Alberta Hansard — 8 April 2003, Evening sitting (20:00) (Legislature 25, Session 3)

20030408

Alberta — Debates (Hansard)

April 8, 2003 Alberta Hansard 863 Legislative Assembly of Alberta Title: Tuesday, April 8, 2003 8:00 p.m. Date: 2003/04/08 [The Deputy Speaker in the chair] The Deputy Speaker: Please be seated. I wonder if the Assembly would agree to briefly revert to Introduc- tion of Guests. [Unanimous consent granted] head : Introduction of G uests The Deput y Speak er: The hon. Mem ber for Clover B ar-Fort Saskatchewan. Mr. Lougheed: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This evening I’ve had the opportunity to speak with a group of young constituents who have assembled in the room upstairs to discuss some topics of interest to them.

I’d like to introduce them. I will read their names off, and then afterwards I’ll have them rise and receive the traditional welcome of the Assembly . We have with us this e vening Darcy Andrews, Ravi A marnath, Jeanne-M arie A udy, Matt hew Bis sett, Leslie-Anne Fendelet, Garnett Genius, Matthew Mohr, Mark Ruhl, Neil Ruhl, Angela Schubert, Trevor Stokke, Chris Young, Beverly Eastham, Jessica McClay, and Steve Buchta. I’d ask them to please rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of this Assembly. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. Mr. MacDonald: Yes, please, Mr. Speaker.

At thi s time I would like to introduce to you and through you to all hon. Members of this Legislative Assembly one of the most distinguished citizens in the constituency of Edmonton-Gold Bar and a former Detroit Red Wing, Mr. Terry Cavanagh. Mr. Cavanagh has had a very distinguished career in civic politics and has a very keen interest in the economic prosperity and the future of the city of Edmonton. He ’s in th e Speaker’s galler y, and I woul d no w a sk him to please rise and receive the warm and traditional welcome of this Assembly. Thank you. Mr. Hutton: I was going to acknowledge Mr. Cavanagh as well, Mr.

Speaker, because he was a fine mayor and is a dear friend too. The Deputy Speaker: I guess you could stand up again. A double welcome. head : Government Motions Provincial Fiscal Policies 19. Mrs. Nelson moved:

Be it resolved that the Ass embly approv e in gene ral the business plans and fiscal policies of the government. [Adjourned debate April 8: Ms Carlson] The Deput y Speaker: The hon. Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition. Dr. Nicol: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise tonight to begin debate on the budget for the 2003-2004 fiscal year.

One of the main components of the whole discussion and the theme that kind of permeated through the speech from the Finance m inister this afternoon was the idea that this is a budget that’s going to start a new phase in Alberta’s financial management, financial planning, and the key word seems to be the focus on stability and sustainability. When you look at the process that was put in place through the legislative agenda earlier in the session, Bill 2, that put in place the ability to deal with the stability fund, or sustainability fund, the infrastructure capital fund, and to make some of those ad justments.

That r eally will help in that context. When you look at the idea of sustainability and the broad context of that term , I have t o go back to the question that I plac ed to the Premier yeste rday in que stion period w hen I ask ed him to de fine sustainability in the context of the government’s debate, and he in effect took that opport unity to ti e sustaina bility to government expenditures that were constrained by revenues. That’s simplifying an answer that he gave us, but that was the sense of it.

I guess when I think about that definition and that use of the term, I would like to think of sustainability in a lot broader context of what is a true use of that word, and to define it so close ly tied to budget balancing, budget susta inability, then what we en d up wi th is the kind of approach to planning that really doesn’t facilitate the true concept of stability and sustaina bility, that I d iscussed at length for the last number of years and, more specifically, the last two years when I’ve been trying to promote the idea of sustainability, the stability fund, as I called it, the inf rastructure fund, th e reven ue smoothi ng, all concepts that the government has now incorporated.

But the debate that went around my definition of that sustainability had to deal with the progressive and sustainable growth of our province. If we look at it from the point of view of, in effect, the tools that were put in place, those tools by themselves only facilitate an ope ration, but what they do is they need to mak e sure that the t ools have t he appropriate vision behind them. What I want t o talk about a little bi t at the st art tonight is the vision that I would like to have s een in the budget today and the vision that, in effect, ended up in the budget today.

I guess to use some of the budget line items that show up in it, it’s a matter of: how do we look at provincial expenditures as a component in both the economic and social systems of our province? If we look at how the government approached the budget this term, yes, they’ve created a system that will provide for, if I want to call it, the ability not to have shocks in a ye ar. So it’s taken out t he uncertainty of the budget rather than the sustainability of the budget.

You know, I guess that’s how I can classify the difference in what I was talking about when I talked about sustainability and stability of our budgeting processes as opposed to what I see in the government’s operational plan that they gave us today. In other words, they’ve got a budget and they’re using tools to sm ooth their budge ting proces s, no t to make a sustainable budget.

When I talk about a sustainable budget, I look at it from the point of view of: are the public expenditures sufficient and appropriately placed to give us the growth in our economy, the support of the infrastructure in our economy, the balance in our social systems, and the safety nets that are there to really provide for a future, a vision, that says, “this is where we wa nt to be 20 y ears from now; this is where we want to be 30 years from now; this is where we want our children to be when they become adults, become legislators taking our place”?

This is the kind of thing that we have to focus on, and I don’t see that in this budget in the context of sustainability that I use when I talk about that term. Mr. Speaker, I’ll just kind of go through a little bit and use some of the examples that I want to use to illustrate that in the sense that what we have is a system that didn’t put the money in the priorit y areas, the areas that Albertans were asking for. You know, we keep line item totals in the budget, and I guess the easy one to talk about

864 Alberta Hansard April 8, 2003 is educa tion be cause that’s the one t hat most peo ple have aske d questions about toda y. We end up with, depending on how y ou calculate it, somewhere between a 4 and a half percent, 4.7 percent – and some people have even come up with a number of 4.9 percent – increase in the Learning budget.

But when you look at what ’s really there for the frontline delivery of ser vice, even the budget points out that it’s only 2 percent for the per s tudent grant, and if that’s all we have i n the pe r student grant, that’s in effect a signal being sent by the government that that’s the amount of money for classroom activity. 8:10 Now, I recognize that there are additional dollars for technology in another line item, but, you know, that’s a signal by the govern- ment that those dol lars should be in technology. There’s another line item for special needs.

That means that those dollars should be used for children with special learning conditions, special needs, to help them learn, to help them reach their potential. But when you look at it fr om the point of view of wha t’s there to handle the classroom ne ed, the per student grant only g oes up by 2 percent. How do we deal with that in the context of a sy stem that still i s trying to catch up on an arbitrated wage settlement, that is trying to catch up with extremely high utility costs for the past year and the foreseeable couple of years?

When we look at a sy stem that’s trying to d eal with the added costs of new technology adoption and the evergreening of technol- ogy, it doesn’t give us a sustainable budget when we look at how it’s broken out in Learning. You know, we’re dealing here most in my discussion with the K to 12 component, not the advanced education or the adult learning component that they define in the line items of the budget.

Even there we’re giving basically for the classrooms at the advanced education level a 2.2 percent increase, but what we’re doing is in ef fect downloading on to student s more of the cost by allowing tuitions to go up, by allowing differential tuition fees. This basically sa ys that stud ents have to finan ce more o f thei r own education cost. When we put tha t into a dev elopment component, Mr.

Speaker, you have to appreciate, you know, the focus that I’ve taken on a lot of the work I did befor e coming to the Le gislature in t erms of my work with g overnments, my work with communities in te rms of economic development, and one of the things that we talked about all the time was the nee d for human re source tr aining, huma n resource quality, but also the fact that economic development really transcends the idea of just having that. We’ve got to have an ability for those indivi duals to

part icipate in both the com munity system and the econom ic system, and if we ’re basically saying to a n ew graduate that “you’re going to have a much greater obligation to the financial community throug h paying off y our l oans,” they’re not going to have the mon ey to partici pate in what we have as a consumer economy in North America. We don’t have with them the same ability to go out and buy a home, to buy new cars, to buy, you know, the entertainmen t, the consumer goods that I had, as an example, when I graduated.

I was very fortunate to have gone through univer sity a t a time when, you know, the public saw the value of a public university and the value of citizens trained to participate in the system. So in effect I came out of university with essentially no financial debt. So I had to deal with that in the context of: where do I go by comparing my grandchildren now or even my children, who are coming out of their university programs with significant financial debts? Does that mean I should step in and help pay off their debt for them?

Well, I think that’s an issue t hat we ha ve to lo ok at in terms of w hat a social expectation is. I hear a number of the me mbers across the road saying that, yes, I should be paying off my children’s university debt, but this is the idea of: where does the benefit truly come from that university education? It comes back to all of us as a community.

I think the ideal example that we can give on that is the decision that was made by Ireland about 15 years a go to make sure tha t every student who wanted to had access to an advanced education system, and that system in effect helped them get established, and they had a lot of support through the publi c school sy stem: no t uition, minimal tuition at the postsecondary education level. We need to look at the perspective that they now have one of the fastest growing economie s in the w orld. So in ef fect they were thinking about the long-term potential and long-term sustainability for their communities.

They were dealing with this in the context of how to make sure that their communities were viable by having well- trained, well-educated individuals, and they’ve got rewards coming now from that. You know, that’s the thing we should be looking at when we plan our budgets, when we plan our ex penditures a t a public level, the idea that we end up pushing this to the limit in terms of making sure that these students have a manageable debt but that they do have an obligation to pay off that debt.

All we’re doing is making sure that the financ ial com munities of our ec onomy a re strong, not the true sens e of our c ommunity, because individuals then start to make decisions about where they can locate to get the most from their em ployment so that they can pay back those financial obligations. I don’t think this budget passes on a message that we want to strongly support people, young Albertans, getting a quality education in our province. You know, the whole ide a that w e look throug h th is and say: where are the pr iorities, where are the issues that this gover nment sees as important?

We look at a 2 percent increase per student or classroom grant s for ed ucation, yet we look at a much bigger increase in the additiona l dollars going to suppor t horse racing in this province. They get a 10 or 12 percent increase; students get only a 2 percent increase. What signal of priorities does that send to the young people of this province?

You know, it’s really in my mind the wrong k ind of a si gnal whe n we’re going to inc rease the expenditures on horse racing by more than we’re going to increase the expenditures on public educ ation, more than health care, more than any of the other people service components. It really sends out a wrong signal and a signal that doesn’t reflect a lot of the priorities of Albertans.

The other component that we heard talk about here in terms of the stability of where we’re trying to go as a province is, you know, this new idea of capital expenditures, and I guess just to kind of touch on one more point to kind of illustrate, the focus that I see in this budget that doesn’t sit right with how I would like to see us serve the public through this Legislature is this idea of how we’re going to deal with our capital and our infrastructure. You know, it’s great.

It’s really commendable that the government is making a commitment to catch up on some of the infrastructure deficit that we’ve had created over the last 10 years. You know, the idea that they’re going to commit to $5.5 billion ove r the next three years is go ing to in effect make sure that we do have some degree of catch-up and sustainability in our needs for infrastructure. 8:20 But when you look at what they’re doing, it’s interesting that they’re committing to use some of that public money in support of other financial alternatives, as they ca ll them in here.

In the background material they start talking about and they reintroduce the concept of the public/private partnerships, and if we’re looking at the long-term best interests of Albertans, we have to make sure that we spend the dollars to get the best return over years, not just this year but over a number of years, for Albertans.

April 8, 2003 Alberta Hansard 865 It really raises the questions when we have the best credit rating in North America, we have the options to dea l with financing our infrastructure, we have the providers of infrastructure – you know, the businesses in our community who in eff ect can pu t that in place . . . Speaker’s Ruling Decorum The Deputy Speaker: I’m sorry, hon. le ader.

We have a de bate going on, and some people have forgotten their manners this evening and don’t realize that we have only one hon. member speaking at a time, and that’s you, hon. leader, not this gentleman over here nor the other gentleman over here who see ms to be anxious to debate. They will have a chance later on, but right now it’s the hon. Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition. Debate Continued Dr. Nicol: Thank you again, Mr. Speaker.

The point I was getting at is the fact that if we look at the long-term investment in our capital projects, the very best way for us to do it and give Albertans the best value for their dollar is to do it under the public system because we in effect can borrow the money, we have the technology, we have the expertise, and we have the private-sect or construction companies that can actually build those things for us in the most cost-effective way.

All of the material we’ve been able to gather over the last four months while this debate’s been going on has indicated that in the other jurisdictions where the public/private partnerships have been tried, they’ve all raised a lot of concern and a lot of problems, all the way from higher costs to higher management to greater bureaucra- cies being created to deal with the provision of services, and that’s not wha t we w ant in Albe rta. We want to ha ve seamless, cost- effective infrastructure.

All I’m saying here is that if the government moves ahead on this, if they really feel they have to , make sure t hat the guidelines that they put for this committee that they talk about creating to vet these investments and these par tnerships – t hat that com mittee be chal- lenged with a l ong-run vis ion of how cost-effectively our public dollars are being used and that they have to do it in a public way so that in effect everyone can be brought into agreement about: this is a cost-effective way.

We don’t want to be in a position where we see problems arise, we see obligations arise that weren’t foreseen, and the other issu e is, you know, that we have to make sur e that the quality standard is the same. In th e examples of the P3s that have been tried in A lberta, there were quality differences between the public construction and the private-sector contract construction, and we have to make sure that if we’re going to compare costs under a partnership scenario versus the costs unde r the public s ystem, the quality standards and the use requirements a re comp atible.

You know, that’s one of the things that’s really important that we do in the context of being open with Albertans. Mr. Speaker, I guess there are just a couple of other issues that we talk about in terms of try ing to ma ke sure that we deal wi th the budget in its full focus.

If we look at, in a sense, some of the issues that come up with, again, the lin e item concept of the individual ministries, we are very pleased to see the magnitude of the increase in health care, but when you build in the federal contribution, which in effect is expected to be used for new services in terms of home care and catastrophic drug costs, we have to look at that then.

When you take that amount of money out of the health care budget, there’s really litt le or n o op timism to be felt in that health care budget because it doesn’t rea lly se nd a si gnal that there’s a lot of roo m, especially with the labour negotiations that are coming up this year, how they’re going to be handled. Will there be contingencies built in so that we don’t end up with the same kind of requirement for financial transfers from one

section to the other to handle the labour costs as opposed to the funding that went into other aspects? It’s important, you know, that that kind of issue be dealt with, but, Mr. Speaker, the appropriate place to do that is in Committee of Supply as we deal with those individual budgets. So what I’m trying to do m ore here is focus on some of the major components of the budget in terms of where we’re going. I guess the other part of it that I want to just address, as well, is the idea that historically we’ve had some of the disaster services risk management dollars handled at a budgetary level.

If I rea d th e budget documents correctly, now almost all of those risk require- ments in our budget are being transferred over to the stability fund. So drought, fire, those kinds of components are going to be ending up over there because even in Sustainable Resource Development the line item for for est fires is w ell below the aver age amount of money spent in the last three to five years. In effect, we can say that it’s not enough to meet what is an average expectation.

There is a kind of a signal being sent here that the budget process expects some money to be transferred from the stabilization fund to deal with forest fire fighting. We look at the agriculture com ponents and look at the droug ht programs there. I g uess I don’t share quite th e optim ism of the Minister of Finance today when she talked about the new A g programs and how they were going to in effect reduce completely the need for the kinds of ad hoc programs we saw last year . Mr.

Speaker, I really hope that that is the case, you know, because the ad hoc program s that w e saw last y ear we re reall y qu ite o pen to question ab out t he eff ectiveness of the m. I think I relay ed the situation that I was faced with last summer on the acreage payment program where on my farm in southern Alberta I was faced with the highest yields I’ve had in five years, the best prices I’ve had in 20 years, the lowest costs because I got rain when I needed it. I didn’t have to irrigate.

I had all that public infrastructure there to help me risk-manage, yet I got the litt le form in the mail saying: y ou can qualify for public money. Now, I didn’t apply, but in the end that kind of points out the fact that ad hoc programs don’t really direct the money where it needs to go.

So I really would like to share the minister’s optimism when she spoke this afternoon and said that she hoped that this ne w program being put in place by the minister of agriculture would eliminate the need for those ad hoc programs, but I also had a chance to chat w ith the mi nister of agricult ure and pointed out some of the stories that are starting to float around rural Alberta a lready about way s to abuse t he system that are alr eady being found by some of the farmers out there that are signing up for the new programs. 8:30 You know, this is the kind of thing, Mr.

Speaker, where any new program has to be tested both for its effectiveness and also f or its ability not to be used. Are the fences appropriately defined around it? I hope that the minister works strongly to make sure that as next year comes along, the new programs are built or are modified to close some of the loopholes t hat appear to be in it ri ght now, but that’s something th at we c an only te ll over ti me in te rms of how much of a problem that’s going to be.

I guess that where I was going on that is that it goes in with this idea that all of the risk management money is now being transferred to the stability fund, and how do we sustain that in the c ontext of long-term planning? It wo uld have been better to have h ad s ome ki nd of an es timate built into the annual bud gets, yo u kno w, espec ially i n Agric ulture. Wit h Ag

866 Alberta Hansard April 8, 2003 Financial Services they have a me chanism to move m oney across years so that, in effect, you can create a pool that has money in it that is actuarially sound over time based on the expectations of demand for the program. So you end up looking at that and saying: why put so much of the risk onto a fund tha t was supposed to be the re for stability as opposed to that risk management component? Mr. Speaker, as I kind of come to the end . . . [interjections] Well, maybe I’ll use a few more minutes of my time now. Getting all that encouragement, I’ll go on a little further.

The idea is that, you know, we need to m ake sure that we go through the explanations of the budget and try and make it so that it’s easy for all of us to talk to our constituents about it. I just wanted to touch on one oth er aspect before closing, and I guess I thr ow this out as much to ho pe that it wi ll p recipitate an answer as o pposed to throwing it out as any kind of a c riticism or anything.

It’s something that to me seemed just out of context or out of sorts with what’s been going on the last year or so, and that is the significant drop in the ex penditures for Aboriginal Affairs in the context of how t hat is going to be brought i n line wit h all of the issues that are coming up right now about the work that we’re doing in th e First Na tions com munities and the Méti s communities. I noticed that in some of the departments there were new line items where aboriginal initiatives showed up under some of the individual departments, where they were not located in others years.

So I guess the question that I throw out and kind of in closing is: is there kind of a philosophic change in the approach to co-ordinat- ing the affairs that are associated with aboriginal issues under one ministry where they are now being spre ad out under a number of ministries? This is, I guess, an issue that reflects on co-ordination and mak ing these programs so that the y flow together, that t hey don’t overlap, that they don’t duplicate, so that they’re directed in a way that’s needed.

That, I think, was one of the strengths of having a lot of the programs co-ordinated under that one ministry, but now they seem to have been dispersed through a number of ministries. So I guess, as I said at the start, that’s a question that I raise. I’m not making it as a criticism. It was more a matter of: is it a philo- sophic or administrative change in the way the government sees relationships with the First Nations communities?

I n response i t would be nice at some point in time to see an explanation about why that dividing up of those moneys occurred and what the government hoped to achieve from it because it really doesn’t seem to lead to the co-ordination and the consistency that we could have if they were all run through one minister, one adm inistrative unit. You k now, it affects, I guess, a focus of the government. Mr. Speaker, in drawing to a close, I just want to say that this is a budget where we have to question whether or not it really reflects the priorities that Albertans have been talking about.

When you look at the rel ative increases in minist ries in par ticular activities, I think Albertans would have liked to have seen a little more money at the classroom level in education. There need to be some ideas put out about: what is the true relationship of the public service? Just in closing, Mr. Speaker, I was doing one of the interviews on the radio station tonight, and it was a call-in. One of the individuals called in and said t hat h e’d been down in Nebraska, and he was wondering why a state like Nebraska has a budget that’s about half the size of the budget of Alberta.

He said: you know, if we had a budget that was half the size of our budget right now, as Albertans we’d have a lot more money in our pockets. I raised with him the issue that I had lived in that part of the U.S. for 10 or 12 years and the idea that they don’t have health care in their state budgets. The social service system for health care for sen iors is a ll out of the federal budget. They don’t have a lot of the other same expenditures at the state level that we do at the provincial level here. Their federal government provides a lot more money for support for the advanced education institutions

whereas here that al l fu nnels through our budget. You know, it was interesting in the sense of how perspectives of budgets, perspectives of expenditures really create different expecta- tions for people who look a t them. That ’s why I think it’s really important that as we go out and talk to Albertans about our budget, we don’t put out i nformation like was in one of the news releases where it said, you know, that b asically health, educ ation, and infrastructure are 70 percent of our budget. Mr.

Speaker, if I’ve ever heard an irrelevant fact, that has to be one because it doesn’t deal with expectations and expenditures. All it deal s with is, in effect, something where they want to ma ke it look like something that it isn’t, and that’s a real concern when we start talking about money. What we should be talking about is: are the dollars we’re putting into education g iving us a long-term , s ustainable economic and social system? Are the moneys that we’re putting into health care giving us time ly and access ible serv ice?

A re the dolla rs we’re putting into infrastructure enough to give us a sustainable social and economic system? Are the dollars we’re putting into human safety nets like SFI and AISH enough? Are they ef fective? Are they providing people wi th the suppo rt they ne ed? Those are the comparisons we should be making rather than try ing to make the comparison I talke d about betw een the A lberta budge t and the Nebraska budget or the fact that health, education, and infrastructure make up 70 percent of this year’s budget.

Infrastructure itself grew in this year’s budget, so if you’re going to compare it to last year’s budget, it’s irrelevant. You’re comparing apples and oranges. So we shouldn’t be putting out that kind of information if we want to be open and truthful with Albertans. We sh ould be talking about the true facts of: are we delivering services in a cost-effective way and at a level that Albertans are asking for? 8:40 Mr.

Speaker , that’s the kind of c riteria t hat I w ant to use in judging this budget, that I want to use as we go through each of the departments and look at the line items, the program expenditures, and basicall y say: are w e getting value f or the dollar that we ’re spending on behalf of Albertans? I hope that as we go through that, at the end we can say yes.

I know t hat alrea dy on som e of the numbers I’ve looked at, I’ll be raising some real questions because I don’t think we’ve got sustainable expenditures that are in the long- run best interests of Albertans, but in other areas I think there is a lot of money being spent where we don’t need it. Albertans don’t need to have a bigge r budget. T hey just need a budge t that’s spent in different ways, in wa ys that mee t their priori ties and m eet their expectations. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. leader of the New Democratic Party. Dr. Pannu: Thank you, Mr. Spea ker.

I underst and that I ha ve 20 minutes. Fifteen? Okay. All right. With a document as vital, as important as the budget document, it’s difficult to do it much justice in 15 minutes , but I’ll do m y best. With the $20 billion or mor e planned to be expended here, I think it comes to about a billion and some for each minute that I have at my disposal. Mr. Speaker, for a government as well endowed fiscally as this provincial government, Budget 2003 is a huge disappointment.

For school boards and pa rents hoping f or some relief from crippling deficits and ballooning class sizes, Budget 2003 is a hug e disap- pointment. For postsecondary students who are facing tuition hikes of 6 to 10 percent year after y ear, Budget 2003 offers abso lutely

April 8, 2003 Alberta Hansard 867 nothing. Most of the 7 percent hike in hea lth care sp ending is simply the Tory government taking advantage of increased federal transfers. There’s l ittle in this budget f or children a nd less f or seniors. My first surprise with Bu dget 2003 is that it didn’t contain an update on revenues and expenditures for the 2002-2003 fiscal year. The third-quarter update was released February 26, almost six weeks ago. Surely the government has by now a better handle on what the final surplus is going to be for the next budget year.

If past experi- ence is any guide, the surplus for last year is likely to be much larger than the government is currently willing to admit. To be blunt, the revenue numbers as reported in the third-quarter update don’t add up. For example, oil royalties are projected to be 40 percent lower than in the year 2000-2001 despite the fact that oil prices have only been about 5 pe rcent lo wer this year compared to two y ears ago. This represents a difference of about $700 million, the first instance of lowballing.

N atural gas r oyalties are proje cted to be a bout 40 percent lower than in the y ear 2000-2001 despite the fact that gas prices are only about 20 p ercent lower this year compared to two years ago. This represents a difference of about $1 billion. Therefore, it’s quite c onceivable that the f inal budget s urplus could be $1 billion to $2 bi llion higher than forecast as recently as the third-quarter updat e. This fact is kept w ell hidden in Budget 2003. The gove rnment knows that the budge t surplus w on’t be known until June.

If the surplus i s higher th an what is reported in the third-quarter update, it w ould be too late to do anything other than apply a hundred percent of these e xtra do llars to debt repay- ment. Instead of $2 billio n sitting in t he bank waiting for debt to mature, the cash set aside could grow to $3 billion or $4 bil lion. With all government awash in cash, having this money sitting in the bank while school boards are faci ng huge deficit s is a ca se of misplaced priorities, Mr. Speaker. Budget 2003 is the first budget that uses the new fiscal framework passed by the Legislature earlier this session.

To be f air, the new fiscal framework properly applied does serve to improve budgetary processes in two ways. The first change is a shift from pay-as-you- go cash accounting for capital investment, where costs and expendi- tures are expended in the year they’re incurred, to accrual accounting for capital investment where the costs are written off over the useful life of the capital asset.

This change does not impact on the yearly budget bottom line, but it will cause the province’s net assets to go up anothe r $10 billion there by making the pr ovince’s remaining accumulated debt look just that much more insignificant. The second change resulting from the new fiscal framework is the establishment of a sustai nability f und into which nonrenewable resource revenues in excess of $3.5 billion per year will be paid. This sustainabi lity fund will be allow ed to grow to $2.5 billion, money that can be tapped to pay f or unexpected expenses like drought and forest fires.

Once this sustainability fund reaches $2.5 billion, any surplus funds can only be used for deb t pay-dow n or transferred to the capital account. While the concept of a sustainability fund is a good one, the way it’s being applied in Budget 2003 is not. I have to seriously question why the gove rnment is putting $2.2 bill ion into the sust ainability fund in the ver y first year, Mr. Speak er. Paying s uch a massive amount into the fund in the very first year is a way of hiding some of the budget surplus.

It also lends credence to those who charge that the sustainability fund will be used as a slush fund to pay for rebates at election time. Load up the sustainability fund between elections; use it to pay for goodies at elec tion time. Instead of fast-tracking transfer to the sustainability fund, some of the dollars should instead be spent on priori ties li ke keeping a lid on c lassroom sizes a nd reducing wait times in the health care system. Mr. Speaker , the Prem ier said y esterday that Budg et 20 03 contained no tax incr eases, only tax cuts.

Reading t he fine pr int today, we find that that i sn’t exactly the case. T here is, i n fact, a sneaky 5.8 percent increase in s chool property taxes pa id by homeowners and businesses across the province. That is because the government has not adjus ted the education mill rate downward to compensate for increases in the assessment rate base. During the last provincial election the Tory government promis ed to fre eze the education property levy at $1.2 billion. Well, guess what? Tw o years later Albertans are paying an additional $127 million in school property taxes.

That’s sure not what Albertans were expecting when the province took taxing powers away from local school boards. While Budget 2003 c ontains no fur ther increases in health c are premiums, this comes on the heels of a 30 percent hike last year. If the government want ed to give meanin gful tax relief to average families and seniors, they would have reduced this highly regressive health tax. While Budget 2003 contains tax hikes for every Albertan, the only tax cuts are for corporations.

The half point cu t in the g eneral corporate tax rate from 13 percent to 12.5 percent means $95 million in the pockets of corporations, many of whom are enjoying record profits thanks to high oil and gas prices. T his is $95 million that could have gon e to clas srooms or to improv ing health c are, Mr. Speaker. The single biggest disappointment of this budget is its failure to pony up for education. The extra money f or K to 12 educa tion is barely enough t o feed the class ha mster, Mr. Speak er. Per pupil grants to school boards will only go up by the sa me 2 p ercent announced in last year’s budget.

That is causing financial crises for school boards across this province. This 2 percent increase does not pay for t he government-imposed arbitrated salary settlement with teachers. It doesn’t pa y for inflation that’s running at about 5 percent per year in this p rovince. I t doesn’t pay for skyrocketing utility bills. To be blunt, this government has the financial means to address the looming financial crisis of school boards but has done virtually nothing. This government has let down Alberta’s children. Don’t take my word for it, Mr. Speaker.

I want to briefly quote from a news release f rom a provincewide parents’ group called APPEAL in their res ponse to the budg et. This news re lease is entitled Parents Ex press S hock and Di sappointment. The news release goes on to say: The Alberta government is paying lip service to Alberta’s children in their b udget rhetoric but has a bandoned them in the fun ding. There is nothi ng in the 2003 bud get to address classroom condi- tions. In fa ct, the 2% general gran t increase will result in larger class sizes throughout the province . . .

Parents had hoped f or at least a status quo budget but we have received a brutal wake-up call that the province is unwilling to put their money where their mouth is. Alberta’s children take a backseat in this budget. 8:50 In postsecondary educat ion base opera ting gra nts are only increasing by 2 percent in 2003-2004, less than half the rate of rising costs. No wonder most postsecondary institutions are hiking tuition fees from 6 to 10 percent year after year with no end in sight. The universities are also bringing in differen tial tuition f or certai n faculties. This gov ernment’s response?

Well, they’re generously allowing postsecondary students to slide further into debt by raising the limits on st udent loans. In my view, allowing s tudents to go further into debt is the wrong solution. Meaningful action to address skyrocketing tuition fees is the better solution, Mr. Speaker. Not a sign of that in Budget 2003-2004. Thanks to the federal government health has done little better than education in Budget 2003. Over one-half of the increase in health spending in this budget is due to increased federal transfers.

868 Alberta Hansard April 8, 2003 Alberta’s health regions are r eceiving increases that should just about allow them to keep up with rising costs. However, it must be remembered that the hea lth minis ter allow ed most of the hea lth regions to run deficits and deplete financial reserves last year which they’ll have to start repaying this ye ar. So will the new federal dollars be enough? Only time will tell, Mr. Speaker. Rural health regions face a much more serious problem in the face of the new budget and the new commitment made by this government, however.

With $910 million of last year’s surplus already set aside and more dollars also flowing in, Infrastructure is clearly the big winner in this year’s budget. Having said this, however, the province does have a significant Infrastructure deficit that has built up over the last decade. The problem with Infrastructure is not the amount of money being spent but rather the way the government w ants to sp end it. Starting next year, the government wants to spend about 30 percent of its Infrastructure money on so-called public/private partnerships.

It also wants to force local a uthorities li ke school boa rds, health regions, and municipalities to use P3s whether they make financial sense or not. This Tory governme nt is r efusing t o look at the evidence that clearly shows that P3s don’t work. Whether we are talking hospitals in the U.K. or school s in Nova S cotia, P3s hav e cost m ore and delivered less than publicly financed infrastructure. Worst of all, P3s reduce the accountability Legislatures have for the expenditure of public funds.

The New Democrats will work hard over the next year to convince Albertans that P3s are a bad deal for Albertans and that our schools, hospitals, and roads should continue to be publicly owned and operated. Budget 2003 provides social assistan ce recipients not deemed employable with a $20 increase in their monthly benefit on June 1. This is the f irst increase in the 10 year s since the government cut rates and does not even restore them to what they were back in 1993. Meanwhile, inflation has gone up by over 30 percent and rents have gone up by 50 per cent.

This tiny increase of 66 cents a day won’t even buy you a cup of coffee, Mr. Speaker. Meanwhile, monthly benefits for disabled AISH recipients were last increased four years ago, the only increase in the last 10 years. There are no increases for severely disabled Albertans in this budget, Mr. Speaker. This is a terribly shabby way to treat the province’s most vulnerable citizens. If there’s little or nothing in this budget for children, Mr. Speaker, there’s even less in this budget for the province’s seniors. Despite a rising seniors’ population, expenditure for seniors is going up at a rate less than inflation.

I guess seniors should be thankful that this budget does n’t hammer the m t o the same extent a s last y ear’s budget. This y ear the g overnment is o nly hiki ng their sc hool property taxes and fails to help them deal with skyrocketing utility bills. Last y ear the g overnment also hike d seniors’ he alth care premiums and took away their dental and eye care benefits. On environmental protection spending, $10 million on climate change initiatives and $5 million on water conservation is likely to do little more than f atten the poc ketbooks of government consul- tants.

The budget also continues to waste money on pet projects. It has $4 million m ore in subsidi es for hor se racing for a tot al of $37 million. There’s 26 million more dollars for the money-losing Swan Hills toxic waste plant. To wrap up, Budget 2003 is a stan d pat, do -nothing budget. It fails to address the growing financial crisis in our schools. It doesn’t address skyrocketing utility bills. The budget lacks vision and does not address the real priorities of Albertans. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think I’ve just come under 15 minutes. The Deputy Speaker: Questions or comments? The hon.

Member for Edmonton-Rutherford. Mr. McCle lland: Thank you, Mr. Speak er. On ques tions and comments. I listened attentively to the comments of my colleague, the l eader of the New D emocrats, and I w as intere sted whe n he prefaced his comments by saying that he wa s spending something like, I think it was, $1.5 billion a minute. Is that a suggestion then on the part of the leade r of the New De mocrats that he doe s not intend to participate in any of the budget debate, the estimates which will be coming forward over the course of the next month?

Surely, the leader of the New Democrats is planning on participating in that debate and will have ample opportunity to further discuss the budget and is not limited to this 15-minute interval. One other comment, and that had to do with the toxic waste and the funds going to the Swan Hills plant. Is it the member’s conten- tion that we should not be eliminating or getting rid of toxic wastes? Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Dr. Pannu: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member who made these comments. When I said that I have 15 minutes, I meant 15 minutes this evening.

So I’m aware of the fact that he and I will have ample opportunity to look at the budget estimates in detail department by department. On the second part of his observation, how we should deal with waste disposal in this province, the Swan Hills fiasco is not the way to deal with it. That plant has cost Albertans hundreds of millions of dollars over the years, close to half a billion dollars at least, if not more, and it continues to lose money. I think it would be irresponsi- ble for us to continue to close our eyes to that disaster and say that nothing can be done about it.

Spendi ng another $26 million on it this year is not the way to deal with that disaster and sa y there a re better ways of dealing with disposal of those harmful wastes. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar on questions and answers? Mr. MacDon ald: Thank y ou, Mr. S peaker. Aga in to the hon.

Member for Edmonton-Strathcona: does the hon. member consider this governm ent mea n when he l earned toda y that there was no increase for AISH recipients in this province after energy deregula- tion has drive n up the cost of inflatio n and thei r benefit rates certainly are not reflected? [interjections] Dr. Pannu: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member’s question is extremely timely and appropriate.

To laugh off the significance of this good question is to trivialize the whole issue of what our obligations are as a community to the most vulnerable members of our community, and Albertans on AISH, Albertans who receive social benefits under SFI and others are the most vulnerable among us. These are people who are una ble to find j obs and do em ployable work. T hese are Albertans who are either disabled or suffer from chronic illnesses which don’t allow them to work.

To say that they should not receive increases on a regular basis which are at least commensurate with the rate of inflation so that the real value of what they’ve been getting over the years can be maintained is to neglect our responsibility in a way which I think is not a responsible act on our part. 9:00 Mr. Lund : Mr. Speake r, having listened v ery a ttentively to the member’s diatribe, I must respond to some of his comments. The hon. member tried very hard to discredit very worthwhile organiza- tions like G ood Sam, li ke Betha ny Care, like th e Carita s group.

April 8, 2003 Alberta Hansard 869 When he went on and talked about how te rrible P3s are . . . [Mr. Lund’s speaking time expired] The Deputy Speaker: The hon. members are reminded that under Standing Order 29(2) we’re al lowed only fi ve mi nutes for the question and answer portion. As interesting as it might be, those are the rules. The hon. Government House Leader. Mr. Hancock: Thank you, Mr. Speak er. I m ove that w e adjourn debate. [Motion to adjourn debate carried] Final Report of Electoral Boundaries Commission 13. Mr. Hancock moved:

Be it resolved that pur suant to

section 1 1(1) of t he Electoral Boundaries Commission Act the Legislative Assembly concur in the recom mendations of the f inal report of the Albe rta Electoral Boundaries C ommission, entitled the Prop osed Electoral Division Areas, Boundaries and Names for Alberta, tabled in the Assembly on Wednesday, February 19, 2003. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Minist er of Justice and Attorney General. Mr. Hanco ck: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s my obligation as Minister of Justice responsible for the Electoral Divisions Act and for the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act to move Government Motion 13. Mr.

Speaker, I say obligation rather than using any other descrip- tive because like many if not most members of this Assembly I don’t particularly like the report. In particular, I’m extremely unhappy with the report in that the commission saw fit to reduce the number of electoral districts in Edmonton to 18 from 19. As a member of this Assembly I, like most of you, am very much in tune with my community, am very much interested in the outcome of boundary r edistribution.

In fac t, I d irectly and t hrough my constituency association made direct submissions to the boundaries commission with respect to boundaries to the city of Edmonton. In fact, I’d like to say that by my count more Edmonton Conservative MLAs and constitue ncy as sociations made submiss ions to the boundaries commission than Edmonton Liberal MLAs and constitu- ency associations. By my count. There is no group, whether Liberal or Conservative, closer to the subject or more knowledgeable about how our communities interact or better able to draw the lines than the members in the House.

How ever, the re is als o no g roup of individuals with a g reater personal stake i n the outcome, and it is precisely for this reason, Mr. Speaker, that we do not en gage ourselves in rewr iting the bounda ries but, ra ther, establis h a commission to do the job w ithin the para meters set out in the legislation for that purpose. This House in the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act sets the number of constituencies in this province, and it’s set at 83. Then the commission has t he job to draw those boundarie s within t he limits of that number and within the parameters as set out in the act.

I have as a member of a political party been involved in a number of redistributions over the years and seen a number of iterations of the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act, and I must say that the act under which we operate in this province is one of the f airest and most reasonable acts in the country in that it sets almost no parame- ters for the Electoral Boundaries Commission.

It says 83 seats, and it leaves it to the commission to then draw those seats based on the latest census results and taking into account a list of factors that are set out in the act, taking tho se factors into account, not mandating them. I’ve argued before a number of electoral boundaries commissions, at least three, over the years that one of the factors that they should take into account in drawing boundaries is growth since the census.

I can report to the Legislature that I’m not very effective in making that representation to the boundaries commissions because it has not once been accepted by a boundaries commission. One of the reasons that it hasn’t been accepted by a boundaries commission is that the census provides ba sic ver ifiable data wi th respect to populati on numbers, and there is not a bas is in verifi able d ata, at l east that’s been presented to the commission, to show the growth since then.

In fact, in talking with the ch airman of the com mission a bout boundaries and the redistribution in this circumstance, he made the point to me tha t while m ost repres entatives of com munities who appeared before t he commission spoke about the g rowth in the ir community, none of them provided verifiable data, and all of them indicated that there had been huge growth since the last census and that that should be taken into account. So the commission had a very difficult job to do. Now, Mr. Speaker, I have no idea why anybody would ever take on the invitation to join an Electoral Boundaries Commission.

It has got to be the worst job that anybody could ever accept. Dr. Taylor: Speak for yourself, Dave. I’d like to be on it. Mr. Hancock: Well, resign from the House and we’ll give it to you. Mr. Speaker, I really don’t know why the hon. me mber would want it because no one is ever satisfied with an electoral boundaries’ report. You could never draw the report the way we as the experts in the business , as the m embers of this H ouse who k now ou r communities, who know where the lines should go, who know which communities ought to go together – no one could draw those boundaries better than each one of us.

The problem is that each one of us would come up with a different map. So we give the job to an Electoral Boundaries Commission, in this case chaired by the province’s Ethics Commissioner. The act sets out that the chairman of an Electoral Boundaries Commission has to be a judge or an Ethic s Commissioner or someone in that type of capacity.

We had the benefit of an Ethics Commissioner who was also a past member of this House and therefore had a good under- standing of the probl ems and t he possibiliti es with respect to the electoral boundaries and had the benefit of being someone who was respected for his independence, impartiality, and respected in his role as Ethics Commissioner. Then, of course, the act allows f or the nomination by the g overnment and by t he Official Opposition in consultation with the thi rd p arty of the other members for that commission. We give the job to the commission, and then we ask them to meet the public.

The act spec ifically sets out that the re should be commission hearings across t he pro vince, an inte rim re port, additional hearings across t he province , and a fi nal report. The commission is mandated to follow that course and did follow that course so that public across t he province could hav e input at the commission and discuss what their interests were and what thei r expectations were of a boundaries commission. The commission had those hearings and made its deliberations based on the information which it had.

The interim report surpr ised many of us when they came to the conclusion that Edmonton, for example, should lose a se at. It was a surprise to us. The previous numbers that I had prior to the census from the Chief Electoral Officer wouldn’t have suggested that, but

870 Alberta Hansard April 8, 2003 the census num bers as t hey came out la st spring indicat ed to the boundaries commission in the ir judgment that they needed to set numbers which would result in two seats being lost in rural Alberta – one in northern Alberta, one in centr al Alberta – and one se at being lost in E dmonton, and thr ee seats goin g into Calga ry and region. Those were the numbers based on the census numbers and based on their view of how you balance the interests of representa- tion.

Calgary’s seats have a number approximately a thousand or more higher than Edmonton seats under the proposed redistribution by the boundaries commission, and rural seats have about a thousand less. Those of us who have argued for years about the need for a triple E Senate in this country so we could balance the regions against the population find it very difficult to argue with the logic of a bound- aries commission when they come up with a result which says that the regions have to be balanced against the population.

So when you look at the log ic of the commission’s report, whether you like the result of the report or not, you find it very hard to challenge the logic of the report. For that reason, Mr.

Speaker, I encourage members of this Assembly to accept the report with all of its warts, as each of us perceives it, to thank the commission members for doing a thankless job, and for recognizing that if we rejected the report, if we did not accept the report, what we would be doing is we would be sending it back to a new boundaries commission – this commission has done its job and is f inished – to w ork with the same data and the same problems and probably to come up possibly with lines in different places but with some other variation of the same result. 9:10 Mr.

Speaker, I don’t think that it’s prudent or logic al of us o r reasonable for us to r eject a report unless we could suggest that there’s somethi ng griev ously w rong, that the y’ve made so me egregious error, that there is something that they have done wrong based on the mandate that they were given. As much as I don’t like the result of the report, I can’t say that they did anything wrong.

In fact, I have to look at the report and say that the five members of the committee, the two appointed by the Liberals and the two appointed by the government and the one, the Ethics Commissioner, appointed as chairman, did a good job on the mandate that they had. I just don’t happen to like the results, and it’s not for me to substitute my view of what the results ought to be for the review of a boundaries commission which is charged with drawing boundaries based on all the input that they have and all the evidence before them and coming to the conclusions that they have to.

In fact, we separate ourselves logically and realistically from redrawing boundaries and give it to a commission because in the history of parliamentary dem ocracy there have been accusations of gerrymandering when governments or Legislatures or individual members of Legislatures attempted to draw their own boundary lines for themselves. It’s prudent, it’s reasonable, it’s rational for us not to delve into the job of redrafting the boundaries but to give it to a commission. We’ve done that. The Electoral Boundaries Commiss ion Act sets out the parameters, sets out the criteria.

It’s a fair act, it’s a fair process, it’s a fair mandate, and they did their job fairly, as much as I don’t like t he results . For those rea sons I woul d ask that this House approve the motion and a llow us to g et on with the job of bringing forward an electoral boundaries act as needs to be in the second process. The Deputy Speaker: Before we proceed further in the debate on this motion, I wonder if we might have agreement from the Assem- bly to briefly revert to Introduction of Guests. [Unanimous consent granted] head : Introduction of G uests (reversion) The Deputy Speaker: The hon.

Member for Edmonton-Rutherford. Mr. McClelland: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is not every day that a member has the privilege of rising and through you introducing to all members of the House a num ber of f ormer m embers of this Legislature and virtua lly all of the c ity counc il o f the city of Edmonton. We delayed a bit because we were waiting for the mayor to arrive, and I can’t see him. I don’t think he’s there, but if he does come in, we’ll ask if we can introduce him.

Obviously, Edmonton city council is he re to l isten to this debat e and I’m sure wi ll be impressed by the or atorical skill that they’re about to hear. Terry Cavanagh has already been introduced, but we’ll ask each member to stand as they’re mentioned: Terry Cavanagh, Stephen Man del, Ron Hayte r, Janice Melnyc huk – Kare n, are y ou behind there somewhere? – Karen Leibovici, Michael Phair, and Ed Gibbons. An Hon. Member: Jane. Mr. McClelland: Oh, sorry, Jane. Didn’t see you. And Jane Batty. Accompanying them is their minder and the person that keeps them together, Dennis Thomson. Welcome. Dr. Pannu: Mr.

Speaker, I too want to welcome the councillors from the city of Edmonton in our midst , but in addition I would like to introduce two of our caucus s taff who are sitting in the public gallery: Laura Nichols and Marilyn Hooper. If th ey would please rise and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. head : Government Motions Final Report of Electoral Boundaries Commission (continued) The Deputy Speaker: Now Edmonton-Gold Bar. Mr. MacDonald: Thank y ou very much, Mr. Speaker .

I t’s a pleasure to r ise thi s eve ning and get a n op portunity to speak to Government Motion 13 regarding the Electoral Boundaries Commis- sion, but before that I, too, would like to welcome our distinguished visitors in both the Spea ker’s gallery and the publ ic g allery this evening. This is a very important debate not only for the current history of the city, but it has implications for the future history of this city.

I cannot support this motion, because it is my view that the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission should not have reduced the city of Edmonton’s representation in this Assembly by one M LA. Next year we will be recognizing the first 100 y ears of the city of Edmonton, Mr. Speaker, the centennial year of the city. Edmonton is in the middle of another period of solid economic and population growth, and Edmonton should not as a result of this report have lost one constituency before the next provincial election. Now, what a birthday gift from the province to this dynamic capital city.

Happy birthday, Edmonton. G ood-bye, Ed monton-Norwood. T hat is wrong. If the city is to continue to have a positive influence in this Legislature, why are we going to w ater dow n the voice s in this Assembly from 19 to 18? Again, this report has failed to address the chronic, constant issue of underrepresentation of Alberta’s cities in this Assembly. Now, Edmonto n-Norwood, to be sp ecific, has h ad a long, distinguished history. The constituency of Edmonton-Norwood goes back to 1959. It has been represented in this Assembly by represen-

April 8, 2003 Alberta Hansard 871 tatives of four different political parties. This is a r ich and v aried history, and to just take the eraser to the neighbourhoods that ar e currently rep resented by Edmonton-Nor wood’s member and add them to the constituency of Edmonton-Highlands is in my view very disrespectful of the citizens of Edmonton-Norwood. Edmonton-Norwood as we know it is one of the most disadvan- taged ridings in th e city. It needs its own voice in this Assembly.

There are people there that are very angry about losing their voice, and one of them, certainly, is a resident of Edmonton-Norwood by the name of John Patrick Day, Mr. Speaker. I would like to quote from one of Mr. Day’s submissions to this commission. Edmontonians are slightly less worthy of legislative representation, and will be so forever and ever. I do not believe that this was intended by anybody. Indeed I am sure it was not. But it is the message given and received. That reflects on all of us. Edmonton-Norwood is an inner-city riding with a population of over 28,000.

Tw enty-four percent of its population is made up of new Canadians. There is a large Italian and a large Asian commu- nity. Seventeen percent of the popula tion has l ess than a grade 9 education. Thirty percent do not have a secondary school certificate. All in all, over 47 percent do not have a full high school education. The unemployment rate for the riding is over 14 percent, more than double the provincial average, and it is interesting to note that more than 56 percent of the households in the riding make under $30,000 per year. Should those citizens lose a voice in this Assembly?

I say no; they certainly should not. 9:20 Now, I view this report as being anti-Edmonton, and it advantages the Progressive Conservative st rongholds in rura l Alberta and in Calgary. Sure, the first report of the Electoral Boundaries Commis- sion suggested that Edmonton lose a seat and we lose two rural seats, but the loss of population in rural Alberta is a result of this govern- ment’s economic policies, a nd the city of Edmont on should not suffer because of that. You have a highway 2 menta lity.

Y ou’re interested in economic development 50 kilometres east of highway 2 and 50 kilometres west of highway 2, but you’re forgetting about the rest of the province. [interjections] The city of Edmonton, Mr. Speaker, should not suffer as a result of that. Speaker’s Ruling Decorum The Deputy Spe aker: Hon. members, how quickly you see m to forget. We hav e a conve ntion in this L egislature th at o nly o ne member is talking at a time. So, hon. ministers and hon. members on this side of the House, when your turn comes, we’ll gladly listen to you, but right now we have the hon.

Mem ber for Edmonton-Gold Bar, so let us hear Edmonton-Gold Bar. Debate Continued Mr. MacDonald: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Edmonton’s population has grown substantially even since the 2001 census and will continue to do so in the f oreseeable future. In eight years, when the next Electoral Boundaries Commission sits, unless we can convince this House to put them back to work and do this all over again, there will need to be radic al cha nges b ecause of th e growt h in thi s cit y.

According to Economi c Deve lopment Edm onton the population grew in 2001 again – and this is exceeding Conference Board of Canada forecasts – by 4 and a half percent, and this is in addition to the 8.7 percent growth reflected by the 2001 census. As a result, large parts of Edmonton may have to be redrawn to reflect a large disparity between the numbe r of vote rs and sea ts which represent them.

Now, the minority report that was submitted in the final report of the Proposed Electoral Division Areas, Boundaries and Names for Alberta was submitted by Bauni Mackay, certainly appointed by the Official Opposition and the Official Opposition leader. There were some outstanding arguments presented in that minority report, and we need to consider those. There was certainly the conduct of the commission.

There were several problems addressed, but let’s look at thr ee of the m: the concept of r epresentation by popula tion, the concern over the concept of e ffective representation, and th irdly, issues of increasing urbanization not being reflected in this report, Mr. Speaker. Representation by population means one person, one vote. The minority report by Bauni Mackay points out that because o f the redistribution of seats between Edmonton, rural Alberta, and Calgary representation by population is compromised.

Even if you look only at the 2001 census, it indicates that Edmonton should have 19 seats, and I argued before the commission that we shouldn’t have 19; we should have 20 seats. Edmonton should actually, yes, be gaining an additional seat. H owever, we a re lo sing one, which means that Edmonton’s democr atic rig ht to repres entation is unfortunately compromised. Now, again acco rding t o the minor ity re port the def inition of effective representation as us ed by the committee is vague and in some ways obso lete.

The measure of effective representation was based on access of the MLA to constituents and vice ver sa. Th e commission did not take into account advances in technology such as e-mail, fax, as well as air travel and an extensive highway system when discussing effective repre sentation. They took into account such issues as geographic distance and low population density. They also took into account the distance of a riding to the Legislature.

It’s interesting to note that this afternoon when the budget was announced there was a line item in there with a total expenditure for the Supernet, w hich is going be handed $300 m illion, and that is another way for MLAs to interact with thei r consti tuents.

It was suggested that perhaps in the public libraries and the public schools in rural Alberta there could be one dedicated line, the same as we have a RITE line so that constituents would hav e another w ay of contacting their representative if they were unavailable because of a sitting of the Le gislative Assembly and they were present in t he capital city Mondays through Thursdays. Now, Mr. Speaker, such measures are obsolete when discussing effective representation according to the minority report as written by Bauni Mack ay.

The m inority report did argue that what was missing from the measures were distances such as cultural distances and social distances. These distances cannot be closed by technol- ogy and are a barrier to effective representation. As a result, the situation arises again that thos e wh o are c ulturally and social ly distant, people who are attracted to cities as opposed to rural areas, are being misrepresented.

The minority report also stresses the increasing role of urbaniza- tion in that economies in a world of global contact and community are becoming the basis of economies in the modern world, and if I can make one sugge stion all ov er agai n to the me mbers of the Alberta Electoral Boundaries Commission, it would be this: I would encourage them to read Jane Jacobs before they were to start their report and their study and their analysis. Jane Jacobs would remind each and every one of us of the importance of cities and the impor- tance that cities have in the economic devel opment of the regi on surrounding them.

Whenever you penalize cities, you penalize the entire region. Mis s Jacob s is a wel l-respected, wor ld-known economist and urban planner. Now, the minority report also points out several scholars’ opinions that all Albertans gain from an urban strategy and that rural econo-

872 Alberta Hansard April 8, 2003 mies are losing their position in a global economy. While Calgary may gain from adding two seats, it helps no one – it helps no one – that Edmonton loses a seat. The minority report makes an argument that by removing a constituency from Edmonton, the commission is not taking into account the city’s role as a hub of activity for a large part of the province and not only this province but also the territory to the north of us.

Economic growth in the city and the importance of that growth to central and northern Alberta were not thought of, and that is why I have to agree with the minority report and I cannot accept the recommendations of this re port as it’s presented in this Assembly now. When we consider the city and the fact that we have a centennial year coming up an d we are going to face the pros pect of losi ng a voice in this Assembly, I think that is a slap in the face to the citizens of this city. I’m sorry; Edmonton should keep their current represen- tation. They probably should have at least one more seat.

We have to look at this. We have to have a good look at this in this Assembly at this time and recognize that a mistake is being made. We hav e time to correct the mistake. It’s just going to take political bravery. This government in the past has changed course, has chan ged direction, and regardless of the composition of this committee we in this Assembly have the authority to change direction. If we were to have another commission, have another look at this issue, well, so be it. But it’s a small price to pay for democracy. Mr. Rathgeber: What if you don’t like the other one any better? Mr. MacDonald: The hon.

Member for Edm onton-Calder s aid: what if I don’t like it any better? That is essentially democracy, and I would encourage the hon. member to participate in the debate in this Assem bly on this issue. Ce rtainly, the constit uents of Edmonton-Calder I think would have a direct interest in the fact that we are losing represe ntation in th is Ass embly. Certainl y, the constituents of Edmonton-Calder would be most anxious to know how their representative feels about Edmonton losing one of its 19 seats.

Now, certainly, in conclusion, it will take a lot of political thought and courage by this government to recognize that a mistake has been made, but we in this Assembly have an opportunity here with this motion to correct that political mistake and not penalize Edmonton now or in the future by reducing its representation in this Assembly. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 9:30 The Deput y Speak er: The h on. Member for La combe-Stettler, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona. Mrs. Gordon: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Before I begin tonight, I would like to also say hello to some old friends of mine: Ed Gibbons, Karen Leibovici, Michael Phair, Ron Hayter, and my good friend Terry Cavanagh. Hello, buddy. It’s good that they’re here tonight. I wish my municipalities could be here. Mr. Speaker, this is probably going to be the toughest speech I’ve ever had to give. I’m not very proud to stand here tonight and have to condone Motion 13, to say that it’s a motion I go along with, to say that it’s a motion that my people respect.

My people, the people of Lacombe-Stettler, are very, very concerned about the Electoral Boundaries Commission report. They were so concerned that they turned out for the second go-round in force: my municipal councils, my school boards, the people in my community that speak for other people. They said: “Listen; we’re not happy with this. We are going to lose an MLA along the highway 2 corridor.” The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar just talked a few minutes ago about how this doesn’t affect rural Alberta. It does affect rural Alberta. It affects rural Alberta in a big way.

Since 1990- 91 we’ve had d ifferences in P incher Cr eek, Crowsnest, Cardston, Drumheller, Athabasca, Wabasca, and now we’re going to look at Lacombe-Stettler and Ponoka-Rimbey. I’m not a gambling person. I ha ve nothing to do with gaming and I’m not the least bit interested, but I should have been, because I could have made a lot of m oney. If someone had said to m e, “Listen; they’re going to disrupt your constituen cy,” I would have said no. We have the numbers. We have the people. We have the location. We have the growth. We’re two or three kilometres off highway 2.

We had 330 housing starts in Lacombe last year. We’re growing. We’re going to continue to grow. We will not be affected. What do they do? They take one MLA away from rural Alberta along the highway 2 corridor, one of the highest growth areas in the e ntire province. Now, I would have lost money if I’d bet on that. So I’m standing here tonight saying to you: indeed, this will be the toughest speech I’ve ever given. My councils passed unanimously at all of their meetings, on behalf of all the pe ople they represent, that they didn’t want this to happen. They don’t understand why it happened.

They don’t see the need for it happening. The Lacombe side of my constituency, as it now sta nds, is going to continue to grow and grow and grow because of the location. They’re close to Edmonton. They’re close to Calgary. They’re close to Red Deer. People want to live there. I grew up in Calgary. I lived in Calgary for 21 years. I love Cal gary. If I’d lived in Edmonton, I probably would have loved Edmonton, but I grew up in Calga ry. I went to high school in Calgary. I figure I’ve got the best of all worlds. I’m rural with an urban twist.

I happened to fall in love with a rural guy, and I’m really glad I did, because for 35 years he and I have lived in, supported, and been par t of a c ommunity, a rur al c ommunity of which I am very, very proud. You, Edmonton-Gold Bar, and s ome of you are ver y proud of Edmonton, and I love Edmonton and have a great affiliation since I’ve spent so much time here. A beautif ul city, a beautiful river valley, but I love rural Alberta. Now, should I have to apologize for living, working, breathing, raising children, being part of a commu- nity because I’m a rural Albertan? I should not have to, and I will not.

I should not have to give up my rightful p lace as the MLA representing that area. We have the growth. We have the numbers. Farther east the y didn’t have the g rowth an d they didn’t have the numbers, and that’s what the commission took a look at. They gerrymandered themselves, hon. Minister of Justice. They took my area and decided to fix it to make sure that the eastern part w as looked after. Well, people don’t like it, and I don’t like it. I’m not happy with it, and I will not a ccept it. I earned m y place in this Assembly.

My people sent me here to tell you, to tell Albertans what they want me to say, do, vote on, and be part of. They don’t like this report, they don’t like this motion, and they will not accept it. We don’t have to accept this report. We don’t have to like one iota of it. As far as I’m concerned, these figures were fed into a computer. The computer spit them out and said, “Listen, everybody; this will be constituency A, B, C, D, E, F, and so forth and so on,” until we had 83. It didn’t take into consideration community. It didn’t take into consideration relationships.

The people in my constituency on the Lacombe s ide have a wonderful relationship with ea ch other. They get along with the county. The towns work together. Not only is this to lose an MLA from either Lacombe or Ponoka – and I have a great deal of respect for the hon. Member for Ponoka-Rimbey. I don’t want to go up against him in an election, nor does he, I’m sure, want to go up against me. He had his numbers; I had my numbers. I thought we were fine. But I’ll tell you what this has done. This has split my community.

April 8, 2003 Alberta Hansard 873 My municipal leaders are shaking their heads. I have one commu- nity that now is to be part and parcel of Red Deer-North. I think the world of the MLA for Red Deer-North. She is one of the best MLAs here. She talks about the Red Deer Rebels, the Red Deer Rebels, the Red Deer Rebels, a great hockey team. But, unfortunately, my town of Blackfalds does not want to be part of R ed Deer- North, nor should they be. They’re a c ommunity of 3,80 0 people. T hey’re rural. They get along well with the town of Lacombe, with the Wolf Creek school divis ion, with Laco mbe county.

They have rural issues, and they want to remain part of a rural constituency, and as their MLA I have to agree. That is the best fit. The hon. MLA for Red Deer-North and I have talked. She only wants what’s best for the people of Blackfalds. Now, Blackfalds is an interesting community because per capita in Alberta they have the highest growth rate and the most number of babies born in th e entire province. Does that sound to you like a community that’s not growing? I don’t think so. And y ou know something?

Th e bottom line is that if you asked one of those members of that commission why they did this, they’d say: well, 90 percent of Blackfalds work in Red Deer. Well, I got news for you. Ninety-five percent of the people that live in Lacombe work in Red Deer, my husband included, but we don’t want to live in Red Deer. We like to shop in Red Deer. We like to go to hockey games in Red Deer. We like to eat out in Red Deer. But, by gosh, we don’t want to live in Red Deer. We don’t want to vote in Red Deer. We don’t want to elect our town councils from Red Deer.

We want to be rural, and the reason why we’re rural in Lacombe is because we’re close to Edmonton, we’re close to Calgary, and we’re very close to Red Deer. But we’re rural, and we like it, and that’s the way we want to be. I feel very, very badly that this commission d idn’t hear the first go-round, didn’t hear w hat my people had to say the second go- round, and now I have to stand before you tonight and tell you that as the repre sentative for L acombe-Stettler I ca nnot support this motion. I cannot suppor t the work that the c ommission has done.

My political c areer could we ll be on th e line, but my peop le, my town of Lac ombe counc il, my town of Blackfalds co uncil, my Lacombe county council, and my Wolf Creek school division, plus all of the pe ople I see in the drugstor e, the gr ocery store, at the coffee shop, and the pe ople that sit on my executive as part of the political process t hat I must g o through wa nt me to s ay: this is ridiculous. So this is what I’m saying. 9:40 The hon. member that I’ve know long before I was ever here, the hon.

Member for Rocky Mountain House, said it best when he said to the com mission: “You didn’t ha ve to use these figures. You didn’t have to do i t th is way . You could hav e reduced it, and everyone in the province would have been looked after and satis- fied.” But, instead, no. I personally have a great deal of respect for many mem bers that w ere on that commission, b ut I will say it publicly because I’ve said it to each and every one of them: I don’t think they did their job. I don’t think they did their job properly. I think they fed the information into a computer; the numbers came out.

Part of the rationale behind all of this is to take a look at commu- nity, to take a look at what fits, to take a look at natural boundaries. My town of Blackfalds has a natural boundary. It’s a river. It’s been there since the beginning of time. Lo and behold, Lacombe county made it their c ounty boundary. So we ha ve the river that was the boundary between what was part of L acombe-Stettler and part of Red Deer-North, and Lacombe county had it as their boundary. Lo and behold, they just forgot about this river. I t wasn’t part and parcel of it. T hey didn’t look at community. They didn’t look at relationships.

They didn’t look at needs. W hat did t hey look at? Other members of this Assembly, colleagues on my side, colleagues on that side, have said that there are problems here. Well, if there are problems, folks, let’s change it. Let’s put a new commission in place. Let’s put in new guidelines, new criteria. Let’s see what fits. Let’s make it work. I would really be remiss tonight if I didn’t stand up here and say that what I’m telling you tonight is from me. It’s from the heart. I have no notes. But it’s also from all those councils, all those people in my community that have said: “No, Judy. Don’t let this happen.

This can’t happen. Why is it happening to us? Why are you and the hon. Member for Ponoka-Rimbey going to have to f ight it out?” Folks, I’ve been through a nomination before. In fact, I’ve been through two nominations. I’ve been here 10 years, and in 10 years I’ve never had a com munity get off their duff and speak out and speak up and say: no, we are not going to accept this. Do it if you want, hon. members. Do it if you must, but I’ll tell you that our Prem ier, the hon. M ember for Calgary-Elb ow, talks always about respect for each other in this Assembly.

I respect what the hon. member here has s aid about Edm onton. I respe ct the councils here, and I wish my councils could be. I praise you people for spending the amount of money that you have on this issue, because it’s a serious issue. My peopl e tell me that democracy is questionable if thi s happens. The p eople from Blackfalds tell me that their democratic right is lost. There’s no way that they will be able to run and be an MLA being part of Red Deer-North. I am saying to all of you in this Assembly: if it isn’t you this year, it might be you eight years from now or 16 y ears from now.

I’m asking you for consideration for what I’m saying on behalf of the people I represent. I’ve represented 35,000 people that have been very, very happ y wi th their lot in life, with their re presentation. They feel that that’s threatened, I feel that it’s threatened, and I’m asking you to say no t o Motion 13. Thi rteen has ne ver been my lucky number, and this particular motion was tabled on February 19, which is my birthday, and when you’re my age, birthdays aren’t a happy thing either. Thank you. The Deputy Speak er: Two things be fore I recogn ize the next speaker.

One is tha t we now are under S tanding Orde r 29(2) , questions and comments. Before I call on the hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona, hon. Member for Edmonton-Nor wood, did y ou have a que stion or comment that you wished to . . . Okay. The h on. Member for Ed monton-Glenora, que stions an d com- ments. Mr. Hutton: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I would ask the hon. member if she could tell us what she really thinks. Mrs. Gordon: If the hon. member has another hour or two. I could take him for coffee later, Deputy Speaker. The Deputy Speaker: Any further comments or questions? Okay. Before I recogni ze the hon.

M ember fo r Edmonton- Strathcona – I will eventu ally. I’m sorry that it’s a Solom onic exercise that I have. Instead of having two mothers with one baby, I have a whol e bunch of people who want to speak. [interjection] That’s Solomon. It’s a passage from one o f the books. I have so many people who want to speak. I’m sorry; we just have to take one at a time. So it will be a government member and then an opposition member.

874 Alberta Hansard April 8, 2003 This is the hon. Me mber for Edmonton-Strathcona, followed by the hon. Minister of International and Intergovernmental Relations. Dr. Pannu: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. After listening to the passion- ate speech from my hon. colleague from Lacombe-Stettler, I don’t think I need any more persuasion that this report needs fixing before we pass it. We can’t let this report go through. Our colleagues from the city council are sitting up there watching us tonight debate this motion.

I want to congratulate the Edmonton city council for taking a very strong position in trying to convince this House, this Legisla- ture, that this re port is fl awed a nd it s houldn’t be passe d in its present form. I also want to congratulate the Electoral Boundaries Commission on a job reasonably well done.

There’s no doubt that the commis- sion had to balanc e many variable s, inclu ding th e principle s of effective representation – I think w e have t o be respec tful of t he commission’s work to some degree – and representation by popula- tion, the requirements of the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act, and the needs o f heterogeneous communities, including the major cities and the neighbourhoods within them, smaller cities, urbanized areas, and rural Alberta. It can’t be easy to find the balance between these sometimes competing aspects, and they have worked hard to reconcile them.

However, I would be failing m y consti tuents, m y fe llow Edmontonians, and the voters of Alberta if I didn’t also raise some concerns with this report. I’d like to quote Gary Hanson, general manager and chief operating officer of West Edmonton Mall. He says, and I quote, that representation by population is fundamental to democratic societ y. Voter parity should be one of the first considerations in determ ining elec toral boun daries. Alth ough Edmonton did not have the growth that Calgary did prior to the 2001 census, it did have a substantial growth rate of 8.7 percent and has continued to grow.

The commission’s recommendations do not take this into consideration nor the major role the city of Edmonton plays in the economic success and social growth of the province. End of quote. The fundamental principle of our democracy is the notion of one person, one vote. Without this principle we can’t guarantee that every Alberta vot er has equal say to determine the path that our province will take. At the last election a vote in some parts of rural Alberta was equal to two votes in Edmonton and three in Calgary- Shaw.

The f inal report of the EBC has improved greatly on the situation, but still the re is a r ange f rom 32 perc ent below th e provincial average to 16 percent above, Mr . Speaker . Allow ing variances of close to 2 5 percent in a significant number of ridings suggests that the problems remain. In spite of the best efforts of this commission there appears to be built into their re port a sy stematic bias or tilt whic h shif ts voting power towards some citizen s at t he expense o f others.

Rel ative equality of voting power is a principle that has been upheld by the courts in a number of provinces, including our own. It is possible to have signifi cantly lower v ariations i n population and thus bette r reflect the principle s of repr esentation by po pulation. The New Democrat opposition recommended to the commission that constitu- ency populations be kept to within 10 percent of the average, as has been achieved in Sas katchewan and Manitoba. According to the principle of equali ty of voting pow er, Ed monton’s population i n 2001 warranted more than 18.5 ridings, Mr.

Speaker. 9:50 To quote the minority report: Edmonton has grown dramatically since the 2001 Census was completed. Accord ing to Ec onomic Development Edmont on, in 2001 the population of E dmonton grew by 4.5%, exceeding the Conference Board of Canada’s forecast that it would be the fastest growing city in Canada with a growth rate of 4.1 %. The Confer- ence Board of Can ada for ecasts Edmonton’s growth at 2.4% for 2002 and 4.5% f or 2003 [the current year].

According to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, in the first six m onths of 2002, single f amily housing starts in Edmonton increased by 50% compared to the same period last year. In May of 2002 there was a 95% jump in single and multi ple housing starts compared to May, 2001, and in June the increas e over last year’s figures was 91%. In other words, Edmonton’s rapid growth has been occurring since the 2001 Census and is forecast to continue.

Therefore, by reduc ing the numbe r of sea ts in Edmont on, the commission would caus e Edmonton t o be u nderrepresented until after the census of 2011 and th rough at least two provincial elec- tions. Again to quote the minority report of the commission: The challenge is to f ind ways to g et as c lose as poss ible to voter parity without violating anyone’s right to effective representa- tion.

Ine vitably, this requires additional human and financial resources to provide the physical means to ensure effective repre- sentation for all Albertans, including more rural constituency offices and staff, increased air travel, more assistance with ground travel, and high quality communications technology. The capacity to do this rests in the will of th e Legislative Assembly, not in taking a division [away] from Edmonton. The definition of effective representation is vague.

It would seem that the ease with which the MLA and constituents are able to have access to each other is the measurement of effective represen- tation. However, ensuring adequate access and addressing access issues is the responsibility of Member Services, not of the Electoral Boundaries Commission. At one time a ccess required face to fac e contact. Dis tance, area, and population density were critical factors in determining the effectiveness of repre sentation. How ever, in the 21st centur y, access means communicating efficiently and expediently. The difficulties of representing a rural riding are well known.

As a counterpoint, t here are additiona l di fficulties i nternal i n some urban constituencies. Many are able to affect the ability of an MLA to represent their constituents, particularly those in inner-city areas. These include many socioeconomic concerns such as high levels of poverty, illiteracy, unemployment, and linguistic diversity. None of these variab les we re included i n the calc ulations of the ma trix despite the fact that Alberta Finance collects detailed demographic data on provincial ridings that include this information. A final quote f rom the minor ity report, Mr.

Spea ker, with your permission: Although linear distance, geographic area, and low population density are viewed as potential barriers to effective representation and are th erefore measur ed and compared, cultural distance as defined by linguistic, ethnic, religious, cultural and racial diversity is not. Neither is the social distance that is created by the fact that large cities are magn ets for the physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually unwell.

Similarly , vertical distance an d high population density can be daunting because any kind of access to residents of apartment blocks an d high ris es is often impossible. The anonymity and social isolation of city dwellers provides another invisible distance. The minority report continues. These distances, unlike linear distance, cannot be bridged by technology because there must be social learning, which can come only from interperson al c ontact.

Although these distances make effective representation in some Edmonton constituencies extremely difficult, they were not taken into consideration in the distribution of electoral divisions.

Section 14 of the a ct specif ically says that the c ommission is allowed to take other considerations into account and is not re-

April 8, 2003 Alberta Hansard 875 stricted to only those listed in the act. If sparse population and the distance of some rural constituencies pose challenges for effective representation, so do the high levels of poverty, illiteracy, unemploy- ment, and linguistic diversity of some urban constituencies. Currently Edmonton’s inner city is divided between three ridings: Edmonton-Centre, Edmonton-Norwood, and Edmonton-Highlands. The interim report proposes that Edmonton-Gold Bar cross the river and take in the central communities of Riverdale, Boyle Street, and McCauley.

In addition, Edm onton-Centre, Edmonton-Highlands, Edmonton-Norwood, and Edmonton-Calder would represent parts of the inner city. I’d like to quote from a letter from Ewen Nelson, vice-president of the Boyle Street Community League. Mr. Nelson says: We have grave concerns about the proposed changes. Edmon- ton’s inner cit y communities are a complex mixture of people of widely varying needs, and the residents of those communities often have great di fficulties getti ng thos e needs met . On e source of assistance has always been the Member of the Legislative Assembly for the ar ea.

By reduci ng the n umber of Edmon ton ridi ngs, the MLAs for those ridings will be less able to assist citizens in need. We also have great reservations about losing our con nection to Edmonton-Highlands. In the Highlands riding, Boyle Street has much in comm on wit h other communi ties. Issues fa cing Bo yle Street are simi lar to those facing McCauley, Cromdale, and other nearby communities. We have little in common with the communi- ties in Edmonton-Gold Bar, and fear that Boyle Street issues could get lost or overlooked. Central neighbourhoods share a community of interests.

These include ethnica lly diver se po pulations and a h igh percentage of residents who live in rental accommodation. By e liminating one inner city riding and diluting the inner city by further dividing it between more ri dings with higher population , the Commission’s recommendations will reduce the ability of inner city residents t o voice their concerns. Specifically, residents of Edmonton’s inner city would be better represented if the r iding of Edm onton-Norwood i s retaine d, Mr . Speaker. Thirty-one percent of Edmonton-Norwood residents do not speak English at home.

T his presents communication barriers for MLAs, maki ng more diffic ult effective repr esentation of their constituents. As well, family incomes in that riding are 38 percent below the provinc ial average. Therefore, residents of Edmont on- Norwood may rely more on government services and thus depend on the assistance and advocacy provided by their MLA. Therefore, Mr . Speaker, I’d like to move an ame ndment to t he motion on behalf of my colleague for Edmonton-Highlands. It’s a motion which is very simple. It adds th e following to the motion.

Before I formally move it, I’d just like to read it i nto the minutes. The amendment would be as follows, that it will add to the e nd of the motion: “,with the exception of the report’s recommendation to remove one electoral division from the city of Edmonton.” I now would lik e to have this am endment distributed, and with your instructions I will read it into the record of the House and wait until it is distributed until I conclude my remarks. The Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, this will be amendment A1, and you may commence. You’ve moved it. Dr. Pannu: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I move amendment A1 to Motion 13 on behalf of my colleague, the hon. Mem ber for Edmonton-High- lands. 10:00 Mr. Speaker, if this amendment is vote d on by th e Hous e and accepted, in effect it will restore the 1 9th seat to Edmonton. By restoring that seat to Edmon ton, we can p revent ma ny of the problems that have arisen in the commission’s final report including the underrepres entation of Edmonton f or at leas t the ne xt tw o elections, the division of community interests in central Edmonton, and the dilution of inner-city concerns w ithin more and l arger ridings.

I will finish my remarks with a final quote, this one from Edmon- ton city councillor Stephen Mandel. Councillor Mandel states: Any decision to reduce Edmonton’s representation in the Alberta legislature is unreasonable. Edmonton’s population is growing at a substantial pace that makes the recent census out of touch with reality. That is by far not the primary reason. One only has to read the arguments put forward by the minority report of the committee to unders tand that a r eduction is shortsighted a nd extremely punitive.

I encourage all of our Legislators to support the rights of Edmontonians to be properly represented with the maintenance of our current 19 seats. The Deputy Speaker: You have one more minute, hon. member. Dr. Pannu: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m just about to conclude. I urge all members, therefore, to support this amendment, and I certainly would like the House to pa y attention to what my hon. colleague from Lacombe-Stettler has to say. Thank you. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Minister of Gaming. Point of Order Admissibility of Amendment Mr. Stevens: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to raise a point of order with respect to this particular notice of amendment.

I would refer you to Standing Order 23(l), which deals with introduc- ing “any matter in debate which offends the practices and precedents of the Assembly.” Referring to Beauchesne’s Parliamentary Rules & Forms, page 176, par agraph 578(2) deals with “an amendment which would produce the same result as if the original motion were simply negatived is out of order.” The motion put forward basically say s that ther e will be an addition of the words “with the exception of the report’s recommen- dation to remove one electoral division from the city of Edmonton.” This particular report provides that there will be 83 specific constitu- encies, and one of those specific constituencies recommended in the report is not the e lectoral division that was e liminated, namel y Edmonton-Norwood.

Therefore, the effect of this particular motion, Mr. Speaker, is that there will be 84 constituencies. That is what it means. The fact is that under the legislation pursuant to which the report was done, there must be 83 constituencies. Therefore, on the face of it, Mr. Speaker, this particular notice of amendment is out of order. The Deputy Speaker: A comment on the point of order. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona. Dr. Pannu : Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to su ggest respectfully that there’s no substance to the point of order raised here because the Beauchesne quotation that w as ma de here is , “An amendment appr oving p art of a motion and di sapproving the remainder is out of order,” and my amendment does not in any way disapprove the remainder of the motion before the House. It simply adds on to that which is already before the House. So there is no attempt here to disapprove anything. The intent of the amendment is simply to add on to the existing motion before the House.

So, in my judgment, I ho pe you will rule that the point of order is out of order.

876 Alberta Hansard April 8, 2003 The Deputy Speaker: Further discussion on this? Mr. Hancock: Well, Mr. Speaker, while I certainly understand the rationale for bringing forward this type of an amendment, I have to support the argument by the Deputy Government House Leader that it’s out of order because in fact the Electoral Bo undaries Commis- sion Act provides for 83 seats and the effect of this motion would be to create 84 seats because i t would approve the report of the Boundaries Commission with the exception of Edmonton. By doing that, it increases the number of seats, and that is contrary to

an act of the Legislature, so it offends the Standing Order. As much as I would like to concur in the amendment because of what the member is trying to do, it’s not possible under the rules of the House to have a motion of the House violate

an act of the House. Ms Carlson: Mr. Speaker, it’s a common practice i n this House when amendments are brought forward that they need the approval of Parliamentary Counsel before they can be put in order on the floor of this Assembly, so before we go further in this debate, I believe we should have an explanation from Parliamentary Counsel giving us the basis on which this particular amendment was approved.

The Deputy Speaker: On that particular thought, the Parliamentary Counsel and Clerks at the table are here to advise the Speaker, and the Speaker is the one who can’t pass the buck but gets advice from hon. members who are lawyers and Parliamentary Counsel who are lawyers. Having only the background of teaching, it’s a challenge. If there is any further assistance – I think w e’ve already had one from you, hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona, but if there are no others . . . You have something cogent to add to this dilemma? Dr. Pannu: Mr.

Speaker, with your permission if I may quote from Beauchesne’s Parliamentary Rules & Forms the purpose of amendments. It’s Beauchesne 567. It says that the object of an amendment may be either to modify a question in such a way as to increase its acceptability or to present to the House a different proposition as an alternative to the original question. I submit to you and to the House, Mr. Speaker, that the intent of the amendment that I’ve made is simply to increase the acceptability of Motion 13 that is before the House. So I would request you to rule the point of order as being out of order.

The Deputy Speaker: Well, thank yo u for all your assistance in dealing with this matter. The hon. Minister of Gaming is quite right in referring us to 579. I think that’s the ref erence you had, hon. member. At least that was the page you were talking about, and the reference was there, which is: An amendment may not ra ise a new question which c an only be considered as a distinct motion after proper notice. Is that what you were . . . Mr. Stevens: The reference, Mr.

Speaker, so that there’s clarity on the point, is at page 176, paragraph 578(2), which reads: An amendment which would p roduce t he same resul t as if t he original motion were simply negatived is out of order. That’s the 6th edition. 10:10 The Deputy Speaker: I don’t have the benefit of prolonged years studying the law , but it would seem to me tha t, first of all, t he reference that the hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona came up with, that is to say Beauchesne 567, would perhaps apply here.

The object of an amendment may be either to modify a question in such a way as to increase its acceptability or to present to the House a different proposition as an alternative to the original . . . So that would occur to me as being relevant. The amendment would appear to be in order. It is an acceptable form as was observed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie, and it modifies the main question to increase its acceptability which is, of course, what 567 directs. It’s not a direct negative of the main motion.

When all else is to be considered, the remedy lies with the House, and that is that they can simply defeat this amendment, and we can move on with hearing others who wish to speak to the motion. So I would rule that the amendm ent is in orde r. Now I am st anding here , and h on. Government House Leader, you wish to challenge that? Mr. Hancock: I’d love to, Mr. Speaker, but I respect you too much, so I’ll just speak to the amendment. The Deputy Speaker: Sorry then. Before we go forward, I have another request to make.

I wonder if the Assembly would a gree to b riefly revert t o Introduction of Guests. [Unanimous consent granted] head : Introduction of G uests (reversion) The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. Ms Carlson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Earlier this evening council was introduced, but our mayor wasn’t in attendance at that time.

He has since joined us for what will be probably the last 45 minutes of debate this evening, and we certainly appreciate his presence here and his strong support of Edmonton along with all of the council in terms of ensuring that we retain at least the number of seats we had before. I see that he’s risen. Please welcome him to this Assembly. head : Government Motions Final Report of Electoral Boundaries Commission (continued) The Depu ty Speak er: This is a debatable motion, so t he hon . Government House Leader on amendment A1. Mr. Hanco ck: Well, tha nk you, Mr. Speak er. I have to speak against the motion.

I d o believe that your ruling was incorrect in that, but we will have to deal with it in the House and deal with it in the House by defeating the amendment. As much as I would love to concur with what the member is trying to accomplish by passing the motion, we would be violating

an act of the H ouse, that act of the House, the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act, which says that we have 83 se ats. The effect of pas sing this a mendment would create 84 seats, and the House cannot pass a resolution, with all due respect, which violates

an act of the House. If we wanted to do that, we ought to have amended the act and added an extra seat. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview. Dr. Taft: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m happy to rise to engage in this debate. I think the spirit of this amendment is the right spirit. I think it’s motivated for all the right reasons, reasons that I know that we in the Liberal caucus share strongly, that Edmonton should not be losing a seat.

The census data shows Edmonton should not be losing a seat even if there was no accounting made to the growth that’s occurred si nce the cens us, so clea rly w hat motiv ates this amendment is to be admired and respected and supported. I find myself, how ever, a greeing with the members from the government side that this is, in this case, not a workable amendment.

April 8, 2003 Alberta Hansard 877 It’s not workable for a couple of reasons. There’s no way, as the Government House Leader and I think deputy House Leader pointed out, that we can leave Edmonton where it is and leave the rest of the province where it is. We’re going to end up with 84 se ats, and as they pointed out, that’s clearly against the law, against the act that this is working from. If we are to leave the city of Edmonton with the number of seats tha t it has, w e ha ve to make an adjustm ent somewhere else.

T hat means we ha ve to open up t he rest of the report, which is not allowed under this particular amendment. I would also join in the spirit of the Member for Lacombe-Stettler that this amendment is not fair to other parts of the province either. So if we are, as I believe we should, going to open t hings up to respect the needs of Edmonton, then surely as Albertans, as citizens of this ent ire province we have to respect the needs of ev ery other community as well.

So while I have no d oubt of the s incerity and goodwi ll and rightness of the spiri t behin d this amend ment, I fo r one fin d it unworkable and unfair and on that basis cannot support it. Thank you. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Rutherford, followed by the minister. Mr. McClelland: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In my experience when dealing with amendments, one should not try to bring in through the back door that which cannot be brought in through the front door, which this clearly tries to do. Theref ore, t he amendment in my opinion is clea rly ou t of or der.

However , sin ce we do have a question on it, may I call the question? The Deputy Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. I think that if you wish to debate that the ruling was improper or wrong, there’s another venue for it. The hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs. Mr. Boutilier: Thank you, Mr. Speak er. To follow some of my learned colleagues on what is being intended here, I guess I would ask the Speaker, based on perhaps new information in front of him, that in fact he take a few moments to consider the ruling t hat he’s made.

I understa nd that there ’s some new inf ormation f or the Speaker to consider prior to what I believe to be not even necessary to be had on this par ticular motion because, as the hon. m ember across the way has mentioned relative to it, it is not in my view in order. I understand that the Speaker has some new information, and I’d only ask that the Speaker consider the new information prior to considering another ruling based on the new information he has. The Deputy Speaker: The Speaker has some new information, and that confirms the earlier decision.

If you really object further to it, you have the remed y at ha nd. You just nee d to vote ag ainst the amendment. I think that’s enough on these rulings. Thank you, hon. member. Are you ready for the question? Dr. Pannu: May I conclude the debate? The Deputy Speaker: No, that fo r sure you can’t do. When you make an amendment, you don’t have a conclusion right. [Motion on amendment A1 lost] The Deputy Spe aker: The hon. Minis ter of Int ernational and Intergovernmental Relations on the motion itself. Mr. Jonson : Yes, Mr. S peaker.

First I’d like to make a few comments with respect to an issue which seems to be arising and I hope will not dominate this particular debate. I believe it was the Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar that seemed to be referring to there being a viewpoint that rural areas were there to serve the cities, sort of a hinterland. We certainly in the rural areas do not look upon it that way at all. We have our contribution to make to the future and to the health of the province, and we know that the cities do as well, and we can’t do without each other.

We need to work in a direction of continued co-operation for the betterment of all the people in all areas of the province. To address t he whole matter of the el ectoral boundaries report, Mr. Speaker, I would first like to recognize that the task assigned to one of these committees is certainly a challenging one, particularly in a province that has a gr owing pop ulation and is changing somewhat in terms of its overall distribution as a population. I’d like to acknowledge that the committee did not have the luxury of being able to solve problems by adding seats.

That is something that, as I recall, was a possibil ity in previous examinations of electoral boundaries.

So they did have a set number of seats to deal with, and the addition of three or four seats was not an alternative that would get you out of some of the challenges that the commission faced. 10:20 I would also like to acknowledge that the commission did make its rounds of the province after its interim report, and as the Member for Lacombe-Stettler indicated, they did their job of coming to various parts of the province and hearing submissions, that came in consider- able numbers from our area and the Member for Lacombe-Stettler’s area.

There w as representation there from individuals, from local governments, and there was cer tainly concern expressed at that particular time. Mr. Speaker, I’d also like to indicate, before commenting further specifically on the report, that I’ve had the fortune or bad fortune to have been involv ed in looking at elec toral bounda ries reports for some 40 years. You might wonder how I get to that number.

My job before be ing in polit ics was that of be ing a school teacher, a teacher of social studies, and I can remember this being part of the political process that I endeavoured to explain to my students on a number of occasions. I must admit that I was successful, I think, as a scho ol teacher and probably as a politician in being ab le t o rationalize and t o explain and to convince my constituents once I became an MLA that when these electoral boundaries reviews came around, yes, there were changes.

Some we did not particularly like, but they had a rationale for them, and they were made within certain rules and certain guidelines which Electoral Boundaries Commis- sions had established over several decades. Now, this brings up what I think to me are the major concerns that I have with this particular report. The documents that are available for anyone t o peruse outli ne the issue s that should c oncern an Electoral Boundaries Commission.

One of them, of course, is the issue of sparsity and density of population, and as t hese rules have evolved, there has been a la titude allowed in the inst ructions that have been giv en to the Ele ctoral Bounda ries Com mission f or a variance of plus or minus 25 percent of the average voting popula- tion of constituencies. Now, it would appear, Mr. Spea ker, that in the case of Pono ka-Rimbey – and I have to m ention, of course, Lacombe-Stettler – th at particula r latitude w as not utiliz ed or considered.

Both constituencies are well within the range of the plus or minus 25 percent as far as population is concerned. That does not seem to have be en a partic ular consideration. We are both quite viable in terms of existing numbers and also conform to the current rules or policies that an Electoral Boundaries Commission is to look

878 Alberta Hansard April 8, 2003 at and to consider. The other th ing, Mr. Speaker – an d this is an other very grave concern, and I’m sure it is for perhaps some other members of the Assembly and certa inly wo uld be the ca se with the Member for Lacombe-Stettler – is that w herever possible boundar ies should follow municipal boundaries because there has to be a co-ordination with respect to the services that are provided, the issues that have to be dealt with, and that in the case of Ponoka-Rimbey seems to have been very much ignored. Also, there is supposed to be r ecognition of comm unity o f interests.

Now, certainly Ponoka-Rimbey functions quite well. It is mainly a farm ing or agr icultural area, but i t d oes have its oil and natural gas, it does have its urban business es, and it is a very, very cohesive group. The local governments get along with each other. There’s no particular issue there. The other issue that I’d like to bri ng up, to o, is that a lso to be considered is the tre nd in term s of populati on growth a nd the development of the area. Now, Mr.

Speaker, as has a lready been mentioned, the corridor along highway 2 is an area of fairly rapid growth and steady growth, and all projections are that a constituency such as Ponoka-Rimbey will be growing in terms of population. It is not as if it is fl at-lining or it is dorm ant in some way, and it’s certainly not declining in terms of its population. So it is not likely, in any way of looking at the future, to be a constituency that is going to drop below that minus 25 percent. So that’s an other item to be considered as well.

Then the one that really is most glaring, I think, is, as I said, that there should be some respect for com munity of intere sts, the cohesiveness of certain areas of the population in the constituency, and t here shou ld be some respect shown to the role that local government has to play and the importance and the common sense that’s involved in the electoral boundaries coinciding as much as possible with the municipal boundaries in the constituency. Now, Mr.

Speaker, I don’t want to be too critical of the drafters of the report, but I recall back in American political history that a term called gerr ymandering wa s develope d. I must admit t hat the gerrymandering concept w as deve loped by poli ticians, not by electoral boundaries commissions. Nevertheless, the maps that have come out – and I’ll speak particularly of my own constituency – start to get that a ura of a salamander. That is, they go round and round and round and round with no seeming connection to the boundaries of local government or natural geographic features or particular community interests.

While I do very much appreciate the amend- ment that was made between the interim report and the final report of the com mission w hereby there w as a sliv er of la nd added to Ponoka-Rimbey which went around the town of Rimbey and brought it back into the constituency, the fact of the matter is that the two or three townships on each side of that particular highway, highway 53, are in two different constituencies. So it is a troubling development there as well. So, Mr.

Spe aker, I think that despite the fact that I very much appreciate that this is a very difficult task that the Electoral Bound- aries Commission had – and in this particular case I have to go as an individual with my overall experience over the years with represent- ing this particular area of the province and the history of boundaries commissions – I do find that we have a rather unique situation here where the various electoral commissions table of contents,

chapter E-3 of a docume nt that I hav e before me, w hich is the E lectoral Boundaries Commission Act, ref ers very, very distinctly to there having to be conside ration of m unicipal an d other im portant boundaries. There ha s to be consi deration of what I w ould call service areas, and there should be consideration of the fact, by the very legislation that I have before me and that we have before us in this Assembly, that there can be a var iation of pl us or minus 25 percent from an average constituency population number.

Really, I do not see the rationale in anything that is happening within the two constituencies in que stion t hat should indic ate that w e need to amalgamate the two constituencies, that we should amalgamate them in such a way that natural corridors as far as transportation and trade and other association will be split in va rious directions in a v ery dysfunctional way. 10:30 Further, Mr.

Speaker, one of the areas that I have concern over, although I must acknowledge that I do not have the latest documen- tation on this particular matter, is that in the case of Ponoka-Rimbey as it currently exists, we have a very large First Nations population. Their numbers have been chronically underestimated as far as the voting population is concerned, and that is something that does not seem to have been acknowledged and accounted for with respect to the deliberations of the commission. So, overall, Mr.

Speaker, I believe that we have a situation here where the constituencies in question – but I will speak specifically for Pono ka-Rimbey. Po noka-Rimbey I think ha s had effective representation over many, many years, not just since I’ve been there, but we do our best, and I’m sure that the hon. Member for Lacombe- Stettler does as well. We are a gr owth area. We c urrently come within the parameters that are required to have two distinct constitu- encies in that p articular part of the province. We have numerous municipal governments to be served. We hav e a varied business base.

I do take issue with the contents of the boundaries report. As I’ve said, it’s the first time that I have done so in a number of roles. I’ve not argued formally against a boundaries report before, but I do think that in this parti cular case for the reasons that I’ve outlined, I w ill not be able to s upport and to r epresent to my constituencies that I agree with this report. The Deputy Speaker: Any comments or questions? The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. Ms Blakeman: Thanks very much, Mr. Spea ker.

I’m pleased to have the opportunity to join in thi s discussion, but I have to say immediately and right off the t op that I do not concur w ith the recommendations of th e f inal report of the Alberta Electoral Boundaries Commission, and I do not support Government Motion 13 to accept and concur in these recommendations. I just have a wee little quote that I found here that sort of sums up how I’m feeling about all of w hat’s gone on here.

This is from Donald and Elenore Laird from The Art of Getting Things Done: Next to bein g right, the b est of al l thing s is to be cle arly and definitely wrong, because you will come out somewhere. If you go buzzing about between right and wrong, vibrating and fluctuating, you come out nowhere; but if you are absolutely and thorough ly wrong, you have the good fortune of knocking against the facts that set you straight again. And I think – I hope – that is the situation that we find ourselves in with this repo rt. It is tho roughly wro ng.

A number of o ther members have spoken eloquently about what has been missed in the report or the criteria that was set up that doesn’t work for them. We must not accept the recommendations of this Electoral Boundaries Commission. It is irrevocably wrong, wrong, wrong, and we should not support it. I think over whelmingly it’s wrong, from my point of vie w, for three reasons. One, it is w rong because Edmonton loses a seat. I appreciate very much the passionate words that have been spoken by the members for Lacombe-Stettler and Ponoka-Rimbey, and good on

April 8, 2003 Alberta Hansard 879 them for speaking so eloquent

Document details

Collection	Alberta — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20030408
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	L25 S3 20030408 2000 01 han.pdf
Language	en
Format	json
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	09d782048119e979263fe12116874f0859804fa3

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (json).