Alberta Hansard — 3 March 2004, Afternoon sitting (13:30) (Legislature 25, Session 4)

20040303

Alberta — Debates (Hansard)

March 3, 2004 Alberta Hansard 287 Legislative Assembly of Alberta Title: Wednesday, March 3, 2004 1:30 p.m. Date: 2004/03/03 [The Speaker in the chair] head: Prayers The Speaker: Good afternoon. Let us pray. As Canadians and as Albertans we give thanks for the precious gifts of freedom and peace which we enjoy. As Members of this Legislative Assembly we rededicate ourselves to the valued traditions of parlia mentary democracy as a m eans of serving our province and our country. Amen. Please be seated. head: Introduction of G uests The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General. Mr.

Hancock: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s my pleasure today to introduce to you and through you to members of the Assembly 32 grade 6 students a nd their tea cher, Ms N atalie Gago-Esteves, and Mrs. Joanne McMillan, parent and school council chair, all from the Brander Gardens elementary school in my const ituency of Edmonton-Whitemud. They’re here today to observe and learn with keen interest about government.

I had an opportunity, while we had pictures taken earlier, to receive questions, and I can tell you that this group asked some of the most intelligent questions that I’ve ever had as a member of the Legislature. They’re seated in the members’ gallery. I’d ask that they please stand and receive the tra ditional warm welcome of the Assembly. The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Economic Development. Mr. Norris : Thank y ou, Mr. S peaker. I rise on this beautiful Alberta day to i ntroduce to y ou and through y ou a constituent of mine, Mrs. Anna Nascimento. I haven’t had a ch ance to h ave questions from Mrs.

Nascimento, so I can’t comment on them, but I’m sure they’re going to be very good ones when we get a chance to talk. Like many Albertans she was proud of the Alberta Learning Commission and is here to see that process unfold as we discuss it. Would you please join me and give her the warm welcome that she deserves in our gallery. The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Energy. Mr. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to introduce to you and through you to the balance of the Assembly 16 visitors from the Department of Energy. It’s part of our new employee orientation program.

I’ll read their names and then as k them to stand at the completion of the names so they can be recognized and receive the warm welcome of the House: Ms Josie Kumar, Diane Smith, Janette Appelt, Alexei Jernov, Michael Martell, Pawel Swisterski, Robert Parker, Janette Pole, Susan Friedrich, Veronica Henriquez-Torres, Patricia Chatzoglou, Cecilia Bloxom, Dawn Von Se mmler, Barrie Harrison, Anna Ellert, and Baxter Patey. I think it’s important that I say that there i s no relati on between Diane Smith an d myself. Please rise. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Government Services. Mr.

Coutts: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It’s my pleasure today to introduce t o you and thr ough you to m embers of the Assembly some g uests w ho were instrumental in shaping the Residential Tenancies Act, those amendments which are going to be tabled in the House today. These people and the organizations they represent were crucial in our ongoing efforts to listen to Albertans, to work thr ough a dive rsity of views, and to help the government pursue a balanced vision, one that is acceptable to both landlords and tenants.

There are over 300,000 rental units in the province and a demand for more, and in the middle of their busy days these folks worked on these amendments to the Residential Tenancies A ct to ensure that they keep pace with the rental housing industry and make Alberta’s legislation among the best in Canada.

May I ask our distinguished visitors – th ey ar e seate d in the members’ gallery – to please rise w hen I ca ll their n ames: Gerry Baxter from the Calgary Apartment Association, Ron Holland from the E dmonton Apa rtment Association, Brock Ke tchum f rom th e Calgary Better Business Bureau, Hope Hunter from the Boyle Street Co-op, Colleen Burton-Ochocki from the Edmonton Landlord and Tenant Adviso ry Boar d, an d Kath erine Weaver from the city of Edmonton. From my own Department of Government Services I’m pleased to welcome Rick Solko wski. I ask the Assembly to gi ve them the traditional warm welcome.

The Speaker: The hon. Member for Drayton Valley-Calmar. Rev. Abbott: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It gives me great pleasure today to introduce a couple of constituents of mine, one of whom, I’m pretty sure, voted for me because she’s my wife, and the other one, I hope , will be able to vote for me som eday. That’s my five- year-old son. So I w ould ask L ucas and L innette to stand and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. The Speaker: The hon. Deputy Speaker. Mr. Tann as: Thank y ou, Mr. Speaker.

I’m honoure d today to introduce to you and t hrough you t o the Ass embly 50 hom e- schooling students from Keg River to Milk River, from Lloydminster to Canmore. They are studying through the Centre for Learning at Home, which is headquartered in my constituency, in Okotoks. They are accompanied today by Bernadette Palamarek, Cindy Pukalo, Lori Snoxell, Leah Boorsma, Kari-Lynn Hastman, Maria Blunt, Leon and Tracy St. Denis, Raelene Devic h, Mary Lynn Sc hneider, Ca rol Durnford, Elaine and Nolan Chapm an, Jennie Almost, Heather Gautreau, Kim Frisch, and Deb Van Ember.

I would ask them to rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of this Assembly. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Wainwright. Mr. Griffiths: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s a pleasure of mine to rise today to introduce to you and th rough you to members of this Assembly 22 of the best and brightest students this province has to offer, who, I’m sure, someday will be very interested in pursuing my job given their energy and their intelligence level. I’d also like t o introduce Mr. Rick Dawson, the teacher; parent helpers Mrs. Barbara Bitzer, Mrs. Donna Fischer; and the bus driver, Mr.

John Bruketa, with whom I had the distinct pleasure of discussing the importance of rural development for the succ ess of t his province. I’d ask that they rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of this Assembly. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. Mr. MacDonald: Thank you, M r. Speaker. It is m y pleasure to

Alberta Hansard March 3, 2004288 introduce to you and t hrough you t o all hon. m embers of this Assembly a constitue nt of Edm onton-Gold Bar, Mr. Jim Guthrie, who is accompanied by three visitors from the Soviet Union who are employees of the oil company SeverTEK. This company is just completing a $355 mill ion oil proces sing facility and a 110-ki lo- metre pipeline in the Russian Arctic. SeverTEK employees include Canadians, an d SeverTEK has purc hased much of its equipment from Alberta companies.

On this trip these guests are meeting with as many Alberta oil field supply companies as possible and are here to learn more about the safety and environm ental best practices that h appen in Canada in Fort McMurra y and also in the N orthwest Territories. The y are seated in the public gallery. I would like them now to rise as I call their names: Mr. Jim G uthrie, Alexander Seleznev, Alexey Boichenko, and Nina Salikova. I would ask them now to receive the traditional warm welcome of this Assembly. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview. Dr. Taft: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I al so have a num ber of introductions today. The first a re some parents and their children who are here watching the proceedings of the Legislature, interested in the welfare of Alberta’s public education system. They are in the members’ gallery, and I’ll ask them to rise. The first is Liz Miller. She has four boys in e lementary, junior high, and hi gh school. I might add that I believe her father-in-law was once a member of this Assembly. The seco nd is Kathy Pontus, who has two children in Windsor Park elementary.

The third is Stacey Pelechaty, who has a child in Windsor Park, and finally Karen Ferrari, a mother of three with two children in Windsor Park elementary. As I say, they will be watching our proceedings with close interest as we comment on public education. Please give them a warm welcome. 1:40 Mr. Speaker, I have one other introduction. I’d like to introduce Carol Carbol.

She’s a licensed practical nurse very concerned about the future of public health care in Alberta, particularly interested in issues surrounding the use of P3s to build hospital s and about the impact of movin g nur ses from site to site, the imp act of t hat on patient safety. I would ask Carol to rise, and please give her a warm welcome. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glengarry. Mr. Bonner: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

It giv es me a great deal of pleasure to introduce to y ou and through y ou to al l Members of the Legislative Assembly a constituent of Edmonton- Glengarry, Jimmy Ragsdale. Jimmy has a keen interest in politics both at the provincial and federal levels. He is seated in the public gallery, and with your permission I’d ask Jim now to rise and please receive the traditional warm welcome of the House. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Wainwright. Mr. Griffiths: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In my haste and excitement I forgot t o mention t hat the stude nts were from Allan J ohnstone school, the same school that last year won first place nationally for a Scholastic book award. I’d like that in Hansard. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. head: Oral Quest ion Peri od The Speaker: First Official O pposition main question. T he hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. Cattle Industry Mr. MacDonald: Thank you, Mr. Speak er. Cattle produc ers in Alberta are in f inancial tr ouble. Program s supporting t he catt le feeder industry which were implemented last summer did not trickle down.

The cow -calf program initiated this past fall has not been sufficient given the stall in today’s market movement. [interjection] That’s interesting. My first question is to the agriculture minister. Why did the g overnment decide to use trickle-down formulas to insert money into the market rather than a program to support market demand, which would have kept a functional market in place? Mrs. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I take exception to the ho n. mem- ber’s assertions.

First of all, it’s an insult to the cattle industry in this province, that I believe knows a heck of a lot more about their business than the hon. member. Every program, all fi ve, was designed with the cattle industry at the table. They were developed fully – fully – looking at all of the ramifications, all of the benefits, all of the ef fects, with a v ery strong concern that we know m ost emphatically that when there is ever any government intervention, it can cause some distortion in the market.

The industry worked hard to e nsure that t he programs that w ere developed minim ized t hat opportunity for distortion in the market. So, again, it is an insult to an industry that has pr oudly contributed to this pr ovince for this many years to sugg est that t he design of those progr ams did no t work. Mr. MacDonald: Again, Mr. Speaker, to the same minister: w hat steps is the government taking now to help small cow-calf producers who got too little help too late? Mrs. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, again the hon. member displays his lack of knowledge of the industry in the question.

Last summer when I met with cow-calf producers – I didn’t actually see the hon. member present at any of these functions, but he may have been – I was told by cow-calf produce rs of the great concern they had that they’d be selling 50-cent steers this last fall if we didn’t intervene. Well, we did int ervene and in a progra m that was designed by the industry to solve all of the effects of this through that chai n of the industry.

Cow-calf producers last fall saw prices that were as high or higher than the year before an d an additional blessing of better weights because we did not have the drought conditions in t he majority of the province. Mr. Speaker, where the issues came with the cow-calf producers are the producers who decided not to sell their calves last fall for one or two or three reasons. One could be that you’re in a tax position where you don’t sell until spring and you can’t change that quickly and, secondly, maybe bec ause they were spec ulating that if t he border op ened, t he prices would in f act im prove.

T hat’s their management decision, not mine. Mr. MacDon ald: Again to the same minister: gi ven that thi s government led producers into a false sense of security by giving the impression that the borders would be open in the new year, is it not now y our resp onsibility to share some of the financial burden currently being felt by the small cattle producers in this province? Mr. Hancock: Point of order.

March 3, 2004 Alberta Hansard 289 The Speaker: Point of order recognized. Mrs. McClellan: Well, Mr. Speaker, that tops it. It really does. I’m fairly used to questions that display ignorance of an industry by the Liberal opposition, but that tops it. I can’t see any shr ed of evi- dence, and I’d invite the hon. member, although it would be out of character, to produce some evidence that this governmen t – this government – gave the industry a false sense of security.

What this government did do and is doing and has continued to do for the past 1 0 months i s work shoulder to shoulder with that industry to do ever ything we can to a ssist the federal government, who is our negotiator on international agreements, to move ahead on border opening. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I spent two days in Washing- ton last week doing exactly that. My consensus and the information from that meeting are that the U.S. industry, politicians, cattlemen want that border open as much as we do. The Speaker: Second Official Opposition main question. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar.

Electricity Deregulation Mr. MacDonald: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday the Premier stated, “It’s clear that prices in Alberta have gone down since 2001 when deregulation was introduced.” As proof the Premier tabled a chart of elec tricity prices, a nd this docum ent was prepared by Alberta Energy. It clearly shows that Albertans’ monthly power bills have skyrocketed since 2000 by as m uch as 41 pe r cent for so me customers. My f irst questi on is to the Prem ier.

Gi ven that the government’s own resea rch clear ly show s that m onthly bills excluding rate riders have still increased for Edmonton and Calgary power customers, why is this government still clinging to Dr. West’s failed electricity deregulation scheme? Mr. Klein: It wasn’t Dr. West’s scheme, and it didn’t fail. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. MacDonald: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again to the Premier: given that elec tricity deregula tion has not b rought “trem endous competition that will put downward pressure on prices,” as Dr.

West promised on April 22, 1998, why won’t this g overnment listen to Albertans and unplug electricity deregulation? Mr. Klei n: Mr. Sp eaker, I will say that Dr. West promised that deregulation would bring about the generation of more power, and that has happened. Alberta has gained over 3,000 megawatts of new power generat ion. That’s a 30 per ce nt increas e in A lberta’s electricity supply since deregulation was introduced. In addition, we understand that investors are contemplating another $6 billion by the end of 2006, which will bring on another 5,400 megawatts of power. So, Mr.

Speaker, notwithstanding the fact that prices have indeed stabilized, we now have a s ecure supply of energ y, and e ven this member should be feeling a lot more comfortable than he did before deregulation. The Speaker: The hon. minister to supplement. Mr. Smith: Thank you very much. Very quickly, Mr. Speaker, I would draw the member’s attention to a study done by the Independ- ent Power Producers Society of Alberta. They clearly say, through a well-documented study, that today’s prices are what the regulated prices would have been from the period 2000 forward, so he knows very well what the real prices are.

He knows the price of power has dropped in this province. They know that Albertans are getting some of the best power deals in North America. 1:50 Mr. MacDonald: Again, Mr. Speaker, to the Premier: if this extra generation, in this cas e 3,000 additiona l megawatts of powe r, is supposed to drive dow n prices, why has the opposi te happened in Alberta and prices have gone up? Mr. Klein: Mr. Speaker, the price of electricity has stabilized. How can anyone believe this member when he quotes from a 1998 letter written by Mr. Sout hern? Mr.

So uthern as re cently as Aug ust of 2003 wrote us a letter saying that notwithstanding the carping and the misinf ormation a nd all the s tuff tha t the Libe rals put out, deregulation is working. It’s working well, and this government has managed it well. Calgary Emergency Health Services Dr. Taft: Mr. Speaker, last week the Premier brushed off questions I raised from patients and their families about shocking conditions at the Foothills emergency ward.

This government has blown up and sold off hospitals in Calgary to the point where it has far fewer beds for its population t han any Canadian city outside of Alberta, and Calgary is s till years away from a ne w general hospital . To the Premier: does this government accept responsibility for conditions in which a sick elderly man, repeatedly vomiting, spends hours lying on a dirty floor in the Foothills emergency room on a makeshift bed of coats in the heart of one of the wealthiest cities in Canada? Mr. Klein: Mr.

Speaker, if th e hon. member wo uld send m e the information, all the details relative to this situation, I’ll make sure it’s investigated thoroughly. Dr. Taft: Mr. Spea ker, I tabled this material last week when I questioned the Premier then. Does this gove rnment a ccept re sponsibility for conditions in which an 80-year-old woman with symptoms of a stroke is left for eight hours in the Foothills emergency room and eventually leaves without seeing a doctor? Mr. Klein: Oh, Mr. Speaker, I apologize. There was a letter that was tabled.

It was entitled Politicians Playing Doctor, and I guess it was sent fr om Monica Blackwell to Marle ne Graham, the hon. Member for Calgary-Lougheed. But I’m sure that the hon. minister is having thi s matt er inves tigated, a s indeed al l compla ints are investigated, including the one that he r aised during his second question. The Speaker: The hon. minister to supplement. Mr. Mar: Mr. Speaker, I can provide some more detail on this. To put this in context, there are some 250,000 visits a year that are dealt with at the emergency rooms in Calgary hospitals.

Of the two letters tabled by the h on. member la st week, one was about the circum- stances surrounding the care of an individual written by a friend of that individu al, and in the other case it was a family member who was writing about actually quite a number of different incidents that she alleges to have observed in the health care system. Mr. Speaker, patie nt c onfidentiality, I think, is something that needs to be respe cted here on the floor of this Legislature, so we should not engage in the debate over the specifics of an individual

Alberta Hansard March 3, 2004290 whose circumstances may warrant some further investigation. But I can say that in thi s particu lar case both writers of the letters and their families have been contacted by the regional health authority, by the patient representative who assists people in resolving some of the complaints. There is a proper complaint resolution process that the Calgary health region has. I’m assured by the health region that the writers of these two letters have in fact been contacted and that they’re going through the process of ensuring that their complaints are resolved to their satisfaction.

The Speaker: The hon. member. Dr. Taft: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My last question, again to the Premier: does this government accept responsi bility for throwing Alberta’s health care system into such crisis that the Calgary health region has had to invent a new term signifying an absolute overload of emergency resources, code burgundy? Mr. Klein: Mr. Speake r, t hat statem ent is not only wrong; i t is vicious, malicious. It m isrepresents the situ ation here in Alberta, where we’re spending ov er $7 billion on he alth care, over $19 million each and every day.

Yes, there are going to be instances, as there were back in 1950, 1960, 1970, 1980, as there will be in 2004, ’05, ’06, and every year and every century. There i s going to be a problem or problems with the system. It’s a huge, huge system that breaks down from time to time. But all the Liberals can concentrate on is picking out what is not good about the system.

You know, there are probably I don’t know how many thousands of people that go through the system each and every day, and many of them , most of them, a ll of them with the exception of a few come out alive and well, and 80 per cent of them say that they were treated very, very well indeed. But the Liberals don’t concentrate on the 80 per cent. They will search high and low and turn over every rock to find a little bit of dirt. That’s w hat they’re all about, Mr. Speaker. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands, followed by hon. Member for Red Deer-North. Cattle Industry (continued) Mr.

Mason: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Alberta taxpayers feel betrayed. They have eaten more beef and gladly contributed $400 million to assist Alberta beef producers only to find out that two large American-owned packing companies may have received most of that m oney. T his morning the Tory MLAs at the Public Accounts Committee dutifully voted down a motion for the Auditor General to investi gate. My question is t o the Premi er. Will the Premier overrule his stonewalling backbenchers and ask the cabinet to order a special investigation by the Auditor General? Mr. Klein: Mr. Speaker, the hon.

Deput y Premier and minister of agriculture has said that she will release publicly the expenditures to address the BSE crisis. I mean, where d oes this gu y think the Auditor General has been? The A uditor Ge neral investigates all expenditures by all departments for all purposes in government, and if he finds that this $400 million – and it’s not going to go unnoticed by the Auditor Gener al – was us ed improperly, he’ll let ev eryone know. You’re darn sure. Since the hon. me mber a lluded to Al berta beef producers, he obviously believes in the Alberta Beef Producers organization. Do you not?

Do you believe in the Alberta Beef Producers association? The Speaker: Hon. Premier, please. Mr. Klein: Any member can ask any other member a question. The Speaker: Well, actually, it doesn’t really work that way. The hon. member. Mr. Mason: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again to the Premier: given that the Auditor General told the Public Accounts Committee this morning that he could only look at the various expenditures and so on and couldn’t do a value-for-money audit without being instructed by the cabinet, will the Premier take back that misinformation and stop stonewalling? Mr. Klein: Mr.

Speaker, as I pointed out, the Auditor General can investigate a nything he wants. During the course of his normal duties he examines all expenditures by all departments. But, Mr. Speaker, getting back to the Alberta beef producers – and the hon. member alluded to the Alberta beef producers. Well, I have a letter here from the Alberta Beef Producers, and it says: We are co ncerned about the cri ticism that the financia l support programs put in pla ce to r espond to the border closures resulting from the discovery of BSE in Alberta did not achieve their objec- tives.

The programs stabilized our industry’s situation and allowed for flow through to cow-calf producers who sold production in the fall of 2003. 2:00 He goes on to say: Your government’s leadership kept the beef cattle marketing system functioning by ensuring that cattle feeders received quick and vital financial support to offset their very significant losses created by the immediate over-supply of cattle for s laughter and s ale w ithin Canada.

This is from the Alberta Beef Producers, who go on to say: Minister McClel lan’s pe rsistence and le adership in neg otiations with the feder al government has als o contr ibuted to the re cent changes in the Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization Program and in t heir change in policy to not require slaughter under th eir national cull animal program. The letter further states . . . The Speaker: I apprecia te that, bu t I think there’s still another supplemental. There may very well be an opportunity, and we’ll also table the letter as well. The hon. member. Mr. Mason: Thank you, Mr. Speak er.

Obviou sly, a lot o f arm- twisting went on yesterday. Will the Premi er, who no doubt wants t o avoid any hin t of a cover-up, please tell the House when and under what circumstances he will ask for an investigation by the Auditor General? Mr. Klein: Mr.

Speake r, you k now, the hon. m ember alleges a cover-up, but 32,000 members, Alberta beef producers, sa y tha t indeed there has been no cover-up, that quite the opposite has occurred, and that this government has provided leadership, strong leadership in keeping the beef cattle marketing system functioning, and all this member can do is stand up and try to smear the Alberta beef producers. That is shameful. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Red Deer-North, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview. Mrs. Jablonski: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. Obviously, we are

March 3, 2004 Alberta Hansard 291 hearing a lot about the BSE compensation packages, and I, too, have a question for our Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Develop- ment. That qu estion i s: since the Auditor General will not even begin to audit the 2003- 2004 financia l reports for a t least f our weeks, could the minister tell us when we will receive a list of the payments made to date in the compensation package? Mrs. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I have said consistently that I will be very pleased to supply that information.

However, I have re sisted requests to file that information with anybody, including the media, until the program is complete. That would be totally unfair because the cheques th at go ou t to producers go out as t heir clai ms are answered, and I don’t want that to be a partial list. There is no secr et about w here that m oney went, Mr. Sp eaker. Every cheque is made out to a produc er, a feed er, and the exact amount that they have received. We are 95 per cent complete. We have a few claims that had to ha ve som e further inform ation supplied.

I should say also, for the hon. member’s information and for the House’s information, that we h ave done audits thr oughout this process to ensure to the very best of our ability that those dollars did in fact flow to the owner of the animal. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mrs. Jablonski: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My final question to the same minister: will the new CAIS program do anything to help our local smaller producers? Mrs. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, it is d esigned to do that wi th the changes that have occurred to it, and you heard the Premier reference the Alberta Beef Produce rs’ comments in thei r letter.

While the CAIS program , or the Cana da agric ulture incom e stab ilization program, was designed to assist producers in all aspects of primary and secondary production through difficult times or through swings in com modity prices or markets, it beca me very evident with the disaster the ma gnitude of the BSE incident that it w ould not be adequate under its present form. So we worked hard with other provinces and the federal govern- ment over th e summer an d, in deed, were ab le to negot iate t wo changes to it.

One was 60 per cent negative ma rgins being recog- nized, and the other one, I think a fact that we should be very proud of in our province because of the size of the industry here, reminding members that we have 71 per cent of the slaughter, over 60 per cent of the f eeding, ha lf of the breed ing stock, as well as a very large percentage of purebr ed stock, is tha t the caps were too low at $975,000. Nationally they a re looking at a $3 m illion cap; i n Alberta we’re looking at $5 million. We want to be fair to all of our producers, Mr.

Speaker, because the hurt is the same whether you have a thousand animals or 10,000 animals. It just goes up in degree. There is no point where it breaks off and doesn’t become a hurt. So thos e change s will he lp our producers, and we look forward to other provinces coming on board and signing that agreement so that we can get on with the support our producers need. Sour Gas Well Emissions Dr. Taft: Mr. Speaker, proposals currently before the EUB would allow sour gas wells to be drilled in and around Calgary, encompass- ing about 300,000 people and a hundred thousand homes.

The sour gas concentrations in these wells are high, posing serious threats to health and comfort. People prefer not to live near sour gas wells if they have a choice. To the Minist er of Municipal Affairs: what is this minister doing to ensure that residents in and near Calgary will not be adversely affected by these proposed sour gas wells? Mr. Boutilier: Well, as the member, Mr. Speaker, is f ully aware, this is in front of the board, but I can certainly assure every member of this House and all Albertans that the safety of all Albertans is a priority of this government.

The oil and gas industry is one of the pillars of the Alberta economy. However, as with any heavy industry there are inherent risks. Now, with respect to sour gas we have a very comprehensive plan in place to ensure the safety of both the wor kers and the residents and a protocol to go along with that procedure. Dr. Taft: Okay. I’m sure that reassures them.

Given that a recent report entitled Impact of Oil and Gas Activity on Rural Residential Property Values says that property values i n this area c ould depreciate by 10 per cent if they’re located in the emergency planning zone of sour gas wells, what is this minister doing to ensure that C algarians will not suffe r this hit to t heir property values? Mr. Boutilier: Mr. Speaker, every municipality in this province has emergency response plans and every corner of the city of Calgary, that the member mentioned.

So he should be very much aware that emergency plans are in place i n every area, c onsequently, to be proactive in dealing with some event that may happen. Without question I believe that the emergency response officials in the city of Calgary are exemplary, in fact to the point where they’re unmatched in any othe r provin ce in Canada by compar ison to the ci ty of Calgary. The people of Albe rta are well a ssured, Calgar ians included, that their interests are being protected relative to what is being asked today. Dr.

Taft: What i s thi s mi nister d oing to ensure that the c ity of Calgary, the city itself , will not l ose mil lions of dol lars due to reduced property taxes as a result of these sour gas proposals? Mr. Boutilie r: Mr. Speaker, one of the s trengths of the Albe rta advantage is that people are coming to this province because of the environment that this government has set. Consequently, the values of people’s homes are in fact increasing because of that environment that we have set.

So, to the hon. member, I do know that Albertans are very pleased by the fact that their values are appreciating because of that envir onment, be cause we’ve set the envir onment rig ht in protecting Albertans. The Speaker: The hon. M ember for Olds-Didsbury-Three Hills, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. 2:10 Provincial Recreational Trails Mr. Marz: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I received numerous copies of letters addresse d to the Pre mier regarding the recently released Recreation Corridors Legislative Review report.

People throughout Alberta are expressing concerns that their issues were not heard by the committee or included in the report, such as the fact that man y people simpl y do not want t rails or th at municipalities may have their authority to decide on development of t rails taken away. My question to the Ministe r of Com munity Developm ent: will t he minister confirm that he will not remove municipalities’ authority to decide if trails may be developed in their jurisdictions by designating provincial recreational trails in Alberta to be continuous?

Alberta Hansard March 3, 2004292 Mr. Zwozdesky: Mr. Speaker, I don’t recall having read anything in that report that would suggest anything of the kind. I can certainly assure this hon. member and all mem bers of the House th at I’ve never said anything about removing any of that type of authority. I think it should be m ade fairly clear that the Recr eation Corridors Legislative Review report is just that: it’s a report provided to me. I have not yet responded to it.

I hav e sent it out to the public f or additional comm ent and in put, a nd to my knowledg e virtual ly everything that the c ommittee hear d was f airly and accura tely reported in that report. In addition to that, I’ve also received quite a bit of cor respondence on it, s o I und erstand that there are some anxieties out there. Let me just emphasize again, Mr. Speaker, that no decisions have been made yet with respect to that report. It’s coming through the process, and as part of that process I want to assure the member and others that local decision-m aking is param ount.

Municipali ties would first have to make approval of any potential trails or corridors in their areas, and that is throughout the report in several places, and I have ind icated t hat many t imes in my conversations wi th the individuals and/or in my written correspondence with them. Mr. Marz: Well, will the municipalities, given that they are going to have aut hority to c ontinue to approv e the se, be able to put conditions on those approvals? Mr. Zwozdesky: Well, Mr.

Speaker, as part of that local decision- making process I think the is sue of c onditions would certainly be part of that review, and that would also fall under the purview of the local municipality. The issue of governance of existing trails – and I believe we have something like 18,000 kilometres of them in the province – or the p otential crea tion of new trails w ith various conditions or whatever might be deemed locally important would be addressed at the level that I indicated earlier in the first question, and that is at t he level of the loc al municipality in question.

I n fact, under the guidance of the Municipal Government Act there is that provision for a local land use jurisdiction and authority by the local municipality, and I think the report that was ch aired by the hon. Member for La c La Bi che-St. Paul r eferences that quite emphati- cally. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Marz: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again to the same minister: given that abandoned rai l line s previous ly had re sponsibility for fencing and that responsibility should have been transferred with the ownership of the land, will the conditions a municipality may apply to an approval include fencing to a certain standard? Mr. Zwozdesky: Mr. Speaker, whenever there has been an abandon- ment of a right-of-way, then so, too, does whatever agreement may have been in place cea se to exis t, and the la nds in question a re treated as any parcel of land would be treated under the Municipal Government Act.

The basic premise of the Line Fence Amendment Act references the containment of livestock, so municipalities would not be able to compel a trail operator or a trail developer to build a fence or erect a fence or whatever have you unless it was specifically with respect to the issue of livestock containment. That having been said, the MLA report does suggest that fencing and many other items that are referenced in that report would need to be negotiated at the local level, and in that respect so, too, I would expect that the standards would be referenced as you are questioning.

Finally, let me just say that no decisions have been made on this report. The results are coming in. We’ll take our time to have a look at it, and we’ll also look at what the benefits of these trails are, because active and healthy recreation lifestyle is being pursue d in some municipal areas but not in others. Sour Gas Well Emissions (continued) Ms Carlson: Mr. Speaker, sour gas is lethal. Even minor exposure to this gas has been l inked to long -term serious health effects for people and animals. My first question is to the Minister of Munici- pal Aff airs.

W hen planning a nd protocol fail, how does this government respond to a hazardous sour gas release? People want details. The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Boutilier: Thank you very much. I appreciate the question by the member. It’s very important that there is an emergency response plan in place. I spoke earlier about a situation in Calgary. We have an approach, in fact two mechanisms. We have a protocol in place. As well, if citizens, in fact, are to smell sour gas, they can of course respond to 911, and the emergency response team is e xecuted.

Accordingly, there is a protocol in place with the AEUB officials as well as industry officials as well as emergency response officials. Ms Carlson: Mr. Speaker, to the same minister: will this minister and his government accept liability in the event of a hazardous sour gas leak? Mr. Boutilier: First and f oremost, Mr. Speak er, it’s important to recognize that there are emergency response pl ans in pla ce. T his government has a reputation of being very proactive. Relative to issues of liability we hope and pray that situations like this will never happen because of this government’s proactivity.

Ms Carlso n: Mr. S peaker, my final ques tion is to the Solicitor General. How does thi s government p lan to pr otect Calga ry residents and all Albertans from acts of terrorism on sour gas based facilities? Mrs. Forsyth: Well, Mr. Speaker, it’s another good questio n th e hon. member has asked. I have to tell you that Alberta is in the lead in regard to dealing with terrorism. We have an SIM unit that we put together. Our Premier in 2001, on September 12, after the devasta- tion in the United States, called together a team of the government led by the hon. minister of intergovernmental affairs.

We have many ministers on the front bench involved in this. I had the opportunity of speaking at a keynote conference with industry players from across this country, and the federal minister at the time, Minister Easte r, was there, and he said to m e: “Heather, why would we i nvent something? A lberta has taken the lead on this.” So we’re well prepared for terrorists in this country and have been for some time. The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Energy to supplement. Mr. Smith: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I would just like to add that Alberta is the world leader in handling sour gas facilities.

The industry is world be st. The boa rd is worl d best. The re is absolutely no doubt as to the ir excellence bec ause they’re being asked daily by groups such as the World Bank and others to impart this knowledge to others. Since the 1982 Lodgepole blowout, Mr. Speaker, there is a very

March 3, 2004 Alberta Hansard 293 sophisticated process on emergency response and emerge ncy response planning, and there has never ever been a civilian fatality from sour gas management in this province. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-West, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. Low-income Albertans Ms Kryczka: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, last month I met with some truly low-income Calgarians representing AISH and the w orking poor. They are finding it incr easingly difficult to afford the basic necessities of life, including transportation.

AISH receives $10,500 a year and many working poor earn about $12,800 a year. These people depend on public transportation to get to work, to doctors’ appointments, to their day programs, or to volunteer agencies. The problem is that they can’t afford the $65 per month adult transit pass, causing them to lose their ability or incentive to get to work. They don’t understand why seniors below $18,000 annually only pay . . . The Speaker: Hon. member, work with me. Just get to the question. Okay? Ms Kryczka: The first questio n is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Can you explain whether this situation is more of an income problem or an affordable public transportation problem? 2:20 Mr. Boutilier: Well, Mr. Speaker, the Municipal Government Act, as you know, enables municipalities to provide municipal services such as transit, which is, obviously, a very important service, such as the member described in Calgary. I can relate that this is a local issue where the members of council will determine the best policy.

I can say, though, that in my past experience as a former mayor we had a program in place, that I know many municipalities utilize, in terms of helping Albertans t hat are in need, in the special circum- stances that, in fact, the member has just raised.

I would suggest to you that w orking locally with the mun icipal council, using some discretion on some cases – as you know, the province of Alberta in terms of helping those that are in need has removed over a qu arter million Albertans off the Alberta tax roll that do not pay one single cent of tax, based on the kind of disc retion that we’ve used in the policies that have been within this province. Ms Kryczka: My first supplemental is t o the Min ister of Human Resources and Employment.

Given that affordable public transpor- tation is needed to help low-income Albertans first meet their basic needs and, second, help them gain the skills and training needed to succeed in the labour m arket, which a re two g oals in the de part- ment’s 2003-06 business plan, what are you going to do? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Dunford: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I want to first of all make a differentiation in terms of low-income Albertans. In the question it was lumped together, and there has to be, I think, a definit ion.

If we’re talking about low-income A lbertans that happen to be on the a ssured income for the severely handicapped, the so-called AISH program, then I think the hon. member needs to know and understand that AISH is not a needs-based program. It is a program that provides income support to the person, and of course it would be expected, then, that transportation is included in that.

Now, if we have another low-income Albertan who is not working but is eligible to work, one of the cornerstones of moving that person from welfare assistance into the workforce is the fact that they need help with transportation to and from the job. The n, of c ourse, we can look at that on a needs basis and provide the bus pass. Ms Kryczka: My second supplemental is also to the same minister. Would the minister consider forming a committee with provincial and municipal representation to attempt to improve this situation in Calgary and in other urban centres? Mr.

Dunford: Well, there’s been a joke around here for a while that if you’re on one of Clint’s committees, honk your horn. You know, they were kind of making a bumper sticker out of it. So I’m not so sure that we need another committee in this particular instance, Mr. Speaker. There’s a committee that is already in place that is looking at this, and it is called the Advisory Committee on Barrier-free Transporta- tion. W e’ve been working with some of the major municipalities around the province in order to determine this. As far as AISH is c oncerned, this AISH prog ram ha s to be reviewed.

It is a legal requirement that this fall we start into a formal review of the AISH program, and of course we will put together the formal structure, then, in order to do that. Sour Gas Well Emissions (continued) Ms Blakeman: Mr. Speaker, despite the fact that the adverse human health effects of sour gas exposure are well known, this government has yet to conduct an obj ective, scientifically based study on t he issue. This lack of research demonstrates a questionable regard for the health of Albertans. My questions are to the Minister of Health and Wellness. When will this minister finally complete this study?

Mr. Mar: Mr. Speaker, the Ministry of Health and Wellness has been working not only with our own provincial health officers but in collaboration with the minister responsible for Environment. This is an ongoing m atter. My recollec tion from my time a s being Minister of Environm ent is th at they were a lead m inistry in this particular area a nd, in fac t, have e quipment tha t is used for the monitoring of air qua lity throug hout the pro vince of Alberta, including equipment that is able to detect things like sour gas.

So we continue to work on improving the quality of our air in this province, ensuring that the health of Albertans is safe. The Speaker: The hon. member. Ms Blakeman: Thank you. Aga in to the Minis ter o f Health and Wellness: give n t hat the EUB ’s Advisory Com mittee on Public Safety and Sour Gas recommended over three years ag o that this government conduct a c omprehensive study, not a snippet but a comprehensive study, on the health effects of sour gas, how does the minister explain that this study still isn’t done? Mr. Mar: Mr. Speaker, I’m not familiar with the recommendations of the EUB in this regard.

Ms Blakeman: To the same minister: given the recognized dangers to human hea lth and the prol iferation of sour g as wells, will the Ministry of Health and Wellness acknowledge its responsibility to Albertans and advocate against sour gas development in and around populated communities? The Speaker: One is up already. The hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Alberta Hansard March 3, 2004294 Mr. Boutilier: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to add as well that working with our emergency response plan, compani es, the industry, also have dependable systems of monitors in place to warn of any potential incident, which is part of the emergency response team. I fail ed to mention that earl ier. The re are s ensors and monitors in p lace as well, in answer to t he question posed by t he hon. member. Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, this is an important question.

I think that because they’re now spreading confusion and misinformation and talking about something that they really don’t know the effects of, I’d like to talk with a little more clarity on what the Alberta Energy and Uti lities Board does with respect to this important and large- producing amount. We produce a lot of sour gas in this province. In fact, at the University of Calgary there’s the sulphur research centre. In Caroline, where we produce sour gas, they have some of the world’s best handling equipment.

Now, when sour gas comes in an application like this, there is a process at the Alber ta Ene rgy and Utilities Board. It’s an open process, Mr. Speaker. The party opposite could very well apply for intervener status and go and make their own statements. One of the problems they would have is that their interventions would have to be based on fact. I think that may pose a problem for them. These open hearings, Mr.

Speaker, consider the n eed for wells, well spacing or ders, loca tion of the pr oposed we lls and fac ility, environmental impacts, health and safety impacts, land use impacts, condition of exis ting pip elines and facilities, and their operators’ corporate safety record, compliance record, insurance. Then, in fact, the ongoing side is all monitored by the Department of Energy, and it continues to a dvise on any changes. Now, thi s means an emer- gency planning ar ea. It m eans a way of alerting everybody to the effect of sour gas in case there is some issue that goes on.

I can tell you that the Alberta record is unparalleled in the oil and gas drilling universe and will remain so. It’s something we’ve worked on since 1954. So, Mr. Speak er, I think it’s very important to put f orward t he salient features of what occ urs with sour gas m anagement, how we’ve got a polic y structure with the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board, how we’ve got a Department of Environment that monitors its particula r pieces, how we have ind ustry standards that use stainless steel in their couplings and in their pump jacks. There’s a great deal of research and information already done on this.

There’s an $18 million study on the effects of sour gas on animals. The Speaker: Thank you. I would invite the hon. minister to return tomorrow under the Routine for Ministerial Statements. Cattle Industry (continued) Dr. Pannu: Mr. Speaker, one mon th ago today an off icial in the Ministry of Ag riculture, F ood and Rural Development said that allegations that packers are gouging cattle producers were investi- gated but that no wr ongdoing w as found. L ater this week the ministry will release another study, which no doubt w ill reach the same conclusion de spite powerf ul evidenc e to the cont rary.

A question to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural D evelop- ment: why should cattle producers and consumers put any faith in the carcass evaluation study to be released later this week since her officials already decided a month ago that packers didn’t do anything wrong? 2:30 Mrs. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, it wasn’t my officials that decided a month ago.

My officials have undertaken to do a carcass evaluation for me because – if the hon. member were familiar with slaughtering animals and how tha t animal is marketed, he w ould know – the information in that prel iminary or for-dis cussion-only document from the beef industry that they refer to was incomplete and inconclusive.

Instead of standing up in this Legislature and talking like this was a done deal and that the cattle producers supported this, he would ex plain that it had all bee n sent back to comm ittee for further study because it was incomplete and inconc lusive, but the hon. member wouldn’t know tha t because I understand he wasn’t invited to the meeting and wouldn’t be a part of the discussion. Mr. Speaker, I have said in this House that this is a serious issue.

We have a multibillion dollar industry with spinoff components of it in every reach of this prov ince including the capital city, where about 100 companies process agrifood products an d ship to a hundred companies in the w orld, and s imilarly in Ca lgary and in many other communities. This is too serious to politicize, and to try and make political gain by coming to attention 10 months after the fact and realizing that we have a problem is unconscionable. Dr.

Pannu: To the same minister: are the same officials who did the study a month ago that cleared meat packers of any wrongdoing also involved in doing the study to be released later this week? Mrs. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I am struggling to understand which study the hon. member is referring to. I referred to two documents. One was to the federal standing committee on agriculture from the commissioner of the Competition Bureau. That is not who is doing the work for me. The peop le who are do ing work for me are the people who hav e ac cess to the information as be st we c an get it, which is my department. Mr.

Speaker, to suggest before the study or the review, which is really what it is, or the evaluation is done that it’s going to be wrong speaks to the political nature of the question. The honourable thing would be to wait until the information comes forward and challenge it with fact. That’s what’s missing in this discussion. Mr.

Speaker, anybody can stand up in this House and bandy things around, but I would ask the hon. member – although I understand that that community may not be a high supporter of the NDs – that they take into account the hundreds of thousands of lives of employ- ees of that industry in this province whose livelihoods are at stake. The Speaker: The hon. member. Dr. Pannu: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My second supplementary to the min ister: will the mini ster tab le i n th is As sembly to day t he findings of an earlier ministry investigation into allegations of price gouging, and if not, why not? Mrs.

McClellan: I can’t table something that I am not aware of. I’ve asked the hon. member to send across to me the information that he has that suggests that my department has done a study. Have they formed an opinion? Have they looked at this? Perhaps. I asked them to do a c arcass eval uation for me because I like to deal in facts, and, Mr. Speake r, I don’t have that yet. I did check with the department yesterday again, and they anticipate that they would have that information for me on Friday. I have said that I will share it, and share it I will.

But I would ask the hon. member again as a courtesy to send a copy of the document to me, and I would be pleased to respond to him. I don’t think I’ve ever backed off from responding to any question in this House.

March 3, 2004 Alberta Hansard 295 head: Recognit ions The Speaker: Hon. members, 30 seconds from now I’ll call upon the first of seven to participate today. The hon. Member for St. Albert. Saville Sports Centre Mrs. O’Neill: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. On February 28, last Saturday, the Faculty of Physical Education and Re creation at the University of Alberta celebrated the grand opening of the Saville Centre, which houses new curling sheets and tennis c ourts on the south campus of the University of Alberta. Mr.

Bruce Saville was a major donor to this fabulous new sports centre which appropriately and proudly banners his name. Let me tell you about this facility which is designed to serve the university community as well as the broader community.

It has 10 state-of-the-art sheets of ice for the use of professional and amateur curling teams as well as students and future phys. ed. teachers plus eight indoor tennis courts which will accomm odate international meets and program s for young and older able and dis abled tennis players plus a 9,000 square foot gymnasium, steam baths, hot tubs, locker rooms, and a lounge that will accommodate 600 people. Mr.

Speaker, the Faculty of Physical Education and Recreation at the U of A can be very proud of this wonderful facility which was built with the vision of Jo hn Barry, under the leadership of Dean Mike Mahon, and with the generosity of Mr. Bruce Saville. Second Playing Space, Timms Centre Mr. Maske ll: Mr. Spe aker, the arts in A lberta ar e a dyna mic contribution to our cultural, economic, and social fabric. Today I want to rec ognize an exci ting new developm ent in Edm onton’s growing arts scene.

On March 1 the University of Alberta unveiled its newly equipped Second Playing Space in the Timms Centre for the Arts, which will provide students, faculty, and community theatre groups with a new learning and performance venue. Second Playing Space is a wonderful and needed addition to our theatre community. With the upcoming renovations at the Jubilee Auditorium and the loss of the Kaasa Theatre in the lower level, it will help smaller theatre groups to showcase their craft, particularly during the summer months. Mr.

Speaker, on behalf of myself and the Minister of Community Development I ask all members to jo in us in congratulating and in thanking the University of Alberta and R uth Timms Nishioka for their outstanding support for the arts in Alberta. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. Alberta Seniors Ms Blakem an: Thank yo u ver y m uch, Mr. S peaker. It’s my pleasure today to recognize Alberta seniors who have been forced by this government to fight for more money for seniors’ programs.

Just last week more tha n 20 seniors f rom the C oalition of Seniors Advocates, COSA, demonstrated outside of Ca lgary’s McDougall Centre in an attempt to get this government to recognize that seniors have been hurt by their cuts to the programs and desperately need to share in the provincial surplus. These brave men and wome n are fortunate t o b e able to take a stand on behalf of all seniors . Many of those hurt by this govern- ment’s cuts and underfunding are not physically able to demonstrate. Many are in long -term care where they’re now paying 42 per cent more for care than this time last year.

Alberta seniors deserve better. Our seniors deserve universal programs for d ental and optica l care, pr emium-free health care, a safe home, and reasonably priced access to care should they need it. Fortunately, seniors won’t take no for an answer, and groups like COSA, SUN, Alberta Council on Aging, Elder Advocates of Alberta, SALT, One Voice Seniors Network, and the Liberal opposition are willing to fight for the rights of all Alberta seniors. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glenora. David Angus Mr. Hutton: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I am honoured to have the opportunity to rise thi s afte rnoon and recognize a dear friend, a constituent, and an Edmonton business leader , Mr. David Angus, who very recently joi ned the b oard of g overnors at S t. Michael’s University School in Victoria, B.C. St. Michael’s University School is a co-educational, independent K to 12 and boarding school o f 850 students which specializes in educating students looking to pursue higher learning. Ninety-nine per cent of the students graduate and pursue postsecondary education including top universities across Canada, Un ited States, a nd the world.

David and his family have had a long affiliation with the school, Mr. Speaker. David attended St. Michael’s from 1957 to 1962 and graduated as head pr efect. His tw o sons, Sasha and David, and daughter, Jennifer, are also St. Michae l grads. I’m pleased to say that Sasha is current ly enjoying an illustrious career with our own Minister of Economic D evelopment. I w ould like to t ake this opportunity to thank Da vid on his com mitment to our city a nd business sector and congratulate him on his appointment. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 2:40 Spitz Sylvan Lake Ice Marathon Mr. Ouellette: Mr.

Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mr. and Mrs. Evert van Benthe m, Mr. a nd Mrs. Dirk Appe l, and Mr. and Mrs. Peter Yss, and the Foothills Speed Skating Marathon Association. On February 26 and 28 the association held the second annual Spitz Sylvan Lake Ice Marathon, a tribute to speed skating and the three men’s Dutch heritage. Folks in the Netherlands treat speed skating like we treat hockey. It is their na tional sport, a nd their Stanl ey Cup is the Eleven City race, which covers 200 kilometres and d raws more than a m illion spectators.

Evert van Benthem is the only two-time winner of the Eleven City race, and today he farms in Spruce View. Together with Mr. Appel and Mr. Yss and their wives they re-created the Eleven City race on Sylvan Lake in ’03, and they continued the tradition this year. This year more than 100 skaters came from the Netherlands to participate in the 200-kilometre race along with competitors from Canada and the United State s. As well, m any local skaters competed in other events. In total, more than 500 speed skaters compete d on the weekend.

It’s safe to say that this year’s event was an exceptional success, and I can hardly wait to see next year’s, which we all know will be even better. So thanks to them and thanks to you, Mr. Speaker. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Redwater. Edmonton Garrison World’s Longest Hockey Game Mr. Broda: Thank you, Mr . Speaker. On February 18 I had the pleasure of attending the of ficial opening of t he Edmonton Garri-

Alberta Hansard March 3, 2004296 son’s longest o utdoor hockey ga me. It ’s also m y plea sure to recognize Sergeant Rick Dubé, a driving force behind this event, and the 39 other Edmonton Garrison-based soldiers in their great efforts to set a ne w Guinness world record in p laying the longest hockey game. This ev ent was supported by the United W ay, w ith al l fundraising proceeds to be donated to the Stoller y Childre n’s Hospital Foundation. Last week, unfortunately, due to Mother Nature and plus 6 temperatures the game had to be called afte r playing 87 hours and 20 m inutes on extremely bad ice conditions.

The score was 1,186 for the black team versus 951 for the red. Congratulations to all on your efforts, and good luck for next year. They are also accepting donations today. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona. International Women’s Day Edmonton Committee Dr. Pannu: Thank you, Mr. Speak er. Marc h 8, next Monday , is International Women’s Day. There’ll be numerous events held to celebrate this day around our city, our province, and the world. The International Women’s Day Edmonton Committee has organized events to celebrate International Women’s Day for many years.

For the past two years the committee shifted their focus in the way they celebrate March 8 by participating in V-Day, a global move- ment to stop viole nce against women and girl s. Th rough V-Day campaigns local volunteers and college students produce an annual benefit performance of The Vagina Monologues to raise awareness and funds for antiviolence groups within their own communities. By organizing and present ing these perform ances of Eve Ensle r’s original works, this vibrant and energetic committee last year raised $10,000 for the Alberta Council of Women’s Shelters.

This year the beneficiaries are Planned Parenthood Edmonton and the Sexual Assault Centre of Edmonton. The benefit played to a full house this past Saturday. I recognize and congratulate this committee for their commitment to women here in the province of Alberta and around the world. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. head: Intro duc tion o f Bills The Speaker: The hon. Member for Grande Prairie-Wapiti. Bill 16 Residential Tenancies Act Mr. Graydon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I request leave to introduce a bill being the Residential Tenancies Act.

We heard earlier today that there’s been ex tensive consultation with stakeholders, landlords, and tenants regarding the changes contemplated in this bill, and it will update what is already very good legislation. Thank you. [Motion carried; Bill 16 read a first time] The Speaker: The hon. Government House Leader. Mr. Hancock: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d move that Bill 16 be moved onto the Order Paper under Government Bills and Orders. [Motion carried] head: Tabling R eturns and R eports The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs. Mr. Boutilier: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It’s my pleasure today to table the re quisite number of c opies of the Safety Codes Counci l 2002 annual report. As you know, the S afety Codes Council is a valued partner of this government and in particular my department, Municipal Affairs. The council works on beha lf of all A lbertans, and it’s my pleasure today to table the requisite number of copies, and certainly I want to say that I appreciate their good work. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Energy. Mr. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It’s a pleasure for me today to table to you and for the House the government res ponse to recom- mendations of the Advisory Council on Electricity. The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General. Mr. Hancock: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On behalf of the Premier I would like to table for the House five copies of the letter which he referred to in question period today from the Alberta Beef Producers, which references that the support of the government has been vital to the carrying on of the industry and the good work that’s been done by the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development in that regard. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. Mr. MacDonald: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I would like to table for the benefit of all hon. members of the Assembly a letter that I received from the hon.

Minister of Energy on September 30, 2003. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona. Dr. Pannu : Thank y ou, Mr. Speak er. I’m tabling a document showing that Alb erta Agriculture had inv estigated alleg ations regarding the packers gouging feedlot operators but had found no wrongdoing. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Speaker’s Ruling Oral Question Period Rules The Speaker: Hon. members, we had a discussion yesterday about intervent ions and points of order and the like.

Before I get to the two points of order that have been identified today, let me just note seven additional possible opportunities for intervention today by the chair. Let’s see. On two occas ions the chair did intervene t o ask t he Premier to term inate his an swers and sit down a nd d id th e same thing for the hon. Member for Calgary-West. He might have intervened once when the Premier mentioned the name of the hon. Member for Calgary-Lougheed in this Assembly, which is a no-no, and then the hon. Solicitor General got around that same thing by referring to a certain member by the name of Heather. Then the hon.

Ministe r of Human Resources and Employment did the same thing by referring to an hon. member as Clint. So it’s kind of an interesting approach. There would have been a point as well when the hon. Minister of Health and Wellness – Government House Leader, this is a point for yourself and the hon. Opposition House Leader and the House leader of the third pa rty, and this could have been an intervention by the chair, but it was not – mentioned that one shou ld not mention the

March 3, 2004 Alberta Hansard 297 names of cert ain individuals with r espect to a certain issue, y et a document had already been tabled in the Ho use id entifying the names of those individ uals, and the leader of the government had already mentioned one of th ose names in a response. So there’s a circuitous thing in here that if a document’s going to be tabled that has names on it and becomes part of the public record, well, just how are we supposed to not deal with it if it is pa rt of the government record? Hon.

Member for Edmonton-Highlands, a couple of words were used here that certainly could have caused interventions. One was the word “cover-up,” and the other one was the word “arm-twisting,” almost to suggest that something that happened that was innocuous shouldn’t have happened. Those are just seven or eight interventions that really could have occurred but didn’t occur. Now we’ll deal with the hon. Government House Leader and his point of order. Point of Order

Preambles to Supplementary Questions Mr. Hancock: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker, because I think that really highlights the point of both points of order this afternoon. In fact, I counted a considerable number more tha t I thought w ould have been appropriate for intervention. The point of order that I am rising on first references the second supplemental to a question by the Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar, and I’m rising und er Beauchesne’s 409.

The supplemental was something to the effect – and I don’t hav e the Blues , so I’m not quoting exactly – that given that the government lulled the industry into a false sense of security. There are a number of problems with this type of statement. First of all, under Beauchesne’s 409 “it must be a question, not an expression of an opinion, representation, argumentation, nor debate.” There’s been a practice in this House to get around the concept of the rule that says that you can’t have a

preamble to a supplemental, which is also rule 409(2) that a su pplemental does not need a

preamble. There’s been a method of getting around that by putting “given” in front of a state ment as the firs t clause to a question, thereby saying that it’s not a

preamble, that it’s actually part of the question. I think that in actual

interpretation anything that is ex tra to the question is a

preamble whether it’s part of the same sentence or not, but that’s a question for another

interpretation. 2:50 The part that I ’m concerned about here is the continuing use of

preambles in questions and supplementals by mem bers of t he opposition to put matters of argumentation into the equation rather than to state facts upon which they are going to base their question. It’s not a given that the government lulled the industry into a false sense of security. It could not be a given that the government lulled the in dustry int o a fals e sense of secur ity, and it was entirely inappropriate, Mr. Speak er, to put that in as a pre amble t o the question, which is often done, therefore requiring that one negate the

preamble rather than answer the question. The Speaker: The hon. Opposition House Leader. Ms Blakeman: Thank you very much for the opportunity to rise and respond to the Government House Leader’s point of order. Just very quickly I will note that in the concern that he raised about beginning sentences with “given that,” in fact on February 25 – that’s a long time ago – I think about 1998, page 557, th e Speaker did note that starting a supplem entary question w ith “give n t hat” was quite acceptable. We are following, as always, good advice, but just to clear that up in case there was some dispute over it.

Now, what we have, in fact, was that the Member for Edmonton- Gold Bar said, “Given that this government led producers into a false sense of security by giving the impression the borders would be open in the new year” and then went on with a question about responsibil- ity and sharing fi nancial burde ns. We a re basing that on our understanding of, in fact, what people who have contacted us have said.

Now, is it possi ble for bo th things to be happening at the same time in this House, where we have the minister stating without any uncertainty that she di d no t give a n impres sion that the borders would be open and members from the opposition feeling that, in fact, that impression had been given? Of course, that can happen. It’s not at all unc ommon that we ha ve the tw o sides of the House of ten having different experiences over the very same issue. We may well be contacted by different people expressing different points of view.

So was the Member for Edm onton-Gold Ba r contravening something by saying that producers had a f alse sense of security? No, I don’t think he was. In fact, when I looked at the documenta- tion around the time that we’re referring to, part of the facts in this is that it was around “the impression the borders would . . . open in the new year,” which would have been January or February: now. If I look at a news release put out by the government on October 31, in fact there’s quite a bit of discussion from the minister, which is then quoted in other newspaper articles.

She does comment on the rules that have been put forward by the U.S., and in fact if those are accepted, then the borders would be open within 60 days. So that puts us into the time period that we’re talking about, and indeed – and I will not table the news release in the H ouse – we have the minister responding to that. It is “extremely good news.” It’s “very encouraging,” very “encouraging to note.” A number of things. So that’s easily available to anyone in this House. In fact, her points about it being encouraging and it being very good news are in fact reflec ted in other ne wspaper stories.

So even ac cording to Beauchesne 494 it is quite possible that we have two points of view having to be both taken as truth at the same time. The q uestion itse lf did see k inform ation, and it w as theref ore satisfying the major req uirements of Beauchesne 409, an d it was asking the corre ct minis ter, who ha d within her adminis trative responsibility the issues that we re under ques tion. So I w ould contend that there is no point of order under Beauchesne 409 with reference to the question from the Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. Thank you. The Speaker: Others?

Hon. mem bers, the cha ir has lis tened ver y car efully to the arguments given b y both the Go vernment House Leader and the Opposition House Leader, and having listened attentively to all of the discussion with respect to it, anything that would impute motives and false motives of a particular nature, of course, would definitely have met the test for a point of order. In this case it appears to be a disputation of facts, recognizing that this is a highly, highly emotional issue, had been a highly emotional issue at the time, and will continue to be.

C ountless numbers of producers on almost a daily basis are contacting Mem bers of thi s Legislative Assembly and asking them the question: when do y ou think the border will be open? And responses are given at various times. I hope that that’s not a false sense of security given by everyone, but virtually every body in the cattle bus iness in the cou ntry of Canada is contacting not only the member s of this A ssembly but federal Members of Parliament and everyone across this country for

Alberta Hansard March 3, 2004298 some form of assurance. I hope that wasn’t imputing a negative kind of thing with respect to this, so we’ll deal with that. I’m not su re if Hansard caught the words, but there were some words echoed at about th e same time as this que stion was being raised, som ething to the effect of: w hat an idiot. I’m not sure if Hansard will pick tha t up. It won ’t be helpful, aga in, because it certainly would not be pertinent language but, nevertheless, perhaps echoed. The hon. Government House Leader. Point of Order Allegations against a Member Mr. Hancock: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again I rise unde r Beauchesne’s 409. Not to bela bour the point, but t he fact that the Member for Edm onton-Centre went into some debate ov er the

preamble clearly indicates in my view that that was argumentative and called for debate. I would suggest that the same is true of the supplemental question raised by the Member for Edmonton-River view, in his

preamble, when he refe rred to the Pre mier br ushing off questions about a person he was referring to who had attended at a hospital in Calgary. That is an allegation, and it is an allegation of some serious import. Now, again, in reference to what has just recently been said about using the ter m “given that,” turning a

preamble into a que stion, I wouldn’t at all want to debate that you can’t make a statement in a supplemental starting with given that. That’s a tim e-honoured tradition, it seem s, of the House. The question of whether it’s a

preamble is really a question of what’s in the statement, not that it starts with or doesn’t start with given that. The point that I was making is that you can’t turn a

preamble into a question simply by adding given that. You have to really deal with the context. In this case there was a pream ble, and in this ca se the

preamble clearly, I think , didn’t adhere to the proprieties of the House pursuant to 409(7) in that it imputed motives and c ast aspersions because clearly it is an aspersion against the Premier to suggest that he’s brushing off a ser ious a llegation with respect to people who have to attend at hospital or who have serious illness. We spend a huge amount of time i n this Ho use and in this govern ment, huge amounts of people’s money are spent by government, 36 per cent of the budget, if I remember correctly, last year on health care issues.

I won’t go further into the details because I think there were quite considerable answers given in question period today. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the opposition or anyone in this House asking questions on important matters, but in asking those questions, it is wrong to impute motive or cast aspersions on the character of other members of the House by suggesting that they don’t treat those questions with respect to individuals that are being talked about in a serious manner. This definitely was a violation of 409(7). 3:00 The Speaker: The hon.

Opposition House Leader Ms Blakeman: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I think that once again the Gover nment Hous e Leade r and I are en gaged i n questions of

interpretation and definition. He i s referring specifi- cally to the use of the words “brush off ,” that w ere part of th e

preamble for the que stion from the Mem ber for Edmonton- Riverview. Wel l, what does brush of f in that c ontext mean? It means sweep aside. It means not deal with, in essence. If he’d like to argue with me about those

definitions, I welcome him. When I go b ack an d actually look at the question and that exchange that happened on February 25 occurring on pages 150 and 151 of Hansard, in fact there’s a direct question from the Member for Edmonton-Riverview to t he Pre mier asking the Premier w hat excuse he offers specific to a particul ar person , situati on, stro ke victims in a particular hospital. When I look at the answer that the Premier gave, he comments for some several sentences on his approval rating, which I don’t think is specific to the question of either stroke victims, elderly people, or the Foothills h ospital.

If I continue on a nd look at the rest of the answer given by the Premier in response to that direct question, he gets into discussing things like electronic health records, physician funding models, wait list registries, and telehealth and then gets into some MRIs, ag ain not deali ng directly with the questi on that w as asked of him. So did he brush off the direct question around stroke victims and that p articular hospita l? I think it could be a rgued or ce rtainly interpreted that he did. H e did not re fer to any of the things that were the key ingredients of the questions that were asked.

Has the Member for Edmonton-Riverview offended Beauchesne’s 409(7) in imputing a motive? Certainly not. He doesn’t impute any motive to the Premier’s comments. Does he cast aspersions upon the person? No, I don’t think he did. He g ives a f airly accurate recounting in his terms of the exchange that occ urred between himself, the Member for Edmonton-Riverview, and the Premier the week previous. So I would argue that there is no point of order here. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Speak er: Hon. members, every thing must be t aken in the context of the question and the impact of the words.

In this case part of the give and take in question period would suggest that “brushing off” here is not detrimental to anyone with respect to this particular matter. However, they do become personal, and that’s where t he chair has a problem. If we stick to questions with resp ect t o government policy, then we avoid these kinds of situations. head: Orders of t he Day head : Government Bills and Orders Committee of the Whole [Mr. Shariff in the chair] The Deputy Chair: We’ll call the committee to order.

Bill 14 Appropriation (Supplementary Supply) Act, 2004 The Deputy Chair: Are there any comments, questions, or amend- ments to be offered with respect to this bill? The hon. Member for Lethbridge-East. Dr. Nicol: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’ll just rise to make a few brief comments about the Appropriation (Sup plementary Supply) Act, 2004.

One of the things that is quite evident as we go through the review of this appropriation is that over the past year Alberta has faced its share of uncertainty, with forest fires, with agriculture, with increased revenues needed for specific growth patterns in different departments.

These are the kinds of things that one would normally expect a piece of supplementary supply legislation to address in the sense that when b est knowledge is used to make projections in a budget and we e nd up with dif ferent g rowth patt erns, dif ferent disasters, different relief programs that are needed, you show that if we have in effect done a reasonable job of budget estimates, we can expect that in some years not all of them will be right on. If we look at some of the issues that come up in dealing with the appropriation bill – I went back and checked in Beauchesne. It says

March 3, 2004 Alberta Hansard 299 basically: to further existing programs. And the one that’s interest- ing is “for a new expenditure on behalf of a newly-enacted statute.” Yet what we’re seeing are a lot of new expenditures here for new initiatives that are not supported by a statute. In effect, the govern- ment is putting in plac e n ew initiatives, new programs mid-year rather than during the legislative debate that co mes in a legislative session. It doesn’t come through proper budget debate of new programs, doesn’t come through notification of intent in the Speech from the Throne.

So what we’re seeing here are quite a number of actual new initiatives just being put through in supplementary supply without full legislative recognition and debate being introduced. If you go through and look at them, in Health and Wellness there’s the Alberta Wellnet; in Human Resources there’s the skills invest- ment program; under Infrastructure there were the dollars that were needed for the natural gas rebate. That in many ways is not a new program because it was put in place as an ongoing program which they didn’t expect expenditures for, and therefore they were not in the budget for last y ear.

If we ge t down under I nnovation and Science, there are new initiatives that talk about compliance with the Auditor General, and these should be in effect brought through the legislative agenda again where there’s an op en debate on how we make sure that the new initiative does com ply with the Audi tor General’s requirement. When we get down to Learn ing, we see that there’s a new initiative in apprentic eship, trade, and occupat ion. There’s a new program, the Alberta heritage scholarships, under Learning, as well. When we get into Revenue, there is the purchase of an investment risk management system.

This is the kind of investment that should be dealt w ith through p roper budget deba te when t he process is complete rather than through supplementary supply. When we get to Seniors, there are also a couple of new programs there in support of the needs of seniors. Under Sustainable Resource Development I gue ss this is an ongoing one that I tal ked about originally, the risk associated with needing to hav e an incr ease in dollars for inadequate estimates in the original spring budget.

If we look through here, there’s really a pattern that emerges in the sense that there are a lot of new initiatives that are funded through this supplementary supply bill that are in support of programs that have not truly had the full public debate that would be associated with programs that were passed and enacted during the full budget debate in the spring. I think we need to look seriously at that and see whether or not we are using the supplementary supply fully.

I think that i f we go through t here and look at some of the individual components, the main thing that we see is that, you know, in Health there are programs that come out for the West Nile virus.

I don’t think any of us really understood what the implications of it would be on Alberta a year ago, so the fact that there’s new money being added now t o cover w hat we ha d to do in the past to be proactive on that front would be really quite useful. 3:10 The other is for the increased cost of the nongroup health benefit program, and this is, I guess, a matter of: are those increased costs for the same program, or is this increased costs f or new initiatives that are put under Blue Cross coverage? So w e need to look at it from the point of view of, you know: is it just expanded use?

It wo uld help us judge and revie w the ef fectiveness of the supplementary supply system and the purpose behind that supple- mentary sup ply i f that kind of inform ation we re ma de avail able because, you know, we’re talking here about $2,165,000 being put in for nongroup health benefits. What was the reason for it? I guess that what we need to do is have a little bit of an explanation for each of these items similar to what we get in the main budget when we’re given that kind of information. There needs to be an explanation of what it’s being put out for.

You know, when we end up with basically almost a 10 per cent additional allocation in the budget, one b egins to wonder what the purpose of the ori ginal budget w as when the gove rnment over a period of a year i ntroduces that many new pr ograms, introduces additional expenditures in that many ongoing programs that they’re dealing with.

To even further complicate it, we’re dealing here with the fact that in the fall session we passed another supplementary bill that, in eff ect, also increased expendi tures t o the gove rnment by about a billion dollars, and that’s in association with, you know, the issues of, again, forest fire fighting and the BSE program supports that were put in place. So, you know, the degree to which we get full coverage and full debate that can come out on these really needs to be looked at so that as legislators we can go back a nd talk to our constituents ab out whether or not these were good.

In terms of the focus that comes out as we look at this, the main programs that we saw under the seniors’ program – this is basically a gov ernment action. When they started talking about how they were going to help low-income seniors, what they were going to do for the affordable housing program, that, especially the affordable housing program, was being proposed at the time of the last budget, and the dollars that were needed for that should have been estimated, should have bee n prede termined and put into that spring budget rather than being left and then put into a supplemental budget.

What it does is it sends a signal that, you know, this is important to Albertans, that we will be dealing with it. The exact amount can be adjusted la ter. But w hat we e nd up with i s having to have a program there that talks a bout where this gove rnment s tands on things like affordable housing, access to housing for seniors, access to care in long-term care facilities. The idea that we don’t seem to have the long-term plans in place that allow f or a more accurate estimate of our full b udget in the spring seems to be something that the government needs to address.

They handled the idea of stability; they handled the idea of natural resource revenue variation. That, in effect, is being looked at now in the budget. We need to go farther and make sure that as we go into deal ing with our full budget process, we do have some mechanism in there to justify the estimates that are made with respect to the uncertainty that’s associated with budget on the expenditure side. We’ve done things now to tal k about the un certainty that’s as sociated w ith revenues.

Let’s start looking at how we make sure that risk analysis and risk management get put into dealing with the expenditure side because, you know, we’re o ff b y quite a bit on some of these programs when we look at them relative to their original expenditure levels. Mr. Chairman, I think that kind of gives an idea of where I think this should go.

The programs specifically are in an order that they do reflect all of the compon ents that are associated with the main intent of the budget, but there’s still again those new initiatives that came because of government action half way thr ough the year to programs that were already being discussed at budget t ime and to new initiatives that showed because the government didn’t commit to the appropriate expenditure pattern at the time.

I think that it’s important that as we go through looking at what is that purpose behind a supplementary budget, we really go back, you know, and read what Beauchesne says and talk about the purpose of it. It shouldn’t be just, you know: well, we don’t have to deal with this now because we’ve got supplementary supply; we can put it in there. We should be looking at what is an appropriate budget when we do the overall budget and the overall financial planning position

Alberta Hansard March 3, 2004300 for our province, and then this should be in effect fine-tuning rather than a change in direction, rather than a real new program initiative process.

I think it’s important th at we do make s ure that there is consis- tency and that there is predictability to our budgets because when we start doing this, it in eff ect incre ases the baseline of the budge t, which we act on again ne xt year, which expands tha t base, and in effect it gives us two chances to up the budget when we should be looking at what we are doing to make su re th at dollars are spent appropriately, that dollars are spent effectively, and that we do get the intent out of the dollars that we spend in this province.

You know, some of the monies that we have spent in the last year have been questioned. They’ve been addressed by different groups as being not w hat was expected, and if we’re going to be able t o carry through and fully answer the questions that these groups raise, we need to be able to say: yes, there was full documentation given; there was full explanation given; there w as fu ll interre lationship provided as we did the budgeting process.

That only comes with the debate that goes on in the spring budget as opposed to the limited debate that we have to deal with individual programs in the context of the overall plan of the province when we get supple mentary appropriations. You know, it doesn’t seem like what we’re doing here is effective planning. It’s kind of: well, we had to change directions; let’s make do. I don’t think Albertans want us to ma ke do. The y want us to show that we do have ef fective planning in place, tha t we ar e committed to stable budgets, predictable budgets that don’t have to be dealt with on a three-times-a-year basis.

That’s what we’ve been doing. Almost every year that I’ve been in this Legislature, we’ve had the budg et passed, we’ve had a f all supplement, and we’ ve had a spring supplement before we get interim supply, before we get the next budget. That doesn’t create confidence in Albertans that we’re really thinking about what we’re doing when we put together budgets, that we’re thinking about what we’re doing when we’re putting together a plan of action and a plan of public support, a plan of good government for the province.

So I think it’s really important that we end up making sure that in the future we have better processes in place for our budgeting on the expenditure side and that we do have a r elationship between those expenditures an d the debate that goes on in the Spee ch from the Throne, the debate that goes on in the primary budget in the spring, so that when we go out to Albertans we can say: see; this is how it fit. 3:20 If we look back over the last year, Mr. Chairman, I think there are a couple of real issues, the BSE and the forest fires of last summer. Nobody could have predicted those at budget time.

So supplemen- tary estimates in connection with that type of uncertainty, I think, fits into the general purpose of supplementary supply, you know, kind of the philosophical intent of supplementary supply. It’s something that was not anticipated. It was something that could not have been addressed in the original budget. Most of these programs that we’re giving ext ra dollars to here, most of the programs that are new initiatives were being discussed last spring, w ere being dealt w ith last spr ing, and their estimates should have been in the budget for them.

The ministers have leeway in their budgets as they’re presented. They could have fit fine-tuning into that leeway and made it work. So I thin k that that’s one of the things t hat struck me as I went through and looked at this supplementary supply, that we really had to make sure that in the future we look at how our long-term plan fits with the wishes of Albertans and we build that into a stable budget- ing process on the expenditure side.

That hasn’t been done through the new financial approach taken in the spring, when we put in place the stability funds, when we put in place the transfer of dollars from the natural resource revenues. So we need to look at that. We need to make sure that we do hav e stabilit y built in to bo th sides, the revenue and the ex penditure of our budgets, so tha t we do have predictability and direction given for Albertans. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Deputy Chair: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. Ms Blakeman: Thanks very much. M y first set of questions I’m going to direct to the Minister of Seniors and housing.

If we could get respo nses fr om him, that wo uld be grea t. I know that the Minister of Justice was supplying us with answers last week, so I’d appreciate hearing directly from the man in charge. A couple of questions. The money that’s going to the year-round and seasonal beds in the homeless shelters: I understand that that is dedicated to Calga ry. T he comple te amount of mone y that’s requested through the supplementary supply has all gone to Calgary, and I’m aware that they were under some distress to get assistance, but I’m al so awa re that the re’s an e qual de mand in Edm onton.

Being an Edmonto n MLA, I ’m wondering why Edmonton didn’t share in any of the money. If he was going to come forward and ask for additional funds for money already spent – I understand this is already gone – why didn’t he come forward and ask for money for Edmonton as we ll? Why does Edmonton ha ve to w ait? Tha t’s question one. An observat ion and a ques tion as w ell. T he a dditional $4.5 million to assist the increased number of low-income seniors with the cost of long-term care accommodations. Now, this is around a planning, timing question, if you wi ll.

The not ification for the increase in lon g-term care was given somewhere around t he 19th, 23rd, or something of June for increases to take effect on the 1st of August, so inside of the fiscal year that we’re still in. I’m wondering why the choice was made to institute the increase for the 1st of August because it inevitably was going to require the minister to b e coming and asking the Assembly for an increase in order to cover those who a re experiencing financial distress as a result of this August 1st increas e. Wh y the choice of August 1?

Why didn’t the minister wait to have the rates go up until the 1st of April, 2004, in which c ase the increased funds that he’s requiring could have been part of the next budget cycle? So when I see this as a package, I do question the minister about the timing of the increase that was given. Why did they choose the 1st of August when it meant they were to come back?

I’m basing this on a prem ise that i t’s not something to be proud of nor is i t something to be taken lightly that the government has to come back and ask for supplementary supply, this being the second supplemen- tary supply that we’ve had in this fiscal year. I mean, ideally we have a plan and the government is able to stick to it. That’s why we debate the budget at length and it’s approved, and I expect the government to stick to it.

So if they don’t, then I’m expecting th ere’s some sort of e xtraordinary reason for tha t; for example, fire pre vention or f ighting fir es, fig hting floods , or emergency services. That certainly can’t be expected. But in this case it was very expected. There was notice given. I would argue not enough notice, but there was certainly notice given for the increase. Why the choice about when it happened? So if I could get details around that, please. The $5.5 milli on for increased provincial funding under the Calgary, Alberta , affordable hous ing agre ement: is this f low through?

Is this money that has come from the feds? It’s passing

March 3, 2004 Alberta Hansard 301 straight through the province. They’re not adding anything to the bank balance. They’re just shooting it straight on out to the worthy projects. Can I just get confirmation on that? That’s my impression: that, in fact, the province has received this and is now spending it. Yeah, there’s no incoming revenue line shown here, but I’m presuming that’s what is happening. So if I could get the minister to respond to that as well. Could I know to what projects or to where the $4.5 million was directed? Who is the recipient of that? Now, going back to the lodge costs.

At the time the reasoning of a number of press releases and responses that we heard from various members of government around the increase for long-term care was that this would r esult in bet ter: more staff, higher levels of staff, better food. I think one of the ministers was say ing that this was about fresh fruit and good garden vegetables for everyone to eat. What I’m hearing is that they really haven’t seen any difference, and I th ink some people would argue very strongly that there has been less service, less of everything in long-term care. So when do we expect to see better?

When do we actually see the fresh fruit? Is there some sort of time that I can pass on to those people that phone me and say , “When is this happening ? We ha ven’t seen an y improvement at all.” I’ve gone through the Hansard. I did read the responses from the Member for Edmonton-Whitemud, the Attorney General. I don’t see the answer s to th ese qu estions. If s omehow I missed them, my apologies. I hope I’m not repeating. But I’d like to know: what was the increase in the numbe r of seniors that required assistance as a result of the long-term care fees increasing?

We’ve actually got two different kinds of people that would be requesting assistance through Alberta seniors’ benefits or the special needs program. You have people that were already receiving Alberta seniors’ benefits who now need the additional f unds from the ministry to be able to pay the increa sed bill. T he question I’ m asking specifically here is: how many people slid below the line? In other words, they now require assistance that they didn’t need before. So what’s the increa se in the number of people who ’ve asked for assistance that’s directly tied to the increase in the long- term care rates?

The Member for Edmonton-Whitemud did give some numbers. He was talking about that 48 per cent of seniors living in long-term care were eligible for supplementary benefits. That doesn’t mean that they asked for them and took them. Later he’s talking about a different number, with 57 per cent receiving supplementary ass is- tance, which is actually a large r number.

So I’ ll just ask f or clarification there. 3:30 I’m also interested in how many more seniors requested Alberta seniors’ benefits assista nce citing increase d power bill s and in- creased insurance costs as the reasons that they now needed to come to the government for assistance. Has the government done any kind of analysis going back three years or going back five years to say that these are the pressures that seniors are experiencing? I’ve noticed that there’s a new

section in the bu dget document that the govern- ment is producing in which they talk about the pressures th at they feel are particularly aff ecting them, environmental fac tors I think sometimes they c all it. So w hat are the factors that are affecting seniors needing to come to the government for assistance? I th ink that’s part of w hy we see the need for this additional 4 and a half million dollars.

I’m also looking to the minister for a discussion around efforts to reduce the need for funding from the government for homelessness; in other words, to find s ome kind of housing for them, affordable housing in the sense that it’s low-cost housing. I had a meeting with members from the E dmonton builders association – I think that’s who it was – and they raised a number of points. They’re cognizant of the need for and their

part in providing social housing. They were looking for some consideration from all different levels of govern- ment so that their costs were lower. If they understand what the need is, I’m wondering where the government is coming from. There are always two sides to homeless funding. One is enough mats on the floor, and two is places that people can go and actually not need a mat on the floor, move into some sort of housing, even if it’s a boarding house situation, someplace that they call home, where they go to over a long period of time. What I see is more and more and more need for mats on the floor.

So we’re not actually address- ing the homeless problem. This was raised on February 25, but the answer that was given was inconclusive. So I’m giving the minister an opportunity to shine here with the plans that he has around this so that we don’t see him coming back next year looking for another $900,000 – it’s almost a million dollars – in assistance. Maybe next year he’ll be looking for that assistance for Edmonton, seeing as this year it went to Calgary . I hope that doesn’t have to happen, but I’d be interested in what the plans are here.

I also have questions for the Minister of Learning, but if I could prevail upon the Minister of Seniors to answer those questions, I can sort of complete that package. Thank you very much. The Deputy Chair: The hon. Minister of Seniors. Mr. Woloshyn: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I’ll try to address the questions as best a s I can he re. With respect to the homeless and the reque st for funding there, I don’t play nor will I play the Edmonton versus Calgary game, so when I hear that Calgary got some and Edmonton didn’t, there’s something wrong. It’s rather irritating, because we look at what is require d.

It’s not only irritating; it’s also very misleading. I guess that since Edmonton got more through our A lberta/Canada ho using pro gram by so me $600,000 last year than Calgary, then I should reduce Edmonton’s commitment there to keep it even, although the needs in Calgary, I’m sure, are equal to or higher than in Edmonton.

With respect specifically to the $900,000 Calgary hit a crisis, if you will, in the need for mats, as you put it, which I certainly find extremely difficult to deal with in terms of my acceptability of them, because a large number of mats on the floor is not my idea of how people should be accommodated. We took over the operation of the Sunalta Shelter for a variety of reasons, which I won’t go into now. That was a part of that money. I’m sorry; I don’t have the figures in front of me. We can break that out for you, if you wish, at some point later.

The other part was that we decided to be proactive in the case and made an arrangement with the Calgary Drop-in Centre for so me 200 emergency mats – these will all expire on March 31 – which is a crisis, if you will, that I’ll be looking at again. Edmonton did not come into the equation, thankfully, and I repeat: thankfully. Other than for the people with addiction problems – and remember that Calgary Drop-in Centre takes in ev erybody; that doesn’t apply for all shelters. In Edmonton we had a problem with folks with addictions who didn’t have a place to stay.

A couple of years ago a 30-person trailer was opened up at the Herb Jamieson Centre. I’m sure y ou’re familiar with that . This y ear through a partnership between ourselve s and the Edm onton Joint Planning Committee on Housing fund, we’ ve ad ded another trailer there, meaning that basically almost all the people who would appear on a basis with some sort of intoxicants and were not eligible in shelters did, in fact, have a roof over their head.

Alberta Hansard March 3, 2004302 So that lef t us Urban Ma nor. Urban Ma nor is not a homeles s shelter. Urban Manor is a tr ansition house, and this is whe re we have all sorts of confusion between what is a homeless shelter and what is transition. All homeless shelters don’t have homeless mats. They have transition beds. We’re trying rationalize this whole thing in terms of what their functions are, who they’re serving, and how they should be funde d. That’s something that will take a while to sort out. I believe Calgary Drop-in Centre looks after 800 and some odd people.

All of those are not mat people by a long shot. A good number are transition. Getting back to the Herb Jam ieson Centr e, not c ounting the trailers, we fund Herb Jamieson for 265 spots, whether they’re used or not. I’ve j ust got the numbers f or the fir st three w eeks of February here. Here are the numbers t hat u sed Herb J amieson. Remember that 265 is the magi c number . I’ll just go t hrough February 1 through 23, and that’s the last number I have her e.

February 1 was 183, then 184, 182, 209, 202, 169 o n Februa ry 6, 181, 198, 195, 194, 192, 192, 179 on February 13, 188 on February 14, 195, 218, 217 , 206, 189, 160 on Februar y 20 – th at gave us, thankfully, 105 spots that could have been used – and then 166, 190, and on February 23 it was 202. The same cannot be said for Calgar y. You would see that they were loaded right up to cap acity. If you wish – I’ m not going to table this right now – sometime I can share these with you, because we get the report on a nightly basis. So to answe r your que stion, Calgary had the nee d.

Edmonton, thankfully, has a nee d for housing , but we didn ’t have an urgent, immediate need for mat spots. I hope that answers y our ques tion with respect to the homeless and the request there. We’ll do the affordable housing now too. The $5 million, or $5.5 million I believ e it is, is new m oney to m atch moni es that w ere already in th e budget from CMHC. So we had a choice of either increasing it to match t hat o r had the p ossibility of let ting some money lapse or negotiating with CMHC to see if they would bring it over to nex t year.

I was very fortunate in the fa ct that Treasury Board agreed that we had the p rojects provincially on the b ooks where we could prudently use this money. It’s all allocated through projects. The projects, incidentally, as they’re released, are on our web site. It’s easy. We do have a process that we have to go through because we are 50 per cent partners with CMHC. We have to agree on the projects; we have to a gree on the funding per project.

That sy stem, quite frankly, has levered a lot of money out of other areas, unbelievable amounts of money, and I must say at this point that I’m extremely pleased that Albe rta is a leader in a ctually getting through th e program. We’re the only ones that have matching dollars. A few months back we were the only ones that had suites already occupied under this particular program. We’ve had arrangements – and they’re all available to anybody.

Some are not-for-profit, some are municipal, some with Canadian M ental Health, and in fact we have some private projects both in Red Deer and in Edmonton where people who have, I guess, a big heart have come forward and have guaranteed affordable rates for people in need for a 20-year period. The agreement that the other provinces signed was for 10 years. So we’ve stepped w ay ahead of the group on this w hole a ffordable housing business, and so far it’s working quite well. As you know, we have two more years to go on the program.

So that, hon. member, was new money, which would translate into $11 million, roughly, that would still come in this year, which would then end up being c onsiderably more when you consider what the other partners, the municipalities or whoever, on the projects would put in. So it was a very good thing there. 3:40 With respect to long-term care there was far more than the 4 and a half million d ollars to pick up th e difference. I b elieve we have somewhere between – now, I’ll have to verify these numbers at some point – 8,500 and 9,000 senior s who rec eive support from us.

A good number of sen iors which we did not assist – when the rates came through, they had changed their addresses from home to the long-term care facilities. We didn’t know that because our cheques go through direct deposit. So they weren’t actually accessing all of the funds that they could and should have and were entitled to. The other thing that we di d was implement at this tim e, as you know, the desire to have a $265 residual income in there. That also drove it up a littl e more than what we had a nticipated.

So the amount of dollars that went into picking up the long-term care rates was considerable, and we had a 4 and a half million dollar shortfall for the year. That isn’t the total picture. It wasn’t bad planning. It was a matter that we didn’t anticipate that those folks would b e there. The other things that I might add. There are two comments. One, the money went out prior to their needing the increase, so they had it in their pockets. Secondly, if you’re wondering why August, why not wait, that’s a very good point to raise.

The reality is that some not-for-profit operators were telling us – and I had no reason not to believe them – that they would be in fact looking at closing beds, and that’s something that in this climate we really couldn’t have, plus the fact that the rates went up to I believe $42 for a semi-private bed. It’s not unreasonable for the services they receive. In keeping with our phil osophy of lo oking after the people in need, we ha ve do ne j ust tha t, a nd my c olleague from human resources, who also has people i n there, has had to com e up and work some things out there too. It was a good move.

It was prudent. The timing I didn’t like any more than anybody else. I’d have liked to give a longer notice, but I believe it was close to two months or whatever it was. The point that you must remember is that anybody who had a need received the money beforehand, so i n fact some actually ended up with a greate r a mount in the ir pocket than they had before the increase. We i mplemented the fact that they had to provide free cable, wander bracelets, incontinence supplies, which were all part of it, and the num ber of be ds th at were required.

These were all surcharges that you didn’t see, and that was bundled into it. So from that aspect I think it was done very well. As I say, we had the system going, and quite frankly the Auditor General will be looking at the involvement of seniors and ourselves, which we welcome. We will be looking at some other things in terms of our ministry with respect to accommodation and responsibilities there. I believe the General hospital is in your constituency.

If you take the trouble to go talk to the people there – Caritas operates it – you’ll find that they anticipate through this increase about an additional $670,000. Now, I’m going from memory here, so if I’m off on a number, please don’t hold me to it. They have already committed to two thi ngs: one, getting more staff, which has been a cry there, quite a considerable amount more, plus they’re looking at menu improvem ents – whether or not that includes the fruit tha t you m entioned, I don’t know – a s per the tenants’ wishes, which will cost them an additional $300,000.

As it pertains to the operators of the General hospital long-term care, all of the increase that they’re receiving, they’ll show you, is going right back into tenants’ benefits, if you will. So we can’t ask for a heck of a lot more than that. I think that covers the questions. If there is something I’ve missed out, either give the office a call or drop us a note, and I’ll try to cover it for you.

March 3, 2004 Alberta Hansard 303 The Deputy Chair: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. Mr. MacDon ald: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairm an. I w as interested in participating in the debate this afternoon on Bill 14 and certainly intereste d in the com ments f rom the hon. Minister of Seniors. Whenever one looks a t the issue s surrounding seniors, that the income does not necessarily meet the ex penses at the end of the month, it is a double-edged sword.

When one looks at, for instance, just what the third-quarte r fisca l update sa id about senior s and seniors’ expenses, certainly it had increased almost $50 million from the budget. That included $22 million for seniors’ benefits to assist low-income seniors with increased long-term care fees, $12 million for the special-needs assistance program, $8 million for operation and maintenance costs of housing facilities, $5 million for affordable housing, and $1 mill ion for hom eless shelters.

Well, that should certainly be an indica tor, a sig nal that many seniors ar e having a great deal of difficulty whenever you see that expense increase. To see here in Bill 14 that there is close to an $11 mil lion allotment, $10.9 million in total for seniors’ programs – I would urge the hon. minister and the government to have a look, have another close look in the next couple of weeks before the budget is printed at what is goin g to be coming next year for retired persons in this province. You look at energy costs; y ou look at ins urance costs. There’s no doubt they are high.

We’re not going to go into this in a great deal of detail, but th e programs have to reflect those cost s because those costs have certainly changed. Now, Mr. Chairman, this is the second supplem entary supply request by the government in the current fiscal year. Last November 16 government ministries and one office of the Legislative Assem- bly, the office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner – and I think that request certainly was c entred around the fact that the office of the I nformation a nd Privacy Comm issioner ha d to be expanded to look after the new private privacy legislation.

But this request for a total o f $1.2 bi llion i n suppl ementary suppl y fo r operating expense and equ ipment/inventory purchases and capital investment was m ade. It is a large sum of money to request especially since the government’s new f iscal framework had just been announced seven months earlier. We’ll certainly have a budget in a couple of weeks, at least I hope we do, and the government will most likely be introducing an interim supply bill in the near future.

I as one member of the Official Opposition am aware that there are always situations which arise, but the continued reliance on supplementary supply points to some real problems with the gove rnment’s budgeting pr ocesses and their review/forecasting ability . Rely ing on supplem entary supply to make up for budget shor tcomings demons trates a clear la ck of effective management and long-term planning. 3:50 I thought that a lot of this would have been so lved wi th the stability fund. The hon.

Membe r for L ethbridge-East had been talking for, well, it seemed to be years about a stability fund, and I guess that in this case imitation is the finest form of flattery because the government fi nally liste ned t o the hon . member and ca me forward with the stability plan. Now, many people, including this member, are surpr ised at how large i t has grow n, but it c ertainly makes fiscal stability stronger whenev er we can sm ooth out the peaks and valleys in budgeting. But it can’t be used as a re-election fund, and that’s what my big fear is. There is a lot of money. W e have a lot of re source revenue.

Maybe we should have more. Maybe our royalty collection system needs to be loo ked at becaus e time is runn ing out as the western Canadian sedimentary basin declines in production of both conven- tional crude oil and natural gas production. I’m certainly not advocating that we spend all this surplus at once to get re- elected. I think som e of it shoul d be squirrelled away, squirrelled away not for the next election or the one after that but for the next generation. I would like to see something stronger put in place to prevent governments in the near term from getting at this money.

Perhaps we should have a benchmark there, Mr. Chairman. Let’s say production of natural gas fell by 50 per cent from its curre nt level by the year 2018. If the production levels fell and there was a reduction in governm ent reve nue, then and o nly th en cou ld we access this money that has been squirrelled away. We have to start saving money for the f uture, wh ether it is through the A lberta heritage savings trust fund or some other mechanism. These times, unfortunately, are not always going to be with us.

We certainly have spending requirements with public health care, public education, and I think we can meet those. I think we could meet those. If we look after the pennies, the dollars will look after themselves. If we had to reduce the size of cab inet, I think that would be a good place to start, and if I was doing that, I think I would have the hon. Member for Medicine Hat in the cabinet, not outside. I think the hon. member should be there, Mr. Chairman. I don’t care who’s in it; it just should be smaller. That’s one place to start. We have this new fiscal framework in place.

Bill 2, the Financial Statutes Amendment Act, came about in the spring of 2003, yet we have this amount of money to discuss this afternoon, Mr. Chairman. When you consider that this is a government that portrays itself as prudent and conscious of every dollar, I don’t know what is wrong when we need so much money at once in supplementary supply for the second time. I can certainly s ee where there are em ergencies. We’ve discussed those. But I don’t know what signal this sends the Alberta taxpayers. As you go through this, Mr.

Chairman, you see Infrastructure, Innovation and Science, Learning, Health and Wellness, the Human Resources and E mployment department, Rev enue. Revenue is, interestingly enough, requesting $875,000 for the acquisition of an investment risk m anagement system, and I for one would like to know if the minister could provide more detail on the investment risk management system. I certainly hope this is not what I think it is. Now, Sust ainable Re source De velopment. A tota l of $14.8 million is requested to provide for increased firefighting costs as a result of the severe drought conditions.

This emergency assistance will be funded, as I understand it, from the sustainability fund. I like the word “stability” fund better. This ministry requested a total of $113 million for firefighting in the first s upplementary estimates last fall. Where w ere the forest fires during the last four months? Has the minister already spent all of the $113 million that the department requested in supplementary supply for fi refighting just four m onths ago? I would hav e to question this ministry’s budgeting skills because certainly there have not been many fires lately, at least not in the forest.

There may have been some in this Assembly, but the forest has been spared. Human Resource s and Em ployment. Befor e I conclude , Mr. Chairman, I would like to note that the total amount requested here is $28.6 million, whi ch can b e broken dow n as follow s: $14.6 million for supports for independence to address caseload and cost- per-case increases and $14 million for skills investments. How many Albertans are applying for supports for independence at this time? By how much has this number increased over the past year and the past five years?

Hopefully, in th e budget that is coming forwar d, there will be an increase in the supports for independence payments and also for those Albertans on AISH.

Alberta Hansard March 3, 2004304 Now, is the ministry at this time planning on increasing SFI rates? Certainly, we know that infl ation is sque ezing the poor in this province, whether it is ener gy costs, whether it’s rent costs, f ood costs. Many pe ople are ve ry, very conc erned about the cost of living. There seems to be a reduction in constant dollars if one were to look at SFI benefits in Alberta. If you look at the period of time between 1992 and 2002, the purchasing power of the b enefits that SFI clients have has fallen by almost 30 per cent in the last decade. Again, I think w e can m anage to finance these programs and set some money aside

Document details

Collection	Alberta — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20040303
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	L25 S4 20040303 1330 01 han.pdf
Language	en
Format	json
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	5f8a819cba2b4999f55dfe52995f529a9590bcd3

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