Mr. Anderson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Bill 203, the Municipal Government (Local Access and Franchise Fees) Amendment Act, 2010, no doubt has noble goals. Bringing clarity and transparency to small business and residential consumers is a very important goal and something that I support. However, there is a problem. Yet again this government is going about this the wrong way initially. This government has a terrible track record of shooting first and then asking questions later. They did this with the royalty review, they did this with health care centralization, they did this with the ambulance dispatch system, and they did it with Bill 50.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it’s obvious to many Albertans that with the way this government has handled health care and energy issues, they mean well, but they keep getting it wrong over and over and over again, so it’s time they get it right. That’s why I’m pleased to hear some of the members in this Assembly get up and say that they would like to refer this bill to the appropriate committee, to bring stakeholders in and to talk to those stakeholders, and to understand through consultation what the needs and the concerns are of the municipalities and other stakeholders that will be affected by this bill.

Municipalities, of course, have been given the authority to charge utility companies a fee for entry to municipal land so that they can build, operate, and maintain their electrical and natural gas distribution systems. Sadly, the authority delegated to municipalities has been, as has been alluded to in here, abused in some cases. Rather than charging a reasonable fee for a necessary service, some appear to be taking advantage of the situation. At the very least, the fees are confusing as they have different names in different cities, called fees in some, called charges in others.

Many municipalities have been proactive on this issue. In Medicine Hat, for example, their council doesn’t charge a fee for access. They realize that, ultimately, the cost is shouldered by the taxpayer and have chosen not to burden their citizens in that way. In Calgary their fee, which is a charge for something used, is calculated based on the entire power bill. If the price of natural gas goes up, so does this so-called fee. This, of course, is inconsistent with what the fee is intended for: a fixed access charge by the municipality. The costs to access city property do not go up because the cost of power increases. That’s not the point of the fee, and it’s not appropriate.

Ensuring transparency and fairness is the job of government, so this is an important issue that we need to address. Again, this gives us the opportunity, by referring it to a committee, to include vital stakeholders that have not been consulted, to consult with stakeholders like municipalities, power users and generators as well as just average, everyday Albertans and consumers. Mr. Speaker, I endorse the principles and sentiments behind this bill, but I fear that if we do not send it to a committee, this will be another bungled attempt by this government to do something that is well meaning but has unintended consequences affixed to it.

In my view, the Standing Committee on Community Services is the appropriate venue for further discussion and consultation on this important issue. As such I would therefore propose the following amendment, and I have appropriate copies of the amendment that I would bring forward.

The Deputy Speaker: The pages will distribute the amendment. Hon. member, please continue with this amendment.

Mr. Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I’d move that the motion for second reading of Bill 203, Municipal Government (Local Access and Franchise Fees) Amendment Act, 2010, be amended by deleting all the words after “that” and substituting the following:

Bill 203, Municipal Government (Local Access and Franchise Fees) Amendment Act, 2010, be not now read a second time but that the subject matter of the bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Community Services in accordance with Standing Order 74.2.

I’ve already spoken to why I feel that, again, we need the opportunity to consult with various stakeholders, power users, power generators, municipalities, consumers, et cetera. That is the reason for referring it rather than just barreling on ahead and passing a bill that could have some very severe unintended consequences.

Video:

Let's Not Pass on More Taxes to Consumers
Dim lights