Danielle In QP, December 6: Opposition Amendments to Bills

Ms Smith: Yes. Thank you. You’ll be happy with these questions, Mr. Speaker.

I want to acknowledge all of my opposition colleagues for the great work we did by proposing more than a hundred amendments to government bills, but despite the Premier’s stated goal of more free votes, more time between proposing and voting, more collaboration, the government rejected pretty much everything we put forward. It’s another case of the Premier saying one thing and doing another or, as with the tobacco deal, doing one thing and saying another. To the Premier: how does unanimously rejecting more than a hundred amendments square with the desire for more free votes and more collaboration?

Ms Redford: Mr. Speaker, this has been a fantastic session, where we have passed 10 pieces of legislation that matter to Albertans. We’ve delivered on an election act, elections financing legislation, whistle-blower legislation, homebuyers’ protection legislation. We’ve acknowledged posttraumatic stress disorder, and we have ensured that the regulatory process will protect the property rights of landowners. [interjections]

Mr. Speaker, what we do as a government is that before we bring legislation to this House, we consult with stakeholders. We ensure that our legislation is strong, and we’re proud of our legislative record this . . .

The Speaker: Thank you.

Ms Smith: What about the amendment that would close the Katz loophole that allowed huge donations from a single source? Why did your government reject this?

Ms Redford: Mr. Speaker, the legislation that was passed reflects what Albertans want to see with respect to integrity and honesty and independence in this House. I can’t speak to the fact that the opposition may have introduced amendments that were erroneous, irrelevant, and not important, but what I will say is that Albertans voted for a government that was committed to transparency and to honesty. The issues we’ve debated in this House have been a result of changes that we on this front bench have made with respect to transparency, and that is the record that we will stand by.

Ms Smith: What about the Lynn Redford amendment that would have opened up details of illegal contributions dating all the way back to 2005? Now, we can guess why that was rejected, but why doesn’t the Premier tell us?

Ms Redford: Mr. Speaker, to me this question period is nothing but an exclamation point on the decorum that has been inappropriately shown in this House. I will tell you that there are a lot of processes in place, that we put in place, with respect to disclosure, with respect to inquiries, and with respect to expenses, which is the reason that the opposition can ask these questions. [interjections] I will tell you that from what we have heard in our caucus over the last weekend, these sorts of comments are entirely inappropriate. They do not dignify this institution, and I’m not surprised to hear them from the Leader of the Opposition.