Alberta Hansard — 25 March 2004, Afternoon sitting (13:30) (Legislature 25, Session 4)

20040325

Alberta — Debates (Hansard)

March 25, 2004 Alberta Hansard 701 Legislative Assembly of Alberta Title: Thursday, March 25, 2004 1:30 p.m. Date: 2004/03/25 [The Deputy Speaker in the chair] head: Prayers The Deputy Speaker: Good afternoon. Let us pray. Heavenly Father, as we conclude this week’s deliberations and return to our constituencies, we pray that we will be renewed and strengthened in our commitments to better serve our constituency and all Albertans. Amen. head: Introduction of G uests The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General. Mr. Hancock: Yes. T hank you, Mr. Speak er.

It’s my pleasure today to introduce t o you and thr ough you to m embers of the Assembly Fabiana Leite. Fabiana is here from São Paulo, Brazil, on a Rotary International youth ex change program. She arriv ed in Edmonton in August 2003 an d wil l be here unt il Augus t 2004. She’s attending Ross Sheppard composite high school in Edmonton, taking a full load of subjects in grades 10 and 11. Fabiana is being hosted by the Rotary Club of Edmonton River- view and stay ing with four Rotary host families w hile in Alberta. I’m told that she ’s having lots of f un taking

part in many Cana- dian/Alberta cultural and sporting activities during her visit thus far, and members will note that she’s collected a lot of badges along the way. Fabiana is accompanied by Mr. Chris Gowers, one of her host Rotary families. Chr is, I mi ght also poi nt out t o the House, is a mediator in addition to his own business at which he earns a living. He’s in essenc e a volun tary m ediator w ith our provinc ial court mediation program. Our mediators do get a modest honorarium, but it doesn’t go a nywhere near paying for their time, so I call them volunteers.

I’d just ac knowledge Chris’s con tribution in that manner. Fabiana and Chris are standing in the members’ gallery, and I’d ask the House to give them the traditional warm welcome. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs. Mr. Boutilier: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Indeed, it’s my pleasure to introduce t he Tim berlea pu blic school f rom Fort McMurray. In Fort McMurr ay our c ity slog an is We Have the Energy, and clearly these students and teachers and parents and the bus driver represent that energy.

It’s my pleasure to introduce the teachers who are part of t he group of 55 that are here today from Timberlea: Gloria F ountain, Tra cy Hor vath, princ ipal Anthony Warren, as well as Denise Roland and Zeta Norris, along with many parents that are here helping with the trip today and also the bu s driver, Marc Pichette. I would like to ask everyone from Timberlea school to rise, the whole delegation, and please extend to them the warm welcome of this Assembly. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Minister of Human Resources and Employment. Mr. Dunford: Thank y ou, Mr. Speak er.

We have a num ber of special guests today from the Deputy Minister of Human Resources and Employment’s office, and I belie ve them to be perhaps in the public gallery. I’d like to read th eir names, and then at the end i f they would all rise, we could provide them with the proper welcome. We have Mr. Barkat Rajwani, Ms Veronica Pysmeny, Todd Zy la, Mrs. Marge Segin, Mrs. Rena Sawatski, Miss Ashley Dawson, Mr. Josh Chatterley, John Bozocea, Mrs. Sharon Wilde, Cynthia Quintal, Christina Dentzien, Gordon Okamura, Janice L’Hirondelle, Bryon Hoy, Susan Sava, Je ssica Y an, and Lan a-Rae Shade.

I hope I ’ve pronounced all of thos e names correctly. If they w ould rise and receive the warm welcome of the House. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Bev erly- Clareview. Mr. Yankowsky: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to intr oduce to you and through y ou to this Assembly a con stituent, Mr. Dave Schwartz. He is here to observe question period. Dave is a former announcer with Mix 96, where his radio name was Dave Shannon. He is the voice-over for the Premier’s dinners and also doe s some live announcing, as he will be doing tonight.

Dave is seated in the members’ gallery, and I’d like to ask him to please stand and receive the very warm welcome of this Assembly. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. Ms Blakeman: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Students from Sierra Leone, the Sudan, and Uganda have chosen Edmonton as their new home, and more particularly they’ve chosen St. Joe’s Catholic school as their school. I’d like to introduce to you and through you to all members of the Assembly a group of students, and I’m going to name t hem all.

I’d ask them to ri se as the ir names are ca lled: Forty Two Chua ng, Alor Arop Deng, Kvol A rop Deng, Sol omon Ochen, Bondi Koroma, Yeama Koroma, and Nyogoa Tut. They’re accompanied today by their instructors and teachers, Miss Geraldine Dawson and Miss Lorie Taylor. They’re all standing in the public gallery. Please welcome them to the Assembly. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Redwater. Mr. Broda: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s my pleasure to rise today to acknow ledge to y ou and through y ou 87 g uests who are not present in this Ass embly right now . They ’re from Bon Acc ord school.

They’re taking advantage of our excellent learning centre that we have here, the School at the Legislature, and also the mock parliament. I thought it w ould be pr oper to acknowledge them as being pre sent he re to day and t o have the m rec eive the warm welcome of this Assembly. Thank you. head: Oral Quest ion Peri od The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview. Health Care Premiums Dr. Taft: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This morning the M inister of Finance stated on the radio that she does not find it, quote, offensive, end quote, to pay the health care p remium tax.

To the minister of Finance: given that half her health care premium taxes and half those of all MLAs are paid for by the Legislative Assembly, will she admit that MLAs who support the governm ent’s policy on health ca re premiums are following a double standard? Mrs. Nelson : Mr. Speaker, the question that I was ask ed this morning was: was I prepared to get rid of health care premiums and

Alberta Hansard March 25, 2004702 *See p. 726, right col., para. 1 send out the bill to Albertans? The response I gave back was that the health care system costs $8 billion in this year’s budget. [interjec- tions] I would a sk the hon. m embers opposite to lis ten to the answer. The cost is $8 billion, and it doesn’t matter how you shake the cat. The people of Alberta, the taxpayers, have to pay f or the cost of the health care system. So whether I take it out of your right pocket or your left pocket, it’s still $8 billion.

Now, I can say that I’ll get rid of the little slip of paper that says: here’s the invoice for the health care premium. I can hide it in the taxation model like other provinces do. I can play the political game with you, or I can be up front and honest with you and say: the tax is there, and it’s coming through to pay for this system, and it’s $8 billion. That’s the full cost of the health system, so it doesn’t really matter how it’s there, how it’s delivered.

I prefer to see the invoice go out because, quite frankly, my concern over the years is that I get the feeling that some people in Canada believe that the health system is free. It’s not. It’s $8 billion this year. The Deputy Speaker: First supplemental. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview. Dr. Taft: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Given that health care premiums comprise only a tiny portion of her $120,000-plus salar y but a substantial portion of the salaries of ordinary workers, will she admit that these are a regressive and unfair tax? Mrs. Nelson: Well, you know, Mr.

Speaker, we’re very fortunate in Canada to have a public health care system, and I, like every person in thi s province and in this c ountry, have to have that sy stem i n place, and we all have friends and families that require that system. Our objective through this whole process – and I’m not going to play this little game with the member opposite – is: how do we renew and sustain the health system so that it’s there for the long term for when we need to ac cess that system? That’s the fundamental key.

The cost of this system this year was a little alarming because what happened this year was that for every additional dollar of increase in spending in this budget, 50 cents of that we nt to the hea lth care system. That’s not sustainable. That has to change. 1:40 The Deputy Speaker: To supplement, Minister, very briefly. Mr. Mar: Briefly, sir. I only wish to supplement by saying this. As the Minister of Finance has already indicated, the cost of the health care system will be in the magnitude of $8 billion. The amount that will be comi ng from premiums is roughly in the ma gnitude of $1 billion.

But I have said in this House and i n other v enues, Mr. Speaker – and I want Albertans to know – that if you add up what we get for health care premiums plus all of the personal income taxes in this province plus all o f the transfers t hat we get from the fe deral government, it still doesn’t add up to $8 bill ion. So this is an enormous system that we pay for. It’s a good system. But to suggest that you can do away with a billion dollars is simply not possible. If the hon. member wishes to propose on the floor of this Legislature or anywhere else a sales tax, then let him do so.

The Deputy Speaker: Final supplemental. Dr. Taft: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Back to the Minister of Finance: why has the minister chosen to hide a billion dollars from Albertans by lowballing natural gas revenues instead of giving Albertans a tax break by eliminating the regressive health care premium tax? Mrs. Nelson: Mr. Speaker, I’m beginning to think that the hon. member opposite is runn ing out of things to complain about. We live in a very successful province economically.

Quite frankly, if he would review the fiscal structure that we operate under, he would be well aware of the fact that under our fiscal framework we have set some limits on how much of the resource revenues we can actually spend on programs that we de liver to Albertans, and that number would be $4 billion. The issue as to where the forecast is of the price of crude oil or the price of natural gas only really becomes an issue at the end of the year.

I no longer hav e to get up every day and worry that the Minister of Energy is going to come and tell me that there’s a high or a low in the oil and gas prices because we’ve put in place protection against those highs and lows with our new fiscal structure. So insofar as the oil and gas price forecast, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Ho use to plea se entertain an answ er from the Ministe r of Energy on those forecasts because I believe it’s very important. The Deputy Speaker: I think we’ll forgo that, as illustrative as it may be.

There are other people who can ask the question, and we’ve already ta ken a considerable amount of time with this particular series. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. Seniors’ Benefits Ms Blakeman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday’s budget was a big letdown for seniors, who have seen their programs cut or reduced over the ye ars and the ir living costs go now here but up. O ne seniors’ group, SALT, is “profoundly disappointed by what is and is not contained in the 2004 Alberta Budget.” My questions are to the Minister of Finance. Why in i ts budget did this government forget about seniors? Mrs. Nelson: Mr.

Speaker, I take great exception to that. We clearly did not forget about seniors. They’re very, very important people in our province. I personall y fin d it totally insulting tha t the hon. member would think that. We had a n increase in our support for seniors. I’m going to ask the Minister of Seniors to explain the details of that. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Woloshyn: Thank you very much, M r. Speake r. I th ink we should be very clear on this. The budget for seniors this year, I find, is very generous. It may not meet what a lot of folks would like it to meet.

I’m the advocate for seniors, and I would advocate for more in the budget if I could, but as has been pointed out, we want to be sustainable. We want to meet the n eeds of our seniors. We have made remarkable progress in the area of housing, in the area of lodge grants for individual seni ors, in the area of long-term care, and for the seniors on our programs. We’ve got a full $10 million going into this year’s budget that will sustain our seniors’ benefits program, the cash payouts. Mr.

Speaker, I would like to also point out that our thresholds for premium payments are very generous in that individual seniors who earn less than $27,000 pay no pr emium. Couples w ho are under $44,000 pay no premium. Would I like to lift those thresholds? The answer is yes. But it h as to be do ne in a fashion that can be sus- tained, that is supported, and that we can go on in the future and target the right people.*

March 25, 2004 Alberta Hansard 703 Speaker’s Ruling Decorum The Deputy Speaker: Just a reminder, hon. members of both sides, that if you want to ask a question and get an answer from a minister or a minister wants to give an answ er to a ques tion that’s coming from there, ple ase leave it to the allott ed person. W e had two or three questions going on at the same time as the hon. Mi nister of Seniors was attempting to answer his. That’s understood in here. Second question, first supplemental, Edmonton-Centre. Seniors’ Benefits (continued) Ms Blakeman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again to the Minister of Finance: why didn’t this budget restore any of the benefits programs seniors have lost, such as the universal optical and dental program? Mrs. Nelson: Well, Mr. Speaker, this budg et saw a $21 mill ion increase in support for seniors, and I think that, quite frankly, from what I understand, seniors across Canada find Alberta one of the best places to retire because of the benefit programs that are here in this province. Again, I’ll ask the Minister of Seniors to respond to the specifics of the question, but there has been a substantial increase in support for seniors in this budget.

The Deputy Speaker: Briefly, hon. minister. Mr. Woloshyn: Yes. Speaking specifically to the question of dental and eyeglasses, I might like to point out that anyone on our seniors’ benefits program has the ability to recover up to 100 per cent of the costs without the severe limitations of the pr evious program. The program is not unive rsal, I’ll grant y ou that. Howev er, I hav e to point out that seniors in this p rovince are the best off of any other province in the country, bar none, including, if you will, the United States. So let’s be fair about this, Mr. Speaker. Would we like to do more for our seniors?

Definitely. Are they important? Definitely. Are we going to continue to a dvocate to improve their progr ams? Defi- nitely. But let’s keep it in perspective. We are doing an awful lot of good for these people. The Deputy Speaker: Final supplemental, Edmonton-Centre. Ms Blakeman: Thank you. Again back to the Minister of Finance: given that a budget is supposed to be a plan for how this government will be spending Albertans’ money, why is there no plan for the $10 million of the Seniors budget and how it’s going to be spent? Mrs. Nelson : Mr.

Speake r, the plan tha t was l aid out clea rly yesterday in the budget not on ly includes the three-year business plans but also includes a 20-year strategic planning process for our government and for the province. The plans are in fact there. Now, in the specifics as to the Seniors budget, as the hon. member knows, the benefits program renews July 1. While there’s enhance- ment to go forward for seniors, that will be announce d as t ime presses on closer t o the date of July 1 f or renewal of the seniors’ benefits plan. The Minister of Seniors may want to supplement that answer. The Deputy Speaker: The hon.

Inte rim Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition. Student Loan Program Dr. Massey: Thank you, Mr. Speak er. This govern ment sent a strong message yesterday through its budget by demonstrating that while debt is not acceptable for the province, it’s encouraged for postsecondary students. While the government balances its books, Alberta students will be forced to borrow almost $100 million in student loans for the next y ear. My question is t o the Ministe r of Learning.

Why does the government push so hard to become debt free while forcing students dee p into debt for their posts econdary schooling? 1:50 The Deputy Speaker: The hon. minister. Dr. Oberg: Thank you ve ry much, Mr. Speaker. Included in t his budget was a $300 per year increase in the maximum amount of a student loan. Just for the member’s information Alberta is the only province in Canada that has actually increased the student loan limit since 1994. In all other provinces it is tied to the federal government in a 60-40 ratio, which has not changed.

The hon. members are talking about more debt, b ut again they forget what I’ve said for the last four years when I’ve tabled four budgets. The maximum amount that they will have to pay back on an $11,600 loan is $5,000 per year. Mr. Speaker, included in the $97 million that will be given out in student loans is $39 million of loan remiss ions that will go to our students this year. We have also increa sed sch olarships a nd bursaries by $6.2 million; 28,000 students will get scholarships and bursaries this year alone. The Deputy Speaker: First supplemental, hon. leader. Dr. Massey: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again to the same minister: given that remission currently benefits only students who accumulate more than $5,000 a y ear in stude nt loan debt, when w ill this government allow remission for a portion of the student loans of all students? Dr. Oberg: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that that’s an absolutely wonderful question for the federal government, which does not have any remission loan program. Dr.

Massey: Again to the same minister: given that not all parents give financial support to their children for further education, when will this government eliminate parental contribution requirements for the student loan program? Dr. Oberg: Mr. Speaker, each and every student has the ability to appeal their stude nt loans. Inde ed, each a nd e very year we g et students who say that their parents will absolutely refuse to put any money in regardless of the amount of money that the parents make.

We look very carefully at each and every one of these appeals, and the majority of appeals, if they are true , will g o through, a nd th e students will receive the student loan. Mr. Speaker, I really m ust say that the Alberta s tudent loan program is by far the best in Canada. We provide 55 per cent of the student loan dollars. Every place else in Canada it’s 40 per cent with the federal government at 60 per cent. Alberta provides 55 per cent, and the federal government provides 45 per cent. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. leader of the third party.

Alberta Hansard March 25, 2004704 Provincial Tax Policy Dr. Pannu: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Budgets are about priorities, and yeste rday’s provincial budget spea ks volum es about the priorities of this g overnment. Frankly , other t han so me election- cycle goodies f or municipa lities, he alth authoriti es, an d school boards, ther e’s little or nothing in the budget for middle-class families, seniors, and working Albertans. Meanwhile, the corporate elite, the already well off, and the horse racing set scored big. My questions are to the Minister of Finance.

Why is the government for the third year in a row hitting up homeowners and small businesses with $77 million in school property tax hikes while cutting taxes for large, profitable corporations by $142 million? Mrs. Nelson: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member opposite had listened to the budget, he would hav e recognized that there was not only a corporate tax reduction of 1 per cent, there was also a small business reduction of 1 per cent that came forward, and personal income tax rates that are indexed were protected so that $150 million would be saved from personal income taxes by all Albertans in one year alone.

In addition to that, the school property tax rate was reduced by 2.3 per cent. I’ll ask the Minister of Municipal affairs to respond on that as well as the Minister of Learning. The Deputy Speaker: Before we go from one to the other, it might be instructive, hon . member, if you are askin g a questio n of a minister, that your seatmate doesn’t answer all of the questions. One minister is going to reply – the Minister of Municipal Affairs – and then we’ll go to your second question. Mr. Boutilier: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker, for that enlightenment. I would like to say simply this: the pie is growing.

When peopl e come to this p rovince of Alberta, they don’t bring the roads, they don’t bring their schools, the y don’t bring their hospit als. It’s a wonderful problem to have in A lberta simply because the Alberta advantage is alive and well . I think e veryone in this House, including the opposition, agrees with that. Don’t they? I would ask the Minister of Learning to supplement.

The Learning Commission recommendatio ns, the wor k t hat we’re doing in growing the pie in p artnership with all of these stakeholders, separates us from every other province in Canada to the point that every other province in Canada is looking at Alberta’s tail lights. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. leader. First supplemental. Dr. Pannu: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So it’s clear that the govern- ment doesn’t apologize for increasing taxes on homeowners.

How can the Finance minister’s nose f ail to grow when by focusing solely on the mill rate, she is trying to fool Albertans into thinking their scho ol property taxes are bein g cut whe n the pro v- ince’s property tax take is in fact going up by 5.7 per cent? The Deputy Speak er: Before I call on the hon. minister, just remember that the question is supposed to be without a

preamble and must not be argumentative. Long noses and all the other things are something that really is not part of a legitimate question. Mrs. Nelson: Well, Mr. Speaker, this can’t be that hard to compre- hend. Number one, we have reduced the school property tax rate by 2.3 per cent. We’ve had a migration to this province that is unprece- dented, last year, the year before, and expect that we’re going to have it again this year. So the re will be more people com ing into the province to pay t he reduced school pr operty tax rate th at I’ve lowered by 2.3 per cent.

So w hen you have more people comin g here and paying into the system, then you collect more money. The base grows. That can’t be so hard. The pie, as the Municipal Affairs minister said, gets bigger, but the rate went down. Maybe the Minister of Learning would like to respond. The Deputy Speaker: Very briefly, Minister of Learning. Dr. Oberg: Very briefly, Mr. Speaker. I have been in this Legisla- ture as Minister of Learning for very close to five years. An Hon. Member: How long? Dr. Oberg: Very close to five years. Mr.

Speaker, over those five years I’ve heard time and time and time again from the New Democrat opposition about putting more money into Learning, about raising taxes: go ahead and raise taxes; put it into Learning; that’s where the m oney goes. Well, what has happened here today is that we have received $77 million more tax money because ther e are mo re people m oving into A lberta. T he market assessment has gone up. I can ’t believe what I’m hearing. The New Democrats are now saying that they don’t want that money to go into Learning. The Deputy Speaker: Final supplemental. Dr. Pannu: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Why is the Finance minister defying the will of the Tory backbenchers through a sneaky 5.7 per cent increase in school property taxes when a motion was passed two weeks ago in this House, with the support of both sides of the House, urging the government in fact to phase out school property taxes? 2:00 Mrs. Nelson: Well, Mr. Speaker, to sustain the system, quite clearly there has to be revenue that goes into the system . The vehicle we have today is to put an assessment for the school tax on the property. This budget said: let’s not just keep it whole; let’s reduce the school tax rate by 2.3 p er cent.

As the Minist er of L earning explained, because there are more people coming to the province and living in the province, they are also contributing to the school prope rty tax assessment on an annual ba sis. So w hen you hav e more people paying, more money is collected. Surely the hon. member opposite can grasp this. The Deputy Speaker: The Minister of Revenue. Mr. Melchin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just think it’s important to recognize that we did actually decrease the mill rate for education property t axes. We ar e looking to see that that tax load is then evenly di stributed acr oss the prov ince.

To compare it to the corporate income tax reduction is unfair because they don’t tell the good story about what happens. When you reduce the taxes to the business community, th ey actually have a cha nce to reta in more money in their own businesses to crea te m ore jobs and m ore opportunities for Al bertans. We see that all the tim e. More companies are coming here because of those policies, and it helps pay for education. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Bow. Assured Income for the Severely Handicapped Ms DeLong: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The 2004 budget for Alberta Human Resources and Employment identified a $20 million increase

March 25, 2004 Alberta Hansard 705 for the assur ed i ncome for the severely handicapped, or AISH, program over las t year. The m aximum financial benefit a person may receive through AISH is $850 per month. My quest ion today is for the hon. Minister of Hu man Re sources a nd Employ ment. Within the city of Calgary alone there are more than 8,000 people receiving AISH, 450 of which reside in my constituency. Will they be getting an increase in their monthly cheque? Mr. Dunford: Mr. Speaker, I want to just brief ly talk about the AISH program.

In the budget we’ll now be providing $394 million in AISH payments and benefits for approximately 32,000 severely disabled Albertans. Yes, the member is quite right; we have a $20 million increase, actually about a 5 per cent increase in our budget. But I want to inform the member that asked the question and inform all members of the House and all Albertans as well that these clients will not see an increase in the income level of $850 per month. Ms DeLong: Well, if the AISH program is receiving an extra $20 million for this year, where is the money going? Mr.

Dunford: The $20 million that we’ve provided for the AISH program is really going to two particular areas. One, of course, is extremely important, and that is for the medications. The he alth benefit plan that we have for AISH clients, while not figured into the $850 monthly income, is a tremendous benefit. Of course, part of the medical card that we provide to them provides for their medica- tions. It’s very, very important that we stay up to date w ith thos e medications.

Bu t as o thers in the House hav e indicate d, we ar e seeing substantial growth in the cost, then, of prescription drugs here in this province. The Deputy Speaker: Final supplemental. Ms DeLong: Yes, Mr. Spe aker. Y ou said that t he high cost of health benefits is what’s consuming the grea ter portion of your budget in crease. What do y ou plan to do to ens ure that A ISH recipients get the monthly income that they need to cover their food and shelter? Mr. Dunford: There’s a discrepancy in the AISH program that has to be looked at.

I want to advise the member and again all members of the House that we will be putting together a formal review of the AISH program, and we expect that to be up and running in Septem- ber of this year. The fundamental issue that we have to deal with in AISH, though, is this huge inequity between what people can and cannot have in terms of assets and still be eligible for AISH income. What we’re finding is a gro wth in the actual numbers of AISH clients that we have. It’s disproportionate to the demographics that are happening here in Alberta.

So these and other matters surrounding the AISH program are going to have to be looked at. Obviously, one of the issues that would have to be dealt w ith at that t ime, as w ell, of course, will be the monthly income. Again, to answer you, Mr. Speaker, and all Albertans, there is no increase in the AISH income support program at this time. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. Support for Low-income Albertans Mr. MacDon ald: Thank y ou, Mr. Sp eaker. This g overnment continues to show dis respect a nd negle ct for the poor and the unfortunate.

After saddling Albertans yesterday with more health care taxes, recreational user fees, and education costs, this govern- ment continues to subsidize the horse racing industry while here in Edmonton 1 in 5 children lives in poverty. Now, with the latest $45 million injection, the ho rse racing in dustry has o ver the pa st four years tucked $130 million into their silks. My first question is to the Minister of Seniors.

Given that this government cares more about horses than they do about the homeless, why did this minister allow support for homeless people to go down by almost $1 million in the budget while the horse racing industry sees an amount of $45 million set aside for their use? Mr. Woloshyn: Well, I don’t quite fol low where the member is going, but I will say th is much. In E dmonton and in Cal gary we provided sufficient spaces for the homeless so that nobody was left out in the cold.

W e will continue to m eet our obli gations and to work with the operators to ensure that the unfortunate people of this province are looked after, whether they be homeless, whether they be seniors or anyone else. That, Mr. Speaker, is about all I can say to that mundane question. Mrs. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I think that certainly we’ve got to set the record straight on this, at least the

preamble o f this. Th is has become a common occurrence in this Legislature, unfortunately, but in talking to some people who listen to question period, they’re not fooling anyone be cause, fortunately, most pe ople who w atch this comprehend these programs better than the people opposite either can or want to. Mr. Speaker, $45 million is not being handed to the horse racing industry, an i ndustry which, I might say, employs 7, 000 people, many of them just up here in the Member for Edmonton-Highland’s area. Se ven thou sand people e mployed.

The $45 million can be earned – e arned – by the horse r acing indus try through a racing entertainment centre where there was a commitment to a number of slot machines that would be available, and those proceeds could go partially to the industry. I would remind the hon. members that 33 and a third per cent of that money also comes into this government’s revenues to provide programs for all citizens. Mr. Speaker, to say that this government gives, explains exactly what this group knows about business. This is not an entitlement. These people earn this money, or they don’t get it. You w ouldn’t understand that.

You wouldn’t get it. 2:10 Mr. MacDon ald: This side of the House cares about hungry children. Now to the Minister of Human Resources an d Empl oyment: where’s the i ncrease for people relying on AISH and SFI? T heir supports haven’t gone up. Inflation has gone up. While the horse racing industry has seen $45 million s et aside for it, w here’s the money for the homeless? Mr. Dunford: Well, that was quite a barrage. Maybe we could take one question at a time over the next week.

Certainly, I’ve answered in the House today about AISH, and I think our little press conference that we’ll have next Monday would be open, and I’d expect to see him there when we talk about what will happen in terms of support for welfare folks. The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Final supplemental, Edmonton-Gold Bar. Mr. MacDonald: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Again to the Minister of Human Resources and Employm ent: why, when ove r

Alberta Hansard March 25, 2004706 16,000 families in Edmonton earn less than $15,000 annually, does this government see fit to set aside $45 million for the horse racing industry and nothing at this date for those families? Mr. Dunford: I quite liked the answer of the M inister of Agricul- ture, Food and Rural D evelopment. If the hon. member were to think this thing through, he would understand that that particular industry and the number of jobs that the minister was talking about explains to some extent the kinds of situations that are provided to our clients.

One of the things that will be noticed over time, of course, is that in our budget we are focused and concentrating on skills develop- ment training, and through that w e’ll move these people up in the income levels. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Minister of Gaming has indicated that he’d like to supplement. Mr. Stevens: Supplement b riefly, Mr. Spe aker. I think that t he members opposite, particularly those in the Liberal opposition, ought to spend more time talking to people in their community and people throughout this country with respect to the support that this govern- ment provides to Horse Racing Alberta.

In par ticular, I think the hon. Member for Le thbridge-East and the hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie ought to pay attention. Dr. David Reid is the chairman of Horse Racing Alberta, and the office of t he Prime Minis ter of Ca nada wrote a lette r to Dr. Re id commenting on an artic le in TROT Magazine showcasing Horse Racing Alberta and its chairman , Dr. R eid, and tal king about challenges, including the introduction of slots at the racing entertain- ment centre and the racing industry renewal initiative. In that letter from the office of the Prime Minister of Canada the following things were said.

I am delighted that so meone with your ca pabilities h as step ped forward to take a leadership role. . . . when hors e racing in the Province of Alberta seemed to be suffering flu like systems, someone asked “is there a doctor in the house”, and who shoul d step f orward but D r. Dav id Reid. Bravo . . . Thank you for your commitment to a wonderful sport. Mr. Speaker, for the g ratification of the member s opposite I w ill obviously table this letter at the appropriate time. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Meadow- lark. School Library Programs Mr. Maskell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A few years ago there were 550 teacher/ librarians in our schools in Alberta. Today there are 100 or perhaps fewer. School library programs properly equipped and staffed can accou nt for im provements of 2 to 9 pe r cent in student achieve ment, a result w e all appre ciate. The Learning Commission recom mended tha t adequate library/ re source room teachers be available. My first question to the Minister of Learning: as the gove rnment has ac cepted the Learning Comm ission’s recommendation to increase the number of teacher/librarians, what plans are in place to achieve this?

The Deputy Speaker: The hon. minister. Dr. Oberg: Thank you very mu ch, Mr. Spe aker. Ob viously, librarians of any sort are very important. Libraries are a v ery important part of our Alberta society, and it’s an important part that everyone in this Assembly and certainly most people in Alberta truly value. Mr. Speaker, when it c omes to the teacher/librarian, as the hon. member has noted, the Learning Commission rec ommended that there be an increase in teacher/librarians. The Learning Commission also recommended the funding formula, which gives flexibility to school boards.

When you take these two together, what it means is that the dollars should be put in so that the school boards have the flexibility to hire teacher/librarians if that’s their priority, and that’s exactly what will happen. The school boards will be the ones who put the money to the teachers, to the teacher/librarians, to their priorities about what they see as being important within their education system. They have asked me for this as Minister of Learning. They have consulted with me on the funding formula, and indeed, Mr. Speaker, the funding formula was just announced today.

I hope that some of these dollars w ill go to teac her/librarians, but I al so hope that the dollars are spent in the absolutely best fash ion possible f or the students of Alberta. Mr. Maske ll: My fi nal question to the sam e minis ter: wi ll postsecondary institutions have the necessary resources and support to train teacher/librarians in adequate numbers? Dr. Oberg: Mr. Speaker, postsecondary institutions in this bud get saw an increase of 4 per cent. This was twice the increase that they were expecting. They also saw an increase of $24 million for access projects.

When it comes specifically to the departments of educa- tion, we put out r oughly 3,000 t eachers a y ear, and c ertainly teacher/librarians are an element of that. Mr. Speaker, the money is there. If the departments of education feel that this is a priority, then that is the direction that they will go. I know that libraries are such a crucial part of the education system that they certainly will be moving in that direction. User Fees in Provincial Parks Ms Carlson: Mr. Speaker, in yester day’s budget the g overnment announced a new li st of use r fees for provi ncial park s.

To the Minister of Community Development: why is this ministry choosing to further c ripple school budgets by charging for educational programs in provincial parks? Mr. Zwozde sky: Mr. Speake r, nobody is crippli ng an y school budgets through these new f ees and/or increased fee ranges that we’re having to introduc e in our provi ncial parks. They will be treated just like any other field trips are, where if I as a parent wish to have m y child g o o n a fiel d trip, I put in t he dollar or $2 or whatever it is to help make that happen.

Let me jus t say that the sur veys that we did thro ughout our provincial parks system over the last couple of years firmly indicated that the vast majority of individuals who responded to those surveys said: we do n’t mind if you’re going to put in some new f ees or increase some of our existing fees provided that the revenue you earn from those fees goes right back into those same programs. That’s precisely what we’re going to do. Ms Carlson: Mr.

Speaker, to the same minister: why is a province with such a huge surplus charging skiers a nickel-and-dime fee for trail grooming, which is a relatively inexpensive service? Mr. Zwozdesky: Well, Mr. Speaker, having well-groomed ski trails throughout the parks areas where they are allowed is a v ery good

March 25, 2004 Alberta Hansard 707 thing, and in order to keep up with the pace of demand and the high- quality conditions that people are expecting, we had to review how to keep that particular side of our o peration as sustainable as possible. We are adding some a dditional m onies of our own, but as I indicated in the previous answer, in order to get to the place where we want to be, we want the general public involved with us in this, and they have not objected because they know that those particular small increases, which might range anywhere from $2 to $5 only, are by and large quite affordable.

Most peo ple who are out cross- country skiing don’t mind pay ing that lit tle increase in the fee as long as they see the benefit that’ll come from those revenues going to improve the trails that they are so pleased to enjoy. Ms Carlson: To the same minister: why is this government spending millions on health and fitness initiatives such as the Heal thy U program while implementing user fees that may prevent individuals, families, and schools from enjoying our provincial parks? This is a double standard. 2:20 Mr. Zwozdesky: Well, no, there’s no double standard here whatso- ever.

I mean, none of these services come for free, Mr. Speaker, and I think it’s important that we h ave a system that applies to every- body. It is not just Albertans who use these trails and these interpre- tive centres and these park facilities. We have a lot of others who come visiting our province from other parts of Can ada, from other parts of the world, and they are absolutely delighted with the high- quality groomed trails and/or interpretive centres or whatever have you that they experienced in this province.

This is simply one way of helping us to continue providing that service, and as I indicated earlier, it has been arrived at after studying very carefully a lot of the surveys that were responded to. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo. Electronic Health Records Mr. Cenaiko: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Last week the Minister of Health and Wellness talked about the benefits of an electronic health record, specifically how this sy stem will help to increase pat ient safety and reduce duplication.

It remains unclear to me how we are reducing duplication w ith electr onic health r ecord deve lopment activities underway at the provincial level and at the health region level. My question is to the Minister of Health and Wellness. Can the ministe r assure Albertans that w e are in f act building one province-wide system and not nine incompatible or fragm ented systems? Mr. Mar: Mr. Speaker, in short, I can say that the answer is y es. There are ef forts that are tak en at tw o different levels, but thos e efforts are being complem ented by one another. They are not fragmented.

Regional health authorities are developing electronic health records at the local level, but provincially we are also working to link all regional health authorities together plus pharmacies plus physicians throughout the province. Because the Department of Health and Wellness has been working with stakeholders from the very outset, we have got a collaborative approach that is ensuring that we meet com mon objectives an d common technology standards, which, of course, is critical to ensure that these systems work together with one another. Mr.

Speaker, in short, we are linking systems to make sure that health care providers do have the patient information that they need at the point of care to make the best care decisions for individuals. The Deputy Speaker: First supplemental, Calgary-Buffalo. Mr. Cenaiko: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My first supplemental is to the same minister. With each region building and linking their own health inform ation syst ems, how does this g overnment plan to efficiently and effectively link all the systems together and how long will this take? Mr. Mar: I wish to say at the outset in answering this question, Mr.

Speaker, that governments all over the world are re commending electronic health records to improve patient safety. System users that are already involved in the system have told me about the impact that this has had on the quality of care for their patients. Doctors have been able to avoid invasive procedures. They have av oided duplicate lab tests. They’ve avoided harmful drug interactions. We are deploying it province-wide right now, Mr. Speaker. I’m pleased to report that 4,000 health providers are already linked in to the system.

By the summer of 2005 I expect that all regional health authorities, 8 30 pharma cies, and about 40 per ce nt of prac tising physicians in the province will be using the Alberta EHR. So, Mr. Speaker, this is moving. We’re expressing good progress. By the summer of 2005 we’ll be able to report even better progress. Mr. Cenaiko: My final question is to the Minister of Innovation and Science. What is his ministry doing to ensure that all government departments will be systems compatible? Mr. Doerksen: Mr.

Speaker, I think the first point that needs to be made is that whether you’re in a corporat e envi ronment or a government environment, like we are in, information technology is a tool, a tool for business transformation, and that is the objective of and that is what’s happening with the electronic health record. It is an application that transforms the way we deliver health care in this province.

The Ministry of Innovation and Science through a government of Alberta enterpris e archite cture str ives to m ake sure that w e ar e operating from the same platform, using common systems, common technology, to make sure that we can deliver those business transfor- mation applications effectively and efficiently. To that end, we’ve also recently assigned a corporate chief inform ation office r at a deputy minister level to ensure that all government departments are aligned with those objectives, and Alberta Health and Wellness is a major contributor and participant in striving toward reaching those objectives.

Ms Carlson: Speech. Mr. Doerksen: Well, this is a very important question, member. We are trying to encourage the regional health authorities to work in the sam e directi on be cause this is an i mportant t ool for the delivery of health care. Private/Public Partnership Projects Mr. Bonner: Mr. Speaker, in ye sterday’s plan for the 2004-2005 budget the government announced that approximately $700 million will go towards two identified P3 projects over the next three years: the Calgary court centre and the Edmonton southeast ring road.

To the Minister of Infrastructure: doe s the am ount of $700 m illion include the annual l ease payments and the principa l and inte rest costs of these projects for the duration of the agreements? Mr. Lund: Mr. Speaker, I think it’s really important to understand

Alberta Hansard March 25, 2004708 that, in fact, the accounting of the P3s – what the member is referring to is not a cash payment. In fact, both the ring road and the court- house would actually be – part of it is in this three-year plan, but part of it is out beyond the three-year plan as well. The Deputy Speaker: First supplemental, Edmonton-Glengarry. Mr. Bonner: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the same minister: what does this ministry anticipate the annual lease payments and principal and interest costs will be for each of these projects per year? Mr. Lund : Mr.

Speake r, of cou rse, the ring road is not in this department, but the P3 proposal for the courthouse is. You’ve heard many times in the House thi s member trying to t alk down the P3 process. Even as late as yesterday I remember that he was asking a question and suggesting that other governments were not supporting the P3. It’s really quite interesting because the last time I looked, it was a Liberal gove rnment in B.C., and they’re proposing P3s. They’ve got a hospita l on the go. The last time I looked, it was a Liberal government in Ontario. T hey were talking about two P3 hospitals.

In fact, the federal government is setting up a secretariat to look at P3s. Yesterday the member also commented about the quality within the hospital , so I would really be very anxious that the Minister of Health and Wellness supplement my answer. Mr. Bonner: Well, Mr. Speaker, given t hat t he minister has not answered either of the first two questions, could he please tel l us which other P3 project s besides the southeast Calgary hospital the government is considering whose funding will come from t he remaining $525 million? Mr. Lund: Mr. Speaker, I take exception to part of his

preamble in as much as I never answered the first question. I told the member if he was listening that, i n fact, the total budgeting for those two P3 projects goes beyond the t hree-year business plan. A s far a s the lease payments are concerned, you’ll have to talk to the Minister of Transportation on that one. You will know the lease payments as far as the courthouse is con cerned once we sign the fina l agreement. That has not been completed yet. It still has some p rocesses to go through, so we don’t know exactly what it’s going to be.

On the quality of health provided in hospitals, I would urg e the Minister of Health and Wellness to supplement. Mr. Mar: Mr. Speake r, I think the actually more int eresting question should be asked of the Member for Edmonton-Riverview, who this morning was asking rhetorically on the radio why we don’t have a Harvard university type facility here in Albe rta or a J ohns Hopkins medical centre. So it seems to me that it’s actually the hon. member’s seatmate who was actually proposing ideas that are far, far more dramatic. The last tim e that I check ed, those w ere entirely private facilities.

The Deputy Speaker: In the next 30 seconds I’m going to call on the hon. Member for Red Deer-North, then Edmonton-Mill Woods, then Calgary-Currie, and then Edmonton-Ellerslie. Would the Assembly agree to a brief reversion to Introduction of Guests? [Unanimous consent granted] head: 2:30 Introduction of G uests (reversion) The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Calder. Mr. Rathgeber: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

It is indeed a pleasure for me to rise and introduce to you and through you to all Members of the Legislative Assembly 35 high school students from Ross Sheppard high school, located within the Edmonton-Calder constituency. They’ve been attentively viewing question period, and we’ll be meeting for a photograph shortly. I’d ask them to rise along with their teachers and leaders Rick Magee, James Kosowan, Curt Cummings, and Erin Quinn. They’re in the public gallery, and I’d ask all members to welcome them to the Assembly. head: Members’ Statements The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Red Deer-North.

Red Deer College Kings Volleyball Team Mrs. Jablonski: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Red Deer College Kings volleyball team has played hard enough and smart enough to win the Canadian national championship five years in a row. It was the Kings’ seventh national crown in the last 10 years. This is a dynasty that sets the pace and that every competitive men’s volley- ball team is aiming to beat. The Red Deer College Kings have been crowned nat ional champions five consecutive ye ars.

This is the s econd longest winning streak in CCAA history, one behind the L imoilou Titans from Quebec City, who started their string in 1984. The Red Deer College Kings will make a run at tying Limoilou College next year, when the pressure to win will be even greater. The number one coach in Canada is Keith Hansen, who has been the RDC head coach for the past six years. He is a former assistant coach with Canadian junior and senior national teams. A great team can only be as great as its coach, and we are honoured and proud to have Keith Hansen as the driver behind this team.

This year’s secret to being a championship team is summed up by Adam Roth, a second-year member who accepted the Mazda 2004 Canadian college s men’s volley ball cham pionship trophy and banner. Adam, who is expected to return next year, said: the thing is with this team, everyone can st ep in and do the jo b; we have tremendous depth; that’s what makes us that much better. Mr.

Speaker, I ask the Members of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta to join me in congratulating Matt Harris, Aaron Yasinski, Blake Henwood, Scott Weninger, Mark Dodds, Pav Kucharski, Marc Dickner, Troy Jaggard, Adam Roth, Matt Anderson, Craig Marshall, Mac Kucharski, Dal las Soonias; their head c oach, Keith Hansen; their assistant coaches, Trevor Pikkert and Kevin Tennant; and their athletic therapists, Heather Fletcher and Terri Smyth. Congratula- tions. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. Postsecondary Tuition Fees Dr. Massey: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This government’s actions speak l ouder than its words. T he government says that it wants Albertans to stay in school and pur sue a postsecondary education, but that’s not what the 2004-2005 budget tells Alberta students, who have high hopes for some relief from escalating tuit ion costs. The government spoke volumes to postsecondary students about how it is unacceptable for a province to be in debt w hile encoura ging students to start their careers with a mountain of debt to pay off.

There was so much more this government could have done to help students aside from just letting them borrow more money and more money for their education. This government needs to develop and to adhere to a plan for long-term, adequate, and sustainable funding

March 25, 2004 Alberta Hansard 709 for postsecondary education. It nee ds a plan that will ensure that Albertans have access to an affordable, high-quality education. The University of Alberta Students’ Union has some ideas on how this could be accomplished. They would start with a commitment from t he government to f reeze tuition and fund t he difference in revenue to postsecondary institutions. The st udents also want the government to increase base operating grants to univer sities to a degree that would make a difference to institutions like the U of A, which is facing a $28.7 million shortfall this year.

There are als o improve ments to be made to the student loans program. I often hear from students whose parents do not contribute financially to their education and who are ineligible for loans due to the parental contribution requirement. In the interest of fairness the parental contribution shoul d be rem oved. The government could also help students relying on loans for an education by remitting debt over $5,000 or 25 per cent of any student loan, which ever is most beneficial to the student. This would be a vast improvement to the current program , that only remits a portion of annua l debt over $5,000.

There are many ways in which this government could be helping Alberta’s present and future postsecondary students. They would most benefit from a long-term plan, a plan aimed at ensuring that our universities, colleges, and technical schools are affordable, accessi- ble, and focus on the best interests of the students. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Currie. Telework Mr. Lord: Thank you, Mr. Speak er. The Industrial R evolution changed our world two centuries ago.

Among other things, massive numbers of pe ople in rural areas moved to cities to obtain higher paying city jobs, and rural life was com pletely altered as a res ult. Now a new r evolution is taking place, c reating a n enormous economic opportunity to re invigorate rural a reas again, providing city jobs and pay cheques to pe ople living and enjoying a country lifestyle. That is not all. It’s also the greatest opportunity to enable disabled people to earn a good living with dignity. In fact, this new revolution has a plethora of other benefits for everyone in society today.

It’s called teleworking, working from home on your computer, and it is rapidly sweeping the employment world. Because we have the SuperNet, Alberta is uniquely positioned to lead the way in Canada, which is good beca use Canada is actua lly f alling w ay behi nd. According to Bob Fortier , one of Ca nada’s foremost telew ork pioneers, Canada ha s finall y rea ched an es timated 1 million teleworkers nationally today, but compare that to the U.S., now at 28 million, up 17 per cent just in the last year alone.

Obviously, teleworking is going to be having major impacts on employee recruitm ent and rete ntion, even he re in Albe rta, ver y quickly if we aren’t offering similar opportunities. People don’t even have to m ove any more. T he great Canadian br ain drain is rapidly becoming virtual. We do have som e success stories. In Calgary we have peopl e working full-time at jobs in Toronto out of their house in Calgary. We have eCampus Alberta and teachers with virtual classrooms with dozens of students right ac ross the c ountry.

W e have r eal estate agents who don’t go into offices any more, thus avoiding two-hour commutes each day, reducing tr affic, saving office rent. We even have d octors diagnos ing people on t he far s ide of the planet. Maritimers are leading in distributed call centres, farmwives working out of their own homes answering calls for utility companies around the world. The opportunities are endless, the benefits profound, but Canada is falling behind.

The web site of the Canadian Telework Associa- tion and InnoVisions Canada is www.ivc.ca, and it will tell us a lot about what we need to do in Canada and Alberta today. I urge all employers to take a look at it; your business might depend on it. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. Alberta’s Boreal Forest Ms Carlson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Canada contains over a third of the world’s boreal forest, one of the three largest frontier forests remaining on the planet. Overall it spans 12,000 kilometres, nearly 11 per cent of our planet’s total surface.

This makes it the biggest terrestrial ecosystem on Earth and our m ost prominent symbol of wilderness here in Ca nada. In A lberta, however, this significance has yet to be fully recognized. A scientific report released in 2003 entitled State of Denial contains a

chapter dedicated to the bor eal and targets Alberta as a province where rap id drilling f or oil and natur al gas a long with logging are inflicting major damage to Alberta’s boreal forest. With industrial activity at al l-time highs, Alber ta now f inds itself at a defining moment in its forest management.

As aptly put by Richard Schneider in his book Alternative Futures: Alberta’s Boreal Forest at the Crossroads, “Given that most of the northern forest in Alberta is publicly owned, the desired future forest is defined by the values held by the citizens of Alberta.” These values a re ref lected in t he Alber ta fores t c onservation strategy, which has as its goal the maintenance and enhancement of our fore st ec osystems so that present and future generations can enjoy and bene fit from them.

Most imp ortantly, this strat egy envisions an Alb erta with vast pristine forests whose ecosystems thrive thanks to the help and participation of all Albertans. But something has g one wrong. At pre sent clear-cuts combine with oil and gas activit y to cre ate unprec edented sc ars on the landscape. Our most diverse and productive forest ecosystems are undergoing widespread development resulting in fragmentation by roads, access routes, and excessive logging. This cumulative damage is leading to the destruction of much of the boreal here in Alberta.

Given the state of Alberta’s forests and in particular the boreal, the government must start to apply its knowled ge to a forest manage- ment strategy that reflec ts sustainability and resp ect for natural places. Although t he boreal forest presents a seemingly endless expanse, it does in fact have limits, and they are now being reached. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. head: 2:40 Present ing Pet itions The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands. Mr. Mason: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I’m presenting a petition signed by 157 Albertans petitioning the Legislative Assem- bly to urge the government of Alberta to “ret urn to a regulated electricity system, reduce power bills and develop a program to assist Albertans in improving energy efficiency.” head: Notices of Motions The Deputy Speaker: The Deputy Government House Leader. Mr. Zwozde sky: Thank you ver y much, Mr. Speaker. I rise pursuant to Standing Order 34(2)(

a) to give notice that on Monday I will move that written questions appearing on the Order Paper do

Alberta Hansard March 25, 2004710 stand and retain their places with the exception of written questions 28, 29, 30, 31, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, and 45.

I’m also giving notice that on Monday I will move that motions for returns appearing on the Order Paper do stand and retain th eir places with the exception of motions for returns 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 90, 93, 94, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 , 101, 102, 103, 106, 107, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 1 35, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 159, 160, 162, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, and 180.

The Deputy Speaker: Hon. Deputy Government House Leader, I won’t ask you to repeat them because you spoke too fast for me to write them all down, but m aybe when we get another long list of numbers like that, it would be helpful to say: from 44 to 79 and then 81 to whatever. Anyway, well done. head: Tabling R eturns and R eports The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Minister of Transportation. Mr. Stelmach: Well, thank you, Mr . Speaker. It’s my p leasure today to table with the Assembly the required number of copies of Alberta Transportation’s three-year construction and rehabilitation program.

This is to be completed or undertaken between 2004-05 and 200 6-07. Th is i s for all pro vincial hig hways in cluding the north/south trade corridor and the Edmonton and Calgary ring roads. We’re also including the required number of copies of the provincial water management projects for the same years. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Minister of Government Services. Mr. Coutts: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m pleased today to table the appropriate number of cop ies of the 2002 vital statistics annual review.

This review summarizes all births, marriages, deaths , and stillbirths that occurred in Alberta during 2002. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Minister of Community Develop- ment. Mr. Zwozdesky: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to table the appropriate number of copies of the Persons with Developmental Disabilities annual report for 2002-2003 as assembled by our PDD Provincial Board in Alberta. Individuals and families and agencies involved in the important work of PDD are obviously very impor- tant, and I would draw al l mem bers’ attention to the im portant material in these tablings. Thank you.

The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Minister of Gaming. Mr. Stevens: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to table the appropri- ate number of copies of a letter which I referred to in a response to a question during question period. It’s a letter from the office of the Prime Minister of Canada to Dr. David Reid, chairman, Horse Racing Alberta. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Peace River. Mr. Friedel: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s my pleasure to table the requisite number of copies of the Norther n Alberta Development Council annual report for the year 2002-2003. This is a masterpiece of a document.

I’m sure everyone will want to go out and get a copy of it. It is excellent reading. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona. Dr. Pannu: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to table five copies of a document which is really the news re lease issue d by the H ealth Sciences Association of Alberta on Ma rch 24, 2004, in w hich the association draws atten tion to the fact that both this provincial government and the fe deral gov ernment have bee n guilty of not funding health care either on a predictable basis or on a stable basis. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Deputy Speaker: The hon.

Member for Edmonton-Highlands. Mr. Mason: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I’m tabling the appropriate number of copies of a release from the Alberta Federa- tion of Labour. The release, entitled Budget Again Comes up Empty for Average Albertans, expresses the view of the Alberta Federation of Labour with respect to yesterday’s provincial budget. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. Ms Blakeman: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I’d like to table five copies of the document that I quoted from during question period, and that is a document released by the Seniors’ Action and Liaison Team in which they are deploring “the repeated efforts by the Alberta Government to claim health care is not sustainable” and expressing their disa ppointment on w hat’s not cont ained in the budget, especially around items for seniors. Thank you very much. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. Mr. MacDonald: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Given that the auto insurance freeze hasn’t worked for at least one constituent of Edmonton-Gold Bar, I would like to table a letter dated March 23, 2004, that I received from the hon. Minister of Finance in regard to the insurance policies and the temporary measure of the auto freeze until Bill 53 comes into style. Thank you. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Currie. Mr. Lord: Thank y ou, Mr. Speak er. I ris e today to table the requisite number of copies of a very interesting

article pointing out the many benefits of electricity deregulation. It highlights the fact that governments that privatize electricity generators provide their citizens with che aper dependable power and asks why O ntario is headed into the darkness. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. head: Tablings to t he Clerk The Clerk: I wish to advise the House that the following document was deposited with the Office of the Clerk on behalf of the hon. Mr. Stevens, Minister of Gaming, pursuant to the Government Account- ability Act: the Albert a Gaming and Liquor Commission business plan 2004-2007.

March 25, 2004 Alberta Hansard 711 head: Pro jected G over nmen t Busin ess The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Opposition House Leader. Ms Blakeman: Thank you, Mr. S peaker. Pursuant to Sta nding Order 7(5) I wo uld ask the Government House Leader to please share the projected government business for the week of March 29 to April 1. Thank you very much. 2:50 Mr. Hancock: Thank you. Mr.

Speak er, on Mo nday, Mar ch 29, under Gover nment Bil ls and Orde rs at 9 p.m. in C ommittee of Supply presumably the first item would be the Legislative Assembly estimates and then subsequently the estimates for International and Intergovernmental Relations, day 1 of 24. Time permitting, second reading on Bill 25, School Amendment Act, 2004; Bill 26, Teaching Profession Amendment Act, 2004; and Committee of the Whole on Bill 22, Election Statutes Amendment Act, 2004.

On Tuesday, March 30, in the afternoon under Government Bills and Orders in Committee of Supply pursuant to the calendar tabled, day 2 of 24, designated for the Department of Sustainable Resource Development and, time available, second reading on bills 25 and 26 and Committee of the Whole on Bill 22. Tue sday, March 30, at 8 p.m. under Government Bills and Orders for Committee of Supply, day 3 of 24, the Department of Community Development. Now, that is a deviation from the tabled agreed calendar which I understand has been worked out by the departments involved and the opposition and is acceptable to them.

I don’t have personal knowledge of that, so in the event that that’s not the case, then it would revert to the one that’s on the calendar, which is the Department of Revenue. We’ll have to ascertain that. Thereafter second reading on bills 25 and 26 and Committee of the Whole on Bill 22, if time permits. On Wednesday, March 31, under Government Bills and Orders in the afternoon, Committee of Supply, day 4 of 24, designated for the Department of Government Services.

Time remaining or available, we might proceed with second reading of Bill 25 or Bill 26, if it has not previously been done, and Committee of the Whole on Bill 22. Wednesday, March 31, at 8 p.m. under Government Bills and Orders under Comm ittee of Supply, day 5 of 24, the D epartment of Economic Development and, as indicated earlier, bills 25, 26, and 22, time permitting.

Thursday, April 1, in the afternoon under Government Bills and Orders for Com mittee of Supply , day 6 of 24, designa ted for the Department of Environment and, as indicated, second readings on bills 25, 26, and committee on Bill 22, should time permit. At that time it would be anticipate d tha t we w ould adjourn pursua nt to Government Motion 6, agreed to February 18, until Monday, April 19. head: Orders of t he Day head : Government Motions Provincial Fiscal Policies 13. Mrs.

Nelson moved: Be it resolv ed tha t the Ass embly approve in general the business plans and fiscal policies of the government. [Adjourned debate March 24: Dr. Massey] The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Interim Leader of Her Maj esty’s Loyal Opposition. Dr. Mas sey: Thank you, Mr. Speak er. I’m pleased t o have this opportunity to make some comments about the budget. I was interested, Mr. Speaker, that the Provincial Treasurer would draw upon Premier Rutherford for a model for her sp eech. She couldn’t have chosen a much better model. Rutherford was a good Premier – a great Premier. He had great vision.

He did a great deal with respect to infrastructure. He had ideas about education, and he even made hi mself the Provincia l Treas urer and the education minister in his first cabinet. He was responsible for the University of Alberta being established in this city. [Mr. Shariff in the chair] Rutherford was a great Premier with great vision, and he was a Liberal. I can imagine the anguish in the Public Affairs Bureau as they wrote the speech and tried to t urn Rutherford into something other than a Liberal. But a Liberal he was, and a Liberal he stays.

I think Rutherford must be resting a little uncom fortably in his grave today having had a Conservative Provincial Treasurer heap the praise on him that she did yes terday. I couldn’t help but note the references in her speech to his vision and his determination that this province would have a good, sound infrastructure system. If we look at the business plan, Mr.

Speaker, of the Department of Transportation, I’m not quite sure that Rutherford would have been happy with a business plan or any kind of a plan that would see the roads in this province deteriorate or would have been happy w ith predictions that they should deteri orate. If you look at the 2003- 2006 projections from the Transportation department, Albertans can look forward to few er miles or kilom etres of highway that are in good condition. The 2001-2002 results indicated 64.2 per cent were in good condition. That department predicts that by 2005-2006 the target will be 61 per cent.

So we’re to have fewer miles of highway that are in good condi- tion. The miles of highway that are in poor condition are 11 per cent today, and Albertans can look forward down the road to highways where 16.5 per cent are in poor condition. That wasn’t Rutherford’s vision. If you look at some of the other measures, then, with respect to the infrastructure and look at the post secondary institutions, t he percentage in good condition today is 47 per cent. What’s the projection? Only 45 pe r cent w ill be in good condition in 2005- 2006.

With respect to government-owned and -operated facilities over 1000 square metres, the percentage in good condition today is 57 per cen t; the projec tion for the future is 53 per cent. The percentage in fair condition today is 40 per cent; projected for 2005- 2006 is 44 per cent. While the budget talked about infrastructure and the money that was going to be put into infrastructure, the plain fact of the matter is that Albertans are going to be driving on highways that are in poorer condition than they are today , and that is d irectly a result of the planning of this government.

The infrastructure was bad enough, Mr. Speaker, but I think what really struck me was the notion and the comment in the delivery that there was no room for pessimism in 1906 in Alberta and there’s no room f or pessim ism toda y. I w ondered, Mr. Spe aker, how the people who are living on SFI and the people who are living on AISH allowances reacted to that. My question would be: why would they be optimistic? What relief do they see from trying to live on $850 a month or a little more than a thousand dollars a month? Mr.

Speaker, if you look through the report that was delivered to us last week about our incomes in this Legislature and our expenses and then compare that to what we’re asking fellow Albertans to live on, it’s almost obscene. An Hon. Member: Aren’t you double-dipping?

Alberta Hansard March 25, 2004712 Dr. Massey: Double-dipping, he says. You may want to look at your own benche s: the m inister of intergovernmental affairs, the other minister at the end of the bench there, a couple of other people in your caucus. Dr. Taylor: Don, I don’t even have an academic pension like you do. Dr. Massey: That was because you weren’t any good. The Acting Speaker: Hon. members, the hon. Minister of Finance had the floor yesterday, and she was given the courtesy to deliver her budget without interruption.

I ho pe that we can accord the same courtesy to the Interim Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition. 3:00 Dr. Massey: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The fact of the matter is that we sit here and we enjoy very, very comfortable salaries, and there are people in our c onstituency offices every day struggling to pay power bills, struggling to put food on the table, struggling to try to make a living and try to raise their families. Most of them, through no fault of their own, have fallen on really very difficult times. The fact that our compassion is so limited has to be very, very disturbing. There have been pleas.

There have been committees struck. There’s been a lot of talk, but there’s been little action with respect to those individuals. If you look a t the rat es, they’ve barely changed since 1993. A single parent with two children under 11 gets a little over a thousand dollars a month and a severely handicapped a little over $800. Mr. Speaker, those are disgraceful in a province as rich as this one is. People on inco me support programs, Mr . Speaker, h ave 40 p er cent less purchasing power than the y had in 1993. Think of that.

Think of your own budget having a drop of 43 p er cent and the impact that that would have on your lifestyle. Income support rates were reduced almost 20 per cent in 1993, and inflation over the last number of years has further reduced the value by 20 per cent. A key recommendation in the low-income review was that rates should be increased. The current benefits just do not meet the needs of those Al bertans w ho have to r ely upon the m.

Eve n the Mazankowski committee on heal th care r ecommended that the government ensure tha t the appropria te financ ial assi stance is available to support children in poverty and low-income homes. We have to remember that it is really the children who end up suffering from these low rates, children who have no

part in the decision- making, children who have by accident of birth found themselves in poverty. They are the people that we’re ignoring. The Minister of Human Resources and Employment accepted the principal recommendations of the low-income review committee to increase rates but so far has cited b udget restra ints for tha t not happening. I think that if you look at the polls, there is overwhelm- ing support for mak ing sure that w e look af ter childre n who are living in poverty, and government action to that end I think has wide support.

So the support for people on SFI and AISH was a jarring note in yesterday’s budget, Mr. Speaker. But there were other concerns. The postsecondary learning system has been drifting for the last 10 years. From the dramatic cuts that that system took, a 20 per cent cut in 19 94, the institutions have never really recovered. If y ou look at tha t trend, 20 years ago a dollar that a student put into the postsecondary system was matched by $10 in government support. Today for every dollar that a student puts into the system, it’s matched by $2.34. Mr.

Speaker, I think that that speaks volumes about the kind of s upport, the w ithdrawal of support, that students and institutions in our province have suffered. The students have made overtures to the government. They’ve put forward suggestions. They’ve told us about the kinds of difficulties they have in terms of having to com plete programs over a longer period of time because of taking on part-time positions. I hear oft en from the Minist er of Learning about the loans that they have and how the remission programs make sure that they won’t graduate with more than $20,000 of debt. That’s just not true, Mr.

Speaker. The debt that the minister talks about is the public debt, the debt in the loans program. It says nothing about the private debt that many of those students are carrying – debt to family, to banks, credit card debt – in an effort to try to get what we encourage them to get, the best possible education, knowing full well that certainly they’ll benefit. But the real benef actors are e very individual in this province when w e have be tter engineers, when we have better medical personnel, and when we have those professions filled with the most competent people that we can possibly produce.

So students and the institutions find themselves in difficulty. For the institutions t here’s not much c hoice. The funding f rom the province is inadequate, and the alternative for them is to raise tuition – it’s the only other source – and go to private enterprise to try to get the funds they need. I worry about them going to private enterprise, Mr. Spea ker. Private enterpris e do esn’t invest in univers ity and c ollege a nd postsecondary resear ch without s ome notion of payof f.

I w orry about the public research agenda when institutions ar e for ced through the lack of funding to rely more a nd more a nd to curr y favour more and more with private industry so that they can offer the courses an d progr ams and cond uct t he kin d of re search that we expect of them. Students have tried several times , I know, to work w ith the government to come up with s ome better solutions, but they were disappointed yesterday in the budget, Mr. Speaker . They believe that the government could have taken some actions. They believe, for instance, that they cou ld have funded a tuition freeze.

Tuition has tripled for students in the past decade, a rate that’s far in excess of inflation. It’s affecting participation rates, and it’s also affecting who and how many students get into programs. I talked to one of the executive members of one of th e student groups, who indica ted that she had made her decis ions about postsecondary education partly, and for a good part, on trying to get a cheap program and a short program. She wanted a program that she could get into and get out of as fast as possible and that would cost her as li ttle as pos sible. I’m appalled, Mr.

Speaker, that we would have young people in our province using that kind of criteria to select a profession that they’re probably going to be part of for the rest of their life. It’s the wrong criteria. It’s the last thing we should be asking students to do. They sug gested t hat we e liminate the parenta l contribution requirement for student loans. Not all students receive support from their parents while attending university, and there are v arious reasons for that. Some parents obviously can’t afford to help.

If you look at the recent study by the m illennium scho larship f und, it showed that in fa ct Alberta fam ilies w ho earn ove r $100,000 contribute less to the education of their offspring than do families who earn less than $55,000. A number of s tudents h ave made the point that they have litt le connection to their f amilies, that once th ey w ere 18, they were considered on their own, and t hey live an ind ependent life. Ye t when they go and apply for a student loan, the criteria that affects them is on e that dema nds some parental contribution.

It’s a roadblock in the way of accessible education for some young people in this province. 3:10

March 25, 2004 Alberta Hansard 713 An increase was one of the other suggestions, of course, and this, I think, affects mainly Alberta students who have to move into one of the urban centres for their postsecondary programs. It’s the whole business of the cost of daily living. At just over $700 a month for a student living away from home, the loans program just doesn’t offer enough money for a student to study in this city or in Calgary. I think that one of the things they ask – and if they’re going to be borrowing the money, it should be honoured – is that at lea st the costs should reflect the cost of living.

If we’re asking a student from the north to come down to the city and to survive on the proceeds of student loans, w e could at l east expect that t hese loans would b e issued with and would reflect some of the costs that those students are going to face when they get here. They also would like the remission program to benefit all students and not just those who qualify for high debt loads, and that seems like a reasonable request, Mr. Speaker. The program would better serve Alberta stu dents b y allowing for those who have less than $5,000 a yea r in debt to hav e a portion of that debt re mitted.

It would only se em f air that w e treat a ll of those postse condary students equally. The suggestion from the students at the U of A was that t he debt rem ission over $5,000 or 25 per ce nt of the loa n, whichever is the greatest benefit to the student, might be a reason- able proposal. They’ve also m ade a plea , because they g et deeply involved in university and colleg e and techni cal instit ute bu dgets, for the increase in base funding for the institutions. The U of A is facing a $28.7 million shortfall this year alone.

If you look at the astronomi- cal rise in the energy costs that those institutions are facing, you can understand why students are so concerned that the base funding be looked at and revised. So students are left out of this budget, Mr. Speaker, and I think that they feel a little resentful that that has been the case. The Learning bu dget is an interes ting set of proposals. T he minister today, following on the heels of the budget, announced a new funding fo rmula, a nd I guess that what goes around comes around. The formula isn’t really very new. In the early ’90s before the . . . Mrs.

O’Neill: I can’t believe it. Dr. Massey: Well, you better believe it. Just listen. Mrs. O’Neill: Don, you weren’t around in the early ’90s. Dr. Massey: Where do you think I was? In the early ’90s the government put restraints, started enveloping the funds to school boards, and I remember sitting in this House, Mr. Speaker, while the government talked about how school boards were not spending the money properly and that there was a need f or enveloping. So administration was enveloped. Mr. MacDonald: Was the Minister of Energy in the Deep Six then? Dr. Massey: Well, I think he might have been.

The programming component was enveloped, and that was done because these boards couldn’t be trusted to spend the money properly. Well, t he env eloping is gone, and n ow we’re back to saying that school boards can spend as they see fit. Mr. Speaker, I agree with that . I think that’s a good move. But as good as a funding formula is, it’s no good at all if there aren’t proper funds to put in place. Mrs. O’Neill: It’s a spending formula, not a funding formula. Dr. Massey: I’m going to get to it. Don’t get excited, St. Albert.

One of the thing s that the L earning Commission didn’t address and what the funding formula s till d oesn’t address is the base funding. The base funding still increases, as it has historically, by a certain percentage every year: 2 per cent, 3 per cent. There’s some determination made of h ow much the Lea rning minister can put forward and how much is deemed an appropriate increase. It’s an archaic system, Mr. Spe aker, and it has bee n abandoned in other jurisdictions and very, very quickly. Mr.

Speaker , when w e went ba ck to the m id-90s, wha t the government did because of the inequities was take taxing authority away from school boards to bring al l the money to the central government and then redi stribute it on a per pupi l b asis. T hat, I think, was a move t hat most people appla uded because of the inequities. We had jurisdictions like the county of Strathcona with a huge tax base spending way more per pupil on the students there than was the board, say , in the Peace River country, where there were fewer resources.

We had huge inequities across the province, and students got fu nded, again, by accident of geography and not because of any rational relationship to the program costs. The government saw that problem. Frankly, the trustee associa- tions of the day – and I was part of those – have only themselves to blame for that, because there was a problem that had been around for . . . [in terjection] Did y ou want to s peak? I’ll sit down. The Member for St. Albert wants to get up. Speaker’s Ruling Decorum The Acting Speaker: Hon. members, I really do not like to interject at a time when the hon .

In terim Leader of He r Ma jesty’s Loyal Opposition is responding to this ve ry im portant subjec t. As I indicated before, the Minister of Finance had the floor yesterday, and all courtesies wer e accorded to her so that she could deliver her address without interruption. I hope the sa me courtesies can be extended to the leader as well. Please do that. The hon. Interim Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition. Debate Continued Dr. Massey: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So, as I was saying, part of the problem was that the trustees of the day didn’t address it.

It was a $30 million problem at the time, and it wasn’t addressed. Other systems elsewhere are not, looking at a shift in financing, thinking about the number of dollars being put into the system but the number of dollars need ed t o ensure some specific outcomes. Adequacy funding is being hera lded, I think particularly in the States, but Ontario has made some recommendations with respect to moving to an adequacy funding formula. Adequacy, as I indicated before, was really predicated on the resources that the government had. So we had a 12 per c ent cut in 1994 a nd then a 5.7 per cent increase this year.

Adequacy would turn things around. What adequacy does is look at scho ols and ask : what do y ou want to a chieve? A num ber of jurisdictions have had to define that. The state of Wyoming decided that for their system students must leave high school with entry to some sort of a postsecondary program, qualified to enter some kind of a program. They have to be able to get into a vocational program. They have to be able to get into a postsecondary program of some kind. They have to be eligible to get into a continuing educ ation program. So that, for them, is adequacy.

The state of O regon has used as their definition of adequacy a series of reading tests at the high school level that all students must achieve. States like Ma ryland have 2 8 object ives that th ey have

Alberta Hansard March 25, 2004714 indicated need to be met before students graduate. They start from that objective, and then they work backwards and say: “Now, what is it going to cost us? What do we need to do to reach those objec- tives?” 3:20 They have a number of ways of trying to determine that. They use an expert committee, and in some cases, Mr. Speaker, other jurisdic- tions have used statisticians to try to come up with a number.

Other jurisdictions look at some of the most successful school districts in the country and say: how much did it cost them to get the kinds of results that they’ve obtained for their students? So a variety of ways of trying to determine what is adequate, and it means a major change in how schools and school systems operate. It’s predicated much more on diagnosing and tracking of individual students. It means that schools have to change their organization, but it does provide schools with resources. I looked at the Oregon model, Mr. Speaker.

The requirements for teacher librarians, the requirements for counsellors, the requirements for summer school a nd for tutoring progra ms to mak e sure that youngsters meet the objectiv es have resulte d in a great deal of increased funding. Agai n, I look at what we hav e and at the subsequent announcement today by the minister, and I’m left with the feeling that we can do better. [The Deputy Speaker in the chair] There are a number of other pieces of the budget, Mr. Speaker. I was waiting, as I think all parents were, to hear about the Learning Commission.

We’ve had in this gallery every afternoon and every evening, I believe, since this session began, parents from Education Watch. I spoke t o th em yesterday after the budget. They were disappointed. The parents were disappointed because they had expected that there would be an itemization of the Learning Com- mission. They were looking for the do llars that were going to be attached to class size reduction. They were looking for the dollars that were going to be attached to kinderg arten for children at risk. They were looking for . . . [interjection] The Deputy Speaker: Hon. members, I’ll put the hon.

Minister of Environment down on my list. Sorry, hon. leader. Dr. Massey: Thank you. They were looking f or the dollars that were going to be attached to the implementation of the First Nations, Métis, and Inuit polic y fr amework. The y we re look ing for the dollars that were going to be attached to the access to technology in schools. Since the Learning Commission made its report, they have been waiting and watching for the budget that came down yesterday.

They were expecting that they would be able to see the dollars that were going to be dedicated to the recommendations of the Learning Commission outline so tha t they could track them. As I said, Mr . Speaker, they were disappointed because that didn’t happen. One of the fears, of cou rse, i s that someho w or o ther their expectations are not going to be met.

We won’t know probably until September whether the mone y in the budget, given inflation a nd other factors, will see the restoration o f the thousand teachers that were set free last year as a result of the government not funding the arbitrated teachers’ settlement. I doubt very much if the money is there to do that and t o mak e any hug e inroads w ith respec t to classroom size, particularly at the K to 3 level. [interjection] I hear someone say: wel l, th en it’ll be the school boa rds’ fault.

That’s exactly what I s aid at the press conference this morni ng the new funding formula was going to result in, that the government members would now be saying that it’s the school boards’ fault. So it doesn’t take long, Mr. Speaker. Parents expected some definition and some dollars attached to it so that they could see the differences in their classrooms. There are a number o f trustees resting a little uneasily today, Mr . Speaker, because the expectations are being raised so high that delivering to those expectations in September is going to be very, very difficult if not impossible for many of them.

So the Learning part of the budget that addresse d the Lea rning Co mmission concerns I think is a disappointment. There are other sections. The health care tax I think has been spoken about enough. It’s a tax that remains in place, an unneces- sary tax. There’s the Gaming part of the budget. Mr. Speaker, I know that it makes many government members uncomfortable, but the money that’s spent on the horse racing industry is up 22 per cent, from $37 million last y ear to $45 m illion this y ear. To Albertans it is one thing that the ge neral pu blic has great difficulty w ith.

Here is a government that indicated that they were out of the business of being in business, and they’re right back at it, picking winners over losers with respect to industries and business in this province. If you look at it, over the last number of yea rs there’s been $133 million piled into the horse racing business. When you put that number against the fai lure of the g overnment to increa se the ve ry, ve ry m eagre allowances for SFI and AISH rec ipients, there’s something wrong with our priorities. The gambling revenues now, Mr.

Speaker, are almost double the royalties of crude oil, synt hetic cru de, and bitumen and coal combined. There’s been a dramatic shift in our province in terms of the attitude toward gambling and our dependence on it, and I don’t think it’s a move for the better. The Solicitor G eneral’s budget fi nally, after years a nd years of pleading, has put some money into the police forces of the province. I think that t hat’s long, long overdue . It’s som ething that the municipalities have bee n asking for and al so for a new funding formula for m unicipal polic ing.

Wha t the Solicit or Gener al, of course, didn’t do was help out Alberta’s corrections system. They certainly didn’t get much of a raise. We’re still w aiting from the S olicitor G eneral for the poli cing Alberta ML A review, the correcti ons revie w, and the victims of crime fund review. We’ve been waiting some time for these reports, and it’s diff icult to ma ke some judgments about the budget, Mr. Speaker, without those reports before us so that we can judge how adequate the funding that’s being proposed is. It’s interesting, Mr.

Speaker, that the standing policy committees got a raise of $15,000 over last year, and the money going to these committees is n ow $6 27,000. Tha t’s a lo t of mo ney for those committees, that are government com mittees, and if you look through the payments to MLAs, one suspects that they’re used for reasons other than making public policy. The P ublic Affairs Bure au, Mr. Spea ker, ag ain, up to $14.7 million. That’s a lot of public relations. That’s a raise from $13.8 million last year. Ms Haley: Point of order. The Deputy Speaker: Point of order.

Do you have a citation, hon. member? 3:30 Point of Order False Allegations Ms Haley: Yes. Beauchesne 380 under allegations. I want to put

March 25, 2004 Alberta Hansard 715 on the record here that there’s an allegation being made that these SPCs, the standing policy committees, which are advisory bodies to ministers, are doing something untow ard or unprof essional. You know, the rea lity is tha t the vas t majori ty of the money that the member is citing is about sta ff. I t’s not for any thing untowa rd. These are poli cy direc tions for m inisters and their portf olios, and each one of these SPCs deals with two or three or four portfolios. So I just think that it’s important not to make unfounded allegations in here.

The Deputy Speaker: On the purported point of order, first of all, I need to ask the hon. member for the citation again. I’m sorry; I didn’t hear it. Ms Haley: It was just a handw ritten not e: allegations under Beauchesne 380. But if I’m wrong, I apolog ize. I’ll look for the proper citation. But that’s what I’m talking about. The Deputy Speaker: Okay. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. Ms Blakeman: Well, it’s not Beauchesne 380. I’m not sure what the concern that’s being raised here is. Is the concern that we were inaccurate in the amount of money that we’ve said now goes to the committees?

Is there an inaccuracy? I don’t think so. It’s $627,000. Those are dire ctly from the budg et books. T hat does re present a $15,000 increase from those same committees last year. That’s not inaccurate. The Deputy Speaker: I think, hon. member, we’re getting into the debate. It would seem to me that, one, the citation isn’t found by the chair. It seemed t o me that it w as a clarification as opposed to a point of order. Ms Haley: Mr. Speaker, I apologize. Standing Order 23(h), (i), (

j) will work good. Twenty-three is a good one; I like 23(h). Okay? Allegations. You know, I just want them to realize that when they say things and they put them on the record, they should be accurate. Ms Blakeman: Thank y ou. Well, 23(

h) is ma king “allegations against another member,” and she hasn’t laid out what she believes the allegations to be or who the member is specifically that this was done to, so there is no point of order here, Mr. Speaker. There’s not much I can respond to. The Deputy Speaker: The chair would agree with the hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre that (h) “makes allegations against another member,” where it’s clearly identified. But the member, if I heard her correctly, the second time round said ( h), (i), and ( j), so that’s three.

The se cond one is “ imputes false or unavowed motives to another member.” I take it that she was feeling – this is an interpre- tation – that there was some allegation there. Anyway, it would seem to me that it’s not a point of order but a point of clar ification. So we’d ask the hon. interim leader to continue. Debate Continued Dr. Massey: If I’ve offended the member opposite, I apologize and withdraw the remarks. I was talking, Mr. Speaker, abo ut the Public Affairs Bureau and how we ca n possibly be spending $14.7 million on public affairs programs.

That is really, really a lot of taxpayers’ dollars, and you have to wonder what kind of value we’re getting for it. A number of other issues, Mr. Speaker, that I think we can tal k about. The Justice budget was a disappointment. The courts in our province still aren’t going to get the raise that they definitely and desperately need. I had one other, but I don’t seem to have it on my desk right now, Mr. Speaker. So with those comments I’ll conclude. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. leader of the third party. Dr. Pannu: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I’m pleased to rise and res pond to the budget s peech deliv ered by the Ministe r of Finance yesterday afternoon. I tha nk her for her work and for her speech. Mr. Speaker, in the 15 minutes that are available to me, I’ll try to cover some important points. It’s difficult, clearly, to be comprehen- sive in my rem arks. That being said, after f our years o f play ing Scrooge, the Tory government is trying to play Santa Claus with the voters as the next provincial election nears. Budgets are about priorit ies, and yester day’s budget speaks volumes about the priorities of this government.

At the top of this list of priorities is getting re-elected. In other words, this budget is about conserving Conservatives, Mr. Speaker. That is why spend- ing, at least in a few areas, was ramped up as we approach the next election, only to have the taps turned off after the election, as has happened not once but se veral times over the last 10 to 15 years. Sadly, this election cycle spending is as predictable as leap year. In this province Santa Claus comes down our chimneys only once every four years, but even then he only comes down some of our chimneys.

This province i s in the env iable p osition of be ing able to provide stable, predictable funding to important programs every year and not only in a pre-election year. As is the case every year, the bottom line in Budget 2004 can’t be taken seriously. Every year the Tory government estimates modest surpluses of only a few hundred million dollars in its budget. But, Mr. Speaker, when the actual surplus is reported 15 months later, it ends up being several billion dollars, and that’s the case year after year after year for many years now. Budget 2004 is no exception to this well-worn pattern.

This year’s budget shows a paper surplus of only $30 0 mill ion i n the fiscal year 20 04-2005. An yone who believes that this will be actual surplus when the books are clo sed next year must also still believe in the tooth fairy or Santa Claus for that matter. Total government revenues in the coming y ear are once a gain seriously underestimated. There’s $2.3 billion les s reven ue esti- mated for next year than forecast revenues for this year. Oil and gas revenues in the next fiscal year are estimated to be $2.7 billion below what they are forecast to be this fiscal year.

Since under the government’s fiscal framework only $4 billion of oil and gas revenues is transferred to program s pending and given that oil and gas revenues this year will be around $7.5 billion, well, I think it ’s pretty obvious that the government’s game plan is to cynically continue using debt elimination as a means to achieve two political goals, Mr. Speaker: (

a) to dampen expectations of Alberta seniors, middle-class families, and postsecondary students and (

b) to use this as good news of a debt-free Alberta a few months or weeks before going into the next election. It just occurs to me that there’s a third objective here; that is, to paint this as some sort of legacy for the Premier as he prepares to leave office. Now, I guess it wouldn’t be so bad for the Premier to have a legacy except that the question has to be asked: at whose expense? While there are a few good things in this budget, on the whole it’s a huge disappointment. Working Albertans and middle-class families deserve a better deal than they are getting in this budget, Mr.

Alberta Hansard March 25, 2004716 Speaker. Just look at how one sided the revenue and taxat ion measures contained in this budget are. The government will keep lightening the pocketbooks of typical Alberta families by $1,056 per ye ar in the f orm of health car e premium taxes. It doesn’t matter whether you make $35,000 a year or $350,000 a year; you pay the same $1,056. This is a real flat tax, Mr. Speaker, if one wants to understand what a flat tax is. This is a most regressive and unfair tax imposed on hard-working and middle- class Alberta fam ilies and A lbertans. It’s a ba d tax.

Ev en the Alberta Taxpayers Federation is urging that this regressive, unfair, lump-sum health care premium tax be scrapped. However, it wasn’t. Whether you are a senior on a fixed income or an average working family trying to make ends meet, you just have to keep on paying. 3:40 Meanwhile corporate t axes continue to be c ut. On Apri l 1 this year the general corporat e tax rate is being reduced from 12.5 per cent to 11.5 per cent, permanently reducing government revenues by $142 million over the period of the next 12 months. Alberta already had the lowest corporate taxes of any province.

This is an unneces- sary giveaway, pure and simple. It’s shameful that this government keeps taxing seniors for health care premiums so that it can pay for another tax cut to corporations. Despite very misleading government spin to the contrary, in reality provincial revenues from school property taxes will go up 5.7 per cent in year 2004-2005. Homeowners and businesses will be paying $77 million more, not less, in school property taxes startin g this spring. Mr.

Speaker, this is the third straight year that the Finance minister and this government have broken their 2001 promise t o freeze total revenues from property taxes at the $1.2 billion l evel. The continuing rise in education taxes also stands in contradiction to the motion sponsored by the Member for Wainwright which just passed in this As sembly two we eks ag o. Albert ans, especia lly seniors on fixed incomes who still live in their own homes, will be outraged by the g overnment’s duplicity on the ma tter of s chool property taxes.

Surprisingly for a pre-election budget, 25 new user fees for such things as outdoor recreation, parks programs, and the maintenance enforcement program are also a feature of this year’s budget. Eleven other fees for park s activ ities and in surance s ervices are bei ng significantly increased, while the new fees and fee hikes for things like cross-country skiing in Kananaskis Country and provincial park programs mostly hit average Albertans. The insurance levies are pu zzling given this government’s own concern about the affordability of coverage.

T hese new levies threaten to make insurance even less affordable for drivers, home- owners, and small businesses. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot, Mr. Speaker. While there is mention made that some royalty giveaway programs may be reviewed, there are no spec ific changes announced in this budget. For years, Mr. Speaker, our Auditor General has raised the alarm about the fact that many of the government’s royalty giveaway programs, i ncluding the Albert a royalty tax credit , do no t have objectives that allow A lbertans to assess whether they re present value for money.

So instead of action to address these failings, we simply get m ore delay s in addr essing the $400 m illion-plus in royalty giveaways. This is a h uge amount of money that could be freed up to freeze and reduce tuition fees or eliminate health care premiums. Moving to the spending side of B udget 2004, I’l l begin by acknowledging a few positives . Certainl y, one of those is the restoration of muni cipal polici ng grants for larg e centres and the commitment to pick up a ll of the pol icing costs for municipalities with populations below 5,000 people. Mr.

Speaker, $58 million is being added in total for provincial policing support, and this is badly needed. Yet, at the same time, the government is taking back much of the increas e in poli cing grants by reducing unconditional municipal grants. The city of Edmonton, as an example, estimates that over one-half of the increase in policing grants is being offset by reductions in munici pal unconditional grants. Thirteen million dollars has been set aside for transferring governance and funding for ambulance services in 2004-2005, increasing to $55 million in the next year .

While the re is som e concern about the gov ernance changes for ambulance services, espec ially its impact on those municipalities with int egrated emergency services including fire, paramedics, and ambulance services, certainly everyone welcomes the increased funding support in this area. Budget 2004 is giving Albertans a first glimpse at the huge cost of the so-called public/private partnerships, or P3 projects. The total cost, the full cost, of the Calgary courthouse and Edmonton south- east ring road projects is $703 million, a huge sum of money, Mr. Speaker.

However, there is no evidence whatsoever that P3s can be built for less money. All of the available evidence suggests that they will cost more. The government P3 strategy is completely lacking in transparency. The government has hand-picked a P3 review committee dominated by developers, real estate lawyers, and a fe w other Tory-friendly folks. Mr.

Speaker, here we are on the verge of signing an agree- ment with a P3 dev eloper for a new C algary courth ouse, and Albertans are left completely in the dark as to whether it would have been less costly to have built the same project using conventional public financing. This lack of transparency is simply unacceptable, Mr. Spea ker. The whole P3 exercise threatens to become to the Klein government what NovAtel and MagCan were for the previous Getty government. Moving to education, Mr.

Speaker, support for K to 12 will go up 5.8 per cent, including implementation of a new funding framework, which is long ove rdue. While the Lea rning minister talks a good game about being c ommitted to implementing these recommenda- tions, quite frankly there’s not enough detail provided to determine whether these increases will be sufficient to implement the class size recommendation of the Learning Commission. A lot of groups representing parents with children in schools think that the funding falls short.

I will certainly be returning to this when we deal with the Learning estimates in the Committee of Supply. In t he postsec ondary a rea opera ting gra nts for post secondary institutions go up 4 per cent ne xt year. At first blush this doesn’t look bad, but when you really break down the numbers, this won’t even be enough to cover enrolment increases and inflation, so as a consequence tuitions will continue their inexorable rise by going up yet another 6 to 10 per cent next year and beyond.

Moving to health spending, yesterday the Finance minister made much of the fact that the planned 8 per cent increase isn’t sustainable and that increases will have to be much sm aller in future years. It seems to me, Mr. Sp eaker, that w hen it comes to health care, Albertans are being set up. There will be increases in health care spending before the election only to bring the hammer down in the form of user fees and delisting after the election.

With all of the disadvantages of loss of income that come along with illness, the last thing these Albertans need is more out-of-pocket charges, but unfortunat ely tha t’s exactly w hat si ck, injure d, and elderly Albertans will get if this government gets its way on its so- called health care reform. User fees, delisting, and two-tier health care will be brought in for ideological reasons, Mr. S peaker, and without one iota of evidence that they will do anything to make the health care system more sustainable. In fact, if you look south of the

March 25, 2004 Alberta Hansard 717 border, while the government’s share of the health care dollar may go down, total health spending will escalate as never before. Now, I want to move to those A lbertans who got lumps of coal instead of gifts from the Santa Claus in the Tory government budget. There are lumps of coal in this year’s budget for Alberta’s senior citizens. In the past decade acco rding to figures from the Alberta Council on Aging Alberta seniors have on a net basis lost some $650 million in government benefits.

In rec ent yea rs they have lost universal eye and dental benefits, have seen the copayments on their drug coverage go up, got hammered with 50 per cent increases in long-term care f ees, and, f inally, like everyone else, got sm acked with a 30 per cent hike in health care premiums. Seniors who were hoping for a tiny bit of good news in this pre- election budget went away empty-handed, Mr. Speaker. Not enough on health ca re premiums when scrapping them f or seniors would only cost $90 million.

Obviously, not a high enough priority when there are cor porations to feed with $102 million in corporate tax cuts. 3:50 The news in this budget is even worse for the disabled and those on welfare. Once again, there are no increases in monthly benefit levels for those on AISH or social assistance. With only one small increase since rates were cut in 1993, this budget means that these low-income Albertans and their children will keep falling ever deeper into poverty.

Meanwhile, while there is nothing for poor and disabled Alber- tans, the annual subsidy to the horse racing industry is going up 22 per cent, from $37 million t o $45 million pe r year. Keeping race horses well fed is obvi ously a high er priority for this g overnment than keeping children well fed. I wish this government would put people before ponies, but it’s not to be. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Deputy Speaker: Comments? Questions? There being no further speakers, the hon. Minister of Government Services. Mr. Coutts: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I wond er if we might now just adjourn debate on this particular item this afternoon. [Motion to adjourn debate carried] The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Deputy Government House Leader. Mr. Stevens: Thanks, Mr. Speaker. I move that we call it 5:30 and adjourn until next Monday, March 29, at 1:30 in the afternoon. [Motion carried; at 3:52 p.m. the Assembly adjourned to Monday at 1:30 p.m.]

Alberta Hansard March 25, 2004718

Document details

Collection	Alberta — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20040325
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	L25 S4 20040325 1330 01 han.pdf
Language	en
Format	json
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	1d8889eedd7a4d7ad60ad0f77fe84d24e4460223

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