Blog | Action Surface Rights

Potential health cuts spark alarm in Airdrie, Cochrane

January 17, 2013 By Admin

By Eva Ferguson, Calgary Herald January 17, 2013

The potential loss of front-line workers at urgent-care centres in the booming communities of Airdrie and Cochrane is raising concerns about quality of care and lengthening wait times that are already two to three hours long.

Airdrie MLA Rob Anderson of the Opposition Wildrose Alliance spent time with doctors at the clinics Wednesday and said staff are reeling over news that they may lose up to 12 nursing practitioners in urgent care.

“The community is in a state of shock. We are in the middle of a massive population boom, in dire need of health-care facilities, and we are asking why on earth would this government take out one-third of front-line workers at urgent-care centres?” Anderson asked.

“This lost work will be made up by doctors, and we already have a doctor shortage. Essentially, it means we’ll have longer waits in urgent care,” he added, estimating that average wait times for care in Airdrie and Cochrane clinics are two to three hours long.

The clinics raised alarm bells earlier this week, saying that they’ve been told nurse practitioners, about one-third of their staff, would lose their jobs by the end of March in the wake of potential health-care cuts.

Alberta Health Services would not speak to the media on the issue, only sending out a statement confirming that discussions around where the services of Airdrie and Cochrane nurse practitioners would be best suited are ongoing.

“AHS is looking for feedback from local physician and nurse practitioner stakeholders in these communities to see what’s best for patients; recognizing that nurse practitioners are a scarce resource that may be needed elsewhere in Calgary Zone,” says the statement.

“There are five Urgent Care Centres in the Calgary Zone of AHS; currently only Airdrie and Cochrane have nurse practitioners as part of the health care staffing model.”

Alberta Minister of Health Fred Horne addressed the issue Wednesday at a media event in Edmonton, confirming that discussions around the role of nurse practitioners in Airdrie and Cochrane are ongoing.

“The situation is that AHS is simply having a discussion about the best way to deploy both physicians and nurse practitioners. That’s a legitimate discussion to be having, and I’m assured it won’t affect service levels at the two centres.”

Airdrie and Cochrane have seen exponential growth in their communities over the past decade, with Airdrie alone growing from a population of some 20,000 residents 10 years ago to more than 45,000 today.

“We need more front-line workers, not less,” said Anderson.

Urgent-care centres are a critical component to health care in the satellite communities. Without them, Airdrie residents would have to drive more than half an hour to get to the Peter Lougheed Centre, while Cochrane residents would take close to an hour to get to Foothills Medical Centre.

Nurse practitioners at the clinics have a variety of roles collaborating alongside physicians, from treating and managing certain conditions to prescribing medications.

[email protected]

Filed Under: News

Scientists find pattern of contaminants tied to decades of development in the oilsands

January 8, 2013 By Admin

By Sarah O’Donnell, Edmonton Journal January 7, 2013

EDMONTON – Scientists working to trace the environmental legacy of the oilsands industry say there is “clear science-based evidence” connecting the pace of oilsands development to the amount of toxic substances found on lake bottoms north of Fort McMurray.

University of Alberta water scientist David Schindler says that work by a team of Queen’s University scientists and Environment Canada researchers signals an urgent need to rethink how the province develops the industry.

“This study once and for all lays to rest the popular propaganda that all the pollutants up there are from natural sources, because by this fingerprinting technique they’ve used they’ve been able to separate those from natural erosion from those that aren’t,” Schindler said.

“The latter category track almost exactly the rate of expansion in the oilsands industry.”

The research, published Monday in the U.S. journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, details how sediment samples from the bottom of six lakes, including one nearly 90 kilometres away, show an increase in carcinogenic pollutant levels over the years that mirrors the expansion of the oilsands industry.

Looking at core samples of lake bottom sediment, scientists measured for a range of substances, including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, a diverse group of chemicals produced by the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels or from natural sources such as forest fires.

PAHs are carcinogenic at high levels and rank in the top 10 most hazardous substances on the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. They are a concern to aquatic life in even small doses.

Testing found those substances in the most recent sediment layers at levels 2.5 to 23 times greater than 1960 levels. The study notes that those levels were still within Canadian interim sediment quality guidelines in all but one lake.

Recent lake sediments also contained lower levels of some chemicals compared to many urban lakes and those within 10 kilometres of Alberta’s coal-fired power plants.

But the study says those pollutants, combined with the effects of climate change, have led to “new ecological states completely distinct from those of previous centuries” in those lakes. A commentary on the research by Queen’s University’s Peter Hodson, an expert in the field of fish toxicology, warns of possible problems.

With those increases “and the projected 150-per-cent increase in oilsands production over the next 15 years, there is reason for concern,” Hodson wrote, adding that the study provides “a clear warning of possible future problems if PAH inputs to lakes continue to climb in tandem with oilsands production.”

The paper notes that the core samples from the lakes around the oilsands development did not fit the pattern of many other remote lakes in North America, where PAHs peaked during the mid-20th century and declined in more recent years.

Schindler said the study sends an important message that independent monitoring must be set up quickly.

“It’s an example of the very sort of reasons we need this detailed monitoring,” Schindler said. “There are lots of projects that are in the planning stage and obviously that’s the time to start taking these things into account, so you don’t have to do expensive retrofits later. Hopefully that will be a benefit of this study.”

The research, which looks at five small, shallow lakes and one larger lake about 90 kilometres away, previously made headlines in November.

Environment Canada scientists presented some of the findings at an international environmental toxicology conference. And Derek Muir, a senior scientist with the federal agency, detailed how the footprint of the oilsands pollution had travelled further than expected over the decades.

That built on a study by Schindler and colleague Erin Kelley released in 2010 that showed heavy metals in the snowpack up to 50 kilometres from oilsands production sites.

Joshua Kurek, lead author on the newly released study, said researchers wanted to use the science of paleolimnology to determine what ecosystems in northeastern Alberta were like prior to the development of the oilsands industry.

“The techniques paleolimnology affords can be quite powerful: Looking at the historical records preserved in natural archives of waters, like lakes,” said Kurek, a post-doctoral fellow in Queen’s University’s biology department. “We can look at the physical, chemical and biological remains in the sediments to understand past patterns and processes.”

Environmental monitoring in the region has been criticized as inadequate. So researchers set out to answer two basic questions: Have contaminants in the lake sediments increased over time? Could those contaminants be directly connected with oilsands development, rather than residue from the naturally occurring bitumen deposits?

Looking at core samples is not quite like analyzing tree rings, which can allow experts to see seasonal growth in a single year.

Instead, the 20- to 40-centimetre long core samples measure several hundred years in time. Those samples are chopped up into intervals, which represent a time range. Kurek said the team is confident of the pattern within the margins of error outlined in the paper.

“We show fairly clear evidence the loading of PAHs have increased and that increase is coincident with the development that began in the late 1960s,” Kurek said. “We show the timing of the increase, but we also show the composition of the PAHs in the sediment record is also indicative of a shift to hydrocarbon sources for those PAHs.”

Travis Davies, a spokesman for the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, recognized the study as part of the growing body of science around the oilsands industry.

“We’re supportive of good science and measuring the fact that these compounds are present is important, but so is context,” Davies said, pointing to the finding that the lakes in the study have lower levels of the pollutants than typical urban lakes.

The results point directly to the importance of enhanced environmental monitoring, he said, something CAPP supports.

In November, after Environment Canada scientists presented the results of their research at the international conference, Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource said the province will take advice from its science advisory panel on future guidelines and limits for the oilsands industry.

Minister Diana McQueen said it was important to set up the new arm’s-length environmental monitoring agency correctly. Estimates from government officials are that it will take anywhere from six months to two years for the agency to begin its monitoring work.

“The important part is that we set it up, that we get it set up right and properly,” McQueen said in November. “This is going to be here for the long term, just starting in the oilsands region and then across the province.”

[email protected]

Twitter.com/scodonnell

Filed Under: News

Power reform must offer consumers fixed- and regulated-rate options: opposition – Government review expected to be released in late January

January 7, 2013 By Admin

By Sheila Pratt, Edmonton Journal

The province should not push consumers to sign fixed-rate electricity contracts when it announces its long overdue reforms to the retail power market, opposition politicians say.

While companies go door to door selling contracts to tie customers into a rate for three years or more, only about 30 per cent of Alberta consumers take that option, said Joe Anglin, Wildrose critic for energy and utilities.

About 70 per cent choose to stay on the regulated rate which is approved by the Alberta Utilities Commission, and that option should be preserved, Anglin said.

“It would be terrible if they eliminated that option,” he said.

Besides, the fixed-rate retail contracts only fix the price of power, not the ancillary costs like transmission, Anglin added.

After the regulated (or default) rate fluctuated last winter to historic highs, the Redford government promised to take measures to stabilize the rate. It set up the Retail Market Review Committee in February, just before the spring election, to come up with recommendations.

The committee looked at whether it is necessary to retain the regulated rate 10 years after deregulation was implemented and if measures could be taken to stabilize fluctuations.

But almost a year later, Energy Minister Ken Hughes is sitting on the committee’s 400-page report and its 30-odd recommendations.

“The Redford government campaigned on transparency and they’ve been sitting on this report for six months,” Anglin said. “It’s clear the government just doesn’t know what to do, it’s baffled.”

New Democrat leader Brian Mason said electricity costs are highest in January and February, so there is some urgency if the government really wants to help people avoid spiking power costs this winter.

In a December letter to Hughes, Mason said “further delay in creating affordable electricity is unacceptable.”

Hughes received the report Sept. 6 last year and is expected to release the report later this month along with some of his own proposals, said ministry spokesman Mike Deising.

Anglin also warned consumers to expect a “nasty” increase in their power bills as companies try and make up the cash they had to forgo during the year-long freeze on administrative fees on power bills, which was also implemented by Redford.

When Redford announced the system review, she requested a freeze on all non-electric, or ancillary costs, on the power bill, including transmission costs, distribution and administration charges — at times higher than the cost of power.

Those charges will stay frozen until the report is released, and the minister addresses ways to handle that cost increase along with the process of the Alberta Utilities Commission, Deising said, noting the commission must approve any rate increase in such a way as to “avoid rate shock.”

Epcor spokeswoman Krista Grovestine said the company “wants to be sensitive to consumer concerns” about any increase in charges as a result of the freeze.

“We will work with the industry to be sensitive to those concerns,” Grovestine said.

The company has not calculated how much the rate freeze has cost in forgone revenue, and won’t know that figure until after the report is released.

Epcor and consumer groups such as municipalities expressed strong concerns at the hearings that the regulated-rate options be preserved. Not everyone would qualify for a fixed-rate contact, they noted.

[email protected]

Filed Under: News

Landowners launch lawsuit to derail power lines

January 5, 2013 By Admin

By Sheila Pratt, Edmonton Journal

EDMONTON – The seven-year battle over two new north-south transmission lines could heat up again with a pending court challenge designed to derail both lines.A new lawsuit will argue the province had no jurisdiction to designate as necessary Altalink’s $1.5-billion western transmission line because it will be used to export electricity and, as such, falls under federal jurisdiction.

Two Calgary area landowners hope their lawsuit will force the National Energy Board to review both the western and eastern transmission lines.

The lawsuit will also argue the Alberta Utilities Commission did not have jurisdiction to require ratepayers to pay for the new lines or to approve the routes because the lines are under federal jurisdiction, said lawyer Donald Bur.

Both those decisions were taken by the AUC in December after hearings this summer into Altalink’s $1.5-billion western line from Genesse west of Edmonton to Langdon south of Calgary and Atco’s $1.4-billion eastern Alberta line ending in Brooks.

Amy and Neil Cunningham, who own land near Calgary, filed papers Friday requesting leave to appeal to the Alberta Court of Appeal.

If leave is granted, the lawsuit could derail both projects, which are already under construction.

Altalink’s 350-kilometre western line would be built to handle 1,000 megawatts of power, but could be increased to handle 4,000 megawatts and would be complete in two years.

In an interview from Toronto, Bur noted that originally the Alberta government set conditions so ratepayers would not pay for the portion of any new power lines devoted to export. Companies were required to designate what share of a new line would be used for exports.

Since then, the province has continually maintained the new transmission lines are not for export but are needed to meet growing demand for power in Alberta.

The AUC has said the line is not an export line because lies entirely inside Alberta.

“They keep saying these lines are needed. But southern Alberta, where the lines end, does not need additional power,” Bur said.

This fall, in granting approval to Altalink’s western line, the AUC said the line is also intended “to restore capacity” to the existing tie line between Alberta and B.C.

That’s a clear signal the goal is to enhance exports to B.C, he said.

Alberta already imports B.C. power and exports power west when demand here is low.

An enhanced interprovincial electricity line would have to be approved by the NEB, just as the Northern Gateway pipeline to ship Alberta bitumen to B.C is the subject of an NEB hearing, said Bur.

The government has also argued it needs to reduce congestion on the grid, that there is too much power in the north and not enough capacity in the power lines to move the power to other areas where it is needed.

That may be the case, said Bur. But Alberta wants to reduce congestion by exporting electricity to B.C. or the U.S., and that puts the new lines in federal jurisdiction.

“If these are interprovincial lines, the utilities commission has no right to say ratepayers have to foot the bill,” he said.

The proposed north-south grid expansion was derailed in 2007 after a scandal erupted when private investigators were hired to spy on landowners opposed to the western line. The province aborted the public hearing process and in 2009 declared both north-south lines were critical infrastructure under the Electric Statutes Amendment Act or Bill 50.

That power to declare the lines necessary without a hearing was repealed last fall.

Atco’s eastern line will end in the small city of Brooks. That raises the question of whether an export line would be built later to tie the Atco southern power station into the U.S.

Bur noted when Quebec built its export line to the U.S., it was clearly designated as an international line and the Crown corporation paid for the line, not ratepayers.

An earlier map of Alberta Electric Systems Operators clearly shows a tie line taking the north-south grid into Montana.

Filed Under: News

Stay Informed – Read Our December 2012 Newsletter

November 30, 2012 By Admin

December 1, 2012 Newsletter

Filed Under: Bulletin

Braid: Premier Redford’s troubles deepen in tobacco contract row

November 30, 2012 By Admin

By Don Braid, Calgary Herald November 30, 2012

CALGARY — During another riveting day with little precedent in the Alberta legislature, the premier stood accused of contempt of parliament, Wildrose rolled out new damaging documents, and the NDP called on Alison Redford to step down until the allegations are resolved.

She won’t leave, of course. And Speaker Gene Zwozdesky reserved his ruling on the contempt citation until next week.

If he says a premier of his own party must answer for her actions, that will be a rare thing indeed in Alberta.

It would also have the unintentionally hilarious effect of sending the case to the infamous no-work, no-meet committee that enriched so many MLAs and became a scandal last spring.

Finally, something for that crowd to do.

But there was little levity in the old chamber Thursday, as the mood switched abruptly from Wednesday’s angry vitriol to quiet tension.

That’s because this matter is very serious. The speaker himself said exactly that, after hearing debate on the Wildrose motion to find Redford in contempt for deliberately misleading the legislature.

Wildrose said again that the premier decided to award the contract for a huge lawsuit against the tobacco industry to a consortium that included the law firm of her ex-husband, Robert Hawkes.

That in itself is not illegal. But Redford, instead of dealing with the initial conflict allegation, focused on the decision to award the contract.

She says she did not make that call. Redford and her ministers argue that the deal wasn’t done until four months after she quit cabinet to run for the PC leadership.

The PCs’ counter-story was best outlined by Verlyn Olson, her successor as justice minister, who described steps and negotiations he was involved in that led to a final contract.

“Nobody ever explained to me it’s a done deal,” he said. “This was far from a decision having finally been made.”

That had some impact; Olson is admired on both sides of the house as an honourable man.

But the PCs clearly face a big problem.

Wildrose has paper, plenty of it, released through Freedom of Information.

They’ve got a stack of e-mails and memos prepared by Redford, justice department officials, and the winning law firm.

On Dec. 14, 2010, Redford said in a signed memo that “the best choice for Alberta will be the International Tobacco Recovery Lawyers” (the group that includes Hawkes’ firm.)

A month later, a senior official wrote: “shortly before Christmas, Minister Redford selected the International Tobacco Recovery Lawyers.”

Further memos showed that the losing firms were notified of the decision in late December. So was the winning group.

A memo to the government from JSS Barristers, Hawkes’ Calgary firm, said “we were very happy to learn that we will be working with you on the health care recovery claim.”

All that was written before Redford stepped out of cabinet in February.

But the government argues that when lawyers are paid on contingency, there is no deal until the final terms are signed. And that didn’t happen until June 21, 2011.

One’s impressions go back and forth. These are complex matters explained by smart people.

But Wildrose has a paper trail. So far, the PCs offer only words.

It’s unlikely they can escape damage here without releasing documents that prove their own case.

However that works out, new shades of this story are starting to emerge.

Alberta’s claim on the tobacco companies is $10 billion in compensation for tobacco-related health-care costs.

If the contingency fee is 20 per cent, as suggested Wildrose MLA Shayne Saskiw, $2 billion in fees could be up for grabs.

So far, the PCs won’t explain the terms, or release any documents.

They’re asking for trust. To this point, it’s a frail defence against a pile of their own documents.

Don Braid’s column appears regularly in the [email protected]

Filed Under: News

Redford furious over conflict of interest allegations on the tobacco lawsuit

November 29, 2012 By Admin

By Keith Gerein, Edmonton Journal November 29, 2012 10:38 AM

EDMONTON – An angry Premier Alison Redford, an outraged opposition and allegations of a conflict of interest provided the ingredients for an emotionally charged day at the Alberta legislature Wednesday.

The animosity reached its pinnacle in question period, when Wildrose and NDP leaders accused Redford of political patronage over the awarding of a lucrative contract to a law firm that employs her ex-husband.

“This raises disturbing questions of conflict of interest, perceived conflict of interest, manipulation of the process, and at the very least horrible judgment,” Wildrose Leader Danielle Smith said.

That was followed by an explosive exchange between Redford and Wildrose critic Rob Anderson, who suggested he might make a complaint to the Law Society of Alberta about Redford’s conduct.

“The tangled web never ends, does it?” he said, noting the president-elect of the society is a senior partner at the same firm in question.

An enraged Redford fired back at Anderson that he was denigrating the entire legal community. Staring down the Wildrose caucus, she dared him to make good on his threat.

“This getting absolutely absurd,” she said to loud applause from her caucus. “If this person (Anderson), who theoretically should understand what the Law Society is, is now prepared to malign the legal profession, I have no idea where this discussion is supposed to go. But I’ll tell you, if this honourable member decides to make a complaint, go ahead.”

The firm in question, Calgary-based Jensen, Shawa, Solomon, Duguid and Hawkes, is part of a consortium known as Tobacco Recovery Lawyers LLP representing the province in a $10-billion lawsuit against the tobacco industry. Robert Hawkes, one of the named partners, was married to Redford for five years while both were in their 20s. The two have stayed friends and Hawkes led Redford’s transition team after she was elected PC leader.

The government insisted earlier this year that Tobacco Recovery Lawyers LLP was chosen through a competitive bid process in December 2010, when Redford was still justice minister. A review committee was appointed to consider three bidders.

However, an internal government memo obtained by CBC and the Wildrose indicates Redford was involved in the selection.

The Dec. 14 memo, from Redford to deputy justice minister Ray Bodnarek, says: “I note that the review committee considers all three firms interviewed to be capable of adequately conducting the litigation and believes that while no consortium stood above the others, all three have unique strengths and weaknesses.

“Considering the perceived conflicts of interest, actual conflicts of interest, the structure of the contingency arrangements and the importance of a ‘made in Alberta’ litigation plan, the best choice for Alberta will be the International Tobacco Recovery Lawyers.”

The opposition said the memo shows Redford acted improperly by picking a firm whose partners included a close personal and political friend. They said the proper thing to do would have been to remove herself from any role in the decision.

However deputy premier Thomas Lukaszuk and current Justice Minister Jonathan Denis came to Redford’s defence.

While Redford decided which of the three firms the government should negotiate with first, she did not make the final call, Denis said.

He said that following Redford’s memo, the province hired a separate firm to negotiate a contract with Tobacco Recovery Lawyers LLP, a process that took six months. When the contract was eventually signed in June 2011, the justice minister at the time was Verlyn Olson as Redford had stepped down to run for the PC party leadership.

As such, the final decision was made by Olson, Denis said.

“I’m not aware of any particular conflict of interest. I don’t see how any members of the cabinet or premier could benefit from this,” he said. “A person’s former spouse is not listed as one of the conflicts of interest.”

Glenn Solomon, a senior partner at the successful firm, confirmed Denis’s timeline. He said no contract was awarded or promised until the negotiations concluded during Olson’s tenure.

“What we were told, in no uncertain terms, was that the government was going to enter into discussions with us to see if we could reach an agreement. If that failed, they would turn to other bidders,” he said.

“At the time the deal was struck … Alison Redford had no input on that. She wasn’t in the picture.”

One of the other bidders was national firm Bennett Jones, which is leading the litigation against big tobacco for up to six other Canadian provinces. But Denis said Alberta decided to go with separate representation in part to avoid a legal conflict of interest in the case.

“One of the issues is that if (the national firm) is acting for another province as well as acting for Alberta, what could potentially happen is somewhere down the road in the litigation, you will find a situation where our interests as the province of Alberta may actually be different than another province,” he said. “And that can cause us a lot of problems in the litigation.”

Denis said Hawkes was not involved in the bid or the negotiation, and will have nothing to do with the case.

However, as NDP Leader Brian Mason pointed out, Hawkes could stand to financially benefit.

Though it is expected to take years to resolve, the massive lawsuit could be highly lucrative for both the government and its lawyers, who are conducting the case on a contingency-fee basis. That means the law firms involved take on all the upfront costs, but are expected to get a percentage of any eventual settlement or award, which could add up to hundreds of millions of dollars.

The Wildrose, which plans to file a complaint with the provincial Ethics Commissioner, used all nine sets of questions allotted to them Wednesday to ask about Redford’s role in the hiring decision. That led to countless shouts across the aisle and duelling points of order, forcing Speaker Gene Zwozdesky to interject several times to demand decorum.

A battle also broke out on social media, as Denis and his press secretary sparred with Wildrose members and a CBC reporter.

Duane Bratt, a political scientist at Mount Royal University, said the opposition and media were blowing the controversy out of proportion.

“Not every issue is a serious conflict, and we need to be able to separate what is a fact of doing business here and what is ethically wrong,” he said.

He said the opposition would likely be crying foul no matter which of the three firms were chosen, since all have personal ties to the PCs and have donated money to the party. In the case of Bennett Jones, the firm has been a regular contributor to the PCs, and was represented for years by former premier Peter Lougheed. More recently, one of the firm’s senior advisers, Jack Major, was appointed to review MLA pay.

Bratt said the prevalence of such ties between major law firms and the PCs is a reality of having the same government in power for four decades.

“I think that if you go through almost every law firm, you’d find ties to every party here,” Denis said. “There are binders full of lawyers everywhere around this province.”

[email protected]

Filed Under: News

Alberta government attacked over $3B deficit

November 29, 2012 By Admin

By Sarah O’Donnell, Edmonton Journal November 28, 2012

EDMONTON – Alberta is on track to run a deficit as high as $3 billion in the 2012-13 fiscal year, provincial finance officials said Wednesday, drawing sharp criticism from the opposition.

Speaking to the second-quarter results, Finance Minister Doug Horner said the budget problems revealed in the first-quarter financial update continued during July, August and September. Overall, he said, the province has a bright economic future. But of particular concern is lower than expected energy revenues.

“The biggest factor affecting our resource revenue now is market access for our oil,” Horner said. “We have one customer and one way to get our product to them. On the other hand, our customer has many different suppliers to choose from. This isn’t a good situation to be in and it’s costing us.

“Right now the difference between the world price for a barrel of oil and what our producers can get for Alberta bitumen is about $28. Multiply that by 2.5 million barrels per day and the money adds up very quickly.”

In the first six months of the year, resource revenue was $1.4 billion lower than expected.

Bitumen royalties fell $369 million short of six-month projections, while crude oil was $139 million short. Natural gas was $349 million short and Crown lease income was about half of the $1.1 billion expected.

The province has revised its price for a barrel of West Texas Intermediate crude downward from $99.25 in the budget to $92.50 in the second quarter update.

Those shortfalls matter because about a quarter of the province’s $40-billion budget is funded with resource revenue.

Alberta Finance also reported that expenses for the first six months were $293 million higher than expected. The reason, they said, was dealing with disasters such as forest fires and severe hailstorms.

The second quarter update continued the trend of quarterly reports that paint a less rosy picture than anticipated in the government’s February budget. Instead of an $886-million deficit projected for the year, finance officials said the deficit looked like it would range between $2.3 billion and $3 billion.

During that August update, Horner said the government was asking departments to look for $500 million in savings and to re-evaluate all planned building projects.

Horner said Wednesday that they still expect departments to find those savings. The government is also looking at deferring some construction projects, although he said those have not been identified yet beyond a decision to cancel the police training centre in Fort Macleod.

The deficit will be covered through the province’s sustainability fund, which is essentially a provincial savings account. But that fund had dipped to $5 billion as of Sept. 30 and that is expected to end the year in the $3 billion to $3.7 billion range, according to the second quarter update.

The shrinking sustainability fund is one of several red flags opposition parties raised after Horner’s presentation. Wildrose Leader Danielle Smith said she found the fiscal update troubling.

“It is an absolute train wreck that we have a government overseeing one of the strongest economies in North America that can’t balance its budget,” Smith said.

“What is happening here is this is a government that has always relied on energy revenues to bail them out of their overspending. This time it’s not working for them.”

NDP Leader Brian Mason accused the Progressive Conservatives of making promises during the election campaign based on an unrealistic budget.

“The Progressive Conservatives stole the last election by misleading Albertans about the state of Alberta’s finances,” Mason said. “It’s clear from this budget those promises will be broken and this is a broken promise budget.”

Liberal finance critic Kent Hehr described the second quarter update as an “exercise in voodoo math.” He said it is unrealistic for Albertans to keep expecting to balance its books on fossil fuel revenue and borrowing.

“You have to ask the taxpayer to pay for these priorities and I believe Albertans are willing to do that,” Hehr said. “They understand the need for schools, roads and hospitals.”

Horner said the government will not introduce a sales tax or increase income taxes to help balance the budget. He also said that the government will borrow to build some infrastructure, but said they will also put forward a savings plan in the next budget.

“There is a tremendous cost to our communities if they do not get the infrastructure they need,” Horner said. “This is not a cost you can put a price tag on, but it is something that impacts quality of life in everyday Alberta. To simply say ‘wait’ to a community simply isn’t good enough.”

In August, it was more than just the budget projections that prompted concerns about the first-quarter update; Alberta Finance also was critiqued for the way it presented that financial information.

Merwan Saher, Alberta’s auditor general, said in October his office was investigating whether the department broke provincial laws by failing to provide detailed financial projections, capital planning or financial asset information. It also offered a range for a projected deficit, rather than an actual number.

There was more data provided in Wednesday’s second quarter update, but opposition parties and the Canadian Taxpayers Federation said the documents still lacked the detail that the government is obligated to provide.

[email protected]

twitter.com/scodonnell

Filed Under: News

Bill 2 -Responsible Energy Development Act –Repeals Landowners’ Rights Re: Energy Projects on Landowners’ Own Land and More

November 29, 2012 By Admin

This Bill 2 is a train wreck for landowners.

Landowners are the most affected group in our society by energy projects. Remember–these projects (pipelines and well sites) mostly occur on landowner’s land, not energy company lands. And landowners can’t say no to the energy project. The energy companies can get a right of entry order under the Surface Rights Act and force their way onto your land.

Streamlining energy regulatory processes is a good idea. I strongly support and encourage that. It is important for the future of our economy. There is no value to anyone in having a needlessly complex and convoluted regulatory approval processes.

However, streamlining does not need to—and should not—occur at the expense of landowners, communities, or the environment. Bill 2 is sloppy legal drafting and bad policy insofar as it strips the most affected by energy projects of their legal rights.

It troubles me greatly that landowners appear to be the sacrificial lambs of the government’s inept attempt at regulatory streamlining. The government needs to scrap Bill 2 and build a proper new regulatory process for the energy industry. The real and immediate impacts of energy developments on landowners needs to be recognized in any new law.

Here are my comments based on my 20 plus years of experience dealing with energy regulatory processes and after having studied Bill 2.

Stripping Landowners of their Rights

Remember that almost all energy development in Alberta that occurs outside of Crown lands, occurs on someone’s private property . . . on someone’s farm or ranch, on their recreational property or rural land. Pipelines, well sites, and related infrastructure mostly occur on someone else’s land—not the oil companies’ land.

And remember too that oil companies can force their way onto private land. Even if the landowner does not want the pipeline, the sour gas well, the CBM well, etc, the company can get a Right of Entry Order from the Surface Rights Board. The companies get these entry orders as a matter of right and there is nothing that a landowner can do to stop that order. (Recent Court of Queen’s Bench decision affirming same.)

Today—and ever since Alberta got control of natural resources in 1930—the place that a landowner goes to have his or her concerns about a pipeline, well site or other energy project addressed is the ERCB. Section 26 the Energy Resources Conservation Act is the critical foundation upon which landowners are given rights within the regulatory process for energy projects:

s. 26(2) . . . if it appears to the Board that its decision on an application may directly and adversely affect the rights of a person, the Board shall give the person

(a) notice of the application,
(b) a reasonable opportunity of learning the facts bearing on the application and presented to the Board by the applicant and other parties to the application,
(c) a reasonable opportunity to furnish evidence relevant to the application or in contradiction or explanation of the facts or allegations in the application,
(d) if the person will not have a fair opportunity to contradict or explain the facts or allegations in the application without cross-examination of the person presenting the application, an opportunity of cross-examination in the presence of the Board or its examiners, and
(e) an adequate opportunity of making representations by way of argument to the Board or its examiners.

These are not rights conferred by the Board. These are rights that are conferred by statute law—an enactment of the Legislative Assembly. If the Board does not follow this statute law, you can appeal their decision to the Court of Appeal—Alberta’s highest court, a superior court under our Constitution.

You will recall the Court of Appeal rulings in the Kelly cases. That was where the ERCB was trying to exclude landowners from participating in the process. Landowners who the ERCB themselves concluded could be killed by the sour gas wells. The Court of Appeal admonished the Board for reading down sec 26 and ruled that these landowners had standing in the process and that the Board had to reopen the hearing process to hear their concerns. And then there was the Kelly Court of Appeal ruling on Board denying intervener costs and again reading down sec 26 to achieve it. The Court was equally critical of the Board for its treatment of landowners. Because of Bill 2, the Board now gets complete unfettered discretion in deciding whether landowners get any notice or can have any right to a hearing or other participation in the process. There is nothing in Bill 2 that creates any rights for landowners.

Bill 2 repeals this important section. It replaces it with nothing in the new Act. It only makes reference to the new Regulator making rules about when notice would be given and who will be given rights to hearings etc.

Landowners are the most affected group in our society by energy projects. Remember–the projects mostly occur on landowner’s land, not energy company lands. And landowners can’t say no to the energy project. The only balancing feature in our regulatory system has been sec. 26 and now it’s gone.

Side by side comparison reveals how landowners’ and communities’ rights have been wiped out by Bill 2:

Public Interest

Bill 2 removes all references to “public interest”.

Currently, sec 3 of the Energy Resources Conservation Act reads:

Consideration of public interest

3 Where by any other enactment the Board is charged with the conduct of a hearing, inquiry or other investigation in respect of a proposed energy resource project or carbon capture and storage project, it shall, in addition to any other matters it may or must consider in conducting the hearing, inquiry or investigation, give consideration to whether the project is in the public interest, having regard to the social and economic effects of the project and the effects of the project on the environment. RSA 2000 cE-10 s3;2010 c14 s1

Bill 2 repeals sec. 3 public interest provisions. .

It replaces it with this.

Mandate of Regulator

2(1) The mandate of the Regulator is

(a) to provide for the efficient, safe, orderly and environmentally responsible development of energy resources in Alberta through the Regulator’s regulatory activities, and

(b) in respect of energy resource activities, to regulate

(i) the disposition and management of public lands,
(ii) the protection of the environment, and

(iii) the conservation and management of water, including the wise allocation and use of water, in accordance with energy resource enactments and, pursuant to this Act and the regulations, in accordance with specified

None of the other references to public interest that exist in the existing Energy Resources Conversation Act are being carried forward. They are all being repealed. There is not a single reference to the public interest in Bill 2.

The government’s decision to abandon public interest decision-making for energy projects is truly troubling.

Right to Appeal to the Environmental Appeals Board Removed

Currently, landowners whose land in contaminated or otherwise environmentally harmed by energy developments, can appeal environmental decisions affecting their own land to the independent Environmental Appeals Board. The Board came into existence in 1993 and has been providing landowners with an appeal of last resort for 19 years.

Bill 2 brings that to an end. No more independent appeals to the EAB for landowners whose land is contaminated by oil and gas activities.

The new energy regulator will make all of the environmental decisions relating to landowner’s land. If you think the energy regulator missed something, or got something wrong, your only remedy is ask the regulator to review its own decision. No independent review. History shows that regulators almost always decide that they got it right the first time when they are asked to review their own decisions. That is why we have independent appeal processes.

Interestingly, when a landowner appeals to the EAB a decision of Alberta Environment that the landowner thinks was inadequate, Alberta Environment will take the position at the EAB hearing that Alberta Environment got it right and there is no need to change its own decision. Often, the EAB will rule against Alberta Environment. The EAB will often find that something was missed and that additional steps need to be taken to deal with the environmental concern.

Appeals to the Public Lands Appeal Board

Right now ranchers, resource companies and other users of Crown lands have the right to appeal energy related decisions to the Public Lands Appeal Board. Bill 2 strips people of that right too.

Bill 2 Won’t Work – It Won’t Achieve its Laudable Goal

Streamlining the regulatory process is a good idea but I don’t think Bill 2 will deliver.

The Environmental Law Centre has described the proposed new regulatory process as a “Frankin-child”. I agree that a Frankenstein-like creative is being created by Bill 2.

Why not start from scratch? I was surprised that the government decided to try to mush two existing complex and very different regulatory processes together. Doing that does not make things more simple for anyone—oil companies, landowners, communities nor even the regulator. I would have thought they would have started with a clean piece of paper and designed a modern, efficient and effective regulatory process for the energy industry that meets the needs of the industry, landowners, communities, and the environment.

Keep in mind that the processes administered by Alberta Environment (Alberta Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act and Water Act) are fundamentally different than the processes administered by the ERCB. It would be like trying to play a CD in an 8track player. And the only guidance that Bill 2 gives for how the music will play is this:

Sec. 88 of Bill 2 on page 50 consequentially amends the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act as follows:
2.1 This Act, to the extent that it applies to energy resource activities as defined in the Responsible Energy Development Act, shall be read and applied in conjunction with the Responsible Energy Development Act.

This legal wording does not mean anything. It does not resolve how the two very different regulatory frameworks will be reconciled. It would be like getting instructions for your new CD that reads: ‘operate the CD with the 8 Track player so that the music plays’. Not much help and very unlikely to play much music.

Keith Wilson

[email protected]

The Wilson Law Office
Suite 195 3 -11 Bellerose Drive
St. Albert, Alberta, Canada T8N 5C9

Filed Under: Bulletin

Enbridge plans $1.8-billion pipeline from Edmonton to Hardisty

November 23, 2012 By Admin

By Dave Cooper, Edmonton Journal November 22, 2012

EDMONTON – Enbridge says it has received the support of oil shippers for a $1.8-billion pipeline project linking Edmonton and Hardisty, the hub for Alberta’s oil exports.

The project will include a 36-inch, 179-kilometre pipeline along with new tankage and terminal facilities in both Edmonton and Hardisty.

The line will initially be able to move 570,000 barrels per day and could be in service by mid-2015. It will follow the route of the existing Enbridge Line 4 Pipeline.

“The Edmonton to Hardisty expansion program will align the capability of our system with our shippers’ plans for how their growth in crude oil volumes will be divided between volumes entering our system at the Edmonton and Hardisty crude oil hubs,” Stephen Wuori, president of liquids pipelines for Enbridge, said in a statement.

“The agreement with shippers on terms for the expansion … (ensures) that we provide the facilities and services they need to maximize the value of their crude oil.”

The new line is part of a $12-billion plan to expand Enbridge’s North American pipeline and terminal network primarily to support broadening access of oilsands production to U.S. refining markets.

Enbridge anticipates filing an application with the National Energy Board by the end of the year, with construction beginning in early 2014. The company said representatives will be consulting with interested parties and First Nations communities along the right-of-way to seek their input and to provide updates on the project.

Enbridge’s regional oilsands infrastructure includes the Athabasca and Waupisoo pipeline systems, which currently connect six producing oilsands projects. That will increase to eight projects by 2014.

The new Edmonton to Hardisty line is needed as volumes of crude from the oilsands continues to increase, and will become part of Enbridge’s main line system, which heads for the Chicago area and from there takes a southwest track to Cushing, Okla., and then to Houston and the U.S. Gulf Coast refineries.

Competitors TransCanada and Kinder Morgan also operate export pipelines which leave from Hardisty and head south through the U.S.

Enbridge is Canada’s largest transporter of crude oil, with approximately 24,738 kilometres of crude pipeline, delivering on average more than 2.2 million barrels per day of crude oil and liquids. It also exports 65 per cent of western Canadian oil.

[email protected]

Filed Under: News