May 6, 2003 Alberta Hansard 1469 Legislative Assembly of Alberta Title: Tuesday, May 6, 2003 8:00 p.m. Date: 2003/05/06 hea d: C omm ittee o f Sup ply [Mr. Tannas in the chair] The Chair: I’d like to call the Committee of Supply to order. As is the rule norm ally w ith comm ittees, w e’ll only have one pe rson standing and talking at a time. head : Main Esti mates 2003-04 Community Development The Chair: Are there any comments, questions to be offered with respect to this? The hon. Minister of Community Development. Mr. Zwozdesky: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Prior to beginning my remarks this evening, I would like to table with the Asse mbly the appropriate number of copies of the translation for that portion of my speech during which I’ll be discussing the Francophone Secretariat. I realize that ma y be a bit unu sual, but wi th your per mission I wanted to assist Hansard and oth er m embers here with my brief comments in that regard. Thank you very much. I’d like to begin by tabling these copies and by introducing some very special guests that I have t he privilege to work with. In our gallery: Dr. Bill Byrne – please rise; he’s our deputy minister – Mr.

Rai Batra, our as sistant de puty m inister in s trategic corporate services; and in that same area, Darlene Andruchuk. Thank you very much and, as well, thank you to my staff who are listening else - where. Mr. Chairm an, I’m really, tr uly honoured a nd pleased a nd privileged to have the opportunity to present the three-year business plan and the budge t estimates for 2003-2 004 for t he Ministry of Community Development.

I ’ll begin straightaway by turning my attention to the budget for ’03-04, which shows $647 million in total expenditures and reflects an increase of approximately 11 percent, or $65 million, from last year’s forecast. Funding to the persons with developmental disabilities boards, or PDD as we commonly refer to them, will increase by $37 million, or 9 percent, for a total PDD budget of $443 million in ’03-04.

This will provide for growth in the number of PDD recipients, it’ll assist also with salary increases for public service and contracted agencies, and it will accommodate growth in the complexity of individual cases. It is my sincere hope that it will also help speed up our intake and assessment process with the intention of minimizing any waiting times that certain individuals may be experiencing in certain parts of the province.

We try to ensure that the 8,500 PDD recipients that we serve will have the opportunity to participate in the social, economic, cultural, and comm unity life of ou r province to the largest extent possible, and I believe we are succeeding in that objective. It should be noted, Mr. Chairman, that last year 94 percent of those individu- als receiving PDD services reported satisfaction with services being provided.

Another program area t hat we’re particul arly pr oud of is the Alberta Brain Injury Networ k, whic h will re ceive a $2 million increase, for a total budget of $4.5 million in ’03-04 to help build on the success of last year, when a provincial network of support and outreach services to assist individuals with acquired brain injury was first established.

I was very pleased to attend th e first-ever annual Brain Injury Conference in Calgary on April 11, which marked the first time in Alberta’s history that survivors, family members, and service providers were given the opportunity to meet in a provincial conference fashion that was dedicated to brain injury issues. Mr. Chairman, we’re also ma king good progress in other areas within the broader disability portfolio. The gaps in service project, for example, is aimed at addressing the needs of disabled adults who do not fall i nto th e current responsibilities for PDD nor into the Alberta Brain Injur y Ne twork.

There is $348,000 in additional funding this year for the gaps in services project, bringing the total budget for the gaps piece alone up to $1.3 million. We’re also continuing our commitment to help the government in its ongoin g dialogu e with Albertans by prov iding quality co- ordinated and cost-e ffective com munication servic es, wit h the transfer of responsibility and a budget of $224,000 for deaf and hard- of-hearing contracts from PDD boards to the department. Now I’d like to briefly review funding that comes to us from the Alberta lottery fund.

Community De velopment’s 2003-04 budget includes a $19.8 million increase in funding from the Alberta lottery fund, and this total funding for my ministry from the Alberta lottery fund will now be ab out $ 76.1 million. This f unding supports provincial, regional, and comm unity-based organiz ations and individuals through Community Development’s five lottery-funded agencies.

The first of these five agencies is the Alberta Foundation for the Arts, wh ich will receive an increase of $7.9 million, for a total budget of $29.034 million directly from the Alberta lottery fund plus a further $500, 000 from other reve nue sources , for a to tal AFA budget of $29.528 million. I want to point out, Mr. Chairman, that this is the first increase in provincial arts funding in about 14 years. We are very pleased w ith t hat, and I want to than k all o f my colleagues for their support in that regard.

Of the $7.9 million increase I referenced, $2.9 million will be for arts orga nizations a nd individual a rtists, inc luding a $400,000 increase for Alberta’s major performing arts companies, which we commonly refer to as A MPAC. The AMPAC or ganizations are Alberta Ballet; Alberta T heatre Projects, Calgary; Calgary Opera; Calgary Philharmonic Orchestra; Citadel Theatre; Decidedly Jazz Danceworks, Calgary; Edmonton Opera; the Edmonton Symphony Orchestra; and Theatre Calgar y. Their t otal funding will ris e to $4.79 million this year.

An increase of $82,000 will go out to our eight provincial arts service organizations, which we refer to as the PASO group. These umbrella organizations provide s ervices to provincewide memberships within specific arts disciplines. We also provide financial support for summer schools under this category. So the total program budget for this area will rise to $1.392 million.

The third area of increase here will be an additional $559,000 for what we call project grants, which will amount to a total budget in this category of $1.74 million to assist approximately 600 individual artists and to enable the AFA to offer grants that are more appropri- ate for today’s cost for art production. The fourth and final area of increased arts funding will be for the Alberta film development program, whose budget will be doubled from $5 million t o $10 million f or 2003-2004. This fu nding will support Alberta’s growing creative film and video community.

More specifically, this incre ase w ill help e nsure that film producers, individual artists, and related arts groups will continue to hav e the best possible opport unities to help the m grow and succeed within Alberta’s arts sector. The latest available information, Mr. Chair- man, demonstrat es the impact o f a very positive na ture on our provincial econ omy, which f or 2001-2002 shows 2,377 film production employment opportunities for Albertans. It also indicates 44 made-in-Alberta productions, totaling 53 million dollars’ worth of film p roduction by A lbertans in Alberta as a re sult of this program.

Preliminary information for 2002 -2003 shows about 70

1470 Alberta Hansard May 6, 2003 million plus dollars in film production res ulting from our AFDP program. I will now address the $2. 6 million inc rease that will g o to the Alberta Sport, Recr eation, Parks & Wildlife Foundation, w hich is the second of our five lottery-funded agencies and whose total budget will rise to $17.67 million directly from the Alberta lottery fund plus a further $2 million from other revenue sources, for a total budget of $19.62 million.

This will include an increase of more than $1 million in support for Alberta’s provincial sport and recreation associations and will also provide annual operating support to seven additional sport and recreation groups that qualify for funding. As part of this $2.6 million increase the development initiatives program will increase by $184,475. The remaining increases will be allocated to various recreation and sport programs such as active living, future leaders, 3M national c oaching certification, the Nat ional Training Centre, provincial team selection and training, and amateur athletic games.

The third of our five lottery-funded agencies is the Alberta human rights, citizenship, and multiculturalism education fund, which will receive an increase of $203,000, for a total budget of $1.265 million directly from the Alberta lottery fund, plus a further $220,000 from other revenue sources, f or a total budg et of about $1.4 milli on. Project funding is provided to organizations that foster equality and promote fairness and access to help Albertans par ticipate in the social, cultural, and economic life of our province.

The result will be more grants to community organizations for primarily our vibrant ethnocultural community, which is increasingly diverse in size and nature. Additional educational programs a nd re sources w ill also be developed in the areas of diversity, multiculturalism, and women’s issues within my ministry. As the minister responsible I attend the federal/provincial/territorial meetings of ministers responsible for the status of women. We continue to work on issues of importance to women such as women’s economic equality, women’s health, and prevention of violence against women to mention a fe w.

At these meetings we also receive and share information about gender-based analysis, and we are continuin g our work on the chang ing work culture project. Later this fall, Mr.

Chairman, it will be my great pleasure to host the next FPT meeting of minister s responsible for the status of women, likely right here in Edmonton. 8:10 The fourth of our five lottery-funded agencies is the W ild Rose Foundation, which will receive an increase of about $1.2 million, for a total budget of $7.76 million directly from the Alberta lottery fund, plus a further $737,000 from other revenue sources, for a grand total budget of $8.5 million. This foundation, as we all know, exists to promote and assist volunteerism and to strengthen the relationship among voluntary sector leaders and government.

These additional moneys will help them to create and implement a series of training opportunities, tools, and innovative training methods and overall to strengthen the capacity of the voluntary sector in Alberta. Included in this foundation’s budget will be a $600,000 increase that will go to the new voluntary sector advancement program.

The f ifth of our f ive lotte ry-funded agenc ies is the Alberta Historical Resources Foundation, which will receive an increase of $1 million, f or a total budg et allocation of $6.94 m illion directly from the Alberta lottery fund, plus a further $216,00 0 from other revenue sources, for a grand total budget of $7.2 million. These moneys will go to heritage programs and will reflect an increase in annual operating funds for major provincial heritage organizations and f or pre servation p rojects.

An nual oper ating fund s that we provide for major provincial heritage associations now total almost $1.7 million and include Museums Alberta, the Archives Society of Alberta, the Albe rta Ge nealogical Society , the Arc haeological Society of Alberta, an d the Hist orical So ciety of A lberta. Also included in here is a $125,000 increase for the Glenbow Museum in Calgary. In fact, total funding for the Glenbow will now reach about $2.68 million in 2003-2004. I also need to mention, Mr. Chairman, that my ministry receives and distributes Alberta lottery funding for certain specific onetime projects.

For example, the city of Edmonton’s centennial project in 2004 is scheduled to receive $4.2 million over the next three years. The 2005 World Mas ters G ames, also hosted by Edm onton, are scheduled to receiv e up to $4 million from us over the next three years. Another example is the 2007 Western Canada Games, which will be held i n Alberta i n that same year. They will receive up to $1.5 million over the next four years. One other example in this area is the 2004 Arctic Winter Games, that will be hosted by the munici- pal district of Wood Buffalo, or Fort McMurray as most of us know it.

They will receive $500,000 from us, again courtesy of the Alberta lottery fund. Actually, there is one other very specific and significant event that I need to mention that we will be funding, and that is the Juno awards in Edmonton in April 2004. Our provincial contribution will be $250,000 for this first-time-in-Alberta event. I’d now like to address the Alberta 2005 centennial briefly, and I want to begin by pointing out that the bulk of the centennial legacy program funding w ill now be found in the Al berta Infrastructure budget, pages 228 and 299 of their estimates to be specific.

But it’s important to note, Mr. Chairman, that Community Development will continue to manage, administer, and otherwise oversee the centennial legacy grant projects for which we are responsible. This amounts to about $25 million that we’re looking at now that will be budgeted over two years for the centennial legacies grant program. On April 11 of this year I was pleased to announce 31 community-based and community-owned projects that will be receiving a tot al of $19.1 million over these next two years, and I anticipate making additional announcements later this year regarding the remaining allocations.

As wel l, governmen t-owned cen tennial projects will receive moneys for certain projects that include the Turner Valley gas plant historic site, Lougheed House in Calgary, the Provincial Archives in Edmonton, and a m ajor new and renew ed Provincial Museum of Alberta on its existing site in Edmonton. Several provincial parks will also receive centennial funding for improvements to interpretive centres. Other examples include the major renovations of the Jubilee auditoria in Edmonton and Calgary, which will result in very much improved facilities and a lasting legacy of our centennial year.

Over $32 million is budgeted in Alberta Infrastructure for this project over three years, which, again, my staf f and I will be helping oversee. The Provincial Museum of Alberta will add another very significant legacy to our p rovince’s history, res ulting in an i nternationally recognized facility of world-class standards. Of the approximately $15 million budgeted over the next three years, $1 million will be spent this year to formally begin the cons ultation and pre liminary design processes. I’d now like to turn briefly to public libraries.

Commu nity Development supports financially and otherwise 230 public libraries and seven library systems throughout our province. Operating grants for Alberta’s library board s and the seve n regi onal systems will increase by about $1.3 million thi s year, for a total librar y grant allocation of about $17.9 million. Mr. Chairman, this includes additional fund ing of about $730,000 plus $613,000 reallocated from funds held in previous years for estab lishment g rants and special projects. The increase that I’ve just alluded to really reflects a restoration

May 6, 2003 Alberta Hansard 1471 of the per ca pita funding amount tha t was reduced some 10 years ago, and I will acknowledge that it is not the inc rease we were all hoping for, but it is an increase nonetheless, and it is a positive start in addressing the increasing costs and needs of libraries throughout this province.

The incr ease spe cifically prov ides for per capita funding increases from $4.03 up to $4.29 for public library boards and an increase from $3.07 up to $3.22 for library system boards in conjunction with an adjustment for population growth using the most current statistics available, that being the 2002 population listing. Et maintenant en français. Le Secrétariat francophone a reçu une augmentation de budget de $110,000 d e la part du gouvernemen t fédéral à l’intention d’assister des communautés dans le proj et du Musée Provincial et celui des Archives Provinciales.

Le projet du Musée Provincial rendra accessible le programme des émissions du musée à la communauté francophone ainsi qu’aux écoles d’immer- sion en français. Le projet des Archives Provinciales vise à accroître les contributions de la communauté francophone aux collections. Il vise également à permettre la préservation et la documentation de l’histoire francophone afin de la rendre disponible aux travaux de recherche.

Merci beaucoup. [Translation] The Francophone Secretariat receives an increase of $110,000 in funding from the government of Canada for community- based initiatives, including the Provincial Museum project and the Provincial Archives. The Provincial Mu seum project wil l make programming at the museum available to school gr oups and tours from Francophone and French immersion schools.

The Provincial Archives project ai ms to inc rease the Francophone c ommunity’s contributions to the collections and help to preserve, document, and make Francophone history available for research. [as submitted] Parks and protected areas is a nother v ery s pecial ar ea wit hin Community Developm ent, and my de partment is revi ewing t he provision of services at select ed p rovincial parks and provincial recreation areas. We are negotiating the tra nsfer of some sites to local authorities or to local m unicipalities as an a lternative to closure.

A number of sites are being reviewed for potential divesti- ture to local municipalities, and the propose d transfers are largely sites that are recreational in nature and are of direct economic benefit to the local communities in which they are situated. This i s not a new initiative, because sites have be en successfully transferred to municipalities in the past. Mr.

Chairman, I do regret that we do not yet have the success we were hoping to have in attracting the new provincial dollars that we need to reinvest in our parks infrast ructure renewal and upgrading program, but I will remain optimistic about our pursuits in that regard. This year’s budget for this area is $29.36 million, or it could also be interpre ted as $4 6 mill ion if you look at the way those numbers come together because of some of the transfers and other obligations of a financial nature.

I know that I have a lot of work to do with my staff to maint ain and to im prove, where we can, our parks infrastructure needs because these parks and protected areas provide enormous benefits to our citizens and to the tourism industries. I want to qui ckly highlight a few c hanges to our business pla n. We conducted a major review, and the result is a business plan that is more strategic, less oper ational, and more va luable as a tool to guide program decisions.

The business plan also identifies relevant measures of progress toward achieving the ministry’s goals as well as the budget allocated in pursuit of these goals. Previously the ministry had five core businesses. These have been collapsed into three that better reflect the full scope of the ministry’s activities and purpose while at the same time highlighting common- alities across t he minis try’s divisions.

As part of t he overal l revisions we also conducted a comprehensive review of my minis- try’s performance mea sures, and our performance measures will continue to be effective in that they are relevant, understandable, and focused on the ministry’s sphere of influence and do meet manage- ment information needs. I am pleased to note that the ministry now has 15 pe rformance measures as o pposed to 27 la st year. Some measures, Mr.

Chair man, were far outs ide the inf luence of this ministry, and they addressed global issues related to perceptions of quality of life but not the ministry’s role in delivering services that affect quality of life. No new measures were added, but you will see that nine of the key performance measures were updated with revised wordings. Mr.

Chairman, in conclusion, I am pr oud of the qua lity of programs and activities undertaken by the Ministry of Community Development, and I am exceptionally proud of the individuals who work collaboratively with me a nd with communities ac ross the province to help r ealize our vision of a vibrant province w here Albertans experience fair opportunity and the quality of life to which they aspire. This concludes my formal remarks, Mr. C hairman.

I would be very pleased to entertain questions and to answer as many of them as time and knowledge and note work will allow, and I will be pleased to respond to othe rs in wri ting. May I please ask m embers who anticipate asking questions that they provide a page number first and then a line number or an element number and also tell me if they’re referring to the business plan or if they are referring to the estimates plan? Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 8:20 The Chair: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. Ms Blakeman: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair man.

There’s an old comedy ro utine called Slow Talkers of America, and t onight, given the hon. minister and myself being so aware of the enormous breadth of this particular department, you are about to hear the fast talkers of America. So I’m just going to get right into this given the wonderful overview that we’ve just had from the minister. I’d like to thank the staff that are appearing in the galleries tonight and giving the minister support. I think it’s no surprise that this is where my heart lies, and I certainly appreciate the fine work that the staff do in supporting the minister and supporting the ministry.

This is indeed the best ministry in my opinion. This is what makes Alberta home. It’s what makes Alberta fun. It’s what makes Alberta inspiring, beautiful , gives us our history , tells us our stor ies and makes us human, and has us uphold other people’s humanity. It’s a very important ministry in my opinion. The minister very kindly offered this afternoon to have me give him in advanc e some of the que stions that w ould have re quired a great deal of detail to a llow him to be abl e to give me these re- sponses orally tonight, and I have utterly failed.

In trying to get my own notes toge ther, I neg lected to phone his staf f person, and therefore it’s my fault. Now, what I’d like to do tonight, as I have don e with other ministries, is address things more or less in clusters. The clusters I have are arts, sports, volunteers, human rights, historical sites, libraries, the eff ect o f bingo chang es, a shor t question on G rant MacEwan College and interpreters for the deaf , general financial questions, women’s issu es, and the lega cy proje cts. Tha t, Mr. Chairman, is just what I have to sa y about thi s ministry.

We a lso have my colleague f rom Edmonton-Ellerslie to sp eak and ask questions about parks and protec ted areas and my colleague from Edmonton-Riverview to talk a bout PDD and support f or persons

1472 Alberta Hansard May 6, 2003 with disabilities. So I was kind of joking about fast talkers but not really. I’d like to start out by talking about some of the feedback that I get every year around budget time from the arts communities. I put out a general e-mail just saying: “I’m going into this budget debate. If you have a question or a point you wanted to raise with the minister, what would it be?” These are artists. They’re never short on what they have to say. So I’ve just gone through, and there are a couple of highlights I’d like to put on the rec ord for y ou, Mr .

Minister, which you can have a look at sometime in the future at your leisure or that your st aff can review. These are co ming from people like festival producers, from freelancers, artistic directors, festivals, as I said, small theatres , a PASO, a nd some nonpr ofessional or semiprofessional organizations as well, so actually not a bad cross

section from the arts community. I want to start out by saying how important it is to everybody that there was in fact a n increase into this are a, into the de partment overall but specif ically into the ar ts, and I’ll talk about the other increases as I get to them. The $3 million that’s going specifically into arts and the $5 million going into film developmen t is a ver y small amount of money that will have enormous spin-off.

This is a good deal for government, and I wish to put it on the record and urge the minister to continue his fine work and continue to encourage his colleagues to support him in increases next year and the year after. I will make no bones about this: after 14 years without an increase $3 million is not catching us up. Let’s be clear about that. We need another $3 million next year. As a matter of fact, what the commu- nity ha d been advoc ating f or for som e time was a n $8 million increase, and that was not including film funds.

So we have a ways to go here, but I do appreciate the support of the Treasury Board and of cabinet and of the caucus for getting the increases that in fact were realized. This year you will see the payoff for this. Now, some of the points that I wanted to raise. We continue to get comments that it’s the artists that are subsidizing the arts in Alberta. Most artists working flat out are making $10,000 or $12,000 a year and are subsidizing by working in other jobs, so it is the artists that are continuing to subsidize the arts.

Some people note that the government and AFA are weak partners in the effort to create and sustain a vibrant arts culture in the province, that the arts have been seriously underfunded and under- served for a decade. We’ve started to catch up. As I said, we need to continue that. W ithout civic , federal, and com munity support that’s currently s ustaining a stresse d-out cultural sector, A lberta would have very little in the way of cultural expression. A point I’ve made before and I’ll continue to make, Mr.

Minister, is that if there is no government leadership for support of the arts, there will be no corporate following. In fact, we now have the stats to show us that. The corporations and business have not stepped up to the plate in support of the arts in the same ratio as they exist , corporate giving is well below the national average in this the richest province, arguably, in Canada. A big part of that, I think, is a lack of leadership and direct funding from the government. If they don’t put it in, why on earth would the corporations follow suit?

It must not be a very good deal, yet the minister and I know that it’s a very good deal. So the more that the government can show leadership there, the better off it will be for everyone. The arts community should not be focused on fulfilling the role of business in the community. The primary benefits of the arts are the creative thinking and inspiration, the lasting artistic legacy. We’re certainly aware that the arts continue to be not an economic driver but a creator of a vitality that draws in the economic drivers.

There’s a strong f eeling that gaming and lotte ry dollars are no longer being disbursed to the arts community in equitable, effective means, and a gre at deal of that has to do with the loss of the community lottery boards. T he proportion of gami ng revenue coming back to t he ar ts i s ri diculously small against the whole amount of money that’s brought into the province through gaming efforts, and seeing a s that’s where we started w ith gaming, that it would go to quality of life and particularly into this department, it is vastly inequitable.

The AFA formula grants for presenters are not working for certain festivals, particularly those that bring a lot of peopl e in, lik e the Street Per formers F estival, th e com edy f estival, any body that’s bringing in a lot o f performers. It doesn’t seem to be working as well as the old g rant formula, so you might want to have a look at that or perhaps talk to some people that are working directly in that area. The whole idea of the one grant per organization rule really needs to be exam ined. I don’t k now whe re this is comin g from , Mr.

Minister, but I think this is going to cost us dearly in the long run. Somehow the re’s this idea that the arts are scamm ing or double- dipping or doing something nefarious in having accessed different pots of money to support their endeavours, but when you figure what our demand of them was and where they started from – you know, they started by saying: well, produce a theatre season, but we want you to produce a theatre season with X number of new plays in it. Well, that’s an additional amount of money and additional invest- ment and require d a n ad ditional pot of money to be acc essed.

Cutting it back now to this one grant per organization is restricting what the organizations themselves can do, a nd it’s also starting to restrict programming and artistic collaboration. I think we need to look to that. One person is noti ng the curbing of the ability of arts organiza- tions to respond to special presenting opportunities because project grants aren’t available. If you get a project grant, you don’t get an operating grant. W hy would you go f or a projec t grant?

So it’s eliminating that level of new endeavours, of exciting new projects, of new work, possible collaborations, new things being brought into Alberta for us to have a look at. Others note that growth and innovation have been stunted due to a lack of the funding increase over the last 10 to 14 years. It’s not even keeping pace with inflation. It’s forced companies to spe nd more time securing funds and less being able to actually produce the work that they’re there to do and to nurture their artistic product and their artist. A comment around the labour market tactics.

I’ve brought up a number of tim es with the Ministe r of Hum an Resourc es and Employment that we continue to really underpay people here and we just lose them. We get them , we train them , and they just cannot sustain a livelihood. We lose them out of the sector. We’re wasting time and resources here, and that’s not a good idea in a province like Alberta, that wa nts to look a t moving towards being a s mart province. 8:30 We need to look to the funding for festivals. For ex ample, the Fringe Theatre is a 2 and a half million dollar a year company.

It’s in a category of its own, and they are restricted to a $60,000 grant for the entire organization. They provide three streams, if you will: the largest theatre f estival in N orth Am erica, a very success ful and artistically credible t heatre f or young a udiences, a nd th ey’re providing a venue that is in use by a number of other organizations. For all of that, $60,000 is not in keeping, and th is is because there was a cap originally before this minister was in there. The cap was raised, but there ha sn’t been en ough money to bring the level of funding up. So that’s quite inadequate.

May 6, 2003 Alberta Hansard 1473 There was quite a campaign over the fall to keep the funding for the Artstrek program, and I’ve now heard from them that in fact they did get a small increase in their funding. Thank you for that, Mr. Minister, and for l istening to the m any, many, many people who wrote to you expressing their appreciation for this program. I went through that program in the early ’70s along with many others who I know benefited from it. So it’s definitely worth the money that is invested in our young people.

I think th ere are some additional problems around fundi ng and around what could be described as a dysfunction with the Alberta Foundation for the A rts. The y’ve tried for many years to shuff le things around to try and do the be st they can with n ot enou gh funding, but at this point I think there may need to be a return to the drawing board and a relook at that organization, that agency, and the duties that it performs on behalf of the ministry . There is a grea t deal of dissatisfaction in the community around that group.

I don’t know if the a gencies feel s afe to s ay tha t out loud, but th ey’re certainly saying it to me, and I’m free to say it to you. But there’s a great feeling that that agency is no longer serving the communities and that it’s more interested in sustaining an organization, sustaining an administration, than it is in working towards assisting an artistic product and artists. We continue to have this I think ridiculous go-round with funding and eligibility requirements.

To tell someone that you’re eligible for 25 percent of your revenue but no one ever gets that – nobody gets that 25 percent, so why do we keep say ing it? Last year I talke d about making groups jump through hoops for not very much money. It’s the same issue that I’m ra ising for you agai n, you know , that nobody gets the 25 percent, and supposedly when the one grant came in and nobody could or would apply for project grants, the formula was increased from 20 percent to 25. But nobody’s getting it.

For one organization, an exc ellent org anization – v ery w ell run, no deficit, never has had , totall y aboveboard, very cautious in t heir spending – the best they can get is 66 percent of that 25 percent. So, you know, let’s be honest about what we’re doing here. If it’s never going to be 25 percent or not in the foreseeable future, then let’s be honest about that and work from it. It’s very hard for these organizations when they don’t even find out.

They have to submit a budget with the proj ected grant included – of c ourse, they can’t figure out what it’s going to be, but it a in’t gonna be 25 percent – and they don’t receive confirmation from AFA for their following season’s grant amount until mid-June. Now, most of them start their fiscal year in May, April, June, but you’re well into your planning cycle at that point. Y ou should have booke d your thea tre; y ou should have contracted your artists by then. So that’s very late to be hearing what’s going on the re, and the go vernment would never allow anyone to do that to them .

Why do they insist on enforcing that on other organizations? A number of agencies noted the difficulties with increasing costs, especially venue costs, because of increasing costs around electricity or ener gy co sts, elec tricity and heating , and what a strain that’s causing for them, especially those that are trying to manage some of these spaces. Some groups talked about what’s happening with the Jubilee auditoria a nd how the rates have gone up there.

A s the minister kn ows, those tw o venues a re now g oing to be out of commission for groups, and there’s no assistance for the groups that can only produce there. I’m still concerned abo ut the Edm onton Opera because the Winspear is not suitable for them. They have to get a huge venue where they can get a couple of thousand people in to do their three or four performances. Where are they going to go? The Shaw Conference Centre, the AgriCom ?

That’s what they’re going to have to look at, and there’s been no assistance offered to them and recognition of how much money that’s going to cost them to have to go to a different place to produce. I think that the cost of restoring the auditoria should have included some sort of recognition of cost factors for those groups that have been punted out of there for a couple of years. Okay. So that’s the funding issue. I’ve talked about the dysfunc- tion of the AFA and the problems around that. Very quickly, a question about the Film Classification Board. I’m just looking f or an update he re.

H ow many people are c urrently working in the film classification area, and are their votes weighted equally? At one point the chairperson I think sort of had two votes, and then there were two additional people who each had a vote. I’m looking to see what the situation is currently with any weighting of the votes and how many people are actually doing film classification. Cultural spa ces. I asked last yea r about the Cultural Spaces Canada program and whether the government was looking to match any of the $80 million, $13 million of which is available for Alberta- based organizations.

The written response from the minister was that they’re getting their money from somebody else. There seemed to be no commitment from this department to go in and help agencies that are trying to recover that. I’m questioning again this year to see whether there’s any money that’s targeted for that or available for that or that the ministry is setting aside to support agencies that are seeking those federal funds. Just following up on the dysfunction of the AFA board, last year I had asked the minister and he’d responded in writing that the AFA board is revisiting a number of guidelines and things in March.

So I’m looking for any update, anything written, anything oral that the minister can giv e me on policy around the AFA decision-making process, gran ting process, application process, deadline process, anything they can give me that’s new here. The under-30 survey that was done for Culture Steps Forw ard: Setting the Stage for Human Resource Development in Albe rta’s Culture Sector, which was mainly a funding project of the Human Resources and Employment department.

I’d like to know what concrete steps the Minister of Community Development is taking to work with the Minister of Human Resources and Empl oyment to move the concept of cultural workers and workers in a cultural sector forward as far as labour mark et dev elopment prog rams. We’re missing out here, and I know that the minister can figure out a way to take advantage of that program and what’s being offered or what’s potential under that program. Okay. Industries. The film industry.

Well, the cultural industries that we have are recording industry – the minister has already talked about the Junos – film industry, book publishing. I’m missing one. Dr. Taft: Magazines. Ms Blakeman: Publishing. Thank you. A very good survey recently cam e ou t comm issioned by the magazine publishers, and that indust ry is actual ly looki ng pretty good. All of those industries seem to be coming along quite well, and we were cer tainly t aking a large s tep forw ard with t he film industry.

I know that the mini ster is just as worried as I am about what the feds are going to do if they withdraw funding from the film industry. I could ju st wring their necks frankly. You know, from where w e’ve managed to come ba ck to in A lberta, this is mos t disappointing. Anything I can do to assist the minister in wringing their necks, literally, I’m happy to do. 8:40 Dr. Taft: Figuratively. Figuratively, Laurie. Ms Blakeman: Oh, I’m sorry. That’s right. Not literally. Figura- tively. Oops.

1474 Alberta Hansard May 6, 2003 But I am . . . [Ms Blakeman’s speaking time expired] There’s not enough time to do this department. Thank you. The Chair: The hon. minister. Mr. Zwozdesky: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’ll just respond briefly to a couple of the issues becau se I kn ow that there are many other speakers who want to get into this particular debate.

To begin with I think the hon. member’s passion for the arts area as with several others is much appreciated by the arts community and certainly by me as the minister responsible for that area because it’s a passion that quite frankly I share and I know that ma ny, many members if not m ost in this Assembly also share bec ause it does have impacts throughout the province on all of our citizens. The festivals that she alluded to, Mr.

Chairman – and I don’t have all the amounts and figures and so on in front of me, but according to a note I had jotted down here, I think that last I saw, we funded about 36 different festivals across the province, including some that the hon. member mentioned: the Fringe, the Street Performers, Jazz City. I guess t he Folk Music Festiva l would f it in there, th e Lethbridge Children’s Festival, the St. A lbert Children’s Festival, the Blueberry Bluegrass Festival, and on and on they go. So we do provide somewhere in the order of $700,000 or whatever to that area last I saw, but perhaps that’s not enough.

Nonetheless, it is a point that I will pass on to the AFA for a relooking at. The $3 million increase, however, that is going purely to the arts area will be distributed as best the foundation board is able to. I do acknowledge that it’s not a huge increase, hon. member, and I think everybody here would understand that, particularly given the decade and a half or so that we’ve been waiting.

Nonetheless, we are doing the best we can with what we’ve been given, but I will undertake to the House and t o the member asking the question t hat I wil l put forward a request again for relooking at that situation also to see what can or can’t be done in upcoming budgets. I can’t make any promises, hon. member, but I think you know where my heart lies, and I will do my best. I am ple ased that you are pleased a nd that other m embers are pleased with the $5 million that did go to the creative film commu- nity because that is truly a great growth industry for us and for arts in general in this provi nce.

I, too , am ver y upset and concerned about the rumoured $25 million cut which the federal government has announced it would be making, but I’m equally encouraged by the rumour that says that it may be reversed. It’s just a rumour, hon. member. I did write to the federal minister responsible. She knows my feeling s about thi s, and I’m hoping that the re mig ht be the rescindment which I alluded to in question period I think it was last week. The issue of artists subsidizing the arts is one that really caught my attention, and I know exactly what point the hon. member is making here.

Having lived as an artist for several years myself, I had my share of spaghetti dinners, and I know what that feels like. Still, I think it’s important to point out that while the operating grants that we provide and the grants to individual artists and other form s of grants are available through the AFA, Mr. Chairman, we do see a lot of other are as in gov ernment which prov ide funding f or arts infrastructure.

I realiz e that’s not the exa ct funding that the hon. member is talking about, but I think that when you roll all of that into the mix, we’re not quite as well off as we’d like but we’re not as bad off as it sometimes seems. For example, the centennial grants program. I remember being at the announcement when we announced $2.5 million for the Citadel plus $2.5 million for the Fringe, the Arts Barns updates.

So that has an impact on the arts area, although it doesn’t help with the specific point of arts employment or arts engagement, which I think is more where the hon. member is coming from, nor does it offset their costs of operating. It helps the m with infrastructure and with bu ilding, and I think that the c orporate side of the equation, which the hon. member referred to, may be dropping off in some parts, but I don’t think we’re doing all that badly in this province.

What I do see, however, is increased competition for those same dollars because you have a lot of the traditional funders who would have been funding artistic and cultural endeavours now being asked to fund mor e heal th-related endeavours or educational-related endeavours or environm ental-related endeavours, so that point is certainly not lost on me. But we do have a number of exa mples where fortunately we do have a fairly thriving corporate sector in this province. I would like to think that it’s largely because of the very friendly economic climate that our government policies and other departments provide.

I would say this for the record: according to the last statistics that I looked at – and I would hope that all members would remember this – for every dollar of government moneys that we put into the arts sector, you can expect an economic spin-off of about $6 to $15 in return. I think that goes back to the StatsCan report of about 1995 or 1996. I remember it quite vividly, and it made a lasting impres- sion on me. The loss of t he community lottery boards: as the hon. member would know, the y we re re placed by the community initiatives program, albeit f or a less er amount of money.

Nonetheless, that funding was restored to about $32 million. I will undertake to examine again that issue of the one grant per year only f or the arts organi zations. I think tha t is a sig nificant factor, and I don’t want to see opportunities for collaboration, artistic growth, artistic development being compromised because of one of those kinds of policies. Having said that, however, I think everyone here would know that we don’t have as much money as is always requested by the arts and cultural community, so the AFA board is doing the best it can with what it has.

There is always room for them to look over their programs, and I ca n tell you, hon. member, that they will be meeting very soon. I don’t know if it’s in a day or two or three or in a week, but their next board meeting is coming up in May, so I will take your com ments from Hansard and I’ll present them directly to them. I’ll have them ad dress them to me in a discussion, and then I’ll let you know what the outcome is of all of that. The other comment, very quickly, is in general about eligibility funding criteria an d the issue of the 25 perce nt eligibili ty factor, which the hon. me mber raised.

This, too, is something that I can appreciate. If they are expecting and applying for a 25 percent grant because they know full well they’re eligible for it and they are not receiving it becaus e it’s being prorated or m arked down, I would agree that that is unfair to the organizations applying. Again, it’s a question, however, of us not having unlimited funds to work with, so I think the AFA responded in a way that th ey saw fi t. I wil l undertake to pursue that one more aggressively, hon. mem ber.

I don’t think I pursued it as aggressively as I would have liked to last year, but I will look at this differ ently this year. I just don’t know what the outcome will be because I’m working with a board of very creative and individual thinkers there that have a lot to of fer, and they have gained quite a bit of experience over the years. The final point with respect to the Jubilee auditoria and the rates going up, I guess t here were expectations that the ra tes would g o down. Unfortunately, the cost of living is going up, and we’re all well aware of that.

I am sensitive to the issue of those organizations that are being displaced from the Northern Alberta Jubilee Audito-

May 6, 2003 Alberta Hansard 1475 rium and also from the Southern Alberta Jubilee Auditorium, and I have had meetings with them collectively and/or individually several times. As the member would know, I have inherited this particular turn of events, but I am supportive of the renova tions that need t o be done to these nearly 50-year-old structures. The improvements that are coming about have been done in consultation with not only the arts groups affected but with the arts community and user groups in general.

When w e’re finished those renovations , which w ill be approximately $16 million of government dollars in Edmonton, $16 million o f gove rnment m oneys in Calgary matche d by about 10 million plus dollars from the foundation that has been established by the two friends- of organizations, we w ill truly have an i ncredible facility w ith far improved sight lines, better ventilation system s, better acoustics, and all of that kind of stuff. There is the downside, and it is unfortunate, but the groups by and large understand that this is short-term pain for some long-term gain.

I’m not saying that they’re happy about it, but unfortunately I don’t have any budget moneys to com pensate for that displa cement. I wish I did, and if I did, I would take a look at how we might get to that stage, but unfortunately we’re not there. 8:50 The film classification question. I believe there are three individu- als who work in the film classification area, and I can get you more details about the rest of the question, which I didn’t have a chance to jot down. The Cultural Spaces Canada program.

Yo u kno w, I’m going strictly by memory here, hon. member, but as I recall, there was an allocation made to the province of Alberta. I don’t want to be held accountable for this, but it seems to me that it was about $700,000 that was apportioned for Alberta. I don’t know if there’s somebody that could help me out with the more exact number on the Cultural Spaces, but there was something in that order that either was already brought to the province and spent or was to be spent. I’m not sure, so I’ll check into it and give it to you further.

The last point – a nd then I’ll sit down – was the possibility of a cross-ministry initiative, at least that was what it sounded like to me, with respect to the Albe rta Department of Human R esources and Employment. I was looking earlier, hon. member, at the c ross- ministry policy initiatives we already have in place, and I note here that we hav e an aborig inal policy initiativ e, we have an A lberta children and youth initiative with the Minister of Childre n’s Services, we have an economic development strategy cross-ministry initiative, and we have a health sustainability initiative, and so on.

But I don’t see one with AHR and E. So I will have that discussion with the hon. minister from Alberta Human Resources and Employ- ment to see more fully what it is that you had in mind to help move the labour development issue in the arts area forward. I’m not sure what it’ll result in, but it’s an interesting idea. I was struck by the incubator that is going into Leduc for Agricul- ture, Food and Rural Development. In fact, I talked to my deputy minister about it, and I said: wouldn’t it be wonderful if we had an incubator program for the arts and cultural area? I think it would be a great idea.

I don’t know how we would do it, but I realize that that one was funded by the government through the Alberta Value-added Corporation. It’s a good one because it will help the producers learn the trade, and they learn marketing techniques, and I think I heard somewhere that there ’s an average of about 10 0 ne w agriculture products that come onstream in this province as a result of initiatives like that. I think that’s tremendous. But to liken it to the arts area, I think we could see the same thing potent ially in this area. Why not?

It would be an innovative idea, and I will take it for what it’s worth and see what I can do with it. I don’t know where it will go or what support it might have, but I will give it some consideration and visit it with appropriate ministries. I’ve just rece ived a not e on the film classification from a staff member, and I’ll get back to you further with that. I’ll take my seat and allow more questions to come, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Before we recognize Edmonton-Centre, I wonder if we might have consent to briefly revert to Introduction of Guests. [Unanimous consent granted] head : Introduction of G uests The Chair: The hon. Member for Red Deer-North. Mrs. Jablonski: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’d like to introduce to you and through y ou to members of this House a young man t hat we’re very proud of, m y son Jeremy. Jeremy’s here in Edmonton this week with the RCMP training in their helicopter for search and rescue. He’s the son that everybody wishes for.

I’d ask him to stand and receive the traditional warm applause of the House. head : Main Esti mates 2003-04 Community Development (continued) The Chair: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. Ms Blakeman: That’s a proud mom. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. Just a couple of things to recap on p oints t hat the m inister ra ised.

You k now, he ta lks about additional funding that comes into the arts, and I have to put him on the h ot seat a bit on that one because I know f rom runn ing art s organizations that you run your eye down the list of grants, and it’s really come from your own fund-raising activities for the most part and from d ifferent levels of gove rnment. So any inf rastructure money that com es, r eally the difference that makes to cultural product and to artists just means you’re working in a l ess draf ty location or a nicer location, but, you know, it’s not putting artistic product out there.

The one exception to that is that there are some artistic endeavours that we can’t get into because we don’t have the space for it. I know tha t I heard a p lea from Heather Redf ern at Catalyst Theatre around that, and I think she’s applying for Cultural Spaces money so that they can improve their space and what they’re able to offer. The minister is absolutely right.

In my time in the arts the biggest competitors in fund-raising now for the arts c ommunity are the health sector and the education sector, and that I will put right back at you beca use I think that clea rly reflects what’s happening f or funding from government in the health and education sectors, not on the minister’s plate specifically but certainly on the government’s plate. Again, around the CIP program, the community initiatives program, let’s be fair here. There’s less money available overall. There is a cap on the gra nts of $75,000.

Over a certain amount it had to be matched, so that’s additional effort from the organizations to come up with more money and more effort to match the funds that are available there, and there was less money in the pot total. So it’s quite a different program and comes nowhere near to replacing what we had with the lottery boards. I’d like to move on now briefly to talking about the sports. Again, very glad to se e an alm ost $2.6 mil lion increase in the s ports. A couple of questions. I noticed the expected money going to the NHL

1476 Alberta Hansard May 6, 2003 *See p. 1551, left col., para. 9, line 4 teams is up, a nd I was wondering what w ould make the minister believe that’s a flow-through. Where am I seeing that? I’m sorry that I don’t have the vote number for you on that, but it is the NHL ticket money. There it is; sorry. Page 74 of the budget estimates, 2.2.4, and there’s an incre ase there going f rom $4.83 4 million to $5.750 million. Is that money coming directly from gaming, or what is giving the ministry the belief that they’re going to make 900,000 and some dollars more through that flow-through initiative?

What’s making them think that that’s going to be more money? I have questioned the minister and corresponded with him about the Masters Games in 2005. I am specifically looking for a commit- ment from the minister that there will be a contract that will involve some portion of the money coming from the provincial government to the Masters Games 2005, a contract that sets out expectations and outcomes expected for a cultural component. I was impressed with the work that the federal government has in place around contracting for athletic endeavours and the money that they put into the cultural component.

We ca n easily piggyback on the work that they have learned, and I think that we need to because I was not entirely happy with what happened around the l ast one we had, which has totally gone out of my head. Two years ago. Totally gone out of my head; I’m sorry.

If I can remember it, I’ll come back to that one.* The minister mentioned the health and fitness aspect of amateur sports, and a question that I’ve raised with the Minister of Gaming and I’ll raise again here is: why is there such a str uggle for adult recreation and athleti c organiz ations to sec ure licenc es to hold bingos and casinos to raise funds to offset the cost of their programs? It seems to be a real problem for those organizations to get access to that money, and I think that we need to address that.

So, again, it’s a cross-departmental initiative, but I’d like to see the minister being aggressive on this one if he can. Again, I’m happy to see the extra money that’s going in there. Much needed, and a huge payoff as far as health and wellness for our citizens plus general well-being and stress reducers and all of those things, so congratulations on that. Moving to the volunteer sector. Again, a small increase there of a million and something. Glad to see it. The board developments

section that is in Community Development, particularly those that go out to facilitate conferences and workshops – there are a number of staff in that department that have developed quite an expertise, and I’m wonderin g how many fa cilitation projec ts has the staff from Community Development been involved with in the las t year, and how many are they expected to be involved with this year?

How many staff and subcontractors or people brought in from outside are involved with that , and how m uch money is paid bac k into the ministry when those services are used by other government depart- ments or other organizations? A couple of questions ar ound human rights, pa ge 100 in the business plan, the

section that’s called Protect Human Rights, and Promote Fairness and Access. The ’01-02 budget was $5.7 million, the ’02-03 budget is $4.5 million. Then we’re going to $4.8 million, and it stays at $4.8 m illion across the thr ee years of this business plan. I’m wondering: what caused the dip from $5.7 million to $4.5 million?

What reasoning does the ministry have behind settling on the $4.8 million as a rea sonable amount of money or an a dequate amount of money to be fund ing the pr otecting human righ ts and promoting fairness and access sector? 9:00 I have a standard series of questions, which I think the minister already has his hands on, that I tend to do every year around the human rights cases.

I’m looking specifically for the number of cases that were brought to the Human Rights Commission, the number of cases that we re received or ac cepted for review and w ork by t he Human Rights Commission, the number of cases that went forward to the commission, the number that were settled, and the number that are outstanding. I also have noticed quite a difference in the profile of the Human Rights Commission over the last several years.

Could the minister please give me some general comments on whether there has been a deliberate change i n policy a s far a s the prof ile of th at par ticular commission or whether it’s just been a sort of general erosion or lack of atte ntion to detail or lack of lo ve from somebody? Why a m I seeing less profile from that particular commission? There’s quite a change: less advertising, fewer posters, less visibility, fewer staff people sent to conferences, et cetera, so overall a general downgrad- ing i n th e Hu man R ights C ommission an d it s vis ibility i n th e community. Historical sites.

Specifically, I had a re quest to rai se an iss ue around a property built by John C. McDougall in 1912-13. It’s been put up for sal e by the province, and I’m questioning whether the minister would be willing to look at a provincial designation for this house. This is the son of the original McDougall. That original McDougall house was destroyed, so this is the son’s house. It’s the only one that we have left, and the province has put it up for sale.

It is on the B list of protection for the city of Edmonton, but they are really not in a positi on to u pgrade that to a n A list, and it’s quite possible that t he pro perty could be sol d and demolished and we would lose McDougall house, the son’s, the second one. It’s not the original one. The original one is gone. It’s the one built in 1912-13. So I’m hoping that I ca n turn the m inister’s attention to t hat, and hopefully we can get some protection provincially under the auspices of the minister for that house. It would be a shame to lose that out of Edmonton’s historical archives or historical buildings.

The librari es. The re has bee n, as the m inister note d, a sma ll increase to both the sy stems and to the indiv idual libraries. It has not gotten us back to where we were. It has not restored us to where funding would have been if we’d continued with regular funding. What is the plan that the m inister ha s to ge t us b ack to some operating level of not adequacy but excellence o ver, let’s say, the next five-year period? The next question is around the effect of the bingo changes. I’ll come back to that one. I’ve had a request to raise the issue around the Grant MacE wan interpreter training programs.

There has been a proposal to restruc- ture the ASL/English interpreter program through Grant MacEwan Community College. They w ere approaching my collea gue fro m Edmonton-Gold Bar for assistan ce in advocat ing on th eir behalf. They believe that the ASL/English interpreters are helpful in better integrating deaf and hard -of-hearing peopl e into th e inclusi ve mainstream, and as the interpret ers are better trained, more deaf people have easier access t o pr e- and postsecondary educational institutions. They woul d like to keep an in terpreter prog ram i n Edmonton.

Now, I unde rstand that this is probably not the minis- ter’s area of influence , but anyt hing he ca n do to support this program is appreciated. The legacy grant program. When the minister was talking about the $25 million, can I just confirm that he was talking about the $25 million that is in fact under infrastructure? Could he please confirm that there are no additional funds aside from the infrastructure funds that are und er his department currently? I’m questioning that because we are two years out from this celebration.

There does not seem to be any money, or any specific grant pot of money, for those organizations that were looking to do activities that were non brick and mortar and that w ere lookin g for financial support for those projects. Can the minister please confirm this or, if I’m wrong – and I hope I am – tell us where this money is and how they apply for it, under which department, what deadlines are involved, et cetera?

May 6, 2003 Alberta Hansard 1477 I’m also looking for philosophi cally, if th ere i s no additional funding, if there’s just the bricks-and-mortar infrastructure funding for the legacy program, why the government has made that choice. With the 75th anniversary there was provincial funding to support communities doing histori cal book s on their a rea. The y weren’t large grants, but they were helpful to communities as an impetus, if nothing else, to do the project . I’m c urious as to w hy ther e is nothing specific that seems to be available this time around for the 100th birthday. We’re only two years out.

That’s not a lot of time. I’m moving on to women’s issues . I hea r what the minister is saying around gender analysis, which I find very interesting. When I first raised that in this Assembly seven years ago, I was laughed at. Now it rolls off the minister’s tongue. How interesting. I’ll take it as a good thing that we’ve moved through to that. I am interested in what the gende r analy sis is tha t the mi nistry ha s done on the programs that are available that are offered by othe r government departments.

I con tinue t o be con cerned t hat the re are systemic barriers in place t hat are not being identi fied that are stopping women from accessing other programs in government, and I would like to see a comprehensive analysis done by the staff people under the ministry to check that the government is being as accessible as possible. 9:10 In just doing some cleanup in the few minutes that I have left here, I’m wondering what the minister is looking at doing around sports and the funding of the snowmobile trails and whether there would be any increased funding in s upport of a t rail system or whether the minister ha s approached hi s colleague the Minist er of Ec onomic Development and tourism for these m ulti-use tra il sys tems or specific to a snowmobile trail system.

Right now they are looking for a s tand-alone trail a ct. They feel that they’re dealing with 23 different legislative acts and would prefer a one-window approach. They’re also looking at a mechanism to protect the trail base through some disposition of some kind for recreational corridors so that the development and maintenance investment is protected and the trail is secure from year to year. I’m wondering: could we get an update, please, from the minister on the Alberta Trail Net system and where negotiations are for that trail system progressing through Alberta and linking to the Canada trail system?

Where is the province in developing a mechanism to limit liability to not only trail operators but landowners for recreational purposes – I think this is occupat ional liability that they ’re looking at – to have the province develop consistent trail guidelines and standards across the go vernment and to ack nowledge and support the trails which are established along secondary highway right-of-ways so as not to sever the connectivity of established trails?

The Snowmobile Association is feeling that they’re under threat for existence because of the outrageous insurance premiums or unattainable insurance coverage for volunte ers because of the programs they’re trying to offer, and they’re looking for support to do that, especially legisla- tive mechanisms. That’s a larger topic for the minister, and he may want to respond in writing on that one. I think I’m within seconds of losing m y time, and I’ve covered almost everything on the list.

I’ll have to come back on the bingo changes and some of the specific financial questions, but I know that others want to get a chance to get up. Thank you very much. The Chair: The hon. minister. Mr. Zwozde sky: Thank you ve ry m uch. I rem ember the hon. member’s opening comments about the school of fast talk o r whatever it was, and she has certainly put a lot on the record here. I’ll address some of it now and perhaps will follow up in writing on some of the others. The first issue was with respect to the four cultural industries. I would agree that overa ll th ey’re doing not too badly .

The f ilm industry in particular is doing very, very well, as we know, and this injection of dollars there will help them a lot. I should sa y, hon . member, that that increase in funding came about in part because of an economic impact analysis that had been done, and it showed them and us and everyone else exactly what that impact was not only from an economic basis but also from a cultural, artistic, and development basis.

That’s one reason why when the Alberta Recording Industry and its president, Garry McDonall I think at the time, came to me a couple of years ago and said, “We really need to do something in this area,” – well, being of musical background first and foremost myself, I’m very sensitive to that area – I agreed. So we studied it for about a year or so an d tried to figure out how to do it, and w e put about $30,000 toward an econo mic impact study in the rec ording arts industry, and that will help them.

I have said publicly that the next one I’ll be looking at is what can be done in the magazine and periodical publishing side as well as in the book publishing side. I’m not sure what we can do there, but I am willing to take a look at that particular point. The other issue is with respect to the competition of dollars that I referenced and then I think the hon. member rereferenced.

I realize that there are many, m any different projects that require differ ent types of funding , but I think that specific to the health care area, where our provincial contribution is now over $7 billion, which is about a third of our total budget, we need some corporate partners to help accomplish some of the projects which they are bringing to the table. One excellent example of that is the Alberta Heart Institute.

Now, I was in the Sikh community her e, as I ha ve been a lmost every weekend, not long ago when this particular project was talked about, and the Alberta Sikh community is now doing a specific fund-raiser for the Guru Nanak Dev healing garden, which I know the Member for Edmonton-Strathcona also knows about. Per haps others do as well. So th ey will be looking for dollars from the community for that project, and it’s a good one. But, again, there are only so many dollars available.

The same thing can be said for the bone and joint centre of exc ellence that’ll be coming up in Calga ry, the Stollery children’s centre, a nd the list goes on and on. So thes e are a ll excellent projects, but it does create a healthy competition; I would agree. The issue of capping of $75,000 in the CIP prog ram, or the community initiatives program, that the member referenced.

I realize there is a cap there, but by the same token the Minister of Gaming, as I recall, will have some review of your comments, and I think he’s going to have some flexib ility to take a lo ok a t s ome additional projects and perhaps lift that cap where it might be appropriate. I don’t know what his exact intentions are, but I’ll certainly raise that point for him. The other point that the hon. member mentioned was with respect to NHL teams, and I want t o just com ment that the Alber ta NHL team initiativ e, whic h appears i n the mini stry e stimates, Mr.

Chairman, on page 74, does in fact reflect flow-through-type dollars. To answer the member’s question, it’s Alberta Revenue, or specifi- cally the Minister of Revenue, who actually collects the tax that is levied on NHL players for games played in Alberta. The $5.75 million that appears i n the est imates is reall y the projected proceeds that we expect will be split evenly between the two dynamic hockey teams that we have, those being the Edmonton Oilers and the Calgary Flames. The proceeds less a small amount of

1478 Alberta Hansard May 6, 2003 administrative costs will help these two teams remain competitive in what we ca ll a sm all-market environment unt il the N HL and the players sit dow n and do their collective agreement negotiations, which I think is coming up in 2004-2005. So in the first year what you’ll see, b ecause it’s a new program being set up, is probably in the order of a bout a $350,000 to $400, 000 administration type of deduction off that flow-through amount, and in the next year it’ll be less than that.

We have some putting together to do in the first year; there are a lot of setup costs, in other words. So that’s a comment on the NHL teams issue. I don’t know if there’s anything else specific to what the hon. member mentioned in terms of the line item. I think she cited 2.2.4. Is that right, hon. member? So I think that sort of covers it, but if not , I’ll review your comments and s ee if there ’s more fleshing out that needs to be done.

With respect to the World Masters Games I do share the member’s passion for wanting to include a specific component for the arts and culture segment of so ciety within those Masters Games. I think I answered this question in the House for the hon. m ember before, although I don’t remember vividly exactly what it was that she was asking. I thi nk it wa s similar. But I will assure the m ember that there will be a strong a rts and cult ure com ponent to the W orld Masters Gam es.

I think it will appear in the contra ct, as y ou indicate, and since I am s itting on that board of g overnors, I will ensure that there is a portion t hat goes t oward h elping out that particular sector a s we di d with the 2001 Worlds too. I t was t he same type of arrangement.

I should tell other members of the House who are interested in this particular issue that for virtually all of the major sport events that we as a province participate in and fund through the A lberta Sport, Recreation, Parks & W ildlife Founda tion, we a lso build in by contract a cultural component, and we provide m oney f rom the Alberta Foundation for the Arts for that component, be it whatever percentage amount.

S o we do th at very consistently, and I see no reason not to do it with the World Masters Games event as well. 9:20 The issue of heal th and well ness that w as me ntioned and the struggle that adult s porting groups have with respect to acce ssing casinos and bingos is an issue I’ve spoken directly with the Minister of Gaming about. I’ve spoken with the Minister of Justice about it, and I’ve raised it at the FPT tables. I can’t remember; where were we for the last sport one? Was it Ottawa or somewhere? Quebec? Bathurst? Thank you. Bathurst, New Brunswick. We got stranded, in fact.

I’ll remember it better next time. I did raise this issue, and it seems to me that there is some degree of complication with respect to the fact that that particular industry is regulated. I think it’s under the Criminal Code of Canada, if memory serves me correctly, and as a result I have to deal with it at the federal level more so than at the provincial level. I have received a very powerful lobby from some local groups and organizations here. The Alberta Sport Council I think is the one in particular.

I took their exact argument and their exact notes with me to the federal table, and I have to tell you, hon. member, that I didn’t get a very warm reception, because I couldn’t get it on the formal working comm ittee agenda yet. But it is coming f or a larger discussion. Again, I don’t know what the outcome will be, but I was quite passionate about it becaus e it see ms to m e that under the current rules we have the ability to provide for casino licences and bingo licences and whatever else for the one- to 17-year-old crowd.

Then we start again at the 65-year-old-plus crowd, if memory serves correctly, but we lose this huge opportunity of that major group in between. The rationale for it i s: well, most people over 18 or 19 are now working for a living, and they don’t need these kinds of casinos and bingos to support them. Well, I would argue that a little bit differ- ently. I think we lose on the c ontinuum of a good habit that gets started that sometimes gets lost. Some of us are able to stay active better than others, and some of us would n’t mind a little bit of encouragement. So I did put that agenda item forward.

I don’t have a response yet, and I’m not sure what success I’ll have, but I just wanted the member to know that I have referenced it in that context. The issue of board deve lopment f acilitation. I agre e with the member. We do have a l ot of expe rtise throug h Comm unity Development, specifically through the W ild Rose Founda tion and the community services volunteer area within that department, and we are frequently asked to help facilitate a number of different board development programs and/or in the case of government of Alberta projects things lik e the va rious summits.

I remember vividly the Alberta Future Summit, which I had a very large role in working on. Our staff did an incredi ble job, as t hey have done in m any other areas. I’ll try and find out an e xact number for your answer as to how many staff members we have there. I don’t recall how many, if it’s one or two or three. We don’t have a whole bunch of people doing it, but the people we do have are very dedicated and commit- ted. Nor do I have an exact number of how many different types of development facilitations we may have done over the last y ear or two.

I would now turn quickly to the issue of human rig hts in the province, and I know the member had indicated that she’d likely be pursuing this. The thing that I would tell y ou before I get into the specific answers, hon. me mber, is : what w e’ve noticed wit h th e complaints that are coming in is that the y are becoming more and more complex, I’m told, and the leg al nature of the hum an righ ts work that is being presented is also becoming more challenging. As the member will know, the Alberta Human Rights Commission is totally independent from government.

They are very arm’s length, so I don’t have the ability to exercise any ministerial prerogative, if you will, over the decisions that they make. Nonetheless, the most frequently cited area, as I recall, is employment. For the numbe r of com plaints that were opened and clos ed in 2002-2003, those statistics go like this. The commission opened 835 complaints in 2002-2003, whic h is about 63 m ore complaint fi les that were opened in that time frame than for the previous year. It’s 151 more complaint files opened than the average number opened in the previous four years, in fact.

The basic complaints are very wide- ranging in nature and affect individuals with disabilities, and some of them have wound up in higher courts of appeal, as the member knows. Harassment and violence and all kinds of other thin gs are tied in here. It ’s a ver y sensitive area, obviously. Nonetheless, in terms of the cases closed in the 2002-2003 year, which is the latest statistic I have, hon. member, 835 were opened in ’02-03, and 772 were closed in the same year. So that left us with about 63 ongoing files that had varying complexities. I should tell you, hon. member, that I received some information on this.

I know that we have about 40 full-time staff working there, and we hav e a ver y low staff tu rnover in that area . It’s a v ery dedicated group o f people who serve there. But here’s the point I wanted to mak e if I c an find it in my notes here . There were something in the order of 10,000 or 11,000 hits to the web site for a given month, with an average time spent of about 10 to 15 minutes. It tells me one thing. Well, it tells me a lot of things.

It tells me that there is an increased awareness of human rights in this province and perhaps an increased need for human rights investigations and so on, but I think that’s a good thing. I think it’s a very good thing for people to take advantage of that. As I indicated, about 80 percent, which is the m ajority by fa r, of the c omplaints coming i n are employment related.

May 6, 2003 Alberta Hansard 1479 Now, there are other questions that I think the hon. member asked. I couldn’t do the shorthand fast enough; otherwise, I’d provide the answers. But I’ll look at it and take a look at what the specifics are and get back to you.

On the issue o f human right s vi sibility, or the com mission’s visibility I think y ou mentione d, as the hon. m ember probably knows, we have the Human Rights Commission, which investigates, reviews, and decides on compla ints, and the n we als o have the Advisory Comm ittee on the Human R ights, Citi zenship and Multiculturalism Education Fund, w hich is a g rants-making body separate from that one, but the y sort of work together on a lot of these ideas.

The visibility piece is a g ood one that the member mentioned, and I think y ou will se e some increase d visibi lity relatively soon on the multiculturalism education side. I’ll talk to the commission people through the deputy about what they might or might not be able to do with increasing the Human Rights Commis- sion side of that vi sibility. We’ve received quite a few calls a nd inquiries from our multicultural/ethnocultural comm unity w ith respect to the same issue, and that is the v isibility of it. So we are going to be doing something about that very soon.

I’m working with the chair of the Advisory Committee on the Human Rights, Citizen- ship and Multiculturalism Education Fund, the Member for Calgary- Montrose, on a new init iative that will be coming u p ve ry so on which he is championing, and that’s a good thing. One other thing that is doing a lot, hon. member, to help increase the visibility, as you say , or the aw areness of the Huma n Rights Commission is that they rece ntly partnered with the A lberta chambers of commerce. I don’t know if you’re aware of that, hon. member, but you know the awards that we used to do down at city hall?

We’d have a gathering and typically, not to criticize, we’d get 60 or 80 people out. It was a good group of people who care a lot about human rights, but it w asn’t getting out f ar enough int o the community. So I compliment the Human Rights Commission in Alberta for taking that initiative of the awards ceremony and working it through wi th the Alb erta chambers of com merce to have those presentations done in the pre sence of and with the co-operation of the chamber of commerce groups. As we all know, those are largely our employers.

So it see ms to be hitting the nail squarely on the head for the type of stuff you’re talking about, and it ties in very well with what I said earlier, that about 80 percent of the complaints we get are employment related. So w hat better audience c ould you want?

I think that is a very key point, and I congratulate them once again for doing it. 9:30 On the McDougall house designation, as the hon. member knows, it’s a good question she’s put forward, but there is a process in place with the Alberta Historical Resources Foundation, and I’m sure that they will re ad through Hansard and see what can be done about considering that place for possible de signation. I’m not aware of exactly which house it is that is being referenced.

I certainly know the McDougall story in part, and I’ve met some of the offspring from the o riginal McDouga lls, but I don’t know any thing about the province necessarily owning it or necessarily putting it up for sale. We’ll try and track that down. If the staff who are listening could undertake to jot that down, we can follow up on it. The issue about libraries. What has been restored, hon. member, is the per capita rate. It was $4.29 back in 1993, and it was cut to $4.03 for the operating grant part of public libraries.

What we were able to do this year with our own moneys in Community Develop- ment is restor e the per c apita grant f or public libra ries’ operating costs from $4.03 back up to $4.29, and we’re also using 2002 listings, so that makes a very large difference to those communities. Now, some are benefiting more than others. For example, I think the public library in Edmonton will be getting something like $245,000 more or thereabouts, and the Calgary public library will be getting probably slightly more than that because they have a larger popula- tion. Nonetheless, that’s a good thing.

The Grant MacEwan project for the benefit of the deaf and hard- of-hearing community. I knew that the m ember would be as king this. Actually, I was expecting Edmonton-Gold Bar to ask it, but I was pleased that the Member for Edm onton-Centre a sked on his behalf. What I can tell you is that I did speak with the Minister of Learning about this a week or two back when it was first brought to my attention, and my staff did a little follow-up in the meantime.

We are continuing our commitment to help our government improve our comm unications w ith Alber tans by providing qu ality, co- ordinated, and as cost-effective as possible communication services with the transfer of the responsibility for deaf and hard-of-hearing contracts from PDD boards directly to our department. Now, that doesn’t speak to the education piece, which I think is what the hon. member was asking about. That

part I will refer to the Ministry of Lea rning for follow-up because i n regard to sign language studies at Grant Ma cEwan C ollege, I believe it’s the Minister of Learning that is responsible for it. I know that there’s a need to continue bringing onstream trained, qualified individuals who have that pa rticular skill . At m any functions that I go to now, I see sign language interpreters. In fact, we had one in the House this afternoon, just behind the hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona and up in the gallery, who had a group for whom she was interp reting.

I t’s an exhausting job, it’s a highly skilled job, and I would certainly support anything that we can do to continue . . . [Mr. Zwozdesky’s speaking time expired] The Chair: The hon. Member for Calgary-Currie. Mr. Lord: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It’s a pleasure for me to be able to rise this evening to ask a number of questions, actually, of the minister as well. Clear ly the m inister may or m ay not be able to answer them fully this evening, perhaps jus t a few comments, but perhaps he could get back to me later on some of the more complex issues.

First, I’d like to start by thanking the minis ter for the hard work and dedication that he’s shown in this department. I do get a lot of positive comments, actually, f rom constituents and other people. The minister has built quite a reputation in a difficult a nd very diverse portfolio. When you cover everything from special places and parks to the arts community to sports, human rights, and the list goes on, clearly it’s a difficult portfolio with a lot of demands and a lot of people asking for money and obviously a very limited supply of money.

The first question that I’d like to put to the minister is in regard to the arts. Of course, we’ve heard quite a bit about the Victoria school for the arts in Edmonton, a proposed $60 million i n funding and quite an exci ting projec t for Edm onton. The hon. Me mber f or Edmonton-Meadowlark of course has been qui te involved in that.

I’m wondering what role, if any, Community Development might be able to play because, obviously, with all the publicity that Edmonton is getting with this exciting project, there are many in Calgary asking why Calgary doesn’t have a similar project, and why can’t we start something, and would the Community Development portfolio have anything to do with fostering that or perhaps helping promote or get something started there? This subject of c ourse has b een bantered around for years .

As alderman for ward 8 on city council, par t of ward 8 was Vic toria Park, which has a Victoria Park school not dissimilar, in fact, to the

1480 Alberta Hansard May 6, 2003 Edmonton project, a beautiful old sandstone that was closed by the school board, lots of exposure, right at the front door of the Stam- pede grounds. It’s been proposed that it would make a great school for the arts. Or better yet, I guess, from my perspective now, King Edward school, which is located in Calgary-Currie, again a beautiful sandstone school recently closed by the school board.

That actually brings m e to a third question that I’m wondering about in terms of centennial projects, because in addition to looking at King Edward school as perhaps a great location for a school for the arts, there is a question about the fact that there’s no proper bell in the bell t ower at King E dward. Never has been; a little bit of historical trivia there. When Bible Bill, William Aberhart, was the first principal, a bell was ordered for King Edward school back at the turn of the century, and it was ordere d from a foundry in England.

Unfortunately, that bell was shipped on a ship called the Titanic, and consequently Bible Bill didn’t get his bell. So a lot of people have been talking about a potential centennial project and were wondering whether funding is going to be available or not in that area. My third question. Because some of the headquarters of the film development industry in Alberta of course are currently located in Calgary-Currie as well, I do get questions about funding for the film and movie industry.

P articularly, the recen t annou ncement of a potential $25 million cutback from the federal government is causing considerable consternation within the industry across Canada. I’m wondering if the minister’s department has thought of if it actually occurs and if the re is som e fallout there, w ould there be any opportunities, I guess, for Alberta? Is there any way we can look at that as potentially drawing people to Alberta that maybe have been located elsewhere in the country? Toronto, for example. While it’s bad news overall, sometimes there’s a silver lining in the clouds.

Have we looked at whether or not there are any opportunities there? Has the department looked at that? The fourth issue, certainly of major interest to us in Calgary right now as well as people i n Edmonto n, is the ce ntennial prog ram, which includes the upgrading of the Jubilee auditoria in Calgary and Edmonton. Now, I know that the funding for centennial programs is found in Alberta Infrastructure for this proj ect, but my question here focus es on the re furbishing which is going to be managed, apparently, by Comm unity De velopment.

I’m w ondering if the minister can expl ain to us any significant ch ange or changes that might take place that would affect current users and audiences. Of course, there’s been a good deal of concern from some of the current users as to where they might go in the interim during this period of refurbishment because it may be financially ruinous to them if they do not find a suitable location to be able to go to.

I guess the final thing I might ask the minister to comment on – he may not be fully prepared to lay out the whole program – of course is the is sue of the finishing of the spe cial places and parks across Alberta and the recreational corridors review committee w hich recently turned in its report, one w hich was a bly chaired by t he Member for Lac La Biche-St. Paul and which I also had the pleasure, along with my colleagu e the Mem ber for W est Yell owhead, of turning in a report on. We’re wonderin g if ther e’s been a ny progress, direction, or where more work needs to be done in that regard.

If the minister could perhaps comment on that as well. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Chair: The hon. minister. Mr. Zwozdesky: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’ll move through this as quickly as I possibly can . The fi rst question from t he hon. Member for Calgary-Currie pertained to the Victoria school of the arts and the upgrades that they’re getting with the $60 million grant that was undeferred recently and what role Community Development can play in that regard.

Well, we don’t pla y a ny role w ith respec t to those spe cific moneys, but I’ll tell you what we do through our Alberta Foundation for the Arts that impacts that whole area of artistic devel opment. We’ll be providing about $29 mil lion this y ear for arts ove rall, including the film component. Here’s what’s critical to know about that. It’s where those grants are going and the impact they’re having which in turn hel ps feed an d bolster w hat Victoria school for the performing arts is doing.

I have a great affinity for it because I used to teach the re, and I ha ppened to tea ch languages and m usic and drama and so on.

So I was there when the telev ision pro gram started, and I’m very tuned in with what they’re doing. 9:40 The types of grants that we provide through the Alberta Founda- tion for the Arts courtesy of lottery dollars provided by the Ministry of Gam ing include s tudy gra nts; operati onal assis tance grants; festivals, which I talked about earlier; specific project support grants; commissions – we buy artwork and stuff like that ; we g ive out awards such as literary awards, which will be given out this coming Saturday for example; various competitions we fund; and we fund summer school s.

So there ’s a lot of that, and m uch of it is youth oriented. We also have a fairly active program, the name of which just escapes me rig ht now, w here touring groups are able to go to different schools with their productions. I recall seeing the produc- tion of Snow White by the A lberta touri ng alliance or som ething close to that n ame. That’s not the prope r name; I’ve just lost it momentarily here. Now, we provided them some grant funding, and they take that production and tour it out to all the schools, and we’re talking anywhere from about grade 4 up.

So they have a tremendous impact throu gh gra nt dollars we provide, and that does impact students who get intereste d in i t and will perhaps g o on to the Victoria school of pe rforming arts. Why isn’t there one and can’t one be done in Calgary is a good question. I don’t know the answer to that, but I do know that we have a centre of performing excellence here in the Victoria school. I can’t help you, hon. member, with the King Edward school bell. I don’t know that project, but the simple answer to whether or not centennial funding would be available in the coming year is: not at this time.

We don’t have any capacity for additional dollars yet, but there are a number of people who are asking me that question, so I will put the question forward through our process and see what happens. I app reciate t hat Calg ary-Currie is th e hea dquarters f or ma ny, many film and video companies. I have b een there. I have toured the site on a couple of occasions. I am very impressed with what’s going on there, and I’m devastated, as you are, with the rumoured cuts to the Cana dian television f und by the f ederal g overnment.

What I would tell you in response to your question, hon. member, is this: if they cut that $25 m illion out, we will lose six of the seven major televis ion projects that we re

schedule d to occur in thi s province, and that’s why we’re fighting very hard. That will have an economic impact of some where betwee n $10 million a nd $20 million in dollar terms. It’ll have a far greater impact on eroding the delicate and fragile and highly mobile film infrastructure community of crews which we rely on not only for our own indigenous productions but that a lot of offshore companies rely on when they come here. It’s not only the mountains and the badlands and the beautiful long, sunny, clear days that we offer here that attract these film producers from around the world, whom we do not fund by the way, but they come here because

May 6, 2003 Alberta Hansard 1481 it’s economical for them to do business here, and they can pick up a crew – a sound, film, lighting, et cetera, crew – like that. But we have to do what w e can to e nsure that t hat infrastructure remains there, and that’s why I’ve written to the federal minister asking her to rescind, and I hope that she’s done that. The Jubilee Auditorium upgrades.

I’ve answered par t of that before, but I would j ust tell you very quickly that the two Jubilee auditoria, based on what I last saw from the ar chitects, have confirmed that they’re going to provide a better house handling system for air flow. They’ll be reraking; in other words, reinclining the theatre s pace w here the a udience sit s for better s ight lines. They’ll be improving the ac oustics. T hey will be im proving the foyers that abut the viewing area and a number of other things.

Anyway, they’ve really got quite a lot in mind, which is why we have to close both places down for an extended period of time, likely about a yea r, to get i t all don e. It’s not something we could do piecemeal. We looked at trying to do that. It’s nothing we can do in a phased-in approach of a month here, a month there. It has to all be done at once, and we’ve reviewed that thoroughly.

My final c omment is wit h r egard to special places, and I was getting to that when the time ran out and I was trying to answer the Member for Edmonton-Centre’s questions in that regard because she did reference snowmobile trails. I will give her a longer answer in writing on this. I know that the Recreation Corridors Legislative Review, that was done by the Member for Lac La Biche-St.

Paul, who chaired it, along with the Member for West Yellowhead – and I believe the Member for Calgary-Currie was also involved – did an outstanding job, had consultations throughout the pr ovince w ith hundreds of groups, including letters, e-mails, phone calls, and so on. They’ve dealt with a lot of very sensitive issues impacting the whole issue of recreation corridors. I can’t remember the exact number right off the top of my head, but it seem s to me that we have about 15,000 kilometres of trail already throughout the province of Alberta. Some of them are better linked than others.

There are gaps in a few places, and I know that they are looking at how to address that while a lso bearing in mind the very highly charged and sensitive concerns that a lot of individuals have in some of the other areas. It’s not a huge problem for us in the larger urban centres, and it’s not a huge problem in places like the trail that goes from St. Paul, maybe, to Elk Point. I just forget. Iron Horse or something like that it’s called. It’s a wonderful trail because it’s built on an abandoned railway line, as I recall. I toured that one; we drove it, actually. It was fantastic, absolutely incredible.

We went through all the fences, locked them all up behind us and so on. I am im pressed with w hat the com mittee has put for ward. I’ll have the report coming onto my radar screen very soon, and I’ll be responding to that and taking it through our process. Suffice it to say that the hon. Member for Edmonton-Cen tre mentioned the need for more snowmobile trai ls. I would agree. I think we do nee d some of those. They have to go i n areas where they are permitted to go, and there is an upkeep factor there that we look for local groups to help us out with.

But I want to go on record once again saying that we are not going to be looking at or helping out with trails or whatever in those areas where a local municipality hasn’t first given the okay for them to occur. That is something that currently exists as a right within the Municipal Government Act, I believe it’s called, the MGA. That right will remain that way. It is not our position as a provincial government to over step what’s in municipal legislation. Those people wanting trails in different areas will need first to have the approval of the local municipality in the instances that apply.

With that, hon. member, I think I will take my seat so that others can ask any questions they might have. Dr. Taft: I will quickly get some issues up about PDD, which, after all, accounts for a good majority of the minister’s budget, and there will be other ques tions whic h we w ill provide to th e minister in writing because we have many other issues to cover, shall I put it that way. I’m on page 91 of the estimates, funding for PDD boards.

One of the problems with PDD boards in the past has been that in fact what appears in the budget is not what finally gets provided to the boards, and it’s a parallel problem to w hat happens to the regional health authorities. Their planning process is behind the fiscal cycle. Can the minister explain to us whether these current estimates are really what’s going to f inally be provided to t he PDD boards, or if not, when will those figures be finalized? Indeed, what is the budgeting and planning process for the boards, and how does that fit into the budget cycle?

I think it’s the case that some boards don’t get their budgets and business plans finalized until well into the fiscal year, which in my view is poor management. Last year a number of PDDs were concerned about deficits. The funding levels this year rise by about 8 percent, but that’s about what they rose by last y ear, and la st yea r they ha d deficit s, s o I’m concerned that this year they may have deficits again. So how many boards are proje cting deficits this year, based on the ir plans rig ht now? Interest ingly, how many are taking on new cli ents? More importantly, what is the net number of new clients?

In other words, each PDD board lose s and gains some clients as the year goes on. What’s the net increase in clients expected to be? Will PDD boards be allowed to run deficits this year? Is that a possibility for them? If not, what direction does the minister expect to give PDD boards if they are p rojecting deficits?

I’m trying to go ver y quickly here because I know the M ember for Edmonton-Strathcona has some issues he’d like the opportunity to raise as well. 9:50 When it comes to waiting lists for PDD services, which have come up in question period a couple of times recently, what is being done to streamline the intake process for PDD clients? Is the assumption there that this process is as efficient as it co uld be, or co uld we perhaps improve that, streamline it and speed it up?

I will send a number of other questions to the minister in writing, but one other se t concerns the Eric Cor mack Centr e, ju st a few blocks from the Legisl ature. There are plans or rum ours of plans going around that the Cormack Centre may be phased out or closed down. What are the future plans? The minister is shaking his head. Either he’s puzzled or h e’s just saying no. Anywa y, perha ps he could provide it in writing so we don’t consume too much time here. What are the future plans for the Cormack Centre? How does it fit into the long-term plans of PDD?

The rest of the questions here I will submit to t he minister in writing, and I’m sure, in fact, that he will respond in writing. I’d like the Member for Edmonton-Strathcona to have a chance too. Thank you. The Chair: Hon. minister, I’ve got about four or five other people on the list. Mr. Zwozdesky: I just want to say that I will provide the answers in writing, and I’ll defer to the next member. The Chair: Okay. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Norwood. Mr. Masyk: Thanks, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate this opportu- nity, to the mi nister.

T he minister recently announced along with His Worship Mayor Bill Smith that Edmonton would be hosting the

1482 Alberta Hansard May 6, 2003 2004 Juno s. Will the min ister expla in ho w this fits w ithin the ministry’s business plan and how the provincial contribution is being funded? If I may add also, the Community Development budget includes a $19.8 million increase from the Alberta lottery fund fo r the arts, recreation, sports, human rights and citizenship, education, cultural diversity, volunteerism, and heritage programs.

In the Community Development business pla n o ne of the challe nges ident ified is “increasing demands generated by community needs within the arts and culture, sport and rec reation, and voluntary sectors.” How is this ministry going to address these challenges? Thank you. Mr. Zwozdesky: Again, Mr. Chairman, just for the record and in deference to ti me and oth er me mbers w ho have ques tions, I’ll undertake to respond in writing to the hon. Member for Edmonton- Norwood, and I thank him for those good questions. The Chair: Okay. The hon. Me mber for Edmonton-Strathcona, followed by the hon.

Member for Clover Bar-Fort Saskatchew an, followed by Whitecourt-Ste. Anne. Edmonton-Ellerslie: yes, okay. I’ve just got a question mark, so you’re in there. Dr. Pannu: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to start by compli- menting the minister for his diligence in answering questions and his agreement to answer questions in writing if they’re submitted, if he can’t put them all on the record now. I want to thank him also for a detailed answer that he gave to one of m y written questions so me months ago. I appreciated that. That had to do with the Human Rights Commission’s waiting times.

I m ay put thr ee specific questions on the re cord now, a nd the minister can answer them along with others that may come from me in writing. Minister, one of y our responsibilities, of cours e, is to preserve and protect the cultural and natural heritage of Albertans. I presume this includes sites of heritage value in urban areas as well.

In my constituency is an area that’s come under increasing pressure from the university’s expansion eastward, and the community league has been ver y, very concerned about the potential f or un iversity encroachment and, t herefore, in the long r un the disappearance of this historically very, very important area of Edmonton, Alberta. I wonder if the minister can let me know what kind of help Garneau community residents can expect from his department as they make attempts – and they’ve been doing it for a long time – to protect the area because of its her itage value and his torical significance. So that’s one.

The secon d qu ick qu estion, aga in ab out t he Whyt e Av enue damage by fire some months ago. You’re aware of it. I w as in Montreal just about two months ago, and someone s topped me on the way and said: “I saw you on the TV. You are the MLA for that area that got bur nt. Oh, my goodness.” So, again, are ther e any resources available from your department to help the community and the property owners there to restore the area that was burnt down so that the general significance, both commercial and cultural, of Whyte Avenue can be restored and preserved? There’s the second question. The third one, Mr.

M inister, has to do with a natural a rea that needs protection. I ha ve been pr esented pe titions here from Calgarians in the hundreds over the last month and a half. The area in question is the Evan-Thomas provincial recreation area, and the petitioners of course have been asking that this area plan be revised so as to disallow any further commercial or residential development in and around it, including the Kananaskis valley, and to redesignate this Evan-Thomas provincial recreation area and adjace nt unp ro- tected public lands and expand them as a provincial park.

So I hope that y ou’ll be able to address those questions specifi- cally because they have become my concern. T wo of them come from my constituency. The third one is, of course, that Calgarians have been sending us lots of petitions on it. I will cede my turn to some other members who might want to just raise q uestions, and I’ll be forwarding some que stions to y ou in writing. Mr. Zwozde sky: Once aga in, Mr. Cha irman, I ’d be hap py t o undertake to provide those in writing. I have the answers.

I know the answers, as I did to the previous questions, but so that others can get their questions on record, I’ll cede the floor to them. The Chair: The hon. Member for Clover Bar-Fort Saskatchewan. Mr. Lougheed: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr.

Minister, we know that your department is responsible for the Premier’s Council on the Status of Persons with Disabilities and has been very receptive to the discussions that have tak en place ov er the las t while, especially about the A lberta disa bility s trategy that council mem bers put together over a period of several years, actually, and then released back in December of 2002. The disability stra tegy, as you know , identifi es eight major objectives that the c ouncil members believe the community has expressed as their p riorities to move forward as soon as possible.

Briefly describing them, thos e prioritie s would be to i ncrease awareness and to ensure that their daily living needs would be met. The removal of physical barriers is important. They would like to see a streamlined appeal system. They feel that there should be more individualized support, something that the community has termed a community supports model. In addition, improved access to educ ation at al l levels and the need to separate income support from disability support.

One of the aspects of this that’s probably most poorly understood by members of the gene ral popu lation is that not only do mem bers of t he disability community need those income supports, but they in fact need additional supports, depending on their disability, to get going in the morning, get off to work, just even to get started on their day, and those requirements may consume a large portion of any funding that they may receive. Then the eighth priority that the council members believe needs to be addressed is employment support.

It’s been said many times in this House that the best social program is a job, and that certainly applies to the members of the disability community. The goals of the community are to attain full citizenship, and full citizenship is a platform which stands on four different legs, four differe nt pillars, those being . . . 10:00 The Chair: I hesitate to interrupt the hon.

Member for Clover Bar- Fort Saskatchewan, but pursuant to Sta nding Order 58( 4), which provides for not less than two hours of consideration for a depart - ment’s proposed estimates unless there are no members who wish to speak prior to the conclusion of the two hours, I must now put the question on the proposed estimates for the Department of Commu- nity Development for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2004. Agreed to: Operating Expense and Equipment/Inventory Purchases $633,497,000 Capital Investment $1,262,000 The Chair: Shall the vote be reported? Are you agreed?

May 6, 2003 Alberta Hansard 1483 Hon. Members: Agreed. The Chair: Opposed? Carried. The hon. Deputy Government House Leader. Mr. Zwozdesky: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It’s been a ver y ele ctrifying eveni ng so fa r. I have no doubt it’ll continue that way. However, I would move that the House now rise and report the estimates of Community Development. [Motion carried] [The Deputy Speaker in the chair] Mr. Lougheed: Mr. S peaker, the Committee of Supply has had under considerat ion cert ain resoluti ons, reports as follow s, and requests leave to sit again.

Resolved that a sum not exceeding the following be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2004, for the following department. Community Developm ent: ope rating expe nse and equip- ment/inventory purchases , $633,497,000; capita l investm ent, $1,262,000. The Deputy Speaker: Would all thos e who conc ur in this re port please say aye? Some Hon. Members: Aye. The Deputy Speaker: Opposed? Some Hon. Members: No. The Deputy Speaker: The motion is carried. head : Government Bills and Orders head: Committee of the Whole [Mr.

Tannas in the chair] The Chair: I’d call the Committee of the Whole to order. Bill 29 Law of Property Amendment Act, 2003 The Chair: Are there any comments, questions, or amendments to be offer ed with re spect to thi s bill? T he hon. Mem ber for Edmonton-Riverview. Dr. Taft: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise to ask the sponsor of the bi ll, the Mem ber for C algary-Lougheed, if she has had a n opportunity to address some of the issues that were raised by me in second reading. Thank you. The Chair: The hon. Member for Calgary-Lougheed. Ms Graham: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Yes, as the sponsor of Bill 29 I’d like to make some comments, and perhaps I would commence by just restating the purpose and the effect of the amendments in Bill 29. Quite simply, the main purpose of these amendments is to level the playing field for the mortgage insurance business in Alberta.

The amendments are designed to ensure that the two mortgag e default insurers operating in the province at the moment, being the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, which, as we all know, is a federal Crown corporation, as well as GE Capital Mortgage Insur- ance, Canada, which is a private-sector company, will operate under the same foreclosure rules under our Law of Property Act. Our Law of Property Act, Mr. Chairman, sets out amongst many other rules governing property transactions in Alberta the statutory authority for lending institutions on property foreclosures.

The general rule is that lending institutions can’t sue a borrower for any shortfall on a residential mortgage once the property goes i nto foreclosure, and the l ender i s res tricted to t he p roperty onl y, regardless of the value of the property and whether or not there is a shortfall. But the re is an exception to this general rule, and that exception favours CMHC on all of its mortgages.

So the intent of these amendments in Bill 29 is to extend this same ex emption t hat CMHC enjoys to GE Capital M ortgage Insurance, Canada or any other mortgage insurance provider that m ight enter the ma rket in Alberta for high-ratio mortgages only. As members may recall, the definition of a high-ratio mortgage will be determined at a later date by regulation after further consulta- tion with stakeholders and various other industry players is con- ducted.

I can add that under the Bank Act a high-ratio mortgage is currently defined as a mortgage where more than 75 percent of the value of the property is financed, and that may well be the definition that is adopted in Alberta for the purposes of these amendments. So we hav e, Mr.

Chair man, a double standard operating in the province in a two- company industry where the legislation favours one company over the other, and in this provinc e certa inly the philosophy of this government and, I think, most Albertans is that we do not like to se e a gove rnment a gency having a competi tive advantage over a private-sector competitor. I’ll now try and respond to the questions that were raised during the debate at second reading.

It’s my recollection that the Member for Edmonton-Riverview wanted to know some data on the mortgage delinquency rates in Alberta and was wondering if those rates were higher in this provi nce than in oth er provinces. I can advise that according to data received from the Canadian Bankers Association, the delinquency rate for Alberta residential housing in 2002 averaged .4 percent of all residential housing in the province.

This percentage was the third lowest in Canada, behind only Quebec at .3 percent and Ontario at .3 percent as well. 10:10 The Member for Edmonton-Riverview had also wanted to know the reason for people defaulting on their mortgages. This is the best information that I’ve been able to obtain, and this comes from GE Capital, its experience with defaulters in 2002. Of those cases where the cause of default was known – and I’m sorry that I don’t have the total number – 80 percent of those defaults resulted from misrepre- sentations made b y the bo rrower at the time the m ortgage was granted.

I would expect that that would largely relate to ability to pay and not being straightforward on that point. This means, then, that only 20 per cent of G E’s known defaults resulted f rom true hardship cases such as unemployment, death, illness, marital split- up, and those types of reasons.

The hon. member also wa nted to kno w what the im pact of our existing legislation had been on G E Capital a s it operat es in the province, and it is the belief of GE Capital that some borrowers are choosing their company based on a negative selec tion process, meaning that some mortgage brokers, lawyers, and other financial intermediaries are ac tively promoting the defi ciency judgme nt protection on GE Capital insured mortgages to borrowers.

So this has resulted in GE Capital i nsuring the hi gher risk , higher ra tio mortgages, contributing to GE Capital having a higher delinquency rate in Alberta than it does in the rest of Canada.

1484 Alberta Hansard May 6, 2003 The member also wanted to know about CMHC’s policies when people have lost their capacity to sustain a high-ratio mortgage and defaulted on the mortgage. We approached CMHC on this, and they advise that through their approved lenders they have a comprehen- sive program that provide s advice and financ ial assi stance to borrowers experiencing financial hardship, the object being to keep borrowers in t heir ho mes o f cou rse a nd t o re solve an y real or potential default.

While CMHC has the ability to pursue or sue on the covenant or debt, the d ecision to proceed is made only after careful review of both the circumstances leading to the default and the financial capacity of the borrower. Even after the decision has been made to pursue the debt on the covenant and judgm ent has bee n ob tained agains t the borrow er, CMHC’s colle ction policies require a n ongoing rev iew of the borrower’s fin ancial ci rcumstances and the ir ability to repay the debt. GE Capital advises that it has a similar policy.

It has a default management program called workout, which allows len ders, borrowers, and GE Capital to work together to try to keep borrowers again in their hom es aft er fall ing on hard times . Some of the workout program options include arranging for a pa rtial payment, increasing the amortization period, arranging for an interest rate buy- down, and deferring payments. I believe that the last question the hon. Me mber for Edmonton- Riverview raised was: is it likely that the proposed amendments will result in GE Capital lowering its interest rate?

I’d have to advise that that is not like ly insofar as CMHC and GE C apital offer the same mortgage default insurance rates a cross Canada regardless of the region. Currently GE Capital is experiencing a higher risk for less reward in Alberta. GE Capital would need to offer the same interest rates as CMHC in order to compete with CMHC, but as GE Capital is incurring a higher risk in Alberta, it is incurring a higher risk in Alberta because it can’t sue for any outstanding balance. [Mr.

Lougheed in the chair] I believe I commented in second reading that leveling the playing field would certainly introduce competition, and it will. We don’t anticipate that it will lower the interest rates for the reasons that I’ve mentioned, but it will in all lik elihood cause ne w products to be introduced in the marketplace which will benefit consumers. There has been previous evidence of this because prior to 1995, when GE Capital entered the Canadian market, CMHC had a virtual monopoly at that time.

When GE Capital entered the Canadian market, it did introduce two ne w p roducts, which CMHC subsequently also introduced, and that was t he very popula r portab le mortgage insurance program and the defau lt manag ement pr ogram, that I spoke about a few moments ago. Because of the amendments which are proposed and should they be adopted, which we hope they will, GE Capital does plan to offer all of its products that it offers in other places in Canada. It plans to offer them in Alberta on the same loan-to-value ratio used in the rest of Canada.

If the amendments are not adopted and don’t come into force in Alberta, it’s quite likely these products may never be offered in Alberta, or if they were, they’d be offered at a lower loan-to-value ratio than in the rest of Canada.

The two new products GE Capital plans to launch thi s year and hopefully will launch in Alberta are the home equity line of credit product, which allows borrowers to use their home as security to get a high-ratio mortgage that acts like a line of credit, which will reduce a person’s borrowing cost by only being charged standard mortgage interest rates ra ther than the rates a ssociated with the typical unsecured lines of credit. The s econd product is k nown as the second home product, and it allows borrowers to obtain high-ratio financing on a second home.

That, I believe, in a general way covers the questions raised by the members for Edm onton-Riverview and E dmonton-Gold Bar. I believe Edmonton-Ellerslie stated that she didn’t understand why it was necessary to make these amendments because she thought the level playing field was already available, and I hope I’ve been able to establish that it isn’t unless we make these changes. Those would be my comments for now. I’d be willing and pleased to answer any other questions that hon. members may have. The Acting Chair: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona. Dr. Pannu: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have one question for the hon. Member for Calgary-Lougheed, the sponsor of t he bill. Th e point of this bill, t he Law of Property Amendment Act, 2003, Bill 29, is ostensibly to level th e playing field. My question has to do with whether or not CMH C and its competitors, in this c ase GE, really operate in exactly the same markets to start with, and I’ll put it in the for m of a question bec ause I’m not enti rely clear about whether or not my understanding is sound. GE Capital Mortgage Insurance as a private-sector operator I think has the fre edom to re ject clie nts if it feels they a re too risky.

Naturally, as a private business it makes decisi