Subscribe to our Newsletter

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Bill 18 – Trade, Industry and Labour Mobility Agreement Implementation Statutes Amendment Act, 2009

Ms Blakeman: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Well, I think I’ve participated in every stage of debate on this bill, and I have, clearly, some pretty strong feelings about it. I’ve listened carefully to the rest of my colleagues, and I appreciate the points made by the previous speaker, the Member for Edmonton-Riverview. He’s putting a positive spin on this, that we could look at this as an opportunity to try to put some things in place across both provinces that would be seen as an improvement in many ways.

But, Mr. Speaker, I think this bill is fundamentally wrong, and I think it’s wrong of this Legislative Assembly to support this bill. I think it’s wrong because it is inappropriate for a Legislative Assembly to knowingly, willingly abdicate its responsibility to a lesser level. In this case, what is contemplated in this act is that by the passage of Bill 18 the Legislative Assembly would abdicate its ability to be the sole area where changes could be made – so what is made by the Assembly has to be unmade or changed by the Assembly – and that’s what would be passed here. That’s what the effect of this bill will be, that the bill abdicates the power to cabinet, to the Lieutenant Governor in Council, to be able to change legislation.

The government is very quick to say: “Oh, come on, now. Come on, now. Just trust us. Trust us. We’re not going to abuse this power, but we need it in order to make all of our laws comply with the deadlines in order to not fall afoul of the regulations and standards that are in TILMA.” My understanding was that there was an April 1 deadline date when all of this was to happen.

I guess I have a couple of responses to that. One, this is arguably the most powerful governing body in the country. It has 72 members. This is a one-party state. This Assembly can do anything it wants. It always gets the vote. We even have examples of where, you know, cabinet ministers are directing all-party committees on how they’re supposed to behave. We had that happen at Leg. Offices, where the Treasury Board president directed the chair of that committee that the raises that were requested by various legislative officers were to be curtailed to a certain amount as dictated by the President of the Treasury Board. That’s all a matter of public record.

We have an enormously powerful one-party state, which I think is very problematic because it takes those checks and balances off of things. I am seeing this as a slippery slope. These Henry VIII clauses, as they’re called, have been used in the past, and they have been challenged in court, and they have been upheld. But they have been used in the past at times of extreme crisis, let me call it that. Civil insurrection, you know, world wars: I mean big stuff, not a business contract, which is essentially what we’re looking at with TILMA.

But this is the problem. Everybody was able to come back to me and others that protested this and say: “You know what? This has been done before. There’s precedent. Don’t worry about it. It’s fine.” Well, there is precedent. It was used previously for circumstances where because of enormous upheaval or unrest that abdication was allowed to happen. We’ve taken a big step down, and now we’re saying: “Well, it’s okay. We’ll abdicate our responsibility here to scrutinize on behalf of citizens. We’ll abdicate that to cabinet in the case of an agreement on trade.” We’ve gone from world wars to an agreement on trade as an acceptable reason by the government members in this House to abdicate their responsibility. I can’t support that because I think what’s at the base of this for me is that it’s clearing democracy out of the way for a profit motive. It’s saying: we’re going to abdicate our responsibility as democratic workers here for a profit motive. To me that’s just not good enough.

I find fault too many times with a government that chooses to uphold and facilitate and reward and enable the business sector as though it were the only one worthy. Frankly, half of our population is employed in the public sector, but you don’t see them getting the same respect or the same support as what is given to the corporate sector. I don’t feel I need to speak on behalf of the corporate sector because they do pretty darn well. That’s part of my point. I think that they are given…[interjection] Well, there’s somebody muttering over there, so I’m sure they’ll be glad to get in on the debate as soon as I’m finished. If you feel that strongly, get up and put it on the record; don’t heckle me from behind your hand.

What I see the effect of this bill being is that a B.C. businessperson is going to have more rights and protection in certain cases than an Albertan, and this Assembly, people that represent Alberta citizens, has said: that’s okay. That’s not okay with me. I think that’s wrong. I think we’re paid – and not too badly paid; it’s not too shabby – to be here to represent the best interests of our constituents, and I don’t think that compromising democracy is in the best interests of our citizens. Does that mean that I’m antibusiness? No, it doesn’t. I’m very grateful for the very clever businesspeople and entrepreneurs that exist in my riding and work throughout Alberta and through the rest of Canada. They bring us products that we wish to purchase. They employ people. They’re an economic driver, but they’re not the only economic driver, and I think we need to work harder to balance that.

This government has taken a lot of criticism, and I think appropriately so, for the choices it has made around how it facilitates the oil sands, for example, and the kinds of tax regimes that are put in place so that that sector can flourish. Yes, the oil sands do employ a number of people in this province, and the money does trickle out somewhat, not as much as they’d like me to believe, to citizens. But were they given a number of advantages? Indeed.

On the other side of that, we have the not-for-profit sector in this province, which provides a lot of programs and services that people need and want that make this a better province to live in, that help us attract professional, knowledge-based workers to come from other places and settle here. I was told the other day by somebody in the department of health that the single-biggest problem they have in convincing professional experts to come from other places is that they don’t think there’s any culture here in Alberta and that they’ve got to be encouraged to have a look at the Winspear and the Citadel and the Epcor Centre and the Calgary Philharmonic and the Edmonton Opera and understand that we offer all of those things here and that we have a lot of them and that we’re very good at it. But isn’t that interesting? That’s a sector that doesn’t get the same kind of support as we are willing to give the corporate sector, yet it’s the selling point. It’s the final thing that gets the signature on that contract to bring the very people to us that are going to help make us all rich and famous.

I think this is a diminishment of this House, and it’s a diminishment of the equality of all of the members of this House. So often I’m told by this government: “Just trust us. You know, really, we know what we’re doing. You’re raising all of these objections, and really it doesn’t amount to a hill of beans. Just trust us. We’ll take care of all of this.” But you know what? When I look around, I don’t see the reason to give that trust.

I think that the members that are appointed to cabinet have extra jobs. They may and should be the best and brightest from the government caucus, but frankly that does not make them gods. That is part of the equality of the members of this House. They are not omnipotent.

Mr. MacDonald: One or two of them must fit into that category.

Ms Blakeman: No. None of them. Sorry.

There are certain times where the Greeks can give us some very good lessons, and the lesson of hubris is one that this government consistently fails to learn. But that is, again, what’s being contemplated in this because that power is being given to those members. Why the backbenchers here would knowingly give that power over there, I don’t know. They must be hoping they’re going to move to the other side. But you know what, guys? Most of you won’t. And you will have abdicated your ability as a member of this House over to the other side, where you are never going to be.

I look again for examples of how I could trust them that this is all going to work out so well. Well, I can’t. You know, I talked about the not-for-profit sector, and I should complete that analogy. Here we have the Wild Rose Foundation, which was, I’ll admit, not completely nonpartisan, but it had operated fairly well with an appointed board for some 25 years. It had the respect of the community, and without one bit of consultation it was wiped out and rolled inside of the department to become even more of a partisan driven, lottery-grant handout. I was joking, but I was serious yesterday in question period when I talked about the advantageous timing for government members to have these big cartoon cheques, that are the size of a door, for their photo op, to hand them out. But that’s a perversion of a process, and I’m seeing the same thing involved in what’s being contemplated here.

Mr. MacDonald: Have you been at one of those cheque presentations?

Ms Blakeman: No, I have never been at one of those cheque presentations. I’ve never been asked. The government loves to point out that the constituency of Edmonton-Centre is home to grand institutions like the Winspear Centre or the Citadel or the Art Gallery of Alberta. True enough, but they certainly didn’t invite me to the cheque presentation. They didn’t let me know about that one. I wasn’t in the photo op. I didn’t have the big cartoon cheque. No surprise there.

What I’m seeing in this agreement is the outcome of a one-party state. I think there’s too much power that this cabinet is taking upon itself. I don’t see a balance in it. I don’t see a way to curtail that power. I think this is a slippery slope. We have slid to this point. What’s next? That’s the last piece, all of this: “Trust us. That will be okay. We will manage this on your behalf. This will all be great.” But I say: “What’s next? Where does the slippery slope take us next?” Where members of this Assembly will be asked to abdicate their responsibility and their democratic power to the cabinet to be able to make decisions on, what next?

The very principles of this bill I spoke against in second reading. I spoke in support of some amendments and against some others. I actually wrote one of the amendments. They were defeated while we were in Committee of the Whole. As I speak to the anticipated effect of the bill in third reading, I cannot support it, and I have not heard arguments from the government side that have made me change my mind, clearly.

Now, I think there will be some people who will be advantaged by this, no question, and I hope that we will see an advantage from some things like a green economy. We’d get some of the good things from B.C., where they are better than us on things like a greener economy, on some of their labour laws and protections, but overall I cannot support this bill.