Alberta Hansard — 23 March 2006, Afternoon sitting (13:30) (Legislature 26, Session 2)

20060323

Alberta — Debates (Hansard)

March 23, 2006 Alberta Hansard 607 Legislative Assembly of Alberta Title: Thursday, March 23, 2006 1:30 p.m. Date: 06/03/23 [The Speaker in the chair] head: Prayers The Speaker: Good afternoon. Let us pray. Let us keep ever mindful of the special and unique opportunity we have to work for our constituents and our province, and in that work let us find strength and wisdom. Amen. Please be seated. head: Introduction of Guests The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Human Resources and Employ- ment. Mr. Cardinal: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I have two introductions.

First of all, it is my pleasure to introduce to you and through you to Members of the Legislative Assembly 25 employees of the personnel administration office who are here on a public service orientation tour. They are seated in the members’ gallery this afternoon. I’d like them to rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of the Assembly. Mr. Speaker, it’s also my pleasure to introduce to you and through you to members of the Assembly 65 grade 6 students from the Gibbons school. They are accompanied by parents and teachers. They are seated in the members’ gallery this afternoon.

I’d like them all to rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of the Assembly. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for St. Albert. Mr. Flaherty: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s a pleasure to introduce to you and through you to members of the Assembly Eric Oddleifson, his wife, Collette, and son Evan. Collette is Evan’s homeroom teacher. He says that he’s a 90 per cent student. They also wrote a letter to the Premier, and I’ll just read the last sentence. It says, “I urge you [Mr.

Premier] to do your job and keep our water clean and keep us safe.” Would you please rise and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Beverly-Clareview. Mr. Martin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have two introductions today. I am pleased to introduce to you and members of the Assembly three guests seated in the public gallery. They are Reg Basken and his two grandchildren, Reg and Kimberley Barry. Reg, of course, is a long-time labour leader in this country.

He was the president of the national Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union, a former president of the AFL. He’s active in many charita- ble organizations, such as the United Way and the Edmonton Community Foundation. Most importantly, he’s president of the Alberta NDP. His grandchildren, Kimberley and Reg Barry, are visiting Edmonton on their school break from Prince George. I see they’re standing. I’d ask that they receive the traditional warm welcome of the Assembly. I’m also delighted today to introduce to you and members of the Assembly Grant McLean.

Grant has served as a senior manager with the government of Alberta in the Department of the Solicitor General and Public Security and was also a former aide-de-camp to the Lieutenant Governor of Alberta. He is an officer in the Order of Military Merit and is a recent recipient of an Alberta centennial medal for his extensive work in our community. Grant is also the former mayor of Airdrie. He is seated in the public gallery. I’d ask that you give him the traditional warm welcome of the Assembly. head: Oral Question Period The Speaker: First Official Opposition main question. The hon.

Leader of the Official Opposition. Endowment Funds Dr. Taft: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This Conservative government has borrowed heavily against Alberta’s future by spending virtually all of the natural resource revenue it takes in each year. The Official Opposition has been leading the charge for a greater emphasis on savings. Even the Premier spoke last September of new endowment funds within a matter of months. My first question is to the Minister of Environment. Why has an environmental endowment fund, critically needed to address water and other issues, simply evapo- rated into thin air? Mr. Boutilier: Mr.

Speaker, quite to the contrary. One thing about this government is that any new idea, such as the hon. member has mentioned, the environmental endowment – I want to say to members here: do we support the environment, ladies and gentle- men? It is very obvious to me that an environmental endowment is a new idea, a new idea that needs to be fed, that needs to be nurtured so that we will make it a reality, and that’s exactly what this government is doing. The Speaker: The hon. leader. Dr. Taft: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to see the line in the budget that addresses that one.

My next question is to the Minister of Advanced Education. Why has this government chosen to completely neglect last year’s flagship legislation by not committing one single penny to the access to the future fund? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Hancock: Thank you.

This government last year indicated in a stellar way through Bill 1 and through the throne speech that we were going to put $5 billion into endowments for the future: half a billion dollars into the Alberta heritage medical research fund, half a billion dollars into the Alberta ingenuity fund, a billion dollars into the heritage scholarship fund, a nd $3 billion into the access to the future fund. That access to the future fund has already generated significant interest in Albertans and others, contributing back to postsecondary education and advanced education in this province. Mr.

Speaker, $750 million has been put into that f und, which will contribute $45 million this year to match those contributions; $250 million has been put into the heritage scholarship fund; $200 million has been put into the ingenuity fund. So we’ve made a huge step forward on that. Yes, of course, I’m pressing for more and pressing for more earlier. Our Premier has indicated that within three years that access to the future fund would be fully funded. One year has gone past. We’ve got two more years to get that done, and I think we’re on track to do it. Dr. Taft: My third question, Mr.

Speaker, is to the Minister of

Alberta Hansard March 23, 2006608 Finance. What has happened to a social sciences endowment fund, crucial to addressing children’s needs? Mrs. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, we’ve made a commitment of some $5 billion to endowments, and we do intend to fully fund those. It would be perhaps imprudent to discuss another endowment, as important as that endowment is. We have made a commitment to do that, but at this point we’re making our commitment to the funds we have. The hon. Minister of Advanced Education mentioned a number of them: the medical research endowment, another $200 million to that plus more coming. Mr.

Speaker, the opposition very conveniently ignores the fact that we have done a debt repayment of $22.7 billion over this time period, saving $1.5 billion in debt servicing. That’s where part of the funds have gone. He conveniently forgets all of the initiatives that we’ve made in health, education, advanced education to move this province forward. Why don’t we just tell the whole story? The Speaker: Second Official Opposition main question. The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition. Unbudgeted Surplus Dr. Taft: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Spending of oil and gas revenues in this province continue s to rise dramatically as this government becomes increasingly reliant on nonrenewable resource revenues. Since 2004 we’ve seen an increase in this spending from $3.5 billion a year to $5.3 billion a y ear. It’s an addiction, and it’s a trend that is clearly unsustainable. My question is to the Minister of Finance. In this time of unpr ecedented boom why is this government increasing nonrenewable resource revenue spending instead of investing the funds so that they become permanent? 1:40 Mrs. McClellan: Mr.

Speaker, again, I think the hon. member discounts and ignores completely the fact that we put $1 billion in the heritage fund in the third quarter. We have another $1 billion going in in this budget. That is a permanent increase to that fund. He also conveniently forgets that we just gave a 16 per cent increase to Advanced Education: I’m sure he would rather not have had that. A 7.7 per cent increase to Health: maybe we shouldn’t have done that. A 5.1 per cent increase to Education: maybe we shouldn’t have done that. And $13.5 billion for capital projects: maybe we didn’t need any of those.

It’s easy to sit on the other side of the House and come up with these types of questions but absolutely no solutions, no answers. Spend more, quit spending: the contradiction is quite amazing. The Speaker: The hon. leader. Dr. Taft: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Actually, we do have an answer, and it’s our own surplus policy. My question to the Treasurer: given that this government clearly lacks direction for the future of this province, why doesn’t it do the right thing and adopt a sustainable policy, the Alberta Liberal policy for surplus investments? Mrs. McClellan: Mr.

Speaker, I suppose that we could have done that this year. We’d have had no increase for health. We’d have had no increase for advanced education. We’d have had no increase for education. We’d have had no increase for children. We’d have had no increase for safer communities, for a better court system. We could have done that. What we’ve said instead is that we will save. We will spend wisely. We no longer have a debt, the only province in Canada that can boast that, probably the only place in North America that can boast that. That’s all conveniently forgotten in this discussion. The Speaker: The hon. leader.

Dr. Taft: Thank you. My final question, to the Minister of Infra- structure and Transportation: given that this government is not endowing capital spending, how does the minister expect to fund repairs of potholes and roads and public buildings when the oil and gas run out? Mrs. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, we have a capital account of $13.5 billion. That’s dedicated to new postsecondary education facilities here, new health facilities across the province, new postsecondary, in fact, across the province. It’s to better roads, including beginning of the twinning of highway 63.

I want to point out to the hon. member that our capital plan is three times the size of any capital plan in any province in Canada today. The Speaker: Third Official Opposition main question. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Manning. Income Support Mr. Backs: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. AISH and PDD in the Seniors and Community Supports department were increased in yesterday’s budget. [interjections] G ood thing. G ood thing. But in Alberta Works, under the human resources department, funds for people in transition and people not expected to work were cut.

These are Albertans who will not benefit from health care premium changes. These are the poorest of the poor and those trying to break free of the welfare cycle. A question to the Minister of Human Resources and Employment: with earnings supplements for the working poor cut 19 per cent and health benefit funding cut 16 per cent, is the minister telling our working poor to expect less? Mr. Cardinal: Mr.

Speaker, of course, it is unfortunate that anyone in Alberta, with such a hot economy and so many services, would go through some challenging times to meet basic needs, but the hon. member is not right to say that there was no increase. There was an increase in the budget for that specific area. We try our best to ensure that the best services that are available can be provided to our clientele. You know, Mr. Speaker, when you go back a number of years, most of the dollars that were spent through the support programs were for single people and couples without children that were employable.

In fact, the welfare caseload at one time was 97,000, with 5,400 staff working and a $1.7 billion budget. At one time 80 per cent of those people on welfare were people that were employ- able and trainable and couples without children. Today, Mr. Speaker, the welfare caseload is down to 25,000, and half of those are expected to work, but half are not expected to work for various reasons. We do not have a welfare office, Mr. Speaker, in Alberta any- more. We have 56 employment centres that assist people to make the transition from welfare to full employment eventually. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr.

Backs: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the same minister: with

March 23, 2006 Alberta Hansard 609 your business plan saying train them to get off welfare, why is this ministry cutting funds to get welfare recipients off supports? Mr. Cardinal: Well, that is not true, Mr. Speaker. In fact, at one time the workers in the department, the 5,400 staff spending $1.7 billion, spent 80 per cent of their time providing support for young people, couples without children, single people that should be working. We do not have that in Alberta.

At the 56 employments centres now when a person walks in for social assistance, they’ll get career counselling, resumé writing, job placement, and the transi- tional supports that are necessary to get them back on their feet. Mr. Backs: To the same minister, Mr. Speaker: with less supports, fewer welfare recipients, are you bringing back the idea of free one- way bus tickets to send welfare recipients out of Alberta? Mr. Cardinal: Mr. Speaker, only the welfare recipients that don’t want to work do that. The others all want jobs and training. The Speaker: The hon.

Member for Edmonton-Beverly-Clareview, followed by the hon. Member for Battle River-Wainwright. Corporate Taxes Mr. Martin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday’s provincial budget delivered a massive tax cut, that’s going cost taxpayers of Alberta $370 million, for highly profitable corporations in an already overheated economy. This is just dumb economics. The CEOs of the major corporations’ investme nt in the PC party is paying dividends in spades. Meanwhile, the budget figures show that average Alberta families will actually see their personal income taxes go up $102 million next year.

My question is to the Minister of Finance. How can the minister justify the completely unjustified and unnecessary 15 per cent cuts in taxes for the corporate sponsors of the PC party while taking more money out of the pockets of ordinary Albertans? Mrs. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, again, you know, it’s a bit distress- ing. We’re all in this House. We all have access to budget docu- ments. Many of us have been here for some time, and every hon. member in this House should know that the first tax reductions were made on the personal side.

I produced a budget book, which was tabled and given to every member of this Assembly yesterday. If the hon. member would go to a

section on tax in this, he would quickly understand that we have already saved average Albertans $1.5 billion in taxes. In addition to that we increased the basic exemption and spousal or dependent exemption. Again, in addition we index that increase every year so it’s not clawed back by inflation. Mr. Speaker, no other province in Canada matches a spousal exemption – no other. The federal government doesn’t do it. Have a look at the graph, and see what the NDP government in Saskatche- wan’s exemption is on basic and spousal, and come back and tell me that we’ve ignored the average Albertan. Mr.

Martin: You notice, Mr. Speaker, that she didn’t talk about the question. The question is this: why would you give the most profitable corporations in an overheated economy a gift of $370 million? Explain that to the taxpayers of Alberta. Mrs. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I don’t think it’s any secret that the opposition member who is speaking now is not interested in business of any kind. I’ve had the opportunity today to meet with some of the business leaders in this province, and th ey do understand what drives this economy.

They do understand that the Alberta businesses here today have to compete not only in Canada but in a global economy. They do understand that while we are competitive in Alberta, Canada is not competitive in the world, and we have to work hard to make sure that our federal government follows our lead and make sure that our businesses can continue to operate, continue to work in a global economy, continue to generate jobs so that the average Albertan has a place to work. 1:50 Mr. Martin: Mr.

Speaker, my question is simply this: how can the Minister of Finance justify having a corporate tax rate 20 per cent lower than the next lowest province while saddling an Alberta family of four making $60,000 with an income tax bill 28 per cent higher than in the province of Ontario? Mrs. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, all I can say is: hon. member, I would be happy to sit down with you and go over your figures because they are not exactly accurate. Chronic Wasting Disease Mr. Griffiths: Mr.

Speaker, chronic wasting disease is an issue in my constituency as that’s where the first cull of CWD-infected deer was made a year ago. I understand that five more cases were discovered through the chronic wasting disease control program. My questions are to the Minister of Sustainable Resource Develop- ment. Can the minister tell us if these further cases mean we are getting ahead of the disease or it’s becoming an epidemic? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Coutts: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Alberta considers chronic wasting disease a serious environmental as well as economic threat.

We have 400,000 wild deer in this province. We must continue to be very, very aggressive in making sure that our approach is to prevent chronic wasting disease from coming across the Saskatche- wan/Alberta border and infecting those 400,000 deer. The program that the hon. member is talking about started in January, and it is part of our long-term effort. Seven thousand deer have been tested since 1996.

Actually, contrary to the claims that were made in the House this week about whether we’re doing the right things or not, I’d like to point out that by doing nothing, as was suggested, this local deer population would be decimated within 50 years – that’s the local deer population – and it would go to the entire province. Our actions help to make sure that Alberta’s deer are being protected. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Griffiths: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again, to the same minister: how did your department select these control measures? Mr. Coutts: Well, Mr.

Speaker, we use the best science available both in Canada and internationally, and our actions are based on recommendations of an expert international panel. That’s a scientific panel, and it’s guided by a national strategy of Canada. Reducing deer density is the key, and it is the recommended response for all future recommendations on the spread of chronic wasting disease. We need to do everything we can to keep more animals from becoming infected and to protect both the environmen- tal and economic viability of rural Alberta.

Alberta Hansard March 23, 2006610 The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Griffiths: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My final question is to the same minister. Given that the deer population is so critical and important to the constituents in my area, what is your department doing to ensure that these residents are informed, consulted, and engaged in these actions? Mr. Coutts: Local consultation is very, very important, consultation not only with the residents, Mr. Speaker, but also with hunters and guides and outfitters.

Two public meetings were held in Empress and Chauvin to present our action plans and to answer technical questions about the science of chronic wasting disease. We work closely with other government departments, like Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, Health and Wellness, and Community Development as well as our partner in Saskatchewan, where the threat really comes from. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Rutherford, followed by the hon. Member for West Yellowhead. Automobile Insurance Mr. R. Miller: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

A true or false question for the Minister of Finance: is your ministry seeking a one- year delay in your own self-imposed review of automobile insurance reforms due to take place this fall? Mrs. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, there is a discussion ongoing now as to whether we should have a little more experience before that complete review is taking place. So while I don’t think it’s defini- tive yet, certainly that discussion is occurring, and it will occur with the stakeholders. We will determine together whether it’s prudent to move ahead if we have enough information. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. R.

Miller: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the Minister of Finance: how will Alberta drivers benefit by waiting one more year for the AIRB to confirm what they already know, that is that the government’s bungled reforms have greatly benefited private insurance companies at their expense? Mrs. McClellan: Well, Mr. Speaker, that’s not what we’re finding at all. In fact, there are a number of things we’re finding that are very positive. One, the number of uninsured drivers has dropped dramatically – uninsured drivers. There is more fairness in the system today because people are not discriminated against by gender or age.

The Automobile Insurance Rate Board – and the member full well knows this – has the authority to review rates throughout the year and make decisions as to whether to recommend a rate decrease. So they will not be waiting for any change. But I think it’s prudent to have the right information when you make decisions to change. We’ve had a little over a year’s experience with automo- bile insurance reform, and it is a very, very positive outcome to this point. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. R. Miller: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the same minister: given that the Alberta insurance rate board will not discuss the circumstances surrounding the recent hasty and completely unex- pected departure of their executive director, will the minister please inform this House why he left? Mrs. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I couldn’t possibly do that because that is certainly in the purview of the Automobile Insurance Rate Board. I would suggest that the hon. member talk to them. I have not asked the question, didn’t know the circumstances, and I’m not sure that it is really my affair. The Speaker: The hon. Member for West Yellowhead, followed by the hon.

Member for Edmonton-Centre. Forest Sustainability Mr. Strang: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday Global Forest Watch Canada released a report about the amount of intact versus fragmented forest in Canada, with particular attention paid to Alberta. Can the Minister of Sustainable Resource Development explain what it means by “fragmented forest”? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Coutts: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. This is an important question because the report indicates and shows and acknowledges that Canada has a vast forest, and it is probably the most intact in the world.

Alberta has 60 per cent of its land base as part of that forest. The report that the hon. member is talking about defines an intact forest as 10,000 hectares with no sign of human activity whatsoever. So what that means is a tract of land the size of the city of, say, Lethbridge or Red Deer, where there would be no roads, no human activity, no farms, no ranches, absolutely nothing happening and everything being sterile. That’s their definition in the report, not ours. The Speaker: Hon. minister, please. The purpose of question period is not to ask for

definitions of words; it’s to deal with government policy. Perhaps you could move on to the second question. Mr. Strang: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My first supplementary question is to the same minister. How is he, as a minister, dealing with this challenge in Alberta? Mr. Coutts: Actually, that’s exactly where I was heading, Mr. Speaker, because in order to understand our policy of sustainability, it was important to show what the report was standing up and talking about. Sustainable Resource Development manages the landscape from a different perspective than the report. Ours is that of balance.

We balance the needs of forestry, oil and gas; we balance the needs of recreation; and we balance the needs that the wildlife need to survive in the forest. We do that over a very long period of time. So we recognize that the forest is a living thing and, in doing so, that the renewable resource that we see is a living thing. That’s how and why we manage it sustainably for the future. 2:00 The Speaker: That was helpful. The hon. member. Mr. Strang: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My second supplementary question is to the same minister. How do we address the needs of wildlife?

March 23, 2006 Alberta Hansard 611 Mr. Coutts: Sure. We manage the landscape based on balance, as I said, for a variety of users, Mr. Speaker. We have official protected areas in the province, we have wildlife habitat, plus we have management plans that help us take the steps to account for the needs of wildlife. We also have a critical habitat review that takes place before applications go into sensitive areas, and forest manage- ment plans are required before companies can go in and do any forestry. We have set-asides.

We have regulations in place to protect streams and other sensitive areas that will help our wildlife flourish in the province. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre, followed by the hon. Member for Leduc-Beaumont-Devon. Ambulance Funding Ms Blakeman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Emergency room overcrowding has been a constant problem that has been brought to the minister’s attention time after time, and the government has offered no solutions.

In fact, insufficient funding by this govern- ment will prevent the Capital h ealth region from increasing the number of acute-care beds to ease backlogs in the emergency room. On top of that, this government decided not to increase funding for the municipal ambulance program. My questions are to the minister of health. Given that there were no ambulances in Edmonton to respond to emergencies 93 times in February 2006, up from only eight times in all of 2004, can the minister explain the decision not to increase funding for ambulances? Ms Evans: Mr.

Speaker, from a number of points of view the hon. member has cited some issues that I believe have been topical in the media but may not reflect the capacity that we’re trying to build in regional health authorities. The regional health author ities have been gifted with an average across the province of about 6 per cent; in the case of the Edmonton capital region a 5.7 per cent increase, over $100 million. In terms of the capacity that they wish to establish in terms of beds, it will not only be between the hospitals in downtown Edmonton but between the subacute region. There’s a lot of work being done, Mr.

Speaker, in your own constituency. I believe some of the day surgeries and other proce- dures are being transferred to Barrhead, are being transferred to other areas. It’s quite exciting to see the co-operation that hospitals are building in order to accommodate capacity when beds are short. The Speaker: The hon. member. Ms Blakeman: Thank you.

Again to the same minister: given that much of the system’s ability to take new patients into the ER or for surgeries depends on the ability to discharge people into long-term care, why has the minister only committed $78 million to long-term care when even she admits that it needs $250 million? Ms Evans: Mr. Speaker, in terms of the long-term care plan we recognized that both in the third quarter and in the monies that are in this budget there are dollars to move from a staffing ratio in 2004- 05 that was at 3.1 to 3.6 hours of care per person per day.

I think that under these circumstances you see us accelerating the type of care that’s provided to people. You see a much stronger capacity that we’ve built with lifts, with medication supports, with adminis- trative supports. Yes, Mr. Speaker, we still have work to do, and we continue to do that. We’re preparing standards so that long-term care patients and people that are working with the care plans for long-term care patients will be stronger. We’re working on more information and better training.

If you look at the budget this year of my colleague the Minister of Advanced Education, you will see many more people that are coming into training for positions that will someday help and support this. Mr. Speaker, on every front we’re trying to tackle the problems to make sure that we have adequate staffing and long-term care placements. Ms Blakeman: Again to the same minister: how can Albertans believe that this government can reform the entire health system when they’ve proved they can’t even manage the ambulance service? Ms Evans: Well, Mr.

Speaker, we’re not even making any pretense of managing the ambulance service. It is not our job. We have provided . . . Ms Blakeman: You’re not funding it. You’re not managing it. The Speaker: The hon. minister has the floor. Ms Evans: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, in over 25 years of local and provincial politics, to my best recollection the province of Alberta has never managed the ambulance system.

What we have done in the last two years is provide at least $55 million to all but two authorities that are receiving $10 million for pilot projects to support health care management within the ambulance system. We have had members of municipal ambulance systems working on an advisory committee – and note that I say municipal employees, not provincial govern- ment employees – trying to define what, if any, should be the future of managing ambulance in a proper way. I think that over the last few months they’ve done a lot of consultation. They’re looking at patient safety.

They’re looking at the impact on municipal authori- ties. I’m sincerely hopeful that at the conclusion of this you’ll see a plan for ambulance delivery that will be both safe and that will accommodate the regions in the best way possible. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Leduc-Beaumont-Devon, followed by the hon. Member for Lethbridge-East. Income Support (continued) Mr. Rogers: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Human Resources and Employment.

The announcement to raise income support rates for Albertans who cannot work is very good news, but why is there no increase for the 15,000 people who also get assistance through Alberta Works but are expected to work? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Cardinal: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. That is a very good question. At least the member mentioned that those people that are not expected to work did get an increase in the budget.

Talking about the 15,000 or so that are expected to work, our top priority – and I said this earlier in question period – through the 56 employment centres is to put these people back into the workforce as quickly as possible because that is where the clientele want to be. Through that, we provide employment exemptions, daycare support, school support, and other expenses, health care support, even relocation to a new community if they choose to do so. So that is

Alberta Hansard March 23, 2006612 our plan. Anyone that’s able to work, that’s living in Alberta will eventually have to work. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Rogers: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To get a little more clarity, why aren’t any of the rates tied to standard measures like the market- based measure to ensure that rates are at least in line with the cost of living? Mr. Cardinal: Mr. Speaker, the market-basket measure and others like it are good research tools, as we all know, basically to explore low-income issues that trace Albertans. Of course, we use them for that purpose only.

We don’t use them to determine what assistance is required because we provide so many other valuable services like thousands of jobs in Alberta. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Rogers: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My final supplementary: is the 5 per cent increase going to be enough for those clients who cannot work or get enough money through other employment? Mr. Cardinal: Mr. Speaker, of course, we’ll continue monitoring that situation very closely as we move forward. I mentioned earlier that there are other supports provided for those people, and we’ll continue doing that. The Speaker: The hon.

Member for Lethbridge-East, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona. Continuing Care Assistance Ms Pastoor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Almost a year after the Auditor General’s scathing report and recommendations by the MLA task force this government has committed less than 30 per cent of the $250 million estimated by the minister of health to improve continuing care. I’ll steal a motion from my fellow member, Fort McMurray-Wood Buffalo, and say: do we not all in this House support our vulnerable seniors? My question is to the Minister of Finance.

Can the minister explain how she failed to budget the resources necessary to fix continuing care when racehorses got a 40 per cent increase? 2:10 Mrs. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I am really struggling to understand which budget documents my hon. colleagues across the way are using. I thought they were in the House when we presented the budget and the numbers yesterday. Now, I want the hon. member to just think again of the amount of increase to long-term care and the $250 million that she quoted and the 30 per cent. [interjections] The Speaker: The hon. member has the floor. Ms Pastoor: Thank you.

Actually, the next question is to the minister of health. I’ll come back with that math answer. Given that $63 million was granted to horse racing and only $42 million put toward improving seniors’ care, can the minister explain how many full-time personal care aides could have been hired with that money? Ms Evans: Mr. Speaker, I’m not clear about whether it’s the money that was relative to the horse racing, so I would have to say that I need more clarification in order to answer the question. The Speaker: The hon. member. Ms Pastoor: Thank you. That would have been the difference between 42 and 63.

The Speaker: The question, please. Ms Pastoor: To the Minister of Gaming: how many task forces were required to determine that horse racing should receive a 40 per cent increase? Mr. Graydon: Actually, if no one shows up at the racetrack and doesn’t put any money in the slot machines, there will be a zero per cent increase. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary-West. Corporate Taxes (continued) Dr. Pannu: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday’s budget showed once again that in Alberta friends of the government get richer, and everyone else gets scraps from the master’s table. The $370 million gift to corporate friends of this government is beyond comprehen- sion for most Albertans especially because it’s not a one-time gift; it’s a gift in perpetuity, year after year after year. That these megaprofitable corporations will be laughing even harder to the bank while Albertans are stuck with health premiums and user fees is unconscionable. My questions are to the Minister of Finance.

Why is this government willing to give billionaire corporations six times the amount this government is willing to invest in early learning and child care? Mrs. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I want to take the hon. members to page 134 in the fiscal outlook book. I’m sure that you have them in front of you. We’ll have an opportunity to debate this because this is part of my department.

If you go to the bottom of that page, it clearly says: “Effective April 1, 2006, we will reduce the general corporate income tax rate to 10 per cent, lowering taxes for Alberta businesses” [interjections] – can we listen once more? – “by $265 million.” That’s not the $400 million that I heard yesterday from the ND, and it’s not the $300 million or whatever it was that I heard earlier today. It’s on page 134 in my book. You know what, Mr. Speaker? If Alberta businesses continue to grow and thrive as they have been under our tax policy, creating more jobs and more jobs for Albertans, that number could change.

The Speaker: The hon. member. Dr. Pannu: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That $370 million comes from the minister’s own projection of revenues. Why does this minister think that corporations like EnCana should be given $8.5 million in giveaways while a low-income family of four deserves a meagre $65 a month more? It doesn’t even compen- sate for the erosion in the real value due to inflation of what they have been receiving since the last increase. Mrs. McClellan: Mr.

Speaker, I’ll remind the hon. member again that all on the personal side, the basic exemption, both basic and spousal or adult dependant, is indexed every year so that there is no loss year to year. That was a decision that was made. On the earlier part of his question I can only assume that the hon.

March 23, 2006 Alberta Hansard 613 member is talking about a royalty situation. The oil and gas industry undisputably contributes in a huge way to this province both in revenue derived from royalties, from land sales, and maybe most importantly from economic activity. I don’t understand at all a philosophy that has absolutely no use for, no respect for, and no understanding of business. Dr. Pannu: Mr.

Speaker, my final question to the same minister: why does she think that paying back corporate donations to the PC Party through corporate tax cuts is more important than investing the $250 million needed to immediately improve quality of life for seniors in long-term care? Mrs. McClellan: Well, the first thing I would say, Mr. Speaker, is that I think members of other parties in this House are probably offended because the member infers that only our party receives any donations from the corporate community. Oh, would that be true, it would be wonderful, but in fact it’s not. Mr.

Speaker, I like to have questions on this budget. I want to have questions on: did we provide enough dollars in health care? I think that’s appropriate. Did we provide enough dollars in continu- ing care? That’s appropriate. Did we provide enough dollars in education? That’s appropriate. To make these rather specious comparisons is not productive, not helpful, and it completely clouds all of the discussions we’re having here. Home Building Contracts Mr. Liepert: Mr. Speaker, as evidenced by yesterday’s budget, Alberta’s economy is firing on all cylinders.

While this is a good thing, I have some 50 constituents who seem to be the victim of this hot economy. Despite signing a contract with a home builder, in some cases as long as a year ago, to build their dream home at a specific cost, these constituents are now being told that the builder will not honour the contract and is offering to refund their deposit. In the meantime, the costs of building a home have increased substantially. My questions are to the Minister of Government Services. What safeguards are in place to protect consumers in situations like this? Mr. Lund: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

That’s a very good point because certainly in Calgary right now there is a great demand for homes and, of course, a shortage of labour. As a matter of fact, a couple of weeks ago I met with two large home-building compa- nies, and they’re putting a cap on the number of homes that they will even contract because they don’t want to run into this problem. I know it must be really traumatic for the 30-plus purchasers that signed contracts and now are not going to get their homes. Mr.

Speaker, the hon. member mentioned that these were contracts that they signed, and really I think we can’t overemphasize how important it is that people know what’s in the contract, that they make sure that they’re comfortable with the contract and make sure that it’s all legal because there are issues peripheral to maybe what people are thinking about at the time you’re signing the contract. So it’s really important that people talk with people that have experi- ence in that field. Mr. Liepert: My first supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, is to the same minister.

Can he tell the Assembly why the builder would not be required to at least pay interest on those refunded deposits? Mr. Lund: Mr. Speaker, currently we don’t have any legislation except for the Residential Tenancies Act that requires interest to be paid on a deposit. Incidentally, that interest rate now is zero, so it’s not a big help. It certainly is an area that we need to look at. But once again I’ve got to come back to the fact that that’s just one of the items that should have been covered in the contract.

As I say, it’s peripheral to what people might be thinking about, but people that have had experience in contracts would identify that kind of a scenario that could happen. Mr. Liepert: My final supplementary question to the same minister is: would he consider having his department intervene and at least have the developer sell the lots to the purchaser at the same price as what was agreed to in the contract? 2:20 Mr. Lund: That’s an interesting situation, Mr. Speaker.

I haven’t seen the contract, but it’s my understanding that the contractor never did purchase the land, that in fact the land is still registered under the name of the developer. So I’m not sure that there’s any way that we can deal with that issue but, I guess, to emphasize again how important it is to have a good understanding of the contract and to have a good contract. Just yesterday we had an awards program for the best champions in consumer affairs.

One of the awards that we granted was to Alberta New Home Warranty, and it was for a book that they have put together on tips when buying a new condominium or buying a new single-dwelling home. I would urge people to get a copy of that in order to have a look at it. Also, under the Real Estate Council they have a lot of good tips for people that are getting into contracts to purchase homes. Actually, of course, often in cases the home is the biggest purchase that a family will make. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Varsity. Municipal Sustainability Mr. Chase: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Two-thirds of Albertans, those 2 million plus citizens living in and around the boom-town cities of Edmonton and Calgary, were ignored in yesterday’s announcement with the exception of partial ring roads that will circumnavigate the line of ambulances parked out in front of overcrowded hospitals, the decaying inner- and absent outer-city schools, the seniors crying out in understaffed, underregulated long- term care homes, and the hundreds of thousands of low-income individuals dependent on FCSS support. My first question is to the Minister of Finance.

How much more do the citizens of Edmonton and Calgary pay out through a variety of taxes – provincial income, property, gas, and health care – than they receive back from the province for service funding? Mrs. McClellan: Well, Mr. Speaker, you probably won’t like the answer, but I want to remind the hon. member – and I’ll stick to Calgary because that’s where he’s from; we can bring the others into it as well – that the city of Calgary does receive $95 million from its share of the provincial fuel tax. It does receive $177 million a year from the Alberta municipal infrastructure program.

But in total, sir, the contribution to the city of Calgary in all of those categories that you named is $4 billion from the province, so I w ill not put in the amount that they contribute because it’s considerably less. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Chase: Thank you very much. My second question is to the

Alberta Hansard March 23, 2006614 Minister of Municipal Affairs. Given that about this time last year you speculated about providing municipalities tax relief through the return of the education portion of property tax, when will your speculation turn into government action? Mr. Renner: Mr.

Speaker, I’m very pleased that the member brings that question forward because it gives me an opportunity to discuss what I’ve been in fact discussing with the mayor of Calgary, the mayor of Edmonton – I introduced them in the House just recently – the president of the AUMA, and the president of the AAMD and C, who are working together on the Minister’s Council on Municipal Sustainability to deal with that very issue.

I have repeatedly said in this House – and I repeat it with the members of my council – that the responsibility of that council is to have a look at the roles and responsibilities of cities, of the province, and to determine what are the reasonable costs associated with those roles. Once we’ve done that, once we’ve established what those roles are, then it makes sense to begin to look at the revenue side and determine whether the revenue, in fact, matches the roles and responsibilities. I expect that we should have that complete within the next six to eight months. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr.

Chase: Thank you. I appreciate the definitive timeline. That is appreciated. My third question is to the Mi nister of Health and Wellness. Given that despite our multibillion dollar annual surpluses Albertans are currently – currently – paying out of pocket billions of dollars in health care premiums and insurance fees to receive delayed basic care, how much more will we have to pay out when your govern- ment’s third-way private delivery costs are downloaded onto hard- working Albertans? Ms Evans: Well, Mr. Speaker, there’s no intent to download costs on hard-working Albertans in the third way.

In fact, the whole premise of the policy framework is to build a strong publicly funded system, a system where you can get public health care at the time you need it, as much as possible, without any identification or contradiction as to your ability to pay because you will always have that capacity to access a strong public health system in Alberta without paying for it. Mr. Speaker, the question does not relate to the health care policy framework. It does not relate to what Albertans have been looking for in policies.

It does not relate to any kind of identification this government has made for any future costs in health care. Yes, the health care premiums are still part of a portion of public funding towards health care, but the larger bulk of health care funding still comes from the general revenue fund of the province of Alberta. The vast majority of $735 million comes from the province of Alberta’s revenues, and what we’re struggling with is trying to make sure that it’s sustainable and that people have access where and when they need it.

The Speaker: Hon. members, in a few seconds from now I’ll call upon the first of six to participate. Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan 100th Anniversary The Speaker: Today I would like to advise you that I have con- veyed on your behalf and on behalf of the staff of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta sincere congratulations to Speaker P. Myron Kowalsky and the members and staff of the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan on the 100th anniversary of the opening of the First Session of their first Legislature. Our celebrations began on March 15; Saskatchewan’s will begin on March 29.

We, of course, share with Saskatchewan more than just a common border. In fact, we share the same humble begin- nings. With the establishment of the Legislative Assembly of the North-West Territories in 1888, together we began the quest for responsible government and aut onomy within the dominion of Canada. Attaining such provincial status was a struggle, but successfully we built two strong and independent provinces. So as we look back over the last 100 years, on your behalf we convey best wishes to the people of Saskatchewan and their institution of democracy.

Might we revert briefly to Introduction of Guests? [Unanimous consent granted] head: Introduction of Guests (reversion) The Speaker: The hon. Member for Lacombe-Ponoka. Mr. Prins: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It’s once again my pleasure to introduce to you and through you to all members of the Assembly a group of high school students from Ponoka, Alberta. They are from St. Augustine school. They’re a group of 29 grade 10 students studying government in their social studies class. They’re accompanied by their t eachers, Mr. Darren Josephison and Mrs. Elaine Ernst.

They’re seated in the public gallery, and I’d ask them to rise and receive the warm welcome of this Assembly. Thank you. head: Members’ Statements The Speaker: The hon. Member for Lac La Biche-St. Paul. Crystal Meth Strategies Mr. Danyluk: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Over the last couple of weeks I’ve shared with the Legislature several youth groups that we as a province have consulted with on many different issues. One challenge that these groups of youth have identified and tried to address is the problem of illegal drugs and methamphet- amine in particular.

As chair of the Youth Secretariat I think it’s important that we work together to solve this problem. In order that we do this, the government has taken a number of steps to protect the children and the youth of this province. For example, Mr. Speaker, Bill 2, the Drug-endangered Children Act, will help to protect children exposed to drug manufacturing and the trafficking of illegal drugs. Recent health regulation changes have helped to ensure that some of the medications used in making meth are now listed as

schedule 2 drugs and, therefore, are sold from behind the pharmacist’s counter. In addressing the challenge of meth, the province has also developed an Alberta drug strategy under AADAC together with the Crystal Meth Task Force and other government departments and partners in our communities. AADAC will develop a co-ordinated response to meth within our province. Again, youth are being consulted on this issue and are help ing to develop solutions to the problem. Further, as we speak, youth are working with aboriginal youth in four different areas of our province to obtain their perspec- tives with the growing problem. AADAC also opened a number of retreat beds for those youth

March 23, 2006 Alberta Hansard 615 aged 12 to 17. New services provided also include a special treatment procedure to help address methamphetamine use. Through these initiatives I hope we can curb the use of meth by our children and young people. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Olds-Didsbury-Three Hills. 2:30 X-Treme Women’s Hockey Challenge Mr. Marz: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m pleased to stand today in recognition of the 2006 Battle of the Border X-Treme Women’s Hockey Challenge. Last night the four-game challenge between the Calgary Oval X-Treme and the U.S.

Selects team kicked off in front of a sold-out crowd in the Three Hills Centennial Arena. The game was very hard fought and exciting, and the U.S. Selects, sad to say, scored a goal in the dying seconds of the final minute of play to defeat the Oval X-Tremes 3 to 2. EnCana, the event sponsor, generously matched the pro ceeds of the game and donated them to the big winners of the evening, the Three Hills Arena Completion Society and Kneehill minor hockey. The Battle of the Border was more than just another hockey game to our community.

The young women from the two teams in the tournament as well as Olympic gold medalist Hayley Wickenheiser participated in school visits and a local mentorship lunch and signed countless autographs for young women in our community. One lucky young lady, 12-year-old Dominique Lambert, won the local X- Treme Queen contest and had an opportunity to join the Oval X- Treme team in their dressing room prior to the game and sit next to Hayley Wickenheiser during the game.

The teams involved in the Battle of the Border and Hayley’s Olympic gold medal winning Canadian women’s hockey team have done a wonderful job of raising the profile of women’s hockey and women’s sports in general. Sports and physical activity are very important to the well-being of young women. They contribute to higher levels of confidence and self-esteem. Sport is where one can learn about teamwork, goal setting, and the pursuit of excellence. Sport prepares you for life. The ladies of the Oval X-Treme team and the U.S.

Selects team as well as Hayley Wickenheiser and her Team Canada teammates are an inspiration to young women and set a wonderful example. These women’s hockey heroes truly are worthy role models. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Manning. Tribute to Fort McMurray Mr. Backs: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Fort McMurray is a good place to live. Too often our media portrays Fort McMurray as a place that is out of control. It’s not. From what you read and hear, it is darkened with environmental degradation and is a wild west town, beset by violence and drugs. It’s not.

I’m not saying that there are not problems that should be addressed in infrastructure funding and in improving the quality of life in Fort McMurray, but it is a good place to live. Most people in the world would love to have many of the problems Fort McMurray has. The northern lights actually shine on Fort McMurray. The majestic Clearwater and Athabasca rivers meet at Fort McMurray. The city enjoys some of the most historic and scenic river valleys in Alberta. Where else in Alberta can you land a float plane downtown? I twice lived in the old Syncrude Towers, and float planes flew past my window. It was cool.

Where else can you walk out your back door in many subdivisions and into virgin pine and aspen forest? Snowmobile enthusiasts can leave their yard and go on trails that will stretch for hundreds of miles. Some of the best trophy fishing lakes in the world are a hop, skip, and jump away. Hunting opportunities are some of the best on the continent.

And it’s pretty neat to drive up the ice road to Fort Chipewyan and to see the museum and church in the oldest community, arguably, in Alberta, to say nothing of driving through the wonders of nearby Wood Buffalo national park and crossing Alberta and Saskatchewan’s largest lake, Lake Athabasca. There is a multicultural and multi-Canadian base to Fort McMurray that is cosmopolitan and gives it also an international flair. If you want to learn about Newfoundland, go to Fort McMurray. There’s more: the theatre at Keyano College and the Fort McMurray Oil Barons for great hockey. There’s lots of work and business.

There’s much to work on in growing Fort McMurray, Mr. Speaker, but a family can do very well financially and grow a great life in our beautiful Alberta city of Fort McMurray. In the future I would like to see in our media a much more balanced view of what McMurray has to offer. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination Mr. Agnihotri: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On March 21 we recognized the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.

This is a day to remember and reflect on the fact that racism is still part of our society. On March 21, 1960, police opened fire and killed 60 people at a peaceful demonstration in South Africa. This serves as a reminder of the destructive nature of racism, and we must raise awareness and involve all Canadians in the movement against racism. Yesterday I was pleased to see grade 6 students from St. Clement Catholic school in my riding doing an excellent exhibition and conference about the elimination of racial discrimination. It was a very inspiring moment for me.

We can learn a lesson from our children as individuals and make the same effort to support accep- tance and diversity. First of all, speak out against racism. In this case, silence is not golden. Silence too can lead to greater discrimi- nation, so you have the right as well as the duty to speak out. When you have the chance, stand up and protect our society’s great diversity and respect for differences. Mr. Speaker, racism is the belief that one ethnic group, race, or religion is superior to others and that they are not worthy of respect or recognition.

As a result, individuals become the target of racist acts based on the colour of their skin and their cultural background. Your support should not stop at home. Even at work you can explore ways to promote positive race relations by vocally objecting to racist jokes and insults. Racism must be stopped. Together we can accomplish this goal. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona. Advanced Education Tuition Fees Dr. Pannu: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday we heard the government’s budget for the upcoming year.

Great care was taken to continue giving gifts to friends in big oil and tax cuts to those who need them the least. For postsecondary students there was very little real good news. In particular, there was no sign of permanent relief

Alberta Hansard March 23, 2006616 from ever-increasing tuition fees. Despite the minister’s talk about increasing the affordability and accessibility for our postsecondary students, yesterday’s budget illustrated the difference between how much this government values inve sting in our students and, there- fore, in our future versus squandering public revenues in perpetuity and giveaways for their corporate friends. For yet another year students face a tuition increase. The government will pay for the increase in the next fiscal year, which amounts to nothing more than a stay of execution.

Students need a real solution to ever-growing tuition costs. I think it behooves us to ask: who needs relief more? Last year, for example, EnCana had net earnings of $3.4 billion. Meanwhile, a recent survey of undergradu- ates found that in their prime, summertime earning months nearly two-thirds of students earned less than $2,500 per month. Yet this government hikes tuition for students and cuts taxes for the already wealthy. Last week a letter from the university presidents to the minister was made public. They were calling for the status quo in tuition increases.

I urge the minister to ignore those demands and to make students a priority. I urge him to listen to the recommendation made by student groups, those most familiar with the burden of escalating tuition, and implement an immediate freeze and deliver a long-term plan which includes a significant rollback to ensure that all of Alberta’s bright, young minds can afford to fully participate in postsecondary education. Now, Mr. Speaker, that would be a real investment in our future. Thank you. head: Presenting Petitions The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. Ms Blakeman: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I’d like to present a petition signed by 142 Albertans who are asking the government of Alberta to abandon plans to implement the third way, to defeat legislation allowing expansion of private, for-profit hospitals, not to contravene the Canada Health Act, et cetera. Thank you. 2:40 The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. Mrs. Mather: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to present a petition from 56 Albertans who are urging the government of Alberta to “consider increasing funding in order that all Alberta Works income support benefit levels may be increased.” The Speaker: The hon.

Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. Mr. MacDonald: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I have a petition that I would like to present to the Legislative Assembly, and it reads: We, the undersigned residents of Alberta, petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the Government to call a public i nquiry into Enron’s role in the development of electricity deregulation in Alberta and their market conduct in the Power Pool of Alberta. Thank you. head: Notices of Motions The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General. Mr. Stevens: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I rise pursuant to Standing Order 34(2)(

a) to give notice that on Monday, April 3, I will move that wr itten questions appearing on the Order Paper do stand and retain their places with the exception of written questions 10, 11, 12, and 13. I’m also giving notice that on Monday, April 3, I will move that motions for returns appearing on the Order Paper do stand and retain their places with the exception of motions for returns 20, 21, and 22. head: Introduction of Bills Bill 24 Fiscal Responsibility Amendment Act, 2006 Mrs. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce Bill 24, the Fiscal Responsibility Amendment Act, 2006.

As announced in yesterday’s release of Budget 2006, Bill 24 amends the existing act to raise the limit on the use of nonrenewable resource revenue for budget purposes to $5.3 billion from $4.75 billion. As per the legislation any amount over the $5.3 billion will continue to be allocated to the sustainability fund. [Motion carried; Bill 24 read a first time] The Speaker: The hon. Member for Grande Prairie-Smoky. Bill 25 Securities Amendment Act, 2006 Mr. Knight: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I request leave to introduce Bill 25, being the Securities Amendment Act, 2006.

Bill 25 is a bill that will include among other things the protection for secondary market investors in the province of Alberta, including people with RRSPs, pensions, and other personal investments. Under this legislation they would have a legal right to sue public companies that issue false or misleading information. Ontario has enacted similar legislation. The legislation is important because nearly 90 per cent of all equity trading in Alberta takes place in the secondary market. The bill also identifies a number of provisions within the existing act that need to be amended.

I move first reading. [Motion carried; Bill 25 read a first time] The Speaker: The hon. Deputy Government House Leader. Mr. Stevens: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Thank you. I move that Bill 25 be moved onto the Order Paper under Government Bills and Orders. [Motion carried] The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. Bill 27 Vegetable Sales (Alberta) Act Repeal Act Mr. Horner: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to request leave to introduce Bill 27, the Vegetable Sales (Alberta) Act Repeal Act.

Before we get too many calls from excited children, this act isn’t repealing the sales of vegetables in Alberta. They will s till be on your dinner plates, I assure you. I’m sure that this bill will bring about some very fiery and passionate debate, and I look forward to that. This bill will repeal the unnecessary and unused Vegetables Sales (Alberta) Act and the two associated regulations: the vegetable sales regulation and the grades, packages, and fees regulation. Growers

March 23, 2006 Alberta Hansard 617 *This spelling could not be verified at the time of publication. and packers are no longer using Alberta grades. They’re using the federal grades or more subjective qualities such as appearance, size, and product consistency, allowing them to market produce more easily outside the province. That’s why we’ve introduced this bill: to continue our commitment to eliminating unnecessary and unused acts and regulations. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. [Motion carried; Bill 27 read a first time] The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-West.

Bill 28 Local Authorities Election Amendment Act, 2006 Mr. Liepert: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I request leave to introduce a bill being the Local Authorities Election Amendment Act, 2006. This bill will result in a more secure and transparent election process, which in turn promotes integrity and public confidence in Alberta’s municipal electoral system and gives local jurisdictions the flexibility to tailor election proce dures to address their citizens’ requirements. Thank you. [Motion carried; Bill 28 read a first time] The Speaker: The hon. Deputy Government House Leader. Mr. Stevens: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It’s my pleasure to move that Bill 28 be moved onto the Order Paper under Government Bills and Orders. [Motion carried] The Speaker: Hon. Member for Stony Plain, am I calling on you today? Bill 211 Traffic Safety (Mandatory Motorcycle Training) Amendment Act, 2006 Mr. Lindsay: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s my pleasure to rise today and request leave to introduce Bill 211, the Traffic Safety (Mandatory Motorcycle Training) Amendment Act, 2006, for first reading. Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to reduce the occurrences of collisions and fatalities involving motorcycles on Alberta’s roads.

This bill will hopefully cut down the number of collisions involving motorcycles by requiring that anybody wishing to obtain their class 6 licence, the motorcycle endorsement, present proof of having taken

part in a certified motorcycle training course. Thank you. [Motion carried; Bill 211 read a first time] head: Tabling Returns and Reports The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. Ms Blakeman: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I have a number of tablings. The first is from Martha Cheney, who ques- tions: if it’s a private system, what quality control processes will be in place, and also what recourse is available to deter receiving poor service?

The second tabling is from Marlene Lecky Perron, who makes a point that she doesn’t believe Albertans want a system where ability to pay would determine the rate at which you’re served.

The next one is from John Stasiuk and family, making the point that it is possible to make good improvements in the current system; from Shawna Welz, who makes the point that she wrote to the Premier and the minister and just received condescending letters saying that she didn’t understand; from Bob and Kathy Borreson, making the point that they’ve had first-hand experience with a family being denied private health insurance in the 1950s prior to medicare; from Don Mayne, making the point about the foolishness of hiring a company which has been convicted of wrongdoing to provide guidance to the Alberta government; from Bill Lundquist, making a point feeling that the Premier really doesn’t care about the poor, the hard-working, or the seniors; from David Flower, making a point about a $1.5 million cont ract on whether private health insurance should be an option in our province going to a subcomp- any of a private U.S. company; and from Jean Andrews and Rene Thibault, making a point asking to please stop destroying the medical system, which has provided universal and accessible health care.

Thank you. 2:50 The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-McClung. Mr. Elsalhy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am tabling the requisite number of copies of six of the letters that the Official Opposition received from concerned citizens regarding the provincial govern- ment’s plan for the future of daycare. The ones I am tabling today are from Shannon O’Neill, Kasimo A. Kalyegira,* Meerag Swamy, Larry – and I couldn’t read the last name; it’s illegible – Anupa Ashav,* and Heather Harsch. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. Mrs. Mather: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I’m pleased to table six letters and appropriate copies regarding the provincial government’s plan for the future of daycare. The letters I am tabling today are from Thy Nguyen, Rae-Lynn Wiltshire, Jeff Crawford, Tong Zheng, Tara Paterok, and Shana Dion. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. Mr. Agnihotri: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to table six letters and appropriate copies regarding the provincial government’s plan for the future of daycare from Douglas McLachlan, Stephanie Wolfe, Laurie Moulton, Mark Hall, Antsar Mustfa, Patricia McEwen. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon.

Member for Edmonton-Rutherford. Mr. R. Miller: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Twelve further letters regarding the provincial government’s involvement with the national daycare program, and these letters are from Heather Horn, Idabell Parcasio, Lisa Komaransky, C. Elliott, Heather Eliasson, Kerry Powell, Bernard Fraser,* Jason McCallum,* Angela Bourne,* Chris Evans,* Suzanne Evans,* and Veshaya Shayans.* Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Beverly-Clareview.

Alberta Hansard March 23, 2006618 Mr. Martin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to table two documents on behalf of the leader of the NDP opposition. The first is a letter from Alvin Finkel. Mr. Finkel objects to the dismissive and robotic response received from the minister of health when he raised serious concerns about health privatization. He provides evidence of how the public system will suffer if a parallel private system is put into place. I’m also tabling a synopsis of a legal dispute between Grant McLean and the government of Alberta. Mr.

McLean was a senior manager with the government of Alberta, a former mayor of the city of Airdrie, and in 2005 was awarded the Alberta centennial medal. Mr. McLean is taking his former employer, the government of Alberta, to court for alleged negligent misrepresentation in a matter relating to his pension. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Economic Development. Mr. Dunford: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to table the requisite number of copies of the 2004-2005 Alberta Economic Development Authority activity report entitled Sustaining Economic Performance and Prosperity.

Speaker’s Ruling Tabling Documents The Speaker: Hon. members, I want to raise a point this afternoon with respect to tablings. Ther e’s a difficult situation that has developed and is starting to develop, and I use by example sessional paper 197/2006, which was tabled in the House by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Rutherford. Invariably members stand up and say: “I’m tabling here a letter with respect to the provincial government plan for the future of daycare,” or something of the like, and a document is tabled which references the national child care program.

In looking at some of these tablings, as the chair does from time to time, there’s absolutely nothing in the letter that has to do with respect to the province of Alberta. But more importantly – more importantly – than that there is no signature on the letter, there is no identification who the letter might be from, and the letter that’s tabled is absolutely unreadable. You can see it as well as I can.

Now, if this is what we’re doing in tablings, then I’m going to ask that the House leaders have a discussion and deal with this subject once and for all because if it’s simply a matter of a member going out and xeroxing 150 blank pieces of paper and then standing up and tabling them, our Hansard people are invariably spending a waste of time trying to identify who it is. When we come back on April 3, I’m going to give you some other examples where, in fact, the names mentioned in the House do not correspond with the documents tabled.

This is not the honourable way to do things. head: Projected Government Business The Speaker: The hon. Official Opposition House Leader. Ms Blakeman: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I would ask under Standing Order 7(5) whether the Government House Leader could share with us the projected government business for the week of April 3 to 6, 2006. The Speaker: The hon. Deputy Government House Leader. Mr. Stevens: Thanks very much, Mr. Speaker. It’s my pleasure to provide the projected government business for the week of April 3 to 6, 2006.

On Monday, April 3, 2006, most of the day is spent on private members’ business with Government Bills and Orders starting at 9 p.m. in Committee of the Whole, Bill 16; second reading, bills 15, 20, 23, 26; and as per the Order Paper. On Tuesday, April 4, 2006, in the afternoon there will be Commit- tee of Supply, estimates of the Legislative Assembly, day 1 of 24, Seniors and Community Supports, and as per the Order Paper. That evening commencing at 8 p.m. under Government Bills and Orders Committee of Supply, day 2 of 24, Energy, and as per the Order Paper.

On Wednesday, April 5, in the afternoon under Government Bills and Orders Committee of Supply, day 3 of 24, with Infrastructure and Transportation, and as per the Order Paper. That evening at 8 p.m. under Government Bills and Orders Committee of Supply, day 4 of 24, Executive Council, and as per the Order Paper. On Thursday, April 6, 2006, in the afternoon under Government Bills and Orders Committee of Supply, day 5 of 24, Human Resources and Employment, and as per the Order Paper.

The Speaker: Hon. members, before moving to the next item in the Routine, might I just draw to every member’s attention that on Monday next the hon. Member for Vermilion-Lloydminster will reach his half-century point in life. head: Orders of the Day The Speaker: The hon. Deputy Premier. head: 3:00 Royal Assent Mrs. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, His Honour the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor will now attend upon the Assembly. [Mrs. McClellan and the Sergeant-at-Arms left the Chamber to attend the Lieutenant Governor] [The Mace was draped] [The Sergeant-at-Arms knocked on the main doors of the Chamber three times.

The Assistant Sergeant-at-Arms opened the doors, and the Sergeant-at-Arms entered] The Sergeant-at-Arms: All rise, please. Mr. Speaker, His Honour the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor awaits. The Speaker: Sergeant-at-Arms, admit His Honour the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor. The Sergeant-at-Arms: Order! [Preceded by the Sergeant-at-Arms, His H onour the Lieutenant Governor of Alberta, Norman L. Kwong, CM, AOE, and Mrs. McClellan entered the Chamber. His Honour took his place upon the throne] His Honour: Ladies and gentlemen, please be seated.

The Speaker: May it please His Honour, the Legislative Assembly has at its present sittings passed ce rtain bills to which and in the name of the Legislative Assembly I respectfully request Your Honour’s assent.

March 23, 2006 Alberta Hansard 619 The Clerk: Your Honour, the following are the titles to which Your Honour’s assent is prayed.

Bill 1 Alberta Cancer Prevention Legacy Act Bill 2 Drug-endangered Children Act Bill 3 Protection Against Family Violence Amendment Act, 2006 Bill 4 Daylight Saving Time Amendment Act, 2006 Bill 5 Justice Statutes Amendment Act, 2006 Bill 6 Maintenance Enforcement Amendment Act, 2006 Bill 7 Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Amendment Act, 2006 Bill 8 Trustee Amendment Act, 2006 Bill 17 Libraries Amendment Act, 2006 [The Lieutenant Governor indicated his assent] The Clerk: In Her Majesty’s name His Honour the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor doth assent to these bills.

The Sergeant-at-Arms: All rise, please. [Preceded by the Sergeant-at-Arms, the Lieutenant Governor and Mrs. McClellan left the Chamber] [The Mace was uncovered] The Speaker: Please be seated. head: Government Motions Provincial Fiscal Policies 16. Mrs. McClellan moved:

Be it resolved that the Asse mbly approve in general the business plans and fiscal policies of the government. [Adjourned debate March 22: Dr. Taft] The Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition. Dr. Taft: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On behalf of all Albertans and as Leader of the Official Opposition it’s my duty and, indeed, my privilege to respond to the budget delivered in this Assembly yesterday. There are a few things to like in the budget. How could there not be, given the wealth of Alberta?

Tuition relief for students, more funding for projects to reduce wait times in the public health care system, more support for Albertans using the AISH program, an increase in spending on primary care, the planned twinning of highway 63: those are all steps in the right direction, Mr. Speaker. But, after all, when you take a shotgun approach to budgeting, you’re bound to hit the target once in a while. [interjections] I can tell it’s going to be a fun afternoon, Mr. Speaker.

Overall, this budget shows that we have a directionless, fractured government drowning in cash yet, despite unpr ecedented opportu- nity, completely unable or perhaps unwilling to develop a long-term plan to ensure Alberta’s prosperity. Ordinary Albertans don’t depend upon windfalls to balance their household budgets, Mr. Speaker, yet the government’s addiction to nonrenewable resource revenue grows stronger every year, rising from 3 and a half billion dollars in 2004, already a very significant amount, to a projected $5.3 billion by 2007.

The problem with this is: if the price of oil and gas drops – and history shows that it will – or, perhaps more ominously, if new technologies render petroleum resources less valuable, how are we going to support the kind of spending that we have? Where is the money going to come from? Mr. Speaker, I often reflect on the fate of the Red Deer River Valley downstream from Drumheller. In 1950 there were well over a hundred coal mines between Drumheller and what is now Dinosaur park. In 1960 there were about a dozen. In 1970 there was one.

The coal was still there, but the resource had been rendered without value because of advances in technology. My concern for the future of this province is that that same kind of scenario will play out again. A truly responsible, forward-thinking government would set aside as much of this nonrenewable revenue as possible to pay for future expenses, but instead we get tax cuts for corporations and subsidies for horse racing. Mr.

Speaker, if we can’t find the discipline, the discipline that this government once had to start saving for the future now, in the middle of this incredible boom, when is it ever going to happen? In 10 or 15 years will Albertans once again be forced to tighten their belts not through any fault of their own but because the politicians of today – all of us – failed to insulate our economy from the whims of resource prices? As elected representatives of the people every member of this Assembly on both sides of the House has a responsibility to act as a steward of our province’s collective wealth.

We’ve been entrusted by our fellow citizens to manage that wealth in ways that serve the public good. Therefore, we in the Official Opposition are duty-bound to offer our criticisms of this budget. This budget predicts a $4.1 billion surplus. That’s wonderful, no doubt. But the lion’s share of that expected surplus will come from the estimated $11 billion in nonrenewable natural resource revenues.

Simply put, we are living beyond our means, yet the government’s planned changes to the Fiscal Responsibility Act will increase, actually increase the limit on the use of nonrenewable resource revenue for budget purposes from $4.75 billion to $5.3 billion. We in the Alberta Liberal opposition strongly oppose this initiative. 3:10 The smartest people in this province, from economic think tanks to business leaders to savvy working Albertans, are all saying that we need to save much more of our natural resource revenues for the future.

But, instead, this government is spending the money almost as fast as the resource is sucked out of the ground. Mr. Speaker, the Canada West Foundation published a study recently indicating that this government had spent 91 per cent of all natural resource revenues in the period from 1979 to 2004. Ninety-one per cent. We are spending it as fast as it comes in. That’s no way to build a future. Sure, this year the heritage fund gets another b illion dollars, but that’s less than the government spent – handed out, I might say – in rebate cheques last year.

In any case this government continues to draw money from the heritage fund for general revenues. What’s the sense in that? There’s no real commitment from this government to growing that fund, a fund that has lost 50 per cent of its real value in the last 17 years. In other areas the budget didn’t address the $6.9 billion in teachers’ pension unfunded liability. The government is responsible for two-thirds of this liability, which clearly represents an unpaid debt. On infrastructure and transportation, Mr. Speaker, once again this government has failed to provide adequate, sustainable, and predictable funding.

When it comes to Alberta’s cities and towns, they need a wider array of fiscal tools to meet the needs of their communities, and they’re not getting it. This government needs at the very least to live up to its commitment of two years ago to put a hard cap on the education portion of property tax at $1.2 billion. That would mean this year, in fact, a rollback of over $200 million.

Alberta Hansard March 23, 2006620 When it comes to schools, the infrastructure situation, the condition of our school buildings is too often almost in a crisis mode. Just last week, every member of this Assembly knows, a school in Calgary had to be evacuated b ecause of structural prob- lems with the roof stemming from roof leaks that had not been attended to for years. Calgary has 40 neighbourhoods with no schools and over $400 million in deferred maintenance, and there are up to 76 neighbourhoods needing schools in Edmonton. One of the symbols to me of the failure of this government, Mr.

Speaker, is that you can walk through neighbourhoods of Alberta from 1910 and 1920, through the dirty ’30s, the war years of the ’40s, through the ’50s, through the baby boom of the ’60s, and through the ’70s and ’80s, and every neighbourhood had a school. Our society could afford schools in the 1920s. They could afford them in the ’50s. They could affo rd them in the ’70s.

Under this government you walk through neighbourhoods that have empty fields, and children even in cities are spending up to an hour each way on a bus, going to school. [interjections] I hear moaning, a phony sort of moaning from backbenchers of this government. I dare them to do that at a parent council meeting in any number of schools in this province. How is it that at a time of such prosperity, when we have a booming population and so many children, this budget makes no mention of new school construction? The Minister of Education knows how many schools are needed.

He has a three-year capital plan for every school board. Why won’t this government provide stable, sufficient, and predictable funding for proper schools for our children? The budget line for infrastructure renewal for schools, $81 million, isn’t enough to take care of the Calgary board of education’s capital needs of almost $400 million never mind Calgary Catholic schools or Edmonton public or Edmonton separate or all the rest of the province.

The increases in operating grants for education will barely cover inflation, and to my great dismay, in a province as wealthy as Alberta and a government swimming in cash, there’s not one cent to fund hot lunch programs. This government simply seems unpre- pared to admit that kids in Alberta are going to school hungry, and that is a great moral failure of this Conservative government. I also can’t help pointing out, Mr.

Speaker, that there’s no money for junior kindergarten or full-day kindergarten, investments in early education that pay off over the long term, pay off over and over in lower justice costs, lower health costs, higher productivity, and higher tax revenues. As far as postsecondary education goes, Mr. Speaker, the tuition rebate is continued for 2006-07, as previously announced, which comes after years of rapid increases, the fastest in the country from 1990 to the present.

While the respite in tu ition increases is welcomed – I support that – we’re still awaiting and students across this province are still awaiting the tuition fee policy that was promised in the 2005 Sp eech from the Throne over a year ago, a policy that Alberta families desperately need to determine whether or not they can send their kids to college or university and a policy that many young adults themselves need to know if they can plan their lives around an education or not.

There is also no additional investment in the access to the future fund, one of the real surprises of this budget, with just $750 million total after two years of a three-year commitment to a fund that is supposed to r each $3 billion. As a result, there will only be $45 million a nnually generated from that fund to spend on system improvements, not nearly enough. When fully funded, whenever that will actually be, it will provide $135 million, a step in the right direction but not the kind of planning we need.

Frankly, this policy pales in comparison to the Alberta Liberal plan, which, assuming a $10 billion surplus, would already have produced a 3 and a half billion dollar postsecondary endowment fund, which would continue to grow and support Alberta’s postsecondary institutions until they became truly world class. While the operating grants to postsecondary education appear substantial, they’re not as great as this government is claiming. The grants to postsecondary education are appearing to be higher because the government is temporarily paying $87 million to offset the costs of tuition increases.

I welcome the savings to students, of course. But let’s not kid ourselves about the actual funding our colleges and universities are receiving, just enough to cover inflation. The health budget has increased to $10.3 billion, a great amount of money by anyone’s measure and a 7.7 per cent increase over last year. But, Mr. Speaker, I put a wa rning out to this government: if they want to keep any kind of control on this, do not proceed with the provisions in the third way that open up our health system to market forces.

If we think we have trouble controlling health costs now, you wait until the marketplace is driving demand and prices. Giving the Alberta Cancer Board $25 million from the Alberta cancer prevention legacy fund to expand cancer screening programs is a welcome move. Cancer screening can help reduce further costs and, of course, can be an important factor in saving lives. We are disappointed in the increases for long-term care, only $42 million, significantly less than the $250 million that was recom- mended by the long-term care review committee and by the health minister herself at one point.

Spending on primary health care is up, which is a step in the right direction. We support a team-based approach to providing care in the community because we have seen, as have so many Albertans, that such an approach can create substantial savings in the public system. Let these innovations continue to work. 3:20 The one tax cut that we would have enthusiastically supported was not in this budget, and that is eliminating health care premiums. Eliminating health care premiums would be a tax benefit to every single person in Alberta. It would benefit the working poor.

It would benefit small businesses, who so often have to now cover that cost in order to hold onto employees. It would benefit big public- sector employers like colleges and universities and, indeed, many provincial agencies because they pay those benefits. It would benefit everybody, and yet it’s not here in this budget. It should be, Mr. Speaker.

We were also surprised – and I think it’s worth noting – that funding for aboriginal health strategies appears to have been cut from $2.2 million to $1.7 million, in the overall scheme of things not a huge percentage of money, but Alberta’s aboriginal population is substantially more reliant upon health services and experiences higher rates of health problems across a whole range of diseases.

By cutting the budget for aboriginal health strategies, I’m concerned – we’re all concerned – that this government is setting itself up for higher costs and more difficulties and, frankly, more human suffering in the aboriginal community of the future. Another area, Mr. Speaker, where in the overall scheme of things a relatively small amount of money could have made a revolutionary difference is in the arts. The Alberta Foundation for the Arts did receive a 16 per cent increase in funding, which sounds terrific until you realize that it’s only the second increase in funding in more than 15 years.

The Alberta Foundation for the Arts receives funding through Community Development and then distributes those funds to Alberta arts groups and individuals. While any increase is nice, funding for the Alberta Foundation for the Arts has been insufficient for years, and it results in a lack of support for all kinds of important

March 23, 2006 Alberta Hansard 621 groups, groups that add to our quality of life, groups that employ inordinate numbers of Albertans, and groups, in fact, that if they were fully supported would turn this province into a genuine magnet for business, for economic activity, for filmmaking, for tourism, and, indeed, for all kinds of creative industries. This province has consistently neglected the arts sector and ignored its incredible potential to diversify Alberta’s economy. Alberta’s cultural and artistic community has once again been let down.

The people of Alberta are missing an opportunity to invest in a vibrant, sustainable, revenue-generating sector of the economy that adds so much to our quality of life. Mr. Speaker, this may be a surplus budget, but it shows a huge deficit of imagination. There’s no comprehensive plan for the future here, no sense of direction, no vision of a better tomorrow. It is, indeed, a budget to nowhere.

Blessed with unprecedented windfalls, all this government can do is throw a few dollars here, cut a few dollars there, count on unbudgeted surpluses to put out any political fires that happen to break out, and hope that’s good enough. Well, it is not good enough. It’s not good enough for the Alberta Liberal opposition, and it’s not good enough for the people of this province. This is no way to manage Alberta, especially not an Alberta with such incredible potential.

If we had a government with the discipline and imagination to spend where it’s needed and save the rest, we could guarantee our prosperity for decades to come. We could build a province of permanent prosperity. Instead, we have a government thrown into disarray by its own good fortune. As one minister has already admitted, it’s a lot easier to just say no than it is to manage massive surpluses.

The austerity budgets of the 1990s proved that this government is pretty good at saying no, at least was, but faced with the far greater challenge of shepherding Alberta’s good fortune to build enduring prosperity, this government has failed utterly. This is a budget that sees numbers but not people, that sees a balance sheet and not the larger meaning behind all the facts and figures. Albertans deserve better. Albertans need better. Albertans need a government that understands the meaning of windfalls and the importance of long-term planning. We cannot afford government short-sightedness any longer.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Beverly-Clareview. Mr. Martin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. [some applause] Thank you. Thank you. I hope you’re still doing that at the end. This is a budget that puts profitable corporations, thoroughbreds, and spin doctors ahead of people. Mr. Speaker, let’s start with the taxes first. The numbers don’t lie. According to the revenue projections in the fiscal plan, page 44, the government will take an extra $102 million out of the pockets of average Alberta families in the form of personal income taxes next year.

Meanwhile, the government’s corporate income tax is going down by about $370 million thanks to a 15 per cent reduction in the general corporate tax rate. Reducing the corporate tax rate from 11.5 per cent to 10 per cent, a 15 per cent cut at a time of record high corporate profits, is frankly just a giveaway, a giveaway pure and simple. Now, let’s just look at a few examples of record corporate profits: EnCana Corporation, $7 billion in profits over the past two years; Husky’s yearly profit, double that of the year before; Talisman’s profit, up 340 per cent in the most recent quarter.

The profit parade goes on and on and on. Meanwhile, this government seems to be allergic to giving a break to hard-working, average Alberta families. The best the Conserva- tive government could come up with was a hundred dollar increase in the basic personal exemption. At the 10 per cent flat tax rate that’s a savings of 10 whole bucks next year. Mr. Speaker, these days that’s barely enough to buy yourself a good cup of coffee. I think the budget should have come up with a warning label te lling Albertans not to spend their 10 buck tax saving all in one place. About five years ago, Mr.

Speaker, the Conservative government brought in a flat income tax of 10 per cent. As the years roll by, the unfairness of the flat tax to middle-income earners grows. The government’s own budget figures show that a two-income Alberta family with two children making $60, 000 per year will pay 28 per cent more in personal income tax than a family with the same income in Ontario. The Alberta family would also pay three times as much in health care premiums as the same family in Ontario.

The government’s figures show that a two-income family making a hundred thousand dollars per year will pay 14 per cent more in personal income tax than a family with the same income in Ontario. That’s on page 142 of the fiscal plan. Don’t give me the bunk about needing to be competitive with other jurisdictions in terms of corporate taxes. With this completely unjustified and unnecessary corporate tax cut a large profitable corporation in Alberta will pay corporate income tax at a rate 40 per cent lower than the same corporation in Ontario and 20 per cent lower than the same corporation in B.C.

The funny thing is, Mr. Speaker, that the B.C. Liberal government just cut its corporate tax rate by 1.5 points in its recent budget to try to compete with Alberta, and now they once again find themselves with a rate 20 per cent higher than Alberta’s. Boy, trickle-down economics is really prevalent among these governments. Meanwhile, the best the government could do on health care premiums was to raise the income threshold for premium subsidies by a few thousand dollars. Premium subsidies only benefit those with very low incomes living below the poverty line. Now, that’s assuming, Mr.

Speaker, that you can figure out the confusing array of paperwork needed to apply for a premium subsidy. It doesn’t come automatically. You have to apply. Meanwhile, middle- income and even lower middle-income families keep getting soaked with $1,056 in regressive health care premiums year after year after year. 3:30 While average Albertans do not get a break on health care premiums, Budget 2006 keeps wasting over $100 million a year on the Alberta royalty tax credit. Can you imagine, Mr.

Speaker, giving refundable tax credits to energy companies during a time that oil and gas prices reach ever higher and higher levels? The policy rationale for continuing the royalty tax credit, which is a corporate welfare leftover from the Don Getty era, is such a state secret that for years the government refused to provide the rationale to our current and past Auditors General, who have been asking for it since 1993.

In its most recent annual report the government finally cracked under the pressure and told the Auditor General – and I wonder if they had a straight face when they said this – quote, the object of the Alberta royalty tax credit is simply to provide financial assistance to the oil and gas industry, unquote. Well, isn’t that nice? A $100 million gift: wouldn’t we all like that? Forget about the grain farmers or the welfare moms. Those hard-pressed oil tycoons definitely need much help so that they can keep buying their yachts and fuelling their Hummers. Mr.

Speaker, this year’s budget contains no new environmental initiatives of any kind to help us meet climate change targets. This budget contains no new measures to address the huge impacts on land, air, and water of oil sands, coal-bed methane, or other energy development projects. The budget contains no new measures to

Alberta Hansard March 23, 2006622 transition the province to create a greener, cleaner future. The NDP opposition has proposed modest royalty adjustments to generate revenues for green funds that would assist municipalities, small businesses, and homeowners to undertake a range of green initia- tives, everything from improving public transit and LRT to doing home retrofits, to fight climate change as well as to reduce utility bills. Mr.

Speaker, on health care, this is a government that claims to be concerned about rising costs, yet other than empty rhetoric the budget itself contains no specific measures for innovation within the public health care system nor any attempt to make it more sustain- able. The budget does acknowledge that the most rapidly rising costs are prescription drug costs, which are going up at a rate of about 15 per cent a year, almost double the rate of increase in overall health spending.

While the government claims to be concerned about rising health costs, it rejects practical solutions for slowing down the growth in drug costs, such as the NDP opposition’s proposed pharmaceutical savings agency. The NDP opposition’s proposal is based on a successful New Zealand model that has slowed down the growth in drug costs to 3 per cent per year for the past 12 years. If the New Zealand model were to be implemented in Alberta, the health system could save $75 million in one year, with a further saving of about $50 million every year after compared to the status quo. But this is a government, frankly, Mr.

Speaker, that wants to off-load health care costs, not control them. This is a government that wants to make health care more affordable only for itself and less affordable for citizens by shifting more costs onto patients. Also, Mr. Speaker, a big loser in this budget is K to 12 education. The Minister of Education is showing that in addition to often dithering, he also seems to lack clout at the cabinet table. How else do you explain a budget containing no provision for expanding kindergarten and junior kindergarten for children at risk, as recom- mended by the Learning Commission over two and a half years ago?

Since then three provincial budgets have been delivered, and there is still no such commitment. The Learning Commission estimated the cost of expanding kindergarten and junior kindergarten programs at $63 million yearly, which s ounds like a lot, but I would remind people that it’s only one-sixth of the $370 million being given away in the corporate tax cut. The postsecondary sector fared only marginally better.

Postsecondary students should be grateful, I suppose, that due to some crossing of wires between the Premier and his Advanced Education minister last fall the government’s picking up the tab for tuition increases for a second year. But nobody, Mr. Speaker, should be fooled by this. This is a st ay of execution, not a real tuition freeze. Tuition is still going up 6 to 8 per cent each year, with the government just paying the increase for a couple of academic years. The worst-case scenario is that the students could face a triple whammy tuition increase in the fall of 2007.

Postsecondary education is the best investment a government can make in its own future well-being. The NDP opposition therefore urges the govern- ment to take a serious look at rolling back tuition, as requested by student groups such as the coalition of Alberta university students. I’m not expecting it, but hope springs eternal. Nor is there much in this budget for this province’s financially strapped municipalities.

Instead of fulfilling its promise to relieve municipalities of the burden of providing ambulance service, funding is being frozen again at $55 million for the third straight year, meaning the burden for providing this life-saving service will increase for more and more municipalities in the coming year. Far from reducing its school property tax by 20 per cent in the coming year, as requested by the Alberta Urban Municipalities Association, and leaving the tax room to municipalities, school property taxes are going up again next year by almost 2 per cent. That’s the reality that’s in the budget documents.

The province’s school property tax will be a full 22 per cent from the freeze promised in the 2001 budget, a promise broken every year since, including this year. This budget contains only an extra $42 million for improving continuing care standards for vulnerable seniors. That’s about 11 per cent of the reduction in corporate taxes next year. The NDP opposition believes that seniors deserve better, Mr. Speaker, but it’s pretty clear that this Conservative government does not.

The Minister of Health and Wellness herself has said that in order to implement the recommendations of the Auditor General and her own government MLA task force, a $250 million investment is required. Why invest only 8 cents on the dollar in this year’s budget when there seems to be lots of money to throw around, especially on corporate tax cuts? I would remind people that these people are in very difficult situations. The horror stories keep coming, as I found out today of one in my own riding. In short, Mr. Speaker, Budget 2006, I repeat, is a budget for spin doctors, thoroughbreds, and fat cats.

Why is almost a 20 per cent increase in funding for the government’s official propaganda arm, namely the Public Affairs Bureau, deemed more important than funding for developmentally disabled adults, which is going up only 2 per cent, only one-tenth as much. As the PDD Edmonton commu- nity board has pointed out, this budget will mean substantial service reductions for developmentally disabled adults. Again, the irony of it. This budget contains a 38 per cent increase in the horse-racing subsidy, from $45 million this year to $62 million next year.

I was surprised that they would even have the gall to do this after all the publicity. The money going to the horse-racing industry could go a long way to avoiding cutbacks for the developmentally disabled or for improving seniors care or for the misery of carrying a 5 per cent decrease in monthly benefit levels for social assistance recipients not expected to work. Mr. Speaker, the government is also going to step up its efforts to fleece Albertans with more casinos, more slots, and more ponies. Meanwhile, user fees go up and services are cut. I would remind about gambling.

The government has become as addicted as anybody: $1.3 billion. I can remember when it was $50 million. Now the government is addicted on gambling the same as some other unfortunate people. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, this is a budget out of sync with the needs and priorities of Albertans. Budget 2006 is notable not only for its lack of compassion but for its lack of vision for the Alberta future. Surely, in this rich province we could have done better. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 3:40 The Speaker: Hon. members, Standing Order 29(2)(

a) is available if there are questions. There being none, I will call on the next speaker, the hon. Member for Cardston-Taber-Warner. Mr. Hinman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In the Lougheed years spending was running at higher and higher levels, just like it is now. Year after year the government coffers grew, and year after year the spending went higher and higher. Everyone demanded and received something. We lived through those good times, and we thought they would never end.

But the vacant houses, bad economy, and increasing fiscal costs across Alberta in the Getty years proved that the boom times will be followed by bust times. We know of seven years of plenty, followed by seven years of drought. The lesson of

March 23, 2006 Alberta Hansard 623 those years was that spending led to deficits, and deficits led to drastic cuts. From looking at this budget, I am left to wonder if we have learned anything from the past. Our fiscal house is one that needs to be in order, and we need to wonder how far the spending can continue before we’ve gone too far and can’t return. It is a good thing that this government is putting funds back into the heritage savings trust fund. It would be even better if we actually planned for the savings and made sure that the fund was matured properly.

I question the need in boom times for this government to count on the trust fund’s dividends as part of the general revenue. It is good to see that more Albertans will be saved from having to pay the health care premiums, but, even more, the government should eliminate them. If we will not eliminate them now in a time of plenty, when will we? [The Deputy Speaker in the chair] While this budget offers some consideration for the future, it is obviously a stay-the-spending-course budget, which does little to set a course to guide the province.

I am very convinced, as we begin our second century, that we have not learned the lessons of the past. We have not come to grips with the needs of future Albertans and the struggles of current ones. Help for families and individuals should be our highest priority. Albertans have seen a great deal of benefit from our booming economy, but they also pay the price in more expensive housing, fees, and taxes as their earnings go up. The government has failed in this budget to adequately address this.

If they were simply to increase the basic tax exemption to $20,000 in Alberta, it would return approximately $500 back to the average Albertan, giving people a few dollars in their pockets, change at the end of the year. It would really make a difference to hard-working Albertans. Those who work to earn their money earn the right to spend it. Let’s leave more money in the pockets of those who have earned it. We have given funding to postsecondary education, yet we did not give any additional funding to secondary and elementary schools.

How do we teach our youth and meet our commitments to the generations to come if there is no infrastructure in place? This is what happens when we fail to plan: we’ve planned to fail. Market value assessment is inflationary and adds to the problems. This government was in power to see the real estate bubbles of the past burst. We need to have a program where production value and purchase price enter into the formula and have a higher weighting on the assessment to the economy.

We’ve currently given I believe a 7.9 per cent reduction in the mill rate, but because of inflation and the market assessment we have an overall increase of 1.7 per cent in taxes being collected. We could have done better. A long time ago businesses were promised a cut from 11.5 per cent to get down to 8 per cent. The steps that have been made in this budget are good ones, but now we have to start to fulfill the promise. The government needs to continue to draw investment into this province. This government boasts about being debt free while many municipal governments are still laden with debt.

In Budget 2006 dollars are dedicated to municipalities for new spending but not for alleviating their debt load. Enabling municipalities to become debt free would reduce the pressure on property taxes. It would allow them to give their citizens a tax break. We’ve also got the unfunded t eachers’ liability that we still haven’t addressed. Perhaps an even greater concern for Albertans is the Canada pension plan, which is dismally underfunded, and we should be looking at that. Rural Alberta needs continued support. In a time when urban centres are growing, our rural areas are being left to die on the vine.

Why are we giving almost the same amount to horse racing as we are to rural development? When did horse racing become a needed business for this province? I would suggest that the province has no business being involved in business. Rural Albertans are no different than the people in Calgary and Edmonton in their need for better schools, better facilities, and better access. The increasing pressure on the cities is being exacerbated by rural area people that are going to the cities for their needs because of the diminishing services of many rural centres.

There are many students that are also moving to the cities and parents actually busing them there because of the lack of curriculum in rural schools. Farmers and ranchers know that weather can be their greatest enemy or ally in providing for their livelihood. The 20 per cent decrease in agricultural insurance premiums is a move in the right direction, but it does not do enough to sustain agriculture, which is the backbone of our rural economy. We need to remove the taxes from agriproducts that they use to produce their crops and raise their livestock. This government has grown at an unprecedented rate.

We started at 17 ministries in 1992, and we have since grown to 24. This government should begin the process of downsizing and controlling their cabinet size. I hope that they will continue to amalgamate ministries as we observe the resignation of leaders in their candidate run. As I have said in the past, efficiency would truly be increased if we were to eliminate the new Ministry of Restructuring and Government Efficiency. We’ve been told that the ministers are efficient and that they can restructure. The bureaucratic bloating continues to rise to an alarming level in this province.

There are 27,500 people in provincial employment, not the 22,500 mentioned last week. We have just added 800 more this year. In the feedlot we call this chronic bloating, and we know that they’ll eventually die. Alexander Tyler talks about the death of democracy, and he says that it’s from tax-and-spend governments. I hope we can learn the lesson before we’re in that dilemma. We need to review and cut the size of government. Otherwise, we’ll once again be needing to make drastic cuts later on the backs of the citizens. This government should serve Alberta with a lean, more productive, and efficient government.

We would encourage the government to replace its legislation that required that all surplus must go to pay down the debt to legislation that would require all surplus to be split between the heritage trust fund and a tax refund to Albertans. The government should now, after the biggest budget ever, seriously examine the cap on spending, preferably taking spending back down $3 billion or $4 billion and leveling off this massive growth. It is important if not critical to have a formula or a plan in place. Sound financial managers advise a savings plan, a disciplined plan where one saves 10 per cent.

We have not saved in the last 20 years, and we don’t have the discipline, but if we would install it now, we have a great opportunity when we’re at the peak of our earning years. Health care reform is big on the agenda of this government. If this third-way policy is to be successful, then more should be done to assure Albertans that politics will play less of a role in the delivery of their health care. The first reform should be to level the playing field for funding to all regions and allow funding to follow the services, services which their appointed boards want to provide for their regions.

The government’s third-way initiatives may control rising health care costs, but it will be a minimum savings if it is simply tied to inflation and population. Our rising population needs

Alberta Hansard March 23, 2006624 more long-term thinking. We need to look at being innovative, as they are down in Taber, where they’re actually rewarded for reducing the number of patient visits to their doctors’ offices and not on a fee per visit only. The doctors want to make Alberta healthy, and there are programs out there that are exciting and innovative if we’ll just grab onto them. If we look at the infrastructure spending, there seems to be no idea of the consequence of increasing the spending so dramatically.

The government is setting prices that are escalating for themselves and everyone else who needs homes, schools, hospitals, and roads built. Inflation comes from demand outstripping supply. We are creating a building problem which may just implode. In Calgary today the effect of these rising costs has inflated the average home to $400,000, pricing some out of the market. We need to project what our infrastructure demands are.

The government alone can fix this by slowing down the building parade until someone can come up with a plan rather than accelerating production beyond supply. 3:50 In conclusion, I guess I would like to compare us to winning the lottery. We’ve been very blessed, but the winning can be the beginning of our downfall. Too much money has often led to corruption, mismanagement, and flamboyant lifestyles. Can we sustain the huge influx of money without redistributing it and not cause inflation and possibly run into a brick wall in a few years?

The gap between our potential and our achievement grows with our added revenue. We are the envy of other provinces and even the world. It is my hope that we can strive to r each our ever-growing potential and not rest on our past achievements. We have seen both good examples and excellent ones here in the province. We need to take two steps back and remember that tax cuts and refunds are progressive and great for the economy. Working Albertans deserve a refund on their tax from the surplus income. It is not good enough to say that we are the best in the world. We need to rise to our full potential.

We need to recognize hard- working, innovative, and efficient Albertans. We need a formula that will restrain government gr owth, invest in our future and infrastructure and the endowment funds, and truly put Alberta ahead of the race by reducing taxes and leaving as many dollars as possible in the pockets of the people, to be used at their discretion. The Deputy Speaker: Hon. members, Standing Order 29(2)(

a) is available for anyone. Mr. VanderBurg: The member opposite talked about the horse- racing industry and made an inference that we support this industry more than we support other industries. I wondered if the member opposite knows about the arrangement that the horse-racing industry has so many slots tied to a race track and then gets a percentage of the take of those slots to fund horse racing. If nobody played the machines at the facilities, at the horse-racing tracks, the subsidy would be zero. I wondered if the member knew that. Mr.

Hinman: I understand that the subsidy would be zero, but the fact of the matter is that people do go there, and we’re encouraging that betting. I don’t believe that it’s in our best interest, just as smoking is not in our best interest in the province, and we could focus the money in better areas. If, in fact, we were to put in incentives where farmers would be able to recoup as people came and bought Alberta-made products or other areas, we could do incentives to enhance that industry, but I don’t see the need to enhance the business of horse racing. The Deputy Speaker: The hon.

Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. Mr. Horner: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just wanted to follow up on my colleague’s question as it related to horse racing and, really, the gambling industry. I’m wondering if the hon. member’s inference is that under his party they would remove all gambling in the province and add tax to food as opposed to using gambling dollars to do some of the good work that we do do in the province. Mr. Hinman: I thank the minister of agriculture for asking that question.

I believe in free enterprise, and it’s interesting to me that, going back to the ’90s, the govern ment took the idea that because our dollars were leaving the province, we needed to bring this vice in here in order to keep it here. I don’t believe it’s to the benefit of society to have it here, and it’s been very sad to me to see the heritage trust fund get turned into the gaming and revenue ministry. Rural Albertans and most Albertans are left now to make application to lottery funds instead of the heritage trust fund.

I don’t see the reference in trying to promote gambling and thinking that it’s a wonderful opportunity and that the government s hould be backing it and expanding it in all areas. It just isn’t beneficial. The Deputy Speaker: I recognize the hon. Member for Edmonton- Gold Bar. Mr. MacDonald: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the hon. Member for Cardston-Taber-Warner, and it is certainly around the increase, the substantial increase, the 40 per cent increase in the subsidy to the horse-racing industry.

In light of the fact that it is now $63 million, if one looks at this subsidy since it was first initiated, it’s growing in leaps and bounds every fiscal year, and it’s well in excess of $250 million at this point. I notice that there is a significant demand for irrigation infrastructure assistance. Would the hon. member feel that the money would be much more appropriately used if it was used to improve our irrigation systems rather than just as a direct subsidy to some of the elite people in this province through the horse-racing industry? Mr. Hinman: I thank the hon. member for the excellent question.

I’ll quote the Premier: “For every upside there’s a downside.” For every dollar spent, there can be a negative side. What they’re wanting to do is focus this money on the horse races. I understand that that’s their desire and that they think that’s beneficial, but I think there are many areas in the province where we could truly reach our full potential rather than just the achievements we have. Irrigation is an excellent one.

We see the increase in production there has been in southern Alberta, which is now our breadbasket, where the government has subsidized and put in dams, realizing and wanting to capitalize on our blue gold. It’s an excellent opportunity, and we need to continue doing that. Then we should be spending money on more studies, and it would be of far better use to put that money into increased water storage capacity and perhaps buried lines instead of open lines, where we lose our valuable water to evaporation.

There are many areas where if we were to have a great and extended debate, that would be of much better benefit to Albertans and taxpayers as a whole and make us more independent. If we focus that money, whether it’s on education, whether it’s on farming and agriculture, whether it’s on health care, there are a lot of priorities that I think would take precedence. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Deputy Government House Leader.

March 23, 2006 Alberta Hansard 625 Mr. Stevens: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I move that we adjourn debate. [Motion to adjourn debate carried] head: Government Bills and Orders Second Reading Bill 26 Mandatory Testing and Disclosure Act The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Deputy Government House Leader. Mr. Stevens: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

It’s my pleasure at this time to move Bill 26, Mandatory Testing and Disclosure Act, for second reading, and I would ask that we at this time adjourn debate. [Motion to adjourn debate carried] head: Government Bills and Orders Third Reading Bill 18 Wilderness Areas, Ecological Reserves, Natural Areas and Heritage Rangelands Amendment Act, 2006 Mr. Stevens: I have more to say on this matter, Mr. Speaker. It’s my pleasure to stand on behalf of the hon.

Minister of Community Development to move for third reading Bill 18, Wilderness Areas, Ecological Reserves, Natural Areas and Heritage Rangelands Amendment Act, 2006. I wish to provide some su mmary of what this bill w ill do, Mr. Speaker. Bill 18 clarifies a number of provisions in the existing act. It updates enforcement, offence, and penalty provisions. It updates

definitions, improves wording and clarity. It deletes obsolete provisions. It substantially increases the maximum fines for serious violations. It also repeals the Advisory Committee on Wilderness Areas and Ecological Reserves, whose work now is performed in a process that involves local communities and stakeholders. Bill 18 also repeals the provision for controlled buffer zones. No buffer zones were ever formally pro

Document details

Collection	Alberta — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20060323
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	L26 S2 20060323 1330 01 han.pdf
Language	en
Format	json
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	5d72e089feafa44d83ffcb7aa703df9e3081e0c3

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