Alberta Hansard — 28 November 2007, Afternoon sitting (13:00) (Legislature 26, Session 3)

20071128

Alberta — Debates (Hansard)

November 28, 2007 Alberta Hansard 2245 Legislative Assembly of Alberta Title: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 1:00 p.m. Date: 07/11/28 [The Speaker in the chair] head: Prayers The Speaker: Good afternoon and welcome. Let us pray. Guide us so that we may use the privilege given us as elected Members of the Legislative Assembly. Give us the strength to labour diligently, the courage to think and to speak with clarity and conviction and without prejudice or pride. Amen. Please be seated. head: Introduction of Visitors The Speaker: The hon. Member for Cypress-Medicine Hat. Mr. Mitzel: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I’m pleased to introduce to you and through you to the members of this Assembly Mr. Fred Underwood, a state of Texas transportation commissioner. The Texas Transportation Commission is much like our provincial ministry of transportation. Mr. Underwood is meeting with several of my cabinet colleagues and ministries, and together we’re exploring areas where our great province of Alberta and the great state of Texas might work more closely together, such as in transpor- tation, energy, and enhanced trade. Mr.

Unde rwood will also be visiting our oil sands developments in Fort McMurray and learning more about Alberta’s position as a secure, reliable, and growing supplier of energy to the United States. Accompanying Mr. Underwood are Mr. Michael Reeves, the president of the U.S.-based Ports-to-Plains trade corridor commis- sion, and Mr. Scott Flukinger, adviser, cross-border affairs, with Ports-to-Plains trade corridor commission. The Ports-to-Plains trade corridor is potentially a sister corridor to Canamex but on the eastern side of the Rockies. Mr.

Speaker, I would ask our honoured guests to rise – they’re seated in your gallery – and receive the traditional warm welcome of this Assembly. head: Introduction of Guests The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. Ms Blakeman: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I have two different introductions today. The first is of a young woman who is volunteering in my constituency office in Edmonton-Centre. Madeleine Kobi was born in the Democratic Republic of Congo and was schooled in Ottawa, where she also participated in a gospel band.

She has now moved to Edmonton and is starting in January in the social work program at Grant MacEwan College. She wanted to volunteer some hours in my constituency office to give her a better view of her future career. She has now stood in the public gallery, and I would ask you all to please welcome her to the Assembly. My second introduction is for Victoria sc hool. This is a very special school to me, Mr. Speaker, b ecause it is a fine arts based school. We have 47 grade 6 students joining us in the public gallery today along with their teachers, Mrs. Stacey Taylor and Ms Carla Kerr.

This is a terrific group of young people. They had very good questions for me when I met with them earlier today. I’m delighted that they’ve come to join us in the Assembly, and I hope they’ll come back again. I would ask them all to please rise now and accept the warm welcome of the Assembly. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. Mrs. Mather: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is really a pleasure for me today to introduce to you and through you to all members of the Assembly a grade 6 class from John Paul I in Edmonton-Mill Woods. We have 23 students visiting today along with two teachers, Mrs.

Elizabeth McKay and Mr. Dave King, and two parent helpers, Mrs. Pam Vona and Miss Faye Johansen. I’d ask them to please rise and accept the warm traditional welcome of the Assembly. The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Health and Wellness. Mr. Hancock: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have the pleasure today of introducing to you and through you to all members of the Assembly Ms Debra Jakubec, vice-chair of the Alberta Community Council on HIV, ACCH, and executive director of HIV Edmonton. Debra is here today to witness the member’s statement recognizing HIV/AIDS Awareness Week and World AIDS Day 2007.

The Alberta Community Council on HIV understands the importance of emphasizing prevention, public health initiatives, education, and community support in ensuring that people can be well and that our health system is available for all Albertans when they most need it. Members sa w when they walked into the Chamber today that red ribbons were pl aced on their desks. By wearing a red ribbon, one can demonstrate understanding and concern for the issue of HIV/AIDS as well as recognize its impact on the lives of many Albertans and people around the world.

I’d ask Ms Jakubec to now rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of this Assembly. The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Advanced Education and Technology. Mr. Horner: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s my pleasure to rise and introduce to you and through you to the members of this House student leaders who have played such an important and vital role in the development of the roles and mandates policy framework. We ensured that student voices were heard through the consultation process because that’s what the postsecondary institutions serve. We have with us today Mr.

David Hayes, chair of the Alberta Graduate Council; Matt Koczkur, vice-chair, Alberta College and Technical Institute Students’ Executive Council; Adam Boechler, executive director, Alberta College and Technical Institute Students’ Executive Council; Duncan Wojtaszek, executive director of the Council of Alberta University Students; Mike Selnes, chair of the Council of Alberta University Students; and Steven Dollansky, vice-chair of the Council of Alberta University Students, or CAUS. Mr.

Speaker, these are just a few of the dedicated student individuals who I’ve had the pleasure of working with over the past months along with a huge array of other stakeholders. They are in the members’ gallery. I would ask that they rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of this Legislature. The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Finance. Dr. Oberg: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It gives me great pleasure to introduce to you and through you to the Legislative Assembly three people.

The first is Sam Libin, who is a very typical nine-year-old except back in June he raised over $5,000 for Kids Cancer Care by having his hair cut off. His brother Austin Libin, who is eight years old, is with him. Austin is starring, very much like his father, as Mortimer in the Robert Munsch play of the same name. They’ve brought their dad, Sean Libin, with them today.

Alberta Hansard November 28, 20072246 They had the opportunity of meeting the Premier and talked to me and asked me some very, very difficult questions. I would ask Sean, Sam, and Austin to rise and receive the warm welcome of the Legislative Assembly. The Speaker: The Associate Minister for Capital Planning. Mr. Zwozdesky: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It’s my pleasure now to introduce some very special guests.

Over three days during this past weekend and in honour of the birthday of Guru Nanak, the founder of Sikhism, the Punjabi media along with our Sikh gurdwaras and some local Punjabi organizations raised over $72,000 in cash, and that amount is growing. [some applause] Yes. They also gathered three full two-tonne truckloads of donated food, all for the Edmonton Food Bank. They did an amazing job and have just received the personal thanks and congratulations from our Premier and myself during a brief luncheon that we had. Mr.

Speaker, I will ask each guest to rise and remain standing as I call their names, and then we can applaud and thank them all ensemble. The co-ordinator of the group, Mr. Gursharn Buttar, SurSangam Radio and Guldasta TV; Miss Rajwinder Klair, SurSangam Radio and Guldasta TV; Mr. Sukhdev Aujla, Desh Punjab Radio; Jasbeer Singh, Parivartan magazine; Gurbhalinder Sandhu, Des Pardes Times and Virrasat TV; Kanwal Lyall, Des Pardes Times and Virrasat TV; Ranjit Singh Powar, Punjab Guardian newspaper; Ashok Gangwani, Guldasta TV; Sukhdev Dhillon, Radio Punjab 101.7 FM; Harpreet Sandhu, Desh Videsh Times; and Dr. P.R.

Kalia, Asian Times. Bohut, bohut shukria. Lakh, lakh wadania. Many, many thanks and one million congratulations. [As submitted] Please join me in saluting thes e outstanding members of the Punjabi community. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Battle River-Wainwright. Mr. Griffiths: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s a pleasure for me to rise today to introduce to you and through you to members of this House Dr. Jason Dewling. Dr. Dewling is a professor at Lakeland College in Vermilion. He sits on the Wainwright town council and lives in my constituency, and he ’s also a close personal friend.

Jason is the gentleman who asked me if I first wanted to go to Guatemala to build houses with Habitat for Humanity. It was an incredible, life-changing experience, and I thank him for that. He’s leading another delegation to the Dominican Republic in May, and if anyone is interested, they can contact my office as I hope to be going again, too. I’d ask Jason to please rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of this Assembly. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Lethbridge-East. Ms Pastoor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to introduce to you and through you several guests visiting today who have a very strong interest in Bill 41. They believe that a profession that has been very successfully self-regulating for the last hundred years should remain self-regulating. Margaret Hadley is the president of the College and Association of Registered Nurses of Alberta. Unfortunately, her son Robert, who was to join her today, who is also an RN – and, as we all know, most RNs do double shifts, and that’s where he is today. We also have Mary-Ann Robinson, the executive director of CARNA.

I would ask them to rise now and receive the traditional warm welcome of this House. The Speaker: Are there others? The hon. Member for Edmonton- Glenora. Dr. B. Miller: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to introduce to you and through you to all members of the House a member of my constituency, Mr. William Eady, who is here. He’s interested in educational issues, and he’s here to see a letter by him tabled later in our proceedings. I’d invite him to stand and please receive the warm welcome of this House. head: 1:10 Members’ Statements The Speaker: The hon. Member for Lesser Slave Lake.

Bishop Routhier School Ms Calahasen: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Academic excellence is not a level of distinction which is easily achieved. It requires many hours of work and a tremendous amount of dedication by teachers and parents alike. One particular school in the b eautiful constitu- ency of Lesser Slave Lake has attained this standing. Bishop Routhier School in Peavine has made its whole community very proud with the latest provincial academic test, or the PAT, results. In Alberta the PAT is used as an instrument to help monitor student success.

It is a comprehensive test based on the curriculum for the entire year. In June 2007 a hundred per cent of the school’s students wrote the test, and a hundred per cent of them passed. On top of that, 21 per cent of the students were in the excellence range. This was no easy task, Mr. Speaker. Parents diligently engaged their children to make sure their homework was being done while teachers made sure that each child received the attention necessary and understood the material being covered. Furthermore, one of the main reasons these students improved so rapidly is the school’s focus on reading.

Bishop Routhier imple- mented the precision reading program, PRP, again this year. Under the program every day includes 40 minutes of reading time with each staff member meeting with a small group of students to do so. Every student in the school has gone up at least one year’s reading level, and PRP has certainly played a key role in this. What is most impressive of all is the school’s determination to continue achieving such good grades. They are now focusing on elevating their excellence level for the next PAT.

I commend the students of the Peavine school of Bishop Routhier, principal Brian Dewar, all the teachers, and the parents for working together to achieve such great scores. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Lethbridge-East. Support for Seniors Ms Pastoor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Seniors are the fastest growing demographic. This is not new information. It has been talked about for the past 25 years. The planners knew it was happening, but it appears that no one even tried to guess what the consequences were going to be to society at large. Not only are the numbers increasing, but people are living longer.

In my riding I gave out 13 centenarian medals in 2005, and my dear Mrs. Yvonne Harris, who I took to see the Queen at 100, is now 103 and bright as ever. Seniors can be loosely generalized into three categories: the independent senior with enough money to ensure that they can live with dignity and have enough hired help when required; seniors independent but on a tight, often fixed income and who find it difficult to meet inflation; seniors requiring health care on an ongoing basis. Seniors want to stay in their homes as long as possible but not at the expense of their sanity.

Worse, senior suicide is on the increase.

November 28, 2007 Alberta Hansard 2247 People can die of loneliness. We need senior community centres that provide one-stop services, government information offices, small health rooms for basic assessments, exercise opportunities, outreach for shut-ins. This approach would save the health system millions and keep seniors active, healthy to live out their lives in the dignity that they deserve. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Lougheed. Stoney Trail Project P3 Award Mr. Rodney: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I am very pleased to share a success story with you, with members of the Assembly, and with all Albertans. This week the government of Alberta and the Stoney Trail General Partnership received a national award of merit for P3 implementation from the Canadian Council for Public-Private Partnerships. It’s a very prestigious award, and it’s very difficult to win, and I congratulate all involved for this great achievement. The northeast Stoney Trail project is an innovative partnership between government and the private sector that will save taxpayers millions of dollars over the life of the road.

This award further demonstrates that Alberta’s P3 process for highways is a great success. The recently opened southeast Anthony Henday Drive in Edmonton was the first project to be built this way, and it was made possible by the innovation and progressive thinking of the minister at the time, who happens to be our Premier, and the outstanding staff at the Department of Infrastructure and Transporta- tion. We’re partway through the process for the northern

section of Anthony Henday Drive. The P3 process delivers these vital roadways sooner than the traditional approach, plus government receives a fixed price, which is especially important given the double-digit cost escalation we’ve experienced during the past few years. Government also receives a 30-year warranty on the work while we only get a one- or two-year warranty on most projects delivered conventionally. This government is committed to exploring more P3 opportunities where they make good business sense and where they save taxpayers money. Mr.

Speaker, the P3 model of building major projects is a major success story for Alberta, and I congratulate the Premier, the minister, department staff, and the Stoney Trail General Partnership for this prestigious award. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. Violence against Women Mr. Agnihotri: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Violence against women is one of the most serious human rights violations on the planet. Across Canada and around the world there is a growing momentum for organizing around men’s roles and responsibilities in ending violence against women.

I think violence against women troubles us so deeply b ecause women are seen as caregivers, as mothers, as the foundation of family life. When a woman is assaulted, it’s an attack not only on an individual but also on the community, on the collective values we hold dear. Sadly, no community is free from the spectre of violence against women. This madness is a real and undeniable problem. It is a problem without a single solution. There is no magic wand that will make it all go away overnight. But we are not helpless. This is not an insurmountable problem.

With a good education, with respect for women, with the conviction that violence is never the answer, we can dramatically reduce violence against women. Colleagues, it’s our duty to pass comprehensive laws against all forms of violence against women and to fund programs for survivors of this violence such as shelters for battered women and rape crisis centres and for services to treat violent men. I believe that respect for girls and women and equality between men and women are preconditions to ending the violence. It has been the longest war, the greatest epidemic, and the biggest disaster.

With strength and love we commit ourselves to work alongside women to bring this violence to an end. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo. HIV/AIDS Awareness Mr. Cenaiko: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It’s an honour today to speak about the important issue of HIV/AIDS awareness. Please join me in recognizing HIV/AIDS Awareness Week and World AIDS Day 2007. Canadian HIV/AIDS Awareness Week begins on November 26 and culminates with World AIDS Day on December 1. It’s a time to remember those lost to HIV/AIDS and recognize those who continue to live with the effects of HIV/AIDS.

As many of you know, HIV weakens the immune system. When the immune system is damaged beyond repair, infections and cancers overwhelm the body, resu lting in the final stage of HIV infection, AIDS. 1:20 HIV/AIDS is still with us. It affects people from around the world as well as at home here in Alberta. There is no cure. In fact, in this province in 2006, 218 new cases of HIV were identified in Alberta compared to 170 in 2005. Most recent estimates from 2005 indicate that approximately 3,700 individuals are living with HIV in Alberta.

The good news is that this government together with stakeholders and community organizations is developing a long-term strategy to address the prevention and control of HIV and sexually transmitted illnesses in all groups. As a example of what great accomplishments can be made through strong collaboration, I refer to the Alberta prenatal HIV screening program. This program currently tests more than 95 per cent of pregnant women each year for HIV and routinely screens all for syphilis and hepatitis B. It is regarded as one of the best screening programs in the world. Mr.

Speaker, scientific data leaves little doubt that the presence of sexually transmitted infections facilitates HIV transmission through direct biological mechanisms, so early testing and treatment are critical to a high quality and comprehensive HIV prevention strategy. Additionally, we are increasing funds to AIDS service organizations in Alberta for 2007-2008 and continuing to provide fully funded testing for HIV to all regardless of health care coverage. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Cardston-Taber-Warner. New Royalty Framework Mr. Hinman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to bring to the attention of this House a concern I have for the future prosperity of all Albertans. In comments yesterday the hon. Premier displayed a profound and fundamental misunderstanding of the oil and gas industry and the investment world. When asked about the slashing of drilling plans in Alberta’s natural gas industry, the Premier’s answer was very naive. The new rates don’t take effect until January 2009, he said, so the current slowdown is a result of other things. It’s a very basic concept in the oil and gas and investment world.

Alberta Hansard November 28, 20072248 *See p. 2249, left col., para. 8 A business plan reflects what will happen in the next few years, not just this moment. Gas wells drilled today will pay royalties in 2009. Investors will be looking for returns in 2009. Apparently, the Premier does not understand this. Preston Manning wrote about similar concerns earlier this month. Speaking of renegotiation of the Syncrude and Suncor deals of the Premier, he said: this creates long-term uncertainty and questions the competence of his government to lead on major energy issues.

While this government may not be looking beyond the next election, the people and companies that have made Alberta great do look and plan long term. Looking forward, there are real negative consequences of the new royalty framework. I quote BMO Capital Markets global portfolio strategist Don Coxe, a respected financial adviser whose Basic Points column is read by investment world-wide. Coxe said: We considered the report such a poorly-written, poorly-reasoned, mean-spirited betrayal of the traditions of a great province that we assumed it would be treated as an embarrassment.

It failed to achieve even mediocrity, so it could be safely ignored . . . Premier Stelmach stunned us by endorsing both the tone of the Panel’s collectivist rant and most of its recommendations. Most impor- tantly, he broke a promise he had made publicly not to accept its recommendation to break promises made to Suncor and Syncrude, the pioneers of the oil sands development . . . With deep regret we are forced to remove Alberta from the shrinking list of politically- secure regions of the world for the oil industry, taking its rating from AAA to A . . .

Once a political region has violated its vows, those who believe it can be trusted not to break its new pledges are betting their companies’ . . . [Mr. Hinman’s speaking time expired] head: Presenting Petitions The Speaker: The hon. Member for Athabasca-Redwater, a petition. Mr. Cardinal: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I rise today on behalf of the hon. Member for Lac La Biche-St. Paul to table the appropriate number of copies of a letter and petition from 128 Albertans from Lac La Biche and the surrounding area in support of Métis harvesting. Thank you. head: Notices of Motions The Speaker: The hon.

Government House Leader. Mr. Hancock: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to given notice of a motion to be moved tomorrow with respect to a motion to hold sittings on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday evening, D ecember 5, 6, and 7.* I’d also like to give notice of a motion under the Standing Orders to allot one hour of time to debate the motion I just gave notice of for tomorrow. head: Tabling Returns and Reports The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Advanced Education and Technology. Mr. Horner: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m very pleased today to rise in this Legislature to make two tablings.

The first is to table the appropriate number of copies of the roles and mandates policy framework for the publicly funded advanced education system. This framework was developed in consultation with Alberta students and our publicly funded postsecondary institutions. It more clearly defines the roles and mandates within our system while supporting a high degree of collaboration and fulfilling the goals of Campus Alberta.

The second tabling contains letters of support from three of Alberta’s postsecondary student leaders, including David Hayes, who on behalf of the graduate students commended the ministry for the leadership and vision for an integrated, sustainable system that clearly recognizes the strengths of graduate students in the future; another letter from Jonathan Hill, who represents students in colleges and technical institutes, who calls the framework a blueprint for a better postsecondary system; and finally from Mike Selnes, from the Council of Alberta University Students, who writes that this step will ensure that instructional excelle nce will remain at the core of Alberta’s advanced education system and that they are excited about the possibilities that this framework can create.

We will continue, as I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, to work with these students to ensure that that happens. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Lougheed. Mr. Rodney: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to table five copies of the report of the Chief Electoral Officer on the June 12, 2007, by- elections held in the constituencies of Calgary-Elbow and Drumheller-Stettler. Copies will be distributed to all members early next week. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. Ms Blakeman: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I have letters from constituents Sandra Hill, Ja mes Hollett, Chris Byrne, Alice Bartram, Lorne Marr, Sylvia Wolowidnyk, Jijun Yuan, Yongjie Liu, Marie Kopr, and Jason Ness. All of them are expressing their concerns with Alberta’s labour laws and, in particular, asking for the outlawing of the use of replacement workers. Thank you very much. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Beverly-Clareview. Mr. Martin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to table the appropri- ate number of copies of a letter from Geoffrey Pounder of Rocky Mountain House.

He is concerned about the number of weeks he has to wait for a simple doctor’s appointment and asks how many people are unable to have their short-term ailments treated due to such waits. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Lethbridge-East. Ms Pastoor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have three tablings today. The first is five copies of my letter and cheque dated September 6 to the Kainai Food Bank. As per my pledge of April 2, ’07, half of my indexed pay raise, $146.25, is donated monthly to a food bank until AISH is similarly increased and indexed.

The Kainai Food Bank has 300 volunteers and has helped 3,000 families yearly. The executive director is Kimberly Jimmy. I will table five copies of a letter from a Marg Triskle, in a long- term care facility, who suffers from multiple sclerosis. She is 58 years old, with all her mental faculties, and lives with very little social or mental stimulus. She states that she now is paying twice as much, the care has declined drastically, and this care is going to have to be increased as her condition does decrease. I will also table five copies of a letter from Edward and Geraldine

November 28, 2007 Alberta Hansard 2249 *See p. 2248, left col., para. 12 Buchanan, who are my constituents and object very strongly to Bill 46. They feel that it is fundamentally wrong and has a profound impact on the democratic rights of Albertans. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Manning. Mr. Backs: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m very proud to rise today to give two sets of tablings. One is a program from the Royal Canadian Golf Association. A few months ago the Royal Canadian Golf Association held the extremely successful Canadian Women’s Open in Edmonton and made Alberta and Edmonton proud.

It was at the Royal Mayfair golf club and had thousands of volunteers. The second tabling, Mr. Speaker, is a document on advanced affordable housing solutions from CMHC and how people can contact that. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Government House Leader. Mr. Hancock: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s my pleasure today to table the requisite number of copies of a report entitled Alberta Health Care Insurance Plan Statistical Supplement, 2006-2007.

It is essentially an annex to the annual report of Alberta Health and Wellness and provides some very interesting statistics such as: 24 per cent of Albertans paid reduced premiums or were exempt from paying premiums, the number of physicians in Alberta increased 21 per cent in the last four years, a total of $1.6 billion was paid in fee for service, and very many other very interesting statistics that members might want to see. I’d also, if I might, Mr. Speaker, just indicate that I misspoke when I said December 5, 6, 7. I was looking at the November calendar.

It should have been D ecember 3, 4, 5.* I assume the Clerk caught that, but I did definitely say Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday. head: 1:30 Oral Question Period The Speaker: First Official Opposition main question. The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition. Fall Session Timetable Dr. Taft: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This Assembly has about 30 bills before it that have not yet had full debate, yet the legislative session is scheduled to end next week, as far as we know. These bills include the Premier’s own flagship bill and others that impact the fundamental rights of Albertans.

My question is to the Deputy Premier. Will this government commit to extending this session beyond the end of next week until these critical pieces of legislation have had full debate? The Speaker: The hon. Government House Leader. Mr. Hancock: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Of course, we’ll consider anything that’s appropriate in order to deal with the business of the week.

But as I’ve just given notice, we anticipate that we should be able to accomplish that by having not unduly extended evening sittings next week, and if we make appropriate progress on bills without undue repetition, we should be able to accomplish the full agenda in that time. But if that’s not the case, I will certainly look to the opposition to assist with unanimous consent, if necessary, to extend the sitting. The Speaker: The hon. leader. Dr. Taft: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again, there are 30 bills before this Assembly; six days left.

Legislation that touches on Albertans’ fundamental rights deserves full debate. All the impacts need to be understood, all the voices need to be heard, and all amendments, including many from the government, need to be considered. One particularly contentious bill, for example, has had less than four hours of debate here, less than four hours to decide whether and how rights are going to be respected. Again to the Deputy Premier: will the Deputy Premier commit that time allocation or closure will not be used to stifle debate and stifle democracy? The Speaker: The hon. Government House Leader. Mr.

Hancock: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Very interesting in that the hon. Leader of the Official Opposition attended in the House not too long ago when Bill 46 was up for debate and used 60 minutes of time to speak to an amendment, which is clearly, of course, within his right to do. But if he had been a little bit shorter and focused on why the amendment should have been voted on and we could have moved on to the other amendments, he might have afforded other members of his caucus and other members of the House the opportunity to actually speak to the amendment that was on the floor.

The Speaker: We’re not going to use the question period for debate of bills. The hon. leader. Dr. Taft: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again, I’ll look for a straightforward answer from the Deputy Premier. The question is this: will this government commit that it will not impose time allocation or closure to ram through legislation next week? Mr. Hancock: Mr. Speaker, I would never want to have anyone consider that legislation is being rammed through.

There will be an appropriate amount of time available for debate on Bill 46 and other bills, but certainly, if necessary, time allocation is one of the tools of the House, one of the Standing Orders that this House passed, and it’s available to be used. The Speaker: Second Official Opposition main question. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glenora. Support for the Homeless Dr. B. Miller: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As the mercury drops outside, thousands of Albertans are on the streets fr eezing. These people rely on organizations such as the Bissell Centre in Edmonton to provide basic necessities, such as warm clothing.

The demand is so great this year that the Bissell Centre is turning to the public to help people in need. They’ve run out of supplies. My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. You talk about helping those in need, but what about walking the talk? Will you commit to helping the Bissell Centre and other similar organizations across the province by providing emergency funding so that they can meet this emergency demand? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Danyluk: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. We do provide $35 million to agencies for the homeless to support approximately 3,100 spaces.

We have also added 7 and a half million dollars for e mergency funding for the homeless. The Bissell Centre has and

Alberta Hansard November 28, 20072250 will continue to work with the government and provide services that they provide to individuals that aren’t as fortunate as us. The Speaker: The hon. member. Dr. B. Miller: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Recently I visited many shelters in Alberta: the Mustard Seed and Drop-in Centre in Calgary and last week the homeless shelter in Fort McMurray operated by the Wood Buffalo housing corporation.

At each shelter I heard the same message: one-third of the homeless have mental health problems, one-third have addictions issues, and one-third are in situations of distress because of abuse. What these people need is the ability to move beyond the shelter into transitional housing and, even more, into permanent supportive housing. To the same minister. The homeless need two things. They need a roof over their heads for sure, but they also need support services to help them deal with the issues that they deal with daily. Why have these two solutions not been linked together and . . .

The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Danyluk: Mr. Speaker, we have linked those two solutions together. In fact, we have put funding aside and are using funding for transitional housing. It’s important to look at housing or the homeless in four different aspects. First of all, prevention. The second one, shelters, making sure that all the homeless have a space. At this present time in Edmonton and Calgary there are still spaces available. All shelters are not fu ll. The third one is transitional housing. The fourth one is independence.

We are working with the agencies, and we are working with individuals that need support. Dr. B. Miller: Well, Mr. Speaker, everybody needs a home. In the case of the homeless they need a place to move beyond the shelter. It’s not just single adults. There are thousands of children who will end up in shelters, and the numbers keep growing in this province. In this rich province of prosperity no child should be without a safe place to live. We have to govern with compassion and not assume that the homeless should have their butt kicked and just get a job.

That’s what the President of the Treasury Board said in this House. We need compassion on the part of this government. To the same minister: I mean, a 10-year program for homelessness? We need action right now, not something that’s going to happen 10 years from now. Mr. Danyluk: Well, Mr. Speaker, obviously the member opposite wasn’t listening to what the government is doing right now. I will tell the hon. member that we are working not only for today but working for tomorrow. About a month ago the Premier did an- nounce a project to end homelessness in 10 years.

At that time he also appointed an hon. member from this side of the House to be the secretariat for that committee. We are compassionate, and we are looking at the future to end homelessness. The Speaker: Third Official Opposition main question. The hon. Member for Lethbridge-East. Support for Seniors Ms Pastoor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The 2005 Auditor General’s report on seniors care stated that the Seniors and Community Supports department has not reviewed or assessed whether the monthly disposable income rate of $265 for lodge residents is appropriate.

Seniors in Lethbridge and throughout the province have told me that they cannot get by on $265 a month. My question to the Minister of Seniors and Community Supports: as the monthly disposable income for lodge residents was set in 1994 and has neither been reviewed nor increased since, will the minister adjust the monthly disposable income so that it reflects the lodge residents’ increasing personal income requirements due to the increased care needs . . . Mr. Melchin: Mr.

Speaker, I want to first point out that that program that we do have to see that seniors can be in supportive- living arrangements and have some form of income left on their behalf for disposable income is still one of the best among any of the provinces in this country. While you may look to some in the past, much of our supports have been much more targeted to the greatest need, ensuring that we have more spaces available. Ms Pastoor: The rest of the provinces do not have our economy, which is why they can’t afford it. The dental assistance for seniors program provides up to $5,000 for dental care.

However, it is only of benefit to those who have dentures or require basic dental care. This program completely excludes seniors who have different varieties of dental care needs that exist, such as crowns, caps, implants, et cetera. A program that does not assist is not a benefit. To the Minister of Seniors and Community Supports: will he review and amend this benefit so that it reflects and includes all dental needs required by our deserving low-income seniors? 1:40 The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Melchin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We do review always the programs that we have available.

We try to make sure that we have a good, comprehensive package that’s available to seniors. It’s in that response that designs were made to include optical and dental expenses. Those were recent additions to the program. Also, to ensure that supports are there, we give the targeted financial assistance to those in greatest need. Ms Pastoor: They don’t reflect the rea lity of de ntal care today. We’re all going to be there, and we’ve all got caps. A comment I heard in Public Accounts this morning a bout low- income seniors requires me to ask this question.

Is it the position of the Minister of Seniors and Community Supports that 40 per cent of Alberta seniors require Alberta seniors’ benefits because they failed to plan for their future, keeping in mind that a goodly portion of these seniors are single women who spent a lifetime raising chil- dren? Mr. Melchin: Mr. Speaker, 40 per cent of Albertans, which is correct, do receive some form of the Alberta seniors’ benefits. That’s a correct statement. That’s not an issue of design as to whether a person is prepared or not prepared; it was the design of our program.

In that sense 40 per cent have qualified to receive those benefits. The Speaker: The hon. leader of the third party, followed by the hon. Member for Lethbridge-West. New Royalty Framework Mr. Mason: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Before I start, I want to indicate that it’s very difficult to prepare questions when the

November 28, 2007 Alberta Hansard 2251 list of ministers in attendance constantly changes, almost by the minute, leading up to this session, and that’s a serious concern. Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Institute’s 6th annual oil sands conference last week in Calgary was attended by a room full of big oil executives who paid $2,000 for the privilege, among other things, of listening to the Minister of Finance.

The Minister of Finance at that time, according to reports of people who were there, indicated that the review of royalties in th is province was an idea that came from the media and was picked up on by some of the leadership candidates, who all then jumped on the bandwagon. I would like to ask the minister . . . The Speaker: I’m sorry, but the time has now evaporated, so I don’t know where we’re going with this one. The hon. Minister of Finance. Dr. Oberg: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

It’s a well- documented fact that the royalty review was picked up by all of the leadership candidates in the past election, and everyone agreed. Our Premier was the one who won, and subsequently he instituted exactly what he had promised. The Speaker: The hon. leader. Mr. Mason: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It would be interesting to know whether or not the Minister of Finance supports this process. Apparently, the Minister of Finance also voiced his concerns about the impact of changes to the royalty system to the Royalty Review Panel, but they told him to mind his own business.

My question is to the Minister of Finance. Did he attempt to influence and interfere with th e Royalty Review Panel in its discussions? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Dr. Oberg: Thank you very much for that question, Mr. Speaker. My comments were in jest at that particular conference because I had absolutely no contact. I had absolutely zero contact with the people. Indeed, even if we were at a social occasion, it would be that the royalty panel would go to the other side of the room. So the royalty review report was 100 per cent absolutely independent.

There was no government interference, and there was no interfer- ence from myself. The Speaker: The hon. leader. Mr. Mason: Thank you very much. I wonder if the Premier shares the Minister of Finance’s sense of humour. If there are unintended consequences, said the Premier, they will change the royalty review framework. I’d like to ask the Minister of Energy now: what changes are you considering? When will you tell Albertans exactly what you intend to do about roya lties? Are you not concerned that the government’s position on royalties is becoming as vague and confused as that of the Liberals? Mr. Knight: Mr.

Speaker, what I would indicate to you and all Albertans is that who is confused here is the member opposite. The fact of the matter is that the Premier has come out very solidly and said that the new royalty framework is in place, it is solid, it’s a framework for the future, and we’ll move ahead with that frame- work. There is no intention with this government or this ministry to stray from that particular pathway. Twenty per cent, $1.4 billion by 2010: that’s what we’re expecting. If there’s any confusion, it rests over there. Roles and Responsibilities for Advanced Education Mr. Dunford: Mr.

Speaker, it would be clear to everyone here in the House that the key to the future of Alberta, of course, is within our postsecondary system, the postsecondary institutions that we have throughout the province. The Minister of Advanced Education and Technology has tabled his roles and responsibilities mandate framework, and I want to question him on this from this perspective. In the late ’90s and the early part of this century there was a fair amount of work and also political capital invested in terms of Campus Alberta. The Speaker: I think the time is gone, so if the minister wants to respond. Mr.

Horner: Well, perhaps, Mr. Speaker, I would let the hon. member go to his next question. Being one of the members of this House and this government that actually started the idea of Campus Alberta, it would be most interesting to find out what his question is. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Dunford: Yes. If I may continue, then. What I’m most concerned about are the principles that surrounded that whole concept of Campus Alberta. Have they maintained their presence in the new roles and responsibilities mandate? Mr. Horner: Well, Mr. Speaker, that’s a very good question.

One of the concerns that we’ve always had during the consultation that we started some 11 months ago was to ensure that we had a document that had some meat to it, that had the principles that everyone agreed to that would make the system that we have in this province the best in the world: the best at collaboration, the best at tran sferability, the best at access for our students, meeting the three goals of what our postsecondaries should be doing, and that is for the students, for the taxpayers of Alberta, and for our society, and they are entrenched in this document. Mr. Dunford: Mr.

Speaker, I have two very good institutions in the city that I represent: the Lethbridge College and, of course, the University of Lethbridge. The Lethbridge College had written the minister and used the term “diminished framework” in terms of their ability to look at degrees. I’m wondering now: can Lethbridge College continue to have flexibility and move forward in degree granting? Mr. Horner: Well, again, Mr. Speaker, a good question.

This is about our institutions working together as a single system, Campus Alberta system, but we also know that all institutions can’t be all things to all people at any given time. We want our institutions to focus on their strengths. We want them to focus on the delivery mechanisms that they do best. But we also recognize that there are exceptions. They are going to be rare.

After consultation we have provided within the document some flexibility for colleges in very limited circumstances and, after a very thorough review as it relates to the Campus Alberta concept, the ability to offe r degrees should the system see the need for that to happen. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Castle Downs. Electricity Exports Mr. MacDonald: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There are still more scandals in the Department of Energy. Electricity deregulation has

Alberta Hansard November 28, 20072252 increased prices and reduced supply. Last year there was a net decrease of 335 megawatts in the installed generating capacity in our province. Now we find out this Progressive Conservative govern- ment secretly wants to increase electricity exports even though there is a shortage of electricity here in Alberta and our prices are increasing at an alarming rate. My first question is to the Minister of Energy. Why does this government want to export large volumes of electricity from this province . . . The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Knight: Well, Mr.

Speaker, of course, this question relates to the fact that there had been a question put forward from our department to the AESO with respect to our interconnect capacity in the province of Alberta. I’ve answered this question previously, and again I’ll say the same thing. Perhaps the member wants to climb a pole someplace and watch the electrons. They can go both direc- tions. This whole issue has nothing to do at all with exporting electricity. There is a particular merchant line that’s involved in an export capacity.

The intertie connections in the province of Alberta, according to our interconnected capacity, are weak. 1:50 Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I’m shocked by that answer. To the Minister of Energy: how does the minister explain the Department of Energy’s own proposal, which indicates that we want to export thousands of megawatts of electricity per day from this province to the American market by the year 2020? Mr. Knight: Mr.

Speaker, again, the AESO has the responsibility and the mandate to ensure that the electricity utility system in the province of Alberta, both on the generating side and the transmission of that commodity, is robust and meets the needs and requirements of Albertans. That is the number one priority of the Energy department and, most certainly, any of the bodies that work in conjunction with the Energy department. Our number one priority is Albertans, and interconnection may or may not allow the in- creased export of excess capacity. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. MacDonald: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, the Minister of Energy cannot pass the buck to the AESO. This is your own report, which indicates you’re planning to export large volumes of electric- ity. My next question: given that Tonbridge Power Inc.’s own documents acknowledge that the rationale behind the Montana/Alberta tie-line project is to export Alberta’s power to California, where it is needed, will the minister admit that this project is the first step in the plan to export large volumes of electricity to U.S. consumers? This isn’t about Alberta’s interests. It’s about Americans with their interest in our power. Mr. Knight: Mr.

Speaker, the situation that we have here is that Alberta is actually connected to a number of different places in North America with respect to commodities that we produce. We export grain. We export oil. We export natural gas.

If a circum- stance would arise through the prudent use of the systems that we have in Alberta, and perhaps 4,000 or 5,000 of megawatts of energy that could be produced in conjunction with cogeneration, some of our other industries – if that excess capacity b ecame available, I don’t think that commodity, if it wasn’t needed in Alberta, should not be exported to someplace where it could be used. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Castle Downs, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary-Currie. Alberta Office in Washington Mr. Lukaszuk: Castle Downs? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This was such an electrifying conversation, I just couldn’t stop listening. Mr. Speaker, Alberta has a number of foreign offices throughout the world, and one of them is our office in Washington, which we’ve had for some three years. It is colocated with the Canadian embassy, and the official over there has the title of minister-counsellor. Can the minister of intergovernmental affairs please tell us: what actual value is there to taxpayers of having that office abroad? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Boutilier: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I want to say that our neighbours to the south, as we’re all aware, are the largest trading partner in the world, with almost 90 per cent of Alberta’s exports, almost $75 billion a year worth of goods and services, that go to the United States. I might also say that of Alberta’s top 25 trade destinations, 21 of them are in the United States. It’s very obvious that our office in Washington is doing very good work. I might add that I’ll be announcing, of course, as the Premier has done yesterday, that Gary Mar will be filling that position effective December 3.

The Speaker: That was inappropriate use of a member’s name. The hon. member. Mr. Lukaszuk: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We all know that the United States is Alberta’s largest trade partner and is also very important in the world economy. What will that newly appointed individual do to make sure that Alberta’s views are duly represented to the U.S. government? Mr. Boutilier: Mr. Speaker, in this past year the Washington office has given numerous examples.

You may not be aware, but did you know that in the past year two federal government cabinet ministers, the Secretary of Energy and Secretary of the Treasury, have visited Alberta, have visited the oil sands capital of the world. They are clearly getting the message in Washington from our office: Alberta is a reliable, safe place, politically and otherwise, to be able to invest dollars. Billions of American dollars are being invested in Alberta, which is clearly excellent news for Albertans, with tremendous opportunity. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Lukaszuk: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Each office abroad has a different priority and a different focus. What will be the focus for the next few years of our Alberta office in Washington? Mr. Boutilier: The message has to be very clear. Our royalty regime, one of the lowest taxes of provinces in all of Canada, in fact the lowest, clearly our commitment to resource development, environmental responsibility, and being good partners are good examples of what Albertans are doing in terms of investing and the opportunities and jobs that all members and their constituents enjoy because of how we manage the resources we enjoy in this province.

The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Currie, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary-Bow.

November 28, 2007 Alberta Hansard 2253 Local Government Issues Mr. Taylor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This week Alberta’s urban municipalities are holding their annual convention, and they’re bringing with them many resoluti ons for the province to consider. The Municipal Government Act provides no formal consultation mechanism on matters affecting local government, so the resolutions are really the only available method they have to get the province’s attention, and they have many concerns. To the Minister of Environment.

A common resolution is ending the practice of giving water licences for deep well flooding with fresh groundwater. AAMD and C passed a similar resolution this year, and this has been brought up many times in the past. Will the minister commit to immediately phasing out this practice and protect fresh groundwater sources for human consumption? Mr. Renner: Well, Mr. Speaker, this issue has been under discus- sion for quite some time.

The member opposite should understand and should know that, in fact, we are moving in that direction, that we have recently initiated an agreement, put into place guidelines with respect to the use of fresh water for oil field operation. One of the first things that I did when I became minister was to ensure that those guidelines were implemented as quickly as possible. Mr. Taylor: I guess he missed the word “immediately” in my question, Mr. Speaker. Another common resolution that we’ve seen before and are seeing again is enhancing the ability of municipalities to protect natural areas within their boundaries.

Cities and towns are willing to step up on this issue. The question is whether the provincial government will allow them to take strong environmental protection action. To the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing: will you commit to amending the Municipal Government Act to give municipalities more authority to protect natural areas within their jurisdiction? Mr. Danyluk: Well, Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to add to the first question that the hon. member talked about, saying that there is no other way of consultation.

First of all, the association, the AUMA, meets, has resolutions so that they can discuss the issues and have a democratic process to bring forward an idea and at the same time bring to the government those ideas, those directions. It is not the only way of consultation. In fact, this government through many ministries goes out and has meetings and has consultation with municipalities, with their associations throughout Alberta, making sure that the voices of municipalities are heard. Mr. Taylor: You know, Mr. Speaker, I was going to be nice to him. All he has to do is answer my questions and I’ll sit down.

Afford- able housing continues to be a critical issue in Alberta. Providing funding to municipalities is only part of the solution. A key element is bringing developers into the equation and making them an integral part of the solution. To the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, who I guess isn’t going to do anything on the natural areas file. In order to motivate developers to construct new affordable housing, there must be incentives offered.

Will the minister follow the Alberta Liberal caucus affordable housing plan and the resolu- tion of the city of Calgary and provide tax incentives to developers to get more affordable housing built faster? Mr. Danyluk: Mr. Speaker, first of all, tax incentives are under the jurisdiction of the federal government, and we are continuing to work with the federal government to look at incentives of taxation for increased housing.

Also, $285 million of new money has been put into the housing portfolio, $143 million given to municipalities for them to have the autonomy to decide how they feel that the areas of concern in their municipalities are addressed. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Bow, followed by the hon. Member for St. Albert. 2:00 Bow River Fishery Ms DeLong: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I’m not much of a fisherman, but in the past I enjoyed being able to see trout or whitefish in the beautiful Bow River, that flows through our constituency.

R ecently as the representative for Calgary-Bow my constituents have been telling me that they have been catching fewer fish than normal from the Bow River. My question is to the Minister of Sustainable Resource Development. Is the minister aware that the quality of the fishery in the Bow River has degraded? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Dr. Morton: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am aware of this change. The fishery in the Bow River is changing for the better, but you have to distinguish between upstream and downstream from the city.

SRD’s research on the fishery below Calgary this year confirmed very healthy trout populations and high densities of fish. I want to assure the House that I spent several hot, hard, long days personally verifying the research of our people. Now, upstream is a little different. The good news, though, is that the water is cleaner. There are fewer nutrients, but fewer nutrients mean fewer fish. But there is a self-sustaining population both above and below the city of Calgary. The Speaker: The hon. member. Ms DeLong: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. My first supple- mental is to the same minister.

Can the minister tell us whether his department plans to supplement the fishery in the Bow River and increase the number of fish by stocking the river? Dr. Morton: Mr. Speaker, the short answer to that question is no. The Bow River has not been stocked since 1954, when we put rainbow and cutthroat in. Restocking is not appropriate on a river like the Bow. Fish stocking works best when fish populations have been eliminated either due to overfishing or a catastrophic change in the habitat, and neither of these situations applies here.

I reiterate: there is a good, healthy fishery both above the city and below the city on the Bow River. The Speaker: The hon. member. Ms DeLong: Thank you. My second supplemental to the same minister: are there any conditions under which his department would consider stocking the Bow River with trout? Dr. Morton: Well, if the hon. Member for Calgary-Bow will let me set up a barbecue in her backyard and fish off the bank, maybe; otherwise, the answer is no. Our practice is not normally to stock rivers and other flowing bodies.

This is due to the adverse effect on fish that are in the river – there’s a risk of changing the gene pool – and also the poor survivability rate of the stocked fish. We believe in sort of free love when it comes to the fish: let the fish reproduce on their own. This is the most biologically sound and cost-effective way to maintain our fish populations.

Alberta Hansard November 28, 20072254 The Speaker: The hon. Member for St. Albert, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Calder. Childhood Obesity Mr. Flaherty: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. School board trustees in Red Deer and Edmonton have shown phenomenal leadership in the efforts to curb childhood obesity and have committed to ban the sale of junk food in schools. The Ministry of Education would do very well to make the most of this momentum and aid school boards in their efforts to promote healthy eating in schools.

Will the Minister of Education implement initiatives in order to encourage this pattern to continue across the province of Alberta? Mr. Liepert: Well, Mr. Speaker, just last week this hon. member was rather critical in a member’s statement of the government interfering with what school boards’ jurisdictions are. Clearly, this is a matter for school boards to assess, and I applaud those who have. But that is clearly something that school boards are elected to do. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Flaherty: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thought the department was a leader in things. I may be mistaken.

A second critical factor to addressing the efforts to curb childhood obesity is poverty. Last May the Minister of Education stated, “It is not the government’s responsibility to feed, clothe, and shelter every child in Alberta,” yet the Centre for Science in the Public Interest emphasizes government responsibility to ensure access to healthy foods for all children. In 2005-06 the provincial spending average was $5.54 per student per year for school meal programs. This government spent nothing. To the Minister of Education . . .

The Speaker: The hon. minister. [interjection] We’re out of time, hon. member. [interjection] Th e hon. Minister of Education has been recognized. Mr. Liepert: Mr. Speaker, the provincial government through the Northland school division, which is the only one that we are directly involved in with a hot lunch program – again, the hon. member is asking the provincial government to get down into the day-to-day operations of school boards, and we simply don’t do that. It is up to school boards to determine places of need where they feel that a hot lunch program would be appropriate.

There are a number of those that are under way, and that’s the way it should be. Mr. Flaherty: Well, what about envelope funding, Mr. Minister? Can I just go into this? Prom oting physical fitness is another crucial aspect in fighting childhood obesity, yet high school students all over the province are often charged an annual fee in order to access their sc hool’s wellness centre. If the government and the minister are serious about tackling obesity problems, will they commit to elimination of exercise facility fees for students across the province? Mr. Liepert: Mr.

Speaker, this is just another spending ask of this particular opposition. I would ask this particular member to have the discussion with his colleague the Member for Edmonton-Rutherford, who at the same time wants to put 30 per cent of nonrenewable resource revenue directly into the heritage fund. Where is all the money going to come from? The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Calder, followed by the hon. Member for Battle River-Wainwright. Support for Cow-calf Producers Mr. Eggen: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This government has been talking about their losses every time the Canadian dollar goes up a penny, but the big hit is being taken by family farms. Low cattle prices and the high dollar make it near impossible to turn a profit these days for cow-calf producers. In the mid-1990s cow-calf producers got 60 cents to the pound while packers and retailers took a dollar. Now farmers get 35 cents for the same pound while packers get almost $2.50.

To the Minister of Agriculture and Food: will you do the right thing and help family farmers now, or will you just hand out subsidies to big packers like you did the last time with the BSE crisis? The Speaker: The hon. minister. Mr. Groeneveld: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. Obviously, I just have to say this over and over again, that we just came out with a $165 million package for the red-meat industry.

I think that if the hon. member across would check, at the present time the red-meat industry is in great distress, including the packers, who just happen to be all losing money at this particular stage of the game. Mr. Eggen: Well, that’s interesting, Mr. Speaker. Last year Cargill set a record profit of $2.3 billion while family farmers across Canada had a combined debt of $54 billion. Putting taxpayers’ dollars in the pockets of the world’s second-largest privately owned corporation does not help farmers here in Alberta.

What would help farmers is a base price that would make sure that farmers got paid first for their cattle. To the same minister: when will you put local ranchers and farmers ahead of big-business profits? Mr. Groeneveld: Well, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would check, Cargill is an international company. It operates in Canada. Right now with Cargill the monies they make are international at this stage of the game. I think that probably the truth of the matter is that if he could come up with a program that he’s talking about that’s not countervailable, I’d certainly like to listen to it.

The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Eggen: Absolutely, Mr. Speaker. You know, I definitely sense that there’s something wrong here. Farmers are going broke raising beef, but prices keep going up in the grocery store. Maybe the Minister of Agriculture and Food doesn’t have an answer for farmers, but farmers do have an answer for him. For long-term success: number one, restore farmers’ market power and limit the economic power of the big corporations. Number two, in the short term there is an answer as well: set a base price so that farmers don’t go broke putting f ood on the table for all of us.

Farmers are not asking for handouts. What they want is control over their own business. To the same minister: when will you do the right thing and set a base price for beef, paying the farmers first? Mr. Groeneveld: I suspect, Mr. Speaker, I would have to move across the House before I could come up with a solution like that. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Battle River-Wainwright, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre.

November 28, 2007 Alberta Hansard 2255 Groundwater Stewardship Mr. Griffiths: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There’s no question that water, both above and below ground, is important to all Albertans. As we see more and more development in rural Alberta, we’re also seeing more demand for both surface water and groundwater. While it’s often easy to see how surface water is doing, it’s much harder to see what’s going on with groundwater aquifers. To the Minister of Environment: what is your department doing to gain more under- standing about groundwater and groundwater supplies in Alberta? 2:10 Mr. Renner: Well, Mr.

Speaker, there is indeed a need for us to learn more about Alberta’s groundwater, in particular the intercon- nection between groundwater and surf ace water. We’ve made a significant commitment to work with Alberta’s Geological Survey and the pool of knowledge that they have. We’re working in conjunction with that data as well as completing groundwater protection mapping and a preliminary look at underground geology. Interestingly enough, Mr. Speaker, on Friday of this week we will be announcing an aerial survey down the highway 2 corridor, further enhancing our knowledge of underground water.

You might wonder how you study water from an airplane, but I’m told that the technol- ogy exists to actually use radar-like equipment that will actually allow them to view underground from an aircraft. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Griffiths: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There are many people in my constituency who rely on groundwater for their household use and for their livelihood. There are also a large amount of oil and gas developments in the area, which some residents worry could impact the safety of the groundwater supply.

How is the minister making sure that my constituents’ groundwater supplies are not negatively affected by the oil and gas activities? Mr. Renner: Protecting water supplies, Mr. Speaker, is critical. We first of all investigate each and every complaint that we have. To date there is no conclusive evidence of well contamination from coal-bed methane activities. All of our investigations show that in most cases well location, construction, and maintenance tend to be the main causes of water problems.

Nevertheless, we will continue to work with the EUB as well as oil and gas companies to ensure that if there are issues that are identified, they’re corrected and rectified as quickly as possible. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. Griffiths: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The largest river in my constituency, the Battle River, has some unique constraints since it’s not glacial fed but, rather, fed by runoff and groundwater. The river is often dry, and the groundwater levels fluctuate.

Will the minister consider on-stream and off-stream storage to regulate more consis- tent river flow and enrich groundwater supplies for the Battle River watershed? Mr. Renner: Well, Mr. Speaker, considering off-stream storage and implementing are two different things. So the answer to “Will I consider?”: of course I will. Will we in the next short period of time be able to implement? That’s a bigger question. Frankly, work is under way to identify, first of all, opportunities for storage of upstream water and then, secondly, to prioritize those opportunities.

Once that work is complete, I can assure the member that it will be part of the Water for Life strategy and is part of the Water for Life strategy to begin to develop some of those storage opportunities as they become available. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre, followed by the hon. Member for Lesser Slave Lake. Infection Prevention and Control in Hospitals Ms Blakeman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We have learned that former patients of Vegreville’s St. Joseph’s hospital have tested positive for hepatitis B and C.

There are still some outstanding questions that need to be answer ed to assure Albertans in this community that their health is not at risk. To the minister of health: how is the minister going to determine if these hepatitis cases were linked to poor sterilization at St. Joe’s? The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Health and Wellness. Mr. Hancock: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. That may not be something that can actually be determined.

But what I would want hon. members to know and the public to know is that if you test any population within the province, any group of people within the province, you will find a certain incidence of hepatitis C and AIDS. What we’ve found in the testing that’s happened with respect to East Central and particularly in Vegreville is that the incidence that has been discovered in the testing is no greater than one would expect in the normal population. So the conclusion that one might draw is that there hasn’t been a linkage to that particular incident. Ms Blakeman: You still need to identify the other risks.

Again to the same minister. Since day one the Alberta Liberals have been encouraging this government to put monitoring and enforcement mechanisms in place for infection control. You have plans but no action. When will the minister re-establish monitoring and enforcement responsibilities within the ministry? Mr. Hancock: Well, we have plenty of action, Mr. Speaker. First of all, the Health Quality Council report, the infection prevention control report that we did relative to a review of standards for prof essions.

We’ve brought forward Bill 41 and Bill 48, which deal with both the professions and with the health authorities and voluntary organizations, to put in place the structures. Within the department we’re preparing a provincial standard with respect to infection prevention and control, and part and parcel of that will be an auditing and enforcement mechanism. The Speaker: The hon. member. Ms Blakeman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In June the minister said, “It would be unnecessary and premature to assess the risk of lawsuits.” Now that people are testing positive for hepatitis B and C, will the minister now begin to determine the scale of this govern- ment’s liability? Mr. Hancock: Mr. Speaker, this minister and this government are focused on people, on making sure that they get the services they need when they need it, the quality of care they need when they need it, that there is an infection prevention control standard, that there is an assurance for the people of Alberta that standards are in place and that they’re being followed.

If there are legal implications of anything that happens in the province, those will happen, and we will deal with them as and when they happen, and we’ll prepare for them where appropriate and where necessary. But our focus is not on our potential liability; our focus is on service to Albertans.

Alberta Hansard November 28, 20072256 The Speaker: The hon. Member for Lesser Slave Lake, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Rutherford. Water Management and Erosion Control Program Ms Calahasen: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. For years many of my municipalities and, of course, my constituents and other Albertans have received financial assistance from the government’s erosion control program. This funding is necessary to help cover the costs of water management of erosion control projects. My question is to the Minister of Environment.

As there is such a high demand for this kind of funding, can Albertans expect to see more stable funding for the Alberta water management and erosion control program? Mr. Renner: Well, Mr. Speaker, it’s a very interesting question because, although a very popular program among municipalities, this has traditionally always been funded with a minimal amount of dollars. We have found in Alberta Environment that the opportuni- ties to actually accomplish some significant am ount of work have always been compromised by the relatively small budget that we have available.

Given the fact that the government this year has announced that there will be $1.4 billion made available to munici- palities through the municipal sustainability initiative, we are in fact reviewing this policy. Ms Calahasen: Well, Mr. Speaker, as much as I love to have reviews done, there are some issues relative to the water erosion control program in my municipalities. To the same minister: because this is such a well-used and critical grant program for Albertans, when can my constituents and other Albertans expect to see the results of the minister’s review of this grant program? It is truly needed, Mr.

Minister. Mr. Renner: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, we are reviewing this program to determine whether there are some better alternatives to accomplish similar objectives. That review should be complete by September 2008, and that would be sufficient time to incorporate any outcomes from that review in the ’09-10 budget. The Speaker: The hon. member? Ms Calahasen: No. That’s good. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Rutherford. New Royalty Framework (continued) Mr. R. Miller: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When the Premier announced his response to the Royalty Review Panel’s recommenda- tions, he proudly boasted that his government had delivered. Well, that remains to be seen. My question is for the Minister of Energy. Last week a former Royalty Review Panel member stated that the new oil sands royalty system may in fact leave Albertans worse off than they were in 1997. Given that the minister likes to ignore expert opinions and advice on royalties, how does the minister respond to the claim put forward by this expert economist? Is the economist wrong? Mr. Knight: Mr.

Speaker, certainly, everybody in the province of Alberta is entitled to an opinion with respect to what we may or may not collect at some point in the future in a royalty regime. There are a number of parameters around how we calculate the expected outcome from our royalty regime. We have continued to hold true to the idea that our framework is solid. I believe it’s solid on a go- forward basis. The Premier has indicated that we will have an increase of 20 per cent in the royalties we collect, and I am sure that we’re going to attain that. 2:20 The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. R. Miller: Well, thank you, Mr.

Speaker. The Alberta Liberals committed to the same total increase as called for by the Royalty Review Panel. We acknowledged that reaching the benchmark would require further consultation with industry. Now, after weeks of criticizing us for our position, the Premier has admitted that details in his plan have unforeseen consequences. Will the minister admit that the Premier’s plan was flawed from the start and that the government has now adopted the approach taken by the Alberta Liberals except that we’re missing out on $500 million? Mr. Knight: Mr.

Speaker, what we have in front of us today is a framework that’s a very solid framework to move forward and move the royalty structure forward in the province of Alberta to the benefit of all Albertans. There needs to be a balance reached here. Although the members opposite may not be responsible for Alber- tans’ jobs, I believe that I am responsible for Albertans’ jobs. The balance that we will find will provide jobs for Albertans, and it will also provide a maximum return for Albertans on the resources they own. The Speaker: The hon. member. Mr. R. Miller: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again to the same minister. The expert Royalty Review Panel strongly opposed the idea of ending the Crown agreements with Suncor and Syncrude. Doing so may cost Albertans tens of billions of dollars in settlement costs. An Hon. Member: How much? Mr. R. Miller: Tens of billions. Further, Alberta’s reputation as a secure place to invest may be irreparably damaged. How many billions of dollars will this government decision to ignore the expert advice once again cost Albertans? How much is it going to cost us? Mr. Knight: Mr.

Speaker, you know, I’m not going to go into this diatribe again that we keep hearing and answer these questions that have to do with what may have happened, what might have hap- pened, what could have happened in the past. There are very clearly hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands and thousands of jobs that have been created for Albertans by the policy set by this government. Those members and any panel that’s structured by this government are not responsible at the end of the day for government policy. We’re responsible for the policy. We will develop sound policy to move forward. Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. The Speaker: Well, hon. members, that was 88 questions and responses during today’s Oral Question Period. We’ll now return to the Routine. We were on the subject of Tabling Returns and Reports. The hon. Member for Cardston- Taber-Warner.

November 28, 2007 Alberta Hansard 2257 head: Tabling Returns and Reports (continued) Mr. Hinman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to table the appropriate number of copies of the Cardston-Taber-Warner Progressive Conservative Association Premier’s golf tournament advertisement that they took out, indicating their platinum sponsors, one being a school division, which they accepted money from in that Premier’s golf tournament. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. Mrs. Mather: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have four tablings this afternoon. The first is from the parents and staff of Mr.

Cake’s Daycare in Sherwood Park, indicating that under the new Child Care Licensing Act, if they are required to comply, “the consequences would be devastating.” Another one is from Kathleen Vestby, indicating that “increasing the regulations and restrictions for licensed childcare facilities will only worsen the current crisis.” I have another one from Fred and Leah Sacha. “Currently wait lists are long and the new regulati ons [for child care] will increase the lists.” One from Marcie Whalen concerning the problem of homeless- ness in our city and province. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona.

Dr. Pannu: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to table the appropri- ate number of copies of letters I’ve received from 200 of my constituents calling for changes to Alberta’s labour laws. The letters express strong support for such changes as first contract arbitration, full legal recognition of bargaining rights for public employees, and one labour law for all unionized workers, among other issues. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. Mr. MacDonald: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I have five tablings today.

The first two are in regard to my questions earlier today regarding electricity exports. This is a document from the National Centre for Upgrading Technology, An Integrated Energy Solution, dated September 25, 2006, Alberta Department of Energy, oil sands business unit. My second tabling is a PowerPoint presentation from Tonbridge Power Inc. It’s regarding Merchant Transmission and Wind- powered Generation: A Natural Fit? It’s the backgrounder to the Montana-Alberta tie project. My third tabling is a proposed amendment that the Official Opposition caucus asks for to the Alberta Utilities Commission Act.

This is amending

section 28. My next tabling is also a proposed amendment to Bill 46. This is regarding

section 29(2). My last tabling today is also an amendment to the Alberta Utilities Commission Act. This is a proposal to amend

section 91. Thank you. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glenora. Dr. B. Miller: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a letter to table from Mr. William Eady, who was introduced earlier, whose concern is about education, that y oung people are not learning how to use a cash register, especially grades 8 and 9, so they’re not ready to take up their employment with adequate training and typing skills. Thank you. head: Orders of the Day head: Government Bills and Orders Second Reading Bill 56 Appropriation (Supplementary Supply) Act, 2007 (No. 2) The Speaker: The hon. Government House Leader on behalf of. Mr.

Hancock: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On behalf of the hon. the President of the Treasury Board I would like to move Bill 56 for second reading. It is, of course, the Appropriation (Supplementary Supply) Act, 2007 (No. 2). The Committee of Supply dealt with the details of the bill on Thursday afternoon in committee. Certainly, with respect to the supply that’s requested there, I think there was three hours of debate at least on Thursday afternoon with respect to the responses. I would commend the bill to the House and ask for its support. The Speaker: Shall I call the question? The hon. Member for Calgary-Varsity. Mr.

Chase: Yes. I’m looking forward to this opportunity to begin discussions about Bill 56, the appropriation bill. I have great concerns that a number of fixed-income individuals – those on AISH, those on PDD, seniors – ar e not getting the subsidy and the support that’s necessary for them, whether they’re fortunate enough to be able to maintain an independent residence, live in an apart- ment, or whether they’re in a long-term care or an assisted living facility.

This past spring I brought up the fact that in a 292-complex apartment the individuals there, who are primarily on fixed incomes, received an increase in their rent of 50 per cent. What that resulted in was that for one individual on AISH, who lived in a 540 square foot apartment, his rent went up to $1,100 a month. Keeping in mind that AISH payments were $1,050, that provided him with a great deal of hardship. That hardship that this individual faced is repeated over and over again not only for residents of this particular complex but in apartments and basement suites throughout the province.

The failure of this government to provide subsidies other than through the eviction fund does not provide the type of stability that renters, especially the most vulnerable on fixed incomes, are reliant upon.

Therefore, when we’re talking about Bill 56, the appropria- tions bill, I would hope that the government, if not now at least in the very near future, would consider giving renters some kind of predictable, sustainable support and would consider what we have long said, and that’s the idea of a temporary rent cap, a sunset clause, a rent cap which would provide the predictability and the sustainability that currently isn’t available. Government subsidies have gone from $10 million to $21 million.

This continual increase in subsidies, which go directly into the landlords’ bank accounts through the tenants’ temporary fingers, is not sustainable, and it is not a very good usage of taxpayers’ money. 2:30 I also, when it comes to Bill 56 appropriations, have concern over support for education both in terms of programming and in terms of infrastructure. There are 60 schools in Calgary alone that have

Alberta Hansard November 28, 20072258 reported leaks in their roofs. There have been examples, Brentwood elementary in Calgary-Varsity, where an entire ceiling of one wing and hallway collapsed after a heavy rainfall. Previously there was evidence of collapsing tiles in the library. What adds to the concern with regard to the collapse not only is the concern for the children who are living underneath these roofs but the fact that a number of these schools were built in the 1950s, when asbestos was one of the key components of the roof tiles.

When these roof tiles are damaged and the asbestos fibres are then exposed, it’s not only the children who face the risks; it’s the teachers and the maintenance staff who then go into these schools to provide the repairs. When it comes to infrastructure, again, the average age of schools in Calgary is 40 years, and the Western Canada high school in my colleague from Calgary-Currie’s ward has fencing around the front of the school b ecause of fears of the wi ndowsills falling out.

Already we’ve had examples, and you can see on the school where plywood has gone over what used to be wi ndows because the windows have actually dropped out. The repair bill for that school has gone from an initial estimate of $32 million to well over $60 million now, and I’m just talking about one particular city, the city of Calgary, where the combined infrastructure deficit of both the Calgary public and the Calgary separate is now well over a half a billion dollars, at $700 million and rising. With regard to appropriations, my suggestion would be that we have the pay now/pay later concept.

The longer that these infrastructure concerns are not dealt with, the greater becomes the risk to the inhabitants: in this case, the children, their teachers, and staff caretakers. There is no acceptable reason in a province that is reporting billion dollar su rpluses to not invest in education infra- structure.

Another infrastructure concern I have is that with Calgary’s growing population and the area that the Calgary health region supports being well over a million individuals, the ability to keep up and provide programming through the health care – and, again, I’m going to refer to the health care infrastructure – is inadequate. The cost of the southeast hospital, which has recently at least had its ground broken, rose from approximately $500 million to well over $1.2 billion.

While I appreciate the fact that the government has maintained its commitment to the project even though the price has escalated, with proper planning this hospital would have been up and built before the General was imploded. A similar concern with regard to the Tom Baker cancer centre, which borders my constituency. It actually falls into the constitu- ency of my colleague from Calgary-Mountain View.

The Tom Baker cancer centre is so oversubscribed that the CHR is coming up with plans on how to alleviate and provide timely cancer care, and in their desperation they’ve considered leasing more space at great public cost at the Holy Cross hosp ital. Again, this was a hospital that had $32 million of renovations to it before it was sold to the Huang brothers at a price of a little over $3 million. Since that time the Calgary health region has been forced to lease space from this facility of dubious infrastructure components. We’re all very well aware of the asbestos that was found in the facility.

We’re aware that the government in its wisdom shut down the seniors’ care facilities, yet the government seems willing to consider the temporary arrangement again of going back to the Holy Cross, which should never have been sold in the first place, to provide care for cancer patients. At some point we have to invest our money wisely the first time so that we’re not doing band-aid repairs and continually contracting out and leasing space that was once public. We had in the constituency of Calgary-Mountain View the wonderful Grace hospital, that was probably among the top hospitals for serving women in Canada.

That hospital, again, was sold, and what we’re left with now is scrambling to keep up with the popula- tion. The University of Calgary, while younger than the University of Alberta, recently reached the enviable age of 41 years and celebrated that anniversary. The buildings are starting to feel the wear of that 41 years of existence. I will credit the government for the $260 million injection into the ISEEE bu ilding, the institute for sustain- able energy, environment and – it has been changed from economy to experiential learning. But that $260 million arrived about a year and a half too late.

Then to cover the costs, it was estimated by the former head of the institute, Dr . Mansell, that to provide the thousand spaces that that $260 million was supposed to cover would now in fact require closer to $320 million to achieve the same effect. These ad hoc decisions and this delay in agreeing to write the cheque but then deliver that cheque so that the actual construction could take place has proved extremely costly not only at the Univ ersity of Calgary, in the constituency I represent, but also at the University of Alberta. The government has recently provided money to the University of Lethbridge.

It has provided money to the college in Medicine Hat. While that money is appreciated, the longer we wait and the disbursal in sort of bits and pieces as opposed to having a long-range plan are very disconcerting. Another concern, because I represent the University of Calgary, that comes out of Bill 56 and the ap propriations is the fact that for two years the government held back on increases to postsecondary tuition. Well, that cap is now gone, and students are experiencing the additional costs not only of their tuition.

When you apply the costs that they’re experiencing from increased rents, then it is very hard for a student not to be simultaneously studying and holding down one or two jobs. In a province with such wealth based on our current nonrenewable energy, we need to be looking forth into the future and consider the effect of not providing the education and tuition support. 2:40 Last year with Bill 40 the decision on tuition raises went from legislation into regulation, and the opportunity for the discussion of tuition increases left the floor of this House.

That’s why with regard to Bill 56, the appropriations bill, I want to encourage the govern- ment to recognize the investment of postsecondary institutions not only in their infrastructure but also in tuition. I would like them to recognize that providing residences on the universities enlivens the facility. Right now the University of Calgary cannot cope with more than 8 per cent of its population in student residences on the campus. That adds the extra costs of getting to and from their basement suites, whose exorbitant rents have gone through the sky, from apartments, taking transportation.

All kinds of bills are added to those students. The government has suggested that the ideal amount of money spent on housing or accommodation or rent for an apartment should not exceed 30 per cent of an individual’s wages.

But whether it’s the students at Mount Royal or whether it’s the students at the University of Calgary, Bow Valley College, SAIT, the Alberta College of Art and Design, these students are faced with putting forward 50 to 75 per cent of the money that they manage to scrape over the summer into accommodation as opposed to directing it towards their learning, their studies, their books, and decent food. The government needs to realize that not only do they have to spend wisely, do they have to make investments wisely, but they need to realize that we have passed the peak for conventional oil and gas.

If we don’t put money away at this time in a balanced approach such as the Alberta Liberals have recommended, the saving of 30 per

November 28, 2007 Alberta Hansard 2259 cent and putting that into the heritage trust fund and then creating separate endowment funds for postsecondary – we recommended that 35 per cent of the 30 per cent of nonrenewable revenue that we receive be set aside for postsec ondary.

We recommended that 25 per cent of that 30 per cent be set aside for infrastructure, and we’ve said: let’s take 35 per cent of that 30 and put it into the heritage trust fund so that we could wean ourselves from this one-trick pony of oil and gas revenue so that by 2020, using the old royalty scheme, we would have $120 billion sitting in our heritage trust fund, which would . . . Mr. MacDonald: How much? Mr. Chase: A hundred and twenty billion, using the old figures. That would provide us more money through interest than we’re currently receiving on conventional oil and gas.

When the government is deciding on areas to invest in, I would suggest that more of the money that comes from lotteries, slots, and casinos be put into preventative programs like AADAC. Currently AADAC receives only 3 per cent of the total monies that are earned from lotteries and casinos, et cetera. Therefore, what we have is kind of a revolving door.

Whether it’s addiction to gambling, whether it’s addiction to alcohol, addiction to drugs, the pressures of a booming economy are driving people to areas that are of great concern not only to themselves individually but to the well-being of this wonderful province as a whole.

So when we look at Bill 56, the appropriations bill, I would encourage you to put more of the profits from gambling, from lotteries, back into prevention programs like AADAC, also into shelters for individuals that have ended up on the street as a result of their addictions or the mental illnesses that have arisen from the stresses placed upon their lives.

We have a wonderful opportunity, but it’s an opportunity that is rapidly drawing to a close, to invest in programs such as education, such as health care, such as crime prevention as opposed to the necessary expansion of remand centres because crime prevention wasn’t a primary concern. We are fortunate, but in Alberta our good fortune, dependent solely on nonrenewable resources, has an expiry date on it.

So I’m encouraging this government to look at the investments: the investments in safe roads, in schools, in health, in education, in keeping seniors in their homes as long as we possibly can, in recognizing the contributions of caregivers, whether they’re ones that are contracted directly by the government or are subcontracted and, unfortunately, on a different level of wage than those working directly for the government.

Our most important resources are people, and until we recognize that people require an investment and a security, a predictability, and a sustainability, Albertans will continue to be underserved. Let’s make the expenditures right the fi rst time so that we’re not having to continually remake them into the future. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona. Dr. Pannu: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak to Bill 56, Appropriation (Supplementary Supply) Act, 2007 (No. 2).

This is the second time around that the government has come to the Legislature to seek funds to continue funding its business by way of supplementary supply estimates. This time around the government is asking for an additional $1.498 billion or so towards defraying the further charges and expenses of the public service, classed as expense and equipment/inventory expenditures. Mr. Speaker, looking at the various departments and the amount of money they are asking for by way of this bill and the supplemen- tary supply, I note one particular department; that is, the Department of Seniors and Community Supports.

While Bill 56 shows that department asking for only an additional $15 million, the supple- mentary supply estimates indicate, in fact, that it will be $25 million that the department will be putting to new uses. Of that $25 million, $10 million have been slashed off the budgeted amount for one particular program, the assured income for the severely handicapped program, usually known as AISH, and those $10 million are being transferred to approved rural affordable supportive living projects. [Mr.

Shariff in the chair] The fact that the rural affordable supportive living projects need more money is not something that I find difficult to understand given the growing costs of housing, whether it’s new housing or rental housing or whatever. The concern that I have is with the transfer of funds out of one program which is in great demand by those Albertans who use AISH progra m arrangements and putting it in another area of high need.

What worries me is that what’s happen- ing here resembles the old adage of robbing Peter to pay Paul. 2:50 I’m reminded of various phone calls and letters that my constitu- ency office received in the summer in the wake of exorbitant rent increases that recipients of AISH in my constituency had begun to receive, the alarm on their part and desperation expressed in their letters as to how, with the given AISH amounts that they receive under the program, they’re going to be able to pay for their increased rents and at the same time pay for other necessities of life in order to live a life which is more or less living at the margin of mainstream society.

With these $10 million being transferred from the money that was potentially available to AISH recipients, I am worried that their concerns are going to become even deeper and more serious. The presumed argument that is given for this transfer is the fact that there has not been the expected uptake in the AISH program and that the lower than budgeted rate of growth in caseloads is the reason that there was this $10 million sitting around to be transferred to some other areas. Mr.

Speaker, my concern with respect to this alleged lower than budgeted rate of growth is that I wonder if the assessment criteria have been changed and altered in order to disqualify a larger number of Albertans, a larger percentage of applicants who try to access the assured income for the severely handicapped program. I must confess that I’m not entirely sure if those assessment criteria have in fact been changed to the detriment of applicants being accepted to the program. My fear is that that may be the reason behind the lower than budgeted rate of growth in caseloads in the AISH program. That being said, Mr.

Speaker, I hope that the minister and the staff responsible for the AISH program are listening and would read the comments that I’m making and will address the two concerns that I’ve expressed: the need to perhaps bolster the minimum payments made to AISH recipients in order to enable them to not have to cut back on their food budget and other life n ecessities in order to pay for the increased rents that they must pay given the housing crisis that we face; secondly, I want some assurance that the lower than budgeted rate of growth in caseloads is not due to changes in assessment criteria which make it more difficult now than was the case before this current budget was passed for people to be able to access the AISH program.

With those two concerns expressed, Mr. Speaker, I’ll take my seat and let other members speak to Bill 56. Thank you.

Alberta Hansard November 28, 20072260 The Acting Speaker: Standing Order 29(2)(a). Any comments or questions? There being none, the hon. Member for St. Albert. Mr. Flaherty: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The first thing I would like to address in terms of the debate on Bill 56, I believe, is the question of school maintenance. I’ve talked to a number of trustees about this in the last 10 days.

They’re really asking the government to consider regular ongoing maintenance dollars, and they’re suggesting that they would like to have it in a three-year plan so that they can plan on it, do some planning in terms of school maintenance across different parts of the province. That’s one of the things that seems to be very, very important in terms of giving them some idea of when the dollars are coming and how to plan for using the dollars. Now, in terms of my own constituency, Mr. Speaker, I’d like to talk about roads. We have two major road considerations in St. Albert.

One is referred to as the West Regional Road. The fact is that we really don’t have a clear understanding as of this moment, as I understand it – I was just talking to a person from city hall this morning – as to the dollars that are going to be allotted to the West Regional Road. The main thing I’m trying to speak to here is the fact that if St. Albert has to pay the total cost of the West Regional Road, it will have a very difficult impact, an insurmountable impact, on our tax base. The other road that we’re looking forward to hearing more clearly from the government about is what we refer to in St.

Albert as the Anthony Henday extension. About a month ago, maybe two months ago – I think it was in September – we had a meeting regarding this in terms of the alignment of this new road. A number of citizens from the Akinsdale, Heritage Lakes, and Grandin Park areas of St. Albert attended those meetings regarding the alignment of the road and the issues related to it such as noise, pollution, et cetera, et cetera. It was their understanding that there was input taken from them which would have some bearing on maybe adjusting the alignment of where the road went.

We’re anxiously waiting to hear from the government if the concerns of the citizens of the communi- ties mentioned will be taken into consideration. So that’s dealing with roads. One of the serious situations in St. Albert is housing, housing for young people and for seniors. We have a series of apartments in St. Albert that have just got an increase of 17 per cent. I was talking to one of my constituents on the phone this morning. Her rent in St. Albert went from $860 to $1,010. This particular lady is a mother with one child, and 45 per cent of her salary goes for rent.

The other thing about this apartment that we’re talking about with this increase of 17 per cent: there are a number of people living in that apartment that work at one of our largest long-term care facilities, Youville Home. Many of those people are going to have to relook at where they’re living and may have to leave St. Albert. This really quite concerns me. There is another issue in St. Albert facing us in long-term care. We have people now in our Sturgeon hospital waiting for long-term care facilities. There is not accommodation available to them, and they’re waiting for this move.

As a result, some of them are required to pay after I believe it’s 30 days – Bridget is gone. I think it’s some period of time before they have to start paying the hospital a stipend for daily care. This whole question of not having long-term care for those people is a concern. We have the Youville Home in St. Albert, which I’ve already mentioned. Unfortunately, the question there is: we have accommodation, but again we don’t have the staff, and certainly all those people can’t fit into that type of facility. It’s a big issue for us. The long-term care issue for our seniors is a big issue for us in St. Albert.

Another area of concern is our agencies, our nonprofit agencies, particularly the agencies dealing with services for persons with disabilities and another agency called Help Society, offering seniors help staying in their own homes: maintaining them, supporting them. The issue here with these nonprofit agencies, as I’ve mentioned, Help and services to persons with disabilities transitions, is that there’s not the dollars for staffi ng, there’s not the dollars for professional development, and dollars are not available for these people for their benefits.

This is becoming a very serious problem as to if these agencies are going to be able to carry on and not only provide service but maintain their staff. In fact, Help is down to having a board with two people on it. So anybody that’s retiring, like Mr. Lougheed, and willing to sit on a board in St. Albert, we’d welcome that. 3:00 Ms Pastoor: He missed your offer. Mr. Flaherty: Yes, I know. He wasn’t paying attention, and he said that he was going to listen to my speech. I’m quite disappointed. So we’re talking about nonprofit agencies needing dollars for salaries, benefits, and . . . Ms Blakeman: Capacity. Mr.

Flaherty: Excuse me? Ms Blakeman: Capacity. Build capacity. Mr. Flaherty: Build capacity. Thank you. Another area that concerns us is a school. We understand that the Protestant board is receiving the possibility of having their prayers answered for a new school. The problem is, of course: where will that school be located? The whole question of school location is, to me, paramount. At one time this school was going to be located in the Erin Ridge community. Of course, it’s very significant because it was going to be dedicated to Lo is Hole.

The rumour has it that that placement has changed now with what we call political implications. So the question is : where will the school be located, and, again, how long will it take for that school to get started? We’re reaching a crisis stage. We understand it’s a P3 school. It will be interesting to hear from the government, hopefully soon. Maybe when the election is called, we’ll get some insight on where they plan to put this school. Unfortunately, right now we seem to be in muddy waters. Mr. Speaker, I’ve tried to touch on school maintenance. I’ve touched on, in St.

Albert specifically, the west regional road issue in terms of dollars, the Anthony Henday extension in terms of where the alignment will be, where we’d get the information on that. I’ve talked about, again, the question of housing and this whole question of how we look after people that can’t take these heavy increases. This has been a discussion in this House in the spring and now. People are not going to be able to live in our constituency if this continues. They just can’t do it. I’ve talked about the long-term care issue, by the way. I think it was when the audit was done. Was it in 2005?

One of the things that is very, very sad is that the most important people, in my opinion – maybe because I am one of them – have given us yeoman’s service. I’m going to be at a Christmas party with our aquacize group. You know, we don’t even have someone that could advocate for them on a day-to-day basis. I think it’s so sad. Our seniors are not getting the help they need, and it’s a crisis. I see the minister of health smiling. I can tell you, Mr. Minister,

November 28, 2007 Alberta Hansard 2261 I wish you’d come out and talk to our seniors. You wouldn’t smile. It’s a serious matter, I’m sad to say, even when you have lots of money, sir. My good friend who is a multimillionaire can’t get help for his wife. It’s serious, and I’m sad about it. Money doesn’t solve all the problems – that’s what we’re finding – because there are no people. People can’t go in his home. She’s so big and heavy – no disrespect to her; I love her dearly – that they can’t lift her. He can’t lift her anymore. He’s 76 years old.

Now we’re trying to fight for a place, hopefully the Citadel or somewhere, for him. It’s a big issue, sir, and I feel very, very badly about that. With that, Mr. Speaker, I’ll close up. Thank you very much for allowing me to address the issues that I think are facing our good citizens of St. Albert. I appreciate it. Thank you. The Acting Speaker: The hon. Member for Lethbridge-East. Ms Pastoor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I may be repeating some of the things that my hon. colleague from Edmonton-Strathcona has said, but I think that they bear re peating.

The ministry that has supplied this, Seniors and Community Supports, has transferred $10 million from the budget for the AISH program to rural affordable supportive living. I was absolutely flabbergasted when I read that. I could not believe that this type of thing had happened, so I have to find out how on earth they could have possibly had a $10 million surplus when people who are on AISH are suffering. They can’t afford the rent, they can barely afford their food, they’re living in substandard housing, yet $10 million is taken out of their allotment.

I suspect that the changes in the intake procedures include provision for vocational assessments and medical file reviews. There really should be a formal policy and procedure to reconcile conflicts between these and the opinions of the treating physicians. This is also where there are quite a number of appeals created. Many of these appeals I think would probably just be straightforward if we didn’t have these arguments between different doctors on who is eligible and who isn’t eligible.

On page 4 of the AISH medical exam there’s the following question: given the impact of a patient’s medical condition on their activities of daily living, in your opinion what is the degree of impairment caused by the diagnosed condition? There are four choices that the physician can choose. This is where the problems occur. Varying physicians obviously have different ideas on what constitutes the activity of daily living and how that actually would transfer to the ability of someone to carry on a position in the workforce.

To my knowledge there’s only one program available in Canada in which disability is assessed in terms of activities of daily living, and that’s the federal disability tax credit. All other plans use variations on employability to define eligibility for benefits. Again, to my knowledge there is no reference in the AISH or regulations to the activities of daily living. There are questions about them in the medical exam questionnaire, yet they aren’t in either the act or the regulations. I find that a bit peculiar.

It also would appear that this is a criteria that they’re using to assess employability, and I believe that that really is quite inappro- priate. I think that this is th e mechanism that has been used to decrease the number accepted into the AISH program for funding. If this is the case, then no wonder they’ve got $10 million in the kitty. To call this a lower than budgeted rate of growth in caseloads and then create $10 million to transfer out, I think is just wrong, particularly wrong when the economy, inflation, and the cost of living are so beyond the vulnerable in our society.

These people often use 80 per cent of their income for rent. Yes, AISH recipients do receive health benefits. They receive child care and transporta- tion costs. Yes, they have benefits that are over and above the actual cash payment that they get; however, these benefits are not useful to be able to pay the rent or actually buy basics like food. I find this transfer of dollars to housing to be very, very wrong. These dollars could have created a small increase and certainly indexed AISH payments.

Reviewing AISH payments every two years is probably com- mendable, but it really isn’t acceptable because people wait year after year to find out if they get a raise if it will even remotely catch them up to what inflation is. It’s not fair to keep people dangling year after year after year. Be fair. Increase it, and index it. Increasing it based on the dollars that were at least six or seven years behind in terms of their meeting inflation . . . 3:10 Ms DeLong: No. It was already brought up to date. It is brought up to date and increased every year.

Ms Pastoor: I would beg to differ with my colleague sitting on this side of the House from the opposite party. That isn’t true. They are not even close to what they should have been in terms of where it was. They have not caught up to inflation. On top of that, I then want it increased, and I certainly want it indexed. I only think it’s fair. If MLAs can be indexed and they never have to worry and they know that every year they’re going to get an increase, then so can AISH people. They deserve it. In fact, they probably deserve it a lot more than we do. Thank you. The Acting Speaker: Hon.

Members, Standing Order 29(2)(a). The hon. Member for Drayton Valley-Calmar. Rev. Abbott: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do have a question for the Member for Lethbridge-East. I’m wondering if she is aware – and perhaps it was before her time – that there were actually a couple of groups. There was a social advocacy group from Calgary that recommended that AISH be increased from I believe it was either $800 or $850 up to a thousand dollars a month. Also, the AISH review committee made the same recommendation, you know, in conjunction with this advocacy group from Calgary.

They made this recommendation, and the government followed it. Since then the government actually increased AISH again more – more – than the cost of inflation for the past two years since we did that major increase. I’m wondering if she’s aware of that or if she has done any research or if she is just kind of making these statements off the cuff. Ms Pastoor: Oh, I can’t thank my hon. colleague for that question; I couldn’t possibly thank him enough for that one. There have been three increases since 1993.

May I point out that two of them were under the auspices of the former minister, Yvonne Fritz, of Seniors and Community Supports. Two of those were made under her, and there are three since 1993. A very admirable job on her part, may I point out. Yes, they did get increases, but as I’ve pointed out – and I will stick to that, and, yes, I have researched it and, yes, I know what I’m talking about – the original dollars that they started with and have then been given the increase for still were behind inflation because they started way back in ’93.

They still really do not have the money that would reflect this economy today. No one can live on a thousand dollars and fifty a month and actually pay the rents that they have to. The Acting Speaker: We’ll move on.

Alberta Hansard November 28, 20072262 Ms Blakeman: I wonder if the hon. Member for Lethbridge-East has a comment or a suggestion, given the housing crisis that we’re experiencing in the urban areas, where the baseline studio apartment has increased from $550 to $850 a month. We now have people on an AISH rate of $1,050 who are paying $850 for their rent, which is far away and above the 30 per cent that is recommended.

Has she considered whether it’s appropriate to be advocating to government that they should be increasing the AISH rate by that same $300 a month increase that most people on AISH have experienced with their rent increase? The Acting Speaker: The hon. Member for Lethbridge-East. Ms Pastoor: Yes. Thank you for that question. Certainly, I would advocate that. I think what might be better is that there would be that rule that many subsidized housing projects go by that it’s actually 30 per cent of your income that goes towards your housing.

That could easily be applied to people on AISH, and it would free up that money. I think part of the point is that, really, we don’t have any kind of affordable units that these people can live in. There is no supply out there. Yes, I sat here all night saying that we should have had a temporary cap, and I use the word “temporary” because whoever puts on the temporary cap also has the power to take it off. It would be only political will. If the political will has to put it on, then the political will would be there to take off a temporary cap.

In my mind, I still believe that that’s one of the things that would help not only the people on AISH but the working poor that we have in this province. Ms Blakeman: I’m just wondering if the Member for Lethbridge- East has a comment on the fact that we are in need of 7 per cent of our housing units to be wheelchair accessible. Again, a large percentage of people in the wheelchair-using community are on AISH. Some are not and have employment of their own; they still require housing that is specifically wheelchair accessible. If she has any comment on that. The Acting Speaker: Hon.

Member for Lethbridge-East, you have 30 seconds. Ms Pastoor: No comment other than to agree that the 7 per cent is just a number that really has to be addressed. People are house- bound, people are not getting out of their houses, and, yes, we have to start keeping track of suicide rates because it’s happening because of those reasons. Speaker’s Ruling Referring to a Member by Name The Acting Speaker: Hon. members, before I recognize the Member for Calgary-Mountain View, I just want to caution everyone that there is a practice in this House of not referring to members by name.

That has already happened three times in the last little while, so I’m just cautioning you. The hon. Member for Calgary-Mountain View. Debate Continued Dr. Swann: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you for the opportu- nity to rise and speak to Bill 56, the appropriations bill, and add my comments to concerns on this side of the House regarding the extra requests each year. It’s almost become a routine, and I guess it reflects, again, on the lack of planning and the lack of recognition that Albertans expect.

They expect a budget to be followed, and they expect an investment in the future that would recognize that the resources we’re so richly blessed with, that we can take no credit for having, will be gone in just a few decades. We need to do ever more careful planning and hold ourselves to account for this w onderful province and the planning and investment that’s going into it and not focus so much on the short term but look at the longer term impacts of some of our decisions.

Clearly, the public in Alberta has an appetite for improved infrastructure and education and all the important services that government provides.

They also have a tremendous anxiety, I think, about the future and how we’re going to manage within a much more stringent budget and are looking for signs that the government has a vision for the future, is setting aside an appropriate investment in the future, as we on this side have been advocating for a number of years, and are looking to diversifying and, again, get off our addiction to fossil fuels, to move us towards a more sustainable economy and the ability to live within our means.

Increasingly Albertans are asking whether it’s possible for a government to have a backbone and stand up for sustainable planning, sustainable investments, and not continue to spend as if we don’t know where we’re going and allow for issues like infrastruc- ture breakdown and maintenance costs as well as the investments that are needed in issues like housing and in people.

If there’s one area that I hear a lot about in my constituency of Calgary-Mountain View, it’s people struggling with the rising costs of living, housing among them, but other expenses including medications for seniors are a big issue, some of which is covered by Blue Cross, but a good deal of the newer drugs are not covered by Blue Cross and represent an increasing load for seniors to bear. I’m also very concerned because I have a number of housing support institutions in my constituency that house handicapped folks who are increasingly struggling to make ends meet.

The notion that $1,050 a month is adequate to have a quality of life in Calgary is absolutely absurd. The cost of living in Calgary has gone through the roof, and it’s an embarrassment to me as their MLA to say that our government only provides $1,050 a month for you to live, of which up to two-thirds or more of that goes into basic housing. 3:20 With my other colleagues on this side of the House I look forward to the time when we’ll see an indexing of the benefits to people with AISH and those who need supports for living.

It’s clearly the case that we have fallen way behind what the real needs of people are, and we are paying very seriously in terms of their health, mental health, physical health. They end up in the health care system if they’re not adequately supported financially. It’s penny wise, pound foolish in terms of not investing in people and those who care for the handicapped, the persons with developmental disabilities. Unless we start to invest more fully in those areas, we are going to have to be facing increasing health care costs and criminal costs and lack of productivity among the very people that

Document details

Collection	Alberta — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20071128
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	L26 S3 20071128 1300 01 han.pdf
Language	en
Format	json
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	b90ada49b475b7ce0c4acb59c2a8e4514cc9f36b

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