think
in
a
fairly
thin
Bill.
There
might
not
be
a
whole
lot
to
speak
about,
but
there
is.
N
N
So
first
of
all
that
was
our
first
opportunity
as
the
official
opposition
to
address
what
had
brought
what
had
broken
on
Friday
night,
and
that
was
the
news
that
rotary
Flames
house,
which
supports
children
who
are
needing
palliative
care,
respite
services.
The
list
goes
on
that
that
those
Services
were
going
to
be
paused
and
that
children
receiving
respite
services
were
going
to
be
discharged.
We
heard
that
news
it
broke
on
Friday
night
people
were
absolutely
up
in
arms.
N
What
did
this
government
do?
They
denied
it.
So,
a
few
minutes
later
the
official
opposition
leader,
the
member
from
Edmonton
Strathcona,
she
stood
up
with
her
opportunity
to
present
Bill
201,
which
was
her
private
member's
bill.
That
would
address
some
of
the
serious
crises
in
in
health
care.
It
was
our
opportunity,
her
opportunity,
as
a
private
member,
to
try
to
support
and
in
fact
collaborate
with
this
government.
N
What
did
they
do?
They
killed
that
one
too?
Absolutely
they
moved
it
down
the
the
order
paper.
Basically,
they
de-prioritized
it.
So
we
won't
even
get
to
that
bill
and
we
asked
the
members
opposite.
Why
won't
you
speak
about
health
care?
Why
won't
you
address
the
crisis
that
you
are
all
hearing
from
your
constituents
on
they're
silent
and
they
continue
to
be
silent.
N
So
at
a
time
when
Healthcare
is
being
ignored,
like
I
mentioned
earlier,
you
know.
Affordability
is
probably
probably
for
me
for
the
conversations
that
I've
had
with
constituents,
probably
second
to
Health
Care
people.
Struggling
right
now
would
have
been
a
great
opportunity
to
I.
Don't
know
address
the
affordability
crisis
do
more
than
just
reverse
the
cuts
that
the
same
government
already
made
like
the
re-end
indexing,
if
h,
but
no,
they
chose
instead
to
go
with
Bill
one,
the
sovereignty,
Act,
sorry,
the
Alberta
sovereignty
within
United,
Canada.
N
Sorry,
the
job
killing
sovereignty
act
more
accurately,
I,
don't
know
if
we've
got
to
that
Amendment.
Yet
a
member
from
Edmonton
Glenora
but
truly
I
mean
it
says
a
lot.
It
says
a
lot
about
this
government's
priorities
and
I
had
an
opportunity.
The
other
night
I
don't
know.
I
I
was
clearly
I.
Still
don't
have
enough
of
a
social
life.
N
I
had
the
opportunity
to
tune
into
the
debate
that
was
happening
in
this
chamber,
and
some
of
our
members
were
were
talking
about
Bill
one
and
one
of
the
members
asked
another
member.
If
you
know
they
were
hearing
about
the
sovereignty
act
at
the
doors
and
one
of
the
members
said
no,
no
actually
to
be
honest,
I
haven't
heard
much
about
it
and
I
can
say
you
know
what
I
hadn't
like
nobody
organically
would
ever
I.
N
Always
when
I
come
when
I
door
knock
I
come
to
a
door
and
I
ask
you
know
what
issues
are
top
of
mind
for
you.
Nobody,
organically,
prior
to
this
bill
being
introduced,
would
have
ever
said.
You
know,
I'm
really
worried
about
Alberta's
sovereignty,
no,
not
at
all,
and
then
and
that's
that's
the
honest
truth.
N
Exactly
right
and
I
can
say
that
from
not
just
Edmonton
Highlands
or
you
might
say
well
that
you're
in
a
an
orange
Paradise
there
in
Edmonton,
Highlands
Norwood
I
am
you're
you're,
correct,
but
I've
door
knocked
in
Edmonton,
Southwest,
I've
door
knocked
I've
door
knocked
everywhere.
Thank
you
to
the
member
from
Edmonton
Strathcona
for
giving
me
a
boost
tonight.
I
have
door
knocked
a
lot
all
over
this
province.
That's
a
fact.
Medicine
Hat,
where
the
premier
currently
I
was
going
to
say
currently
resigns,
but
that's
not
true.
She
doesn't.
N
She
doesn't
live
there.
She
she
does
represent
it,
though
I
think
she
visited
a
couple
times
during
the
campaign.
So
we
can.
We
can
and
I
don't
think
since,
since
she's
won
the
election,
that's
unfortunate
because
I
can
tell
you
I
door
knock
five
times
with
our
amazing
candidate
Gwendolyn
Dirk
there
and
had
a
lot
of
conversations
with
people.
Health,
Care,
education,
affordability,
top
three
issues:
absolutely
yep,
member
from
from
Lethbridge
West
same
thing:
she
Dora
knocked
there.
N
She
she
can
corroborate
that,
but
I
will
tell
you
and
I
have
one
story
from
door
knocking
and
not
as
an
app
that
sticks
with
me.
There
was
one
young,
so
I'll
tell
you:
I
walked
up
with
a
volunteer
and
there
I
can
picture
the
house.
Still.
There
was
a
big
truck,
backed
up
into
the
driveway
and
I
thought.
Okay,
this
could
be
you
never
know.
N
You
never
want
to
assume
I'm
like
let's,
let's
check
this
one
out,
get
to
the
door,
young
guy
hat
on
answers,
the
door
and
hey
you
know
to
do
my
little
Spiel
I
grew
out
with
Gwendolyn
Dirk
she's
running
to
be
your
MLA
here.
You
know
what
issues
are
top
of
mind
swear
to
you
and
you
can
ask
that
volunteer.
What
did
he
say
to
me?
N
He
said
he
said
he
said
you
are
getting
our
support:
the
NDP
because
I'm
an
albertan
and
I'm
a
Canadian
and
and
it's
Alberta
Canada,
and
that
was
his
message
and
we
said.
Oh
so
you're
talking
about
sovereignty,
he's
like
absolutely
and
and
I
asked
him
I
said:
have
you
voted
NDP
in
the
past?
He
said
no
I
never
have
so
there.
It
did
come
up
at
the
doors
and
it
was
it,
but
not
in
the
way
that
this
government
would
would
hope,
and
so
you
know,
I,
I
and
I.
N
N
He
will
do
that
and
share
his
share
his
thoughts,
no
no
time
no
time
because
this
UCP
government
the
same
used
to
be
government
that
is
putting
forth
what
has
been
called
the
most
undemocratic
piece
of
legislation
in
Alberta's.
History
is
also
is
also
implementing
time
allocation,
which
means
they're
limiting
debate
on
this
very
bill
that
countless
albertans,
including
that
member
from
Edmonton
Southwest
constituents
have
spoken
out
against.
N
You
know
the
same
cabinet
ministers
that,
like
the
deputy
Premier,
who
said
that
that
cabinet
pay
bump
the
member
from
evidence
says
that
must
be
enough
to
to
change
their
minds
because
the
one
of
the
now
you
know
one
of
one
of
the
Deputy
premiers,
which
is
hard
enough
to
say
in
a
with
with
a
leader
in
a
government
that
claims
to
care
about
small
government
largest
cabinet
in
history
as
well.
The
now
Deputy
Premier
from
Lethbridge
Lethbridge
East
said
that
no
one
person
should
be
able
to
enact
regulations
to
the
consultation.
N
The
Finance
Minister
called
it.
An
economic
Time
Bomb,
the
jobs
Minister
called
it
a
fairy
tale.
The
Municipal
Affairs
Minister
called
it
Anarchy
and
the
minister
of
trade
said
it
was
like
shooting
ourselves
in
the
foot.
So
those
are
just
some
there's
many
more
quotes
that
I
could
share,
but
again,
not
enough
time.
So
those
are
just
some
some
of
the
the
quotes
from
this.
Oh
from
from
this
gov
government's
own
cabinet
ministers
and
when
asked-
and
when
pressed
By
Us
in
question
period
about
why
why
they've
changed
their
minds?
N
What
what's
what's
changing
for
them?
We
didn't
get
clarity
and
so
I'd
welcome
the
opportunity
for
any
of
those
ministers
to
to
clarify
for
us
what
changed.
Don't
tell
me.
It
was
just
the
pay
bump.
What
changed
so
and
it's
so
interesting
and
again.
I
know
the
people
watching
at
home
can't
quite
hear
everything
that's
going
on
here.
N
But
it's
it's
so
interesting
that
you
get
a
lot
of
heckling
from
that
side
of
the
house,
but
they're
not
willing
to
stand
up
and
defend
defend
their
position
on
this
bill
because
I
guarantee
I,
don't
know
if
any
of
them
are
knocking
on
doors
but
I
guarantee
you
they're
going
to
be
hearing
from
their
constituents.
If
they
do,
how
could
you
support
Bill
one?
How
could
you
sit
silently
other
than
heckling?
How
could
you
sit
silently
in
that
legislature
and
not
get
on
the
record.
N
As
somebody
who
was
Premier,
she
understands
that
you
know
you
would
apologize
and
you
would
take
a
hit.
Don't
see
that
from
this
we
don't
see
that
from
this
government,
so
that
that
Minister
basically
said
that
he
had
consulted
those
treaty,
six,
seven
and
eight
Chiefs,
when
in
fact
he
had
it
and
what
did
we
hear
from
Chief
Alexis
who's?
Speaking
on
behalf
of
treaty
six,
he
said.
Let's
be
honest.
This
all
comes
down
to
land
and
resources.
We
are
yet
again.
N
The
inconvenient
Indian
standing
in
the
way
of
unprotected
resource
extraction
and
other
exploitation
of
treaty
lands
wow
some
pretty
powerful
words.
What
else
does
he
go
on
to
say
this
act
puts
a
lot
of
uncertainty
in
investment.
If
you
have
a
provincial
government
fighting
with
the
federal
government
who
is
not
including
our
first
nation
with
a
lot
of
disrespect
within
it,
will
not
be
easy
to
bring
investment
to
this
environment,
it
will
hurt
the
economic
fabric
of
our
Commerce
in
all
regions.
N
That
should
be
alarming
to
these
members.
These
UCP
members
be
absolutely
alarming
and
I'd
love
I'd
love
to
hear
the
mlas
from
the
area
that
Chief
Alexis
represents
to
to
to
go
on
the
record
and
explain
how
they
could
possibly
support
a
bill
when,
when
the
tree
chief
for
their
area
is,
is
raising
the
alarm,
unbelievable
Chief,
Dixon,
Chief,
Daryl
Dixon
is
from
Bears
Paw,
First,
Nation
and
and
chief
Dixon
says.
This
is
a
warning
to
all
Canadians
you
care
about
these
lands.
N
N
He
goes
on
to
say
it's
part
of
a
political
game.
That
may
be
true,
but
we
see
it
as
a
disguised
attempt
to
disregard
treaty
and
see
it
as
a
way
to
gain
unlawful
access
to
our
lands
without
restrictions,
similar
to
what
they've
attempted
with
the
Alberta
police
act
to
overreach
and
attempt
to
gain
access
in
jurisdictions
where
they
do
not
belong
and
where
they
cause
more
harm
to
communities.
N
N
Thank
you.
Thank
you
for
that
that
warning,
Madam,
chair,
I,
just
I,
just
find
it
so
so
interesting
that
you
know
we.
We
saw
this
we've
seen
this
multiple
times
in
the
few
days
that
we've
been
in
the
chamber,
Madam
chair
that
you
know
this
government
claims
to
to
you
know
to
care
about
so
many
of
these
issues
like
Health
Care,
like
sovereignty,
apparently
like
property
rights
and
yet
they're
not
standing
up
and
defending
their
positions.
N
N
Unfortunately,
a
short,
a
blip
that
we're
all
going
to
have
to
deal
with,
but
that
change
is
closer
than
it's
ever
been
because
albertans
are
asking
for
stable
and
responsible
and
honest
leadership.
And
you
know
we
had
the
opportunity
not
long
ago
to
present
an
alternate
speech
from
the
throne,
and
that
was
that
was
our
opportunity
to
say
to
albertans.
You
know
what.
L
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
B
O
You
thank
you
so
much
Mr
Speaker
Mr
Speaker
it.
It
gives
me
great
pleasure
to
rise
on
behalf
of
the
honorable
premier
to
move
third
reading
of
Bill
one,
the
Alberta
sovereignty
within
a
United,
a
Canada
art,
Mr
Speaker.
If
passed,
the
ACT
will
become
a
tool,
a
shield
that
allows
the
Alberta
Government
to
push
back
on
federal
legislation,
policy
or
measures
that
are
unconstitutional
or
harmful
to
our
Province.
Our
people
and
our
economic
prosperity,
Mr
Speaker,
the
constitution
of
Canada
provides
Sovereign
exclusive
jurisdictional
powers
to
the
federal
government
and
the
provinces.
O
Mr
Speaker.
They
are
called
exclusive
federal
powers,
an
exclusive
provincial
powers,
Alberta
Mr
Speaker
has
its
exclusive
provincial
powers
that
are
sovereign
and
the
federal
government
are
not
allowed
to
legislate
in
those
areas.
The
federal
government
is
not
allowed
to
hide
under
any
pretense
to
intrude
an
exclusive
provincial
powers.
O
O
These
are
exclusive
provincial
jurisdictions,
of
course,
Mr
Speaker,
section
93
that
deals
with
education
and
indeed
the
concurrent
powers
in
section
95,
respecting
Agriculture
and
immigration,
Mr
Speaker
Bill.
One
is
therefore
constitutionally
structured
in
a
manner
that
gives
the
Alberta
that
gives
Alberta
the
legislative
framework
and
a
democratic
approach
to
affirm
and
defend
the
federal
provincial
division
of
powers,
while
absolutely
respecting
Canada's
Constitution.
O
O
The
federal
government
ignored
the
Christ
and
pleas
of
our
people
and
government.
This
unfortunate
State
of
Affairs
has
been
made
worse
by
the
current
liberal
government
under
this
prime
minister
Justin
Trudeau
Mr
Speaker,
as
if
that
is
not
bad
enough.
The
today
liberals
now
entered
into
an
Unholy
alliance
with
the
Socialist
Federal
NDP
leader
jagmit
Singh
Mr
Speaker.
This
Alliance
has
been
devastating
to
Alberto's
economy.
O
Mr
Speaker
the
opposition
brags
about
transmounting
pipeline,
but
Mr
Speaker
I've
got
news
for
them.
The
Liberals
and
NDP
have
effectively
ended
a
private
investment
in
pipelines.
Mr
Speaker,
the
Trans
Mountain
pipeline,
was
proposed
by
the
private
sector,
I'm
Mr
Speaker.
All
of
us
members
of
this
legislature
must
be
worried
when
a
gov,
a
government
that
is
in
the
business
of
Public
Services,
decided
to
chase
a
web
private
investment
to
occupy
that
particular
field.
That
is
the
reason
why,
till
today,
we
are
still
not
sure
when
transmounting
is
going
to
be
completed.
O
Instead,
the
Prime
Minister
gave
us
the
worst
and
most
hostile
minister
to
Alberta
minister
of
environment
Steven
Gable,
whose
mission
is
simply
to
undermine
the
largest
subset
sector
of
the
Canadian
economy.
The
oil
and
gas
sector,
Mr
Speaker,
as
I
indicated
before
previous
government,
have
tried
and
albertans
have
been
exceedingly
patient.
O
O
O
We
must
never
allow
that
to
happen
again
in
this
province.
Mr
Speaker.
We
must
Shield
our
brother
and
say
enough
is
enough.
The
federal
government
must
stay
in
the
island,
as
our
founding
fathers
and
the
drafters
of
our
constitution
had
envisioned
Mr
Speaker.
It
is
important
that
I
am
clear
on
what
the
Alberta
servanty
within
a
United
Canada
Act
will
now
do
because
we've
seen
a
lot
of
fear
mongering
on
the
path
of
the
leader
of
the
opposition
and
indeed
the
NDP
mlas
and
the
Allies
across
the
province
Mr
Speaker.
O
It
is
important
to
note
that
the
the
Alberta
solventy
within
a
United
Canada
would
not
do
the
following.
It
will
not
allow
our
brother
to
defy
Canada's
Constitution
Mr
Speaker
I
want
to
retread
that
and
to
our
viewers
watching
back
home
and,
despite
all
of
the
fear,
mongering
and
all
the
division.
Another
division
that
the
NDP
have
attempted
to
perpetuate
this
bill.
If
he
becomes
law
will
not
defy
Canada's
Constitution
Mr
Speaker,
it
will
not
allow
our
beta
to
ignore
decisions
of
our
court.
O
It
is
important
to
retrace
that
once
again,
but
that's
why
the
lie
that
that's
one
of
the
misinformation
that
we
have
heard
from
the
leader
of
the
opposition
and
how
MLS,
and
indeed
again
their
allies
across
the
province
Mr
Speaker.
This
bill
will
not
also
allow
our
brother
to
separate
from
Canada
I
recall
when
this
bill
was
first
proposed
that
they
jumped
on
that
that
this
is
a
separation
Bill,
Mr
Speaker.
It
is
now
clear
that
all
of
that
were
all
misinformation
and
fear-mongering
Mr
Speaker.
O
This
law
will
also
allow
cabinets
to
issue
unconstitutional
orders
in
Council
Mr
Speaker.
It
will
not
allow
cabinet
to
direct
private
individuals
or
corporations
that
are
not
provincial
entities
to
violate
federal
laws
and
Mr
Speaker.
It
is
not
true
that
this
bill
will
take
away
investors
Mr
Speaker.
It
was
the
NDP
while
they
were
in
government
between
2015
and
2019,
that
scared
away
investors
and
devastated
our
province.
In
fact,
Mr
Speaker.
O
The
threat
that
face
that
Alberta
faces
today
is
from
the
NDP,
so
Mr
Speaker,
despite
the
fear-mongering
by
the
leader
of
our
Majesty's,
loyal
opposition
and
her
NDP
mlas
and
their
allies.
The
above
remains
true
today,
and
it
will
also
remain
true.
Tomorrow,
Mr
Speaker,
Premier
Smith
has
taken
on
board
apologies,
Mr,
Speaker,
Mr,
Speaker,
The,
Honorable
Premier
has
taken
on
board
the
concerns
of
our
cargo's
members
and
indeed
the
concerns
of
our
Burtons
and
their
amendment
that
addresses
those
concerns
have
been
put
forward
in
this
assembly.
O
Mr
Speaker
I
am
glad
that
we
took
on
board
the
concerns
of
albertans
and
for
that
strengthened
this
particular
Bill
to
achieve
its
original
intention
to
be
clear,
Mr
Speaker.
If
a
resolution
of
this
legislative
assembly
identifies
an
amendment
of
a
statute,
it
will
allow
the
normal
legislative
process
and
ultimately,
a
bill
will
be
doubled
in
this
house
by
the
responsible
minister.
P
Thank
you
very
much.
Mr
Speaker,
I'm,
always
honored
to
have
an
opportunity
to
rise
in
this
house
and
speak
to
legislation.
I
think
that
the
bill
we're
considering
is
slightly
less
honorable,
but
nonetheless,
we're
here
tonight
to
debate
the
job,
killing
democracy,
threatening
sovereignty,
action
in
terms
of
democracy,
threatening
we've
already
seen.
The
current
government
choose
to
bring
in
closure
on
this
bill
that
they
know
is
so
deeply
unpopular.
That
they're,
trying
to
Ram
through
and
and
one
of
the
reasons
I
will
give.
You
know
that
members
of
the
cabinet
a
lot
of
credit.
P
They
were
right
absolutely
right
and
that,
through
you,
Mr
Speaker
is
one
of
the
reasons
why,
when
members
come
into
this
house-
and
they
say
well,
albertans
didn't
vote
for
blah
blah
blah
whatever
it
is.
Albertan
certainly
did
not
vote
for
this
bill
to
come
forward
to
this
place,
because
only
one
percent
of
the
actual
population
voted
for
this
Premier
99
of
albertans
did
not
endorse
the
plan
that
the
current
Premier
has
to
come
into
this
place
and
bring
forward
a
piece
of
legislation
that
is
killing
jobs
in
the
province
of
Alberta.
P
That
is
hurting
our
economy
that
is
threatening
our
International
reputation.
99
of
albertans
did
not
give
you
the
authority
to
come
forward
into
this
place
and
to
bring
forward
a
bill,
that's
so
damaging
to
so
many
albums
and
and
for
anyone
who
wants
to
throw
around
the
term
sovereignty
and
we've
seen
the
deputy
Premier.
Do
it
here
tonight
quite
successfully
thrown
around
the
word
sovereignty
many
many
times
the
premier
has.
P
It's
definitely
been
bouted
about
in
this
chamber,
as
well
as
on
debates
and
in
news
conferences
when,
when
you
think
of
the
word,
sovereignty,
I
hope
that
you
also
Ponder
other
times
in
my
lifetime
and
yours
when
sovereignty
has
been
front
and
center
and
what
the
economic
impacts
were
of
that
debate
at
that
time,
because
I
can
tell
you,
there
are
still
downtown
Towers
in
Montreal.
That
used
to
house
head
offices
for
major
corporations
that
moved
to
Toronto.
P
It
speaks
to
the
kind
of
ambition
that
the
current
Deputy
Premier,
multiple
Deputy,
premiers
or
other
people
around
the
front
bench
show
in
the
lack
of
conviction
to
the
words
that
they
spouted
just
a
few
short
months
ago.
Some
just
a
few
short
weeks
ago
and
I
can
say
his
name
now,
former
Premier
Kenny
Premier
Kenny
to
his
credit.
P
He
was
very
clear
throughout
the
summer
and
into
the
early
fall
that
he
felt
the
sovereignty
act
would
have
detrimental
impacts,
detrimental
effects
on
the
future
of
the
province
of
Alberta,
an
economic
investment
for
this
province
and
he's
right.
He
is
right.
Mr
Speaker
I
also
have
to
say
that
there
is
a
specific
clause
in
here.
That
gives
me
great
pause
and
that's
the
fact
that
the
government
wants
to
write
in
the
Clause
that
is
written
in
the
clause
and
didn't
amend
it
out.
P
P
When
talking
about
the
kind
of
threat
that
this
would
impose
on.
Our
Province
and
I
can
also
say
that
when
I
am
spending
time
connecting
with
albertans
right
across
this
province,
many
are
talking
about
affordability,
about
public
health
care
and
about
the
economy.
And
this
Mr
Speaker
does
nothing
to
support
any
of
those
three
pillars
and
in
fact
it
erodes
them
in
significant
ways.
P
The
current
Minister
of
Justice
decided
to
ask
the
deputy
minister
to
come
up
from
the
back
room
and
explain
his
legislation,
because
clearly
the
deputy,
Minister
and
the
premier
either
didn't
understand
it
couldn't
explain
it
or
they
didn't
care.
They
wanted
somebody
else
to
be
on
the
news
not
having
to
carry
water
for
their
terrible
bill
that
they
were
bringing
forward
to
this
place
and
to
the
deputy's
credit.
I
I
wouldn't
want
to
be
in
that
position.
They
are
failing
at
a
political
press
conference
because
they
put
politics
before
the
economy.
P
P
That
does
not
give
anybody
a
sense
of
confidence
that
the
front
bench
knows
what
they're
doing,
but
the
front
bench
has
any
sense
of
stability
that
the
front
bench
cares
about
what
the
key
issues
are
for
albertans
right
now:
around
affordability,
the
economy
and
Public
Health
Care.
Also
in
that
initial
press
conference,
questions
were
asked
about
the
role
of
the
RCMP
and
this
implication
around
the
RCMP
through
this
bill,
and
it
was
clarified
by
the
current
Justice
Minister
that
the
RCMP
is
seen
as
a
contractor
and
that
contractors
would
apply
to
this
legislation.
P
So
if
there
are
issues
with
contractors
that
front
bench
can
go
back
down
the
hall
into
a
quiet
room
and
they
can
write
themselves
another
piece
of
legislation
that
could
infringe
on
relationships
with
contractors
that
could
break
those
relationships
and
they're
a
contractor.
The
current
Justice
Minister
said
in
relation
to
the
federal
government
being
their
essentially
their
employer.
P
P
Albertans
know
that
that
is
a
huge
boondoggle.
Economically
and
I
can
tell
you
as
a
kid
who
grew
up
in
a
small
community
in
Northern
Alberta.
We
had
a
lot
of
RCMP
come
in
for
their
two
years
from
across
the
country,
serve
their
time
and
go
on
to
other
communities,
and
how
would
we
be
able
to
attract
and
retain
in
in
a
model
like
that?
Mr
Speaker?
We
absolutely
wouldn't.
P
P
So
this
bill
has
the
potential
to
cause
grave
economic
harm
and
we're
already
seeing
from
many
employers
that
the
premier
is
being
asked
day
after
day
to
name
just
one
CEO
who
thinks
this
bill's
a
good
idea
and
the
best
she
can
come
up
with
is
some
representatives
of
some
organizations
say
they
don't
think
it'll.
Be
that
bad,
but
nobody
says
it'll
be
good.
Nobody
says
that
this
is
going
to
move
things
forward,
that
this
is
going
to
help
nobody's
willing
to
put
their
business's
reputation
on
the
line
for
that.
Why
are
we
here?
P
Mr
Speaker?
If
not
to
do
things
to
make
things
better,
if
not
to
move
the
former
member
for
Brooks
Medicine
Hat,
who
in
turn
was,
you
know,
resigned
her
seat
to
give
the
premier
seat,
but
the
the
former
member
from
Brooks
Medicine
Hat
talked
about
coming
to
this
place
like
we
do
when
we
go
camping
that
you
want
to
leave
the
campsite
better
than
the
way
you
found
it.
P
P
That's
why
you're
trying
to
Ram
it
through
here
in
the
middle
of
the
night,
because
you
don't
have
the
confidence
to
do
this
in
the
middle
of
the
day
in
the
light
of
in
the
light
of
the
public
eye
you
don't
you
know
that
this
isn't
right
and
earlier
today,
when
our
leader
said,
you
know
if
this
gets
rammed
through
today
before
the
the
treaty
Chiefs,
the
Grand,
Chief
and
other
treaty
Chiefs
have
an
opportunity
to
engage
in
a
meaningful
way,
you're
doing
a
disservice
to
the
treaty.
You're
breaking
the
treaty.
P
P
They
don't
want
to
have
to
stand
by
their
vote.
They
don't
want
to
have
to
stand
up
and
defend
what
they've
done
and
how
they've
rammed
this
through
congratulations
on
being
so
effective
in
communicating
all
summer
and
into
the
fall
about
how
damaging
this
was.
You
were
right,
in
fact,
it's
even
worse
than
you
said
it
was
going
to
be
because
it
has
a
huge
dictatorial
powers
that
have
been
embedded
in
it
as
well.
P
It's
less
than
six
months.
I,
remember,
standing
in
this
place
and
saying
the
second
half
of
your
term
goes
faster
than
the
first
half.
That's
my
experience.
The
first
half
year
term,
you
feel,
like
you,
got
lots
of
time
lots
of
opportunities.
This
is
either
the
last
or
the
second
last
bill.
One
he'll
be
bringing
forward
to
this
place,
and
this
is
what
you
want
to
run
on.
P
Q
Thank
you,
Mr
Speaker
I
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
speak
to
a
third
reading
of
Bill
one,
but
I
do
so
with
deep,
deep
disappointment
that
we
have
gotten
here
at
all
and
secondarily,
that
we
have
gotten
here
in
this
terrible
way
of
of
having
closure
invoked
continuously
on
each
stage
of
the
bill,
so
that
we
cannot
hear
what
people
need
to
say
about
this
bill.
We
know
that.
Certainly
people
are
talking
about
this
bill
out
in
the
community.
Q
We
also
saw
this
Premier
make
comments
about
the
CEO
of
cap
and
the
CEO
of
the
Calgary
chamber
saying
well.
They
haven't
obviously
haven't
talked
to
their
members,
insulting
them
by
saying
they
don't
know
what
they're
talking
about,
or
they
don't
represent
the
people
they
in
fact
do
represent,
and
again
today
we
see
this
Premier
and
other
members
of
this.
This
cabin
and
this
government
disparaging
the
leaders
of
the
First
Nations
by
saying
to
them.
Oh
they're
only
doing
this,
because
the
NDP
is
scare
monitoring.
Q
That's
what
they
said
earlier
today
that
this
is
just
a
reaction
to
scare
mongering,
which
I
can
tell
you
the
First
Nations
tell
me
is
a
very
insulting
thing
to
say
to
them
what
you're
saying
to
them
is
they're
too
dumb
to
figure
it
out
for
themselves
and
they're
only
doing
it
because
they're
being
scared
by
somebody
on
this
side
of
the
house.
How
can
you
call
a
whole
group
of
people.
Q
Call
them
stupid
by
saying
that
they
don't
have
a
a
a
a
clue
as
to
why
this
may
be
a
bad
Bill
on
their
own
terms
in
their
own
right
and
that's
what
we've
seen
continuously
in
this
house.
We've
seen
the
disparaging
of
people
who
are
who
have
done
incredibly
important
things
in
this
country,
because
they
don't
agree
with
this
bill
and
they
don't
agree
with
it
on
very
substantive
bases.
They
don't
agree
with
it
because
it's
been
demonstrated
repeatedly
by
scholars
in
the
area
that
it's
unconstitutional.
Q
It's
been
demonstrated
repeatedly
by
people
in
the
community
that
it
is
a
an
ideological
bill
which
is
not
supported
by
the
majority
of
people
in
this
province,
because
it
does
not
address
the
issues
that
are
important
to
the
people
of
this
province.
It's
about
Shrine
up
the
base
for
people
who
are
deeply
afraid
they're
about
to
lose
the
next
election.
That's
it
so
I
think,
is
it's
very
important
that
we
spend
some
time
talking
about
what
it
is
that
all
of
these
people,
these
many
hundreds
of
thousands
of
people
who
are
objecting
to
this
bill.
Q
What
they're
actually
saying
and
we've
had
an
opportunity
in
this
house
to
read
out
some
of
the
comments
by
the
CEO
of
Kappa
and
the
CEO
of
the
Calgary
chamber
or
or
by
David
Dodge,
and
we've
had
an
opportunity
to
hear
some
of
the
comments
by
some
of
the
Chiefs
from
treaties.
Six,
seven
and
eight
about
this
bill
and
I
think
it's
time
that
we
actually
stop.
Q
Q
B
B
Q
Thank
you
now,
I
think
the
it's
very
important
that
we
bring
forward
some
of
the
words
of
some
of
the
First
Nations
at
this
particular
time.
Some
of
the
representatives
of
the
First
Nations
at
this
particular
time
so
that
it
isn't
about
what
I
might
have
to
say
or
what
the
NDP
might
have
to
say,
but
that
we
are
providing
voice
to
the
to
the
thousands
of
First
Nations
people
who
have
been
very
concerned
about
this
act
and
have
been
asking
repeatedly
for
this
act
to
be
stopped.
Q
Q
We
have
the
words
of
Chief
Tony
Alexis,
who
is
the
designated
representative
on
this
topic
for
treaty
six
Who
says:
let's
be
honest.
This
all
comes
down
to
land
and
resources.
We
are
yet
again
the
inconvenient
Indians
standing
in
the
way
of
unprotected
resources,
resource
extraction
and
other
extrapolation
of
treaty
lands.
Q
We
have
the
words
of
the
chief
Darcy
Dixon
from
bears
prosperous
Nations,
who
says
this
is
a
warning
to
Canadians.
If
you
care
about
these
lands,
if
you
care
about
your
country,
you
should
care
about
this
bill.
It
is
not
a
First
Nations
issue.
This
impacts
us
all
right.
Chief
Dixon
goes
on
to
say,
quote:
Bill
one
is
just
part
of
a
political
game.
That
may
be
true,
but
we
see
it
see
in
it
a
disguised
attempt
to
disregard
treaty
and
as
a
way
to
gain
unlawful
access
to
our
lands
without
restrictions.
Q
Q
There's
a
lot
at
stake
here
in
this
debate
for
First
Nations,
and
they
are
not
concerned
about
this,
because
somehow
the
NDP
have
scaremongered.
They
are
intelligent
people
who
have
their
own
ideas
and
own
opinions
and
and
have
access
to
this
to
significant
resources
in
the
legal
field,
and
they
have
consulted
those
legal
authorities
and
have
determined
that
this
bill
is
deeply
problematic
for
them
and
the
primary
issue.
Although
there's
many
issues,
the
primary
issue
is
the
total
failure
to
consult
now.
What
would
they
say
if
they
were
being
consulted?
Q
What
they'd
say
is
that
we
are
deeply
concerned
that
our
treaty
rates
are
going
to
be
undermined.
Now
we
know
the
bill
makes
the
attempt
to
say
it
won't
undermine
treaty
rights,
but
we
also
know
that
an
analysis
that's
been
done
by
olzinski
and
and
banks
on
that
refers
to
it
as
a
constitutional
fig
leaf.
That
is,
it
doesn't
actually
protect
the
constitutional
rights
of
First
Nations
people.
It
just
pretends
to
do
so.
Q
Those
kind
of
things
that
are
protected
under
Section
35
of
the
Constitution,
but
but
also
concerned
about
the
well-being
of
the
land
and
the
air
and
the
water
they're
concerned
that
the
very
purpose
of
this
bill
is
for
this
government
to
prevent
a
federal
government
from
protecting
the
environment.
It's
a
primary
concern
that
anytime,
the
federal
government
comes
in
and
says
we
want
to
protect
these
Waters.
We
want
to
protect
these
animals
that
this
government
will
say,
no
we're
afraid
we're
going
to
lose
some
money.
Q
That's
what
so
here
we
have
the
chirping
from
across
the
floor,
where
again
they're
insulting
the
Chiefs
who
have
specifically
said
when
you
say
we
only
do
things,
because
the
NDP
fear
monger
you're,
telling
us
we're
too
stupid
to
figure
it
out
for
ourselves
that
is
considered
ultimately
insulting
and
yet
has
been
repeated
in
this
house
minutes
after
I
expressed
that
opinion
by
the
Chiefs
they're
not
listening.
This
is
proof
again
that
they
have
failed
to
listen.
Q
They
continue
to
not
listen
and
the
Chiefs
have
said
there
is
no
way
forward
now,
because
you
haven't
listened
because
you
haven't
participated
in
the
processes
the
courts
say:
You
must
participate
in
then
there's
no
way
we
can
fix
this.
We
have
to
stop
this
bill
and
that's
why
I
brought
in
this
amendment.
This
amendment
does
exactly
what
it
is.
What
the
Chiefs
from
across
Canada
at
the
Assembly
of
First
Nations,
asked
us
to
do
today
to
stand
up
against
this
government
and
say
you
are
wrong.
Q
Q
They
haven't
been
asking
for
anything
that
the
courts
haven't
already
determined
that
they
have
a
right
to.
They
aren't
asking
for
anything
exceptional
or
new.
It's
already
been
established
all
the
way
up
to
the
Supreme
Court
of
Canada
that
they
have
a
right
for
appropriate
consultation,
and
the
Very
nature
of
this
bill
is
that
it
will
be
used
against
them,
and
I
can
tell
you
that
they're
they're
terrified,
because
they
know
that
the
last
time
there
was
a
bill.
Q
One
in
this
house,
in
this
legislature,
under
the
UCP
government,
called
the
bill
that
was
called
protecting
critical
infrastructure
Act
that
it
was
designed
specifically
to
attack
the
ability
of
First
Nations
to
defend
their
rights,
the
ones
that
they
had
earned
in
the
courts
and
the
Grand
Chief
noski.
From
treaty
eight
has
said.
We
know
it
was
designed
only
to
attack
First
Nations,
because
it
certainly
wasn't
used
when
the
infrastructure
was
being
blocked
on
the
Coots
border
by
people
who
are
related
to.
C
H
We
have
had
quite
a
bit
of
time
now
discussing
Bill
one
and
I
would
think
that
nobody
would
argue
that
point.
We
are
now
coming
upon
17
hours
of
debate
for
this
bill.
That's
plenty
of
time
to
get
points
across
and
make
it
clear
how
you
feel
about
it.
It's
interesting
we've
known
the
intent
of
the
members
opposite
from
the
very
beginning
when
they
chose
not
even
debated
at
all,
voting
against
in
first
reading,
something
that
happens
rarely
and
having
having
never
happened
in
the
history
of
our
Province
after
a
throne
speech.
H
But
that
is
also
not
surprising,
given
that
this
morning,
as
the
Press
Conference
was
held
by
the
members
opposite,
their
key
advisor
from
Ottawa
had
they
acknowledged
he
hadn't
read
it
either.
Hadn't
even
read
the
amendment,
so
I'm
not
sure
how
someone
like
that
could
give
any
educated
opinion
on
a
bill.
I
haven't
even
seen
yet
I.
Imagine
members
opposites
if
they
had.
The
opportunity
would
actually
want
to
debate
this
bill
all
the
way
up
until
Christmas.
H
That's
not
the
kind
of
present
that
I
want
to
give
my
kids
not
being
there
I
would
rather
do
what's
best
for
our
burdens,
get
this
bill
through
this
chamber
so
that
we
can
continue
on
their
Duty
and
continue
on
their
errand.
I
encourage
healthy
debate
as
it,
as
is
important
part
of
this
legislature.
It's
part
of
our
job,
but
there
comes
a
point
when
the
same
message
gets
repeated
over
and
over
Mr
Speaker.
Quite
frankly,
is
a
bit
disingenuous
and
I
felt
this
way
from
the
moment.
H
E
Well,
thank
you
Mr
Speaker,
and
certainly
again,
my
comments
on
the
other
movements
to
closure
apply
to
this
one
again.
It's
clear
that
this
UCP
government
has
created
a
flagship
bill
that
is
consistently
driving
in
the
ditch
from
the
very
first
day
that
it
came
out,
and
here
we
are
several
days
later
and
it's
continuing
to
flounder
not
meeting
the
needs
of
albertans,
even
considering
what
the
bill
purports
to
do
or
try
to
do,
which
is
to
you
know,
to
stand
up
to
Federal
intrusion,
it's
only
through
sheer
incompetence.
E
E
One
was
the
subversion
of
the
legislative
assembly,
and
so
what
double
double
hypocrisy-
and
irony,
that's
irony
actually,
if
of
this
government-
is
that
they
would
use
the
shutting
down
of
this
assembly
to
debate
a
bill
which
would
subvert
the
authority
of
this
assembly
right.
It
just
goes
on
and
on,
and
so
in.
E
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
R
R
R
R
K
You
Mr
Speaker
pleased
to
speak
to
third
reading
Bill
one
and
the
opportunity
has
been
granted
to
the
government
side
to
save
their
Ship
by
his
Majesty's
loyal
opposition.
This
caucus,
Mr
Speaker,
is,
is
held
together
by
we're,
not
sure
what
these
days,
perhaps
it's
fear
of
loss,
but
indeed
we
have
six
leadership
candidates,
five
of
whom
lost
and,
of
course,
the
premier
won.
K
So
five
of
those
individual
leadership
candidates
who
are
still
in
the
UCP
caucus
voted
with
their
voices
against
the
sovereignty
act
as
it
was
being
proposed
by
the
premier
during
the
leadership
debate.
Yet
after
that
vociferous
and
very
loud,
our
death
condemnation
of
the
ACT
here,
we
have
a
situation
where
all
five
have
fallen
into
line
and
they're
Landing
standing
up
to
salute
the
new
leader
and
and
and
and
supporting
this
version
of
the
sovereignty
act.
Indeed,
not
much
has
changed
since
the
first
version
come
out.
K
However,
Mr
Speaker
I've
been
watching
politics
for
for
many
many
years
and
as
a
youngster
I
do
even
remember
watching
John
George
dieffenbaker,
then
prime
minister
of
Canada
conservative
prime
minister
of
Canada
staunchly
defending
one
issue
or
another
on
black
and
white
television.
When
I
was
only
five
or
six
years.
K
Old
and
I
can
tell
you
with
certainty
from
my
own,
watching
of
that
to
man,
Mr
diven
Baker
that
he
had
had
a
very,
very
devoted
love
for
our
parliamentary
institutions
and
would
be
I
believe
most
staunch
defender
of
those
institutions
that
many
of
the
people
in
this
room,
particularly
on
the
conservative
side,
might
have
ever
seen
and
I
believe
wholeheartedly
that
Mr
dieten
Baker
would
be
turning
in
his
grave
right.
Now.
K
Listening
to
the
type
of
attacks
that
we're
seeing
by
the
conservative
party,
at
least
the
conservative
party,
in
name
that
sits
across
from
us
in
this
legislature,
they're
seeking
to
do
anything,
Mr
Speaker
but
conserve
our
Democratic
institutions
and
further
to
that.
At
a
time
when
we're,
supposedly
in
this
country,
seeking
to
fulfill
Our
obligation
to
address
all
96
recommendations
of
the
Truth
and
Reconciliation
Commission.
Reconciliation
is
not
what
we
see
from
the
government
with
respect
to
this
piece
of
legislation,
their
Flagship
bill,
one.
K
It
indeed
is
a
Time
Mr
Speaker,
when
we
are
discovering
thousands
upon
thousands
of
graves
of
children
that
are
being
discovered
across
Canada
on
lands
adjacent
to
former
residential
school
sites,
and
at
a
time
when
we
are
going
through
this,
this
this
shuddering
time
as
a
nation.
We're
fighting
that
the
government
of
the
day
here
in
Alberta
is
choosing
to
forget
and
turn
all
the
turn,
their
back
on
our
obligations
not
only
under
TRC
but
in
their
own
provincial,
in
our
own
provincial
legislation
and
once
again,
I
turn
to
the
own.
K
Are
you
unanimous
in
their
opposition
to
this
bill
and
they're
also
very
upset
that
they
have
to
go
to
these
extents
to
to
protect
this
threat
upon
their
rights
that
they
see
embedded
in
this
piece
of
legislation
and
their
opposition
is
being
met
with
dismissive
reactions
by
the
government
where
they
say
we'll
talk
about
it
later
or
we'll
talk
with
them
tomorrow,
we'll
consult
afterwards?
Don't
worry,
it'll
be
okay.
Well,
indeed,
Mr
Speaker,
Our
obligation
legally
under
our
own
laws
in
this
province,
is
to
consult
in
advance
and
have
meaningful
consultation.
K
And
they
fear
very
much
that
any
legislative
gains
that
they
have
made
in
order
to
promote
the
French
language
and
French
language.
Education
in
this
province
are
potentially
going
to
be
under
threat.
Should
the
provincial
government
decide
that,
indeed
they
they
don't
want
to
support
federal
government
directions
in
francophone
education
or
supporting
francophone
services
in
Alberta?
So
there's
great
fear
in
the
francophone
community
that
we're
hearing
about
as
members
of
the
opposition
and
that's
one
thing
that
we'll
be
following
up
with
more
in
in
time
to
come.
K
But
there
are
so
many
holes
in
this
boat,
Mr
Speaker
that
that
we're
trying
to
give
the
the
government
of
the
day
an
opportunity
to
save
their
their
leaky
boat.
But
it
doesn't
seem
as
though
they're
listening.
So
let's
give
them
an
opportunity
to
take
a
breath
and
reload,
and
perhaps
to
think
about
this
for
a
while.
I
therefore
have
an
amendment
that
I'd
like
to
propose.
R
K
You
very
much
Mr
Speaker
I'll
proceed
with
the
introduction
of
the
amendment
brought
on
behalf
of
the
honorable
opposition
house
leader
to
move
that
the
motion
for
third
reading
of
Bill,
one
Alberta
sovereignty
within
a
United
Canada
Act,
be
amended
by
deleting
all
of
the
words
after
that
and
substituting
the
following.
Bill
one
Alberta
sovereignty
within
a
United
Canada
Act
be
not
now
read
a
third
time,
but
that
would
be
read
a
second
time
this
day,
six
months.
K
So
I'm
not
going
to
speak
at
length
to
the
amendment
I'll
leave
that
to
other
members
of
caucus.
Suffice
it
to
say
Mr
Speaker,
that
I
remember
times
when
we
were
in
government
and
opposition
suggested,
indeed
that
we
should
look
at
something
a
little
more
deeply
and
there
were
times
when
we
should
have-
and
this
is
an
opportunity
for
this
government
to
really
take
a
take
a
good
look
at
what
they're
doing
and
perhaps
save
their
save
their
save
their
leaky.
Ship
and
I'd.
K
Invite
them
to
come
up
and
and
speak
about
the
the
amendment
we
brought
forward
and
hopefully
support
it
to
give
themselves
an
opportunity
to
breathe
some
fresh
air
and
really
think
about
what
they're
doing
in
terms
of
the
the
political
liability
that
they're
giving
themselves
and
the
the
economic
quick
damage
that
they're
doing
to
our
Province.
By
bringing
forward
this
undemocratic
legislation.
R
S
Thank
you
very
much.
Mr
Speaker
I
will
speak
for
my
full
time
and
that
won't
be
long
enough.
First
I
can
say
to
the
member
from
Bonneville
Cold
Lake.
There
were
times
in
our
government
where
we
did
bring
in
amendments
to
our
own
bill,
and
there
were
times
that
we
admitted
when
we
got
it
wrong
and
that's
something
that
I'm
proud
of
to
have
the
humility
and
the
ability
to
be
able
to
do
that.
S
I
wished.
The
current
government
would
do
that,
and
what
I'm
about
to
speak
to
is
my
frustration
of
the
member's
opposite
and
some
of
their
level
of
arrogance.
As
to
the
impact
of
this
bill
now,
I
will
commend
the
members
opposite.
When
we
were
government
there
were
times
that
they
warned
our
government
of
unintended
consequences.
S
S
S
S
We
have
stood
up
for
this
province
time
to
time
again.
I
I
will
get
the
premier
to
check
the
fact
that
the
first
pipeline
to
Tidewater
in
50
years
is
being
built
because
the
the
member
for
Edmonton
Strathcona
and
the
former
Premier
stood
up
for
this
province.
How
many
pipelines
has
your
government
built
to.
S
S
The
irony
in
the
fact
that
this
government
introduced
the
most
undemocratic,
dictatorial
piece
of
legislation.
No,
no,
please
don't
come
on
me.
No
other
government
introduced
a
piece
of
legislation
that
allows
them
to
unilaterally
change
any
legislation,
statutes
or
regulations
in
the
province
behind
closed
doors.
S
S
S
Deputy
Premier
will
order.
I
will
invite
you
to
speak
and
I
would
I
I'm
happy
to
get
into
an
exchange.
Sir
three
Mr
Speaker,
of
course,
so
the
the
issue
I
have
with
this
and
and
my
frustration
is
that
members
can
claim
including
cabinet
that
this
will
not
risk
future
investment.
Here's
the
reality!
You
don't
know
that
you
don't.
This
is
the
challenge
with
introducing
legislation
having
unintended
consequences.
The
problem
is,
it
may
take
six
months
or
12
months
before
we
see
the
impact
of
this
legislation,
but
what
we've
been
told
and
I
get?
S
You
don't
want
to
take
our
word
for
it
fair
enough.
The
international
investors
I've
spoken
to
have
said
that
they
are
looking
at
other
jurisdictions,
no
longer
looking
at
Alberta.
Why?
Because
Alberta
is
the
only
jurisdiction
in
Canada
outside
of
Quebec
I'll
talk
about
the
impact
of
Quebec
because
believe
me,
if
we
want
to
follow
Quebec,
let's
just
follow
the
headquarters
of
all
of
the
major
financial
institutions
and
members
who
have
been
in
the
house.
The
last
two
nights
have
heard
this.
S
S
The
problem
is
that
the
risk
reward
of
introducing
the
sovereignty
act.
It's
not
going
to
do
what
the
government
says
it's
going
to
do
it's
not
going
to
protect
Alberta
anymore
than
the
Avenues
we
already
have
of
going
through
the
courts
and,
in
fact,
it's
about
to
risk
the
hundreds
of
millions
of
dollars,
the
federal
government's
committed
to
housing,
to
municipalities,
to
our
child
care,
a
number
of
initiatives.
If
the
federal
government
says
you
want
to
play,
hardball
Alberta
great,
you
get
nothing.
S
S
S
So
the
fact
that
now
we're
about
to
enshrine
a
sovereignty
Act
into
legislation,
I
will
tell
you
from
the
investors.
I've
talked
to
it
doesn't
matter.
What's
in
it,
the
fact
that
you
have
a
bill
that
tells
the
globe
that
the
province
of
Alberta
has
a
different
set
of
rules
from
the
federal
government
is
a
disincentive
for
investment.
S
In
fact,
I
think
we
should
bring
together
several
round
tables,
including
members
from
the
business
community,
and
let's,
let's
talk
about
that.
What
can
we
do,
but
I
also
think
that
politics
is
all
about
relationships
and
the
fact
that
this
bill
could
have
other
unintended
consequences
like
risking
committed
federal
dollars
for
other
programs,
including
housing
and
child
care,
is
valid.
S
S
O
Mr
Mr
Speaker
this
bill,
one
came
about
as
a
result
of
the
constant
Relentless
attack
on
these
provinces
economy.
Our
people
are
vital
economic
interest
and
for
four
years
the
members
opposite
rather
than
to
side
with
albertans,
have
always
decided
with
their
friends
at
the
federal
liberal
government
and
now
their
Federal
NDP
leader,
Jack
May
Singh,
Mr
Speaker.
This
is
at
the
roof
of
why
we
have
gathered
in
this
assembly
tonight
to
make
sure
that
we
have
a
tool
that
will
allow
the
government
of
Alberta
to
say
to
the
federal
government.
O
You
can't
be
relentlessly
attacking
our
Vital
economic
interest
and
our
peoples
overall
well-being
and
expect
us
not
to
respond
Mr
Speaker.
We
saw
that
from
between
2015
and
2019
when
the
members
opposite
were
in
in
office
in
government
Mr
Speaker,
they
imposed
a
multi-billion
of
billions
of
dollars
in
carbon
tax
that
they
did
not
even
bother
to
run
on.
O
They
did
not
tell
albertans
that
they
were
going
to
impose
a
multi-billion
billions
of
dollars
in
carbon
tax
and
the
people
of
Albert
I,
recall
I,
wasn't
in
this
chamber
there
Mr,
but
I,
recalled
the
people
of
Alberta
Protestant.
That
decision.
In
fact
it
is
their
decisions.
Mr
Speaker
of
the
members
opposed
that
ultimately
led
me
into
politics.
I
did
not
envision
running
for
public
office
until
the
members
opposite
from
government
in
2015,
and
then
they
began
their
attack
on
our
economy
and
they
refused
to
listen
to
the
people
of
Alberta.
O
O
O
They
took
our
debt,
the
entire
position
government
that
from
13.9
billion
dollars
to
over
70
billion
dollars
in
short
order,
Mr
Speaker.
Before
the
farm
government,
we
were
spending
a
couple
of
100
million
dollars
to
service
the
provincial
government
debt
all
of
our
debt.
By
the
time
they
were
done
with
our
battle.
We
are
spending
2.2
billion
dollars
to
service
the
provincial
government,
debt
Mr
Speaker-
that
is
2.2
billion
dollars.
We
could
have
invested
in
education
in
healthcare
in
Social
Services.
O
Instead,
we
were
paying
out
the
those
interests
to
bond
Masters
who
are
not
even
in
this
country.
They
are
headquartered
in
Tokyo,
in
New
York
in
Paris
and
in
Belgium
Mr
Speaker.
Those
of
us
on
this
side
of
the
aisle
will
prefer
to
spend
the
that
2.2
billion
dollars
and
our
people
right
here
at
home
to
develop
our
communities
Mr
Speaker,
they
didn't
end
there.
O
O
O
They
lifted
no
finger
Mr
Speaker,
and
then
we
not
have,
in
my
view,
in
my
humble
view,
the
worst
environment
minister
in
Canadian
history,
a
radical
who
wants
to
end
the
largest
sector
of
the
Canadian
economy
sector,
Mr
Speaker
there
were
rallies
by
the
members
opposite
across
our
Province
would
rather
cut
that
wanted
to
to
end.
First
of
all,
there
were
photographs
of
members
opposite.
O
O
O
Finally,
at
least
I
want
to
give
credit
to
the
member
for
from
Beverly
cloudview
for
acknowledging
that
there
is
Need
for
us
to
come
together
to
protect
our
Province
and
our
people.
Well,
it
is
too
late
and
write
the
hand
then
put
forward
on
how
they
think
we
can
make
this
bill
better
achieve
that.
The
intention
is
to
ensure
we
have
no
tool
whatsoever
to
be
able
to
say
to
the
federal
government.
It
got
to
stay
in
your
land.
O
They
don't
want
to
do
that,
because
that
is
not
their
interest.
It
has
never
been
their
interest,
otherwise,
at
this
moment
in
time
in
our
history,
when
we
have
a
rising
inflation,
the
High
Cost
of
Living,
at
the
rate
we
have
never
seen
in
decades,
you
would
think
that
their
first
order
of
business
will
be
to
call
on
their
Federal
NDP
leader
to
work
with
the
his
friendly
Justin
Trudeau
to
end
the
carbon
tax
to
put
forward
measures
that
will
ensure
that
the
people
of
this
country
are
not
being
hammered
by
their
policies.
O
O
It
is
there
in
black
and
white,
and
rather
than
the
members
opposite
to
stand
with
us,
to
inform
our
brothers
and
to
speak
with
our
first
nation
communities
that
there's
nothing
in
this
bill
that
impairs
their
treaty
and
Aboriginal
rights.
They
have
been
Fair,
Mongrel
and
Mr
Speaker.
Let
me
say
a
word
or
two
to
our
first
nation
communities
and
I
have
had
the
honor
of
serving
in
four
different
Ministries
I've
worked
closely
with
them.
O
I
value
them,
and
this
government
value
that
strategic
relationship
and
in
my
time
that
I
served
in
those
ministers,
I
have
carefully
listened
to
them
and
work
with
them
to
move
forward
their
agenda.
There
is
nothing
in
Bill
one
to
remember
from
Edmonton
Highland
Norwood,
there's
nothing
in
the
world
that
impairs.
They
are
treating
Aboriginal
right
and
it
is
hard
time
you,
you
stop
fear-mongering.
O
O
I
often
don't
talk
about
my
own,
my
own
history,
because
our
first
national
communities
are
so
dear
to
my
heart,
the
Chiefs,
because
my
own
parents,
both
my
mom
and
dad,
are
also
Aboriginal
Chief
from
where
I
come
from
and
so
I
understand
the
issues
that
they
confront,
that
they
deal
with,
and
all
of
us
must
have
an
interest
in
making
sure
that
we
work
with
them
to
confront
them,
and
so
I
want
to
say
once
again
to
them.
I.
We
hear
their
concerns.
G
G
G
Ensuring
all
judicial
appointments
in
the
province
are
made
by
Alberta,
which
is
a
clear
section:
96
violation
of
the
Constitution
right
there,
expanding
and
enhancing
over
to
financial
institutions
to
protect
Alberta
business
so,
in
other
words,
just
simply
violating
the
bank
act.
I,
guess
and
enabling
this
Alberta
Revenue
Agency
to
divert
taxes
from
the
federal
treasury
to
Alberta
and
granting
immunity
from
federal
enforcement
through
the
Canada
Revenue
Agency.
G
I
am
struggling
to
think
of
any
business
that
would
want
to
invest
in
a
place
where
you
don't
know
if
there
are
health
and
education
transfers,
infrastructure
transfers,
what
the
banking
laws
are,
where
you're
going
to
remit
your
taxes
and
how
much
given
that
the
sovereignty
Act
is
virtually
indistinguishable
from
the
free
Alberta
strategy
and
the
free
Alberta
strategy.
Authors
have
indicated
that
this
is
the
next
step.
G
G
The
public
I
think
has
come
to
accept
that
politics
permeates
and
saturates
most
of
life
now,
and
there
are
fewer
and
fewer
areas
slivers
within
that
Venn
diagram,
upon
which,
in
a
polarized
political
environment
that
political
parties
can
come
to
agreement,
but
I
think
Canadians
and
albertans
do
not
accept
that.
What's
right
and
wrong
is
political.
It's
not
I.
Don't
think
that
albertans,
except
that
this
idea
that
there
are
isn't
just
one
set
of
rules
for
everyone.
G
I,
don't
think
that
people
think
that
there's
room
for
politics
in
that
I.
Don't
think
that
albertans
think
that
the
idea
that
we
can
just
politicize
the
Judiciary
usurp
their
role
undermine
the
authority
of
the
courts,
undermine
basic
rules
of
trade
and
commerce,
banking,
taxation,
I,
don't
think
albertans
believe
those
things
are
political
they're
not
up
to
the
feckless
inclinations
of
an
unelected
leader.
G
G
G
Almost
the
end
of
two
terms:
they
are
the
the
foundation
of
who
we
are
and
they're,
also
the
foundation
of
who
we
are
going
to
be,
because
this
is
ultimately
a
Fool's
errand
that
will
be
stopped
in
its
Track
by
albertans.
It
already
has
been.
They
didn't
even
need
to
see
the
reason
why
we
voted
against
Bill,
one
or
sorry
first
reading
on
Bill
one
was
because
we
had
already
heard
that
it
had
driven
out
investment.
We
had
already
heard
from
albertans
that
they
were
entirely
uninterested
in
this
a
particular
caper.
G
They
were,
they
had
rejected
in
fact,
and
they
were
they
agreed
with
the
now
Minister
of
Finance,
who
called
it
an
economic
Time
Bomb.
They
agreed
with
the
current
jobs
Minister,
who
called
it
a
fairy
tale.
They
agreed
with
the
now
Municipal
Affairs
Ministry.
We
called
it
Anarchy
and
the
minister
of
trade
has
said
it
was
like
shooting
ourselves
in
the
foot.
G
G
G
G
G
So
we
don't
need
that
I'm,
not
I'm,
pretty
sure
we
don't
want
to
replicate
that
or
where
you
even
look
at
the
economic
performance
between
Alberta
and
Quebec
per
capita
GDP
and
so
on.
I'm,
pretty
sure
we
don't
want
that,
because
that
would
mean
a
reduction
in
our
standard
of
living
here
in
Alberta.
We
don't
want
to
be
like
Quebec
in
those
ways.
G
What
we
do
want
is
to
create
a
resilient
economy
for
the
future,
where
we
welcome
investment,
where
we
can
quite
easily
say.
Yes,
the
bank
act
applies
here
and
when
you
pay
your
taxes,
you
know
where
it's
going
to
go
when
you
put
in
a
Water
Act
permit,
you
know,
what's
going
to
happen,
if
you're
an
oil
sands
operator,
you
know
what
the
future
of
the
joint
oil
science
monitoring
agreement
looks
like
you
understand
your
obligations
under
both
navigable
navigable
Waters,
Federal
species
at
risk
and
the
lower
atherbasket
Regional
plan,
both
Federal
and
provincial.
G
R
T
Well,
what
a
delightful
surprise,
Mr
Speaker,
to
be
able
to
likely
wrap
up
our
final
opportunity
to
speak
to
this
absolutely
terrible
piece
of
legislation,
Mr
Speaker
and
if
somebody
just
wants
to
send
me
a
note
if
I
need
to
okay,
wonderful,
Mr,
Speaker
I
have
had
the
opportunity
to
sit
through
the
majority
of
this
debate
on
the
job-killing
sovereignty
act
bill,
one
that
this
government
put
forward
a
flagship.
My
apologies,
oh
we're.
R
U
U
Don't
know
why
it
is
they
felt
that
they
needed
to
suck
up
to
Ottawa.
It's
not
like
Ottawa
is
a
national
government
as
the
way
our
country
works
is
that
we
are
a
Federation
of
sovereign,
independent
jurisdictions.
They
are
one
in
of
those
signatories
to
the
Constitution
and
the
the
rest
of
us
are
signatories
to
the
Constitution,
have
a
right
to
exercise
our
sovereign
powers
and
our
own
area
of
jurisdiction.
U
The
problem
that
we've
seen
over
the
last
number
of
years
and
when
I
talk
about
the
loss
of
investment
that
occurred
because
of
this
failed
attempt
at
trying
to
chase
after
Federal
approval.
The
climate
leadership
plan
brought
in
a
carbon
tax
which
three
aspects:
carbon
tax
phase
out
of
coal
and
an
emissions
cap,
and
one
of
the
things
that
occurred
of
course,
was
Northern.
U
Gateway
ended
up
getting
canceled
cheered
Along
by
the
members
opposite,
they
never
supported
Northern
Gateway,
which
would
have
been
done
so
much
to
help
Advance
our
economy,
energy
East
once
again
also
got
shut
down
with
with
no
support
from
the
opposition.
Coke
oil
announced
that
they
had
two
oil
sands
projects
that
they
that
they
walked
away
from
because
of
the
uncertainty
being
created
by
the
the
climate
leadership
plan.
The
we
also
had
the
key
pills
planned.
U
It
had
been
operational
coal
plant
been
operation
for
just
six
months
when
the
actions
of
the
members
opposite
forced
it
to
shut
down.
We
still
have
uncertainty
in
the
electricity
industry
and
in
creating
new
generation
as
a
result
of
those
decisions.
I
was
just
meeting
with
a
group
of
of
energy
leaders
in
the
retail
side
yesterday
talking
about
how
we,
in
the
future
after
2035,
it's
uncertain,
how
we're
going
to
develop
new
new
natural
gas
plans
because
of
the
new
requirements
being
brought
in
at
the
federal
level.
U
This
is
a
gain,
a
violation
of
our
provincial
jurisdiction
and
then,
of
course,
Western
Feed
laws
also
shut
down.
They
only
reopened
when
the
when
the
UCP
formed
government.
Again
in
the
year
after
they
got
elected,
there
were
7
200
businesses
that
shut
down.
That's
what
capital
flight
looks
like
and
it
was
caused
by
the
actions
of
the
members
opposite.
So
really,
they
should
spare
me
any
discussion
about
how
much
they
care
about
the
investment
climate.
U
They
cared
about
the
investment
climate,
they
wouldn't
have
started
this
track
in
the
first
place,
and
the
reason
this
track
is
Contin
continuing
is
because
their
Coalition
at
the
federal
level-
and
this
is
part
of
the
reason
why
they
keep
on
trotting
out
Ottawa
based
pundits
to
support
their
view,
because
this
is
the
way
they
think
the
country
ought
to
work.
Is
that
Ottawa
ought
to
come
in
and
tell
us
how
to
run
our
own
Affairs.
The
members
on
this
side
feel
the
opposite,
and
it's.
U
Hit
after
hit
that
we
have
taken
as
a
result
of
the
process,
they
started
Bill
c-48,
a
tanker
ban
on
the
west
coast
that
is
designed
strictly
to
landlock
Alberta's
bitumen
came
in
under
their
watch
bill
c-69,
which
is
an
historic
invasion
of
provincial
jurisdiction.
We
already
have
a
court
judgment
telling
us,
so
we
have
10
province
on
board
with
fighting
it
because
they
inserted
themselves
into
every
area
of
provincial
jurisdiction
when
it
comes
to
creating
projects.
Any
power
plant,
more
than
200
megawatts,
has
to
be
approved
by
the
federal
government.
U
U
When
you
look
at
the
the
fact
that
we
had
an
equalization
referendum,
62
percent
of
albertans
voted
in
favor,
of
pushing
back
against
and
and
I
think
that
was
only
that
was
only
one
aspect
of
us
trying
to
start
a
conversation
so
that
we
could
get
a
fair
deal
out
of
Auto
after
we
did
the
Fair
Deal
panel
all
across
the
province.
What
did
we
get?
Instead,
we
got
environment,
Minister,
Stephen
gubo,
and
what
has
he
done
since
he
got
into
the
position
of
environment
Minister?
U
Has
he
come
with
an
open
hand
and
say:
hey,
let's
work
together,
let's
try
to
find
ways
that
we
can
can
export
more
LNG.
Let's
find
ways
that
we
can
work
on
carbon
technology.
Let's
find
a
way
that
we
can
develop
the
hydrogen
economy.
Let's
work
together
on
getting
more
of
your
resources
to
Market,
no,
the
exact
opposite.
He
he
announced
an
edict
that
we
were
going
to
be
moving
to
a
an
electricity
grid
that
does
not
allow
for
any
fossil
fuel
base
power
to
be
on
that
grid.
After
2035.
U
we've
got,
90
percent
of
our
electricity
in
this
province
is
generated
by
natural
gas
and
the
cost
associated
in
this
short
period
of
time
of
trying
to
develop
new
power
with
with
carbon
with
carbon
technology
and
carbon
capture,
just
in
such
a
short
period
of
time
to
enable
more
of
that
development.
It's
it's.
This
is
too
short
a
time
frame
to
be
able
to
achieve
that.
U
What's
going
to
happen,
when
we
hit
2035
and
they're
now
telling
us,
we
can't
build
power
plants
when
we
talk
about
as
well,
they
came
in
and
said
you
we're
not
going.
They
want
a
phase
out
combustion
engine
Vehicles,
so
no
more
can
be
sold
after
2035
that
that's
only
13
years
away.
What
is
on
the
in
the
world
that
they
think
is
going
to
happen?
U
Has
the
call
have
they
even
talked
to
anybody
in
the
electricity
business
about
what
it
would
cost
to
upgrade
the
power
grid
in
order
to
put
more
to
put
a
hundred
percent
plug-in
vehicles
on
the
road
by
2035?
I
was
in
Wainwright
and
I
talked
to
somebody
who
wanted
to
put
two
two
Teslas
in
his
home.
It
would
have
cost
twenty
thousand
dollars
to
upgrade
the
electricity
system
just
to
plug
in
those
two
vehicles.
U
Our
current
electricity
system
only
allows
for
us
to
have
six
vehicles
on
a
single
block
plugged
in
before
all
of
a
sudden,
we
have
to
do
massive,
a
massive
investment
in
our
power
grid.
Are
they
even,
and
how
are
we
going
to
do
that?
If
the
federal
government
is
dictating
to
us
that
we're
not
allowed
to
add
new
power,
they
also
began
the
Justin.
R
U
They
also
began
the
just
transition
report,
a
task
force.
What
is
the
just
transition?
Well,
when
it
was
applied
to
co-workers
it
just
transition
co-workers
completely
out
of
work.
They
want
to
have
a
just
transition,
as
they
call
it
of
oil
and
natural
gas
workers
completely
out
of
the
business
as
well.
This
was
also
started
at
the
federal
level.
In
addition,
what
have
we
seen
as
we
were
going
through
our
leadership
contest?
They
announced
that
they
wanted
to
have
an
emissions
cap
on
fertilizer
of
30
percent.
They
put
a
warning
label
on
beef.
U
For
heaven's
sakes,
it
was
only
because
of
massive
pushback
on
the
industry
that
they
finally
relented
on
that
and
realized
that
they
had
to
consult
more
they've
announced
an
admissions
cap
just
prior
to
our
leadership
race,
even
being
over
we're
right
in
the
middle
of
choosing
a
new
premier
and
on
September
30th.
They
put
forward
a
policy
consultation
to
put
an
emissions
cap
on
our
oil
and
natural
gas
emissions
that
would
reduce
emissions.
42
percent
by
2030
right
in
the
middle
of
our
leadership
contest.
What
disrespect
for
our
process
this
year?
R
R
I
am
required
to
put
all
questions
to
the
assembly
to
to
dispose
of
the
items
before
the
assembly
with
respect
to
third
reading
of
Bill
one
Alberta
sovereignty
within
Canada
within
a
United
Canada
Act
on
the
amendment
h,
a
one
as
proposed
by
The
Honorable
member
for
Edmonton
Decor
on
behalf
of
the
honorable
official
opposition
house,
leader,
all
those
in
favor,
please
say
aye
and
he
opposed.
Please
say
no.
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
R
J
R
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
R
H
Thank
you,
Mr
Speaker.
A
lot
of
great
work
has
been
accomplished
this
evening,
I'd
like
to
congratulate
all
members
of
the
government
caucus
the
premier
and
passage
of
Bill,
one
and
I
look
forward
to
doing
more
great
work
on
behalf
of
our
burdens,
but
at
this
time,
I
move
that
we
that
the
assembly
adjourned
until
tomorrow
at
1,
30
PM
honorable.