April 24, 2003 Alberta Hansard 1205 Legislative Assembly of Alberta Title: Thursday, April 24, 2003 1:30 p.m. Date: 2003/04/24 [The Speaker in the chair] head : Prayers The Speaker: Good afternoon. Let us pray . O Lord, w e give thanks f or the bounty of our province: our land, our re sources, a nd our people. W e pledg e ourselves to act as good stewards on behalf of all Albertans. Amen. Please be seated. head : Introduction of G uests The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Children’s Services. Ms Evans : Well, thank you very m uch, Mr. Spea ker.

What a distinct pleasure and honour it is for me today to rise and announce the presence of students from Bev Facey high school. It i s a very solid academic high sc hool with othe r specialty programs for the children of Sherwood Park and the region of Strathcona county. I’d like to welcome their teachers Mr. Barclay Spady and Mr. Allan Milne. Would they please r ise and this Assembly give them the warm welcome they deserve. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. Ms Blakem an: Thank y ou very much, Mr. Speaker .

I ’m very pleased today to introduce to you and through you to all members of the Assembly 11 students who are joining us in the public gallery. They are from NorQuest College, and they’re accompanied today by their instructor Mr. Bruce Huebener. I would ask them all to please rise and accept the warm welcome of the Assembly. The Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition. Dr. Nicol: Thank you, Mr. Sp eaker. It’s a real privilege today to stand and introduce to you and through you to the members o f the Legislature Gordon and Lorrane Tocher.

They’re from Hinton, and they’ve been very concer ned thi s spring a bout the cost of their energy bills out there. They came in today to watch the petition that they circulated be tabled later on in the day. I would like to ask them to stand today and have the House give them a warm welcome. Mr. Mar: Mr. Speaker, it’s my pleasure to introduce today to you and through you to me mbers of the A ssembly three visitors from Janssen-Ortho Incorporated: Mr.

Jim Mitchell, president of Janssen- Ortho, a member of the Johnson & Johnson group of Canadian companies; Judy Keyser, w ho’s the regional d irector from Bragg Creek, Alberta; and Michael Lohner, well known to members of this Assembly, a regional mana ger who is from the city of Edmonton. I’d ask that they rise and receive the warm welcome of this Assem- bly. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Red Deer-North. Mrs. Jablonski: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It gives me a great deal of pleasure today to int roduce to you and through you to members of this Assembly a very important person in my life.

She’s a single parent, an education student with the U of A program, and a part - time receptionist with Summit Strategies in Red Deer. She’s m y daughter, and she’s a great mom and a great daughter. I would ask Krystin to stand and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. head : Oral Quest ion Peri od Natural Gas Rebates Dr. Nicol : Mr. Speake r, tempe ratures ha ve wa rmed up, but the discontent Albertans feel over high energy costs has not cooled off.

At the appropriate time we will table another 2,343 signatures to a petition demanding natural gas rebates, bringing the total number of Albertans that have signed this petition to ov er 7,500. One thou- sand, five hundred and fifty-six of today’s signatures came from the Hinton-Jasper-Edson area. Al l thi s wint er we’ve listened to the Premier dismiss our calls for natural gas rebates as Liberal negativ- ity. My question is to the Premier.

Does the Premier plan to dismiss the 1, 556 voters in Hinton, Edson, and Jasper as being neg ative when they demand these rebates that this Premier promised during the 2001 election and express their discontent with the government’s current energy policy? Mr. Klein: Mr. Speaker, it’s reasonable to assume that people are discontent when they have to pay high prices. People are discontent with the premiums they pay for insurance, especially car insurance, and that’s going to be a big issue.

People are discontent when they have to pay high mortgage rates, high interest rates, and indeed that was the case back in the ’80s when interest rates reached 19, 20, 21, 22 percent. People are upset when natural gas prices go up. That’s why we put in place a reasonably thought out, intelligently thought out rebate program that averages the price of natural gas over a one- year period and se ts a pric e of $5.50 a gigajoule. If that $5.50 average price is reached, then the trigger is pulled and the rebat es kick in. Dr.

Nicol: My quest ion to the Prem ier: does t he Premie r not recognize the diff erence be tween di scontent over market-driven prices and prices that are because of a broken promise that he made to Albertans that he would protect them from natural gas increases? Mr. Klein: Mr. Speaker, this was not a broken promise. They were not on the campaign trail with me. Mind you, they had some of their functionaries follow me around to try a nd bug me but to no avai l obviously, because we have 74 and they have seven. But they have no idea. They weren’t at my campaign rallies. Maybe they were.

If they wanted to see how it’s really done, maybe they were. What I said that we would do during that time – and that was a time of extremely high gas prices – is we would bring in a program to shield Albertans. It wouldn’t be on an ad hoc basis; it would be on a sustainable basis. That’s exactly what we did. You know, Mr. Speaker, these people are misleading the Alberta public because the regulations pursuant to the rebate program were made in Aug ust, publicly announced, put on the Internet, the government web page, not the Liberal web page obviously, for all people to see and to learn about.

But to say that people didn’t know is absolutely wrong. We went to great lengths to inform people of the regulations relative to the terms and conditions of the rebate program. Dr. Nicol: To the Premier: will the P remier n ot admit that the regulations put on that web site were way different than the trigger point that was based on your anal ogy of a thermost at when y ou passed that legislation? Mr. Klein: Mr. Speaker, I challenge the hon. m ember to go back first of all to the election and quote me on any trigger price or any specific program other than to say that we would develop a program.

The legislation was thoroughly debated on the floor of this Legisla- tive Assembly. They supported the bill. The Liberals supported the

1206 Alberta Hansard April 24, 2003 bill. The Liberals supported the legislation. Now, in a way that – I know it’s unparliamentary – could be construed as hypocritical, they stand up and say , “Oh, the l egislation was all wrong,” when they supported it at the time. They have to stand up and admit that. They supported the legislation, and the regulations associated with that legislation were well publicized so that people would know the terms and the conditions of this very sustainable rebate program. Dr. Nicol: Mr.

Speaker, we supported the legislation based on his analogy of a thermostat, not the regulations that were passed. Education Funding Dr. Ni col: My second quest ion. In Albe rta expe ctations of our education system are high, w hich is why we’re disappointed when not as many students as we’d hoped finish high school or go on to postsecondary studies. These are warning signs to the government that if they want one of North A merica’s best education systems, they’d better find ou t how much funding is enough to deliver that.

To the Premier: is your education funding enough to ensure that 90 percent of 18 year olds graduate from high school? 1:40 Mr. Klein: Mr. Speak er, I can’ t answe r the questi on right now because our budgets are predicated on what we reasonably expect in terms of K to 12 e ducation and pos tsecondary education, but I’m sure that these are questions that will be put to the learning commis- sion.

One of the questions to be posed to the learning commission, I presume, is that of funding and the ad equacy of funding and the whole issue of dropout rates and how people proceed to postsecond- ary i nstitutions, not just univ ersities but NAIT , SAIT, Grant MacEwan College, Mount Royal, Lakeland, Grande Prairie College, Medicine Hat, L ethbridge College, and so on. I ca n tell the hon. member that it goes without saying that we do have the best educated workforce in Canada. We have all the opportunities available for people to proceed to postsecondary education.

As I understand it, there is such pressure on the part of the labour market to get people into the workforce that a lot of people leave high school, go into the workforce, then at a later age go to university. Now, Mr. Speaker, in my o wn case, you know – th is is many, many years ago – I dropped out of high school, went back, tried to get as much of my education as I possibly could, and I’m going to university right now, as we speak. I’m 60 years old, so am I classed as one of those people? Well, I feel good about going to university.

I wish I c ould have go ne wh en the hon. leader of the Liberal opposition was a young man and went to university. I wish I could have gone then, but I had to wait until I was 60 years old. But, you know, in all that time I learned a lot that I could apply. Dr. Nicol: Mr. Speaker, the Premier just spoke about dropouts. Is your education f unding enough to ensure th at our high s chool dropout rate falls from the current 13 percent to the tar get of 5 percent? Mr. Klein: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of concern.

As I said, the learning commission will look at this because this indeed is one of the major issues related to education. Certainly, we have identified lifelong learning as a priori ty of this gove rnment, and lifelong learning starts with learning not only at my age but the ability to continue from high school through postsecondary education. If it is a problem, we will address that problem as a government as best we possibly can. Dr. Nicol: To the Premier: is your ed ucation funding enough to ensure that over 60 percent of our high school students get a chance to go on to some kind of postsecondary education?

Mr. Klein: Mr. Speaker, we believe it is. Yes. The Speaker: Third Official Opposition main question. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. Dr. Massey: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As a result of local boards losing thei r ability to tax, school funding adequacy has become a problem. Boards may no longer ma ke up provincial governm ent shortfalls in support by turning to loc al ratepayers, and as a r esult school boards across the province, including three of the four largest urban boards in the province, are facing deficits. My questions are to the Premi er.

Why, if a 2 percent instructional-based budget increase was deemed suf ficient, are boards across the province projecting such deficits? Mr. Klein: Well, Mr. Speak er, as I indicated y esterday in this Legislative Assembly, that is purely speculative. The budgets of the school boards have not been confirmed. The budget we pre sented as a government was predicated on the best estimates available to us relative to sustaining the education system.

I would remind the hon. member that subject to a plebiscite school boar ds s till have the potential to raise an additiona l 3 per cent through property tax through a local requisition, but that of course depends on the mood and the will of the ratepayers. The Speaker: The hon. member. Dr. Massey: Thank y ou. Aga in to th e Pr emier: what doe s the Premier suggest that schools who are setting school budgets as we meet in this Le gislature – they’r e setting them ri ght now, Mr . Premier – are to do to avoid tea cher layoffs and in creased class sizes? Mr. Kle in: Mr.

Speake r, basica lly, m ost of those school board budgets I think ar e set in May. They may need to f ind out who’s going to retire, what their staff requirements are go ing to be, what their student growth is going to be. There are a number of factors that need to be considered, including what we have set in our own budget to accommodate education, so it’s too early to speculate and to make statements or assertions relative to what might or might not happen with respect to the various school districts. Dr. Massey: Again to the Premier, Mr.

Speaker: given that boards have no funds to re place re tiring tea chers, le ading to further increases in class size, how is this seen as a solution to the inad e- quate funding? Mr. Klein: Well, Mr. Speaker, I don’t know. I don’t get involved in the day-to-day operations of the 61 or 62 or 63 school boards, but certainly when people retire from the system at maximum salary, it stands to reason that they will hire young, bright, educated teachers coming out of university at starting salaries.

I mean, that is simple math, and that’s the way it should be done unless the school board has a policy – and I would hope that they don’t have a policy – of hiring nothing but top-of-the-scale teachers. I would think that the hon. leader of the Liber al opp osition, especi ally c oming f rom Lethbridge, where they have one of the finest faculties of education, would support wholeheartedly the hiring of young graduates coming out of the University of Lethbridge and into the system.

April 24, 2003 Alberta Hansard 1207 The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Manning. Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome and West Nile Virus Dr. Pannu: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Alberta’s public health system is facing the twin challenges of the ongoing SARS outbreak and the likely arrival of the West Nile virus. Years of funding restraint and an ongoing shortage of health care professionals have left Alberta’s public health system stretched and hard-pressed to respond to these twin emergencies. My questions are to the Minister of Health and Wellness.

Why ha s the government this year increased by only 1 percent its spending on health protection, promotion, and prevention when these programs are key to dealing with SARS and West Nile virus outbreaks? Mr. Mar: Mr. Speaker, I want to s ay first of a ll that our public health officials have an outstanding track record in this p rovince. For some num ber of y ears we have be en anticipating a pande mic influenza coming. We don’t know when and we don’t know exactly where, but it’s coming.

As a conseq uence, some number of years ago we started to work on a plan to ensure that we can deal with issues of communicable diseases including things like SARS. Now, if anybody wants to test how well that’s worked, look at our experience with meningitis, Mr. Speaker. We were the first province in Canada to react appropriately to provide a vaccine that protected our young people against meningitis. So we don’t have anything to be ashamed about, and in fact we should be very proud of the public health system, that has been so responsive to things like meningitis and will be to SARS. With respect to SARS, Mr.

S peaker, there were fi ve suspected cases of SARS in the province of Alberta. I am happy to report to this Assembly, to Albertans that all five peo ple h ave recovered completely. We never did have a probable case of SARS, nor did we ever have a confirmed case of SARS, and as of today there has not been a new SARS case reported for the last 21 days. So we’ve dealt with SARS appr opriately, although w e rem ain vigil ant in all circumstances with respect to SARS. 1:50 With respect to West Nile virus we have not had a single case of West Nile virus here in the province of Alberta.

There h ave been two Albertans that contrac ted West Nile virus from another place and then came back to Alberta, and I can say that those two people have also r ecovered fro m their virus . So we are vigi lant, Mr. Speaker. We do have a plan in place. We do take the health of the people of Alberta very, very seriously, and we do an excellent job. Dr.

Pannu : To the same ministe r, whose answer is ve ry, ve ry worrisome because it’s very complacent: w hy is the government allowing the provincial health authorities to spend up to a m illion dollars on newspaper, radio, a nd TV ads putti ng thei r spin on the nurses’ negotiations when that money could well have been used far better in strengthening the capacity of Alberta’s public health system to respond to the twin challenges of SARS and West Nile virus? Mr. Mar: Mr. Speaker, we have taken appropriate measures with respect to SARS, with respect to Wes t Nile virus.

Today – and perhaps the hon. member is not aware of this – we did announce a program with respect to West Nile virus, our res ponse to it, some $2.5 million, w orking in c ollaboration wit h the departm ent of environmental protection and the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. We do have a response program where we are co-ordinated in a very serious way with all of our regional health authorities, who have also devoted resources to this, for monitoring and surveillance of the presence of West Nile virus.

When West Nile virus does come to Alberta – and we expect that it will some- time this sum mer – we’re read y just l ike we were ready with meningitis. Dr. Pannu: A final question to the minister, Mr. Speaker: why is the government attacking our frontline health care workers by passing punitive legislation like Bill 27 at the very time – at the very time – that we mo st need these health professionals to deal with these challenges of SARS and West Nile virus? Mr. Mar: Mr. Speaker, we place a great deal of value on our health care professionals in the province of Alberta.

We have an outstand- ing system in this province. Again, don’t take my word for it. Look at the result s from the Canadia n Institute f or Health I nformation. Look at the re sults fro m Maclean’s magazine. Look at w hat has been s aid about our he alth care syste m by Senator Kir by or by former Premier Romanow about how outstanding a system we have in this province. It is in large measure because of the frontline people who dedicate themselves to the benefit of Albertans for the purposes of delivering a health care system that provides Albertans what they need when they need it at an appropriate place and time.

The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Manning, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. Health Safety of Police and Emergency Workers Mr. Vandermeer: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I recen tly had the opportunity to attend a meeting of the Alberta Federation of Police Associations where I heard concerns about the safety of its members when in contact with individuals with transmittable diseases. I heard that in many situations after the police make an ar rest, ther e is concern that the officer may have been exposed to a tr ansmittable disease such as AIDS.

They have no way of knowing whether or not they s hould seek medical attention. Ontario recently passed legislation requiring blood samples to be taken whenever emergency response personnel believe they may have been contaminated with a transmittable disease. Alberta police would like to see similar legislation passed in A lberta. My questio n is to the Soli citor General. What is your department doing to address this issue? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mrs. Forsyth: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As the Solicitor General I believe that this is a logical request and one that I support.

I believe that the health and safety of the men and women who put their lives at risk for us should be our collective priority. Ontario legislation comes into effect on May 1, and it allows the local medical officer of health to order blood samples from someone who accidentally or deliberately exposes a frontline emergency worker, victim of crime, or Good Samaritan to his or her bodily fluids. We’ll be keeping a close eye on how this issue unfolds in Ontario. I’ll be discussing the matter with m y Ontario counterpart, and I’ll be working with the minister of health on this particular issue.

However, this is a complex issue. It requires that we balance privacy issues with public health and personal protection. While the confidentiality of patient records is important, so too are the lives and health of our emergency workers. Mr. Vandermeer: Mr. Speaker, my first supplemental is also to the

1208 Alberta Hansard April 24, 2003 Solicitor General. What steps can police, corrections officers, and emergency workers take to protect themselves now? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mrs. Forsyth: Mr. Speaker, thank you. It’s a good policy for our police and our em ergency workers and our cor rections officers to assume that anyone that they come in contact with could potentially be carrying an infectious disease and for them to take the appropriate precautions. We have clear policies in place in our co rrectional centres.

Alberta ’s police services also uti lize procedures to help police officers protect themselves from communicable diseases. In our corrections centres screening is conducted on all offenders by qualifie d health ca re staff to identi fy potential com municable diseases. Reportable diseases such as HIV, AIDS, and hepatitis A, B, and C are reported in accordance with the Public Health Act to the local public authorities. Mr. Speaker, inmates who are suspected of having an infectious disease are tested, and appropriate measures are taken to tr eat the dis ease and to prevent transmission.

Our corrections officers are provided with stab-proof Kevlar gloves and other protective equipment to use when they are handling potentially infected inmates. If there ar e any ot her measures that can be ta ken to prote ct our frontline workers, I’m open to any suggestions. Mr. Vandermeer: Mr. Speaker, my second supplemental is to the Minister of Health and Wellness. What is Alberta Health doing to address this issue? Mr. Mar: Well, Mr.

Speaker, let me say first of a ll that it’s very important that we do everything that is reasonably possible to help protect our emergency workers from bad health effects as a result of communicable diseases. What we do right now is we provide them with information on how t hey can best p rotect themselves against getting communicable diseases during the course of their work. In the event of an accidental exposure, of course, a notification is put in place immediately so that the worker can be quickly assessed and appropriate measures t aken to mitigate or to treat their particular condition.

We do conduc t on going mo nitoring of disease s and infectious conditions in communities throughout the province. This is part of our gov ernment departm ent’s role in ensuring public health. Mr. Speaker, I want to say that we will commit whatever resources are required to working with the Solicitor General on this particular issue, and we certainly will be watching the experience in On tario with a great deal of interest. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary-Lougheed. Natural Gas Rebates (continued) Mr. MacDonald: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On the eve of the last provincial election the Alberta government announced a natural gas rebate program for natu ral gas commercial operations that lasted roughly from the time of enumeration until the time the last vote was counted. The provinci al gov ernment took this st ep to hide the expensive failures of energy deregulation and delay the true costs of energy deregulation until after Albertans voted. My first question is to the Premier. If a $5 gigajoule credit on natural gas was g ood enough during an election year, why is it not good enough now? Mr. Klein: Mr.

Speaker, the very, extremely, extraordinary spike in the price of natural gas was coincidental with the election. We had no control. W e didn’t tell gas to g o up just because it was an election. We had t o do somet hing. The se peopl e, you kn ow, complained loud and long about giving rebates and helping Alber- tans. They screamed: “Oh, my gosh. This is just political.” Mr. Smith: You didn’t send yours back. Mr. Klein: Yeah. That’s right. They gladly took the rebates; right? They gladly took the rebates. Mr.

Speaker, I take exception to this program lasting only as long as the tim e it took to cast the last vote. This w as a thre e-month program. An Hon. Member: A four-month program. Mr. Klein: I’m sorry. Maybe it was a four-month program. Okay. It was a three- or four-month program – I’m not quite sure – that really went a great distance to alleviate hardships on a l ot o f Albertans. It was du ring that electi on th at we sai d: lo okit; we understand that the price of natural gas is extremely high. I believe it had reached something like $10, $11 a gigajoule.

It was extremely high at that particular time, and we said that we would introduce a program. If I recall, I said that we would introduce a program that would be akin or similar to the interest rebate program. [interjec- tion] Will you please instruct the hon. member for wherever to keep his yippity yap shut. 2:00 Mr. Speaker, we said that we would bring in – and this is a quote. As I said, they weren’t on the campaign trail with me. They were on their own cam paign trai l, you know , telling pe ople a bunch of baloney.

So they weren’t on the campaign trail with me where we had to deal with the real issues and the realities. Along the campaign trail I was asked: well, what do you plan to do on a more permanent basis? I s aid: we wil l consider a program similar to the interest rebate program introduced by then Premier Lougheed where interest was shielded dow n to 12 percent from about 19 to 20 percent. I instructed the Minister of Energy to get to work on a program. He brought through leg islation to br ing about the program. Th e regulations relative to the legislation were announced, and now the Liberals are complaining.

So what’s new? Mr. MacDonald: Again to the Premier, Mr. Speaker: given that the election promise from 2001 was broken by this government, did this government refuse to give Albertans rebates earlier this winter when there was a huge price spike because they knew it would interfere with the high-pre ssure sales tactics used by energy marketers like Direct Energy selling three- and five-year contracts to Albertans? Mr. Klein: Mr. Speaker, I just went through the process. As I said, unless the hon. member tells me otherwise, I would assume that he was not on my campaign trail. Mr. MacDonald: You bet I wasn’t. Mr.

Klein: Right. I would assume that he was not on the campaign trail. I would assume that he did not visit the numerous constituen- cies, practically every constituency in the province, where I gave the same speech over and over and over again. [interjection] If he was there, then stand up and say that he was there and that he heard all this; in other words, that he heard the malarkey that he just spouted

April 24, 2003 Alberta Hansard 1209 off, because he didn’t. What he would have heard is exactly what I explained: that, yes, there is an emergency problem right now; the price of gas is extremely high; that, yes, we will bring in a sustain- able program; that, yes, it will be a program, and the best I can think of at this particular time is a program similar to the mortgage interest rebate progra m brought in by Premier Lougheed; and that I w ill instruct the Minister of Energy to get to work on it. And I did all of those things. T hat is not bre aking a promise. T hat is f ulfilling a promise. Mr.

MacDonald: To the Prem ier: given that an e lection promise from the last election, in 2001, was broken by this government, why is it gover nment polic y that c onsumers come f irst only du ring election years? Mr. Klein: Mr. Speaker, I just pointed out the difference bet ween keeping a promise and breaking a p romise. The sta tement that I broke a promise is entirely misleading. It is wrong. It is wrong for them to say that I broke a promise when in fact I kept a promise. I will explain it one more time. Here’s what I said. Dr. Massey: It doesn’t matter how many times you say it. Mr.

Klein: Well, it doesn’t matter how many times they say it. They say that I broke a promise. I say that I kept a promise, and I kept the promise. I kept the promise, and here’s how I kept the promise. Mrs. Nelson: People know they can trust you. Mr. Klein: Right. Again, I would ask him, because he doesn’t have an opportunity to stand up and ask another question: will he go outside the House and tell the press that either he was a fly on the wall or he wasn’t? All you need to do is get your researchers, which the government pays for, go into the morgues of the newspapers and find out exactly what I said.

The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Lougheed, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. Clean Coal Technology Ms Graham: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In this province coal is still the number one fuel used to generate electricity. We all know that the burning of coal does create carbon dioxide, which creates global warming. One of the strategies of the government plan to ad dress this issue was supposed to be speeding up the development of clean coal technology. My f irst question is to the Ministe r of Envir on- ment, whose department is responsible for Alberta’s climate change plan. Mr.

Mini ster, it would appear that you haven ’t taken active steps to accelerate the development of clean coal technology. What is the holdup? Dr. Taylor: Well, Mr. Speaker, I’m a little surprised by that question, but let m e say that we have ta ken action. We’ve taken action long before Kyoto. As I pointed out to another member in the House t his week, you k now, Alberta is f irst and f oremost in the country in taking action on many areas around climate change, and certainly clean coal technology is one t hat is important to Alberta.

As you know, we’ve g ot 70 percent of the coal resources in th e country in this province, and if we can learn to develop it cleanly and burn it cleanl y, there ’s a huge opportunity f or energy in this province. We’re doing a number of things, Mr. Speaker. In the first place, I’ve asked the Clean Air Strategic Alliance to look at our electricity generation and the emissions that come o ut o f those pla nts, and about 60 to 7 0 per cent of that is from coal. So I’m expecting a report from them, hopefully in June or perhaps September, once they get their group together again. That’s one thing that we’re doing.

Then as a government we announced a $30 million investment in research, and certainly much of that will go to the Alb erta Energy Research Institute, whi ch is under t he purview of the Mini ster of Innovation and Scienc e, and it’s my understanding that he mig ht want to supplement, Mr. Speaker. A lot of that money will be spent on clean coal. I’d ask the minister to supplement on exactly where that money is going. The Speaker: No. We’ll go on to the member. Ms Graham: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I’m happy to ask the Minister of Innovation and Science just what in fact his ministry is doing to accelerate clean coal technology. Mr. Doerk sen: Well, Mr. Speaker, with the a ssistance of the Minister of Energy and th e Ministe r of Envi ronment we have implemented an Alberta energy research strategy. In fact, through the good work of the Alberta Energy Research Institute, if you look at it on the web site at www.innovation.gov.ab.ca, you can read the whole energy rese arch strategy.

One of the k ey elements of that strategy is the development of tech nology that will enable us to develop our huge resources of coal so that it will be effective and we won’t strand it, and we’ll be able to use it to further our economy. The Speaker: The hon. member. Ms Graham: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My final question will be to the Minister of Environment. In that you, Mr. Minister, have the lead in developing our climate change plan, when ar e we going to start doing something other than talk about all the things that we can do? When are we actually going to do it? Dr. Taylor: Well, Mr.

S peaker, certainly we are doin g. As I’ve indicated in the past, we’re about 24 percent below our 1990 target. It’s supposed to be 6 percent. Other things that we’re doing, actual concrete actions that we’re taking, are things like 90 percent of our power is going t o be gener ated by green pow er. H alf of that 90 percent will come from biomass; half will come from wind. 2:10 Of th e 140 ne w wind t urbines that are being put up in Fort Macleod, roughly 70 of those w ill produ ce power for the govern- ment.

So by doing a purchase of green power like that, the Minister of Infrastructure has created a huge new market for green power, Mr. Speaker, and I would say that that is the largest purchase of green power in North America. So we are taking action. We will continue to take action. As we move forward, Mr. Speaker, I would encourage all the members to take a look at the climate change plan, which is also on the govern- ment of Alberta web site. Health Authorities’ Advertising Campaign Ms Carlso n: Mr. Speake r, the Unite d Nurs es of A lberta ar e currently in negotiations with the provincial health authorities.

During these neg otiations the health author ities h ave inv ested a significant amount of money and resources into launching a glitzy ad

1210 Alberta Hansard April 24, 2003 campaign to sw ay public opinion. My first que stion is to the Minister of Hea lth and Wel lness. W hy are the health authoriti es spending valuable tax dollars on ad campaigns rather than investing that money into hiring badly needed frontline staff? Mr. Mar: Mr. Speake r, we ha ve had a dr amatic increase in the number of health professionals in this province over the last three years. There has been a significant investment in health care made by this government, and it has been passed on by way of grants to regional health authorities.

They have benefited from the hiring of hundreds of new nurses ove r the last three y ears. In fact, w ith respect to physicians it’s gone up by about 600 new physicians over the last three years. So we have invested, as have regional health authorities invested, in dramatically increasing our frontline staff in nurses, physicians, and other health care professionals. Now, wi th respect to an ad ca mpaign being paid f or by the regional health authorities, they are in negotiations with nurses. The nurses have taken steps to indicate their pos ition in this m atter.

I think it’s entirely appropriate that what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gande r, and if t he employ ees during the cour se o f their negotiations choose to make public their position on their bargain- ing, then it’s an entirely appropriate measure for employers to do the same thing, Mr. Speaker. Ms Carlso n: Mr. S peaker, to t he same mi nister: given tha t the estimates range as high as $1 million for the cost of this campaign, will the minister commit to informing the public of just how much this PR campaign has cost Albertans? Mr. Mar: Mr.

Speaker, it will all come out in the matter of public accounts when it’s all accounted for at the end of the year. Ms Carlson: The minister knows that that isn’t true. How about this question: given that this PR campaign has had no effect upon continuing negotiations, does the minister know if this fruitless campaign will continue and how much more it will cost? A figure? Mr. Mar: Well, Mr. Speaker, we entrust our health care system to regional health author ities, who m ake important deci sions about what’s appropriate for them. That includes the matter of negotia- tions with thei r nurses.

I t’s not my intention t o i nterfere in this particular area. I wouldn’t consider myself to be a micromanager. Perhaps the hon. member would. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Rutherford, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview. Municipal Taxation Mr. McClelland: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions are to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Tuesday in Edmonton the Toronto- Dominion Bank rel eased its third report on Canada’s cities.

T his report dealt specifically with the Edmonton/Calgary trade corridor and is full of good news, including the fact that the gross domestic product of the corridor is by far the highest in Canada and is in fact higher than the United States’ average. There a re, h owever, challenges, challenges identified in the report to do with municipal financing. My quest ion: will the minister advocate vacating tax room to allow municipalities direct taxation powers as recommended in the report? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Boutilier: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I want to say at the outset that I think that perhaps the title of the report, which I have here, should be more than just simply The Calgary-Edmonton Corridor. As w e know, with the r esource tha t’s taking place in northern Alberta, $87 billion is being spent ther e. That is very important to this corridor as we ll, and I’m proud to say that the mayors of Edmonton and Cal gary and Red Deer recognize that as well. Relative to the issue of w hat we do in the futur e, our roles and responsibilities are inve stigating that with the ma yors a nd the presidents of the AUMA and AAMDC.

But I would like to say – and I add this word of caution though – that at the end of the day, as we all know, there is only one taxpayer. One of the things that was highlighted in the re port was that the prov ince of Alberta has the lowest tax regime o f any o ther Canadi an province , and that’s certainly a strength we want to build on. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. McClellan d: Thank you. My f irst supplem entary: will the provincial government pressure the federal government to remove GST entirely from municipal purchases as one order of government does not tax another? Mr. Boutilier: Where do I sign up?

Let me just simply say this. This province was the only province in Canada that took the federal government to court over the issue of the GST, and I’m very proud to say that we launched a very aggressive campaign. We all know that the best example would be on the issue that affects municipali- ties. To th ose who may not be aware in the As sembly, relative to transportation did you know that over the past 10 years when we filled up at the pumps in the province of Alberta, we contributed to the federal government $7 billion? Do you know how much we got back? An Hon. Member: How much? Mr.

Boutilie r: You a sked h ow mu ch we got back . About $70 million. You know, the provinc e of A lberta col lects ove r $700 million a yea r – and the Mini ster of Transportation wante d t o supplement. We spend over $2 billion a year relative to transporta- tion. That’s another good ex ample of some of the inequitie s that take place across this Confederation. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. McClelland: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My final question. The report indicated t hat the reg ions must seek e fficiencies. Has the minister’s 3R committee a set of priorities for the municipalities to reach these efficiencies?

Mr. Boutilier: A good question. Absolut ely, yes. In f act, in our ministry goals, that we talked about in estimates last night, we talked about the strat egies of regional partnerships, how we can take a dollar and stretch it into $3 by sharing. I want to compliment the capital region, just one good example of 22 municipalities. They’re coming together, they’re working together, and they’re serving their taxpayers as a whole, but what they’re doing is they want to get the best value out of that one dollar to ensure that we per haps can get even greater value.

One thing that I’ve heard – and the hon. member may be aware – is that the last thing we want to do in this province, though, is create a tax jungle.

April 24, 2003 Alberta Hansard 1211 Toxic Mold in Foothills Medical Centre Dr. Taft: Mr. Speake r, on Tuesda y the Mi nister of He alth and Wellness implied that there was no evidence that mold found in the Foothills hospital was toxic. However, tests done on mold found in the fall did indeed indicate toxic mold near the renal dialysis unit of the Foothills hos pital. My questions are to the Minister of Health and Wellness. Where did the minister get his inform ation that the mold in the Foothills hospital was not toxic? Mr. Mar: Mr.

Speaker, the hon. member was good enough to send me a letter la st week indicating that he would be asking these questions about toxic mold, and the best advice that I had available from the regional health authority was that there is the presence of molds in some facilities. You’ll find them in schools. You’ll find them in office towers. You’ll find them quite likely in this building.

But I did express the caution in answering his question last week to refer to the issue of the word “toxic.” T here are many kinds of molds that may appear in buildings as a result of different types of HVAC systems, heating and ventilation systems, but there has to be caution expressed when he uses the word “toxic.” There has been, to the best of my knowledge, no evidence of any toxic molds, and those things whic h are toxi c molds, that sometimes do appear in buildings, are only harmful to individuals if breathed in or if ingested through the mouth.

So, again, the best advice that I have available from the regional health authority is that there is no evidence of a toxic mold in that facility. The Speaker: The hon. minister to supplement? Mr. Dunford: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Unless something has happened in the last 24 hours, I would like to indicate to the House that from a workplace health and safety standpoint as well we are not aware that there’s been a definition of a toxic mold at this point in time. 2:20 The Speaker: The hon. member. Dr. Taft: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Our information is that last fall it indeed was found to be toxic mold, and I’ll send that material to them. If the two ministers are so sure that the environment is that clean at the Foothills hospital and that th ere’s no toxic mold, can either one of them or the Premier explain why an independent evaluator is being blocked from entering the hospital and conducting air quality tests? Mr. Klein: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I can say that if an independent investigator has been blocked and thrown out and bodily prevented from going into the hospital, I’ll find out why. I’m sure the hon .

Minister of Health and Wellness will find out why . Un less, of course, the so-called investigator was sent in, hired by the Liberal Party, to do a job or a number. Then I can understand it. I can understand it.

But I would accept any day the evidence and the word of people who work in the Department of Health and Wellness and occupational health and safety, who are professionals charged with the responsibility of investigating very serious situations such as this and make their fi ndings in an unbi ased fashion, that the re is n o evidence of toxic mold in the facility; that is, the Foothills hospital in Calgary. I put my faith in these professionals. I put much more faith in these pr ofessionals than I w ould in someone hired by t he Liberals. The Speaker: The hon. member. Dr. Taft: Thank you, M r. Speaker.

If it turns out, then, that the Premier and the m inister hav e been m isinformed by the Calgar y health region and there re ally is toxic m old, will the y not f inally admit that this is just another example of the CHR treating a serious health concern as nothing more than public relations? Mr. Mar: Mr. Speaker, the regional health authority in Calgary has an exemplary re cord of patients who come in, get diag nosed and treated, and are released. They don’t have anything to be ashamed about with respect to their track record in treating patients with the treatment that they require so they get better.

That’s not to say that any such large organization can be perfect, and there are efforts that are being made by the regional health authority to deal with issues in a better way that may relate to matters of, for lack o f a be tter expression, public relations. If there is a genuine situation with toxic mold in such a facility, I’m not aware of it. But if there is, then certainly the regional health authority takes the safety of its staff and the patients in the facility at the Foothills hospital very seriously, and I am certain that they will do everything that is necessary in order to remedy the situation.

But again, Mr. Speaker, there is no evidence of toxic mold in that facility that I’m aware of. The Speaker: The hon. minister to supplement? Mr. Dunford: Yes. I think it deserves a comment here. Occupa- tional health and safety is the impartial third party in this investiga- tion. We as an operation have been working with employers right across this provinc e for many years on many issues, but we stand independent of any em ployer group or any employee grou p. We have a job to do. We have a legislated, mandated job to do, and at the Foothills hospital we are doing that job and performing that function.

If ther e is to xic mold at som e point in tim e, we’ll be reporting it. I think that this lin e of ques tioning has r eally made some inferences that need not be made at this time. head : Members’ Statements The Speaker: Hon. members, before calling on the first of several members to par ticipate today , might I extend on behalf of all members of the Hous e congrat ulations an d bes t wish es to t wo members who have celebrated milestones this week. First of all, to the Member for Little Bow, who has arrived at a certain age, and to the hon. Member for Highwood on reaching a real milestone in his life this week.

The hon. Member for Cardston-Taber-Warner. Apex Youth Awards Mr. Jacobs: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is my pleasure to rise in this Assembly today to recognize four exceptional individuals from southern Alber ta. On Thursday, April 10, Stacy Smith, Denica Farough, Jordan Williams, and Jordan Litchfield were honoured as winners at the second annua l Apex youth awards. The se awards were developed by the Taber Rotary Club and the Taber Time s, which now sponsor the award every y ear. The Apex awards are a unique honour in Alberta that go beyond recognizing sports and academics.

These awards are pres ented to y outh that exemplify dedication and co mmitment to servi ng their c ommunity and the ir families. They are g ranted to students who rep resent t he best qualities in youth, youth that unselfishly give themselves in the service of others.

1212 Alberta Hansard April 24, 2003 Stacy Smith, a grade 11 s tudent from Vauxhall, has show n the skills needed to be a lifelong learner with a strong desire to pursue a university education. Denica Farough, a grade 12 student from St. Mary’s high school, surrounds her life with her family, school, and church. Her volunt eerism illustrate s her kind an d caring nature. Jordan Williams, a grade 11 student from St. Mary’s, puts others and their needs as well a s the gre ater needs of the c ommunity bef ore himself. Jordan Litchfield, a grade 11 student from W.R.

Myers, has always express ed love a nd devotion to his parents. Jordan has grown from assisting his father, who suffers from a serious chronic illness. I must stress, however, Mr. Speaker, that there is a common thread among all four winners and the 22 nominees: they are all outstanding individuals. Growing up as a kid today is not an easy task, but there are individuals who strive and stand out above the rest to make life more enjoyable and gratifying for themselves and those around them. The Apex youth awards were created to recognize these remarkable people.

I feel t hat it is im portant to acknowledge those t hat devote themselves to the betterment of our communities. I would ask that members of this Assembly join me in congratulating the four winners of the Apex youth awards and the 22 nominees for their accomplish- ments and dedication to their communities and their families. Thank you. Ecological Footprint Ms Carlson: Mr.

Speaker, John McConnell, who is the 86-year-old founder of Earth Day, stated the following: From its beginning the purpo se of the authentic Earth Day was to provide an annual date on which the whole world (people of every creed and culture) would rededicate themselves to the care of Earth. The March Equinox (nature’s special day of equilibrium) provided an appropriate tim e to celebrate t he wonder of life on our planet. This could b e a spe cial day for t he human f amily to focus on a common cause that would appeal to all – stewardship of Earth. Mr. Speaker, we tra ditionally celebrate Earth Day on A pril 22.

One way we can participate is to calculate our ecological footprint. The ecologic al footprint is an ac counting tool for ecological resources. Categories of human consumption ar e tra nslated into areas of productive land required to provide resources and assimilate waste products. This footprint is a measure of how sustainable our lifestyles are. The footprint of the average Canadian ad ds up to 4.8 hectares. This is the total amount of land required for food, housing, transport, consumer goods and services.

If everyone on Earth lived like us, it would require a t least t hree Earths to provide all the m aterial and energy she or he currently uses. Preliminary estimates show that the ecological footp rint of today ’s consum ption in food, f orestry products, and fossil fuels alone might already exceed global carrying capacity by roughly 30 percent. So what can we do? We can recognize that all of our actions have consequences for the na tural world. We c an focus on becoming responsible consume rs. Tak e an ecol ogical footprint quiz and determine your family’s impact on our Earth.

Then think about what actions you can take to become a more responsible consumer. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Lac La Biche-St. Paul. National Soil Conservation Week Mr. Danyluk: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to recognize and bring attention to National Soil Conservation Week, which is current ly under w ay. N ational Soil C onservation Week helps promote soil conservation among farmers across Canada. I don’t think there is a rura l member in this H ouse that doe sn’t understand the need to conserve Alberta’s fertile topsoil, a vital part of agriculture production.

Without the topsoil layer, a scant five to 20 centimetres deep, agriculture production in Alberta would be an impossibility. That’s why National Soil Conservation Week is so important. All week promotional events are taking place across Canada to highlight the importance of conserving vital topsoil. Fortunately for the future of agriculture in our province our producers are listening. In the past decade the re duced til lage an d dir ect see ding acres h ave gro wn dramatically as mor e and more producers realize the benef its of conserving topsoil.

In f act, there has been s ignificantly less wind erosion after the past drought than there has been since the recording of wind erosion began. This c an be directly linked to the prudent soil management practices employed by Alberta’s producers as they continually increase the practice of reduced tillage. 2:30 There are many benef its to soil conse rvation. Not only is t he topsoil saved, but reduced tillage and direct seeding mean that more moisture is retained in the soil, helping producers grow their crops.

As well, redu ced tillage means that less carbon, mostly from dead plant matte r, enters the air, re ducing ove rall green house gas emissions in the province. In short, it’s better for the earth and better for the air. I applaud the efforts of Alberta’s producers, the best in the world, and I’m happy to recognize National Soil Co nservation Week. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. Living in Harmony with the Natural World Ms Blakeman: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Nearly 200 years ago William Wordsw orth expres sed his f rustration w ith humanity and human nature when he wrote: The World is t oo much with us; late and soon, Getting and spending, we lay waste our powers: Little we see in Nature that is ours; We have given our hearts a way, a sordid boon! Wordsworth saw in the world around him that greed, materialism, and acquisitiv eness ha d supplanted m any of the more virtuous characteristics of ma nkind.

Indee d, Wordsw orth observ ed that people had effectively divorced them selves from the surrounding world, instead ch oosing to focus on the ir own inte rests and prob- lems. Although Wordsworth’s message w as delivered n early two centuries ago, i t retains it s power tod ay because, if anyth ing, humanity has only furthered its separation from the natural world. Rather than viewing ourselves as important and influential actors in a complex system, we prefer to downplay our importance and ignore our influence.

My point today is this: we, humankind, can no longe r afford to view ourselves as being distinct or separate from the natural world. All of our actions have consequences for it just as its actions have consequences for us. I urge all members of this House to remember the words of Wordsworth and act with consideration for the greater world around us. Let us no longer “lay waste our powers” but rather see in nature what is truly ours. Thank you.

April 24, 2003 Alberta Hansard 1213 head : Notices of Motions The Speaker: The hon. Deputy Government House Leader. Mr. Zwozde sky: Thank y ou. Mr. S peaker, I rise purs uant to Standing Order 34(2)(

a) to give notice that on Monday I will move that written questions 13 and 14 be dealt with on that day. I’m also giving notice that on Monday I will move that Motion for a Return 14 be dealt with on that day. There being no further written questions or motions for returns at this time, there are none left to stand and retain their places. head : Tabling R eturns and R eports The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Castle Downs. Mr. Lukaszuk: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to table the appropriate number of copies of a letter penned to me b y Mr.

Do n Fleming, chairman of the board of trustees, thanking all members of the cap ital reg ion caucus f or being str ong advoca tes of publi c education and particul arly for being inst rumental in obtaining the $51 million infrastructure grant recently released by the Minister of Infrastructure to the Edmonton public school board. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark. Mr. Maskell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m tabling five copies of a presentation given by Aldergrove elementary school at a March 13 ward C and E school council meeting attended by five west Edmon- ton MLAs. Thank you.

The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. Mr. MacDonald: Thank you, Mr. Speak er. I ha ve three tablings today. The f irst is a letter f rom Mr. G ordon Tocher of Hinton, Alberta. He is upset with high utility costs and is tired of hearing the hon. Premier “stand in the House and constantly deflect the Opposi- tion’s questions by discussing other jurisdictions.” The second tabling is 1,556 more signatures on the Alberta Liberal petition calling f or natural g as rebates from the Hinton a rea, an d these were kindly collected by many citizens, but it was spearheaded, again, by Mr. and Mrs. Tocher.

The third tabl ing I ha ve this a fternoon is an additional 787 signatures from all over the province on the Alberta Liberal petition calling for the reinstatement of natural gas rebates. That brings the total number of signatures on this Alberta Liberal petition to over 7,300. Thank you. head : Pro jected G over nmen t Busin ess The Speaker: The Official Opposition House Leader. Ms Carlson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would ask at this time that the Deputy Government House Leader share next week’s projected government business with us. The Speaker: The hon. Deputy Government House Leader. Mr.

Zwozdesky: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’ll be very happy to do that. On Monday, April 28, we will begin the afternoon with private members’ business, W ritten Q uestions, and Motions for Returns, followed by Public Bills and Orders Other than Government Bills and Orders. From 8 p.m. until 9 p.m. we’ll be dealing with Motions Other than Government Motions, and at 9 p.m. we’ ll deal with Private Bills, second reading likely and if possible Committee of the Whole – we’ll see – on Bill Pr. 1, Bill Pr. 2.

Thereafter, we hope to move to Government Bills and Orders in second reading, including bills 33, 34, 36, 37, and poss ibly ev en get to C ommittee of the Whole on Bill 10 and otherwise as per the Order Paper. Tuesday will be Committee of Supply day 14 of 24, and I believe the opposit ion ha s designa ted Healt h and Wellne ss, so w e will discuss those estimates. On Tuesday evening, Government Bills and Orders under Committee of Supply, which will be day 15 of 24, the designated committee will look at Government Services.

Committee of the Whole should follow thereafter if time permits on bills 23, 24, 25, 35, 6, 26, and 10 and otherwise as per the Order Paper. On Wedne sday afte rnoon Commi ttee of Supply will consider Children’s Services and otherwise as per the Order Paper, and on Wednesday evening Committee of Supply will consider Transporta- tion. Time permitting, Committee of the Whole may also wish to look at bills 6, 20, 26, 12, and 10 and othe rwise as per t he Order Paper. Finally, Mr.

Speaker, on Thursday, which will be the 1st of May, that afternoon the Committee of Supply w ill be consi dering th e estimates of the Department of Justice. Thank you. head : Orders of t he Day hea d: C omm ittee o f Sup ply [Mr. Shariff in the chair] The Deput y Chair : Hon. members, we’ll call the committee to order. head : Main Esti mates 2003-04 Infrastructure The Deputy Chair: The hon. Minister of Infrastructure. Mr. Lund: Thank you, Mr. Chairm an. Bef ore I star t, I’d like to introduce some of my staff in the gallery.

First, Eric McGhan, the deputy minister; Jim Bauer, the chief financial officer; and David Bray, the communications director. Mr.

Chairman, this year’s Infrastructure three-year business plan and the 2 003-04 estimates indicate how w e plan to cont ribute to Alberta’s economic prosperity by ensuring efficient planning, design, construction, rehab ilitation, op eration, ma intenance, and l and management of government-owned facilities; developing innovative partnerships to ensure s upported infr astructure meets the overa ll needs of Albertans, including health care, learning, and community service facilities and seniors’ lodges; and managing central services to all departments, including accommodation requirements, property acquisition and disposal, air transportation on government fleet operations.

Before going over our budget targets, I would like to outline the new capital i nitiatives in our busines s pla n. New funding was provided to reinstate projects deferred in October of 2001 as a result of the gl obal economic slowdown. A t otal of 22 c apital projects were reinstated. This includes nine health care facility projects, the Victoria school of performing and visual arts project, the Edmonton and Calgary health research innovation centres, along with various centennial projects s uch as the Northern and Southern A lberta Jubilee Auditorium refurbishments.

When the deferrals we re first announced, the government made a commitment that when the fiscal

1214 Alberta Hansard April 24, 2003 situation of the province improved, these proj ects would proceed. The government has kept that promise, and I’m anxious to see these projects begin. 2:40 Alberta Infrastructure’s total budget increased by some 49 percent from $83 8 million to over $1.2 billion. These are much-needed funds to help us addr ess Alberta’s aging infrastructure. Now, I’d like to discuss how we priorized a nd all ocated our do llars. We priorized spending based on what’s needed to cover the day-to-day operations of government infrastructure.

As well, we priorized our capital comm itments for school s and postse condary institutions, health facili ties, and s eniors’ lodges. Som e proje cts are under construction, and others are just being completed. Then we looked at allocating dollars nee ded to undertak e prio rity maintenance projects to protect t he integri ty of existing infrast ructure and taxpayer investment. From the $1.2 billion op erating budget funding was allocated to the four main functions of Infrastructure: operations, preservation, expansion, and ongoing c ommitments.

Infrast ructure oper ations received $581 million for lights-on costs, and that includes caretak- ing, grounds maintenance, utilities, and routine repairs. Of the $581 million, $331 million will support the day-to-day facility operations of the 1,466 schools in the province; $123.8 million will keep more than 2,000 governm ent-owned buildings open; lease f unding o f $99.9 million for more than 500 leases will accommodate govern- ment programs.

The operating budget for infras tructure pre servation is $232 million, of which $122.7 million is for p reserving our heal th care facilities, $48 million f or school f acilities, $24.8 m illion for postsecondary facilities, $31.6 million for government facilities, with the balance of $4 .8 mill ion going to s eniors’ lodges and site environmental services.

We have allocated some 285 million dollars to expand or replace existing infrastruc ture, in cluding $ 97.7 m illion for he alth care facilities expansion, $67.6 million for school facilities, $100 million for postseconda ry f acilities, and $12. 5 million g oing towa rds centennial projects, legacy grants that are administered in conjunc- tion wi th Albert a Comm unity De velopment. The le gacy grants program will provide funding for municipalities and not-for-profit groups who wis h t o unde rtake major publicly accessible ca pital projects commemorating Alberta’s centennial.

The l ast pa rt of our ope rating budg et is to addr ess ongoing commitments which total som e $107.4 mill ion, ongoing c ommit- ments including the day-to- day adm inistration costs, program support costs, and noncash items such as amortization and consump- tion of inventories. Sixty million dollars, or 55 percent, of ongoing commitments is allocated towards noncash items such as amortiza- tion and consumption of inventories with the balance designated for support service and air and vehicle transportation services.

I believe that the bud get estimates for this year will allow us to meet our business plan goals and help maintai n the go vernment’s commitment to fiscal responsibility. So with those brief comments, Mr. Chairman, I would be only too happy get into the discussions of our estimates. Thank you. The Deputy Chair: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glengarry. Mr. Bonner: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

It is a pleasure to rise this afternoon and speak to the estimates for the Infrastructure ministry and also to thank the minister for his opening comments and also his staff who are here today to listen to questions that we have for the minister. They’ve certainly been very good in the past at providing answers when either the minister didn’t have the informa- tion with him in the Assem bly at that time or more work wa s required. So I thank them for being here today.

Infrastructure, quickly glancing through the budg et this y ear, I believe is the third largest ministry according to dollars, a very large responsibility, falling right behind education, which is second, and, first, health, and certainly a department that has a direct influence on the lives of Albertans. So we c annot mitigat e in anyw ay the tremendous influence that Infrastructure has on the lives of Alber- tans. Now then, in looki ng over the budget for Infrastructure for this year, the budget calls for nearly $400 million more in spending than last year, and I think that’s great. I think it helps in so . . .

An Hon. Member: Those free-spending Liberals again. Mr. Bonner: Oh, this is not free spending. This is wise spending. Well, most of it is wise spending. But we will look at other issues here as well. This certainly will provide those structures that’ll help Albertans in their day-to-day living. It will certainly keep our business sector strong and vibrant, and of cour se that is one of the things th at’s happening in this prov ince right now. While we love the gre at economic success, it certainly puts a tremendous amount of pressure on infrastructure. It’s something that cannot be addressed overnight.

We certainly realize that. So it does take a long-term commitment and long-term plans in order to satisfy those needs. I was looking in a little publication that was sent to me here, Review of Infrastructure, and it certainly – there was a particular phrase in there tha t struck me – indicate d the ma gnitude of infra- structure not only in the province but in the country.

Just to quote from that partic ular bulletin, it goes on to say, “ The Cana dian Society of Civil Engineering, through their Technology Road Map project, estim ates m unicipal inf rastructure in Canada i s a $1.6 trillion asset.” So it is absolutely enormous in this country as well as in this province, and I look to that last word in that particular little quote, which is “asset.” In the constituency of Edmonton-Glengarry in 1959 we had Queen Elizabeth high school completed at a co st of $ 1.8 million.

No w, getting close to 45 years later, the replacement costs on that school would probably be in the neighbourhood of $15 million – it is a huge composite high school – certainly an invest ment that the province made in that school 45 year s ago. We sti ll have a structure there today that is worth in the nei ghbourhood of $15 m illion. It was a well-constructed school. I think it could easily be used for another 30, 40 year s. So, cer tainly, infrastructure can provide a huge investment for Albertans.

O ne of th e great advantages is that we own it, that we are getting top value for our dollar. 2:50 Traditionally when we l ook at infrastructure in the province, infrastructure projects in Alberta have been built by a series of public tenders, private construction, and public ownership and operation, and this has proven to be over a great span in Alberta a very, very efficient, very, very wise use of taxpayer dollars.

When we look at Edmonton, where we are rapidly approaching the point where half of our schools are going to be 50 years or older, it certainly indicates that by spending wisely with a long-term plan, the needs of Alber- tans are met, and they continue to have great value for their dollar. So in the opposition we certainly endorse this type of spending in Infrastructure. Now, then, I a lso n oticed that the minister had indicated that municipalities are goi ng to have m oneys to share in orde r to

April 24, 2003 Alberta Hansard 1215 participate. I think the recreational facility that wa s built between the towns of Spruce Grove and Stony Plai n, just a m agnificent facility and certainly a facility that I believe follows along this same design – it is one of those, I think , that more municipalities in the province would like to see and to work with the provincial govern- ment to provide these types of services and facilities. In looking at the highli ghts of the budget, there is a three-year capital plan, which calls for $5.5 billion to be spen t.

That is again a much needed stability in the construction sector of this province. I was also very happy to hear the minister announce that construction was going ahead on a number of projects that had been deferred from previous budgets. So there are a lot of good things ha ppening in Infrastructure. Of course, some we will be questioning as we move through the debate this afternoon regarding estimates. Where I would like to start today with my questions is in regard to the business plan. Aga in, as I indic ated, Mr.

Mini ster, if you require some time to get back to us with answers if you don’t have the information here, that would be fine. We’d certainly appreciate hearing any responses that you’re able to provide us today as well. I’m looking at page 238 of the business plan, w here it sa ys in relation to the province’s infrastructure debt that “t he b acklog of unfunded work is in the order of $2.4 billion.” Earlier this year in a response to the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Infrastructure was quot ed a s saying that the infrastructure debt of the province could be as high as $7 billion.

This is quite an enormous difference, $4.5 billion. Now, then, as well, along these same lines, I think we have to look at not only the infrastructure debt but the Al berta debt. What we have done in focusing on paying off the debt over the last few years is that there have bee n other progra ms that haven’t been fun ded adequately, so we do have what I like to call the Alberta debt. But we will stick this afternoon to discussing the infrastructure debt, so my first question to the minister would be: could he give us an actual figure of what the infrastructure debt is?

Could he clea r up this difference of the $2.4 billion that was announced and the $7 billion he announ ced earlier? If the ministe r would plea se table all documents that he has relating to Alberta’s infrastructure debt and any documents rela ting to the me thodology of calculat ing this number.

Moving forward in the business plan to page 239, it says that “the ratification of the Ky oto Protocol by the federal government will have a sig nificant i mpact on Alber ta’s economy.” The passage continues: there will be “higher energy and operating costs.” In spite of this, Sunc or has gone ahea d with a $3 bi llion project and estimates that Kyoto will only add a few cents to the extraction price of each barrel of oil. Again, this is certainly another situation where we look at private enterprise and we give them a challenge, and they certainly respond to that challenge.

They do it much quicker, much more efficiently, and certainl y muc h better th an we can in gov ernment. So my question to the minister in regard to this would be: can the minister reconcile the statements in his business plan to reality? How can the Ministry of Infrastructure see an extra few pennies per barrel of oil as making energy prices significantly higher? Considering that these statements appear to be in conflict, how will the Minister of Infra- structure’s budgeting have to b e changed to com pensate for these statements?

Moving along to page 240 of the business plan, it say s that th e ministry plans on implementing “infrastructure man agement sys- tems.” If the m inister coul d please i ndicate w hat s ystems he proposes to implement. How much will these systems cost, and what will be the tangible return on their implementation? As well, when will the policy fram ework for alte rnative s ervice delivery and financing be available?

On page 240 of the business plan it says that the ministry wants to “ensure the facilities are kept in good or fair condition,” but on pages 244 and 245 it shows that between 5 and 10 percent of all facilities are anticipated to continue to be in poor condition. Can the minister resolve this conflict between these two differing statements? Does the ministry plan on ensuring that no facilities are in poor condition or plan on having between 5 and 10 perce nt of fa cilities in poor condition?

On page 241 of the business plan it says that the ministry plans on continuing “to sell or divest surplus and underutilized properties.” Is the ministry planning long enough into the future so that it does not divest itself of land that may be needed in five to 10 years, and what decision-making process does the ministry use to decide which lands it should sell off? As well, what will be the components of the program the ministry plans to implement to address environmental concerns at highway maintenance yards?

To con tinue on page 240 of the bus iness plan, what decision- making process does the ministry use to decide which lands it should sell? If the minister could please indicate to us when this program will be implemented. The ministry has indicated that it is ta king ste ps to improve the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the government’s transportation provisions and if he could please indicate w hat th ose plans w ill include.

As well, what plans does the ministry have for streamlining and improving procedures and processes in the ministry? 3:00 Now, then, on pages 244 and 245 of the business plan it shows the evaluated conditions of provincial infrastructure, and it goes on to say that anywhere between 3 and 10 percent of provincial facilities rank as being in poor condition. According to the business plan poor condition indicates that a facility does not comply with the minimum codes or st andards. If thi s is in f act the c ase, then this would be quite alarming.

Could the minister explain why buildings that don’t meet minimal codes or standards are not being immediately up- graded, and a s well why does the minis try accept such a large number of buildings that do not meet code or standards? Do any of these buildings violate safety codes and standards? Now, again, when we look at the manner in which utilization rates are calculat ed in this prov ince, we cert ainly rea lize that this is controversial and depends on which side of the fence you’re looking at this particular issue.

How does the ministry compensate for older and irre gular school building s in its ca lculation of utilization in schools, and are there any plans to change the method of calculating utilization in schools? This is a case, I think, that you’ll find particularly in the larger cities in the province. We do have schools that are very, very old that are in the inner city that no longer have the populations attending them that they were built for. It certainly is a situation where in Edmonton last night at St. Patrick school there was quite a large gathering of parents and concerned citizens.

That is one of the schools that could possibl y be shut down, and it is extremely difficult for these people in the inner city as they see school after school clo se and new s chools being built out in the suburbs. It’s a huge issue, so if the minister could please comment on the utiliza tion rates and particularly those in older or ir regular schools. The table showing the average operating cost per square metre of the ministry’s facilities indicates that the ministry currently operates its facilities at a rate well below the industry average.

My question to the minister would be: why is the ministry content as long as its

1216 Alberta Hansard April 24, 2003 operating cost does not exceed the industry averag e when it has shown that it can beat those values? The business pla n also indica tes that t he minis try is happy maintaining the average energy consumption in its buildings, and my question would be: why isn’t the ministry planning to enga ge in further energy efficiency initiatives to reduce their energy consump- tion? Shouldn’t new facilities reduce the average energy consump- tion with time? Why is this not shown in the targets?

As well, re specting the client satisfaction survey who does the ministry consider to be its clients, what complaints are most often heard about the ministry’s services, and what is the ministry doing to address the concerns of clients? With those questions I will take my seat and give the minister an opportunity to respond to those questions th at he’s prepared to at this time and look forward to his comments. Thank you. The Deputy Chair: The hon. minister. Mr. Lund: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for the comments relative to the overall budget and what we are trying to accomplish and what we are doing.

Unfortunately, it would help me a lot when you were asking those questions if you would be more specific. For example, I missed what you were talking about on Kyoto because, quite frankly, it was just the one bullet, and I couldn’t follow exactly your question. But we’ll be visi ting Hansard and get y ou the answers where I wasn’t able to f ollow completely what y ou were mentioning. This isn’t the first time that I’ve heard the hon. member mention that somehow we had talked about a $7 billion debt in infrastructure. We never, ever said a $7 billion debt.

What we did say is that there were requests for infrastructure. When we took all of the health regions, the school boards, the postsecondaries and we asked them for their capital plans, the requests amounted to $7 billion. There’s a difference between a request and debt. We have said all the time that the debt is about $2.4 billion, and as a matter of fact I can give you a very detailed breakdown of how we arrived at that.

Looking at some 10,858 projects, it totals some $2.4 billion, and the bre akdown is: in mec hanical, $885,997; the interior, $4 55,110; electrical, $339,688; b uilding envelope, $232,292; functional upgrading, $183,203; site, $147,046; roofs, $107,293; and structural, $23,708. As a matter of fact, we’ve got it broken down into school faci lities, health facilities, postsecondary facilities, and g overnment facil ities, so w e’ve got the com plete breakdown. I think it’s a result of a lot of very detailed work that we got these, so we’d be only too happy to share that with you.

Facility conditions, the comments that you made there. Part of the reason that you see the number of facilities that are in poor condition relates right back to this debt. As we try to pick up the moderniza- tion in schools and the preservation of the other structures, we will see the numbers increase, and of course that’s what we’re reflecting in some of our school and health facilities. We w ant to see the number that are in good condition, excellent co ndition coming up and, of course, a decrease in the number that are in poor or fair. The is sue about divesting of land and building.

This proces s started very vigorously about three years ago. As a matter of fact, if you go back and l ook at the th ree-year business plans going back three years, you’ll see that it was an objective to sell 100 m illion dollars’ worth over those three years. We exceeded that. The way the process works, if a department has land and/or buildings and they declare them surplus to their needs, they are turned over to us. The first thing we do then is canvass all of the government departments and see if they have any use for those lands and/or buildings. If they don’t, then we go to the host municipality.

We see if they are interested in purchasing those at the market value. If they sa y they’re not interested in it, then we put it on the market. That’s how the process works. A lot of the barren land that you may have seen often relates to the corridors that are around both Calgary and Edmonton. When Transportation does their more detailed analysis and design, we find that there are parcels scattered around that are not necessary that we purchased some time back, so those will go up for sale, and that’s why you maybe have seen some of those lands.

Certainly, it’s our objective to make sure that we aren’t disposing of la nd that we’re going to need in the future. We’re trying to prevent that, but at the same time it makes absolutely no sense that we would continue to have a lot of land that we’re never going to use on the books, and for buildings the same thing applies. So that’s the way w e look after that. 3:10 You commented on the environmental concerns on the Transpor- tation yards. As you see in the budget – an d I mentioned it in my opening comments – we do have some money set aside to look after the environmental situations that we find.

What we are also finding is that depending on the use of the site – for example, say we have a site that has som e creosote contamination – if t he proponent or someone that’s going to buy it is going to pave it over, that stuff is going nowhere. So we a re able to move t he property with the understanding that they will be only allowed to use it as, like, a parking lot. With the situation with salt and contamination from their salt piles we do the p erimeter tes ting, th en d o so me tes ting in ternally. Sometimes we will sell the land as is with the notation that there is that contamination there.

Sometimes we’ll go in and clean it up, but it depends on the groundwater level, the danger of it migrating off site, if there is a danger. In some c ases, of course, when w e go in and test, we find that, in fact, it has migrated off site, and we then become responsible for some property outside of the old Transporta- tion site. I lost track of where you were on something, so we’ll have to go to Hansard and find that.

Then you talked about the procedures within the ministry, and I assume that what you’re getting at there was back on the questions that you asked in question period relative to the procedures for hiring contractors and consultants. We, as I said before, are in the process of fulfilling what the Auditor General asked us to do in developing a n ew proce dure.

We are ver y anxi ous and up fr ont that the procedure be such that someone that has just graduated and maybe isn’t a member of a big firm or is operating out of a basement even has an opportunity within Infrastructure to get their foot in the door and to at least have an opportunity to present their credentials to us. Then we move forward to the tender process on any contracts that are of any size. As I m entioned to y ou in answe rs before on this issue, there are times when it simply is not practical for us to put out a tender: on a very small consulting project.

In another case where you may have hired a consultant to do certain work and they get into the project and find that there’s a bit more to do, it would make no sense, then, to send out another proposal. So we are working with the whole process and hope to have it refined so that the A uditor General is pleased with it. You asked why buildings that don’t meet codes and this sort of thing aren’t updated immediately. It’s a case of money. It goes back to this debt that we have, and how much money we can spend on the preservation and upgrading .

The fact is that about 50,000 pe ople came to the province over the last five years. They don’t bring their schools or their hospitals or any of their infrastructure with them, so

April 24, 2003 Alberta Hansard 1217 in our balance, in our priorization we do have to address that issue and do have to build some new. We can’t spend it all on preserva- tion. If you look at our business plan, you will see that we are moving a lot over to the prese rvation side to try to mak e sure tha t we do bring the buildings up to a standard, but it does cost a lot of money, and it does tak e a bit of time. So w e will continue to have some buildings that could be called substandard because o f not meeting the codes entirely, but I can assure you that we a re aware of them and we’re working on them.

Actually, the good work that the staff did in g etting this full ana lysis of where our debt a nd where ou r problems are is of great assistance to us as we target money. Now utilization. Let m e tell y ou right up f ront that we have a committee working on this because it does cause some heartburn as we find cases where it just simpl y is not working properly. I find that a little bit frustrating because this was done in consultation with superintendents, with school boards. The formula wasn’t just dreamt up in our department.

I am a little disappointed that it doesn’t work better than it d oes, but I acknowledge t hat we are havin g some problems. We’re having problems particularly in the older schools, the way they’re designed. You know, you just simply can’t chop off a little bit out of each room to make it fit. Another area where we’re finding problems – we’ve moved in many situations to building what we call a core school. The reason for building a core scho ol is that you know that as the community grows, there are goi ng to be students coming there.

You can put portables on it to get you past when the population st arts going down. The proble m is tha t when y ou build a core school, y ou oversize in a numbe r of are as for t he number of students that are going to be there. Of course, you could have all the classrooms full and still hav e a utiliz ation ra te of ma ybe 70 per cent, but tha t’s because you have to get the portables on before you can get it up to 100 percent. So we’re addressing those issues because those are two areas that are causing some difficulty. I want to also tell you that we’re aware of these things.

When we look at a school that may have the score on utilization, we do take into consideration some of these other factors. While a lot of people think that we m ake major de cisions str ictly on that utiliza tion number, it’s not so. It’s a number. It’s a valuable number, but the decision isn’t total ly m ade on utiliz ation. The operating and maintenance formula, for example, does include a utilization factor, but it’s only one of a number of factors. So it does have an impact but not quite to the extent that some feel. I think you had one or two that I missed, but we’ll pick those up out of Hansard.

The Deputy Chair: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. Mr. MacDonald: Thank you, M r. Ch airman. It ’s a pleasure to participate in the estimates debate this afternoon for the Department of Infrastructure. Certainly, when one considers the constituency of Edmonton-Gold Bar and some of the i nfrastructure needs of that community, particularly the schools and t he streets, i t is vital that this government through long-term planning initiate policies that are going to bring the entire i nfrastructure of this provinc e up to standard.

If we were to leave this Assembly and drive directly to Edmonton- Gold Bar, of course we would go over the McDonald bridge. You could either look to the left or to the right and see where the concrete is eroded, worn away. Describe it as you wish, but you can see the rebar. I believe that is the infrastructure deficit that has been referred to by so many people. T he traffic is going slower and slower and slower every morning and every evening on that bridge, and it gives the citizens so much more time to look at the rebar poking out from the concrete.

It is symbolic of the lack of attention that has been paid certainly not only in Edmonton but in Calgary as we ll. The minister and his staff are to be commended for recognizing that this is a problem, and if I had a hat, Mr. Chairman, I would have to tip it for acknowledging that we have significant infrastructure deficits in this province and at least attempting to try to solve those issues. 3:20 Now, I see in the business plans on page 248 and then a gain on page 249 a mention of money that we are setting aside for centennial projects.

We are looking at roughly $9 million and then next yea r we’re going to $29 million for centennial projects, and if the minister could share, please, with all members of the House exactly how these projects are g oing to be al located. A re they going to be sort of orchestrated ribbon-cutting ceremonies, hopefully not, leading up to the next election? I suspect the next election will be lo ng over by that time. Why not consider this? I w ill use tw o schoo ls that are long overdue in the community of Edmonton-Gold Bar for retrofits.

For instance, Kenilworth school has been on and off the list, stop and go, for a number of years now, and the price for the retrofit because of this stop-and-go practice has incre ased by at leas t 25 percent to a handy $4 million or a little bit better than $4 million. Kenilworth needs a lo t of wo rk, but so d oes McNally. McNa lly high sc hool needs a lot of work. Instead of some elaborate projects designed to bring attention to our centennial year, which is important, why not have a bricks-and-mortar campaign to fix the public schools that we have, the public hospitals, the roads that we h ave?

Let ’s bring everything up to snuff as a centennial project, and if the minister wanted to come over to the constituency of Edmonton-Gold Bar and have a ribbon-cutting ceremony after the gymnasium in McNally is fixed, I hope I would get invited, and if there was a little plaque up on the wall that said, “Gym fixed . . .” Mr. McClelland: A big plaque on the wall. Mr. MacDonald: A big plaque up on the wall. As long as it didn’t cost any m ore than 300 buck s, I don’t ca re what si ze it is but a plaque indicating that the hon.

Minister of Infrastructure was by and rededicated the gym as part of our centennial year projects and that $50,000 or $70,000 was used to retrofit an existing public school. I think that’s one of the ways we should celebrate our centennial. I have some other ideas, but that would be certainly one of them. No grand schemes. Let’s just fix up what we have and be proud of it so it wil l last w ell into th e nex t century of our prospe rity and participation in the Canadian dominion. I’m not at all fond of this notion of P3s that is bei ng discussed. You know, I he ar the ar gument between the hon.

Mem ber for Edmonton-Glengarry and the hon. minister, and I don’t have a great deal of confidence that this P3 idea will work and will save money and make things better for us. In fact, I think the government should devote its atte ntion to pub lic heal th care, publ ic educati on, and enhancing the public service, that works for all Albertans. I see this P3 as just private political pork. Yes, that’s what I’m afraid this is going to wind up as: private political pork, P3. Now, this is quite an interesting department, Mr. Chairman , the Department of Infrastructure.

If we were to downsize the cabinet to what it used to be, say 16 portfolios instea d of 24 and Execut ive Council, Infrastructure would be one of the ones that would remain, definitely. It is vital to the long-term prosperity, the well-being of all Albertans. Getting directly to the government and lottery fund estimates, it is

1218 Alberta Hansard April 24, 2003 interesting to note, before I start there, that we indicate in the budget that the total request for the budget is up $414 million from last year. That’s sort of in the same range as the a mount of money that wa s lapsed in the natural gas rebate program. I’m just going to look that up, Mr. Chairman. I thought it was $396 million that was lapsed.

Yes, on page 57 of la st year’s annual report, at the very bottom of the financial analysis: “Due to favorable energy prices experienced last year” – and this is in regard to the natural gas shielding program – “$396 million was lapsed.” So was this $396 million squirreled away somewhere and brought out t his year? Now, I would like to know and so would other Albertans, because certainly there was a need for another natural gas shielding program this winter, and of course there didn’t appear to be any political will nor any govern- ment money for thi s.

It ’s odd that w e would hav e $396 mill ion lapsed, that was budgeted last year, and the increase in this depart- ment’s budget for this year is a little bit better than that by roughly 20 some odd mill ion dollars. I would like to know at this tim e if that’s where the money came from for the budget increase this year. Will the minister table a document that describes each budget line item, including all the specific plans and projects that fall under each line? Program 1 – and I’ve got a lot of interest in that – the ministry support services.

The budget for the minister’s office is staying the same, but the budget for the deputy minister’s office is increasing by $25,000. Why? If one was to go back and look at previous years, I would thi nk we’d see that that deputy minister’s office budget increased quite a bit. If anyone in the Assembly is interested, I have last year’s annual report, and when I conclude my questioning, I will look it up. Again, what is the break down of the mini ster’s and deputy minister’s office budgets by salaries, including salaries for the top officials, travel expenses, and hosting?

Also, w hat is th e average salary of employees in the ministry as well as the highest and lowest salaries in the ministry? How much was spent on bonuses last year? What is anticipated to be spent on bonuses this year? What was the amount of the largest bonus given out, and to whom was it given? I see t hat last ye ar’s ann ual report, the end of 2002, includ es achievement bonuses of I believe it’s $459,000. I do n’t know whether that amount is for the entire department.

When you look at last year, if that is the amount from last year, that’s about 2 percent of the total salary budget, or maybe it’s a little bit better than that . An explanation on th at would be appreciated by thi s side of the House. 3:30 Now, on page 227, a lso of the estimates, it st ates that strategic services is budgeting for $3.1 milli on, up from $2.5 million spent last year. What’s the reason for this increase? Information management is getting $2.2 million more than it spent last year. Why is this increase necessary at this time?

Now, again, the estimates show that information management went over budget by nearly $5 million. They spen t – I’m just fi guring this out – it looks like close to 500 percent more than last year, than they were budgeted for. What is the reason for this colossal budget overrun, if my calculations are correct? Information management is budgeted to receive more than $1 million more than they received last year for capital investment. What is the extra million dollars being spent on? Program 2: infrastructure operations, preservation, and expansion. School facilities operations are receiving an extra $8 million.

What is the $8 million for, and will this cover the added expenses of higher utility costs, unlike this year? Now, leases are rec eiving a n extra $9 million. W hy is the government paying out 10 percent more f or leasing next y ear? Would it not be more cost-effective to build or buy new infrastruc- ture rather than to lease space? The Swan Hills waste treatment plant. Over the y ears I’ve had various questions and various exchanges with the hon. minister, and for a government that pledged to get out of the business of being in business, this waste treatment plant certainly contradicts that pledge.

We know where the minister stands on this. There has to be a place for waste in this pro vince, but where ’s the private sector in all of this? You’re talking about having P3s. You’re talking about having the private sector play an increased role in the delivery of health care and in education. Why do we not pursue the private sector more as far as waste management goes? Again in regard to Swan Hills, why doesn’t this government let ordinary market forces run and se ll the plant or simply close it ? What makes Swan Hills, again, an exception to this g overnment’s free market policies?

You know, in this case the invisible hand is dipping into the pock ets of the ta xpayers. Why are A lbertans subsidizing other jurisdictions’ waste processing? What is the total amount of mone y in which Alberta taxpayers have subsidized the treatment of other jurisdictions’ waste? Why will Infrastructure not get a $13 million credit or recovery next year for Swan Hills, like it received this year? Now, health care facilities, as I understand it, are receiving more than $90 million more for infrastructure preservation than they spent last year.

Again this is noteworthy, and the only thing I can say on behalf of Albertans is: thank you; it’s about time. But what projects does this money go to? Is this money meant to catch up on previous work that was never done? Will this be only a onetime cash infusion, or will subsequent budgets allocate similar amounts? We know that it’s going to be very tempting for this government in the run-up to the next election to announce a lot of projects and have som e ribbon-cutti ng ceremonies and hope that the ci tizens forget that energy rebates only seem to occur during election years.

There’s going to have to be something done, and I’m wondering if there’s not going to be a whole series of projects announced like the stop/go measures that the hon. Premier talks about in the busines s plan. But precisely how much long-term planning is going to go into this, or are we just going to have long-term planning replaced by a re-election strategy? Now, school facilities are only receiving an ex tra $5 million for infrastructure preser vation. Again, what pro jects will th is go towards?

What is the reason that health care facilities are receiving a much la rger abs olute and proporti onal increa se in funds for infrastructure preservation? Postsecondary fac ilities are receiving nearly $23 million i n new funding for inf rastructure preservation. Again, what projects is this money going to? Is this money to make up for projects not completed in the past? Once this money is spent, how much work will remain to be done on infrastructure preserva- tion for postsecondary facilities? The money for infrastructure preservation for seniors’ lodges is being slashed by approximately 70 percent.

I don’t know how many times in question pe riod I’ve heard the hon. Prem ier stand up and say: “We have an ag ing population in Alberta. It’s a c risis. It’s driving up the costs of health care.” If that were true, then why are we not goin g o ut of our way to not only look after the seniors’ lodges now but, say, in 20 years, when the hon. minister is getting ready to re tire and might want a place in one of those seniors’ lodges? You know, we’ve got to start calculating and planning for when the baby boomers retire. If we are to slash budgets, I would urge the government to perhaps have another look at this.

Why is this line item being reduc ed so drast ically? I th ink and the hon. minister would agree that seniors’ lodges require maintenance almost monthly, whether they’re new or whether they’re 30 years old. What is this slash of infrastructure preservation for seniors’ lodges? What is the anticipated effect of these cuts on the q uality of all seniors’ lodges? Would it n ot be cheap er to maintai n stable fu nding for

April 24, 2003 Alberta Hansard 1219 lodge preservation rather than have that large yearly fluctuation? I hope I get an opportunity later, Mr. Chairman, to continue. Thank you. The Deputy Chair: The hon. minister. Mr. Lund: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m very pleased to hear that the opposition agrees with us on how important the infrastructure is in this province because in fact there are about 1 million people daily who either work in and/or use facilities that are under our jurisdic- tion. That’s a pretty impres sive nu mber, and it certainly does indicate the need to keep these projects going.

The hon. member certainly didn’t disappoint me in some of his comments. Of cours e, they ’re wa y off base, but I wou ld have expected that. 3:40 The comments about centennial projects. You know, if you would look at, like, the press release, you would see that we talked about all of these sc hool projects, the hospi tals projects, all of those great projects being centennial projects, so I was very pleased to hear you suggest that because in fact that’s what we’ve already done. So I’m very, very pleased to hear that.

I’m sure that when it comes time to actually do these, y ou’ll then be right behind us and totally agree with what we’re doing. I should maybe get back to the smaller centennial projects that you talked about. There are a number of them, things like the J ubilee Auditorium. There a re things l ike Lou gheed H ouse in Calg ary. There are things like completing the move of the archives, looking at what we might do at the museum, and the list goes on. There are a number o f those k inds of proje cts that w e’re talking about f or centennial. Your comm ents abo ut the P3s. You know , I really find it interesting.

One of your kissing cousins, Da vid Collenette, made some interesting comments about P3s. I don’t very often quote a Liberal, but seeing as how I seem to be having some difficulty across the floor and there is one Liberal in Ottawa that does seem to get it, I want to read a couple things to you. Of course, he is Minister of Transport, but it applies well to our infrastructure. “Governments everywhere realize that the massive investment required in transpor- tation infrastructure and services can only be made by infusions of private-sector money.” An Hon. Member: A Liberal said that? Mr.

Lund: A Liberal cabinet minister said that. It’s interesting. I think y ou’ll find thi s rather i nteresting because I thin k it’s probably part of the problem we’re having here. For some, any type of change is unnerving. Many people are more comfortable doing thing s the way th ey’ve always been d one, especially with regard to the provision of services and infrastructure offered traditionally by the public sector. So we’ll leave it rest. I know I could say a lot more about your P3s, but I do have to mention what a great succe ss P3s have been, particularly in the health care field so far.

As we move forward, you will see more of these coming forward that will be of a great deal of assistance. Maybe I need to g ive you a little bi t of a lesson in how budgets work because this isn’t the first time you’ve talked about that $396 million lapse in 2001. Mr. MacDonald: No, I haven’t. Mr. Lund: Well, one of you over there did. I don’t remember which one. Well, it could be you. Nevertheless, what happened in 2001.

Yes, there was money in the budget, but the fact is t hat when S eptember 11 hit, whe n the economy was going sour, when all our income was dropping, we had to in this department find over $700 million. Well, part of it is the $396 million. That’s part of it. We had to find a lot more money as it relates to the canc ellation of capital projects. Bu t that money, while it was in the budget, wasn’t set aside and kept; it was used for other programs. So it’s got nothing to do with the capital increase that you see here today. That’s got nothing to do with it.

We’ll get into some of your comm ents about thi ngs like the increase in th e deputy’s office. I just have to find w here we’re at there. As you can probably recognize, the budget of some 385,000 dollars, where it was at in the previous year – the increase in demand in the deputy’s office does require some increase in staff. So this is a manpower pressure issue, and we fo und it necessary to increase that number by that $25,000, a 6.5 percent increase. You wanted to know about strategic services . Once again, that increase is to address strategic initiatives and the manpower pressures.

As you can appreciate, as w e go for ward w ith the aggressive program that we’re operating this year, we do have those kinds of increases. I think you asked about information management. The increase of $4.8 million was as a result of information technology enhancements to support corporate governmentwide initiatives, corporate technol- ogy releases, and operational requirements such as software licensing and network and technology support. That’s the reason for those increases. I think you skipped the shared services increase, although that one is a small one.

It’s $1.4 million and is primarily due to establishing an appropriate budget to reflect the costs incurred. Then y ou went on to t he increa sed costs of leas es, som e $15,576,000. Of cours e, those in creases are the increase in lease rates. As you can appre ciate, Edmonton was w here we had the largest number of leases, and if you check with any of the real estate people or anyone else, you’ll find that lease rates have gone up in Edmonton. So of course we’ve got no choice but to pay those. We have to have the space.

Also, in some of our leases we have to pay for the utilities, so of course those have increased. That does affect our budget. Then I think you jumped over to the increase in the preservation of heal th fa cilities, and the re we s ee a ve ry large increase .

The additional funding to the health care facilities for this budget are for such things as the health sustainability initiative; the Royal Alexandra here in Edmonton, a very large project; the Bow River forensic centre; the Red Deer regional hospital development, a big project that we’re doing down there; the long-term care facilities in Wetaskiwin and Vegreville. So that’s where some of those increases are coming from. I think you mentioned something about the school incr eases as well. No, you didn’t touch those, so we won’t respond to anything there. Now Swan Hills.

I must remind you again how important it is that we have that facility. Being a former Environment minister, I’m sure the current Environment minister would agree that the Swan Hills facility is an absolutely neces sary plant to be opera ted in the province to protect the environment, to enhance and protect. So we believe that it’s similar to a utility. If you look at any of the cities, they subsidi ze things li ke garbage coll ection. Th ey sub sidize it. They also subsidize wastewater management, wastewater treatment. They subsidize it out of tax dollars.

So if you look at the Swan Hills plant and how it i s an absolute ly nec essary component of the infrastructure in the province to handle those kinds of wastes that can only be ha ndled in a f acility like that, it’s going to cost some

1220 Alberta Hansard April 24, 2003 money. We are using the private sector. As a matter of fact, we just signed a contract with Earth Tech (Canada) to operate that plant. So the private sector is in there. One of the thing s that I k new you would ask s ometime is to be able to show that we are not s ubsidizing out-of-province waste for treatment. We will be able to show you that because that is one of the things that we’re going make sure doesn’t happen. It’s not as easy as it sounds.

A good manager of a plant takes advantage of the heat units that are available in various types of waste, so they’ve got to feed their incinerator a specific diet, and that may be a combina- tion of out-of-province versus in-pr ovince w aste, depe nding on things like the heat value. That was one of the things that we were going to make sure doesn’t happen, that Alberta tax dollars are not subsidizing out-of-province waste. I think that that pretty well covers the questions that I got, so we’ll continue. 3:50 The Deputy Chair: The hon. Member for West Yellowhead. Mr. Strang: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I guess what I’d like to do is just go over a few things with the Minister of Infrastruc- ture. As you realize, the audit that we had on schools was our school century audit, and of course then in 2001 we had the slump in our dollars and cents when the market crashed on us. We had a couple projects in the town of Edson that were looked at for the aspects of two schools. One was an addition on Pine Grove so that we could finally close the A.H. Dakin school and bring them in there.

Then of course we had the high school, which was Parkland high school, and we’re looking at modernizing that because it’s a very old school but a very solid and good one. So then on April 11 this y ear the hon. Minister of Learning and the hon. Minister of Infrastructure made a press release in Edson to try and al leviate aspects of the space in the tow n of Edson. My understanding when the announcement was made was that we were going to look at Pine Grove elementary school, that we were going to look at $4 million to go to upg rade that school so that we could have the other students from A.H.

Dakin come in there. Then there was a transfer of a school; Jubilee junior high school was going to the Living Waters division No. 35 because of their high utilization in the Vanier school in the town of Edson. Since then, there’s been quite a bit of change and upset people in the town of Edson. When y ou made t hat announcement with the other hon. minister, there was the mention on the aspec t of the $5 million for Parkland high school to get its renovation and upgrading, and it was not in that pre ss release.

As I look at y our budget, on page 248 you have school facilities, and then of course for ’03-04 you’ve got $67.6 m illion. With your bu dget three years out, with ’04-05, where you’ve got $86.8 million, I’m just wondering if we’re looking at the aspect of modernizing Parkland high school in that year. I don’t really want to put that to you, but I’m just wondering, being that it was on the audit as a high priority, if there’s some way we can lean towards that.

I know that what’s transpiring has got the community quite upset for the simple reason that we’re looking at September 1 as the rollout for the transfer of schools and the public is saying that it’s not really practical. Then there have been some other aspects of moving portables and that down from Grande Cache and putting the m on Pine Grove school and on Parkland school. I realize that when w e made the announcement, Parkland high school was going to hav e a high utilization but that that hopefully was only going to be for a short while.

That’s I guess my big concern: whether we’re going to look at it for the next fiscal budget. I have another question. We had done an audit on the aspe ct of the Edson and District Health Care Centre. We did a complete study on that building, and it was turned over to Infrastructure, and what had transpired at that time was that we were looking at the aspect of building a new one. I’ve looked at different publications coming out of Economic Development where they ’re showing a new health facility in the town of Edson, and there was a quote, if my memory serves me right, for $4 million for the year 2004.

I guess the other aspect of that, too, is that with the present facility we have 50 long-term care beds in the town of Edson, and of course, as you know, they’re hooked up with the hospital, but th e hospital was built in very many stages. With the aspect of the long-term care needs in that community there was also a functional plan looking at that in the aspects that maybe we could do some conversion and have extended long-term care beds in that hospital.

As you realize, in the fall of last year and then this year we had extra beds built in West Yellowhead in the town of Hinton, and of course we transferred some people from Edson’s long-term care there, and then als o the other aspect was the one in Evansburg that looked after the area. So there was some shuffling there, but the need still shows that we have a need for more long-term care beds. So I’m just wonde ring if y ou can sort of give m e any k ind o f update on where we’re at with these projects on the school side and the hospital side in the town of Edson. Thank you. The Deputy Chair: The hon. minister.

Mr. Lund: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don’t have before me the announcement that we made in Edson. It was a very complicated situation, as the hon. m ember knows. B oth the sepa rate and the public boards operate schools in Edson and in Hin ton, and we had to do things in H inton with both boa rds and things in Edson wit h both boards, and some funds would flow from one town to the other. In Edson as far as Pine Grove elementary school, though, we did in the last announc ement unde r th e capital centennial program announce $4 million for that particular school.

As we move out into this fiscal year, on the school side we have very, very li ttle room. The money is pretty well all allocated, so we’ll have to see what we can work out. As I said at the meeting in Edson, we want to move it ahead as fast as we can, but the f act is that we may not have the dollars to do some of the work that needs to be done.

We will do it as quickly as we can. 4:00 As far as the long-term care situation in Edson, as you all know, we get the recommendations from the regional health authority, and I simply don’t have that one right offhand, so I can’t answer where we’re at on the long-term care. If the new regional health authority still deems that it’s necessary, I would really encourage them to be looking at a P3 because that seems to be working very well. I now have how this is all going to work in Hinton and Edson, so maybe I’ll just quickly run through it.

In the Edson project for the Grande Yellowhead division, which is public: the transfer of Jubilee junior high school for the depreciated value of $2.698 million, and that would happen immediately; Pine Grove elementary addition and modernization to increase capacity to 625 as a result of the closure of the A.H. Dakin elementary school, and that w as the $4 m illion that I mentione d earlier ; the Parkla nd composit e high school modernization rightsizing from 695 to a capa city of 500, a nd tha t one was for a little over $5 million, but that could not happen until the budget became available.

Now, one of t he things that I have received since this announcement is that folks a re concerned that Parkland would be crowded even if we left it at the 695, so I’m not sure just how that will all work out. With the Living Waters, the Catholic division in Edson, as many

April 24, 2003 Alberta Hansard 1221 know, there was a contract already let to build a new j unior/senior high in Edson for the separate board. We canceled that contract – so there will not be a new junior/senior high Catholic school in Edson – but then we’ll transfer the Jubilee junior high school.

The board may use the $6.4 m illion that w as alloca ted to the c ontract and funding approved for the junior/senior high school and $400,000 in interest, the $466,971 for the costs associated with abandoning the project, and the bala nce of the funding in th e amount of $3.644 million for any necessary modernization to accommodate the transfer of Jubilee juni or high school students. O f the f unding $2 .698 million will be allocated to Grande Yellowhead school division for the transfer of Jubilee junior high.

In Hinton the public board will transfer the Roche Miette school for the depreciated value of $3.16 million, and that would happen immediately. The public board will have to upgrade the Mountain View school to accommodate the transfer of students from the Roche Miette school. The fundin g for the tran sfer coul d be used to accommodate the transfer of students to the Mountain View school. This was to happen immediately as well. The Living Waters Catholic regional division, the transfer of the Roche Miette school, $5.5 million has been set aside for the Hinton multicampus project.

The majority of the $5.5 million will be used to address the conve rsion of the Gerar d Redmond s chool to a junior/senior high school and remove six freestanding portables. Some of the f unding may be re quired to addre ss limited needs at Roche Miette, and that $5.5 million was held and we hav e th at money from last year, so that could be used in this whole thing. So we have $9.8 million to Grande Yellowhead and $9.1 million to Living Waters. The Deputy Chair: Hon. minister, I regret to interject. The level of noise in that cor ner is getting very, very high.

Kindly respect the opportunity that the minister has to speak. Hon. minister, you may proceed. Mr. Lund: I’ve answered the questions. Thank you. The Deputy Chair: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glengarry. Mr. Bonner: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have a few more comments here, and I see that there are other members that would like to participate in the debate, so we hope that we will get the opportunity to hear all of these in this important ministry. Quickly to get back to Swan Hills and the huge amount of public moneys that have been put into that particular facility.

I don’t think there’s a member in the House that wouldn’t say that we do have to have some way of disposing of hazardous waste. Certainly, there was a time when Swan Hills was an excellent alternative or maybe even the only alternative we had, but since that time new technolo- gies have been developed. They are much more efficient, they’re a great alternative, and it certainly would allow us in this province to get out of the business of being in business by supplying or helping to fund a facility such as Swan Hills. I look at one in particular called Eco Logic.

Now, Eco Logic is a Canadian company, and one of its strengths is that it is portable, so the great advantage of this is that it would be able t o travel to the various sites inst ead o f us hav ing to trans port was te across this country and North America. It would certainly allow us to avoid the possibility of hazardous waste spills. As w ell, one of the great advantages to their par ticular process is tha t it is an a lternative to incineration. It involves the gas phase chemical reduction of organic compounds using hydrogen at temperatures of approximately 850 degrees Celsius and ambient pressure.

What this certainly does is it allows a break down of ha zardous waste in a muc h more e fficient way. One of the problems, of course, when we do use the technol- ogy that is at Swan Hills is that we do use much cooler temperatures, and the p ossibility of th ose wastes no t bei ng br oken down com- pletely is much greater.

Now, as we ll, in gett ing back to the gene ral o verview of the ministry, I look under Core Businesses, and one of the bullets there is, “Working with partners to provide cost-effective, innovative and sustainable b uilding infr astructure to support the de livery of government services.” Under operating divisions, one of the bullets, property development: works with partners to provide, preserve, and upgrade owned and supported capital infrastructure.

Under Strategic Priorities: • preserving taxpayer investment in infrastructure; • balancing preservation and growth needs; • ensuring health and safety in government facilities; Under major goals in that department: work with partners to provide quality building infrastructure.

Now, then, when this whole concept of using P3s came about, we had looked at this issue and had certainly done research to see if in fact these were an acceptable alternative to the present system that I had mentioned earlier involving tenders to provide these, and we saw problems with the P3 infrastruc ture solution f rom a num ber of different perspectives, certainly financing rates, corporate profits – and when we’re looking at corporate profits, we’re not only looking at the profits that these compan ies would m ake from building the structure, and certainly we have to have those, but the profits down the road that we would have to pay, and I will m ention a few examples as w e go – cer tainly higher procurement costs, forgone ownership interest, failure to transfer risk, project quality consider- ations, the myth of private-sector efficiencies.

So there are a whole number of issues that certainly would have to be satisfied to indicate that P3s are in fact a wise use of taxpayer dollars and that they will be getting the greatest return for their tax dollars that they can. 4:10 We do have, f or example, one situa tion in Calg ary where the Hampton school wa s built using the P3 model. Certainly, in the building of this s chool it wa s determ ined late r th at construc tion materials and detail s were of reside ntial gra de and are already starting to show signs of age and deterioration.

Now, this is a school that was built I believe in 1999, and here are some of the problems that are occurring in that new school: cracking tiles in the gym na- sium, drywall cracks in the main corridor, roof leaks in the portable