Alberta Hansard — 24 February 2010, Afternoon sitting (13:30) (Legislature 27, Session 3)

20100224

Alberta — Debates (Hansard)

Province of Alberta The 27th Legislature Third Session Alberta Hansard Wednesday, February 24, 2010 Issue 11 The Honourable Kenneth R. Kowalski, Speaker

Legislative Assembly of Alberta The 27th Legislature Third Session Kowalski, Hon. Ken, Barrhead-Morinville-Westlock, Speaker Cao, Wayne C.N., Calgary-Fort, Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees Mitzel, Len, Cypress-Medicine Hat, Deputy Chair of Committees Ady, Hon. Cindy, Calgary-Shaw (PC), Minister of Tourism, Parks and Recreation Allred, Ken, St.

Albert (PC) Amery, Moe, Calgary-East (PC) Anderson, Rob, Airdrie-Chestermere (WA), WA Opposition House Leader Benito, Carl, Edmonton-Mill Woods (PC) Berger, Evan, Livingstone-Macleod (PC), Parliamentary Assistant, Sustainable Resource Development Bhardwaj, Naresh, Edmonton-Ellerslie (PC) Bhullar, Manmeet Singh, Calgary-Montrose (PC), Parliamentary Assistant, Municipal Affairs Blackett, Hon.

Lindsay, Calgary-North West (PC), Minister of Culture and Community Spirit Blakeman, Laurie, Edmonton-Centre (AL), Official Opposition Deputy Leader, Official Opposition House Leader Boutilier, Guy C., Fort McMurray-Wood Buffalo (Ind) Brown, Dr. Neil, QC, Calgary-Nose Hill (PC) Calahasen, Pearl, Lesser Slave Lake (PC) Campbell, Robin, West Yellowhead (PC), Government Whip Chase, Harry B., Calgary-Varsity (AL), Official Opposition Whip Dallas, Cal, Red Deer-South (PC), Parliamentary Assistant, Environment Danyluk, Hon. Ray, Lac La Biche-St.

Paul (PC), Minister of Infrastructure DeLong, Alana, Calgary-Bow (PC) Denis, Hon. Jonathan, QC, Calgary-Egmont, (PC), Minister of Housing and Urban Affairs, Deputy Government House Leader Doerksen, Arno, Strathmore-Brooks (PC), Deputy Government Whip Drysdale, Wayne, Grande Prairie-Wapiti (PC) Elniski, Doug, Edmonton-Calder (PC) Evans, Hon. Iris, Sherwood Park (PC), Minister of International and Intergovernmental Relations Fawcett, Kyle, Calgary-North Hill (PC) Forsyth, Heather, Calgary-Fish Creek (WA), WA Opposition Whip Fritz, Hon.

Yvonne, Calgary-Cross (PC), Minister of Children and Youth Services Goudreau, Hon. Hector G., Dunvegan-Central Peace (PC), Minister of Municipal Affairs Griffiths, Doug, Battle River-Wainwright (PC) Groeneveld, George, Highwood (PC) Hancock, Hon. Dave, QC, Edmonton-Whitemud (PC), Minister of Education, Political Minister for Edmonton, Government House Leader Hayden, Hon.

Jack, Drumheller-Stettler (PC), Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development Hehr, Kent, Calgary-Buffalo (AL) Hinman, Paul, Calgary-Glenmore (WA), WA Opposition Deputy Leader Horne, Fred, Edmonton-Rutherford (PC), Parliamentary Assistant, Seniors and Community Supports Horner, Hon. Doug, Spruce Grove-Sturgeon-St. Albert (PC), Deputy Premier, Minister of Advanced Education and Technology, Minister Liaison to the Canadian Armed Forces Jablonski, Hon.

Mary Anne, Red Deer-North (PC), Minister of Seniors and Community Supports Jacobs, Broyce, Cardston-Taber-Warner (PC), Parliamentary Assistant, Agriculture and Rural Development Johnson, Jeff, Athabasca-Redwater (PC), Parliamentary Assistant, Treasury Board Johnston, Art, Calgary-Hays (PC) Kang, Darshan S., Calgary-McCall (AL) Klimchuk, Hon. Heather, Edmonton-Glenora (PC), Minister of Service Alberta Knight, Hon. Mel, Grande Prairie-Smoky (PC), Minister of Sustainable Resource Development Leskiw, Genia, Bonnyville-Cold Lake (PC) Liepert, Hon.

Ron, Calgary-West (PC), Minister of Energy Lindsay, Fred, Stony Plain (PC) Lukaszuk, Hon. Thomas A., Edmonton-Castle Downs (PC), Minister of Employment and Immigration Lund, Ty, Rocky Mountain House (PC) MacDonald, Hugh, Edmonton-Gold Bar (AL) Marz, Richard, Olds-Didsbury-Three Hills (PC) Mason, Brian, Edmonton-Highlands-Norwood (ND), Leader of the ND Opposition McFarland, Barry, Little Bow (PC) McQueen, Diana, Drayton Valley-Calmar (PC), Parliamentary Assistant, Energy Morton, Hon.

F.L., Foothills-Rocky View (PC), Minister of Finance and Enterprise Notley, Rachel, Edmonton-Strathcona (ND), ND Opposition House Leader Oberle, Hon. Frank, Peace River (PC), Solicitor General and Minister of Public Security Olson, Verlyn, QC, Wetaskiwin-Camrose (PC) Ouellette, Hon. Luke, Innisfail-Sylvan Lake (PC), Minister of Transportation Pastoor, Bridget Brennan, Lethbridge-East (AL), Official Opposition Deputy Whip Prins, Ray, Lacombe-Ponoka (PC) Quest, Dave, Strathcona (PC) Redford, Hon.

Alison M., QC, Calgary-Elbow (PC), Minister of Justice and Attorney General, Political Minister for Calgary, Deputy Government House Leader Renner, Hon. Rob, Medicine Hat (PC), Minister of Environment, Deputy Government House Leader Rodney, Dave, Calgary-Lougheed (PC) Rogers, George, Leduc-Beaumont-Devon (PC) Sandhu, Peter, Edmonton-Manning (PC) Sarich, Janice, Edmonton-Decore (PC), Parliamentary Assistant, Education Sherman, Dr. Raj, Edmonton-Meadowlark (PC), Parliamentary Assistant, Health and Wellness Snelgrove, Hon. Lloyd, Vermilion-Lloydminster (PC), President of the Treasury Board Stelmach, Hon.

Ed, Fort Saskatchewan-Vegreville (PC), Premier, President of Executive Council Swann, Dr. David, Calgary-Mountain View (AL), Leader of the Official Opposition Taft, Dr. Kevin, Edmonton-Riverview (AL) Tarchuk, Janis, Banff-Cochrane (PC) Taylor, Dave, Calgary-Currie (AL) VanderBurg, George, Whitecourt-Ste. Anne (PC) Vandermeer, Tony, Edmonton-Beverly-Clareview (PC) Weadick, Greg, Lethbridge-West (PC), Parliamentary Assistant, Advanced Education and Technology Webber, Hon.

Len, Calgary-Foothills (PC), Minister of Aboriginal Relations Woo-Paw, Teresa, Calgary-Mackay (PC), Parliamentary Assistant, Employment and Immigration Xiao, David H., Edmonton-McClung (PC) Zwozdesky, Hon. Gene, Edmonton-Mill Creek (PC), Minister of Health and Wellness, Deputy Government House Leader Officers and Officials of the Legislative Assembly Clerk W.J. David McNeil Clerk Assistant/Director of House Services Louise J. Kamuchik Clerk of Journals/Table Research Micheline S. Gravel Senior Parliamentary Counsel Robert H.

Reynolds, QC Senior Parliamentary Counsel Shannon Dean Parliamentary Counsel Stephanie LeBlanc Sergeant-at-Arms Brian G. Hodgson Assistant Sergeant-at-Arms Chris Caughell Assistant Sergeant-at-Arms Gordon H. Munk Managing Editor of Alberta Hansard Liz Sim

February 24, 2010 Alberta Hansard 269 Legislative Assembly of Alberta Title: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 1:30 p.m. 1:30 p.m. Wednesday, February 24, 2010 [The Speaker in the chair] head: Prayers The Speaker: Good afternoon. Let us pray. Grant that we, the members of our province’s Legislature, fulfill our office with honesty and integrity. May our first concern be for the good of all of our people. Let us be guided by these principles in our deliberations this day and every day. Amen. Please be seated. head: Introduction of Visitors The Speaker: The hon.

Member for Rocky Mountain House in his position as vice-chair of the Legislative Offices Committee. Mr. Lund: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce to you and to the Assembly the members of the 2009-10 Alberta Electoral Boundaries Commission, who are sitting in your gallery. This commission was established on July 31 of ’09 with the daunting task of coming up with some 87 constituencies using a whole number of factors to make sure that they are fair and equitable. The commission had a series of hearings across the province, and now they are issuing their interim report.

I am pleased to introduce the members of the commission. We have the hon. Judge Ernie Walter, chair of the boundaries commission, and the members: Keith Archer, Peter Dobbie, Allyson Jeffs, and Brian Evans. Of course, Brian was a member of this Assembly and also a minister. I see they have with them one of their very able adminis- trators, Karen Sawchuk. I would ask our guests to all rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of the Assembly. head: Introduction of Guests The Speaker: The hon. the Premier. Mr. Stelmach: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to introduce to you and through you to all members of the Assembly 44 very special guests from Win Ferguson school. The students are accompanied today by teachers Mrs. Ali Dixon and Mrs. Claudia Klippenstein, and parent helpers today are Mrs. Robin Lee, Mrs. Monica Schout- en, Mrs. Donna MacLean, and Mr. Paul Kristensen. I would ask them all to rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of this Assembly. The Speaker: The hon. Deputy Premier. Mr. Horner: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me great pleasure to rise today and introduce to you and through you to all members of the Legislature a researcher funded through one of our Alberta Innovates corporations, Alberta Innovates: Health Solutions. Dr. Braden Manns, who is sitting in the members’ gallery, is a physician, researcher, and an associate professor in the division of nephrology in the department of medicine at the University of Calgary. The chronic disease team that he helps lead brings together 23 specialists from across Canada and abroad in fields ranging from medicine to law, from nursing to knowledge transfer.

Together they are tackling an urgent matter in health care, and that’s how to help people with chronic medical conditions like diabetes and high blood pressure to better manage their health. His research is just one example of the excellent work coming out of Alberta Innovates. Again, Dr. Manns is seated in the members’ gallery, and I would ask that he rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of this gallery. The Speaker: The hon. Solicitor General and Minister of Public Security. Mr. Oberle: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It’s my honour today to introduce some staff from my department who are on an orientation tour. I met with them in my office. Right about now they’re probably wondering what they’ve gotten themselves into, but it’s my honour to welcome them to this Chamber. I’d like to introduce Wendy Mallery, Nnam Okoye, Lena Borle, Wendy Joy, Marilyn Quaedvlieg, Kerrie Henson, Ama nda Goulet, Michael Michalski, George Wiebe, LauraAnn Sedgwick, Christy Ma, Raena Chatwin, Dana Belyk, Teresa Babinski, Marcia White, Kathie Heard, Shannon Klaus, Gerhard Krueger, Lesley MacAllister, and Karen Bilinske.

I’d ask them to rise and please accept the traditional welcome of this House. The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Infrastructure. Mr. Danyluk: Well, thank you very much , Mr. Speaker. It is a pleasure to introduce to you and through you to members of this Assembly six human resources staff members who provide shared corporate services to both my ministry and Alberta Transportation. If I could please introduce Stacy Gl oster, Donna-Joy Loe, Andrea Hayes, Michelle Sadler, Anita Belisle, and Khadija Allidina. They are here today to tour the Legislature Building.

They are seated and have risen in the members’ gallery, and I’d like all members to give them the traditional warm welcome. Thank you. The Speaker: Are there others? The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition. Dr. Swann: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It’s a great honour and privilege today to introduce to you and through you to the rest of the members of the Assembly over a hundred individuals and families and organizations from across the province who’ve come here to show their concern for service cuts to persons with develop- mental disabilities.

Every one of these Albertans is tremendously concerned that the millions of dollars in cuts will leave providers and parents scrambling to find adequate supports. I would ask our guests to rise or wave if they wish and accept the traditional warm welcome of this Assembly. head: Members’ Statements The Speaker: The hon. Member for Grande Prairie-Wapiti. 2010 Arctic Winter Games Mr. Drysdale: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As we all know, sports is an essential component of a healthy lifestyle and a strong population. From March 6 to 13 Grande Prairie will host the 21st annual Arctic Winter Games.

This is an exciting opportunity for our province as participants from Alaska, the Yukon, the Northwest Territories, northern Alberta, Nunavik, Nuna vut, Greenland, the Sami people from the Sapmi region, and the Russian province of Yamal-Nenets come together in Grande Prairie to compete and celebrate their cultures.

Alberta Hansard February 24, 2010270 The Arctic Winter Games are a unique celebration of sport and culture. They promote traditional aboriginal games based on survival in the north. There are three categories of sports that are included in the games: major sports; northern sports, including Inuit games, Déné games, snowshoeing, dog mushing, and Inuit wrestling; as well as emerging sports. The games offer a venue where developing athletes and officials from across the north can meet and enhance their athletic skills and share their respective cultures.

The original philosophy behind these games is athletic competi- tion, cultural exhibition, and social interchange. While participants of the games are looking forward to competing in this biennial event, the constituents of Grande Prairie-Wapiti are very excited to have the opportunity to showcase their city and their hospitality. If you’re interested in attending the Arctic Winter Games or want further information on the events, please visit www.awg2010.org. Mr.

Speaker, I would ask that all members of this Assembly join me in welcoming participants, athletes, volunteers, performers, and spectators from all over the north to Grande Prairie. The Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition. Support for Persons with Developmental Disabilities Dr. Swann: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Today a hundred Albertans have joined us here in the Legislature to express their disappointment and justifiable anger at the callousness of this administration’s decision to claw back supports so desperately needed by people with developmental disabilities.

Citizens who live with conditions such as autism, Down syndrome, fetal alcohol syndrome need the compassion, assistance, and understanding of a caring community. That community starts with their immediate family and friends, but it also encompasses all Albertans. We’re all part of a civilization, a civil society, with common rights and obligations. One of our duties is to ensure that people with special needs are looked after.

Responsible leadership would make absolutely sure that there’s enough public funding to meet the special needs of the people, including those who have joined us in the Legislature today and the many thousands of others with developmental disabilities across the province. I applaud the men and women who devote their lives to caring for people with developmental disabilities.

With meagre resources they are doing their absolute best to provide sons and daughters and the people they support with a quality of life. 1:40 Unfortunately, this administration is not providing sufficient support to allow people with deve lopmental disabilities and their families and caregivers to live with a level of dignity that is their birthright. Millions of dollars in cuts have left aid providers and parents scrambling and desperate and vulnerable Albertans in crisis. This is the result of poor financial planning. These are not the actions of a compassionate and responsible government.

I would ask the Premier to reconsider these cruel PDD cuts. The worth of a civilization is judged on how it treats its most vulnerable. Today this government is failing that important test. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Bonnyville-Cold Lake. Youth Apprenticeship Program Mrs. Leskiw: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Approximately 6,000 students, 25 schools, five off-campus schools are part of Northern Lights school division 69, otherwise known as NLSD. NLSD operates one of our three youth apprenticeship program, or YAP, pilot projects in this province.

As a former teacher of the Northern Lights sc hool district I am very proud of the work that NLSD is doing with this particular program. In the YAP program students begin in grade 7 and continue through grade 12 to explore career options through integrative learning of both trades and other professional vocations. Students can earn certificates in WHMIS, first aid, H 2S awareness, transportation of dangerous goods awareness, bear awareness, hunter education, and job safety skills. YAP is currently a pilot project that expires in June of 2010.

Northern Lights is hoping to extend the funding for the Lac La Biche program for the next three years as well as exploring the possibility of expanding it into my constituency of Bonnyville-Cold Lake. The youth apprenticeship program has successfully improved students’ achievement, enhanced program choices, and increased participation and opportunities for First Nation, Métis, and Inuit students. One hundred and seventy-five students participated in YAP, all of whom remain in school. Six of these students are currently enrolled in registered apprenticeship programs in Alberta.

In 2009 these students accessed close to 15 per cent of the province’s scholarships in the registered apprenticeship program. Mr. Speaker, the YAP project has been a huge success for students in the Northern Lights school division. It gives them the ability to learn in a setting outside of the classroom through hands-on experience. This can increase their chances of staying in school and teaches them to develop skill sets that will encourage them to take an active role in their education.

It also gives students who want to pursue a career in the trades a way to gain experience and under- stand the importance of applied learning as a means of achieving their goals. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Manning. International Mother Language Day Mr. Sandhu: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In November 1999 the United Nations proclaimed the first-ever International Mother Language Day. This date is celebrated each February 21 around the world. This holiday shows the importance that language has in our society as this is how we express our culture and heritage.

Interna- tional Mother Language Day is a great way to become more aware of other languages and cultures around the world. Mr. Speaker, Canada is a country where we are very lucky to speak our native language and celebrate our culture freely. This is something that many other countries do not allow, and we should be thankful for our freedom. I immigrated to Canada 30 years ago from Punjab, India. It is important to me that I am able to speak my native language, Punjabi, and can pass it on to my children. In Alberta we have many people who speak languages other than English and French.

Some schools offer language programs to help children retain their language if their mother tongue is not English or French, at the same time allowing English children to learn other languages and cultural traditions. Mr. Speaker, in my constituency alone Kildare elementary school has an excellent Chinese Mandarin bilingual program, as does Londonderry school. Father Leo Green school has wonderful French and Spanish immersion programs. J.J. Bowlen junior high school will open a program for Spanish language and culture in the fall, and M.E. LaZerte offers courses in Mandarin and Ukrainian as well.

I would like to thank all the parents, teachers, and those in the community who promote diversity of language. May God bless our country for years to come. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

February 24, 2010 Alberta Hansard 271 The Speaker: The hon. Member for Airdrie-Chestermere. Royalty Framework Mr. Anderson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today the University of Calgary released a study concluding that Alberta ranks dead last in terms of competitiveness for oil and gas, citing this PC government’s new royalty framework as the biggest reason. This policy has been among the most harmful and mis guided public policy debacles in Alberta’s history. It has seve rely damaged our international reputation as a stable and business-friendly jurisdiction to invest in. It has put thousands of Albertans out of work.

It has bankrupted hundreds of small businesses, and ironically an initiative intended to increase revenues to the Provincial Treasury has actually resulted in the exact opposite. Many of us have family and friends who are struggling to find work, and every time I talk with them, they simply ask why. Why would they do this? This government should have known better. They should have known that the answer to increasing provincial revenues is not to raise taxes on business. All this does is drive out investment and jobs and the income earners that pay taxes.

They should have known the importance of the rule of law and respect for contracts in creating the stability necessary to attract and retain industry and businesses and the jobs and tax revenue they provide. They should have known that you can’t overhaul the entire regula- tory framework governing an industry without first consulting with that industry to make sure there are no unintended consequences. That shale gas, for instance, was changing the investment landscape. Industry knew that information long before the new royalty framework.

Many of this Premier’s MLAs knew it and told the Premier so, yet it fell on deaf ears. Now the government, realizing its mistake, has undertaken a competitiveness review. This review is welcomed and needed, and I hope they get it right this time, but the government also says they want to move on. Well, for those whose jobs, businesses, and dreams have been shattered by this government’s devastating carelessness, moving on is not so simple. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Rutherford. Affordable Supportive Living Initiatives Mr. Horne: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Much has been said in this House over the last few weeks about continuing care options for seniors in our province. I am very proud to stand here and say that providing assistance to low-income seniors and persons with disabilities is, in fact, a ma jor priority for this government. Evidence of this priority is reflected with the Seniors and Commu- nity Supports ministry leading the initiative to improve the choice and availability of continuing care accommodations in this province.

This initiative is a priority through Alberta’s continuing care strategy, now in full implementa tion, by increasing the supply of spaces and choice in the continuing care system. This commitment continues, Mr. Speaker. For the 2010-11 fiscal year this government has budgeted $50 million for the affordable supportive living in itiative, or ASLI, to help develop 500 more affordable supportive living long-term care and, I should add, group home spaces in Alberta.

Since 1999 and including the funding in this year’s budget, approximately $465 million in provincial capital funding has gone toward helping to build and modernize 9,000 affordable continuing care spaces across this province. This level of funding speaks volumes about our government’s commitment to assisting vulnerable Albertans. To help build spaces for these Albertans, the Alberta capital bonds were recently placed for sale.

This innovative approach provides us with the opportunity to invest in the future of our province and at the same time help to address the changing accommodation needs of seniors and persons with disabilities. Mr. Speaker, there are a few important facts regarding ASLI funding that I think are worth mentioning and reminding members about. First of all, funding for these projects contains operator agreements that require a 22-year plan to ensure the project can continue to operate as an affordable supportive living facility.

The accommodation rates charged in these facilities are capped at the maximum residential long-term rate. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. head: Introduction of Bills The Speaker: The hon. Member for Airdrie-Chestermere. Bill 204 Fiscal Responsibility (Spending Limit) Amendment Act, 2010 Mr. Anderson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I request leave to introduce a bill being the Fiscal Responsibility (Spending Limit) Amendment Act, 2010. That’s Bill 204.

This bill would limit year-over-year increases in government spending to the rate of inflation plus population growth or the average spending of Canada’s remaining nine provinces, whichever number is higher. This bill is, I believe, a critical step in reducing our province’s $7.5 billion deficit and preserving the Alberta advantage for future generations. Thank you. [Motion carried; Bill 204 read a first time] 1:50head: Tabling Returns and Reports The Speaker: Hon. members, pursuant to

section 6 of the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act the chair is pleased to table with the Assembly and by doing so make public the interim report of the 2009-2010 Alberta Electoral Boundaries Commission entitled Proposed Electoral Division Areas, Boundaries, and Names for Alberta. Each member will receive a copy of the report as soon as I table this. head: Oral Question Period The Speaker: First Official Opposition main question. The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition. PDD Funding Dr. Swann: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Today in the House we have roughly a hundred guests whose quality of life has been negatively affected because of government changes to the persons with developmental disabilities program. They have sent me the following basic questions they want asked to the Premier. To the Premier: what did the province do with the $1,403.60 raised at a bottle drive in January and delivered here on February 10? Mr. Stelmach: Mr.

Speaker, this government is committed to supporting adults with developmen tal disabilities, and we’re also committed to ensuring that the program that we have in place is sustainable for years to come to support all Albertans with develop- mental disabilities. The PDD program continues to be well funded. I believe it’s in the area of about $600 million. Any of the other details with respect to the program the minister responsible can answer.

Alberta Hansard February 24, 2010272 Dr. Swann: Well, again to the Premier. According to the Seniors and Community Supports business plan and budget for 2010 the total estimate for direct operations for PDD, their community boards, is $15.8 million. How many individuals would this support? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mrs. Jablonski: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The PDD program is very important to this government and to all MLAs in this Assem- bly. I know that first-hand because I’ve heard from many of them.

I’m committed to this program, and I can tell you that with the direct program we have for our people with developmental disabilities, in Michener I know we have approximately 270 people that are served in that program. Dr. Swann: Well, again, Mr. Speaker, we’re looking for some evidence that this money is being spent on the delivery of care to persons with developmental disabilities. What does the $119 million under supports to delivery system pay? What does it pay for, and why is there such a large difference in how this is allocated across the six PDD regions? Mrs. Jablonski: Mr.

Speaker, the PDD program that we have here in Alberta is one of the very best in Canada. This program and our budget show our commitment to people with developmental disabilities. The goal of the program is to help our people with developmental disabilities to live the most independent and the best life that they can live. I’d like to quote my friends from the Camrose Association for Community Living where they say: our purpose is to help our friends with developmental disabilities live their best life. The Speaker: Second Official Opposition main question. The hon. Member for Lethbridge-East.

Ms Pastoor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today will also be to the Premier and given to me by the people that are visiting in our gallery. To the Premier. Typically board members are volun- teers, certainly in the nonprofit organizations, that provide most of the supports to individuals funded by PDD. Why does it cost $915,000 for board governance for PDD? Mrs. Jablonski: Mr. Speaker, once again speaking about the PDD program being one of the very best in Canada, we have six regional boards, and the purpose of the boards is to be able to contract and develop programs within the different regions.

Things are different in northern Alberta, obviously, than they are in southern Alberta. They are a very important part of the delivery of our program and making contracts with our service agencies so that we are able to give the best possible programs and services to people with develop- mental disabilities. The Speaker: The hon. member. Ms Pastoor: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you, Madam Minister.

I think we understand the difference between what they do, the care that they deliver, but I think the question was: what is the discrepancy between being able to run boards with volunteers and actually having to pay $915,000 for board governance? My next question would be: with the estimates and target budget of 2010-11 and 2011-12 being the same as the 2009-10 for ecast of $597 million . . . The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mrs. Jablonski: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What I would like to say is that because this program is so important to this government, we want to make sure that the program is very consistent throughout the province. We want to make sure that there’s clarity in the program. We want to make sure that there’s efficiency and effectiveness, especially effectiveness, to the services that we provide. The most important things besides all of those is that this program is sustain- able now and into the future. So we have a plan in place.

It’s our six-priority action plan, which we have travelled across the province and talked to people about to make this an even better program. The Speaker: The hon. member. Ms Pastoor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In the budget debate the minister of seniors stated that they were projecting PDD clients to increase from 50 to 100 people in the coming year. How does the minister expect to deal with the AUPE increases, annualized cost for individuals who have come into the service and that the budget is still being held at the ’09-10 rate? Mrs. Jablonski: Mr.

Speaker, the member across is absolutely correct when she says that our budg et remains level. I think that’s a wonderful accomplishment considering what’s happening in these times. We are always looking for efficiencies in our program so that we can support our people with developmental disabilities, so we will be looking for those efficiencies, and any savings that we find within my ministry will go directly to the front line for people with disabilities. The Speaker: Third Official Opposition main question. The hon. Member for Calgary-Currie. Competitiveness Review of Oil and Gas Industry Mr.

Taylor: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. An interesting report came out today from the University of Calgary School of Public Policy, comparing Alberta, B.C., Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, and the state of Texas. The report states that Alberta is the least competitive of those jurisdictions for oil and gas investment. This is extremely concerning. To the Premier: what are the Premier’s thoughts about the conclusions this report presents? Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, it clearly follows what the government has in place. We have the Competitiveness Act before this House that’s being debated.

We want to ensure that we’re the best place to do business in the North American continent. There have been substantial changes in not only price but in the availability of gas in shale, and that’s changed the situation considerably. So we’re waiting for the competitiveness review to be done and also comple- tion of the act so that we can undertake putting the competitiveness review in place. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Taylor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When I asked the Minister of Energy about upcoming royalty changes, he stated, “The frame- work itself is in place and will stay in place.” Does the Premier now think that more needs to be done than the tweaks to the payouts that the minister is considering? Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, we will have the most competitive and innovative economy in North America. I just ask him to wait and listen for the completion and the presentation of the report, which will be here soon.

February 24, 2010 Alberta Hansard 273 Mr. Taylor: You’re not asking me to wait; you’re asking 78,000 unemployed Albertans to wait. We’re hearing these days of r ecord land sales in the province because of the interest in the Duvernay shale gas play, and you might almost be able to kid yourself into thinking that happy days are here again if it weren’t for those 78,000 unemployed and were it not for this School of Public Policy report. To the Premier: is the province still committed to its own competitiveness review? Mr. Stelmach: Yes, we are. The Speaker: The hon.

Member for Edmonton-Highlands- Norwood, followed by the hon. Member for Grande Prairie-Wapiti. Distracted Driving Mr. Mason: Thanks very much, Mr. Speaker. A recently released health and safety report blames distracted driving for the death of an Edmonton teenager last summer. Distracted driving kills, and this government’s refusal to introduce legislation to stop it amounts to negligence. The Transportation minister makes excuses about enforcement while drivers glued to cellphones continue plowing through stop signs.

Why has this Minister of Transportation failed to implement the recommendations of a standing committee of this Legislature and draft legislation to stop drivers from talking and texting while driving? Mr. Ouellette: Well, Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member is speaking about was a very, very tragic incident. This issue is a little more complex than what the member is talking about. We do have legislation in this province that deals with distracted driving. It’s a very severe penalty of $402, I think, for the fine and six demerits, and because it’s so severe, it doesn’t get handled a lot.

Let me tell you . . . 2:00 The Speaker: No. I’m sorry. We may get it next time. The hon. member. Mr. Mason: Well, thanks very much, Mr. Speaker. That’s just smoke. Every day that this government stalls, innocent Albertans risk becoming the latest victim of a distracted driver. In 2008 the RCMP reported that more than 300 people were killed in areas that they patrol and nearly 2,000 injured by distracted drivers. Pedestrians and motorists are dying on this minister’s watch, and he is refusing to take action to stop it. When will this minister take action and ban the use of cellphones and texting while driving? Mr.

Ouellette: Well, Mr. Speaker, we’re working hard at that every day. One thing that we want to make sure of is that we still push education on this system. The big thing is public safety here. We want to make sure that we keep people’s eyes on the road and their hands on the wheel. Let me tell you that we can’t just pick one-offs and do like everyone else, just pick cellphones as a distraction. There’s a large number of distractions, and we’re trying to put them all together and give the police another tool to keep our highways safe. Mr. Mason: Mr.

Speaker, it’s been almost two years since a standing committee of this Legislature dealt with this issue, and the minister is still stalling. Every other province except one recognizes that drivers on cellphones can kill people and has done something about it. By failing to act, the minister is leaving responsible motorists and pedestrians at the mercy of those who text and talk behind the wheel. Why is he failing to protect Albertans by refusing to introduce cellphone legislation to protect the people of this province? Mr. Ouellette: Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, we are working on that legislation.

We’re working on the big picture of the legislation because we want to make sure we get it right. We want to make sure that it’s practical, enforceable, and effective. In order to do that, we have to get it right. We will get it right, and we will bring it forward. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Grande Prairie-Wapiti, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview. Health Services in Grande Prairie Area Mr. Drysdale: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Constituents from the Grande Prairie region are concerned about the current condition of and access to hospitals in our area.

We currently have one of the oldest hospital facilities in the province at Beaverlodge and desper- ately need a regional hospital in Grande Prairie. Can the Minister of Health and Wellness tell us the status of the study his department is conducting on what a regional hospital facility should be and what a rural hospital facility should be? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Zwozdesky: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The purpose of Al- berta’s service optimization review of capital projects was to in fact ensure that we were providing the right services in the communities aforementioned and/or to identify any gaps in those services, similarly, in the locations mentioned. The general rule of thumb when talking about regional hospitals is that they’re designed to provide a very broad spectrum of services and to function as a go-to place for a much broader population base,

whereas rural hospitals are smaller and . . . The Speaker: The hon. member. [interjection] The hon. member has the floor. Mr. Drysdale: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My second question is to the same minister. When can the residents of Grande Prairie and area expect a new regional hospital to be built? Mr. Zwozdesky: Well, Mr. Speaker, a lot of input has been provided to the review of that issue both from a community perspective and from Alberta Health Services perspective in terms of what they are looking to deliver there.

Our three-year capital plan will be released at the end of March, around March 31, I hope, and at that time we’ll have the announcements for the places that we’re proceeding with. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Drysdale: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My third question to the same minister: what other actions is the minister taking to make sure that residents of Grande Prairie have timely access to the medical services they need? Mr. Zwozdesky: Well, Mr.

Speaker, one of the actions that I’m personally taking is that I’m travelling up there in about two or three weeks, I believe, and I would invite the hon. member who has asked

Alberta Hansard February 24, 2010274 the question to join me. I’ll be vi siting the QE II hospital there. I should also mention that one of the things we’re doing right now is working with that community to support a capital project plan with respect to the emergency department and the endoscopy department. Those are some positive things, and they’ll be completed next year. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview, followed by the hon. Member for Olds-Didsbury-Three Hills. Grande Prairie Bone and Joint Clinic Dr. Taft: Thanks, Mr. Speaker. Well, it’s an important day for health care in Grande Prairie.

The bone and joint clinic at the QE II hospital in Grande Prairie reduced waiting times and human suffering by accelerating hip and knee surgery, yet despite the surge in orthopaedic funding announced last week, this clinic in Grande Prairie is being disbanded this week. To the Minister of Health and Wellness: who made the decision to phase out this program, and why? Mr. Zwozdesky: Mr. Speaker, I’m not aware of the funding being phased out or ended per se. What I do know is that the current arrangement expires I think at the end of this fiscal year, but that issue is up to Alberta Health Services to review.

As people here know, I’m meeting with them later tonight. Hon. member, I’d be pleased to address that question with Alberta Health Services later this evening. Dr. Taft: Well, please do so because my information, which is very firm, is that they basically took their last patient on Monday. Again to the same minister: what steps will be taken to ensure that the people of the Peace Country have similar access to orthopaedic surgery as the people of Calgary? Mr. Zwozdesky: Mr.

Speaker, I think we should make it clear that the clinic being talked about didn’t actually, to my knowledge at least, perform surgeries at the site. They did more of the co- ordination of ensuring that the services got provided somewhere in the region around there. So if there’s an issue here with respect to services for Peace River or other locations you’ve mentioned, then that, too, can come under the discussion this evening, and I’ll make sure it does. Dr. Taft: It was a co-ordinating service that, as I said, accelerated wait times and helped reduce people’s suffering, and it should be continued.

Again to the same minister. Alberta Health Services has a hip and knee steering committee, which had a role – and I know this in writing – in deciding to fund this clinic last June. Who are the members of the Alberta Health Services hip and knee steering committee, what’s their mandate, and exactly who are they account- able to? Mr. Zwozdesky: Mr. Speaker, I’ll get the names that the member seeks; I don’t have them with me, obviously.

I know that about six years ago when we created this hip and knee steering committee as a subgroup of a larger management comm ittee, its purpose really was to look at reducing wait times and managing the times better. I think they did a good job, hon. member. I’m curious to know about the funding issue that you mentioned, so I will find out about that and get back to you with the answers. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Olds-Didsbury-Three Hills, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary-Varsity. Grasshopper Control Mr. Marz: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Dry conditions last fall provided excellent conditions for grasshoppers to lay their eggs, and counts of grasshoppers last summer indicated a strong possibility of an extreme problem for farmers this year if dry conditions persist this spring. My question is to the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development. What’s the minister doing in preparation for such an occurrence? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Hayden: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We are keeping track of the conditions and where the conditions are the most severe with respect to the possibility of an infestation of grasshoppers.

It does show a number of spots in our province that could have an infestation from moderate to severe. I’m particularly concerned with some areas southwest of Edmonton and in the Grande Prairie area and some areas in northern Alberta, but we are monitoring it. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Marz: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the same minister: are there adequate resources in the minister’s budget to provide the necessary assistance to farmers similar to what happened in the last outbreak? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Hayden: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is always access to disaster funding should the outbreak be severe and be something beyond what our programs normally offer. I think it’s worth noting that there are risk management tools and insurance programs in place that are heavily s upported by government for instances of grasshopper infestations and other areas. I would hope that produc- ers are looking at that risk. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Marz: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again to the same minister. In previous years farmers have encountered shortages of the chemical to control grasshopper infestations.

Can the minister assure farmers that there will be adequate supplies of product should such an event occur this year? Mr. Hayden: Well, unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the chemical is a private industry, but they’re reading the same reports that govern- ment is and are looking at the same information. My expectation is that because it’s the private sector, the chemical i ndustry will be gearing up their supplies for the possibility of this infestation. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Varsity, followed by the hon. Member for Bonnyville-Cold Lake. 2:10 Support for Children with Disabilities Mr.

Chase: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The nature of care that not only protects but nurtures children with disabilities in Alberta is of the utmost importance in ensuring that they experience the best quality of life possible. It is therefore essential that there be appropriate placements and ongoing evaluation of the care that is provided for vulnerable disabled children. To the minister: given the highly specific individual needs of disabled children, can the minister briefly introduce and follow up in writing what quality and

February 24, 2010 Alberta Hansard 275 quantity of training specific to physical or mental disabilities is required for Children and Youth Services staff above and beyond the limited staff members in the family support for children with disabilities program? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mrs. Fritz: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I can tell you that the family support for children with disabilities program is highly valued by our families.

We did have a survey, and 86 per cent of families said that they value this program and recognize the good support and services that we do offer because it’s customized to the needs of the child. I know this member does care about this area. I’ve seen you at many organizations out in the community, hon. member. What you’ve requested in writing – I think it would be the multidisciplina- ry teams that you’re looking at for the specialized services – I can provide. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Chase: Thank you. I appreciate the follow-up, Madam Minister.

Is the minister absolutely certa in that all Children and Youth Services staff are adequately trained and have the necessary understanding and experience to provide the proper placements and supports to Alberta’s vulnerable disabled children? Mrs. Fritz: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely certain. I go back to what I said earlier about the families, to what we hear back from the families. I’ve been told that this is a leading program across Canada, and that’s because of the good specialized support services that we offer to families. This is a $120 million area of the budget.

We’ve added another $5 million in this coming budget to the programs, and it’s with that support. As I said, hon. member, I will provide the information you are seeking. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Chase: Thank you. What type of follow-up does the ministry conduct to ensure the well-being of disabled children after they have been placed in either foster care or kinship care? How frequently does the support evaluation occur to ensure that the pl acement and care continue to be appropriate? Mrs. Fritz: Mr. Speaker, with the foster care program there was a review that was done two years ago.

That review did show that there needed to be more extensive assessment with families, and that would include families with children with disabilities. That assessment is, of course, face-to-face interviews. Those have increased on a monthly basis as well as on a quarterly basis. I can get back to you as well about the orientation, the home training, and the follow-up. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Bonnyville-Cold Lake, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo. Athabasca River Water Management Mrs. Leskiw: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Since an important portion of the oil sands is in my constituency, my constituents take great interest in the management of this important resource. The Cumula- tive Environmental Management Association recently released recommendations to better manage the lower Athabasca River. One area of contention is the amount of water used by industry during periods of extreme low flow. My question is to the Minister of Environment. What action is the government taking to move forward on the association’s recommendations? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Renner: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, this report is one that was conducted at the request of our department, so we’re pleased to have it. It’s to be used in the implementation of phase 2 of our in- stream flow needs regime on the Athabasca River. I’m pleased to note that this is a multistakeholder process, and we’ve come a long way towards having a consensus report and consensus recommenda- tion. I can assure the member that along with Fisheries and Oceans we’ll be acting on the recommendations in the report. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mrs. Leskiw: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My first supplemental is to the same minister.

I understand that the current water allocation to oil sands operations on the Athabasca River is only 2 per cent of the average annual river flow. The actual industry withdrawal is even less, about 1 per cent of the average flow. Furthermore, this minister has often expressed great confidence and assurance regarding the effectiveness of the existing water management framework for the Athabasca River. With all this in mind, why is an updated frame- work even necessary? Mr. Renner: Well, Mr. Speaker, the ultimate goal in all of this is to maintain a high degree of protection on the Athabasca River.

We consistently review our policies, and we really strive for continuous improvement. Clearly, we’re not intending to get rid of what already works. Things are reasonably good. This framework is designed to deal with the longer term approach and, as I said in my response to the original question, to ensure that we protect the health of the . . . The Speaker: The hon. member. Mrs. Leskiw: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My second supplemental is to the same minister.

The minister constantly notes that there have been 40 years of water quality monitoring in the oil sands region, but activities in the region have increased significantly in recent years. What type of monitoring is the government actually doing right now? Mr. Renner: Mr. Speaker, the Athabasca River and its tributaries have continuous monitoring at 11 sites in the region. We also audit the monitoring of the data that is collected by the operators operating within the region, and we have participating in the regional aquatics monitoring program more than a hundred water quality stations throughout the region.

So as I have pointed out, there is a significant amount of ongoing monitoring of this river. Electoral Reform Mr. Hehr: Mr. Speaker, the recent changes to the mission and vision of Elections Alberta highlight the inadequacies of the current approach to democratic renewal in Alberta. While the former Chief Electoral Officer engaged and encouraged the voting public, his replacement seems to have a less ambitious agenda. Why won’t the minister admit what Albertans already know? Real democratic reform to Alberta’s electoral system is not on the government agenda.

Alberta Hansard February 24, 2010276 Ms Redford: Well, Mr. Speaker, there’s legislation coming before this House very shortly that’s going to deal with a number of great recommendations that were made by both the current Chief Electoral Officer and the former Chief Electoral Officer. I would say that the future of democracy in Alberta is certainly well and good in pl ace, and he shouldn’t be predicting anything else. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Hehr: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Stakeholder groups have spoken to me about what they perceive to be a wilful blindness to solve the problems that have been identified to the government many years ago. An example of this is providing university students with the ability to choose their ordinary residence for the purpose of voting. Why does this governme nt refuse to act when these Albertans are asking for these types of changes? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Ms Redford: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We think that’s an issue of a great deal of importance, as did the former Chief Electoral Officer.

We’ve carefully reviewed the legislation, and I believe students do have that right at the moment. Mr. Hehr: Well, Mr. Speaker, I realize that the Chief Electoral Officer is an officer of this Assembly, but it baffles me why this Legislature would hire an individual who does not want to actually promote individuals voting in elections. What bothers me more is the fact that this minister appears to be satisfied with a 41 per cent voter participation rate in Alberta. To that end, how many of the former electoral reforms will the Justice minister be bringing forward out of the 180 recommendations?

Ms Redford: Well, Mr. Speaker, the legislation will be before this House shortly, and the hon. member will be able to see that for himself. I’m not going to debate that ahead of time. Mr. Speaker, the other thing that I think is very important to discuss here is this constant association between the voter turnout and whether or not democracy is in peril. In this very House one hon. member from this member’s caucus speculated on 10 or 15 reasons why people may or may not have voted in the last election, and none of them had to do with democracy. Legislated Spending Controls Mr. Anderson: Mr.

Speaker, today I introduced a bill that legislates a cap on government spending increases to the rate of inflation plus population growth. Several Alberta Chambers of Commerce chapters, the Taxpayers Federation, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Fraser Institute, and multiple financial policy experts have repeatedly recommended this type of legislation as a critical cornerstone of a responsible fiscal plan for this province as we move forward. To the minister of finance: does he support this type of legislation? Dr. Morton: Mr.

Speaker, I believe there’s a private member’s bill coming before the House on this subject. The principle, of course, I support it, and so does everybody here. But as we’ve had many discussions, putting that into an actual statutory requirement causes certain issues. If you look at what’s happening in most of the U.S. states that have those types of rules right now, you’re seeing massive cuts to education, law enforcement, health care. There needs to be some flexibility there that that statute law . . . The Speaker: The hon. member. 2:20 Mr. Anderson: Thanks.

Actually, in those other jurisdictions it’s the no-debt rule that’s hurting them, not the spending cap rule. That’s something that should be looked into. Just prior to the Premier’s lead ership review last November he promised Albertans and PC Party members uneasy with his leader- ship that he would limit spending increases to inflation plus population growth. The Premier broke this promise a mere 90 days later with Budget 2010. Talk is cheap on this issue. It has to be legislated. If it’s not, it won’t happen.

To the same minister: will he do the right thing for ourselves and for our kids and enshrine this important principle in legislation? Dr. Morton: Mr. Speaker, I might remind the hon. Member for Airdrie-Chestermere that this issue came before the party in Red Deer last November and was actually defeated. We usually listen a little bit to what our party congress says. Again, we’re going to debate this issue next week, and we look forward to a full discussion. Mr. Anderson: Okay. Mr.

Speaker, I’ve heard this minister prior to his most recent a ppointment talk over and over again publicly, and eloquently I might add, about how off track our province’s finances have wandered and the need for this exact type of legislated fiscal restraint. To the minister: now that he is in a position to make a real permanent difference on this issue, will he step up and champion this piece of legislation into law? Dr. Morton: I can only assume, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. Member for Airdrie-Chestermere must be very pleased that I’m now the minister of finance for the government of Alberta. The Speaker: The hon.

Member for Leduc-Beaumont-Devon, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. Employment Standards Information Program Mr. Rogers: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This week the government launched an employment standards campaign, and I believe it’s called Tell Your Boss Where to Go. My question is to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Mr. Minister, with an ominous title like this could you please clarify what the campaign is all about and, as such, how you can justify spending this kind of money during these times of very scarce resources? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Lukaszuk: Well, thank you, Mr.

Speaker. The Tell Your Boss Where to Go campaign is simply about educating our young workforce about the rights and obligations that they have relevant to safety and labour standards. Indeed, it’s a costly venture to educate, but we have cut the spending from $700,000 to $350,000 for this campaign. In the long run it saves Albertans money, it saves lost time, it saves injury times, and it’s important that young people are informed. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Rogers: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the minister: I guess I would say thanks that you managed to cut this program in half from $700,000 to $350,000, but just the same wouldn’t it make more sense to use this $350,000 to hire more employment standards officers to enforce the code?

February 24, 2010 Alberta Hansard 277 Mr. Lukaszuk: Well, Mr. Speaker, for $350,000 we probably would be able to hire about four compliance officers for one year. The benefit of education is long term. If properly educated, young people will prevent themselves from being injured, prevent their colleagues from being injured, so I think that it’s a much more long- term positive effect that we will have. It’s very important that they know their rights and exercise their rights. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Rogers: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again to the same minister: in keeping with the campaign theme, I’m just wondering if the minister might share what is the most effective way and whether he has ever told his boss where to go to find this informa- tion. Mr. Lukaszuk: Mr. Speaker, I’m not sure if the hon. member is referring to my wife or the Premier, but I have to tell you that I haven’t had the need to tell either one where to go. Both of them treat me, although differently, rather well. I would encourage all Alberta workers to tell their bosses where to go to get information on labour standards. There’s a very easy way to find out.

If you want to go on our website, go to hirestandards.alberta.ca. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary-Mackay. Energy Efficiency Ms Blakeman: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Window rebates, the inclusion of rental properties in rebate initiatives, and support for walking and cycling infrastructure are all smaller but significant initiatives to help reduce emissions. Further areas for the government to pursue are greener building codes and legislation to support the construction and de molition waste reduction program.

To the Minister of Environment. Construction waste makes up 25 per cent of our total waste in Alberta, but only 10 per cent is recycled. When will the mini ster introduce construction and demolition waste reduction legislation? It’s ready to go. It was supposed to come in the fall. Will we see it this spring? Mr. Renner: Mr. Speaker, we’re currently engaged in conversations with the Alberta Construction Association and others associated with this initiative. We have a memorandum of understanding in place.

I can advise the member that that dialogue is ongoing, and I am hopeful that we will be able to move forward as soon as possible. Ms Blakeman: That was a nonanswer. To the same minister: since 96 per cent of Albertans feel that conservation and energy efficiency in our homes is important and 86 per cent of Albertans are willing to pay more for this feature when purchasing a new home, when will the minister increase the energy efficiency requirements for new homes in the provincial building codes? That’s directed to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Mr. Goudreau: Mr. Speaker, I’m sorry.

I wasn’t paying attention to the question. Ms Blakeman: Well, that’s typical but unfortunate. Back to the Minister of Environment. Since there is a high degree of support for legislated energy efficiency targets and the govern- ment’s own 2008 climate change strategy promised it would develop an energy efficiency act, when will the minister introduce energy efficiency legislation? Mr. Renner: Well, Mr. Speaker, the issue of energy efficiency is one that’s critical if we’re going to be able to accomplish the much- needed commitment that we have to CO 2 reduction in our overall climate change strategy.

That being said, the legislation that’s already in place, the climate change and emissions management legislation, has significant amount of authority under our regulation- making powers, and we anticipate that we’ll probably have a two- step approach. We’ll be moving forward under existing legislation and then introducing new . . . The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Mackay, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary-McCall. Market Modified Tuition Fees Ms Woo-Paw: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have heard concern from constituents, students, and educators that the proposed market modified based tuition fee increase to professional faculties would negatively impact accessibility for students with limited financial means, rural students, and students with disabilities. As well, students who intend to pursue a career inside the academic research arena definitely would not make as much money as those who practise. My questions are to the Minister of Advanced Education and Technology. What mechanism do you have in place to ensure equitable access for these students in the face of tuition increases?

The Speaker: The hon. Deputy Premier. Mr. Horner: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First, I’d like to clarify that the market modifier question is really about some of the postsecondary institutions in the province feeling that in a few programs tuition may have been capped too low in 2004, and they requested that opportunity to make the case to me. We’ve said yes, that we would be open to them making the case, but it’s a one-shot deal. To address the question with rega rd to equitable access, that is certainly a priority of this government and this Premier.

We’ve made significant changes over the last several years to our financial assistance program to assist our students. We increased the spousal earnings exemption. Ms Woo-Paw: With the debt remuneration program removed and students having to rely more on loans, would the minister consider providing students impacted by this increase a longer period to pay off the loan, a longer interest-free period, or waiving a portion of their loan when they graduate, stay, and work within the province for a set period of time? Mr. Horner: Well, again, Mr.

Speaker, no decision has been made to increase tuition for any professional programs above the CPI cap. If and when that decision is made, we’re going to ensure that it’s fair and it’s equitable to all students. I’d also like to clarify that we’ve not removed our debt relief program. We still ensure the debt above set threshold is forgiven for qualified graduates to help them ensure that they have manageable debt loads, which is something – again, the affordability framework in this province I would match up against any province in Canada.

We’re improving our repayment assistance plan to provide more flexibility to grad students.

Alberta Hansard February 24, 2010278 Ms Woo-Paw: Again to the same minister: when will you be making your decision on the proposed tuition increases so students can plan accordingly? Mr. Horner: Mr. Speaker, I look forward to discussing the esti- mates in the House for our department because of the great things that we have done in terms of student finance, increasing the living allowances, increasing the lifetime loan maximums, but also we don’t take the issue lightly as it relates to the market modifiers.

We want to make sure that the decisions have the appropriate level of due diligence, that the instituti ons have the appropriate time to prepare their proposals, that we have the appropriate time to assess those proposals and make sure that they’re covering off what we said we wanted to cover off, and then we’ll make those decisions. It is one of the top priorities of the department right now. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-McCall, followed by the hon. Member for St. Albert. 2:30 Calgary International Airport Development Mr. Kang: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Calgary is now the fourth- largest city and its airport is the third busiest in the country. The airport is expanding, and we need to provide for growth around it. The deadline for commitments from the federal and provincial governments for the Calgary International Airport tunnel is ap- proaching, and after March 1 without those commitments the deal is dead. To the Minister of Transportation: why are you killing any chance of Calgary having this necessary airport tunnel by not providing any support, sir? Mr. Ouellette: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is absolutely wrong again today.

We supply all kinds of support to the city of Calgary. This is a municipal, local road, and the municipal district of the city of Calgary should be making their priorities on what they do with the money we give them on what roads they plan to build. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Kang: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The city of Calgary already committed $50 million, and the airport authority committed $40 million. This issue is a provincial one, not just one for the city of Calgary. This government should be looking at the issue from this perspective, not running away from it.

To the minister again: why isn’t the government treating this vital tunnel as an issue of provin- cial importance? Mr. Ouellette: Mr. Speaker, this hon. member knows that every single issue in the province is an issue for this government, but there are ways of handling the issues. I can’t run out and try and find money on a tree somewhere to start supporting areas that are not my responsibility. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Kang: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just as it would improve Alberta’s competitiveness for the federal government to open up the Calgary airport to more flights from overseas, so too would it improve Alberta’s competitiveness to have an airport that is fully accessible to the whole city of Calgary and the whole of Alberta. Why is the minister unable to see the competitiveness incentive behind this? Mr. Ouellette: Mr. Speaker, I also have to tell the hon. member that he’s into another area that’s not my jurisdiction. Other airlines’ open skies agreements are the full purview of the federal govern- ment.

They regulate who is allowed to fly into this country, province, wherever you want to call it. I’ve written letters to that minister agreeing that Alberta would love to have open skies and bring more people and allow other airlines to fly into Calgary and to fly into Edmonton so that we have more competitive rates for all of our constituents. The Speaker: The hon. Member for St. Albert, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona. Swan Hills Treatment Centre Mr. Allred: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Swan Hills Treatment Centre is an important facility in Alberta and has certainly served the province very well in removing thousands, maybe millions of tonnes of PCBs from the environment. However, unfortunately, it is now losing money. My first question is to the Minister of Infrastructure. Is he concerned about this operating loss, and what are his plans to rectify it? Mr. Danyluk: Well, first of all, Mr. Speaker, I need to say that when the government took over the Swan Hills treatment plant, the goal was to provide a public service.

The facility has done an excellent job to rid this province of PCBs and dioxins, and the primary goal is to operate a service that provides and is aimed to be efficient. There is no doubt that there is a $23 million annual net cost. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Allred: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I didn’t hear him really enunciate what his plans were to rectify the situation. Mr. Danyluk: Well, Mr. Speaker, every five years we do an assessment of that plant, and there has been a review of the facility. We are presently as a government reviewing the recommendations.

If I can add that the federal regulations call for the elimination of PCBs in Canada by 2015, and that will have a major play on the revenue of that plant . . . The Speaker: The hon. member. [interjection] The hon. member has the floor. Mr. Allred: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the same minister. The treatment centre processes waste other than PCBs. You mentioned the year 2015. What w ill happen to that waste if the plant was to close in 2015? Mr. Danyluk: Well, Mr. Speaker, we’re not just looking at the cost efficiency. We are looking at where hazardous waste can be disposed of.

Presently we have 57 facilities in this province that can dispose of different forms of hazardous waste. In addition, there are many out-of-province alternatives. As I said before, the PCBs are to be eliminated – well, I hope by the federal government – by 2015, so there are facilities out there. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona. Caribou Habitat Protection Ms Notley: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This government has bad forest management policies, and threatened and endangered species are paying the price.

With less than 3,000 woodland caribou left in Alberta, they are a species at risk, and it is because their natural

February 24, 2010 Alberta Hansard 279 habitat has been decimated. For years the government has been warned about this. Why won’t the Minister of Sustainable Resource Development look at the first word in his ministry’s name and start protecting the habitat for caribou? Mr. Knight: Well, Mr. Speaker, you know, we have been protecting caribou habitat in the province of Alberta at least for 30 or 35 years. It’s been very well recognized. The work that we’re doing currently in the province of Alberta: again, well recognized.

The caribou recovery plan and movements forward with things like the lower Athabasca regional plan all contain major pieces of work that have to do with habitat protection for caribou. We’re very well aware of this, very well aware that Albertans and other Canadians . . . The Speaker: The hon. member. [interjection] Thank you. The hon. member. Ms Notley: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, instead of protecting natural habitat, the government is faulting wolves. They poison them, and now they’re shooting them from helicopters. In 2008 seventy-two wolves were killed, 160 more last year, and 35 so far this year.

This government’s plan to protect caribou must be bulk buying of bullets. Will the Mini ster of SRD tell this House how many more wolves will be shot from helicopters before he finally protects enough of the boreal forest to give caribou a future? Mr. Knight: Well, Mr. Speaker, there are times when the balance between predator and prey gets out of shape, and in certain areas in the province of Alberta that’s what we have happening now. There are a number of reasons that the wolf population in this short term needs to be controlled.

The control measures that we have put in place have helped the Little Smoky caribou herd be very successful over the last two or three years. They can’t have it both ways. We need to do some control. Ms Notley: Well, in fact, Mr. Speaker, the last general status of Alberta wild species report says that wolves are a problem because of human activity. This report didn’t say that wolves should be shot because human activity is a priority. It said that maintenance of old growth forest is critical, but this government has ignored their own recommendation for five years.

Why does the minister continue to ignore recommendations critical to the survival of woodland caribou? Mr. Knight: Well, Mr. Speaker, first of all, what I have to say is that the wolves that I’m talking to that live at my place aren’t telling me that it’s me that’s bothering them or creating a situation where they have become more populous. The truth of the matter is that alternate sources of food, like more deer, more elk, more rabbits, more mice, more whatever, have created a situation where popula- tions of wolves are increasing at exponential levels in some places.

Some control is necessary, and we do that to protect the caribou. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Fish Creek. Crime and Safe Communities Recommendations Mrs. Forsyth: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. In 2007 the government received the recommendations of the Crime Reduction and Safe Communities Task Force, that I had the privilege of chairing. At the press conference the Premier said that he would implement all of the recommendations that were released in this report. Sadly, that isn’t happening. My question is to the Minister of Service Alberta.

Why has your department not changed FOIP legislation so that law enforcement communities, school and health agencies could share information without the risk of being sued? 2:40 The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mrs. Klimchuk: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With respect to FOIP legislation and that particular matter, that is something I’m prepared to check into and get back to the hon. member on. Mrs.

Forsyth: The safe communities report also recommended that a tracking system be established and reported on key indicators such as delays in court proceedings, the number and percentage of cases where bail is provided, the number of bail violations, and the percentage of cases in which the maximum penalty is provided. Why has the Justice minister not produced legislation on requiring annual reports on this? Ms Redford: Mr. Speaker, we run a court system quite effectively.

We’ve introduced in the last two years as a result of the report some very significant initiatives and projects such as the court case management project. We don’t need legislation; we do it as a matter of course. Mrs. Forsyth: Well, Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister to read the report again. It was accepted by the Premier. The issue of crime prevention is an important one, but the best crime prevention strategy is to stop crime before it takes place.

To help prevent families from being overwhelmed and at risk, the task force recommended that a family source be established within the provincial government to provide information, resources, and community connections. When will the Justice minister identify that central resource, and when will it be in place, as the Premier has promised Albertans? Ms Redford: Well, Mr. Speaker, as the member has mentioned, there were 31 recommendations in that report. We’ve taken that very seriously.

As a government we’ve committed half a billion dollars to do more than implement 31 recommendations, to change the way that government works, and to make sure that we honour that report. We take it very seriously. The Speaker: Hon. members, today we had the opportunity to recognize 18 different members. There were 108 questions and answers: 12 came from the opposition parties, six from the govern- ment. In a few seconds from now we’ll continue with the Routine. head: Tabling Returns and Reports (continued) The Speaker: Are there additional tablings for today? The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre.

Ms Blakeman: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I have two tablings today. The first is from Jan Buterman. They are comment- ing on their concern with the city centre inner-city school closure recommendations, particularly noting the Edmonton school board comments on being overburdened with 30,000 excess student spaces yet without explanation of the provincially mandated funding practices, and wonder how many people are aware of the demands placed upon school boards by the province when it comes to developing new facilities.

Alberta Hansard February 24, 2010280 My second tabling is from David Phillips on the subject of needing a fair sales tax to pay fo r health care in which they note, “We need a fair sales tax to pay for health care.” Thank you. head: Orders of the Day head: Government Bills and Orders Second Reading Bill 4 Dangerous Goods Transportation and Handling Amendment Act, 2010 Mr. Olson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to move second reading of Bill 4, the Dangerous Goods Transportation and Handling Amendment Act, 2010. As I outlined when I introduced this bill several days ago, this is an important bill for industry.

In essence, the act is just being refreshed, though, to ensure that Alberta’s legislation is consistent with federal legislation. That federal legislation is the Transporta- tion of Dangerous Goods Act, 1992, which was amended in June of 2009.

Components of this bill, the Dangerous Goods Transportation and Handling Amendment Act, 2010, include giving Alberta the ability to require security plans for certain prescribed dangerous goods, requiring shippers to report lost and stolen shipments of dangerous goods, clarification of details for the manufacture and use of containers used in the transportation of dangerous goods, and introduction of an administrative penalty option that would enable Alberta Transportation and industry to deal with noncompliance issues outside the provincial court system.

This isn’t adding regulation because, largely, the regulations already exist in federal legislation, but it does provide Alberta industry with protection by creating provincial jurisdiction over these issues so that it continues to be business as usual for industry here. Matching provincial legislation to federal legislation as much as possible also helps achieve some standard conditions for move- ment of dangerous goods within provinces and across Canada. The changes are mainly administrative in nature and minor, but it also helps protect our provincial jurisdiction over enforcing regulations.

I urge all members to support this important legislation, and I’d ask that we now adjourn debate. Thank you. [Motion to adjourn debate carried] Bill 6 Emergency Management Amendment Act, 2010 The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs. Mr. Goudreau: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On behalf of the Member for Calgary-Montrose I’d like to move second reading of Bill 6, the Emergency Management Amendment Act, 2010. Mr. Speaker, the vision for Municipal Affairs is to create strong, safe, and sustainable communities.

This bill is part of our govern- ment’s response to strengthen the emergency management system across the province. Search and rescue teams support our provincial emergency services. This bill will extend the good-faith liability protection currently provided to firefighters to search and rescue workers and their organizations. There is growing concern over potential civil litigation, making it difficult for these organizations to recruit volunteers while incurring increased insurance and administrative costs. One search and rescue group in British Columbia suspended its service over concerns of legal liability.

This is not only an Alberta issue, Mr. Speaker, but a national issue. This bill will extend the good-faith liability protection currently provided to firefighters to search and rescue workers and their organizations while they’re providing emergency rescue services under the act. By supporting search and rescue teams, we are demonstrating the government’s commitment to providing safe and strong communities. Another amendment, Mr.

Speaker, will focus on the language of the act to change the current “gross negligence” standard for providing emergency services to one of “good faith.” This matches the language found in the Municipal Government Act. Changing the legal standard from gross negligence to good faith would provide consistency and alignment with other legislation in Alberta that sets out a liability standard. This w ill also provide add itional legal defences to the minister, local authorities, and their agents and help limit their exposure to lawsuits.

An example is ham radio operators who perform a specialized function during an emergency on behalf of the ministry or a local authority. Finally, Mr. Speaker, changes to the act will focus on regional emergency service delivery and will make it easy for communities to work together during an emergency. These amendments will allow for the establishment of regional service commissions, regional directors of emergency management, and other partnerships to deliver emergency management services.

This will help munici- palities provide a cross-jurisdictional response to a disaster, better serving their residents during a crisis. By centralizing services, the administrative, financial, and training burden placed on municipali- ties could be reduced. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, this bill introduces changes that will help protect Alberta search and rescue teams from liability claims. Amendments will also strengthen the emergency management system by formalizing regional co-operation amongst communities. I urge members to support Bill 6, and I look forward to further discussions on this matter. Mr.

Speaker, I request that we adjourn debate at this time on Bill 6, Emergency Management Amendment Act, 2010. [Motion to adjourn debate carried] 2:50 head: Government Bills and Orders Committee of the Whole [Mr. Cao in the chair] The Chair: The chair would like to call the committee to order. Bill 5 Appropriation (Supplementary Supply) Act, 2010 The Chair: Are there any comments or questions? The hon. President of the Treasury Board first. Mr. Snelgrove: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As we deal in Commit- tee of the Whole with appropriation, supplementary supply, it’s important to identify the fact that the huge majority of the money in these supplementary estimates is being spent on health through the H1N1 and addressing the accumulated deficit of the health board ending in March of ’09. It deals with the issue of forest fires, and quite candidly it forced us to move money from different areas to accommodate spending programs by the federal government.

Outside of those numbers, the bulk of the increase was in Employ- ment and Immigration, where it’s very difficult to identify where the pressures on a social system will arise given the economic conditions

February 24, 2010 Alberta Hansard 281 that the government went through. In fact, when you take out the items that I’ve identified, it’s actually less than one-half of 1 per cent of our total spending that was involved in it. But a billion is a big number and deserves the attention of the Assembly, and I look forward to the discussion in Committee of the Whole. The Chair: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. Ms Blakeman: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to approach this in a couple of different sections, and the first is to talk about the process, which the hon.

President of the Treasury Board has referred to in his comments. There are a couple of observations that I’d like to make. I continue to be dismayed and perplexed, actually, about why we see such frequent requests for supplementary supply and the am ount and the number of departments that are affected. I have a chart in front of me that staff were kind enough to make up, and it only goes back to ’99-2000. Actually, since I’ve been here, the ’96-97 fiscal year and on, there has been at least one and often two supplementary supply estimates every year.

I accept that there are some things that you need a supplementary supply budget for; for example, forest fires. We hope there are not any. They have to put some amount in the budget, and then you deal with what you get. Fair enough. I understand that, and I would expect to see that happening. But this has become common practice with this government, and it is far, far more than covering the costs of forest fires or this year the extraordinary costs of H1N1. You can certainly see a clear explanation for why that couldn’t be anticipated down to the exact dollar.

I am more concerned with what I see as a planning and perhaps a management deficit in that this is now commonpl ace. We just expect it, at least one or two a year, and it’s covering not one or two departments but nine, 10, 12, 14 departments. Often more than half of the departments that this government administers programs through come forward in a supplementary supply estimate, and at that I have to call question. We have nine departments in front of us this year, so I’ll put that on the record. You know, the government always gets up and says: “Oh, well, come on. Give us a break.

There have been all kinds of things we couldn’t anticipate.” But I have to say that with the resources behind the government, with the time and care and expertise they’re able to call upon to work out things like the projected price of a barrel of oil within, you know, a minutia of a cent or gas or the royalty rate, they clearly have a lot of expertise to pull upon for certain areas when they’re interested in it. I just feel that they get sloppy in the rest of the areas and could be doing a better job overall on tightening up their original budgeting process.

The second thing I’m seeing in the budgeting process: again, I would call it a sloppiness except that it’s worse than that b ecause there’s an intent behind it. I want to be careful to convey that I think this just isn’t a matter of: well, whoops, didn’t pay a lot of attention. I think this is deliberate. What I’m seeing in last year’s budget and this year’s budget – and we see the effect of last year’s budget in the supplementary supply in front of us – is a lack of budgeting.

When closely questioned on items that are in particular departments and just about any department but certainly the ones I witnessed, I would often hear back from ministers: well, we’re working on that; well, we’re developing a policy; yeah, well, we’ll figure out a way to do that; well, you know, don’t forget that we’ve got such and such a plan or a strategy coming.

In the world that I come from, which is the not-for-profit sector, a budget is clearly a plan on exactly how you’re going to spend the money, where your revenue is going to come from, how your expenses are going to go out, and you’ve got to be pretty tight on that stuff. You can’t say: “Yeah, I think I’m going to produce a show at the Citadel. It’ll be a million bucks. It’ll have some actors in it and be written by somebody, and yeah, there’ll probably be costumes.” You’ve got to know what you’re doing.

But that is what I’m seeing from the government, and I’m beginning to wonder if they actually are budgeting for particular programs. You know, this year again as I questioned, the Minister of Culture and Community Spirit and I got a little snippy with each other because I said, “Where’s this money going to come from that you’re going to find somewhere to finance this thing that you don’t have enough money for?” He said, “I’m not going to talk about that.” “Excuse me? It’s a budget debate.

You’re supposed to be able to defend to me what you’re spending the money on.” “Well, I’m not going to talk about that.” “Really? Where are you going to get the money from? What programs are you going to take it from?” “Oh, uh, we’ll see.” That’s what the budget is for. It’s a plan of how you’re going to do it, and if you can’t tell me how you’re going to do that as we go through the budget debates, that’s telling me the government doesn’t know, and that is going to put us in much deeper problems down the road.

The third observation I want to make is the amount of information that’s actually contained in the supplementary supply estimates booklet that we get. Usually the requests that are coming forward under supplementary supply tend to break into a couple of different categories. We’re not talking, you know, 15 different ways that that money is going to be spent. Even when you look at the health budget, which is one of the larger ones, as the President of the Treasury Board observed, it essentially breaks into four categories.

I’m quoting here from page 24: “$343,000,000 to f und Alberta Health Services’ accumulated deficit as of March 31, 2009.” It gives you four lines of description there, so it’s breaking into not very many categories. We’re not getting a heck of a lot of information here. Let me use one of my critic portfolios as an example as to how little information is given here and how easy it is to give more information.

On page 16, under the supplementary supply estimates requested for Culture and Community Spirit, one line: “This supplementary amount of $2,888,000 is requested to provide for site reclamation costs incurred at various historic sites related to environmental liabilities that were expensed in prior years.” When I questioned – and the President of the Treasury Board was kind enough to stand and give an answer – that actually covers three locations. What was the problem with listing the three locations in this booklet? It’s another line of ink.

Was it going to break you to just be able to say this much fo r this facility, this much for this facility, and this much for this facility? I’m not quite sure what all the secrecy is about, the need to sort of, you know, open the book for a quick little glimpse and then shut it again. If you want us to co- operate with this stuff, what is the problem in actually giving us the information on what this is about? 3:00 Even with the Health and Wellness budget: okay, it’s the costs of responding to an H1N1 pandemic. What exactly was that? Could we get a better description of how that breaks down?

Again, you’ve got a full page. You could fill up the whole page without it costing you more money for the booklet. It’s blank. You could fill it with information; it wouldn’t kill you. It contributes to the idea that this government is fixated on secrecy and keeping information to itself. I’m just trying to help you out, just trying to make you more popular than you already are and win over some more friends to your side. But, honestly, you could give us some more information there.

Alberta Hansard February 24, 2010282 Housing and Urban Affairs, two lines. Look at all the page you could have filled up, te lling me what you were up to with that money. That’s just a wee little suggestion for you to follow up on. I think it would be helpful. As we encourage people to become more interested in what we’re doing in this Assembly, they do follow along online. They do watch the podcasts. They watch the live audio and video streaming. Some of them are getting very well educated in following us. They’re interested in that kind of thing, too.

So I think that just one person, one little opposition MLA standing up and saying, “You could give us more information” is going to give way to a lot more people saying: “Hey, what is this? We want to be able to see what this is about in a more reasonable way.” Again, I don’t want a volume. I don’t need tens of pages on this. But surely you can give me more than a sentence, especially when you know what it is. It looks to me like you don’t know what you were doing. You needed money to cover some kind of reclamation area in culture, but you didn’t know quite what it was. So that’s that little bit.

The other issues that I wanted to raise are some things that aren’t in here and probably shouldn’t be in here but should probably be considered in the long run. I’m sorry. There was one more thing that came under the helpful hints section. That is the number of times that I’m seeing the government slyly present federal money as part of a provincial budget. To be honest, you’re fessing up a bit more in this supple- mentary supply document than you have in the budget. You actually fess up someplace that this is including transfer payments from the feds. You know where it was?

Employment and Immigration, I’ll bet you. No, it wasn’t. I’ve read through it recently. Sorry. Mr. Snelgrove: Advanced ed. Ms Blakeman: You think it’s advanced ed? Yes. That’s exactly right. They do fess up on page 12 for Advanced Education and Technology, right in the little documentation – good on them, little brownie points, yay, check mark – that “$97,681,000 is offset by a transfer from the federal government under the Knowledge Infra- structure Program.” Good on you. Thanks for that. But that’s not always the case.

It’s very interesting doing the supplementary supply budget at the same time as you’re doing the following year’s estimates, budgets. You might want to think about that the next time you

schedule these things together because I get a lot of comparison opportunities. Increasingly, as I say, is the number of times that the government is not admitting that something has happened which is, in fact, federal government transfers. Again, I’ll go to the one that I know well, which is Culture and Community Spirit. The way the govern- ment press release read, that department officially admitted that it was cut by 1.8 per cent, yet when you looked at it, it was cut by closer to 20 per cent in most of those areas, $35 million, but it was offset by $30 million of capital spending.

You think: oh, well, that’s okay; all righty. When you look at that – and I actually went through, and I dug out the federal government press releases, and there are all the dates – that $30 million is federal money. It’s not provincial money, but it’s showing up in the budget for this depart- ment as though it is operating expenditure money. I know why it’s there. Because the provincial government doesn’t actually own those facilities, they cannot claim any money they put into them as a capital asset or a capital expense. It gets expensed out in the year that it’s in. I understand that.

But to actually try to pretend that this is money that the government was putting into this: no. That requires a closer acquaintance with the truth. Sorry. That was the final bit of observation I wanted to make about the process and the reporting structure that we’re dealing with. Now, a couple of issues that I wanted to raise as part of what I’m seeing here. I’m sorry. Would pensions come up under Employ- ment and Immigration or under Treasury Board? Mr. Snelgrove: Finance. Ms Blakeman: Finance. Oh boy. I was way off. Okay.

I think that one of the things we need to look at and that I am quite concerned about is protection of Albertans’ investments in private- sector pension plans. Who of us ever imagined that Nortel would go down? Never. Nobody would have thought that that one was going to happen, yet it did. The pensions that Albertans have through that company are imperilled or have been reduced or lost. I think it is incumbent upon us to look to legislation that would better protect Albertans’ money that is part of a corporate or a private-sector pension plan.

In some cases, like with GM, those pension plans are invested with the unions. They’re safer there, frankly. But for those that are being held by private-sector corpora- tions, I think we have a good argument that we need to step up and protect Albertans. If it doesn’t, it’s going to end up in a supplemen- tary supply document somewhere down the road because we’re now having to add money to a number of assistance programs, like we’re seeing in the Employment and Immigration budget, to help out Albertans. Staying with the Employment and Immigration budget, I am frustrated with what I’m seeing here.

It is important, where we have programs that are structured to assist Albertans, that we do it, that we make use of those programs, that we spend that money as appropriate. My frustration is that we are essentially in year 2 of the recession. It started in year 1. For us to have to be looking at a supplementary supply budget for training programs and higher caseloads in health benefits and a higher caseload in income support: I would have expected the government to be more on top of that. This recession didn’t start, you know, this year. It started last year.

Why were we not able to better anticipate the number of people? I mean, computer modelling makes everything possible now. They can computer model how to put somebody on Mars, but we can’t computer model how many Albertans are going to require the various assistance programs that exist so that we’re able to budget at the beginning of a fiscal year what the uptake will be on the cases? I would have expected better. I am surprised to see the number of programs. We’ve got here $4.6 million for employment program planning and delivery.

We’ve got $28 million for employment and training programs for skill development and to maintain employment, $25.9 million for health benefits due to higher caseloads and costs per case, and $129.7 million for income supports due to higher caseloads and costs per case. That’s a whack of money and a lot of people, clearly. I’m surprised that the projections were not closer to the mark. Maybe somebody is able to tell me why that happened and why we’re not able to get a little closer to the mark. The other issue – sorry. I tend to keep all these things in a file. I’ll deal with that another time. Okay.

That’s a great opportunity. Thank you very much for allowing me to put those observations on the record. Maybe I’ll be able to hear back from somebody, which would be helpful. I appreciate the opportunity to speak. 3:10 The Chair: The hon. Member for Calgary-Varsity. Mr. Chase: Thank you very much. I appreciate how difficult it is preparing a budget, especially during a r ecessional time period. I understand the need for having a supplementary supply budget. I do

February 24, 2010 Alberta Hansard 283 believe that certain forecasting is available, and as the hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre mentioned, there are programs that could give us a degree of insight or forecast. One of the things that is missing from the sup supply budget is the $23 million, the 1 per cent difference, in the arbitrator’s agreement for teachers. Now, I understand that the budgets have to be prepared well in advance, but my understanding is that the supplemental supply budget’s purpose is to add on those missing factors so that the province can run smoothly.

Right off the top $23 million is missing from Education as well as any kind of increased funding to recog- nize special needs, school infrastructure, and so on. It’s the second- largest investment this province has after health, but there’s nothing additional to it, so it’s basically more cuts. Under Advanced Education and Technology while there was increased funding for student loans, there was no increased funding for grants, for bursaries, or for operational funding.

As a result, the universities, most likely, at least the University of Alberta and the University of Calgary, are going to be asking the government, the minister of advanced education, to allow them to increase profes- sional faculty tuitions up to 60 per cent, which will have a dramatic door-closing effect on those faculties. Under Culture and Community Spirit during a time of recession is a time more than any other for both our mental and physical well- being that we need the arts supported. We need to enjoy the arts. Some might call it a distraction. Others might call it an inventive celebratory spirit.

Under Employment and Immigration the hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre mentioned what’s happened with failing compa- nies such as Nortel. I attended a meeting earlier in the month at the Varsity Community Association where a number of Nortel employ- ees, many of whom had their LTD cancelled and have no idea what small percentage of their pension they’ll get back, were extremely concerned. As the Member for Edmonton-Centre pointed out, these people will find themselves on the dole in some form in Alberta because their company pension plans fell apart.

The federal government hasn’t enacted any legislation to cover these individuals; therefore, it’s going to fall on the province to pick up their financial pieces, and there are quite a few of those pieces to be picked up. In a time of recession, when we need to get people working – and a number of people have gone back or tried to get into postsecondary institutions to get upgrading – the government has cancelled funding for the Alberta Works programs. I think it was mentioned that 78,000 people were unemployed. Trying to get them upgraded and re-employed should be a focus. Unfortunately, it’s not.

Under Health and Wellness I’m concerned about the amount of money that’s going into private, for-profit clinic contracting versus operations performed within public facilities. Part of that problem in Calgary is that we lost half of our public facilities. This falls under Advanced Education as well as Health and Wellness and, I guess, under Employment as well. This government did the right thing in creating a number of postsecondary sp aces at the universities and at the colleges, Grant MacEwan and Mount Royal now having joined the universities, for registered nurse training.

We’ve put out those significant subsidies to encourage nurses to train in this province, yet there had been a freeze on hiring. Now the new minister is speculating about reopening 300 beds. We have the rooms, we have the space, but we don’t have the nurses to make those beds operational. That money isn’t specifically tagged in this budget, so I don’t know where it’s going to come from. Under Housing and Urban Affairs my concern is the reduction in rental subsidies and the fact that there’s nothing left in the homeless and eviction prevention fund. We’re far from being through the recession.

The minimum wage has been frozen, and I don’t see a whole lot of help for individuals who are at the poverty end of the scale. When it comes to Sustainable Resource Development, I was pleased to see that there was supplemental investment, for example, in fighting pine beetles, which was positive, but the elimination of the junior warden program, a program that gave students an opportunity to have a wilderness experience, to consider a potential education towards forestry, towards conservation, towards sustain- able resource development careers – that’s been cut short.

These young people would have been the eyes and the ears in the parks at a very low investment cost. Last night, of course, we had the Tourism, Parks and Recreation budget. That budget took a $30 million hit. There’s very little increase in the supplementary supply budget. What was discussed was that rather than provincial parks being expanded, there will actually be a reduction in park operations. There will be a reduction in seasonal personnel. That’s a concern for me.

Also, while more money is being spent promoting tourism, the actual product is being reduced because the quality of the experience is being reduced through lack of infrastructure maintenance, lack of trail mainte- nance, and so on. Last week we had a good discussion about the need to keep our parks vibrant. I’m also concerned when it comes to Transportation. When I had the former responsibility of being the opposition critic for Infrastruc- ture and Transportation, I frequently brought up the concern I had about highway 63. It’s taking forever to get that key economic route twinned.

In the meantime we continue to have significant loss of life on that particular highway. It also concerns me that there seems to be no plan for our east-west corridor, the twinning of highway 3. While sup supply alone can’t possibly solve the problem, almost half of our highways in this province are in fair to poor condition, and that’s obviously a concern. This supplementary supply budget is part of the carry-over until April, at which time more financial announcements will probably be made.

Maybe some of the concerns that I’ve indicated such as where we go with advanced education tuition increases or subsidized support from the government will be revealed. In the meantime there are an awful lot of Albertans living on the edge, wondering to what extent they can count on this government for support as they seek employment, as they seek further education and, in some cases, struggle just to keep a roof over their heads.

The backdrop for this play is a $17 billion sustainability fund, and I hope that in future supplementary budgets and budgets to follow we’ll see that $17 billion invested in a sustainable, predictable, supportive way for Albertans. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 3:20 The Chair: The hon. Member for Lethbridge-East. Ms Pastoor: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I’m going to start off with the usual mantra that I think you probably hear from this side, and I’m quite sure that other members in the House have probably said this to themselves as well: how on earth can a budget be balanced if you always have to come back to the trough for extra money? Certainly, I know that if families ran their budgets like that, the personal debt in Canada would be a great deal higher than what it already is, and it already is at an alarming rate. I certainly can understand the need for supplemental funds for emergencies.

But my question is that in my budget I have money put aside for, quote, emergencies. I don’t understand why we don’t have an emergency budget or some dollars put aside, I would

Alberta Hansard February 24, 2010284 suspect, in addition to the sustainability fund and in addition to the heritage trust fund because I think we can guarantee that in a province this busy, in a province that has not only the labour side in terms of high-risk labour costs – we never know what’s going to go on, and usually there is some kind of an emergency. We have no idea what it may be, but to put money aside to be able to meet it when it does come I think would be wise planning. In Housing and Urban Affairs there was $3,488,000 in unspent funds – $3,488,000 in unspent funds.

Now, which programs did not spend their total budget? I find that amazing. I believe the same thing happened in the department for the PDD funds. I think there was $10 million that wasn’t spent. I can understand, perhaps, taking that money back. But who suffered as a result of not spending these dollars? They were budgeted to be spent in a particular way, and the question I think is quite clear: wh y weren’t they spent?

If that money was clawed back and put back into the budget, then it certainly should look better for the next year, and they wouldn’t have to necessarily require all of these supplementary accounts that they’ve been asking for, all of these extra dollars. Under Municipal Affairs they were asking for more supplemental funds. Again unspent funds and not n ecessarily explained where that money went when they found out that it wasn’t spent. Some of that money was for H1N1. Absolutely. Totally necessary. But why didn’t we have emergency fund money put aside?

One of the questions that I would ask under Municipal Affairs – there was a report that came out. I think it was called the heat intensity residential fire report, and it was as of 2007. There were some recommendations in there, some of which I think should be under further discussion. I also believe that developers should be at the table when this discussion takes place because most of it has to do with the construction side.

In fact, some of the statistics were that many of these fires, a goodly portion of these fires, were based on carelessness: smoking in your homes, barbecues on your back porches, or arson on construction sites. I think that is what I’ve heard from the other side many times: education, education, education. I’m not altogether sure that those kinds of preventive things actually should be legislated, but it would appear that the recommendations coming out of that particular report are.

As I’ve mentioned, I think one of the most important things is that the developers be at the table because they are the ones who are going to incur the extra cost as a result of what I think upon reading that report was just a little bit, perhaps, over the top in terms of regulations. I know this government often speaks about not having a lot of regulations, having the freedom to go forward, having the entrepreneurial spirit that they always speak about, and now we’re going to have a competitiveness bill to talk about.

Well, I don’t think that when you have all of these regulations made by people who aren’t in the industry that is actually going to suffer the consequences of them, these recommendations shouldn’t be – in my mind, go back to the table and have the developers there with them. One of the recommendations was to have the municipalities and the developers involved, but that was a recommendation going ahead. I would like to see that particular discussion happen before the recommendations go forward for any kind of legislation to be made around them. Mr.

Chair, I believe that my colleague from Calgary-Varsity spoke very well to Education. Again, nonbudgetary disbursements. I know that you talk about the sustainability fund a lot, and I know it’s always nice to have that little cushion behind you, but I think that when you look at family budgets, there is not only the cushion for saving; there’s also the cushion for maintenance of the homes, if they happen to have a home, and there’s always that little bit extra put aside for emergen- cies.

This is what I would like to see this government do because we always will have something that is over and above what we could possibly imagine when we’re putting that budget together. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. The Chair: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona. Ms Notley: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’m pleased to be able to rise and join in debate on Bill 5. This is a b ill where the government is seeking from this Legislature permission to spend roughly another billion dollars.

I think the Me mber for Edmonton-Highlands- Norwood made the point, when he was talking about this issue a couple of days ago, that it seems that we have a real problem with our budgeting process in that it really doesn’t seem to be a real thing anymore. We have a budget presented to us, and we have a bunch of sort of pretend cuts made in that budget or pretend savings or whatever they are, and then we herald to all corners of the province our ability to either balance the budget or come closer to balancing the budget than we’d expected, whatever the case may be.

Then we come back here eight months later, and we ask for more money because, in fact, we never really meant it. We never really meant that we were only going to spend that much money. Now, of course, as you know, I’m not a big advocate of cuts. That’s not what I’m here for, but I do think that we need to be able to have an honest conversation with Albertans about what it is that we’re spending and what it is that we’re going to have to spend.

It seems to me that we have gotten into the habit of strategically underestimating certain expenditures throughout the budget in order to try and paint a better picture at a time when the government feels its under a great deal of political pressure to bring in a more balanced budget. It seems to me that we’ve done this in a number of different areas. Of course, just to state at the outset, there are some areas that are less predictable, and that’s what we should be here for. We should be spending this time coming back to talk about those expenditures which arose which were simply not predictable.

The H1N1 is a perfect example of that kind of thing. That had a number of additional costs attached to it, and no one could have necessarily predicted that. That’s what supplemental estimates should be about. 3:30 We shouldn’t be coming here to talk about things that anybody could have seen coming 12 or 13 months ago. Of course, the perfect example of that is the Employment and Immigration budget.

Last year the government suggested that it was going to be able to maintain the level of funding that it had had previously in place for income support, and everybody knew that the unemployment rate was increasing dramatically. Everyone knew that we were going into a recession. Everyone knew that there were going to be significant changes. So, no big surprise, here we are, you know, 10 months later from when the budget was passed asking for an additional $130 million for income supports, or $150 million when you include the health benefits. We all knew that that was going to happen.

Of course, now we’re going into this current budget, and we’re pretending that that number is going to actually come down. We have no reason to believe that because what we’ve seen is that caseloads are going up very, very dramatically. There’s no reason to believe that they will stop going up, and there’s certainly no reason to believe that they’re going to come down. Yet the govern- ment is very intentionally underbudgeting in that area. So it’s very frustrating for us to be here having to deal with these because these are not unpredictable expenditures.

February 24, 2010 Alberta Hansard 285 Now, another thing that I wanted to sort of put on the record is: why do we have this unpredictable form of budgeting? Because the government wants to be able to say: “Oh, look at us. Look at us. We’ve come relatively close to balancing the budget.” My position on this is that, you know, if you want to do that, instead of making up fantasy budgets where we have fantasy line items and fantasy cost-reduction plans, why don’t we look at the revenue side of the formula?

Why don’t we acknowledge the fact that by going to the flat tax eight or nine years ago, we are effectively shortchanging this budget this year by roughly $5 billion? Why don’t we look at that? There are ways to bring this budget into balance. There were ways for this government last year to make this budget balanced, but they refused to look at them. We leave billions and bi llions of dollars on the table in this pr ovince primarily for high-income Albertans.

It is a myth that low- and middle-income Albertans pay the least amount of tax in the country, a complete myth, but it is true that high-income Albertans pay the least amount of tax.

At a time when we’re all collectively coming together and acknowledging that we’re in a recession and we all need to chip in and pull up our socks and help out and roll up our sleeves and all those great things, it would seem to me that maybe what we might start doing is saying to those higher income Albertans that it might be more helpful for them to start paying just a portion of that $5 billion that we’ve been leaving on the table year after year after year.

I would suggest that that’s a much better way to balance the budget rather than underestimating chronically, repeatedly, predictably, systemically the expenditures that we need to make. Now, the other key area in these supplemental expenditures that the government is seeking, of course, relates to health.

The government has done quite a grand job of patting itself on the back over the course of the last two or three weeks because they’ve increased spending in health both going forward as well as in the current year in relation to both the Alberta Health Services deficit for the year ’09-10 and also for their so-called surge funding.

I think a number of people, of course, raised the concern that I will mirror, that I’m very concerned about this money being thrown out the window at private deliverers of health care b ecause I believe without qualification that that is the more expensive route to take to addressing that problem and, again, not wise money management. There’s another piece about the money management discussion that I think needs to be addressed.

We’re throwing money at the health care system, not that much ultimately because if you factor in inflation, population increase, the predictable increases of an aging population, in fact we are probably even with the five-year plan, underfunding health care, but at least we’re not grabbing a whole bunch of money and pulling it out. Unfortunately, what we are doing is that we’re grabbing a whole bunch of money and pulling it out of other areas: family and children services, income supports for people with low income, training for people with low incomes who are on income support, housing.

We’re cutting back on our housing expenditures. We’re cutting back in all these areas. If anyone spends even a little bit of time talking about health care, you know full well that the research is pretty unequivocal, that what you need to do is look at that issue more globally, and you need to look at the whole social determinants of health. You need to understand that until you ensure every Albertan has a roof over their head and enough money to put food on the table for themselves and for their children, you are going to have more expense in the health care system.

You’re going to have expense in the health care system that’s going to come back year ov er year over year over year as people who are unable to access secure housing and unable to access any kind of consistent nutritional support will repeatedly end up going to the health care system, where ultimately the care for them costs the taxpayer much, much more than it would have otherwise.

Again, we’re being asked to approve additional money for the health care system, yet unfortunately we’re doing this in the context of a budget that goes forward where we’re going to cut from those other areas which would ensure on a preventative basis that we’re having fewer people enter into the health care system. It’s that kind of silo-based budgeting and that failure to look at the bigger picture and that failure to understand the importance of prevention that is resulting, ultimately, in the need for us to spend more money in this area, more than we need to.

That’s a real concern for us with respect to that issue. Finally, of course, we’ve mentioned before that this request for extra money also deals with the increase in students seeking student loan assistance in order to frantically try and access our postseconda- ry education. Again, what this really is is an opportunity for the government to shift debt load onto individual Alberta citizens.

As I’ve said many other times in the House, we are looking at moving Alberta back to a place where we become the most expensive place in the country for our citizens to access postsecondary education, and our answer to that problem is to simply invite those students to take on more debt. Again, this is not a big picture analysis. This is not a long-term analysis. This is not any kind of planning that is anything other than reactive to the most recent poll and the six- month planning cycle.

I have to say that I understand that it is frustrating sometimes for governments who have to get re-elected to make hard decisions in advance of challenges that won’t be resolved for two or three years down the road. But, good Lord, you know, a government like this, that’s been in power for this long: instead of the way in which we see arrogance demonstrated in ot her ways, we’d think that they would be able to actually plan outside of a polling cycle or an election cycle and actually have some good institutional sort of infrastructures in place.

Instead , we’re right back in a situation where this government is managing our budget as though they’re six months away from an election and they’re on the verge of losing, which they may be this time. But it’s very frustrating to see the lack of foresight which this bill demonstr ates to the rest of us in the Assembly. With those comments, I will complete my commentary on this bill. Thank you. The Chair: The hon. Member for Calgary-Varsity. Mr. Chase: Thank you very much. I very much appreciate the committee format and the opportunity to speak more than once.

Under the what’s missing category I want to bring up C

Document details

Collection	Alberta — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20100224
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	L27 S3 20100224 1330 01 han.pdf
Language	en
Format	json
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	3f88cb1d3e1c7ad5c58b395d9aae32eea8c468b2

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