►
Description
Legislative Assembly of Alberta
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
D
D
It
just
seems
a
little
bit
ridiculous
that
we
have
a
minister
assigned
to
something
that
every
Ministry
should
be
responsible
for
doing.
This
is
a
piece
of
legislation
that
impacts
Agriculture
and
Forestry
Municipal
Affairs
multiculturalism,
labor
and
immigration
service,
Alberta,
seniors
in
housing,
community
and
Social,
Services,
red
tape,
reduction,
infrastructure,
culture
and
justice.
D
D
We
are
are
very
concerned
that
the
minister
responsible
has
gone
up
in
the
house
and
talked
redrick
and
talked
about
not
not
not
anything
related
to
retroactive
pay,
but
what
he
hasn't
committed
to
is
is
providing
that
presumptive
coverage.
That
is,
retroactive,
which
is
really
concerning.
I
was
a
member
in
the
legislature
during
the
Fort
McMurray
fires.
D
I
had
friends
that
fought
in
the
fire
that
had
businesses
there
that
were
working
alongside
so
many
front
line,
desperate
to
keep
homes,
desperate
to
keep
property
and
then
hearing
their
incredibly
devastating
stories
of
so
many
that
fled
the
wildfires
and
then
to
not
honor
and
support
those
that
stayed
and
fought.
The
fires
is
unimaginable,
Mr,
Speaker,
and
so,
when
we've
continued
to
bring
forward
that
this
should
be
covered
and
it's
not
being
acknowledged,
and
it's
certainly
not
in
this
legislation.
D
It
is
concerning.
Now
it
has
one
Minister
responsible,
the
minister
for
service
Alberta
and
red
tape,
production
I'm
just
curious.
How
much
consultation
happened
with
the
other
Ministries
that
I
named
and
with
all
of
those
that
are
impacted,
because
when
you're
dealing
with
that
many
Ministries
Mr
Speaker
putting
forward
a
piece
of
legislation,
that's
a
lot
of
Consulting
that
needs
to
happen
and
I
I
would
love
to
hear
from
the
member
who's
been
chirping
about
what
kind
of
consultation
he
had
and
was
it
him?
D
D
This
government
will
tell
you
that
the
reason
is
because
it's
regarding
dangerous
offenders,
but
that's
not
what
this
legislation
does.
It
doesn't
discriminate.
It
says
warrants
period.
There
are
so
many
individuals
who
have
come
in
contact
with
the
justice
system
who
have
faced
barrier
after
barrier
after
barrier
and
now
we're
at
a
place
to
find
support.
D
I
can
tell
you
Mr
Speaker.
Sometimes
it
can
take
years
for
an
individual
to
be
able
to
have
the
capacity
to
reach
out
and
connect
with
someone
who
can
get
them
to
the
steps
of
income
support
and
once
they're
at
that
phase,
you
you
have
this
person
who's,
able
now
in
a
position
to
apply
for
income
support
and
then
to
have
them
denied
because
of
an
outstanding
warrant
is
ludicrous.
D
D
D
Now
the
minister
is
chirping
again
and
I
would
welcome
him
when
it's
his
time
to
speak,
to
stand
and
share
your
your
views
in
this
chamber,
but
you
know
it's
concerning
when
so
many
individuals
are
reaching
out
asking
for
ways
that
they
can
access
supports
for
their
loved
ones,
trying
to
find
a
landlord
that
will
rent
to
them
because
they've
been
unhoused
for
years
and
have
no
formal
reference
now.
What
would
that
look
like
Mr
Speaker?
If
not
only
do
they
not
have
a
formal
reference,
but
they
don't
have
income
support.
D
D
That
to
me
just
doesn't
make
sense.
Mr
Speaker
I
know
that
I
would
love
to
hear
from
the
minister
responsible
for
service,
Alberta
and
red
tape
reduction
to
not
talk
about
the
key
messaging.
That
he's
been
told.
He
should
say,
and
all
about
the
things
that
red
tape
is
going
to
do
and
but
talk
about
the
human
side
and
the
human
impact
that
these
decisions
in
this
legislation
is
making.
D
D
D
D
D
E
That
is
some
language
that
she
neglected
to
refer
to
and-
and
she
was
so
materially
inaccurate
in
her
assertion
about
what
this
bill
will
do-
that
I
just
felt
compelled
to
stand
up
and
correct
the
record
Mr
Speaker
for
those
watching
at
home.
What
is
this
about?
This
is
at
the
end
of
the
day.
This
is
about
dangerous
offenders.
E
E
The
the
members
opposite
are
trying
to
make
it
sound.
Like
every
person
who
has
ever
had
a
minor
brush
up
with
the
law
are
all
of
a
sudden
going
to
lose
access
to
income
support.
Nothing
could
be
further
from
the
truth.
Mr
Speaker.
This
legislation
is
designed
to
protect
albertans
from
the
most
dangerous
offenders.
Mr
Speaker.
We
have
a
track
record
of
making
great
progress
in
that
regard.
Mr
Speaker
many
in
this
house
will
remember
when
we
brought
forward
legislation
to
ensure
that
dangerous
offenders
and
sex
offenders
could
never
change
their
names.
E
F
Thank
you
very
much.
Mr
Speaker
I
am
very
happy
to
get
up
and
address
this
bill,
particularly
after
the
statement
we've
just
heard
from
the
minister
across,
because
what
we
just
heard
from
the
minister
is
wholly
inaccurate
and
it
will
take
the
time
to
talk
about
why
it
is
we're
really
concerned
about
this.
F
You
know
I
with
these
Omnibus
bills,
there's
always
a
problem.
You
know,
there's
there's
so
many
different
things
that
are
that
are
being
put
forward
here.
That
inevitably,
of
course,
I
support,
a
variety
of
them
they're.
You
know
just
minor
changes
or
they're
decent
changes
that
come
from
experience
and
I
and
I
support
that
kind
of
thing,
but
somehow
the
conservatives
always
manage
to
find
a
way
to
slip
in
a
poison
pill
which
just
makes
it
impossible
for
me
to
support
the
bill
overall,
and
this
is
this-
is
it
for
me
this?
F
Writing
of
this
novel
by
Victor
Hugo
over
160
years
ago
was
to
say
that
we
cannot
criminalize
poverty,
that
it
is
an
injustice
and
that
we
must,
whenever
somebody
commits
an
offense,
we
must
Endeavor
to
right
the
wrongs
to
invite
that
person
back
into
civil
society
and
give
them
the
wherewithal
and
the
abilities
to
integrate
back
into
the
society.
We
want
with
the
skills
and
the
resources
necessary
to
become
a
successful
member
of
society.
F
160
years
ago
it
was
identified
that
this
was
an
injustice
to
punish
people
continually
for
an
offense,
and
that's
essentially
what
this
section
of
the
bill
does
now
I
know
the
minister
exception
says:
oh,
this
isn't
going
to
be
used
on
everybody.
No,
nothing
is
used
on
everybody,
and
he
says
you
know,
don't
worry
about
it.
It'll
come
out
when
we
do
the
regulations
and
that's
when
we'll
talk
about
what
those
prescribed
offenses
are.
F
Our
point
is
that
he
had
the
choice
he
could
have
put
in
this
bill.
What
the
prescribed
offenses
are
that
will
this
will
be
used
against
and
he
chose
not
to
do
that.
It
would
have
been
no
problem
at
all
to
say
those
people
convicted
violent
offenses.
It
was
no
problem
at
all
to
say
it
is
people
that
have
used
a
weapon
in
their
offenses
or
any
of
other
number
of
descriptors.
They
were
all
possible.
It's
quite
easy
to
Define
terms
in
a
bill
like
this.
F
They
chose
not
to
do
that,
because
it
allows
them
to
stand
up
in
the
house
and
say
we
don't
mean
that
when,
in
fact
their
intention
is
to
do
exactly
that
later
on
and
that's
what
we
see
here,
we
see
that
this
is
a
bill
that
can
be
used
against
people
that
simply
did
not
have
the
money
to
either
pay
their
Their.
Fines
which
results
in
a
warrant
or
failed
to
attend
court
which
again
results
in
a
warrant.
F
They
know
this
is
going
to
happen
and
I
just
want
to
take
us
back
to
Victor
Hugo.
This
is
160
years
ago
that
in
Civil
Society
we
Define
the
notion
that
you
should
not
criminalize
poverty
that
we
need
to.
Instead,
we
need
to
use
these
opportunities
to
try
to
invite
people
back
into
the
good
society
that
we
are
trying
to
create
for
all
citizens.
F
Why
they
do
those
things
that
make
us
feel
uncomfortable
and
how
we
can
actually
change
the
way
we
engage
with
those
people
so
that
they
become
part
of
society
in
a
successful
way.
A
justice-based
model
that
Victor
Hugo
160
years
ago
was
asking
for
so
it
tells
you
how
far
back
this
government's
thinking
is
it's
more
than
160
years
old
and
we've
seen
this
time
and
time
again.
F
That
Canada
has
been
in
existence
and
have
asked
us
to
take
the
time
to
stop
and
consult
with
them
and
say:
is
this
going
to
be
used
in
a
way
that
is
going
to
be
terrible
for
your
community
and
if
it
is,
then
how
do
we
go
about
changing
it?
So
it
doesn't
do
that.
But
no
consultation
has
happened
with
the
indigenous
Community
I.
Don't
think
this
Minister
can
give
me
a
single
example
of
going
to
one
of
the
treaty
organizations
and
saying
we're
going
to
slip
this
into
the
bill.
F
Can
the
Treaty
Organization
tell
me
what
they
think
about
this
section
of
the
bill
and
what
are
the
concerns?
How
might
we
address
those
concerns
before
we
actually
write
the
bill
so
that
it
doesn't
have
a
differential
effect
on
indigenous
people
and
they
didn't
do
that?
They
failed
to
do
their
work.
They
failed
to
Define
it
properly
in
the
bill
and
now
they've
set
themselves
up,
so
I
have
no
choice
but
to
vote
against
this
bill,
because
I
absolutely
do
not
believe
in
the
criminalization
of
poverty.
F
I
do
believe
that
more
indigenous
people
are
in
jail
because
of
the
history
of
the
treatment
of
indigenous
people,
not
because
of
bad
choices
by
individuals,
because
it's
the
legacy
of
trauma.
It's
the
legacy
of
poverty.
It's
a
legacy
of
violence
that
has
resulted
in
the
situation
where
a
lot
of
indigenous
people
have
indeed
broken
the
law.
F
F
We're
going
to
punish
them
for
acting
out
the
legacy
of
his
history
of
colonization
and
traumatic
oppression
that
the
indigenous
people
have
experienced
here
in
this
province
again,
the
same
thing
that
we
have
argued
time
and
time
again
in
this
house.
If
you
simply
go
out
and
you
have
a
consultation-
and
you
want
to
do
this
kind
of
thing,
can
you
not
work
with
the
indigenous
Community
to
actually
look
at?
How
can
we
make
sure
we
can
write
this
in
such
a
way
that
it
actually
won't
become
a
weapon
against
the
indigenous
community?
F
Now
many
indigenous
Community
will
admit
that
there
there's
a
higher
rate
of
of
Acts
such
as
violence
perpetrated
by
indigenous
people
than
other
people
in
The
Province,
but
they
say
there's
a
reason
why
that
is
and
what
we
should
be
doing
is
creating
legislation
that
addresses
that
underlying
reason,
and
and
if
you
do
that,
if
you
actually
go
after
what?
What
is
the
cause
of
the
trauma?
How
do
the
people
respond
to
trauma?
How
do
we
get
them
to
get
to
a
place
where
they're
no
longer
responding
in
this
negative
kind
of
way?
F
Refused
our
bill
that
would
have
the
police
collect
race-based
data,
so
we
could
see
if
indeed,
this
kind
of
legislation
ended
up
by
being
imposed
against
indigenous
people
in
a
disproportionate
way
and
I
can
absolutely
guarantee
you
that
it
is
going
to
be,
and
I
can
absolutely
guarantee
you
that
the
indigenous
Community
will
feel
it
is
yet.
A
continuation
of
the
colonization
that
they've
experienced
in
this
country
for
many
years
and
so
I
cannot
in
good
faith,
support
this
bill,
even
though
there
are
other
things
in
this
bill
that
I'd
be
happy
to
have
happen.
F
I
wish
they
would
stop
putting
together
these
bills.
This
thing
they've
learned
from
the
Americans
that
put
all
these
disconnected
things
together,
so
that
that
you
can't
impose
one
piece
without
opposing
the
whole
bill
and
unfortunately
I'm
in
that
position
in
my
last
minute.
I
also
want
to
say
I'm
very
disappointed
on
The
Stance
with
regard
to
the
WCB.
F
Their
argument
has
simply
been
that
it
has
not
been
a
major
issue,
because
there
have
not
been
that
many
firefighters
that
have
died
so
far,
and
they
often
cite
the
number
of
one
and
my
position
is
always.
Are
you
telling
me
that
you
agree
with
the
principle,
but
it
hasn't
affected
enough
people
yet
for
you
to
care
and
I
want
to
know
how
many
people
have
to
die
before
you
care?
What's
the
number
give
me
the
number?
It's
not
one.
Apparently
it's
going
to
be
more,
it's
not
a
future
forward-looking
piece
of
legislation.
F
It's
saying
in
the
past.
It
wouldn't
have
had
that
much
effect.
It
certainly
would
have
had
the
effect
on
that
family
and
it
would
have
had
an
effect
and
all
the
other
ones
that
right
now
are
struggling
through
the
process
of
working
with
with
a
very
difficult
red
tape
process
at
WCB,
in
order
to
get
their
their
benefits
appropriately
forwarded
to
them
and
I
wish
this
government
would
take
the
chance
to
say:
look,
we
don't
want
people
to
be
in
that
place,
so
we'll
create
the
legislation
to
actually
make
it
possible.
F
Mr
Speaker
I've
been
very
concerned
about
that
approach.
This
government
has
taken
to
the
people
of
Alberta
and
the
very
deep
lack
of
compassion
for
the
experiences
they
have
and
the
lack
of
desire
to
create
structures
that
invite
people
to
the
greatest
level
of
success
and
fulfillment
of
their
desires
as
citizens
of
this
province,
I
certainly
wish
they
would
change
and
I
am
going
to
oppose
this
Bill.
Thank
you.
B
G
You
Mr
Speaker,
it's
an
honor
to
rise
to
speak,
to
propose
changes
to
bill
nine,
specifically,
the
proposed
changes
to
the
Public's
work,
Works
act,
working
with
the
ministry
of
service,
Alberta
and
red
tape
reduction.
Alberta
infrastructure
has
proposed
an
amendment
to
The
public's,
worked
at
that
will
expedite
regulations
and
allow
our
government
to
respond
to
changes
more
quickly
and
more
straightforwardly.
G
We
are
actively
listening
to
our
industry
partners
and
we
have
heard
their
feedback
it's
time
for
an
update
of
the
Public's
work
act
and
which
hasn't
been
updated
since
2010
and
A
lot's
changed
since
2010,
including
technology
and
process
improvements
within
the
construction
industry.
We
also
need
to
be
agile
and
able
to
change
with
the
times
so
section
34
the
Publix
worked
Act
currently
States
the
lieutenant
governor
and
Council
may
make
regulations
respecting
any
matters
that
the
lieutenant
governor
and
Council
considers
necessary
or
advisable
to
carry
out
effectively
the
intent
and
purpose
of
this
act.
G
G
That
can
be
a
long
process,
especially
when
the
whole
purpose
of
amending
a
regulation
is
to
provide
Clarity
and
streamline
regulatory
requirements
in
the
proposed
change
outlined
in
this
legislation.
The
regulation-making
Authority
will
be
updated
from
the
lieutenant
governor
and
Council
to
the
minister
responsible
for
the
Public's
Public
Works
act.
This
is
simple
change.
The
proposed
amendments
to
the
ACT
will
make
the
government's
regulation-making
process
faster
and
more
agile.
Any
future
changes
to
the
ACT
would
be
done
in
consultation
with
other
Ministries
and
partner
organizations.
That
would
be
impacted.
G
We're
also
working
with
the
minister
of
service
Alberta,
red
tape,
reduction,
who
is
leading
the
consultation
on
extending
the
rules
of
prompt
payment,
the
government
of
Alberta
projects
to
be
clear.
The
proposed
changes
in
bill
nine
do
not
consider
any
changes
to
the
prompt
pay,
construction,
lien
act,
but
Alberta
infrastructure
will
continue
to
work
with
partner
Ministries,
as
well
as
the
organizations
and
stakeholders
within
the
industry
to
explore
further
opportunities
to
reduce
red
tape
and
streamline
government
processes.
G
That
means
this
is
listening
to
feedback,
taking
a
good
look
at
how
we
currently
do
things
and
what
works
and
what
doesn't
in
end.
We
have
the
best
regulatory
environment
in
the
world
and
I
do
believe
we're
on
our
way
there.
But
now
we
need
to
prioritize
relationships
between
the
government
and
Industry.
G
This
Mr
Speaker
is
a
small,
achievable
change
in
the
Public's
Works
act
and
is
an
excellent
first
step
to
fulfilling
our
commitments
by
listening
to
Alberta's
construction
industry
and
acting
I'm,
confident
that
the
changes
that
we
are
proposing
at
bill,
nine
will
expedite
the
making
of
regulations
and
allow
government
to
respond
to
changes
more
quickly.
Helping
Alberta
infrastructure
and
Industry
Partners
to
deliver
public
infrastructure
safely
on
time
and
on
budget.
Thank
you,
Mr
Speaker.
H
You
Mr
Speaker,
it's
my
pleasure
to
join
the
debate
on
Bill
nine
red
tape,
reductions,
statutes,
memonac
2023,
and
this
is
an
Omnibus
Bill,
which
you
know
we're
pretty
pretty
used
to
from
the
UCP
government.
I
mean
they're
often
used
to
be
some
some
decorum
in
that
you
know
not
putting
15
pieces
of
legislation
in
one
bill,
but
the
UCP
does
this
repeatedly,
and
certainly
if
the
NDP
did
that
in
government,
they
were
often
outraged
and
said.
It
was
too
much
to
having
one
bill
and
we
need
to
debate
these
bills
separately,
but
cavalierly.
H
You
know
we
get
these
bills
all
the
time
with
this
government,
so
certainly
they
are
having
I
guess
no
integrity
and
their
concerns
that
they
presented
previously.
So
yes,
it's
an
Omnibus
Bill
and
you
know
I,
like
my
colleagues,
the
MLA
from
Castle,
dads
and
MLA
from
Rutherford.
You
know
if
we're
looking
specifically
at
one
piece
of
this
legislation,
the
part
that
a
man's
income
support.
H
It
is
about
the
criminalization
of
poverty,
which
is
what
this
bill
does,
and
my
colleague
spoke
very
well
about
that
and
I
know
that
the
minister
of
technology
and
Innovation
stood
up
and
very
forcefully
indicated.
No.
No,
no,
it's
not
just
about
warrants
it's
about
violent
offenders
and
that's
who
this
is
about
and
that's
who
we
would
deny
Income
Support
to
but
gosh.
You
know
when
I
look
in
here
it
doesn't
say
anything
about
violent
offenders.
H
On
page
21,
it
says
the
director
must
subject
to
the
regulations,
refused
to
provide
income,
support
and
benefits
to
an
applicant
or
recipient
under
part.
Two
division,
one
when
notified
that
a
warrant
for
the
arrest
of
the
applicant
or
recipient
has
been
issued
in
respect
to
prescribed
defense
and
the
warrant
has
been
not
been
executed.
Nothing
about
these
are
warrants
for
violent
offenders,
so
if,
indeed
that
was
the
intent
of
the
government,
then
why
is
it
not
here?
H
H
Because
this
gives
the
government
a
wide
birth
to
do
whatever
they
want
with
folks
who
happen
to
be
poor
happen
to
be
people
who
are
receiving
income
support,
so
we
can
deny
them
that
if
they
have
a
warrant
of
any
kind,
this
is
not
specific
at
all,
and
so
it
definitely
is
the
criminalization
of
poverty,
but
I
just
want
to
ask
the
government
like
why
stop
there?
Why
not
people
who
are
in
Alberta
seniors
benefit-
or
perhaps
that's
already
included
in
here
and
I-
haven't
read
all
the
sub
sections?
That's
Income
Support!
H
What
about
people
in
age?
Why
aren't
they
included
in
here?
I
mean?
Why
don't
you
just
go
for
it
and
take
a
whole
bunch
of
people
off
if
this
is
what
you
want,
but
why
are
you
picking
on
this
particular
group
of
people?
Can
you
help
me
know
that
you
know,
or
why
do
you
deny
other
people
other
services
the
government
gives?
Why
don't
you
take
people
who
need
some
kind
of
health
support
they?
They?
You
know
need
to
go
to
the
hospital,
but
they
have
a
warrant
out.
Well,
they
can't
go
to
a
hospital.
H
Why
are
you
picking
on
people
in
Income
Support?
Perhaps
the
minister
responsible
can
explain
that
to
us,
because
it
does
definitely
definitely
look
like
it
is
focusing
on
people
who
are
vulnerable.
You
know
the
people
who
aren't
income
support,
they
need
food,
they
need
shelter,
they
often
need
personal
items.
Sometimes
medical
and
other
benefits.
Oftentimes
they're
supporting
children,
a
lot
of
times,
they're
women
and,
as
my
honorable
colleague
from
Rutherford,
talked
about
a
lot
of
times.
They
are
indigenous
people
and
that's
because
of
our
Legacy
of
colonization,
something
that
you
know.
H
So
it
doesn't
make
any
sense
that
someone
is
struggling
and
he
may
have
a
warrant
out
that
they
would
be
denied
funding
for
food,
shelter,
clothing.
These
are
the
basics,
it
is
unfair
and
it's
not
very
becoming
of
a
government
that
repeatedly
says
we
care
about
our
most
vulnerable
I.
Don't
see
that
I
see
a
barrier
after
barrier
going
up
in
front
of
people
who
are
struggling
in
our
Province,
and
you
know:
I
really
challenge
the
government
to
make
some
sense
of
this.
Have
the
minister
speak
about
this?
H
Why,
specifically,
are
you
saying
this
for
people
who
are
on
income
support?
What's
the
rationale
for
that?
You
know
why
not
deny
all
public
servants
to
albertans
with
warrants.
If
that's
what
you
want
to
do,
why
are
you
picking
on
this
group
of
people
and
then
another
section
later
on
in
this
legislation?
Still
on
page
21,
it
says
there
people
are
authorized.
You
know
the
minutes
responsible
set
for
schedule.
Nine
to
the
government
organization.
H
Act
is
authorized
to
disclose
information,
including
personal
information,
for
the
purposes
of
section
15.1,
so
personal
information
can
be
shared
of
these
people.
Well,
usually,
there's
a
pretty
high
bar
of
private
information
is
not
disclosed,
and
just
because
someone
is
on
income
support
doesn't
mean
that
their
information
should
be
shared
with
other
authorities.
H
Why
is
it
that
people
who
are
poor
all
of
a
sudden
don't
have
rights
like
the
rest
of
us,
I'm,
hoping
the
minister
did
his
due
diligence
and
talk
with
the
Privacy
commissioner
about
this
legislation
and
that
indeed,
that
that
was
seen
as
following
the
rules
regarding
that
because
in
my
you
know,
reading
of
that
it
seems
like
that
should
be
not
done.
People
need
to
be
their
confidentiality
needs
to
be
respected,
so
it
is
again
just
about
taking
away
the
rights
of
people
who
are
poor
and
I.
H
You
know
I
know
the
government
does
repeatedly
say
that
they
want
to
support
vulnerable
people
in
our
society,
but
this
legislation
is
showing
us
very
clearly
that
it's
not,
and
some
of
the
rationale
that
was
explained
by
the
minister
of
technology
and
Innovation
was
that
it
was
because
you
know
we
don't
want
to
be
supporting
people
who
are
violent.
Offenders
well
I,
agree
with
that,
but
why
doesn't
the
legislation
say
that
it
doesn't
say
that
at
all
it
just
says
someone
with
a
warrant.
H
So
it's
gone
far
beyond
what
the
minister
has
indicated,
and
you
know
I
just
wonder
why
this
particular
program,
this
particular
Income,
Support
Program,
is
being
targeted
for
this
type
of
disclosure
and
denial
of
services.
I
mean
it
just
absolutely
seems
abhorrent
and
unfair
for
the
people
who
are
poor
in
our
Province
and
certainly
as
a
social
worker
for
more
than
30
years.
H
You
know
my
job
has
been
to
take
down
those
barriers
and
having
worked
within
governments,
programs
and
without
those
were
some
of
the
biggest
challenges
was
the
uncaring
government
that
did
not
want
to
really
support
people.
They
wanted
to
judge
people
who
were
poor,
judge
people
who
maybe
were
victims
of
domestic
violence.
Judge
people
who
you
know
were
newcomers
because,
and
they
didn't
always
speak
the
language
and
they
had
barriers
to
employment
and
therefore
lived
in
poverty.
H
So
I
I
worked
my
life
to
make
sure
that
people
had
access,
but
I,
see
a
government
here
who
says
one
thing
and
does
another,
and
certainly
we
can
see
it
very
clearly
with
their
decisions
around
the
opiate
crisis,
our
drug
poisoning
crisis
in
our
Province.
They
make
it
harder
and
harder
for
people
to
even
stay
alive
at
by
closing
of
supervised
consumption
sites,
the
reduction
of
harm
reduction
and
the
moving
of
Edmonton's
detox
way
out
to
Alberta
Hospital,
making
it
so
hard
for
people
to
access
that.
H
So
you
know,
despite
some
of
the
words
of
the
government,
that
they
want
to
support
people
to
overcome
these
challenges.
Really
you
know
if
you
look
closely,
you
see
how
they
are
actually
impeding
people
from
overcoming
the
challenges
that
are
facing
them.
So
certainly
it
is
disturbing
to
me
to
see
a
government
Target
this
particular
program
and
I.
You
know,
as
I
said
and
I'm,
of
course
facetious
in
my
comments
about
well.
Why
don't
we?
H
Just
not
let
people
use
the
health
system
if
they've
got
a
warrant,
but
of
course
not
all
people
who
use
the
health
system
are
poor.
Some
of
them
are
for
sure,
so
I
really
asked
the
government
to
think
about
why
they
would
leave
out
that
very
specific
information.
You
know
about
violent
offenders
and
just
put
a
general
warrant.
H
Anyone
with
a
warrant
can
be
denied
financial
support,
and
just
why
is
that
not
clear-
or
perhaps
you
know,
sadly,
I'm
right
and
my
colleagues
are
correct
and
that
this
government
really
doesn't
want
to
support
the
most
vulnerable.
People
wants
to
make
life
harder
for
people
who
are
vulnerable,
and
you
know
that
is
a
sad
day,
but
it
seems
like
we're
at
that
sad
day
and
I.
Think
with
that
Mr
Speaker
I'll
end.
My
comments
are.
I
Thank
you,
Mr
Speaker
that
eyes
to
speak
to
bill
nine,
which
is
the
reduction
Amendment
statute.
Amendment
act
2023,
and
this
is
again
in
Omnibus
piece
of
legislation
that
demands
15
pieces
of
legislation
and
I.
Don't
know
whether
it
reduces
red
tape
or
not,
but
it's
certainly
reduces
debate
in
this
house
curtails
debate
in
this
house.
Many
of
the
changes
contain
in
it
could
be
Standalone
pieces
of
legislation
worth
over
time.
I
We
all
know
that
Ford
McMurray
fire
was
one
of
divorce
natural
disaster
in
Alberta's
history
in
many
Brave
firefighters,
First
Responders
put
themselves
in
the
hard
way
to
save
people
and
Fort
McMurray
to
save
Fort
McMurray,
and
they
deserve
to
be
recognized
for
that.
They
deserve
to
be
compensated
for
the
harm
that
resulted
as
as
a
result
of
them
engaged
in
that
fighting
they're
engaged
in
fighting
that
fire
and
recently
Ontario
made
that
coverage
retroactive
retroactive
to
1960.
I
I.
Think
Alberta
can
certainly
do
that
and
no
one
who
was
engaged
in
that
fire
should
have
to
fight
for
WCB
and
how
they
got
that
cancer,
so
they
deserve
better
than
this.
So
we
will
be
introducing
an
amendment
later
on
to
make
those
changes
retroactive
as
it
stands
now
that
change
doesn't
go
far
enough.
I
I
Government
was
asked
if
they
have
consulted
with
anyone
from
City
of
Calgary
any
other
city
that
was
getting
impacted
and
there
was
no
answer.
They
used
their
majority
to
run
through
that
change,
and
now
all
they
are
doing
they
are
reversing
their
own
bad
decision.
That
was
bad
then,
and
there
we
opposed
then.
So
it's
a
good
change
government
should
not
have
done
it
in
the
first
place.
I
Another
change
that
my
colleagues
talked
about
and
minister
of
service
Alberta
technology
responded
to
that
as
well,
that
the
director
must
subject
to
the
regulation,
refused
to
provide
income,
support
and
benefit
to
an
applicant,
a
recipient
and
a
part,
two
division,
one.
When
notified
that
a
warrant
for
the
last
of
the
applicant,
our
recipient,
has
been
issued
in
respect
of
a
prescribed
offense
and
the
warrant
has
not
been
executed.
I
I
I
B
Honorable
members
are
there
others
seeing
none.
I
am
prepared
to
call
on
the
minister
to
close
debate.
The
Honorable,
the
minister
service
operator,
red
tea
production,
is
waived.
Closure
of
debate
on
the
question
before
the
assembly
for
second
reading
of
Bill
nine
red
tape,
reduction,
statutes,
Amendment
act,
2023,
all
those
in
favor
of
the
motion
for
second
reading,
please
say
aye
and
imposed.
Please
say
no,
in
my
opinion,
the
eyes
have
it:
the
ocean
is
carried
and
so
ordered.
B
J
Of
course,
we
are
just
on
the
cusp
of
a
an
election
and
the
UCP
government
arms
themselves
with
a
1.4
billion
dollar
one
term
one-time
spending
bill
in
this
bill
tent,
and
it
seems
like
it's
fairly
obvious
that
opportunity
for
the
government
to
try
to
buy
their
way
into
the
next
election,
and
so
I
mean
I.
Think
that
albertans
have
been
observing
this
government
in
engaged
in
this
kind
of
activity
already
with
this
budget
that
they
just
put
forward.
J
It's
a
a
substantial
budget,
you
know,
and
and
completely
yet,
of
keeping
with
the
language
and
the
direction
that
this
government
has
used
over
the
last
three
and
a
half
years
and
then
with
an
about
turn
of
a
quite
a
substantial
budget.
If
it's
just
on
the
floor
here
now
and
then
plus
another
1.4
billion
dollars
activated
for
one
time
spending
you
know,
presumably
to
try
to
cover
whatever
places
the
government
desperately
will
try
to
look
to
buy
the
favor
of
of
albertans,
and
so
I
mean.
J
This
is
wrong
line,
a
number
of
different
fronts:
Mr
Speaker,
not
the
least
of
which,
being
that
you
know,
we
are
entrusted
to
ensure
that
we
spent
money
on
for
the
people
of
Alberta
and
for
saving
for
the
future,
for
the
people
of
Alberta
and
stewards
of
both
the
land
and
the
resources
that
we
have
here
within
our
boundaries
and
and
so
on.
And
so
this
whole
idea
of
rushing
to
election
spending
within
a
few
weeks
right
is
probably
goes
on
the
wrong
side
of
all
of
those
principles.
J
All
of
those
responsible
things
that
this
house
and
this
members
of
this
house
should
observe
the
idea
of
thoughtful
spending
and
saving
over
time,
the
concept
of
ensuring
that
you
are
just
an
equal
in
the
dispensation
of
those
funds
or
the
saving
of
those
funds
or
the
preservation
of
the
resources
that
we
have
available
to
us.
None
of
those
things
happen
with
this
built-in.
Quite
the
opposite.
You
it's
like
you're,
opening
up
the
floodgates
to
just
desperately
try
to
cover
off
whatever
the
government
thinks
that
they
can
deal
with
in
the
last.
J
J
I
think
and
I
really
don't
think
that
that
there
was
anything
that
resembles
the
consultation
on
that,
but
you
can
always
try
I
suppose
and
I
would
ask
the
government
who
they
I
did
ask
that
they
thought
that
that
was
such
a
good
idea
and
really
you
know
to
what
ends.
Besides
the
naked,
you
know
attempt
to
buy
people's
votes
before
an
election.
J
You
know,
that's
really
just
so
obvious,
and
you
know
when
I've
been
out
talking
to
albertans
Across
The
Province
in
all
over
the
place.
Really.
This
is
the
recurring
theme
that
I
hear
from
people
and
is
that
they
will
say
some
version
of
like
do
the
UCP.
Take
us
to
be
fools
right.
Do
they
think
that
we
are
so
easily
bought?
Do
they
think
that
we
can't
remember
what
happened
in
the
last
thousand
days
or
more?
You
know
that
suddenly
is
erased
in
the
last.
J
You
know,
60
days
before
an
election
I
mean
all
of
those
things
are
just.
You
know
that
people
take
offense
to
it
and,
of
course
you
don't
have
to
even
remind
people,
but
it
Bears
reminding
that
it's
not
the
government's
money
either.
It's
the
people
of
Alberta's
money
in
the
first
place,
and
so
you
know
being
try
to
buy
the
favor
of
someone
with
their
own
money
right
again.
It
doesn't
feel
it
feels
bad.
J
It
feels
dirty
and
it
doesn't
concur
with
the
best
practices
of
democracy
or
of
what's
common
sense
tells
you
is
right
or
wrong
is
quite
frankly,
so
so
those
are
the
things
that
I'm
hearing
and
then
you
know
that
was
before
built-in
came
out
so
I
mean
Lord
knows
what
they're
gonna
think
about
now
right.
That
was
just
one
the
budget
and
then,
of
course,
this
amendment
Act
is
clarifying
some
of
the
just
the
depths
to
which
this
budget
does
head
down.
That
path.
J
I
mean
there
are
other
sections
in
here
that
I
really
don't
have
much
of
a
problem
with
right,
but
you
know
that's
again,
as
my
honorable
colleague
Femme
Evanson
Riverview
described.
Is
that
say
you
know
you
have
these
these
bills,
with
many
different
facets
to
them
and
Lauren
dollars
to
Donuts
there'll
be
one
element
in
there.
That's
completely
negates
all
the
other
things
and
makes
it
impossible
to
support
that
bill.
J
In
this
case,
it's
the
Alberta
fund,
1.4
billion
dollar
one-time
spending
spending
powers
that
this
bill
does
give
us
I
mean
the
other
sections
that
I
do
see
here
just
off
hand.
I
mean
the
thing
that
jumps
out
at
me
was.
You
know,
of
course,
with
the
Alberta
Heritage
savings
fund,
right
trust,
fund
acts
and
I
have
sat
on
that
board
previously
and
presently
and
I
did.
J
You
know
under
a
much
more
prudent
and
reasonable
government
that
started
the
Heritage
Trust
Fund
Concepts,
and
you
know
it's
not
just
to
save
money
for
the
future.
It
also
helps
to
pay
for
budgets
every
single
year,
because
you
get
interest
off
that
you
can
use
that
interest
to
pay
for
programs
that
we
all
benefit
from
and,
of
course
it
does
create
a
a
rainy
day
fund.
It
has
an
odd
added
benefit
too.
J
No
problem
right.
So
so
these
are
the
the
initial
flats
that
I've
had
around
and
Bill
10
I
think
that
we
we
can
be
looking
at
it.
Of
course,
there's
more
than
just
me
around
here.
So
we
can
hear
from
other
people
to
see
if
the
analysis
proves
correct.
But
you
know
it
does
have
that
glaring
Alberta
funds
section
9
in
there,
that
this
race
is
very
large
red
flags
for
not
just
the
official
opposition,
but
the
general
public
economists
and
and
anyone
who's
concerned
about
the
the
future
of
our
Province
here.
J
K
Amendments
within
this
piece
of
legislation.
Now,
when
we
look
at
even
the
Alberta
dot
CA
the
Alberta
government's
website
recognizing
some
of
the
changes
that
are
being
proposed
in
here
specifically
on
this
act.
A
few
points
down.
We
see
that
this
act
will
set
policy
for
the
allocation
of
surplus
cash
with
at
least
half
going
toward
debt.
K
Repayment
I
think
that's
fair,
Mr
Speaker
reading
past
that
the
rest
would
be
allocated
to
a
new
Alberta
fund,
which
should
be
used
only
to
fund
additional
contributions
to
the
Alberta
Heritage
savings
trust
fund,
fair
and
beyond
that
additional
debt,
repayment
and
one-time
spending
initiatives.
So
that
is
where
the
previous
member
spoke
to,
where
I
also
have
concerns
this
idea
of
one-time
spending
initiatives
I.
K
Think
that
again,
we
should
be
doing
everything
we
can
to
be
transparent
and
accountable
with
the
dollars
that
we
are
spending
across
this
province,
especially
or
or
when
we
see
ourselves
in
in
an
opportunity
for
Surplus
and
of
course,
this
government
has
found
themselves
with
a
surplus,
primarily
the
majority
of
the
reason
being
the
price
of
oil,
and
so
again,
that's
fair.
We,
we
should
be
considering
how
we
are
spending
those
funds,
but
the
fact
is:
there's
been
so
many
opportunities
for
this
government
to
invest
in
stability
in
this
province.
K
Unfortunately,
we
see
this
government
going
down
the
path
of
one-time
spending
initiatives,
starting
April
1st
right
before
an
election,
Mr,
Speaker
and
I
think
that
we've
heard
previously,
whether
from
this
Premier
or
the
previous
Premier
under
the
UCP,
the
importance
of
of
not
spending
government
dollars
during
or
close
to
an
election
cycle.
And
unfortunately,
we
see
this
government
going
down
that
path
with
absolutely
zero
accountability
for
those
dollars.
K
You
know
I,
think
back
to
some
of
the
other
decisions
that
this
government
has
made
primarily
looking
at
decisions
of
this
education
Minister
around
the
complete
lack
of
funding,
specific
to
Edmonton,
Public,
School
Board.
And
of
course
you
know
that
goes
goes
past.
Just
our
Edmonton
Public
School
border
goes
to
the
Catholic
School
Board
in
Edmonton.
K
It
goes
to
municipalities
across
the
province
and
the
school
boards
that
have
the
important
work
of
funding
education
across
the
province
and,
unfortunately,
this
government
has
done
anything
but
support
those
initiatives
of
building
new
schools,
of
ensuring
that
there's
a
dollars
to
put
teachers
in
those
classrooms
and
again
I.
Think
back
to
the
rhetoric
of
the
education,
Minister
and
Mr
Speaker,
coming
back
to
Bill.
K
K
I'll
do
my
best
to
be
quick,
but
just
thinking
back
to
our
investments
in
education
and
and
two
schools
in
Edmonton
specific
to
the
public
school
board,
I
mean
we
saw
the
funding
for
Elita
Patterson
Alex
janvier
Garth
Worthington
Dr
Ann
Anderson,
Thelma,
shalofu,
Soraya,
Hafiz,
Jan
Reimer
Kim
hung
Sean,
Seneca
Michael
Fair
Donald,
Getty,
Mr,
Speaker,
I'm,
close
I
promise,
Sven
Hansen
and
David
Thomas
King
Leela
fallman
Hillary
Hamden,
Constable,
Daniel,
Woodall,
Iver
Dent.
These
are
all
schools
that
were
funded
by
our
government.
Some
of
them
were
modernizations.
K
Many
of
them
were
brand
new
schools
and,
while
I
appreciate
some
of
these
schools
were
finished
under
this
UCP
government
and
they
would
love
to
take
credit
for
that.
In
fact,
they
were
funded
completely
by
our
government,
and
so
when
albertans
go
to
tally
up
how
many
schools
you
know
we
can
look
at
my
community.
The
minister
I
believe
two
years
ago
committed
one
Catholic
School
to
be
built
and
now
that's
set
for
2627.
They
haven't.
This
UCP
government
hasn't
even
been
able
to
build
one
school
in
my
community
in
their
entire
term.
K
But
instead
this
government
is
going
to
take
it
upon
themselves
to
create
a
1.4
billion
dollar
slush
fund
named
the
Alberta
fund,
Mr
Speaker,
and
spend
that
as
they
see
fit
right
before
an
election.
And
so
it's
it's
deeply
concerning
to
me,
because
there's
no
accountability
here
again:
Mr
Speaker,
we
don't
know
what
criteria
this
government
is
planning
to
use.
K
There
is
no
assurances
that
is
going
to
be
dispersed
equally
across
the
province
or
or
used
on
the
communities
with
the
most
need
out
there,
and
instead
we
are
left
to
guess
at
what
this
money
is
going
to
be
spent
on
and
again
when
we
look
at
the
timeline
for
this,
the
lack
of
criteria,
it
sure
seems
like
this
government
is
going
to
use
it
as
an
opportunity
to
get
themselves
re-elected
and
I.
Don't
think
that
that
is
how
we
should
be
spending
albertan's
dollars
across
this
province.
K
K
Who
shouldn't
have
seen
schools
not
being
built?
And
now
this
government
has
found
themselves
in
a
surplus
situation
because
of
all
those
cuts
that
they've
made
and
they
are
going
to
be
unaccountable
in
how
they
spend
the
the
money
that
has
been
left
over.
And
so,
as
the
previous
member
from
Edmonton
Northwest,
said.
I
think
that
there's
pieces
within
this
legislation
that
are
reasonable
and
potentially
tackling
some
of
the
more
housekeeping
issues
that
have
been
brought
forward
to
them
from
from
stakeholders
and
I
can
appreciate
that.
K
D
Those
are
the
values
that
we
hold.
Those
are
the
the
policies
that
we
want
to
see
brought
into
place
that
actually
make
a
difference
for
albertans
who
are
struggling,
Mr
Speaker
and
instead
we're
in
the
chamber
tonight
at
10
to
9
talking
about
a
piece
of
legislation
that
essentially
gives
1.4
billion
dollars
of
slush
funds
for
this
government
to
buy
votes.
D
Now
that
is
such
a
huge
contrast
between
what
both
parties
are
talking
about.
I
hear
members
on
this
side
of
the
chamber.
Talking
about
wanting
to
make
sure
that
we
leave
this
place,
leaving
Alberta
a
better
place
and
I'm
incredibly
privileged
to
stand
alongside
these
members
that
are
sharing
tonight
and
have
shared
for
the
last
eight
years
that
I've
been
elected
and
it
it
it.
D
It
gives
me
strength,
Mr
Speaker,
to
speak
about
what
matters
to
have
this
piece
of
legislation
before
us
tonight
is
is
quite
frustrating
when
we
know
that
this
government
isn't
fooling
Alberta
when
they're
putting
in
a
1.4
billion
dollar
election
campaign,
slash
fund,
section
9,
creates
the
Alberta
fund.
That's
what
this
government's
focusing
on.
This
government
is
focusing
on
trying
to
to
buy
Alberta's
votes.
D
D
D
D
That
has
more
than
one
portfolio
being
impacted,
and
it's
it's
a
it's
a
little
slip
in
in
the
legislation
that
they're
hoping
that
that
people
won't
pay
attention
to.
There
are
pieces
of
this
legislation
that
that
makes
sense
the
Children's,
Services
peace
culture
has
some
some
good
things
in
there,
but
there's
two
major
pieces
of
this
that
are
quite
concerning
and
I
think
that
it
it
creates
some
significant
questions
when
we
see
a
government
giving
themselves
a
slush
fund
and
calling
it
The
Alberta
fund.
D
This
money
that
they're
allocating
could
have
been
spent
in
so
many
other
ways:
Mr
Speaker
we're
in
a
health
care
crisis.
Despite
what
this
government
and
Premier
continue
to
say,
isn't
true.
We've
heard
heartbreaking
stories
from
all
across
the
province
of
people
that
haven't
been
able
to
access
a
family
doctor
for
years,
people
that
are
waiting
incredible
amounts
of
time
for
surgeries
hospitals
that
don't
have
Physicians
ERS
that
are
shut
down.
D
D
We
have
watched
for
four
years
as
they've
attacked
doctors
as
they
fired
educational
workers
as
they
refuse
to
listen
to
nurses
and
Health
Care
practitioners
instead
they're
making
sure
that
their
friends
are
taken
care
of,
and
this
piece
of
legislation
allows
them
to
do.
Just
that
effective
April,
1st
they're
able
to
use
taxpayer
money
called
the
Alberta
fund
to
fund
one-time
initiatives
for
or
one
one-time
funding
announcements.
D
D
The
cost
of
tuition
has
gone
up
under
this
government.
The
cost
of
living
in
general
has
gone
up.
This
government
brags
about
their
affordability.
Well,
it
doesn't
impact
post-secondary
students.
They
have
no
access
to
that
money.
If
they
do
not
have
a
child,
they
don't
get
access
to
it.
If
they
don't
drive
a
car,
they
can't
access
that.
L
D
But
I
would
argue
that
1.4
billion
dollars
for
a
slush
fund
is
a
desperate
attempt
from
the
premier
in
the
UCP
to
campaign
on
taxpayer
dollars
and
I.
Think
that
albertans
know
what
this
is
about.
Mr
Speaker,
they
see
they
see
the
announcements
with
no
funding
behind
them.
They
see
these
these
statements
from
governments
that
that
they're
they're
helping
the
health
care
crisis
is
over.
D
M
Well,
thank
you,
Mr
Speaker.
It's
a
pleasure
to
rise
this
evening
and
defend
Bill
10
and
talk
about
Bill
10
and
the
merits
of
Bill
10.
I
monitorized
to
discuss
the
financial
statutes
amendment
to
act.
2023,
Mr,
Speaker,
we'll
start
with
record
spending
in
health
care
to
province-wide
affordability,
measures.
Budget
2023
focuses
on
securing
Alberta's
future
for
generations
to
come.
M
Mr,
Speaker
and
I'm,
proud
of
that
by
growing
the
economy,
creating
good
paying
jobs
and
I
think
that
the
Minister
of
Finance
said
today
there's
a
hundred
thousand
jobs
waiting
for
people
to
come
to
Alberta
to
fill,
and
that's
just
the
start.
Mr
Speaker
I'm,
proud
of
that
by
strengthening
education
by
expanding
Health,
Care
keeping
communities
safe
budget
2023
addresses
many
of
the
most
urgent
needs.
M
M
albertans
deserves
stability
and
confidence
in
the
fact
that,
no
matter
what
storms
we
face
in
the
future,
we
will
be
as
prepared
as
possible.
As
we've
learned
through
this
this
term.
We
can't
predict
the
future.
We
don't
know
what's
coming
next,
but
we
can
do
everything
in
our
power
to
ensure
albertans
are
taken
care
of
No
Matter
What
challenges
may
come
their
way.
M
Revenue
and
I'd
be
the
first
person
to
say
that
oil
Revenue
certainly
helped
there's
no
question,
but
that
is
not
the
only
reason
that
we
balance
the
budget.
We
balance
the
budget
because
we
met
exercised
a
measure
of
fiscal
discipline
unknown
in
the
four
years
before
our
office
and
I'm,
proud
of
that
I'm,
proud
that
our
finance
minister
I
would
argue
the
best
Finance
Minister
in
Alberta's
history.
M
He
put
in
these
fiscal
rules
he
put
in
these
fiscal
anchors
at
a
time
when
it
was
extremely
volatile
and
uncertain
at
a
time
when
we
were
paying
other
jurisdictions
to
take
our
oil.
We
still
stayed
the
course
and,
as
a
result,
we
balanced
not
one
budget,
Mr
Speaker,
but
two
back-to-back
budgets
setting
a
record
in
a
trend
that
we
hope
will
continue
and
that's
what
Bill
10
is
all
about
is
encouraging
and
setting
guidelines
for
other
governments.
M
Future
governments
to
be
held
to
that
same
account
for
the
benefit
not
of
us
Mr
Speaker,
but
of
future
Generations,
which
is
why
we're
all
here
ultimately
albertans
deserve
to
know
that
their
future
is
secure
and
grounded
in
fiscal
responsibility,
preparedness
and
stability.
And
that's
what
Bill
10
is
about
Mr
Speaker.
It
proposes
a
new
fiscal
framework
that
will
provide
exactly
that.
M
The
proposed
proposed
framework
would
limit
expense
increases,
except
where
there
are
unexpected
and
uncontrollable
circumstances,
something
like
a
global
pandemic,
which
hopefully,
we
won't
see
again
for
a
very
long
time.
Mr
Speaker
setting
limits
would
allow
the
government
to
continue
focusing
on
improving
programs
and
services,
while
ensuring
alberton's
hard-earned
tax
dollars
are
spent
wisely.
M
Aside
from
certain
defined
exceptions
and
I
wanted
to
stress
that
word
defined
exceptions,
Bill
10
will
require
all
future
governments
to
balance
the
budget
and
use
surpluses
to
First
pay
down
debt
and
then
save
for
the
future.
I
think
that's
critical,
Mr
Speaker.
If
past
administrations
had
focused
on
paying
down
debt,
we
wouldn't
be
in
the
position
where
we're
in
today
and
I'm,
proud
of
the
record
of
this
government
and
the
work
that
we've
done
to
start.
M
M
Ultimately,
Bill
10
would
bring
more
stability
to
the
financial
Outlook
of
Alberta's
government
and
position
our
Province
for
a
bright
future
and,
as
our
finance
minister
has
said
many
times,
Alberta's
brightest
days
are
ahead
and
I
believe
that
Mr
Speaker
I'm
proud
to
say
that
I'm
thrilled
to
say
that
we've
seen
some
great
days
in
this
province
in
the
26
years,
I've
lived
in
this
province.
There's
been
some
tremendous
tremendous
days,
but
our
best
days
are
still
ahead.
M
That
gives
me
a
tremendous
amount
of
Hope
Mr
Speaker
in
addition
to
implementing
a
new
fiscal
framework
to
secure
Alberta's
future
prosperity.
Bill
10
also
proposes
several
amendments
that
address
numerous
other
concerns.
We've
heard
from
albertans
Bill
10,
if
passed,
would
Implement
measures
from
budget
2023
to
help
build
fiscal
stability,
attract
investment,
attract
more
investment,
Mr
Speaker,
because
we're
already
actively
attracting
and
successfully
attracting
investment
support.
M
Children
and
Families
cut
more
red
tape,
improve
provincial
funding
mechanisms
and
make
life
more
affordable
for
students
to
start
Bill
10
proposes
amendments
to
allow
the
Heritage
fund
to
retain
all
of
its
net
income.
That
is
remarkable,
Mr
Speaker
right
now,
as
the
legislation
sits,
it
requires
a
portion
of
the
Heritage
fund's
net
income
to
be
kept
in
the
fund
to
protect
against
inflation.
M
M
Had
we
kept
all
of
the
previous
earnings
in
the
fund
from
day
one
instead
of
18
billion
that
we
currently
have
in
the
Alberta
Heritage
savings
trust
fund
wait
for
it
Mr
Speaker.
We
would
have
nearly
300
billion
dollars
in
the
trust
fund
today.
That
is
remarkable
and
I'm
sad
that
we
didn't
do
that.
The
past
administrations
didn't
do
that,
but
we
can't
go
back.
We
can't
change,
what's
already
happened,
but
we
can
go
forward.
We
can
set
the
stage
for
future
generations
to
enjoy
what
others
didn't
plan
for.
That's.
M
Why
we're
putting
in
this
this
bill?
That's
why
we're
proposing
these
fiscal
anchors,
this
fiscal
framework,
so
that
future
administrations
are
held
to
a
higher
account
on
this?
Imagine
what
we
could
have
done
through
the
pandemic.
If
we'd
had
that
kind
of
money
in
the
Heritage
savings,
trust
fund
would
have
been
remarkable.
M
The
list
of
benefits,
Bill
10,
provides
for
albertans
today
and
in
the
future,
goes
on
Mr
Speaker
I'm
not
done
yet
amendments
to
the
personal
income
tax
amendment
act
would
enable
changes
to
the
charitable
tax
credit
rating
and
increase
from
10
percent
at
present
to
60
for
the
first
200
of
donations.
This
is
this
is
scheduled
to
come
into
effect
retroactively
on
January
1st
of
this
year
and
that's
really
great
Mr
Speaker,
because
Al
Burns,
as
we
know,
are
very
generous
they're,
very
giving
people
and
I
believe.
M
If
I
have
my
stats,
correct,
albertans
give
more
per
capita
than
any
other
province,
that's
remarkable
and
now
we're
giving
them
an
even
greater
Financial
incentive
to
do
so.
Mr
Speaker
just
imagine
what
what
will
unlock
in
Civil
Society
as
that
occurs.
Bill
10
will
cut
red
tape
and
save
businesses
around
7
million
dollars
a
year.
M
7
million
Mr
Speaker
in
mailing
costs
by
giving
businesses
the
ability
to
provide
reporting
documents
with
their
shareholders
electronically
instead
of
by
mail
and
I,
don't
want
to
rag
on
Canada
Post
too
much,
but
I
will
tell
you
that
I've
had
a
lot
of
interesting
mail
show
up
very
late,
Mr,
Speaker
and
I
think
this
is
a
great
change
to
get
my
documents
when
I
need
them
as
I
need
them
instantly
and
for
a
seven
million
dollar
savings.
That's
just
like
the
icing
on
the
cake.
M
M
Bill
10
proposes
amendments
that
would
strengthen
the
leadership
of
horse
racing
Alberta
by
allowing
more
public
and
Industry
representation
to
manage
daily
operations
and
ensure
this
vibrant
part
of
rural
communities
continues
to
thrive.
A
vibrant
part
of
my
rural
community
of
Grand
Prairie
Bill
10
also
allows
Alberta's
government
to
follow
through
on
our
commitments
to
create
accessible
and
affordable
post-secondary
education
and
I
have
three
kids
in
post-secondary
education,
Mr
Speaker
I'm
very
happy
about
that
to
create
the
right
conditions
for
Alberta's
agri-food
sector
to
be
globally
competitive.
M
That's
a
win
for
all
albertans
to
alleviate
the
financial
burdens
for
those
building
their
forever
families
through
adoption
and
to
give
municipalities
across
the
province
the
predictable
and
consistent
funding
they
have
long
been
asking
for,
and
I
can
attest
to
that
personally.
Mr
Speaker,
as
my
role
in
the
ministry
Mr
Speaker
for
this
and
many
other
reasons.
M
This
is
why
I
support
bill
10.,
so
that
the
concerns
we
hear
from
albertans
can
be
addressed
so
that
we
can
continue
to
learn
from
our
mistakes
collectively
as
a
province,
so
that,
instead
of
repeating,
what's
already
been
done,
we
go
forward
with
a
brighter
future
for
for
the
next
generation
and
the
one
after
that
and
the
one
after
that.
So
we
can
effectively
Implement
budget
2023
and,
most
importantly,
so
that
we
can
ensure
Alberta's
future
will
be
prosperous
and
secure
for
generations
to
come.
A
F
F
F
That
will
benefit
only
them
and
just
before
an
election.
The
creation
of
this
1.4
billion
dollar
election
campaign,
slash
fund
called
the
Alberta
fund,
really
is
the
epitome
of
cynicism
by
this
government
and
and
I.
You
know
I
I
think
they
should
hang
their
head
in
shame
at
the
fact
that
they
are
supporting
this
kind
of
activity.
They
certainly
would
not.
When
they're
on
the
opposition
side,
they
certainly
would
have
agreed
with
their
own
premiering
and
call
this
a
slush
fund.
F
They
certainly
have
a
whole
bunch
of
money
available
and
they're
using
that
money
just
before
an
election
in
a
way
which
I
think
is
really
undermining
the
democratic
system
that
we
have
in
this
province
and
I
think
they
should
should
certainly
have
some
Shame
about
it.
I
noticed
that
they
don't
have
money
for
some
other,
very
important
things
that
they
could
have
spent
money
on.
F
F
In
fact,
not
only
did
they
not
continue
a
public
lab
that
had
been
started
before
they
became
the
government,
but
they
went
to
the
site
and
they
dug
out
the
beginning
cement
work
that
was
put
in
the
foundation
work
that
was
being
put
in
and
covered
it
up
at
the
cost
of
over
a
million
dollars.
They
were
literally
using
money
to
cover
up
what
they
were
taking
away
from
albertans,
and
that
just
seems
to
be
the
pattern
here
in
this
in
this
government.
F
I
noticed
this
government
also
did
not
have
the
money
just
to
keep
35
000
educational
assistants
in
the
schools
when
times
got
tough
in
this
province
that
that
they
did
not
have
the
money
to
provide
puff
funding
for
children
who
were
five
years
of
age
who
need
extra
supports
in
the
schools
so
that
they
can
overcome
disabilities,
overcome
learning
issues
and
be
successful
at
an
early
age
which
we
know
is
directly
tied
to
success
later
in
life.
They
didn't
have
the
money
for
that.
F
They
didn't
have
the
money
for
it
earlier
when
they
had
the
single
year
greatest
deficit
budget
ever
introduced
into
this
province,
but
they
also
don't
have
it
now
that
they
that
they
they
got
lucky
and
got
a
whole
bunch
of
extra
money
that
they
didn't
count
on
from
The.
Increased
price
of
oil
I
noticed
the
altar.
F
They
didn't
have
money
for
that,
but
they
did
certainly
had
1.4
billion
dollars
to
create
a
slush
fund
for
themselves,
and
I
can
see
that
the
government
members
are
laughing
about
this
because
they
know
what
a
joke
it
is
that
they're
pulling
on
all
of
albertans.
They
know
that
they
got
away
with
something
here
and
they're
going
to
be
able
to
use
that
money
for
personal
purposes,
which
are
really
political
purposes
and
I
noticed
they
didn't
have
money
to
go
to
the
the
municipalities
and
say:
look
we
know
you're
you're
struggling.
F
I
was
I,
was
standing
in
front
of
the
legislature,
not
that
long
ago,
with
Reeves
and
Mayors
from
all
across
the
province
who
are
here
to
say
their
governments
are
under
extreme
stress
and
the
large
part
of
it
is
created,
because
this
government
has
made
decisions
that
more
expenses
on
to
them
and
took
away
some
of
their
resources.
Did
they
have
money
to
fix
any
of
that
at
this
particular
time?
No,
they
didn't
have
money
for
that.
They
only
had
money
for
a
slush
fund.
F
I
noticed
they
didn't
have
money
to
resolve
the
problem
of
passive
increases
in
tuition
that
we've
seen
under
this
government.
For
the
last
four
years,
we've
seen
people
programs
at
universities
go
up
by
as
much
as
30
Cent
in
in
terms
of
tuition
costs
during
their
tenure.
Here
in
this
in
this
this
house-
and
they
have
money
to
fix
any
of
that-
no
they
don't.
They
don't
have
money
for
the
people
of
Alberta.
They
certainly
have
money
for
their
own
advertising
so
that
they
can
satisfy
their
own
desire
to
retain
power.
F
That's
really
what
it's
all
about!
I
notice!
They
don't
have
any
money
for
the
people
who
are
living
on
H
who,
whose
income
this
government
d
thousands
of
dollars
out
of
the
pockets
of
the
most
poor
people
in
this
province,
both
both
poor
and
disabled
people,
and
they
took
money
away
from
them
for
four
years
and
have
they
made
any
suggestion
that
perhaps
they
would
give
back
the
money
to
the
people
who
live
on
age
with
this
Surplus
that
they
have?
No,
they
didn't
do
that.
F
F
Only
did
they
not
deal
with
the
fact
that
they
had
de-indexed
this
age
payments
over
the
years,
but
they
they
have
not
taken
this
money
and
said:
look
we
owe
you
a
couple
of
thousand
dollars
each.
So
perhaps
we
should
give
that
back
to
you.
They
could
have
done
that
they
chose
not
to
do
that.
They
chose
instead
to
give
themselves
money.
F
F
It's
you
know
you
couldn't
write
fiction
about
this,
because
people
would
say
that's
so
unrealistic.
No
government
would
act
with
such
manly
intent,
and
yet
here
we
have
a
government
that
has
indeed
done
exactly
that
who
have
stood
up
at
one
time
and
said
this
is
wrong,
behavior
and
stood
up
at
another
time
and
engaged
in
that
very
same
behavior.
F
This
is
really
unacceptable
and
I
and
I
think
that
that
this
government
should
be
ashamed
to
bring
forward
this
financial
statutes.
Amendment
act
bill
10
at
this
time,
with
this
kind
of
behavior
engagement
embedded
in
it,
I
would
have
loved
to
have
seen
an
act
that
did
more
to
correct
the
very
many
mistakes
of
this
government
that
resolve
the
problems.
F
This
government
created
with
affordability,
for
example,
the
fact
that
they
they
took
the
cap
off
of
of
electricity
rates
and
people
started
paying
huge
amounts
more,
some
in
the
in
the
neighborhood
of
300
percent,
more
than
they
used
to
pay
because
they
took
the
cap
off
because
they
took
the
cap
off
of
insurance.
People's
insurance
rates
went
up
to
20
30,
40
percent
and
even
after
they
somehow
decided
that
a
cap
was
okay.
F
After
saying
it
wasn't
okay,
they
brought
in
a
cap,
and
then
they
allowed
a
number
of
companies
to
increase
their
rates
right
away.
As
the
cap
was
coming
in,
we
saw
some
companies
increase
their
rates
by
15
percent,
so
I
mean
they
didn't
even
protect
people
when
they
are
bringing
in
the
cap
which
they
originally
opposed.
F
Government
has
made
a
lot
of
errors
in
the
time
that
they've
been
in
government
and
I'm
always
happy
when
they
fix
those
errors.
I'm,
just
you
know,
really
surprised
that
they
are
here
with
this
amount
of
bonus
money
that
came
from
from
the
sheer
chance
of
the
price
of
oil,
going
up
dramatically
from
where
it
is
now
and
they're,
not
using
that
money
in
a
way
to
make
life
better
for
albertans
I
think
they
could
have
done
that.
They
chose
not
to
do
that.
F
And
here
we
are
now
talking
about
a
bill
where
they
have
found
money
for
themselves
for
their
own
self-interest,
but
not
money
for
the
people
that
have
been
suffering
with
high
rates
of
the
cost
of
food,
the
cost
of
insurance,
the
cost
of
tuition
and
and
and
how
difficult
it's
been.
For.
So
many
people
who
live
on
very
limited
incomes
who
seniors
who
who
have
had
money
taken
away
from
them
for
drug
coverage,
students
in
schools
who
have
had
money
taken
away
from
them
for
their
educational
assistance.
N
N
It's
because
our
natural
resource
revenues
are
worth
something.
There
was
something
not
only
to
every
individual
in
Alberta,
every
albertan
who
is
living
now
of
all
ages,
but
there
was
something
for
those
who
are
yet
to
be
born.
The
resources
that
are
within
the
ground
in
the
province
of
Alberta
belong
not
just
to
us
as
albertans.
Today
they
belong
to
Future
generations
of
albertans
as
well
and
at
some
point
this
province,
because
it's
a
non-renewable
resource,
oil
and
gas
will
at
some
point
see
those
royalties
eventually
vanish.
N
Disappointed
I'll,
say
and
I
use
that
word
I'm,
just
using
a
nice
word,
very
disappointed
to
hear
that
the
opposition
talking
about
slush
funds,
clearly
they've
been
given
their
word
of
the
day
by
their
their
caucus
bosses
and
they're
they're
out
there
with
their
anger
words
for
the
day
whipping
it
up
so
that
tomorrow,
on
Twitter,
they
can,
you
know,
have
another
good
Twitter
day
good
for
them.
This
is
a
pretty
serious
matter,
though.
It's
not
it's
not
to
be
taken
lightly
whatsoever.
N
So
what
is
this
fund
called
the
Alberta
fund?
What
is
that?
Well,
it's
not
a
slush
fund.
It
is
the
it
is
the
fund
that
represents
fiscal
responsibility
and
using
funds
properly
when
you
have
a
surplus,
I'm.
Sorry
but
I
I
door
knock
a
lot.
I
talk
to
constituents
every
day,
I
talk
to
them
on
the
phone,
I
talk
to
them
at
meetings,
I
talk
to
them
on
their
doorstep,
and
they
all
tell
me
that
they
want
our
debt
repaid.
N
They
all
tell
me
they
don't
want
to
spend
debt
financing
charges
instead
of
putting
that
money
towards
Services.
They
all
tell
me
that
our
heritage
trading
savings
trust
fund
deserves
to
have
funds
put
in
it,
not
just
taken
out
of
it.
They
tell
me
that
every
day,
they're
very
happy
that
a
fiscal
framework
has
been
put
into
place
and
they're
very
happy
that
there's
some
fiscal
discipline,
because
guess
what
that
money
belongs
to
albertans.
N
It
is
not
there
to
just
spend
willy-nilly
on
pet
projects,
and
so-
and
so
it's
outlined
and
I-
don't
know-
maybe
instead
of
just
rambling
on
about
this-
that
and
the
other
thing
that
has
little
relevance
to
the
conversation
tonight
on
this
bill
bill
10.
Perhaps
they
could
take
a
look
at
page
14
and
onwards
where
we
talk
about
the
fiscal
framework
fiscal
framework,
not
only
talks
about
surplus
funds,
but
it
also
talks
about
balanced
budgets.
N
There's
a
there's,
a
concept
for
the
members
opposite,
but
you
know,
let's
talk
about
Slash
funds
for
a
minute
here.
Anybody
remember
the
carbon
tax,
okay,
I,
remember
the
carbon
tax
I
remember
what
it
was
supposed
to
be
spent
on
was
supposed
to
be
spent
to
reduce
emissions.
What
happened
with
that?
Well,
they
used
it
as
a
money.
N
Recycling
program-
that's
number
one
number
two:
they
had
some
programs
where
we
had
good
people
coming
from
Ontario
driving
around
in
wrapped
Vans,
replacing
light
bulbs
and
shower
heads
light
bulbs
and
shower
heads
that
any
of
us
could
buy
at
Home
Depot
by
the
way
yeah
that's
how
they
spend
it.
But
you
know
where
the
slush
fund
ended
up
the
end
of
their
term.
They
had
a
half
a
billion
almost
dollars,
laying
around
that.
They
couldn't
even
figure
out
how
to
spend.
N
They
were
really
good
at
taking
it
out
of
people's
pockets,
not
just
families,
but
every
Community
Center
every
hospital,
every
school,
every
not-for-profit
agency,
every
women's
shelter,
every
single
place
that
they
could
find
a
carbon
tax
to
take.
They
took
it
and
then
they
couldn't
figure
out
how
there
was
a
slush
fund
right
there.
N
N
N
N
Okay,
so
there's
your
exceptions
and
one
of
those
exceptions
is
actually
for
apip
and
what
does
apip
do
it's
an
incentive
program
that
brings
businesses
and
large
projects
into
this
province?
That
will
create
Genera
that
will
generate
revenue
for
years
to
come.
Based
on
what
feedstock
of
that's
right,
not
gas,
so
yep
we
can
put
a
big
project
in
after
after
a
budget
is
done.
N
In
your
expense,
growth
to
limit
in
your
adjusted
operating
expense
increases
to
the
budget
and
voted
continue
to
accept
when
increases
are
due
to
Dedicated
Revenue
expense
increases.
So
these
are
expenses
that
are
actually
incurred
to
raise
revenue,
non-recurring
non-cash
expense,
variations
required
by
Accounting,
Standards
emergencies
or
disasters
declared
by
cabinet
expenses.
Under
the
apip
program,
payments
related
to
litigation,
okay,.
N
Let's
see,
what's
that
for
what's
this
slush
fund
for
50
of
the
available
Surplus
cash
must
go
to
the
repayment
of
debt
maturing
in
that
fiscal
year,
with
the
remaining
cash
allocated
to
the
new
Alberta
fund,
the
Alberta
fund
allows
the
government
to
set
aside
Surplus
cash.
While
it
decides
the
best
use
of
this
cash.
There
are
three
allowable
uses
of
cash
from
the
Alberta
fund.
N
K
N
Yes,
folks,
that's
called
fiscal
discipline
and
it's
long
overdue
in
this
province,
and
people
have
been
begging
for
it,
limit
in
your
expense,
expense,
growth
to
a
budgeted
and
voted
contingency
and
set
out
policies
for
the
allocation
of
surplus
cash
to
repayment
of
maturing
debt,
saving
for
the
future
or
one-time
initiatives
that
do
not
Leach
permanent
increases
in
government
spending.
That's
the
fiscal
framework,
there's
not
a
slush
fund
that
is
responsible
fiscal
management
of
the
people
of
Alberta's
money,
respecting
the
resources
that
belong
to
the
people
of
Alberta
and
future
generations
of
albertans
and
I'm.
N
Those
those
resources
belong
to
all
albertans.
The
revenue
from
those
resources
belong
to
all
albertans
and
they
and
it
is
required
that
we
manage
those
responsibly
with
discipline
and
albertans,
want
that.
They
tell
me
over
and
over
again
so
the
side
across
can
keep
talking
about
their
word
of
the
day
for
their
Twitter
fodder,
but
I
think
albertans
deserve
better
than
that.
Thank
you.
Mr
Speaker.
B
Honorable
members,
seeing
none
I
am
prepared
to
call
the
question
honorable
members
for
second
reading
of
Bill
10
Financial
statutes,
Amendment
act,
2022
all
those
in
favor
of
the
motion
for
second
reading,
please
say
aye
any
opposed.
Please
say
no,
in
my
opinion,
the
eyes
have
it
that
motion
is
carried
and
so
ordered.