May 12, 1999 Alberta Hansard 1681 Legislative Assembly of Alberta Title: Wednesday, May 12, 1999 8:00 p.m. Date: 99/05/12 [The Deputy Speaker in the chair] THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before we begin this evening’s delibera- tions, I wonder if we might have unanimous consent to revert to Introduction of Guests. HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Opposed? Carried. head: Introduction of Guests MS CALAHASEN: Mr. Speaker, I’m just checking to see if he’s around. It doesn’t appear that he’s here yet. I don’t know if he’s up there. Oh, there he is. Mr.

Speaker, today it gives me great pleasure to introduce to you and to Members of the Legislative Assembly an individual who comes from High Prairie. He works at the Tolko OSB plant there, the latest addition to High Prairie, and he is the woodlands manager. He’s seated in the public gallery. I’d ask that Dave Knight stand and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Edmonton-Riverview, did you have a guest? MRS. SLOAN: Yes, I did. Mr.

Speaker, I’m very pleased this evening to introduce two individuals who are strong activists in the city of Edmonton and also activists for the disabled community. They are Bruce Miller, the pastor from Robertson-Wesley United Church and a member of the Quality of Life Commission, and Bev Matheson, the executive director of the Alberta Committee of Citizens with Disabilities. I would ask them to rise and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. head: Government Bills and Orders head: Second Reading Bill 30 Employment Pension Plans Amendment Act, 1999 [Adjourned debate May 3: Mrs.

Olsen] THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Banff-Cochrane to close debate. MRS. TARCHUK: No. That’s fine. I think we’re ready to go ahead with the vote. [Motion carried; Bill 30 read a second time] head: Government Bills and Orders head: Committee of the Whole [Mr. Tannas in the chair] THE CHAIRMAN: For the benefit of those who are in the gallery, I would explain a little bit about what Committee of the Whole is. Committee of the Whole is the informal session of the Assembly. We’re dealing with bills sort of item by item, sentence by sentence, or

section by section, and the rules are rather relaxed. During the course of the debate in Committee of the Whole, a member may speak a number of times on various issues, and members may sit in places other than that which are named for them. However, we still go by the convention that only one hon. member should be standing and talking at the same time, and hopefully that’s honoured more in the keeping than in the breach. Bill 30 Employment Pension Plans Amendment Act, 1999 THE CHAIRMAN: This evening for Committee of the Whole our first item is Bill 30.

Are there any comments, questions, or amend- ments to be offered with respect to this bill? The hon. Member for Banff-Cochrane. MRS. TARCHUK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’d like to move the House amendment to Bill 30 being di stributed by the table. After hearing some concerns that

section 20 lacked clarification of intent, I am pleased to respond with this amendment. THE CHAIRMAN: This first amendment that’s offered with regard to this bill will be known as amendment A1. Before we proceed any further, we just want to make sure that some people received them. Hon. Member for Banff-Cochrane, do you have anything further to add? MRS. TARCHUK: No. THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. We’re ready for debate. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar, amendment A1. MR. MacDONALD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On the amendment.

I believe this amendment to the Employment Pension Plans Amendment Act, 1999, incorporates into pension legislation a welcome change. This amendment assures that everyone can be included. I think the hon. member understands and recognizes the duty to accommodate. The duty to accommodate can sometimes present a considerable challenge, and I am in favour of this amend- ment. Thank you. [Motion on amendment A1 carried] THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. MR. MacDONALD: Yes, Mr. Chairman. At this time in committee I have a few other comments regarding Bill 30.

One of these has to do with the question of vesting. This is going on in the present

section 23(2). The proposed amendment that we are looking at will continue five-year vesting up until January 1, 2000, and thereafter vesting is going to go on every two years. I think for the majority of workers in the province the two-year vesting is an excellent idea. However, the practical effect of this amendment is one that is going to require a number of pension plans – and this, Mr. Chairman, I would like to note – in areas such as construction to carry very small pension entitlements for a very long time.

In the circumstances that are set out in this amendment, the following factual situation could easily happen. Someone goes to work for a contractor on November 1 and works 350 hours prior to the end of the year. In the following year in January or February he or she works 350 hours. He or she then departs that particular industry, never to be seen again, and this person could be entitled to a pension. This pension would be so small it would be virtually nonexistent. But if the person is a young person, then the pension

1682 Alberta Hansard May 12, 1999 plan is going to have to administer the claim as filed for a very, very long time, and it will probably cost the pension fund the value of the pension simply in yearly per file administration costs. This is one problem that I believe is going to occur, but I believe it’s a problem we’re going to have to live with. Before taking my seat, Mr. Chairman, I would also like to talk about the reservations that have come forward from the local authorities pension plan. Since 1992 there has been talk of inde- pendence.

Sometimes independence comes slower, or it can cause people to get frustrated. Hopefully there is going to be legislation come forward to allow the local authorities pension plan to have comfortable direction in how they are going to have governance. With those comments, Mr. Chairman, I shall take my seat at this time regarding Bill 30 in committee. I thank you. [The clauses of Bill 30 as amended agreed to] [Title and

preamble agreed to] THE CHAIRMAN: Shall the bill be reported? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. THE CHAIRMAN: Opposed? Carried. 8:10 Bill 32 Assured Income for the Severely Handicapped Amendment Act, 1999 THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any comments, questions, or amend- ments to be proposed with regard to this act? The hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview. MRS. SLOAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have I believe 18 amendments in total this evening that we have identified must be proposed to this act in order to make it suitable and defensible in the public’s respect.

I have copies of those, and I’ve proceeded to identify those as A1, A2, and A3. The original copies with the original signatures are forthcoming. I’ll proceed to give some rationale with respect to them. THE CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, because no one has them yet, go ahead with the rationale for a moment or two. Then read the amendment out, because they’re not numbered. Naturally e nough you wouldn’t know until you got here what the number would be. So a little bit of rationale, and then when they all get them, we’ll read it out so they can put down A1. Go ahead. MRS. SLOAN: Excellent.

Basically our amendments can be categorized in three areas. One area is to do with the powers of the director and the breadth of deci sion-making that will be made by regulations. The second area relates to asset testing and the fundamental changes to the program that will make this in essence, Mr. Chairman, more of a welfare program than an entitlement or pension-based program, as it is now. The third category deals with again a fundamental change, where the references to trustees have been removed and the undefined term of financial administrator is being incorporated into the act.

In all of the aspects of that – the change it brings to the legislation, intricacies that involve the assets being appraised by the Crown, by employees of the Crown – it is our opinion that the sanctity of the program, if you will, the security of clients that are on AISH currently or that might require AISH in the future will be compromised and that the values inherent in the program in the beginning, the fundamental values of ensuring our disabled community a quality of life, equalities, security, are irreparably damaged without having these amendments brought forward.

So I would like at this time to introduce amendment A1, and I’d be prepared to read that into the record. I move that Bill 32 be amended in the following sections by adding “as adjusted annually for inflation” after “$100,000":

section 5 in the proposed

section 4(2)(d);

section 6 in the proposed

section 5.2(2);

section 8 in the proposed

section 8(c). Perhaps before I go into the sp ecifics of this, for all members’ knowledge the proposal was made to the office of the minister this afternoon that the first three amendments I’m introducing tonight are primary amendments. They are, in our opinion, the most important for passage. In that context we made the offer to the office of the minister that the subsequent debate on the other 17 amendments could be negotiated and shortened if in fact there was some consider- ation of these first three.

I’ve provided the House leader for the government side with a copy of these amendments, and my under- standing is that has been communicated to him. So I’m just wanting to make those acknowledgments up front, and if the government is in a position this evening to be flexible, to do what’s right, the offer has been made and the opportunity exists for them to do that. In all of these sections, sections 5, 6, and 8, we have the reference made to the new asset limit of $100,000, but as all of us know, Mr.

Chairman, your assets today, whether they be $100,000 or $30,000 or $250,000, certainly may not be worth that amount, depending on how they’re categorized, a month from now, six months from now, or a year from now. Our intent in this amendment is that citizens of Alberta who are in need of the AISH program should have the benefit of having the assets adjusted on an annual basis, and that is encompassed. Now, that currently does not exist in the bill. I don’t know why that is the case.

It would seem to me that if there was a humane vein in the government, they would’ve been alive to this issue long before the bill was introduced and was still in draft form. That regrettably wasn’t identified as a priority and was not incorporated, so we find ourselves amending the bill in this respect tonight. It’s also valid to indicate that the bill as it’s currently proposed is going to be up for review in five years, and in that respect the government should also be mentored that this is something they can reconsider.

Personally I think it’ s something that strengthens the bill, but if there is a degree of reluctance on the government’s side to the amendment, they should recognize they have an opportunity to review it within that five- year time. I think that at a very basic level, Mr. Chairman, what we want to ensure is that the security of people with disabilities in this province is not compromised by the establishment of an asset test that is not indexed for inflation and that in three years’ time, five years’ time may be worth a lot less money.

Those are my thoughts on this amendment, and there may be others who are willing to speak to it at this stage, including members of the government, and I welcome their thoughts. Thank you. THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo. MR. DICKSON: I just make the observation, Mr.

Chairman, that I talked the other night at second reading on this bill about consulta- tions I had been involved with in the city of Calgary with constitu- ents and other Calgarians who currently either are on the AISH program or attempting to get on the AISH program, and I can tell you that this amendment addresses – it’s not their sole concern but perhaps one of their major concerns. I’m frankly glad that the

May 12, 1999 Alberta Hansard 1683 Member for Edmonton-Riverview has given us the opportunity to rethink the limits, and I think the business of an inflation adjustment is a particularly important one, so I’d encourage members to support it. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 8:20 THE CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question? We have for our consideration amendment A1 to Bill 32 as proposed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview. All those in support of amend- ment A1, please say aye. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye. THE CHAIRMAN: Those opposed, please say no. SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

THE CHAIRMAN: Defeated. [Several members rose calling for a division. The division bell was rung at 8:21 p.m.] [Ten minutes having elapsed, the committee divided] [Mr. Tannas in the chair] For the motion: Dickson Nicol Soetaert MacDonald Sloan White Massey Against the motion: Boutilier Hancock Renner Broda Herard Shariff Calahasen Hierath Stelmach Cardinal Hlady Stevens Coutts Laing Strang Day Langevin Tarchuk Doerksen McFarland Taylor Dunford Melchin Woloshyn Evans Nelson Yankowsky Fischer Pham Zwozdesky Fritz Totals: For – 7 Against – 31 [Motion on amendment A1 lost] MR. DICKSON: Mr.

Chairman, to expedite proceedings this evening on this bill, I wonder if we might have unanimous consent that notwithstanding Standing Order 32(2) in the event that there’s a division, there would only be a one-minute interval instead of the 10-minute interval provided for in Standing Order 32(2). That would only be for purposes of divisions on this bill that we’re currently dealing with, Bill 32. THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo has moved that we have a one-minute interval for all division bells on Bill 32. All those in support of this motion, please say aye. HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

THE CHAIRMAN: Those opposed, please say no. Carried. You have unanimous consent. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview. MRS. SLOAN: All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The second amendment I would like to introduce this evening is with respect to the enormous references within the proposed bill that decisions, applications of the components of this bill will be made by regula- tion.

While the majority of members in this Assembly might be aware of what that means, there are many citizens in the province that are not aware that by making decisions by regulation, they are thereby exempt from being part of the process. There is no public debate in the Legislature. There is no consultation. It is simply a deliberation that is made by the cabinet of government, and subse- quently orders in council are issued and regulations are made.

The references within the bill as it’s proposed relate to a large number of areas: assets, the eligibility for AISH, the powers of the director, the determination of how the asset test will be applied. All those things have components of the process made by regulation. In that respect, Mr. Chairman, we believe the public has to have some type of role, and particularly the disabled community must have an opportunity to view through a microscopic lens the regulations the government has approved that will directly impact their community on an annual basis.

So at this time I would like to read the amendment into the record. I would move that Bill 32 be amended in

section 11 in the proposed

section 13 by adding the following after subsection (2):

(3) The Minister shall establish a committee composed of 5 representatives of non-governmental disability organizations which shall meet twice a year to review and provide advice to the Minister on regulations made pursuant to

section 13. THE CHAIRMAN: Amendment A2. MRS. SLOAN: So in essence, Mr. Chairman, what this would allow is for five representatives of the disabled community the opportunity on behalf of their constituents, their community to review all regulations, to humanize the impact of those regulations to the minister twice annually. Again, I think this is something that strengthens the bill. It provides for the transparency that the government always attests to striving for, and in that respect I would be anticipating that the majority of the government members would be supportive of it.

Now, this in particular is important when you consider the poor public ratings the government has received with respect to their handling of this AISH review. Certainly the Official Opposition heard loud and clear how the public rated the government’s perfor- mance with respect to the information they provided to citizens about the AISH review. Eighty-three point four percent of respon- dents to the Official Opposition’s survey said that the information was not good or poor.

Another 5.4 percent said that it was unclear; 3.5 percent said it was confusing; 2.2 percent said that the informa- tion provided by government was shocking and disgusting.

So it would seem to me that in an effort to throw a lifesaver to the government in some respects and salvage a small degree of credibil- ity with respect to this whole exer cise, it would assist them if they allowed the disabled representatives the opportunity to review the bill, particularly the regulations, twice annually. 8:40 Now that’s also particularly important when you consider the areas this amendment will apply to, as I indicated before: the area of setting an asset limit, the sweeping powers the director of the

1684 Alberta Hansard May 12, 1999 program will now have, the f undamental changes being imposed with respect to the removal of the trustee and a new undefined financial administrator providing the assessment of assets. The director of course is an employee of the government, and it seems also that the financial administrators that are provided for in this act as a substitute for the trustee would not be an advocate or adviser on behalf of the client or the AISH recipient.

They would potentially be an employee of the Crown and thereby be another mechanism whereby the government can siphon and narrow the number of people who will actually qualify for this program. I will be introduc- ing amendments later this evening that talk specifically about that change and the fact that it is fundamentally wrong. So I think the further justificati on for the amendment is that the government has utilized, has been perhaps a master of sorts of organizing so-called consultations for a variety of different areas.

This may be somewhat different in that it’s a legislated requirement that they consult on it twice a year, but perhaps that’s not a bad precedent to set, particularly on a community that is vulnerable and that is at the mercy, if you will, of the government of this province. I would also just like to remind the government with respect to their own consultation and survey that so far they haven’t asked Albertans about these changes on the record.

The questions that they asked, only four, which were conducted in January and February of this year, were: what should support programs attempt to achieve, what changes should we be considering, how can we be sure that benefits are allocated according to need, and how s hould changes be managed? The responses to those questions, albeit the questions were narrow, were not positive either. In fact the whole methodology of that questionnaire was challenged by researchers in the province.

Nonetheless again this is an opportunity for the government to attempt to broaden their input and the public’s opportunity to consider these changes. So with those comments, Mr. Chairman, I’m pleased to provide the government this opportunity for increased transparency this evening. Thank you very much. THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Spruce Grove-Sturgeon- St. Albert. MRS. SOETAERT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to briefly speak to this amendment, because I think it’s a very good amend- ment and I think it’s one we should all really think about, having a five-person committee that is not connected to the government. They wouldn’t get paid for the job they would do. They would meet to look over the regulations. I think we have to respect the fact that they live this life and certainly would understand it better than you and I would. They would meet, look at how the regulations have affected their lives.

I could give my long regulation-behind-closed-doors speech, but I don’t think we need that tonight. [interjection] Go for it, eh? The fact is that there are going to be a lot of changes done by regulation, and when they’re done by regulation, sometimes it takes a little while to see what kind of effect they’re going to have. I just think this might be a very strong committee. They would be owing nothing to anyone. The Member for Edmonton-Rutherford asked a question the other day about the Premier’s C ouncil on the Status of Persons with Disabilities and the fact that it is no longer arm’s length.

Whether the representative from the government does a good job on that or not, the reality is that it’s not arm’s length anymore. With that in mind, that makes this amendment even more important. No disrespect meant for the Member for Clover Bar-Fort Saskatchewan. No offence to him, but that’s not arm’s length. No doubt you’re going to temper what comes out when you’re working with the Premier’s Council on the Status of Persons with Disabilities. This would be a committee of five people who would look at how the regulations have affected lives. I think it would be a very good amendment.

I think it would make the bill stronger. I do wish the government members or the powers that be would support this amendment. If they need more input from other people, maybe they could table it for a while, or maybe they could adjourn debate on it and come back to it if they’re serious about making this piece of legislation work. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. MR. MacDONALD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, rise this evening to support amendment A2. My comments will be brief.

After what the disabled community has encountered with all the talk about the changes to the AISH program – and it’s a good program – there is a lot of concern in the community, and the hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview makes it a lot stronger bill through this amendment. The five representatives can come from anywhere in the province. They can bring a vast amount of information and knowledge, field experience, so to speak, to the minister and his officials.

They will certainly bring good advice to the minister and his officials, and after the fear and the worry, that I talked about earlier, focusing around the changes to the AISH program, this is a very good idea. I would urge all hon. members of the Assembly to support this amendment A2. Thank you. THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Calgary-Cross. MRS. FRITZ: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’d like to thank the Member for Edmonton-Riverview for bringing forward this amendment. I acknowledge that it’s here, and I believe it’s here in good faith.

All too often we hear that you don’t hear from our side about why we don’t support amendments, and I’d like to tell you why I’m not supporting this amendment. I see this amendment as being redundant. In the debate earlier we heard that the Member for Clover Bar-Fort Saskatchewan was not arm’s length. Well, I tend to believe that that committee he chairs is arm’s length. He did file an annual report with the Legislature last week to show that, Mr. Chairman.

We do have, as we just men- tioned, the Premier’s Council on Persons with Disabilities, and we also have the Persons with De velopmental Disabilities Provincial Board. Those boards are made up of hardworking volunteers. They are from throughout the province. I think they meet in good faith and assist the minister with their guidance and their sage wisdom in developing policy and regulation as it relates to persons who are severely disabled. So I thought that might assist the member in knowing why I won’t be supporting her amendment this evening. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MRS.

SOETAERT: I’m really glad that the Member for Calgary- Cross got up and spoke to this, Mr. Chairman. I guess we’re going to end up agreeing to disagree. There’s no way that a government MLA can be considered arm’s length from government. It’s absolutely impossible, and it’s ridiculous to even assume that he is. So I disagree with the statement. And you know what? He’s not disabled; he doesn’t understand like people who live it. Neither do I. You just can’t.

May 12, 1999 Alberta Hansard 1685 AN HON. MEMBER: There’s a board and a chair. MRS. SOETAERT: There’s a board and a chair, et cetera, et cetera. I don’t care. He’s the spokesperson. As the chair of that committee, he’s the spokesperson for it. He’s not arm’s length. He wants to lobby his way to the front bench and get re-elected, and he’ll say what pleases. He can say what pleases. He can choose to say what pleases, or he can choose to represent the council. I’m sure he does, but that lingers in the background.

No matter what people say, there’s no way a member of the government can be arm’s length from the government. 8:50 THE CHAIRMAN: We have amendment A2 to Bill 32 as proposed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview. All those in support of amendment A2, please say aye. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye. THE CHAIRMAN: Those opposed, please say no. SOME HON. MEMBERS: No. [Several members rose calling for a division. The division bell was rung at 8:51 p.m.] [One minute having elapsed, the committee divided] [Mr.

Tannas in the chair] For the motion: Carlson Massey Soetaert Dickson Nicol White MacDonald Sloan Against the motion: Boutilier Fritz Renner Broda Hancock Shariff Calahasen Hierath Stelmach Cardinal Hlady Stevens Coutts Laing Tarchuk Day Langevin Taylor Doerksen McFarland Woloshyn Dunford Melchin Yankowsky Evans Nelson Zwozdesky Fischer Pham Totals: For – 8 Against – 29 [Motion on amendment A2 lost] THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview. MRS. SLOAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m pleased to rise to offer some general introductory comments on my third amendment.

This amendment is intended to address specifically the sweeping powers that the proposed bill would give the director of the program in determining the value of assets and the principal residence. We think and it’s certainly my opinion that this would place AISH recipients at the mercy of the director. There are no specifics in the bill as to how that director would actually determine, appraise the assets. Obviously the director is an employee of the Crown, of the government, and thereby is in the same position as we find many of the employees in SFI and AISH currently.

They are faced with very rigid policies and procedures. They see people who are desperate, that require advocacy and assistance, but they have such strict limitations in the programs in which they are functioning that they’re not able to extend the assistance to people that they require. In a similar sense, what the government’s current bill proposes is that the director could define a very rigid and arbitrary process for establish- ing assets, that being both assets of a financial nature and assets including the principal residence.

I’ve had many discussions and many questions asked of me as to how in fact this process would be undertaken. How would it be determined? The bill currently says that the principal residence would be exempt from asset testing. Well, what if an AISH recipient resided on Valleyview Drive here in the city of Edmonton – and I think the average worth of a property on that street would be in the hundreds of thousands – and that was their primary residence, or an AISH recipient resided in a house on 95th Street? Very different values. So how would that be rectified? The bill doesn’t speak to that.

In essence, one AISH recipient would be able to be exempt for perhaps several hundred thousand dollars in the value of their home on Valleyview, and another AISH recipient on 95th Street would be in a position where really they were only afforded an exemption for a home of maybe $20, 000 in value. So it’s inequitable is the basic premise. If the members are concerned, if this is causing them some angst in this regard, then I would suggest they vote in favour of this. Again, what it offers them, Mr.

Chairman, is the opportunity to make this more transparent, more equitable in its application to the vulnerable in this province. Really, what is there to lose by making the determination of assets something that is done by independent appraisers? To me that is inherently more fair than a director whose expertise is in the application of departmental policies, making that person responsible for the assessment of assets, Mr. Chairman. Their background, their expertise is not going to be anywhere within the parameters of that particular area. So what amendment A3 does – I will read the amendment into the record.

I move that Bill 32 be amended in

section 11 in the proposed

section 13, by adding the following after subsection (1):

(1.1) Where the Lieutenant Governor in Council makes a regula- tion under subsection (1)(c), it shall ensure that any valua- tion of real property is required to be completed by 2 appraisers who are not employees of the Crown.

(1.2) Where the Lieutenant Governor in Council makes a regula- tion under subsection (1)(d), it shall ensure that any valua- tion of assets is required to be completed by 2 financial advisors who are not employees of the Crown. So it thereby removes the interfer ence, eliminates the conflict of interest, allows for a transparent process to occur and allows the process for the client, Mr. Chairm an, in this case to have some control over this process when it comes to not the government’s assets, not the taxpayers of this province’s assets, but the assets of the AISH recipient.

They deserve to have some role to play in how those assets are validated, and in this respect the amendment provides for their involvement in the determination of who the appraisers would be and also who the financial advisors would be. 9:00 I have regrettably witnessed the rigidity in terms of the application of the policies of social services in more than one respect, and I cannot in good conscience let this area go unamended. To me the government, in utilizing the m illionaires as a red herring, a flag if you will, for trumpeting this review of AISH, has really distracted

1686 Alberta Hansard May 12, 1999 people. Through the millionaires and through the asset testing they’ve really distracted people from some of the intricacies of this bill and how in fact it will be applied. MR. DICKSON: Mythical millionaires. MRS. SLOAN: Well, mythical millionaires, as the hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo is indicating. Really the government again has, I believe, only yet to validate three out of the seven that they said existed, so I’m looking forward to the day when that’s provided in more detail, because it really was used as a justification.

I recall at second reading that was magnified, the number of times the government used that as a refere nce to justify bringing in these changes. These would certainly be reasonable in the community that has been consulting with me, and they are most certainly for those members of the legal community that I’ve spoken to that have asked how they are going to advise people about the allocation of assets or the determination of their will. These types of things are going to provide, I think, a process that is much more fair. With those thoughts, Mr.

Chairman, I am prepared at this stage to allow other members of my caucus to provide their thoughts and recommendations in this regard. Thank you. THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Government House Leader. MR. HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to address a few words to this amendment. The spirit of the amend- ment certainly makes sense in terms of valuation. In the concept of natural justice one would expect that there would be an appropriate method for independent valuation. The point that I’d like to make is that the amendment itself is unnecessary.

The concept of legislation is that it provides a framework, an outline of the law. It doesn’t provide all the detail, and if we put all the detail that was required in every law into the statutes, the libraries wouldn’t be large enough to hold them. While the concept itself is of some value, that there should be independent valuations – and in fact I would expect that would be how the department would carry out its job – it’s not necessary to include this in the

section relating to the regulations. In fact, if it was appropriate to actually require in the printed law an external valuation, then it would be appropriate to put those provisions in the regulations to the act. MRS. SOETAERT: The hon. minister has almost inspired me to give my regulation talk again, but I’m not going to. What this amendment will do is it’s going to help this government out, because they have introduced asset testing and they don’t know what kinds of headaches they’re going to get from that and how they are going to evaluate that and who’s going to be exempt for certain things.

I know they’ve listed some things. Then we’re going to get into the regulations, and there are going to be things that we don’t know about, and we don’t have an independent committee to look at the regulations. So in a way this is a framework that will help them when they’re doing the asset testing, which by the way I disagree with in the first place. I think we lost that amendment too. I really would like the government members to think about this. You know, next spring or maybe even this fall we’ll be back here with amendments to Bill 32.

Th ey’ll be our amendments, but you can bring them in under your name, and we’ll agree to them for you, because we’re ever trying to help them do their job. I really wish people would consider this independent appraiser. We’re going to have headaches with this asset testing, and this will at least aid the government in doing their job. It’s a very well- thought-out amendment, and it will certainly serve the community better, and that’s the point of this amendment, to serve the commu- nity better. So I hope, Mr. Chairman, that people will support this amendment. THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Lethbridge-East.

DR. NICOL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a quick comment almost in the form of a question to the hon. Government House Leader and his comment that this is a good amendment in its spirit but doesn’t have to be put into the legislation because it’s implied by action that this is the way it would be done. Yet I think of the number of times when in other situations relative to government decision-making – the complaints that come to my office as an MLA deal with the perception of the lack of objectivity of either the direct decision-making, the appeal process, or the final arbitration.

That, in essence, is possibly the spirit behind the laws, but it isn’t in fact the practice when you look at it from the perspective of the people that come into our offices. It’s on that basis that I’m going to support this amendment. MR. SHARIFF: Mr. Chairman, I’ve been listening to this argument for this amendment, and I’m not sure if the hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview has really looked at this bill in its totality. The argument that was presented was a comparison of two residences with different valuations, and

section 11, which is suggested for amendment, deals with regulations. However, when I go back to the bill under

section 5 subsection (d), there’s an exemption very clearly identified which states that the value of all assets owned by the person and the person’s spouse that are not exempt under

section 5.3 and the regulations is $100,000 or less. Then if you go to

section 5.3, it very clearly has exemptions, and it says that the following assets are exempt assets and the Director must not include their value in calculations under

section 4 or 5.2: (

a) a principal residence, within the meaning of the regulations; (

b) subject to the regulations, one vehicle that is adapted to accommodate the handicap of the person who applies for or receives a handicap benefit. And it goes on and on. So the primary residence is exempt. The calculation of assets, the way I read this bill, deals with assets that will bring income to the reci pient of AISH, and that was the argument that was forwarded by the hon. Member for Edmonton- Riverview. In my opinion, I’m not sure if her intent is deflected in the amendment that she’s proposing. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR.

SHARIFF: I’m hearing a lot of members saying “agreed.” Basically I think an argument has been presented just for the sake of argument. Thank you. MRS. SLOAN: Well, Mr. Chairman, kindly, I think the hon. member has missed the point entirely. I did not intend in my remarks to indicate that the same person owned the home on Valleyview Drive and the home on 95th Street. It’s the inherent inequity in one person owning a $300,000 home and that primary residence being exempt and another client, because of circum- stances, being in a home that’s perhaps worth $20,000 on 95th Street.

It’s not the same person owning two residences. It’s the fact

May 12, 1999 Alberta Hansard 1687 that one gets hundreds of thousands of dollars exempt in the way in which this bill is read, and the other one has their primary residence exempt, but it’s worth a much, much less amount. 9:10 DR. NICOL: Linda, they don’t understand the concept of equity. MRS. SLOAN: And that perhaps is true as well. It’s been indicated to me that perhaps what’s really at the crux of this is that there is not an understanding of the definition of equity and how that is applied within legislation. But just to reflect back on the remarks that were made by the hon. Government House Leader.

The member seems to think that his government is going to be here forever. “We understand, and therefore the way in which this act will be applied w ill be secure.” But governments change, and in fact rumours are rampant, Mr. Chairman, that the leader of their very own government might change as early as next year or that there might be an election next year. Many, many things could change, and the ideology of the ruling party could be subject to change because of a change in leadership, and that might filter down and apply itself in terms of the determination of assets and the way in which equity is defined.

We’ve already established that that’s a bit tenuous this evening. All I would indicate to the hon. government member is that governments are not fixed in stone, and if we don’t have these provisions in the legislation, if they’re left off in a dark room to be determined in private by orders of the cabinet, it can be applied in an even harsher way than might be anticipated by this member this evening.

So that is the intent, and I really appreciate the opportu- nity, just in the context of these amendments, to broaden the government members’ understanding of this bill, and I appreciate the debate that’s been offered by the members on the government side this evening. Thank you. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Question. THE CHAIRMAN: You’re ready for the question. We have before us amendment A3 to Bill 32 as pr oposed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview. All those in support of amendment A3, please say aye. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye. THE CHAIRMAN: Those opposed, please say no. SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

THE CHAIRMAN: Defeated. [Several members rose calling for a division. The division bell was rung at 9:14 p.m.] [One minute having elapsed, the committee divided] [Mr. Tannas in the chair] For the motion: Carlson Massey Sloan Dickson Nicol Soetaert MacDonald Olsen White Against the motion: Boutilier Hancock Renner Broda Herard Shariff Calahasen Hierath Stelmach Cardinal Hlady Stevens Day Laing Tarchuk Doerksen Langevin Taylor Dunford McFarland Woloshyn Evans Melchin Yankowsky Fischer Nelson Zwozdesky Fritz Pham Totals For – 9 Against – 29 [Motion on amendment A3 lost] THE CHAIRMAN: The hon.

Member for Edmonton-Riverview. MRS. SLOAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, I have amendment A4 before me, and had the government voted in approval of the earlier amendment to index the $100,000 asset level to inflation, this amendment might not have been necessary. But as a result of the fact that that earlier amendment didn’t pass, I feel compelled this evening to introduce an amendment that would in effect raise the asset ceiling that the government has proposed. [Mr. Herard in the chair] Currently the bill before us sets an asset level of $100,000.

As all of us are aware, that doesn’t go very far these days, and it will go even less in the future. In reflecting on the government’s review of AISH and the atmosphere of re spect within th e Assembly this evening, it compels me to cite a quotation made by William Mackenzie, someone well recogniz ed to politicians within this country. He said: Tories, pensioners, placemen, Orangemen, churchmen, brokers, gamblers, parasites, allow me to congratulate you; your feet are at last on the people’s necks. Really we’re just about there, Mr. Chairman. We’re just about there.

We’re starting with the vulnerable, and we’ll work our way up to the middle class – speaking in the context of the government, I should clarify. 9:20 There are many aspects of the bill before us that are not well understood by the disabled community, and that is in part because the government did not consult them and did not offer them an in- depth analysis of how these changes would be implemented and how they would affect them in the future. So with that, I would like to read A4 into the record. I move that Bill 32 be amended in the following sections by striking out “$100,000" and substituting “$200,000":

section 5(c), in the proposed

section 4(2)(d);

section 6, in the proposed

section 5.2(2);

section 8, in the proposed

section 8(c). The intent of this amendment, Mr. Chairman, is very simple. It would effectively raise the limit for assets within the assured income for the severely handicapped program to $200,000. Well, perhaps many members are not aware, particularly on the government side, that some of the people who receive AISH or apply for AISH have multiple disabilities. Many are not employed, and of course when AISH was designed initially, it was intended that they would not have to work to earn their livelihood.

If by some kind fate an AISH recipient has received, been left in trust, has been willed an amount of money, really $200,000 being so small, it would seem to me that the last thing this government should be setting its sights on is the

1688 Alberta Hansard May 12, 1999 withdrawal, removal of that security from that individual. There are many other aspects of programs and inefficiencies, in my opinion, that the government would be much, much better served to focus on. Just to go back to the needs of this community. Disabilities, of course, are varied and multifaceted. Many recipients of AISH require additional supports. They require caregivers. They require special aids in their home. They require equipment, and of course that equipment needs to be maintained. All of those additional needs this community may have.

They may require regular assessments, whether it be physiotherapy, whether it be a psychologist, psychiat- ric assessments, things that requi re them to use transportation frequently, things that are expensive. Of course, whether we are disabled or not disabled, we all know that we are going to age and are going to reach a period in our lives where we’re not as healthy as we used to be.

Being ill is expensive, and in that respect this community, despite all the needs th ey might have currently, in the future might have more needs, and they may need to access or at least have the security of knowing they can access this money to provide them that support. Now, that argument is very much strengthened by contemplating a future where in this province we might have a greater involvement of the private, for-profit sector in our health care system.

The government might place the disabled community in a position where they are having to buy their health care, buy additional private insurance, buy or pay additional for surgery or an intervention of some kind. That is not a system that the Official Opposition supports or envisions, Mr. Chairman, but it seems to be a future this government is intent on taking us to. So $200,000 is not by any means – and if I were to ask the hon. minister of science and technology or the hon. Provincial Treasurer how much money they’re putting away for their retirement, I would highly suspect that it is more than $200,000.

Both of those individu- als look like relatively healthy specimens, although sometimes appearances can be deceiving. They may have a disability, and certainly no disrespect or ill intent is meant by placing them under the scrutiny of debate tonight. However, I would like to point out that there’s an inherent contradiction if we sit in this Assembly and say and plan that we will put our sights on having $500,000 or a million dollars in assets accrued so that we can have a comfortable retirement in later years in life, yet we impose by legislation a limit of $100,000 that is currently in this bill.

That’s again an inherent unfairness and inequity, and I think it calls to all members to be reasonable, to be visionary, to be human, and extend to those who are in a position of vulnerability the ability to have some security in the future, Mr. Chairman. So those are my thoughts with respect to this amendment, and there may be others within my caucus or perhaps on the government side that would like to offer their thoughts in this regard. Thank you. THE ACTING CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, before voting on A4, might we revert briefly to the Introduction of Guests, please? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

THE ACTING CHAIRMAN: Opposed? Carried. head: Introduction of Guests (reversion) THE ACTING CHAIRMAN: The hon. Government House Leader. MR. HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It’s with great pleasure that I introduce to you and through you to members of the Assembly someone who is very, very helpful to me in my role as Government House Leader, someone who helps on a daily basis to guide the direction of what we do in the House and how we do it: my executive assistant, David Gillies. Without his able guidance we’d probably be here for 200 days a year. With Mr.

Gillies is his wife, Lorraine Chay, her son John Wiest, and John’s fian cee, Andria Whalley. I’d ask them all to rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of the House. Bill 32 Assured Income for the Severely Handicapped Amendment Act, 1999 (continued) [Motion on amendment A4 lost] MRS. SLOAN: Mr. Chairman, I’m pleased again to rise on my fifth amendment this evening. This speaks to a very important

section of the bill before us. In the current bill we have quite a remarkable component in the

preamble, a suggestion that we will be proposing by this act that the needs of persons who receive handicap benefits will be balanced with acc ountability to the taxpayers of Alberta. Now, in this respect we, in my recollection, did never recall that the government consulted Albertans about bringing in this inherent change. I’m not sure if the right amendment is being circulated. 9:30 THE ACTING CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I think they’re precirculating the next one, but everyone has A5. MRS. SLOAN: Good. Thank you.

So I don’t r ecall in the government’s questionnaire or the consultations, I don’t r ecall at any of the public forums that were held on this issue that the government actually came out and proclaimed that this whole review was hinging on a need to balance the needs of the disabled with the supposed rights of the taxpayers of this province. Now, in contrast, Mr. Chairman, in all of that time and in all of those circumstances I never heard a taxpayer in this province say that they felt this program needed to be ratcheted down, narrowed, made more restrictive so that their interests and rights were served.

I did not hear a taxpayer put the call out to this government to undertake that type of reform. In fact, I heard citizens of this province saying that they believe the spirit of our society in this province is a caring and compassionate one, one in which we believe that the vulnerable within our borders should be treated to the same dignities, the same respect, the same entitlements as anyone else, including the taxpayers. You know, I have to question in the same context, Mr. Chairman, why it would be that the government would single out the needs of the handicapped to be balanced with the needs of the taxpayers.

Why would that be the case? Why would we not determine that the needs of the taxpayers need to be balanced with the needs or perhaps the interests of the corporate sector or perhaps those that are involved in economic or industrial development or that perhaps the needs of Edmonton-Riverview constituents might need to be balanced with those of the taxpayer? I mean it’s ludicrous.

I may be wrong, because I’m new as a legislator, but I don’t recall seeing a piece of legislation that singled out a group, particularly a vulnerable group, so that their provisions and the s upport they’re afforded by this government would be balanced with the interests of the taxpayers. Now, if that precedent exists in other legislation, I’d

May 12, 1999 Alberta Hansard 1689 like to see it. But in my opinion, this speaks to the Mackenzie quote I referenced earlier about having our foot basically replacing the taxpayer’s foot squarely on the neck of the disabled. That’s not a very appealing visual, Mr. Chairman. In fact, I can’t contemplate why we would need to do that. We know the government is fixated on financial accountability. We know they’re also fixated on deficit elimination and debt reduction.

We know they’re fixated on promoting economic development, but when it comes to human development, social development, the care for the vulnerable and disadvantaged it seems we’re willing to sacrifice all thos e things in our pursuit of the almighty dollar. There’s an old Cree saying that goes something along the lines that only when the last lake is gone, the last tree is cut, and the sky is polluted – I’m paraphrasing because I can’t remember the quotation exactly – only then will you realize that money can’t be eaten. That seems so appropriate in the context of what this particular

section in the bill proposes. Really, Mr. Chairman, to me th ere’s nothing to lose for the government tonight to stand in support of this amendment. It sends a message that there’s some small vein of compassion that exists within these walls and within our political process. It is a message of assurance to those who fall into an area of need, that are disabled, that this government is not an advocate solely of the taxpayer but represents and recognizes their responsibilities for the vulnerable as well. I would invite other members to offer their thoughts and their recommendations in this regard.

It doesn’t have to be a painful amendment to pass. With those thoughts, Mr. Chairman, I’ll take my seat. THE ACTING CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Calgary-Bow. MRS. LAING: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to speak on this amendment. When I read this amendment, I see a lot of things in it. I see things about removing barriers to employment for people who have disabilities. I see things about adding finances for families who have several children. I see things about people being able to come on and off the AISH pension so that they can try employment.

If they have problems with that, they can be immediately reinstated to AISH. I see opportunity in this

preamble for people with disabilities. They are not being shunted out the back door. They’re not being told to sit at home and watch TV and do whatever they want to do to while away the hours. They’re being told to look at what their abilities are. They’re being told that they can apply for training, that they can look at the kinds of supports they need to get a job. I personally know two people who are quadriplegic. These people are working full-time. The handi-bus picks them up in the morning, takes them to their employment. One fellow is the computer expert for this agency.

He actually uses a rod in his mouth to work on the computer, and this person is very willing and able and excited about working. He isn’t sitting at home all day. He’s out in the commu- nity. The opportunities are there to work. The opportunities are there to go out into society. He’s not locked away in some isolated area, and that’s what I see in this

preamble. I see the opportunity for people with disabilities to look at what they can do, not what they can’t do, and to get those things that are necessary to get them out in society. I have seen this work. I think it’s a very worthwhile cause. I think people have the opportunity to try, and we have to encourage that, so I would not support this amendment, sir. MR. DICKSON: Mr. Chairman, I was listening to our friend from Calgary-Bow, and she was speaking to everything but the amend- ment.

The amendment accepts those “whereas” provisions right down to the last one, so everything the Member for Calgary-Bow said is not in any way adverse to what’s being advanced in the amendment. The issue comes down to what I suggest is the most absurd, most offensive, most in sulting provision I’ve seen in a statute in a very long time. I cannot believe that the government would put this kind of a clause in the

preamble. You know, my colleague from Edmonton-Riverview is right. You look through the Statutes of Alberta for another provision where we require some other group’s interest to be balanced against “account- ability to the taxpayers of Alberta.” Is it in the Alberta Opportunity Fund Act? No. Is it in the Agricultural Societies Act? No. Is it in the Alberta Research Council Act? In the Ambulance Services Act? We can go through a very long list of statutes – I’d expect there would be 300 or 400 statutes – and in no other provision do you have such an offensive element. 9:40 Now, the second thing is that when I first looked at this bill in the

preamble section, I thought I was back in 1950. Mr. Chairman, the contemporary way of drafting statutes is that you put an object clause in the bill that specifically outlines what the object of the statute is. These

whereas clauses – I think my colleague is too modest in her amendment. I don’t know what draftsperson came up with this verbiage, but this notion of a

preamble, as I say, is passe and stale. It’s not what I see in the statutes that come forward. Let’s have a proper object clause, and if we had a proper object clause, the offensive paragraph that would come out in this amendment clearly wouldn’t be there, because it wouldn’t serve appropriate purpose. But I’ll tell you that it serves one very useful purpose. It points out – and I mean this in a collective way because I know there are members of the government caucus that are as compassionate as any people I’ve ever met.

But when I see this, I think back to the infamous bill to suspend the rights of sexual sterilization victims. I think of a host of bills. I see underfunding in the area of special- needs students. I see a province that wouldn’t amend their human rights legislation in the way that the Jack O’Neill sponsored task force, the Equal in Dignity report, represented. All of these things are consistent with a government that frankly does not respect the rights of, in this case, people with a particular handicap. So I’m happy to support the amendment.

The amazing thing – and I want to give the benefit of the doubt to our friend from Calgary-Bow. She was so focused on the first four clauses in the

preamble that she chose not to read the fifth clause, and I hope when she reads that final clause, she’ll be as offended and insulted by it as I am and as I think her constituents would be. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [Motion on amendment A5 lost] THE ACTING CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Edmonton- Riverview. MRS. SLOAN: Thanks, Mr. Chairman. We have many to go. You know, I’m really just warming up. Of course, I used to just go to work at 8 o’clock, and I’d work till 8 in the morning. So this is like morning to me. I’ve been inspired.

I was really inspired by the remarks made by our Speaker last week, and I’ve taken it upon myself to do a bit of light reading in between our debates in the Assembly. There’s some very good books down in the library with respect to . . .

1690 Alberta Hansard May 12, 1999 THE ACTING CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, are you introducing an amendment? MRS. SLOAN: I’m working up to it. THE ACTING CHAIRMAN: Could you introduce it before you debate, please? Thank you. MRS. SLOAN: All right. Has it been distributed? THE ACTING CHAIRMAN: Please, introduce the amendment. MRS. SLOAN: All right. I’d like to introduce A6, Mr. Chairman. THE ACTING CHAIRMAN: Thank you. MRS. SLOAN: I’ll wait for it to be distributed and then provide . . . [interjection] Oh, it has been distributed. Thank you.

Some of the reference books in the library are very insightful and provide lots of wit and sarcasm and grist, if you will, for our debates, and I’ll provide some of those insights as we proceed with the debate. Now, the amendment before us speaks to another

section of the bill that again has left the definition of an integral part of this act to regulation. Now, don’t ask me why that is, because we’re speaking about children, and this is something that we’ve heard quite frequently in the Assembly and outside the Assembly in the last few weeks, that this government is supposedly very alive to the needs of children. However, when they drafted up the AISH Act, they didn’t believe it was important enough to define what a dependent child would be but rather that that definition would be made in regula- tions. Mr.

Chairman, what we have is a situation where, again, if a narrow measuring stick were to be used, it might be that the cabinet might determine that a dependent child was under the age of 18. In essence what that would do: if you had a client who was disabled and rightly deserving to receive AISH and they had a child who was of adult age but also dependent for some reason, that could be exempt.

We don’t know this evening in fact what the government’s intent was with respect to defining “dependent child.” We are in a position to only be able to guess, because that is something that the Minister of Family and Social Services at some point, I would expect, between now and October 1, when he’s proposing this act to be in effect, would take a recommendation to the cabinet and say: I’m suggesting that “dependent child” should be defined as this. Really, yet again, Mr. Chairman, the public and those directly impacted are not going to be consulted.

They’re not going to have the ability to identify if there are any exemptions or any particular areas where certain multiple circumstances might exist where the government’s definition would not assist but rather would compro- mise the livelihood and the quality of life of that individual and their dependent child. We know right now that there are thousands of people on AISH that are living in poverty. Some of them have dependent children. We know that there are thousands of people who are living on SFI in this province, and they are al so living in poverty with children.

I’ve heard the minister responsible for children’s services and the Premier say that they’re alive to the needs of children and they want to do good when it comes to establishing programs for children in this province and filling the gaps. I really haven’t seen any evidence of that, and when I look at the gaps that they’re creating, not only are they not filling the gaps that exist; they’re creating more gaps when they propose a bill that leaves the definition of dependent child to regulations. Why compromise that livelihood, Mr. Chairman? It is an area that would be very, very simple.

Again, as I reviewed the government’s consultation, it is not something that there was a direct question asked about. If I r ecall correctly, I don’t believe that a question of age or a question about how the individual was supporting any dependent children was asked. That was not asked. In fact, just reflecting back on that, there were only 7 percent of the respondents that had had experience with a person with a disability in their household that responded to the government’s survey.

So not only were they not in a position to have any firsthand knowledge, but there was a minuscule few that even knew someone with a disability, let alone someone with a disability that had a dependent child. So the rationale for not defining this, particularly when the government didn’t consult the public in this respect, is really beyond my grasp this evening, Mr. Chairman. 9:50 In the consultation there were areas that were defined by our respondents, citizens of this province, that they felt were of impor- tance. The top three related to benefits review, flexibility, and eligibility requirements.

Both flexibility and eligibility would be impacted by how this area of the act would be defined. In those top three issues we had about 50 percent of our respondents saying that these are top areas of concern. In that respect, Mr. Chairman, it would seem that we would be striving for some transparency and establishing for people exactly what entitlements will be afforded to people who have dependents, whether they’re dependent children or not. There are certainly circumstances where an AISH recipient might have a parent who becomes dependent, and in that area I’m not exactly sure how this act would apply.

I don’t believe that as I have read the act, it really even contemplates that. It does contemplate the dependent child, granted only in a very initial way, but it doesn’t provide for those other scenarios. I guess my conclusion is that yet again it’ll be something that will be contemplated in regulation if a problem is encountered. MR. DICKSON: Or a remedial statute next year. M R S . S L O A N : Y e s . R e g r e t t a b l y , t h a t s e e m s t o b e a c o m m o n practice.

I’ve experienced it already in my two years in this Legislature where we pass a bill in one session of the Legislature and sometimes in a session that very same year the bill comes back for amendment. It’s unfortunate, because some of that repetition could be eliminated if the government just accepted the goodwill of the opposition and endorsed the amendments proposed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. THE ACTING CHAIRMAN: The hon. Government House Leader. MR. HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just briefly with respect to the amendment. I won’t go on at length.

The amendment deals with the definition of “dependent child” and in fact narrows the ability to include in the definition of “dependent child” a child under the age of 18. Under the provisions of the act as it stands now, the definition of “dependent child” can in fact be defined by regulation much more broadly than that and could possibly include a child who was attending postsecondary education, for example, might include a child who was in fact disabled himself or herself, or a child who’s still in high school at age 19. There may be many circumstances

May 12, 1999 Alberta Hansard 1691 that you’d want to include in the definition of “dependent child.” Again, as my comments earlier, there are some things that are best left to regulations to allow you the flexibility to change the defini- tion, where it may be appropriate to do so, when circumstances come up. So for that reason I would oppose the amendment. [Motion on amendment A6 lost] THE ACTING CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Edmonton- Riverview. MRS. SLOAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, A7, my seventh amendment this evening, is the most substantive one thus far. It has been circulated, so I will read it into the record. I move that Bill 32 be amended as follows. Part A:

Section 5(

d) is amended in the proposed

section 4(5.1) by striking out “to a third party if payment to the third party” and substituting “to a financial administrator, as defined in

Section 10, if payment to that person.” Part B:

Section 10(

a) is struck out, and the following is substi- tuted: (

a) by renumbering subsection (1) as subsection (1.1) and adding the following before subsection (1.1)

(1) In this section, “finan cial administrator” means (

a) a trustee, or (

b) a person who is qualified to administer financial affairs and who has been recommended by the family member responsible for the care of a person who receives or is entitled to receive a handicap benefit. (a.1) in subsection (1.1) by striking out “trustee to ensure that the handicap benefit” and substituting “financial administrator to administer all or part of the person’s handicap benefit for the purposes of ensuring that it”.

Part C: the following is added after

section 10(b): (

c) in subsec- tions (2) and (3) by striking out “subsection (1)” and substituting “subsection (1.1).” Now, this area is of particular concern. Again, it is intended that we need to make clear to the recipients of AISH either now or in the future what in fact a financial administrator means. As the act is currently proposed, we do not ha ve a definition for financial administrator. The

section which we are amending basically just uses the term. There’s no citation of what the qualifications of that person would be. Would they in fact be a chartered accountant? Would they have an expertise with respect to the management of assets? It doesn’t address the fundamental component of this change in that it removes “trustee” from the act. By introducing this amendment this evening, Mr.

Chairman, we’re clearly stating on the record and stating publicly for Albertans that “financial administrator” means a “trustee” and means a person who is qualified to admi nister financial affairs [also very important] and who has been recommended by the family member responsible for the care of a person who receives or is entitled to receive a handicap benefit.

One of the other aspects of the changes in the government’s bill currently is that by removing all of the references to trustee and inserting the title “financial administrator” – the financial adminis- trator could be an employee of the Crown, and it could by that change make that person no longer an advocate or an adviser on behalf of the AISH client but rather someone who is going to review and make decisions on the basis of the government’s policy, the government’s mandate, and the government’s directions in the program.

So those are very important clarifications that should have been made in the initial bill. They were not. They have a chance to do what’s right and to make those things clear to Albertans, to make it clear that in the future application of this program the persons who will be dealing directly with AISH recipients’ assets, their financial holdings, their belongings of value, those individuals will in fact be untethered from government. That, in my opinion, is fundamental, and I would urge all members of the Assembly to vote in favour of the amendment.

Thank you. [Motion on amendment A7 lost] THE ACTING CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Edmonton- Riverview. 10:00 MRS. SLOAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My eighth amendment this evening is proposed. It’s a very interesting section. It seems to be one of the themes that’s been going through our different debates in the Assembly in the course of this session, and it has to do with the definition of “spouse.” Now, as the bill is currently proposed in

section 4, spouse is quoted to mean: “a spouse as defined in the regulations.” Again, it’s curious to me that we need to leave that to regulations. However, the potential is that we could have some inconsistencies in terms of how that’s defined. We’ve seen amend- ments with the Domestic Relations Act that have contemplated the same area. There are considerations within the pension amendments before us in a similar vein. Mr. Chairman, I will read the amendment into the record: that Bill 32 be amended in

section 4(

c) in the proposed

section 1 by striking out clause (

h) and substituting the following: (h) “spouse” means (1) a person who is married to a person who has applied for or has received a handicap benefit, and (2) a person living in a common law relationship with a person who has applied for or has received a handicap benefit. Now, this would intend, Mr. Chairman, that spouse be defined consistently and in a similar sens e, too, as it is defined in the domestic relations bill as pr oposed and before the Assembly in debate. [Mr.

Tannas in the chair] Without the amendment, really what we’re contemplating is that heterosexual couples could be subject to reverse discrimination in fact, because in essence Bill 32 as it currently stands says that where one of the members of a heterosexual couple is applying for AISH, their spouse’s assets would be considered, but if a person was in a same-sex relationship or perhaps living in a common-law relation- ship, the partner in those relationships would not be subject to having their assets considered under the asset changes in the act.

So it’s sort of an odd position to be in, but in fact in this case the government seems to have their ducks out of line in contrast to how they were lined up in other legislation. MR. DICKSON: Maybe missing a few ducks too. MRS. SLOAN: And they could very well be just missing some ducks. So this is intended again to provide clarity, to provide an equitable application of the act, and for those reasons, Mr. Chairman, I’m pleased to move that motion for amendment this evening. [Motion on amendment A8 lost] MRS. SLOAN: Very strange.

1692 Alberta Hansard May 12, 1999 I am pleased, Mr. Chairman, to introduce my next amendment, A9. A9 reads as follows: that Bill 32 be amended in

section 5(

c) in the proposed

section 4 by striking out subsection (3) and substituting the following:

(3) Notwithstanding subsection (2), a person is not eligible to receive a handicap benefit under this Act if

a) the person receives or is qualified to receive a monthly old age pension under

Part 1 of the Old Age Security Act (Canada), and

b) that person has attained the age of 65 years. Now, members of the Assembly may not be aware that currently if a person is on welfare in Alberta, when they turn 60, they must apply for old age security. It’s sort of Alberta’s way of unceremoni- ously dumping them off the welfare caseload and basically passing on the burden, which would be how the government might refer to it, of responsibility to the federal government to support them in their retirement years. Basically Bill 32 proposes that AISH would become the same way, that at age 60 a recipient of AISH would have to apply for old age security.

Now, of course that’s early. Normally you wouldn’t be applying for old age security until you were approaching 65. Basically what happens, then, is that if you’ve applied early, as is the case in welfare, and you live to be 70 years of age, you receive reduced old age security because you’ve applied early. For that reason they’re distinctly disadvantaged. The same would be true for AISH. If a person – and the bill proposes that this would be a requirement – r eaches the age of 60, they must apply for old age security.

They live to be 70, 75 and all of a sudden their benefits are going to be reduced because they’ve applied years earlier than they actually should have. That’s not something, either in welfare or as it’s proposed in AISH, that is a decision of choice by that person. The programs require them to do that. Therefore, we believe it’s inherently unfair and cruel to make that a condition of welfare. It is as cruel to make it a requirement of AISH. In that respect, Mr. Chairman, again the amendments are offered in good faith.

It’s with hope that the government would take it upon themselves to support the amendment this evening. Thank you. [Motion on amendment A9 lost] MRS. SLOAN: Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Well, we’re about half way through the amendments. I hope that’s encouraging to people this evening. The next amendment proposed for this evening is A10. That amendment reads as follows: that Bill 32 be amended in

section 6 in a proposed

section 5.4(1) by adding “as determined by 2 financial advisors who are not employees of the Crown” after “its fair market value”. This amendment, Mr. Chairman, is very simple. Again, it is to embody the independence of assessment in the bill. The decision would be made again by the director. THE CHAIRMAN: Excuse me, Edmonton-Riverview. I’m not sure that we’re on the same amendment. So if we could just check that. Would you read that back again to me, because I’ve got Bill 32 amending

section 5.3. MRS. SLOAN: 5.4(1). THE CHAIRMAN: No. That’s what I thought. The table and you are not in sync here. MRS. SLOAN: All right. Thank you. THE CHAIRMAN: This is amendment A10? 10:10 MRS. SLOAN: Okay. So A10 is

section 5.3, by striking out clause (

a) and substituting the following . . . THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. So start again, hon. member. MRS. SLOAN: All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’ll reread that amendment into the record. I move that Bill 32 be amended in

section 6 in the proposed

section 5.1 by striking out clause (

a) and substituting the following: (

a) a principle residence, of any value, where the person who applies for or receives a handicap benefit resides for the majority of days in a 12 month period. THE CHAIRMAN: The one that I have, A10, says “proposed

section 5.3,” not 5.1 and has nothing similar to what you’re talking about now. So perhaps we should just take a moment’s break and see if we can get on the same wave length that you are. MRS. SLOAN: I think we’re on the same amendment. THE CHAIRMAN: All we have to do is agree. Edmonton-Riverview. MRS. SLOAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m going to assume that the amendment is in the record as it’s been moved, A10. Would you like me to read it again? THE CHAIRMAN: We’re dealing with

section 5.3. MRS. SLOAN: That’s correct. We’re striking out clause (

a) and substituting: (

a) a principal residence, of any value, where the person who applies for or receives a handicap benefit resides for the majority of days in a 12 month period. THE CHAIRMAN: We’re in sync. MRS. SLOAN: Now we’re squared. In this particular section, Mr . Chairman, currently the director may require that the assets be exempt. The director, as the bill currently reads, must not include their value in calculations under 4 or 5. In this section, as it’s currently written, (

a) is “a principle residence within the meaning of regulations,” and it is our intent that the definition of a principle residence should not be left to regulation but rather that it should be defined as the pl ace where the person resides for the majority of days in a 12-month period. Again, it’s difficult to interpret. We don’t know what the intentions or the policies of the department might be in the future in this respect. This affords the public the ability to know exactly what that term will mean. Thank you. [Motion on amendment A10 lost] MRS. SLOAN: Mr. Chairman, I’m pleased to introduce my 11th amendment, that Bill 32 be amended in

section 6 in the proposed

section 5.3 by striking out clause (

b) and substituting the following: (

b) one vehicle, regardless of value, that is adapted to accommo- date the handicap of the person who applies for or receives a handicap benefit.

May 12, 1999 Alberta Hansard 1693 Again, Mr. Chairman, as the bill is currently proposed, this

section is left to regulations, and the description of the vehicle as the act is written currently is not clear. If a lawyer, a respective recipient of AISH was looking at this bill and its application, they would not be afforded the clarity of how this is defined. So it’s our desire to make that clear in this respect. I would suggest that, again, it is something which would afford the government more transparency if they were compelled to support it. Thank you very much. [Motion on amendment A11 lost] THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview. MRS. SLOAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My 12th amendment . . . THE CHAIRMAN: Can I interrupt you for a moment? We don’t appear to have that yet. MRS. SLOAN: All right. Here it is. My apologies, Mr. Chairman. It’s coming. I’ll speak generally while it’s being circulated. Again, the intent is to provide clarity, Mr. Chairman. As I’ve indicated in the two previous amendments, there are a number of particular areas in this

section of the act that are left to regulations. The current

section reads: Where the Director, in calculating under

section 4 or 5.2 the value of the assets of a person and the person’s spouse, determines that, in the opinion of the Director, an a sset has been given, transferred or otherwise disposed of to another person for less than its fair market value for the purpose of establishing or maintaining a person’s eligibility for a handicap benefit, the Director shall deem the asset to be owned by the person or th e person’s spouse, as the case may be. The intent of the amendment, Mr. Chairman, is to make that determination of value.

That determination would be made “by 2 financial advisors who are not employees of the Crown,” because again, the director is going to be someone who operates directly under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Family and Social Services. We know that a tight-fisted polic y exists with respect to that ministry, and we want to afford these citizens the ability to have the assessment of assets made independent of the government, inde- pendent of the policies, and that those would be made such that a fair market value assessment would be achieved.

It does reduce the authority of the director, but I think the gain is that the citizens are receiving a more accountable process in their respect. Thank you. 10:20 THE CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question? The hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo. MR. DICKSON: I’m sorry; were you calling the question on the amendment, Mr. Chairman? THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. MR. DICKSON: That’s fine. THE CHAIRMAN: There was a member standing, and I didn’t know whether the member was wishing to speak to this or not. MR. DICKSON: All right. That’s fine. I’ll forgo the chance to speak on this amendment.

Thank you. [Motion on amendment A12 lost] THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview. MRS. SLOAN: Thanks, Mr. Chairman. We are endeavouring to try and provide the further amendments, recognizing that the pages will soon be leaving us. We’ll endeavour to get those things to the table right away. The next amendment is intended to address a particular

section of the act that basically is an ambiguous component of the act where currently, depending on why a client was cut off, that client may or may not be considered for rapid reinstatement. Now, we’re aware that the minister of social services has attempted to give repetitive reassurances that rapid reinstatement will be a paramount policy, but in fact when you look at the details, Mr. Chairman, it’s really not that clear. We want to ensure, again, that there’s transparency about how this is going to be applied. I would read the amendment, then, that Bill 32 be amended in

section 11 in the proposed

section 13(1) by striking out clause (

h) and substituting the following: (

h) respecting the reinstatement of eligibility of persons who received a handicap benefit but became ineligible due to any of the following circumstances: (

i) an increase in income, (ii) an increase in th e value of assets, or iii) commencement of employment. Really, in essence what we’re attempting to ensure is that if in fact the person had become ineligible due to any of those circumstances, then reinstatement would be an unquestionable consideration. I would move amendment A13, Mr. Chairman. [Motion on amendment A13 lost] THE CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview. MRS. SLOAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to move amendment A14. I believe that one is in the process of being distributed. Yes? Thank you. I move that Bill 32 be amended in

section 11 in the proposed

section 13(1)(

b) by adding “continued and future” after “determining the person’s.” Now, this is referenced to the eligibility

section of the act and, specifically, to the eligib ility in terms of the definition of eligibility. We again are attempting to ensure by this amendment that there is transparency. As the government is aware, this

section speaks about the determination of that eligibility by regulation. Now, the bill as it currently r eads makes the infe rence that the eligibility will be determined by regulation, and we want to clarify that “continued and future” is a component of that and in that respect, Mr. Chairman, thereby allow the applicants of AISH to have that security in consideration of this section. Thank you. [Motion on amendment A14 lost] MRS. SLOAN: Mr. Chairman, I would move amendment A15 this evening, and I will read it into the record. I move that Bill 32 be amended in

section 11 in the proposed

section 13(1)(

e) by adding “under

section 5.3 and the regulations” after “that is exempt.” Now, this

section is the same

section that we were dealing with in the previous amendment, which the opposition supports amending to provide for that transparency. Here in this particular area, 13(1)(e), the current

section reads: “respecting the requirements and procedures for conversion of an asset that is not exempt to an asset that is exempt.” Again, that is something, Mr. Chairman, that’s going to be determined by regulation. We would like to add to that

1694 Alberta Hansard May 12, 1999

section “under

section 5.3 and the regulations.” We’re adding that after the words “that is exempt,” thereby ensuring that the applica- tion of the

section is going to be linked to 5.3 in this respect. So with those thoughts, Mr. Chairman, I am hopeful that we’ll receive the support of the Assembly and my own caucus on this amendment. Thank you. [Motion on amendment A15 lost] MRS. SLOAN: Well, we’re being consistent, Mr. Chairman. Amendment A16. I move that Bill 32 be amended in

section 11 in the proposed

section 13(1)(

f) by adding “of a person or that person’s spouse” after “ownership of trust.” Now, again in this particular area, Mr. Chairman, we are speaking about regulations, particularly the power of the director to deem income from or ownership of trust. So the amendment in effect would cause this to read “respecting the power of the Director to deem income from or ownership of a trust of a person or that person’s spouse.” 10:30 In speaking back to those comments that I made earlier, we view it as being important that the act respect the ability for a person or that person’s spouse to receive income from that trust.

As the bill is currently proposed, the clarity as to how that would apply both to the recipient and whether or not the spouse of the recipient is a consider- ation is not clear, so this would provide that additional clarification, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. [Motion on amendment A16 lost] THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview. MRS. SLOAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to move my 17th amendment to Bill 32. I move that the bill be amended in

section 13 in the proposed

section 15(1) by striking out “one year” and substituting “six months.” Now, in this section, which is in the latter part of the bill, we are talking about the requirements that the director must begin a review of this act within five years and, in this particular section, that the director would have a period of one year to submit it to the minister. Having commissioned a few reports, I don’t think there’s any excuse for someone needing a year to compile a review and make that submission to the minister.

In fact, I think the record of the government is such that there is undue and unnecessary delay, many times, in the submission of reports and the tabling of those reports publicly in the Assembly. Really what this clause in the act does now is just allow for further delay and extension of that. I think the six months is more than sufficient time for a review to be completed, for that report to be made to the minister, and for the minister then to forthwith table the report in the Assembly. Thank you. THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo. MR.

DICKSON: If there are no government members that wish to follow up, there certainly are some comments I wanted to make about this. You know, this is an area where, when you think about it, there’s this five-year opportunity for people to determine how this act is working. One would think they would have identified in the course of that review a number of concerns. Frankly, I wish it were not the director doing the review but a select special committee of the Legislature.

There are other vehicles that could have been selected, but my colleague for Edmonton-Riverview I think has offered a very conservative amendment which I don’t think anyone could find fault with because it’s totally within the control of the director of a department to decide what this review is going to embrace. When we look at the sorry history in this Legislature in recent years of reports that have been done that take such a long time to see action on, I think frankly this sole of a shoe to the seat of the pants kind of amendment we’re offered here might in fact expedite the process.

We’re talking about some of the most vulnerable people in the province of Alberta. If there were any group that would warrant an accelerated time from end of review until the report being produced, this is it. This is an in-house thing. This is what I find so perplexing. It’s not a select special committee. It’s not some independent agency. This is a group of people that works for the Minister of Family and Social Services. Why would they need an entire year to complete the review? One would hope the minister, if he were on his toes and doing his job, would be monitori ng concerns on an ongoing basis.

Because it’s an in-house review, there’s absolutely no justification for the length of time that’s required. So I appreciate that my colleague from Edmonton-Riverview has come forward and suggested a way of reducing that to six months. You know, it also does something else, Mr. Chairman. I think it sends a powerful signal to those people working in the carrels and the desks of the Department of Family and Social Services that the Legislature wants to see that report, that it’s important that it come into the Legislature as quickly as possible.

I thought there might be one other reason why some government members may be inclined to resist, and that is that I’ve always had the suspicion that this government would really like to operate like the Montana legislature. Their notion is that you elect a handful of extremely wealthy people who are prepared to work for, in some cases, next to a dollar a year. They come together for I think about a month and a half out of 12. That may have changed, Mr. Chair- man, but it was amazing when I talked to one of these Montana legislators: a very radically different perspective on elected represen- tation.

It may be that some members opposite would like to emulate the Montana model. Not to suggest that we need go to the other extreme. We don’t have to sit for 260 days a year, but we can certainly do better than 46, 47, or 50 days in an entire year. There are plenty of questions to be asked. The Provincial Treasurer alone could justify probably 40 days a year of rigorous questioning on his activities and his departmental activities. Advanced Education could be another 25 days. In any event, I’m getting a bit far afield, Mr. Chairman.

I guess I just had to unburden myself of those concerns about timeliness of reports. Seriously, I think this is a valuable amendment. In fact, as I think about it, I wish this were an external review. But it’s not. It’s an internal review. So let’s at least make sure it’s done and reported as quickly as possible. Six months should afford ample time to be able to do that, Mr. Chairman, so I’m happy to support the amendment. From looking around and seeing the eagerness on the faces of many, I think there’s going to be a number anxious to rise to their feet on this one.

Thank you very much. [Motion on amendment A17 lost] MRS. SLOAN: Mr. Chairman, so much for swift accountability in the government of Alberta, or any accountability for that matter.

May 12, 1999 Alberta Hansard 1695 10:40 In my 18th amendment this evening, I move that Bill 32 be amended in

section 13 in the proposed

section 15(1) by striking out “5 years” and substituting “2 years.” Now, this is yet another stone in my arsenal with respect to this government’s lack of accountabil- ity. They are proposing that fundamental changes to a program be made, and there won’t be a review for five years even when some of those changes are going to have a direct effect on the assets, the eligibilities, the powers of the director to narrow, potentially, the application of people to AISH. They’re going to make all those changes, Mr. Chairman, and then they’re going to wait five years to do an assessment.

Well, as we saw in the welfare reforms this government imposed in the early ’90s, in five years’ time the most vulnerable had left the province. Then when an examination was done independent of government as to where all those people went, it was very difficult to establish where in fact they left to go to. Many did go to other provinces, because they could find the basic supports to live in those provinces that they could not find in Alberta. But in five years’ time, Mr.

Chairman, I would suggest to you that if the nature of the reforms is as harsh in some areas as I believe it may be, we are going to see a component of the population of our disabled population that’s going to say: to heck with this province; advantaged or not, I don’t care to live in a society that chooses not to extend entitlements to assist or only chooses to extend those entitlements if I attempt to work even though it may not be in my physical or psychological or mental interests, or in the interests of my well-being, to be attempt- ing to work on a daily basis.

In essence, the changes that are being proposed are making that employability a fundamental plank in this program, and regardless of whether someone’s disability is incapacitating on a daily basis, a weekly basis, or a permanent basis, there’s going to be an expecta- tion in both overt and subtle forms that people on AISH will attempt to find employment. Many want to, and many will be willing to go that route, Mr. Chairman, but I’ve spoken to many people on AISH who suffer from conditions that render them on some days almost completely incapacitated, and on other days they appear and function quite normally.

It’s very difficult, I would suggest, for employers to modify their needs, their workplaces, or their require- ments to incorporate that fluctuation in functioning. I don’t understand why we would need to take five years. Maybe the government was looking at their election

schedule and thought: “Well, if we do this right before the next election, we won’t have to do it again until 2005 roughly. By that time we should have another election under our belt.” You know, it’ll be a case of keeping the public in the dark, so to speak, about exactly how these changes have affected the citizens who need them most directly. I think a two-year proposal is a reasonable one. Again, it’s a much, much more timely assessment process that I think could be incorporated.

If you think about it, all rumours suggest probably an election next year, so the review wouldn’t be happening until the year after that. There really doesn’t need to be any reservation about having this kind of review public. Two years certainly is going to well establish how the changes in the programs affect the AISH recipients. If the government is alive to their needs and the effect the changes may have detrimentally to them, I would suggest they want to do it in a timely fashion. We have many public offices: the office of the Ombudsman, the office of the Auditor General.

I can’t say the office of the Children’s Advocate because I haven’t seen a report of that office tabled for as long as I’ve been in the Legislature, Mr. Chairman. It is fairly common that the Auditor General and the Ombudsman report on an annual basis, and I would suggest that the Minister of Family and Social Services with respect to the AISH review should follow that similar pattern. If that were the case, I think he’d receive the support of citizens in that regard. The proposed review time, again, was not something the govern- ment talked to Albertans about. It wasn’t a question in the survey.

It wasn’t a question, to my knowledge, in the consultations. So the rationale or justification is not there. I think, Mr. Chairman, that we are in a position tonight to do that, to make it such that we can truly understand what these changes will bring, and in that hope, I’m pleased to conclude my remarks. Thank you. THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo. MR. DICKSON: Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. On this amendment I have a couple of things I want to reflect on.

You know, the other night we decided on Bill 37, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, that we were going to review that act not in five years but in three years to see how it was working. Why was that? Because the cities, the municipalities, the universities, the colleges, the lo cal government bodies wanted an opportunity to have some input in terms of how this new act was going to work as it rolled out. Now, how is it that we think it’s important enough that we respond to the concerns of the city of Calgary, that does not lack for effective advocates?

The Leader of the Official Opposition has been accused of being the best advocate the city of Calgary has. True as that is, I mean the point is, those cities have other ways of getting the government’s ear. The people who are on AISH don’t have that opportunity. So if we were looking for some kind of corresponding parody – if the city of Calgary can’t wait five years to be able to have input on changes to FOIP, how is it that we say to people on AISH, arguably one of the most vulnerable groups of Albertans, that they can wait five years until we see how this impacts? The other point I wanted to make, Mr.

Chairman, with as much emphasis as I can at practically 11 o’clock at night, is that it is fundamentally important, I think, that we recognize there have been 17 solid amendments that have come before this Assembly this evening, 17 amendments I was proud to vote for. You know something, Mr. Chairman? When you spend some time as a lawyer in the courtroom, you spend a lot of time reading the cues on the face of the judge. You spend a lot of time studying that judge because you’re trying to find out whether you’re going uphill or you’re going downhill. I want you to know, Mr.

Chairman, not that I have any particular expertise, but I’ve had experience in this area, and I’ve been studying the faces of members. I have seen wincing, I have seen squirming, and I have seen acute discomfort as we’ve been dealing with amendments. It’s a kind of discomfort that comes from people that hear a good argument and recognize in their heart of hearts that it’s a darn solid argument, but they’re handcuffed by their whips. They’re handcuffed by this rigid party discipline, and they can’t do what their constituents would want them to do.

So I say on this amendment, hon. members, through the chair: let’s recognize that this is your last chance for all of us to redeem ourselves for having nixed 17 excellent amendments. In this one vote at least we can say: we may have screwed up tonight, we may have made a colossal mistake by defeating 17 excellent amend- ments, but, by gosh, we’re going to allow a chance to review it, and we’re only going to have to wait two years for that opportunity. Is that too much to ask for?

Is this too onerous for the Minister of Family and Social Services, too onerous that he can’t put his little handpicked group of people in his own department for pete’s sake? This isn’t a group of outside experts. These are people collecting a paycheque from the Minister of Family and Social Services.

1696 Alberta Hansard May 12, 1999 10:50 So, Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that seems to me – you know, on this bill we’ve hardly begun to debate in this Assembly. I look here at bills in this Asse mbly. You know, on this particular Bill 32 we came in having debated only 2.97 hours on a bill that is going to be one of the most significant bills in the lives of 23,000 people in Alberta who are currently on AISH and several thousand more who are medically recognized as requiring it but can’t get it. They meet the medical test, but they can’t get it.

So we’ve added to the 2.97 hours – what? – an hour and a half we’ve spent on this? We started about 8:30, and here we are almost at 11 o’clock. So this is not very much time, hon. members. Let’s at least signal to these 23,000 people that we are sufficiently concerned about their needs that we’re not going to wait five years, that we’re going to move in two years to review to find out whether this program is working, and if not, why not, and then take remedial action. I think we have an obligation to do that. We’ve turned down darn good amendments tonight.

Here’s a face-saving way to back into some of those g ood amendments: by deferring them two years, which is hurtful but better than delaying them five years. So I urge all members to support this particular amendment, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much. THE CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question? We have for our consideration amendment A18 to Bill 32 as proposed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview. All those in support of amend- ment A18, please say aye. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye. THE CHAIRMAN: Those opposed, please say no. SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

THE CHAIRMAN: Defeated. [Several members rose calling for a division. The division bell was rung at 10:53] [One minute having elapsed, the committee divided] [Mr.

Tannas in the chair] For the motion: Carlson Nicol Sloan Dickson Olsen Soetaert MacDonald Sapers White Massey Against the motion: Boutilier Fritz Renner Broda Hancock Shariff Calahasen Hierath Stelmach Cardinal Hlady Stevens Coutts Laing Tarchuk Day Langevin Taylor Doerksen McFarland Woloshyn Dunford Melchin Yankowsky Evans Nelson Zwozdesky Fischer Pham Totals: For – 10 Against – 29 [Motion on amendment A18 lost] THE CHAIRMAN: I wonder if we might briefly revert to Introduc- tion of Guests? All those in support of that? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. THE CHAIRMAN: Opposed? The hon.

Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. head: Introduction of Guests (reversion) MS CARLSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I see that we are once again joined by the very dedicated representative of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society. He has in fact joined us every evening this week until the House has been adjourned in the early hours of the morning, and he continues here this evening – and it will be late again – hoping that Bill 15, the Natural Heritage Act, will once again come up for debate. I’m hoping, I think, once again in vain.

I would ask that Sam Gunsch please stand and receive the traditional warm welcome of this Assembly. Bill 32 Assured Income for the Severely Handicapped Amendment Act, 1999 (continued) THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glenora. MR. SAPERS: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. The Assured Income for the Severely Handicapped Amendment Act, Bill 32.

I had a brief opportunity to speak to my concerns regarding this bill earlier in debate, but there was one area that I did not have a chance to speak to, and that was because I was aware my colleague from Edmonton-Riverview was to propose an amendment to deal with this concern. This is a concern that I think is so fundamental and really speaks so much to what may be lacking in the heart and soul of the government when it proposes something like this that I would be doing my constituents a disservice if I did not put this on the record on their behalf. 11:00 Mr.

Chairman, when I first read this bill – of course you start right at the very beginning, and

section 2 is the

preamble. The last clause of the

preamble reads:

Whereas the Government of Alberta is committed to balancing the needs of persons who receive handicap benefits with accountability to the taxpayers of Alberta. Now, I was hoping that the amendment would have received the favour of the House, and of course it didn’t. I know that it violates the rules for me to redebate the amendment, but I’m in a quandary because thinking that the persuasive arguments from my colleague would compel the House to do the right thing, I chose to not include my comments earlier at second reading. The fact that this

section hasn’t been amended now, Mr. Chairman, creates the dilemma. When the government of Alberta started to put

preambles into its legislation, I applauded that. I think that a well-crafted

preamble

section is a good thing. It helps provide guidance to the citizens. It helps provide guidance to the members of the Legislature. It helps provide guidance to any who would have to be in a position to interpret the will of the Legislatur e, courts.

Preambles, I think, should be a permanent feature of legislation. But I note that there are many bills which provide entitlement programs which don’t contain

preambles, and in particular many of the health care statutes that make up the law in this province don’t contain

preambles.

May 12, 1999 Alberta Hansard 1697 If we were to follow the example of the

preamble in Bill 32 and apply that, for example, to the Alberta Health Care Insurance Act or to any of the legislation that speaks to what Albertans may expect from their government, what we would see in one of those bills would be words to the effect of “whereas the government of Alberta would like to provide the minimum amount of medical care necessary that is consistent with protecting the interests of the taxpayers, the following will happen.” That’s what we have in this bill. We have a statement that says right in the

preamble so it is paramount that people in Alberta who would otherwise we would believe be entitled to receive income s upport would only do so as long as the accountability to the taxpayers of Alberta comes first. Now, I have to be careful going down this road, Mr. Chairman, because I’m not speaking against accountability, and I think that the Official Opposition, this member and my colleagues, have made it very clear where we stand on accountability. In fact, the Treasurer has gone on record actually being complimentary about suggestions that we’ve made regarding performance measures.

So I don’t think there can be any debate where we stand on the issue of accountabil- ity. But to insert the concept of account ability in this way in this act is almost sinister. It’s almost sinister, because what it suggests is that what we will do is make the assumption that the people who would otherwise be receiving AISH entitlements, income s upport, really don’t deserve it, and we’re going to in a miserly, Scrooge-like fashion give them as little as we can while we can still pretend that we’re doing the right thing.

But what we’re really doing as a government is we’re going to make sure that we’ve squeezed every penny to make sure that there is absolute certainty that not one of these people is doing anything that could be construed as exceeding survival. So what this implies, Mr.

Chai rman, is that the government of Alberta doesn’t believe that men and women who are receiving income support through AISH should be entitled to any recreation: they should be en titled to no expense other than that which is absolutely necessary to put a roof of whatever quality over their head and enough food in their bellies to help them get through to the next day. Now, I don’t think that that is the hallmark of a compassionate, forward-thinking, modern government. I don’t think that’s good enough for Alberta.

I don’t think it’s good enough in this province, with one of the most robust economies on the f ace of the globe, to be putting a category of citizens into that kind of a position and setting them apart in a way from the rest of the community and saying: we’re going to watch every penny that you spend to make sure you don’t get any enjoyment out of it, because that would mean that somehow we’re not being accountable, and we’re going to make sure that we keep those payments down so low so that we never have to explain to a constituent or a taxpayer that anything other than sustenance is being provided.

That’s not leadership, Mr. Chairman. I find this

preamble to be, in my mind, the embodiment of so much of what separates this government from the people of Alberta and so much of what separates this government from what a Liberal government would be. I think that the role of a government is to act in the public good first and foremost. Sometimes that means taking some leadership and standing up to the most strident voices, which aren’t necessarily the majority voices. One of the things I’ve learned is that sometimes the people that are yelling the l oudest represent nobody but themselves. So I would urge the government to think very carefully about what words they choose to insert into

preambles, because I think they give away some of their secrets when they use language like this. I think the ugly side of this administration comes through when we see words like this inserted into the

preamble of a bill that is supposed to be designed to provide assurance to some of our most vulnerable citizens. [The clauses of Bill 32 agreed to] [Title and

preamble agreed to] THE CHAIRMAN: Shall the bill be reported? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. THE CHAIRMAN: Opposed? Carried. 11:10 Bill 28 Alberta Corporate Tax Amendment Act, 1999 THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any comments, questions, or amend- ments to be proposed with respect to this act? The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glenora. MR. SAPERS: Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman.

Generally speaking, as I’ve indicated, the Official Opposition is in support of this tax amendment act, and I have had a brief opportunity to discuss it with the Treasurer in the hallways, and his departmental staff have been helpful in providing some information. Through you to the Treasurer, one of the things that we haven’t received, is the numbers which indicate that this is truly a revenue- neutral change in terms of broadening the base and lowering the rate. We had asked for that information. I’m hopeful that we’ll still get that sometime before this bill leaves committee.

Now, we do have some concerns that I think should be addressed, even though, as I say, in general I support the bill. The application of financial institutions capital ta x to Treasury Branches is some- thing that the Treasury Branch is not particularly afraid of in terms of being on a level playing field, but you know, the Treasury Branch is not a bank right now, and any change that comes to the Treasury Branch of course will probably come in the context of a much larger change. I don’t think it’ll just be a change in their tax status. I would suspect that there would be some other issues.

The same is true for credit unions. Credit unions right now pay a maximum of a hundred dollars in terms of a capital tax, and the government has given itself some new flexibility in this bill when it comes to a change in the status of credit unions. One of the issues there of course is that in the MacKay task force and in other places, we’ve seen some recommendations that credit unions perhaps should become chartered institutions. That would change their entire structure in terms of deposit guarantee, capital reserves and hence their taxation status and what it is that they would be taxed on.

We have some concern that the government would make this change in status for credit unions but would do so simply by a ministerial order or an order in council. That causes us some concern because of the credit unions – and I’m not sure I have the numbers exactly right. I believe there are something like 83 credit unions th at are still operating in the province of Alberta. I think that their asset base – I’m not even going to venture a guess anymore, but there are credit unions operating in hundreds of communities.

There are credit unions that deal with Albertans who in many cases made a specific choice to deal with a credit union because of what they represent: local control, community-based boards, membership equity, all of those things. So the more the government begins to treat credit unions like another bank, unfortunately probably the more credit unions are

1698 Alberta Hansard May 12, 1999 going to start behaving like other banks, and I think that might erode the relationship the credit unions have between themselves and their clientele. So I don’t think it would be appropriate to change their status for tax purposes by this subordinate procedure. I think it should probably come through full debate and the proposal made here in this Chamber. So because of those two general concerns, Mr. Chairman, what I would like to do is propose two amendments, and perhaps we can conspire together to call this first amendment A1. The first amend- ment would be an amendment to the proposed

section 97. It would be that “subsection (7) shall not be repealed until public consultation has occurred.” I’ll have this distributed. THE CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, do you have the original for the official records? MR. SAPERS: It might be somewhere in that stack, Mr. Chairman. I know that I’ve seen the original. THE CHAIRMAN: Just like the Easter bunny has been here; right? Would you like to move it and read it? MR. SAPERS: As I was saying, I’d move the following, that Bill 28 be amended in

section 16 in proposed

section 97 by adding the following after subsection (7): “(7.1) Subsection (7) shall not be repealed until public consultation has occurred.” The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that any decision to increase the capital tax liability of credit unions beyond the current maximum of $100 per credit union is debated and approved by the Legislative Assembly. Under the proposed changes outlined in Bill 28, the government could through the proclamation of the repeal section, that being

section 97(8), increase the capital tax liability of credit unions. In essence this means that cabinet could simply pass an order in council to proclaim the repeal

section without engaging in consultation with stakeholders or receiving the scrutiny of the Legislative Assembly. The Official Opposition supports a level playing field for financial institutions in this province, but we believe fundamental changes to capital tax liability of credit unions should be debated in the Legislative Assembly through the introduction of

an act rather than through the use of a cabinet decision. Mr. Chairman, the Treasurer was recently in Ottawa. We know that because of the photographs of he and his son roller-blading around capitol hill. While he was there, I understand that he made an appearance in front of a group and made a presentation regarding taxation, and depending on which newspaper account you read, he may or may not have had some advice for the Ontario government regarding taxation. But one thing we do know is that this Treasurer is proud of the taxation initiatives that he has taken, and in many cases he’s rightfully proud.

There are some innovative initiatives. I have some issue with the timing and some issue with the priorities, but that not withstanding, the Treasurer is certainly staking out a fair bit of ground based on his taxation policies. I note that the Treasurer is being very public about these taxation policies. For example, we saw I think just yesterday another speculation that the tax relief promis ed to Albertans in Budget ’99 could come sooner than originally anticipated.

So certainly there is no hesitation on the part of the Treasurer or this government as a whole to be very public about its proposals for taxes, in fact to be so public, Mr. Chairman, that they’ll talk about them over and over and over again, even if it sounds like reannouncing the same old thing. I think really what they’re trying to do is just make sure the public is fully informed. I’m certain they’re not trying as a government to give the impression that any tax reform is cumulative and additive.

So with that in mind, knowing the predilection of this government to speak to tax changes and for bringing tax reform forward through the budget and through the throne sp eech and by intr oducing taxpayer protection legislation as flagship bills for the government, it just seems to me that it would be consistent for this government to come into the Chamber and say: “We are now going to affect the tax base and rate for Alberta’s credit unions. We’re going to do this in a way that we think is fair, and we’re going to do this in a way that levels the playing field.

We’re going to do this in a way that doesn’t meet with any disagreement from credit unions, and we’re going to do this in a way that is really a benefit to the economy.” They’re so certain of all of these positives, they’re prepared to put, I guess it would be, our money where their mouth is. In any case, they’re prepared to put it on the line and come in with a bill that the public can see and hear and understand, and they’re going to have full debate in the full light of day in the Legislative Assembly of Alberta. So surprise, surprise, Mr. Chairman, they didn’t do that.

Instead of moving forward with the potential for tax change on these credit unions, that operate from one corner of this province to another, that have been providing financial services to Albertans with a high degree of certainty for years, this government has chosen to allow itself the luxury of changing the taxation status of these financial institutions in secret, to do so by order in council. 11:20 You know, Mr. Chairman, I could see another amendment coming down the road, an amendment that would say: all regulations out of this act should be referred to the Standing Committee on Law and Regulations.

But having been in this Chamber now for about six years and having proposed that kind of amendment to many government bills myself and spoken to that amendment so many times, it’s finally beginning to dawn on me that this government doesn’t want to see regulations debated by the Standing Committee on Law and Regulations. I don’t think they want to see that happen. I don’t know why. Mr. Chairman, we go through this – I guess you’d have to call it a charade – at the beginning of every legislative session.

The Government House Leader stands up and with great fanfare – you can almost hear the trumpets blaring – says: now we’d like to move a motion to appoint the following members to the Standing Commit- tee on Law and Regulations, one of the few committees that must exist by law; we’re going to appoint this member and that member. Then, you know, they even appoint a chairman. They even appoint a chairman, and then they ignore that chairman and they ignore those hon. members on that committee. Most hurtfully, they ignore me every time I propose that amendment. So I’m trying to do it differently this time.

Instead of proposing that amendment at this point – Parliamentary Counsel, if you’d please note that – I thought I would just look for the one that’s really troublesome, well, one of two actually, and bring it forward this way and encourage the government just to, darn it all anyway, do the right thing, to just put all the partisan stuff aside and forget about the rhetoric that surrounds the Standing Comm ittee on Law and Regulations and put it on the table. If they are going to affect the tax status of credit unions in this province, put it in the bill. Don’t do it through a subordinate, backdoor process.

Don’t do it in secret. Don’t do it in such a way that would raise people’s speculation that something untoward was happening. Put it in the bill. That way we can have public consultation. That way Albertans won’t feel hoodwinked. We’re talking about taxes. Even if these are taxes that are paid by a corporate entity, you know who’s going to foot the bill, and

May 12, 1999 Alberta Hansard 1699 particularly with credit unions because it’s going to come out of the members’ equity or is going to be recovered in the form of service charges or something. Ultimately, even though it’s a form of corporate taxation, Mr. Chairman, it’s you and me and our neigh- bours and our constituents who are going to be footing the bill, so let’s debate it. Put it in the bill and let’s debate it. Let’s make sure that there’s appropriate public consultation. So I hope that the government’s intent is not to do something that would be so bad that they want it to be done in secret.

I hope this doesn’t mean that the government has something up their sleeve. I would hope that it was simply an oversight, and this helpful amendment from the opposition is a mechanism to correct the oversight that would allow a debate on taxation to be done in public instead of in private. So with those very few comments on this amendment, I’ll yield the floor to others who may have an opinion on this topic. THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. MS CARLSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m speaking in support of this amendment to Bill 28.

I’m rather surprised that we don’t have the Provincial Treasurer speaking to this amendment and giving us his opinion on the reasons why . . . MR. DAY: Give me a chance. MS CARLSON: Don’t say: give me a chance. Mr. Chairman, he had an opportunity to get up and speak, and we know that you would have recognized him after my colleague for Edmonton-Glenora because you are always fair and just in recognitions in this House. We would have anticipated nothing less than that.

But the Provin- cial Treasurer sat there with his head down, not choosing to enter into debate at all, which is funny because there he sits with his jacket off, giving the appearance – yes, I’m getting to the amendment – that he is willing and ready to enter into debate and to do some work tonight. Mr. Chairman, the appearance of moving forward and doing some work has a lot to do with the reason why we need this amendment to this bill.

This bill gives the appearance of moving forward and doing something progressive, but when you really get down to the brass tacks of what we see here, in fact we don’t think that’s really going to happen, just like the Provincial Treasurer wouldn’t enter into the debate when it really got down to the deciding issues. Also, in this bill they won’t be taking care of credit unions, Mr. Chairman, so it’s left to us to do that job.

My colleague has reviewed the information and taken a look and has seen, as he says and as is often the case with this government, that we’re going to see decisions being made in secret, behind closed doors, by regulation, not in the open forum where people have an opportunity to debate them. So we’re required to brin g in this amendment in order to properly represent the concerns of the people of this province and to ensure the long-term viability and level playing field for credit unions in this pr