EDMONTON – Despite mounting backlash, Premier Alison Redford said Tuesday she senses public servants in Alberta appreciate her government’s push to pass two controversial labour bills.

Tensions remain high in the legislature as the government and opposition parties square off over Bills 45 and 46.

Both bills passed second reading late Monday, as the government made good on its threat to impose a two-hour time limit for debate at each stage of the legislative process.

Speaking to reporters Tuesday, Redford called it a “difficult situation,” but said public servants appreciate the efforts.

“You can imagine that as premier, since we’ve introduced this legislation, I’ve had the opportunity to work with an awful lot of public servants every day and my sense is that there’s an appreciation for what we’re trying to do,” Redford said.

Bill 45 would significantly increase fines for unions engaged in an illegal strike, while Bill 46, which applies to the province’s ongoing negotiations with the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees, eliminates a binding arbitration process and would impose a wage deal.

Asked why the arbitration process was eliminated under the bill, Redford said her government wants the union to come back to the negotiating table.

“We’re really encouraging them to come back and try to come to an agreement that we think will treat public servants fairly,” she said.

AUPE President Guy Smith said last week that the union won’t negotiate if the bills pass. The union on Tuesday The AUPE released documents showing the Redford government had committed to arbitration before introducing the bills.

Debate on the bills wrapped up after 1:30 a.m. Tuesday following some heated exchanges. Some of the most incendiary comments came from Calgary Tory MLA Neil Brown, who spoke in favour of Bill 45 and said he felt the bill does not go far enough. He suggested an illegal strike among Alberta correctional workers last April was more serious than the 2011 Stanley Cup riots in Vancouver because it involved people who had been sworn to uphold the law.

“In my view, that illegal action, when it was in defiance of a court order, moved into a different realm,” Brown told the assembly. “It made it much more serious. I believe that even more than financial sanctions, there ought to be sanctions beyond that — that is, the denial of the right to serve in public service for a period of time when you defy a court order.”

Brown’s remarks caused at least two loud disruptions from people sitting in the gallery, prompting the Speaker to threaten to throw everyone out.

Wildrose MLA Rob Anderson said he found Brown’s comments inappropriate.

“That’s just unfair, in my view, to the folks that serve our province every day and sacrifice every day in their jobs to keep us safe and healthy and in order.”

NDP Leader Brian Mason said Brown’s comments were “provocative and offensive” since the wildcat strike in April ignited, in part, over concerns about workplace safety at the new Edmonton Remand Centre.

After Bill 45 passed second reading, the government followed suit with Bill 46. It sets a deadline of Jan. 31 for negotiations with the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees, which has been without a collective agreement since March. If no settlement is reached, the bill imposes a wage deal of no increases for two years and one-per-cent increases for each of the following two years, as well as a lump-sum payment in year two.

A similar scenario to Monday night is expected to play out for the next two days in the legislature, as the government hopes to have the bills passed before the fall sitting ends on Thursday.

[email protected]

[email protected]

twitter.com/mariamdena

© Copyright (c) The Edmonton Journal

EDMONTON – Following a massive backlash against new regional planning legislation introduced this week, Premier Alison Redford’s government is hitting the brakes on the proposed law, saying “the time is right” to consult with municipalities.

Bill 28, the Modernizing Regional Governance Act, became the target Wednesday of all three opposition parties, which described it as heavy-handed and draconian.

The legislation will allow the province to create regional growth boards, which would be responsible for coming up with growth plans for municipalities clustered together. The opposition accused the government of trying to give itself sweeping powers over how regional planning decisions are made and who makes them because the bill includes provisions giving government the power to make appointments to the boards. Amid the backlash, Redford said Thursday her caucus had discussed feedback from mayors, reeves and councillors across the province and the time had come for feedback.

“Now that it’s been introduced into the House, we know that it’s important to consult with municipal leaders as the minister has been doing on an ongoing basis … and of course this is exactly the right time to do it, because we have new people elected in many councils, some new mayors and reeves,” Redford said.

Municipal Affairs Minister Doug Griffiths will set up a task force to begin consultations with the Alberta Urban Municipalities Association and the Alberta Association of Municipal Districts and Counties.

The legislation should be completely rewritten, said Wildrose Leader Danielle Smith.

“I think that this minister needs to go back to the drawing board, do the proper consultation and bring it through with the proper principles that respect local autonomy and get it right,” Smith said. “To the premier’s credit, she listened to the backlash from mayors and reeves.”

Redford also said the bill will include an amendment to create a formal appeal process for municipalities.

Griffiths said this week that consultations on the new legislation weren’t needed because the bill would simply enshrine into law the regulations governing the Capital Region Board, a 24-member organization focused on regional planning in the Edmonton area.

On Thursday, that message changed.

“On this particular piece of legislation, we didn’t go around and say, “This is what we’re going to introduce,’ but we’ve introduced it so that now councillors and the cities and the counties will be able to look at it and we can talk about the specific legislation and whether or not it meets their needs,” Griffiths said. “But we’ve constantly had consultation about the needs for regional collaboration and what tools are best in place to help municipalities ensure success for their citizens.”

Griffiths said early Thursday afternoon that he hadn’t yet talked to Calgary Mayor Naheed Nenshi about the new legislation, but Edmonton Mayor Don Iveson said this week he supports it.

Alberta NDP MLA Deron Bilous said the government displayed its “arrogance” when it bypassed the consultation process, saying it only changed its tune after controversy erupted.

“Before this bill was ever brought to the legislature was when they should have consulted with municipalities, rural and urban,” Bilous said.

The bill was introduced Monday in the House and passed second reading during a late-night sitting Wednesday.

Liberal municipal affairs critic Laurie Blakeman suggested the government is hitting the brakes because Redford is set to face a leadership review vote at the Progressive Conservative annual meeting later this month.

“She is going to do anything she has to do to win,” said Blakeman. “If she thinks the municipal leaders are going to give her a smack down, she’s going to give them a task force.”

[email protected]

twitter.com/mariamdena

© Copyright (c) The Edmonton Journal

CALGARY – Alberta Agriculture Minister Verlyn Olson will be in Chicago next week, trying to rally U.S. packers to put pressure on their own government and get a costly and controversial meat labelling law repealed.

Olson will join representatives of the Saskatchewan and Manitoba governments at the North American Meat Association Conference, an annual gathering of meat packers and processors. The U.S. meat packing industry has already been vocal about its own opposition to mandatory country of origin labelling, or COOL, so the Canadian politicians hope to work with them to fight the law.

“It’s a natural thing, because we are part of an integrated industry here in North America,” Olson said. “And that’s part of our frustration — that Congress, with its COOL rule, doesn’t seem to recognize that.”

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s COOL law requires that meat derived from animals born, reared or slaughtered outside the U.S. must be labelled to indicate the country or countries involved. Canada believes the law violates the North American Free Trade Agreement, since it results in extra tracking and segregation costs for Canadian hogs and cattle exported to the U.S. In October, Tyson Foods — the biggest U.S. meat processor and the third-largest buyer of Canadian cattle — announced it would no longer accept Canadian cattle shipped directly to its beef plants, since the cost of segregating the product in the warehouse is so high.

A group of meat and livestock groups in Canada and the U.S. filed a lawsuit in July in an effort to block the COOL legislation, and the Canadian government has appealed to the World Trade Organization. Canada has also released a list of U.S. products it says it will impose retaliatory tariffs on if the country does not repeal COOL.

John Masswohl — director of government and international relations for the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association — said he hopes the provincial ministers will use the North American Meat Association Conference to hammer home that point. He said U.S. packers already oppose COOL because of the extra costs it imposes, but they also need to know that their own products are among those that will be targeted if Canada moves ahead with tariffs.

“If the issue is not fixed, there is retaliation waiting at the end of that track,” Masswohl said. “I think it’s important to look those guys in the eye and say, ‘This is what’s coming.’ ”

The timing is also important because U.S. lawmakers have begun negotiations on a new farm bill. At the first negotiating session on Wednesday, several U.S. congressmen spoke out against COOL — in part because it could lead to international sanctions.

Masswohl said it could take until the end of 2014 before Canada is given WTO authorization to impose sanctions, but the drafting of a new farm bill gives the U.S. a chance to address the issue before then.

“It’s far better to take the opportunity now and fix it, and then we can all get off of this train,” he said.

Olson said he has already provided state agriculture secretaries with lists of specific products their local farmers stand to lose money on if sanctions are imposed. In addition to pork and beef, Canada has proposed imposing retaliatory tariffs on orange juice, breads and pastries, pasta, wine, chocolate, and produce like apples, cherries, corn, and potatoes.

The Canadian Cattlemen’s Association estimates the cattle industry has lost on average $640 million annually because of COOL, while the Canadian Pork Council estimates lost exports of live swine at $500 million annually.

[email protected]

“We’re missing our greatest opportunity here in decades”

By Colette Derworiz, Calgary Herald October 29, 2013

By Cailynn Klingbeil, Edmonton Journal October 29, 2013

Question Period: October 28, 2013

Mr. Mason: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Tragically, after the floods this June, Albertans now know what it takes to get this PC government to act, a natural disaster that’s projected to cost billions of dollars. They not only ignored the advice of their own report following the floods in 2006, but they didn’t even bother to apply for millions in federal funding that would have covered some of the costs of flood mitigation. My question is to the Premier. Why not?
Mr. Griffiths: Mr. Speaker, it’s a misnomer to suggest that we didn’t follow the recommendations of the Groeneveld flood mitigation report. In fact, all of the recommendations were implemented or a majority followed except for two. We’re going to be tabling legislation to deal with those. We spent $82 million in the last few years, helping with mitigation. In fact, we have several communities that said that that investment that the province made in partnership with municipalities helped save their communities. The fact is that that program was opened up at the very last minute to other jurisdictions like Alberta, and we weren’t prepared to meet the criteria of that program, but I just met with the federal minister in the last couple of months, and we’re continuing to advocate for a national disaster mitigation program so that we can serve Alberta’s communities.
Mr. Mason: Thanks very much, Mr. Speaker. While there were short timelines involved in that getting that money, Alberta was the only one that didn’t get it. This government’s own report on the 2006 flood was only released this year. Just one of its common-sense recommendations was that the province prohibit development on flood plains, but the government failed to take action on this obvious measure and put thousands of Albertan homes and families at risk. To the Premier: why?
Mr. Griffiths: Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that when I became minister, the Premier and I discussed the report and released it as soon as we were aware that it hadn’t been released so that all Albertans could see it. We did discuss – and it happened to coincide with this flood event – the two recommendations dealing with preventing development in the floodway. As I said, I don’t want to pre-empt the discussion that’s going to happen today or the legislation that I’m going to introduce, so the member should just wait a little bit longer, and he’ll be happy.
Mr. Mason: Thanks very much, Mr. Speaker. Well, the Premier is taking a page from the Prime Minister on how to answer questions. This government didn’t implement recommendations to provide up-to-date flood maps and a registry so that potential homebuyers could avoid risking catastrophic loss. To the Premier: why not?
Mr. Griffiths: In fact, Mr. Speaker, we have implemented that recommendation. I’m sure that the Minister of Environment and Sustainable Resource Development may want to supplement, but we’ve worked with municipalities to update that information. The fact is that most of those maps are incredibly accurate. The floodways and the flood fringes in those zones don’t change year to year. They change after substantial events like we saw in High River. We’re updating our maps as we proceed.