Before deregulation, Albertans enjoyed some of the lowest electricity rates in the world.

Today, our rates are among the highest in Canada.

The Alberta Liberal Caucus believes that government has a role to play in regulating essential services like electricity, where market forces are insufficient to protect consumers from price instability.

We will move Alberta forward by restoring affordable, stable electricity rates for homeowners and businesses, and return common sense and order to Albertans’ monthly power bills.

The Largest Power Bill in Alberta History: $13.8 Billion

In six years, deregulation has added $13.8 billion dollars extra to the cost of generating power in this province - not including transmission, distribution and billing costs.

The Alberta Liberal Caucus Plan for Electricity

Re-regulate the electricity system for all Albertans.

Simplify power bills to eliminate customer confusion.

Establish a Planning Council on Electricity to help predict and prepare for future energy requirements using the lowest-cost options.

Keep prices as low as possible by ensuring the lowest-cost power generators are used first.

Actively promote energy conservation, and encourage electricity generation from renewable resources and alternative energy sources.

Here’s how our power plan stacks up against deregulation:

[direct link to this article]

To download the Alberta Liberal Opposition Land Use Strategy, click here.

[direct link to this article]

The Liberal Opposition’s major accomplishments in Seniors and Community Supports this session included the government’s long-overdue increase to AISH levels, in response to the Liberals’ repeated calls for more help for AISH recipients. The 2005 provincial budget included an $80-million annual injection to the program, raising spending to $488 million per year for severely disabled Albertans who cannot work full time to support themselves. This is exactly what the Liberal Caucus had been calling for. However, we continued to criticize the government’s inability to conduct long-term planning when they failed to set a plan to ensure regular increases to the monthly living allowance.

The recommendations in the Auditor General’s Report on Long-Term Care Facilities echoed many of the measures the Alberta Liberal Opposition has proposed for years regarding all those in continuing care.  Liberal policy supports the establishment of provincial standards for:

• Minimum staff training requirements,
• Resident care, including resident rights in all continuing care facilities,
• Accommodation,
• Nutrition and food

As well as:

• The establishment of an independent Ombudsman for residents in continuing care facilities,
• Restoring universal dental and optical benefits for seniors under the Alberta Seniors Benefits program.

The Liberal Opposition identified problems and pressed the government for action, long before the Auditor General’s report was released. We drew attention to the high rate of sedative and antipsychotic drug use in Alberta, which is almost double the rate in Europe and the U.S., and the possible connection to staff shortages. The Alberta Liberal Opposition repeated these concerns when the AG presented similar findings.

Accountability was a theme that was emphasized throughout this spring session as we planted seeds of democratic reform by proposing the establishment of all-party committees. The cooperation and openness that all-party committees create, make the democratic process open, transparent, and accountable.  Bridget Pastoor offered her expertise to the Task Force on Continuing Care Health Service and Accommodation Standards in reviewing the substandard care levels at continuing care facilities across the province.  She urged the government to put partisan politics aside in an effort to do what is best for Albertans in care.

[direct link to this article]

Today’s seniors are not content to watch life from the sidelines – they are actively involved in their communities and most are fully aware and engaged in the issues that affect them.

The cutbacks of the Tory government over the past 10 years have hurt seniors. Many have seen their ability to pay the bills and enjoy their retirement decline sharply.

While eliminating health care premiums and gaining the modest benefits promised by the Tory government will provide some relief for seniors, more needs to be done.

The Alberta Liberal Opposition would:

• Restore universal dental and optical benefits for seniors
• Index the Alberta Seniors Benefit to the Alberta consumer price index
• Reduce costs for independent seniors by re-regulating electricity and introducing public auto insurance
• Provide incentives to build affordable housing for seniors
• Increase the number of long-term care spaces
• Provide stable and equitable funding for seniors’ lodges
• Establish Standards of Care for organizations caring for frail or ill seniors
• Implement Standards of Training for seniors care attendants so staff are equipped with appropriate knowledge and skills
• Establish a body to investigate complaints of elder abuse and other seniors’ issues

[direct link to this article]

View our brochure (PDF format) that outlines the Liberal plan for public health care.

[direct link to this article]

Coal Bed Methane (CBM), a new energy source, could result in enormous long-term payoffs.  But because of its environmental risks, CBM could be a blessing or a curse for this province.

CBM is a natural gas found in coal seams.  It is extracted by drilling multiple wells into coal seams and allowing the gas to flow to the surface.  CBM requires a higher density of wells than other natural gas projects because of the low concentration of gas in coal seams.  During CBM extraction, water may be used, and this water contains contaminants.

Alberta must get it right

Coal bed methane poses risks to land and water and can generate significant noise pollution and flaring. American landowners have met with members of the Alberta Surface Rights Federation to relate their experiences. In Colorado, methane leaked into local water wells. Water from CBM extraction also leaked out and with its high mineral content made the local land uncultivable. The Alberta government should learn some lessons from the American experience before proceeding with CBM development here.

There are currently about 1,000 CBM wells in Alberta. They’ve been dubbed “experimental” by Alberta Energy meaning they don’t have to undergo environmental impact assessments.

Albertans deserve better. All CBM developments should undergo comprehensive environmental impact assessments. Resource development has to be balanced against its potential to harm the environment and nearby residents.

[direct link to this article]

Looking for a particular policy?  Select your topic area here to see our policy in that area.

[direct link to this article]

Our policy for dealing with climate change in a fair and effective way.

The Climate Change Risk

Over the past 100 years, greenhouse-gas emissions have been steadily increasing.

Scientists believe these emissions are causing the earth’s temperature to rise.  They predict an increase between 1.4 and 5.8 degrees Celsius by the end of this century.

The effects of this temperature change would be devastating.  Some effects could include:

• an increased incidence of severe weather, such as drought and forest fires, which have already cost Alberta over $2.3 billion in the past five years;
• glacial shrinkage, resulting in less available drinking water;
• a decline in biological diversity crucial to the environment;
• adverse effects on Alberta tourism such as skiing and fishing; and decreasing water quality for human consumption.

Clearly it is in the best interests of Albertans to act now and avoid these consequences.

Tackling Climate Change

Climate change is a real risk to Albertans and our environment.  As a contributor to this problem and as stewards of the environment, we must act now to counter this growing threat.

The Alberta Liberal Caucus has established a set of principles to guide our solution the problem of climate change.

• A strategy that unfairly targets any single province, region, or economic sector is unacceptable.
• The climate change strategy must respect the goal of economic growth in Canada and the provinces.
• Any strategy to reduce emissions must be a cooperative effort between the provinces, the federal government, and Canadians.
• Climate change demands immediate action.
• We must reduce greenhouse gas emissions – not just slow their increase – to stop climate change.
• Protecting our environment and the air we breathe is an important element of long-term economic growth.
• Climate change initiatives provide growth opportunities for environmental technology companies in Alberta.

At What Cost?

The Alberta Government claims that meeting Kyoto reduction targets would cripple Alberta’s economy.  However, the government’s numbers fail to consider many important factors, such as:

• the cost of climate change, such as drought and other severe weather conditions;
• savings to consumers and businesses through energy efficiency;
• economic growth and job creation from the increased demand for clean energy (solar and wind) and new technology;
• an increased quality of life for Albertans through a cleaner environment; the ability of future technological innovation to help meet emissions targets economically.

A Strong Plan Of Action

The key to slowing down climate change is a strong plan of action created through consultation between all orders of government, the public and industry stakeholders.

• Emissions standards should be set for different emissions categories.
• In other words, different industries should reduce emissions proportional to their ability to do so.
• CO₂ should be defined as a commodity and placed on a national exchange where emitters could buy and sell emissions credits.
• The federal government should be able to buy international emissions credits when the domestic price becomes too high.
• The primary cause of greenhouse gas emissions, consumer energy use, should be addressed through consumer awareness and incentive programs.

Innovative Solutions

Storing CO₂ underground

One possibility is the storage of CO₂ underground, including exhausted oil wells.  This would also provide industry a supply of CO₂ to help recover oil from wells.

Coal-bed CO₂ injection

One specific kind of geological storage is coal-bed methane enhancement with CO₂.  This technique assists in recovering valuable methane from coal deposits while storing CO₂ underground.

An Energy Efficiency Fund

By allocating just ½ of one percent of our royalty revenues (about $20 million) the government could create a revolving fund for energy efficiency to help Albertans make their homes more energy efficient.  The low-interest loans would be paid back over time with the money saved on energy bills.

CO₂ should be defined as a commodity and placed on a national exchange where greenhouse gas emitters would be able to buy and sell emissions credits.  This market would ensure that emissions levels are reduced in the most efficient manner possible for our country.

[direct link to this article]

The water policy for the Liberal Caucus.

More than gold, more than silver, more than the province’s oil and gas reserves … water is our most precious natural resource.  And now, more than ever, we must take steps to protect it.

The Alberta Liberal Caucus Water Policy is guided by the following principles:

• The government holds our water in trust to ensure a healthy environment and healthy people.
• Sustainability of our water resource is paramount, and decisions on use or allocation will involve environmental protection of and conservation.
• The public has a reasonable expectation to be involved in decisions about water supply.
• New water management legislation must recognize the environmental values of this precious provincial resource.

That means:

• Ensuring water quality.
• Preserving biological diversity.
• Ensuring an ample supply of pure drinking water.
• Determining, restoring and protecting in-stream needs.
• Developing and sustaining healthy aquatic ecosystems.
• Protecting heritage, aesthetic and recreational values and the role water plays in economic growth.

Ensuring water quality

Provincial testing processes for drinking water need to be reviewed.

Alberta needs safe drinking water, access to testing facilities, and prompt turnaround for test results.

Watershed Stakeholders

The following stakeholders must work together to reduce the impact of development, economic activities and land use on water quality:

• wastewater operators
• drinking-water treatment-plant operators
• livestock and crop producers
• rural residents
• land owners
• industries

Clear lines of communication and co-operation between health authorities and Environment must be established to ensure water quality issues are dealt with promptly.

The process for notifying the public about water quality concerns must be improved.

Sustainability and Conservation

We recognize that water is a scarce and valuable resource.  The Alberta Liberal Caucus vision for water management includes:

• Alberta’s ground water resources are mapped so we understand how much water we have and where it is located.
• All connections to a public water supply are metered.
• Equipment meets efficiency guidelines.
• Water-intensive industries are reviewed to ensure they are using the best available technology.
• Watershed management plans are published on a scheduled timeline.
• Priorities for use of water are given to users on the condition that strict conservation measures are implemented.

Environmental Protection

Protecting our water resource and the landscape it sustains ensures a healthy environment.

That means:

• Saying no to bulk water sales and no to interbasin transfers.
• Ensuring that crown resource dispositions (forestry, mines, minerals, and public land resources) are registered.
• Establishing and protecting in-stream flows before allocating any excess.

Public Participation

The Alberta Liberal Caucus vision for water management includes:

• Published applications for diversions or withdrawals and new uses, prior to approval.
• Fair and open public hearings, with intervener funding made available.
• Advance notice of meetings, information used by decision-makers, and meaningful input into decision-making given to all Albertans, not just those directly affected.

Environment Policy

• We must recognize the value of wetlands to our ecosystem.
• We must not reduce our potential to regulate wetland drainage.
• Biodiversity protection must be included in legislation as required by the Biodiversity Convention, which Canada has signed. That means the protection species and organisms whenever possible.
• Aesthetic aspects, such as appearance and smells, economic, and tourism interests, must be included in the provincial water policy.

[direct link to this article]

1. Don’t feel pressured. You don’t ever have to sign a contract. A default electricity price is always available to consumers who haven’t signed contracts.
2. Find out how much extra charges will cost you. Make sure you ask the salesperson about extra charges and add-ons, not just about the electricity or natural gas prices. Those extras add up!
3. Check the cancellation penalties. Ask about the contract’s cancellation clause. There may be large fees or penalties for moving or canceling for other reasons.
4. Ask about one-time charges. Make sure you don’t get a nasty surprise on your first bill! Ask the salesperson if there are any additional, up-front, or one-time charges that new customers have to pay.
5. Take all the time you need. Remember that you don’t have to sign a contract on the spot. Always get the facts and check the competition before you lock in.
6. Shop around. Under energy deregulation, you do not have to buy electricity and natural gas from the same retailer. Make sure you get the lowest price you can for every utility.
7. Ask marketers for i.d. All door-to-door energy salespeople must carry identification, so ask for it.
8. Protect yourself against scams. Before you sign a contract, always call Alberta Government Services at 1-877-427-4088 to make sure the retailer is licensed.
9. Go over your contract again after you sign. You have 10 days from when you receive your signed copy of the contract to cancel without paying any fees or facing any penalties. Always double-check the contract to make sure the terms are what you expected!
10. Know whom to call when things go wrong. Before you sign a contract, find out whom to call when there’s a problem with your bill and when your power or natural gas isn’t working. Often, it will be two different companies.

[direct link to this article]

Electricity. It’s something we use every day. It’s something we can’t live without.

THE WAY TO LOW-COST POWER FOR ALBERTA

Do you “choose” to buy electricity for your home?

If you’re like most Albertans, it’s not a matter of choice.

It’s a matter of necessity.

For many years, Albertans enjoyed some of the lowest power rates in North America.

For many years, we didn’t even need to think about electricity - unless the power went out and we were counting the minutes or hours until service was restored.

Unfortunately, those days are gone.

DEREGULATION HAS FAILED

The efficient, reliable, affordable system that once served us so well was dismantled by the Alberta government with no rhyme or reason.

The government traded in a perfectly functional, customer-friendly system - for a complex, confusing, and worst of all - expensive - mistake.

And Albertans are paying the price.

The government has spent billions of our hard-earned tax dollars trying to fix this costly mistake - called deregulation.

But the mess just gets worse.

DO YOU WANT TO SHOP AROUND FOR POWER?

As if high confusing bills aren’t enough, Albertans will be forced to shop around for electricity service, starting in 2006 when the Regulated Rate Option expires.

How do you feel about the prospect of facing door-to-door salespeople selling contracts for electricity?

Isn’t there a better way to do things?

Why can’t we have cheap, reliable power like we used to?

The answer is - yes - there is a better way. Yes, we can have cheap, reliable power like we used to.

LOW-COST POWER FOR ALBERTA

Electricity is an essential service - not a commodity that’s subject to radical price swings.

The Alberta Liberal Opposition, in consultation with electricity experts, has designed a superior new system for electricity service in Alberta.

Under our Low-Cost Power for Alberta plan:

• You will save money. 
• Power bills will be easier to understand.
• You won’t be forced to shop around for the best deal.
• You’ll get one low rate, with no contracts to sign and no complicated calculations to make.
• You will be able to budget more easily each month because the rate will be stable.
• You can count on a steady supply of low-cost power for years to come.

DEREGULATION HAS NOT WORKED FOR ALBERTA

The Tories promised that the changes would bring lower power bills - but we’ve seen just the opposite.

It’s no wonder other jurisdictions have rejected energy deregulation.

California’s disastrous experiment with deregulation, which also started with promises of cheaper power, ended in early 2003 after eight years of economic misery for consumers.

In announcing this decision, a California Public Utilities Commissioner said deregulation was “a disaster for ratepayers, utilities and their employees.”

He called deregulation “the most expensive public policy mistake in the history of California.”

Can Alberta be far behind?

THE LOW-COST POWER FOR ALBERTA PLAN—HOW IT WORKS

The Low-Cost Power for Alberta plan is based on a centralized, streamlined system that minimizes capital and operating costs.

Alberta is already well-equipped to adopt such a system.

All we need is political will.

Our plan is based on the following principles:

• Electricity is an essential service-not a commodity subject to radical price swings.
• Instantaneous balance of supply and demand throughout the delivery system is a physical requirement of electricity.
• The lowest possible cost occurs when the amortized capital costs and variable operating costs are minimized.
• Capital costs are minimized when generation and transmission are added to provide just enough capacity to maintain an acceptable level of reliability.
• Operating costs are minimized when generators are dispatched in ascending order of marginal cost.

UNTANGLING THE DEREGULATION MESS—SEVEN STEPS TO LOW-COST POWER SYSTEM

1. DISPATCH GENERATION AT MARGINAL-COST

In Alberta, electricity is dispatched based on the “bid” price of power in the Power Pool. All generators are paid the bid price, even if they previously “bid in” at a lower price.

This system is open to price manipulation and leads to higher prices.

Bringing generators online on a marginal-cost basis is much more cost-effective.

Our plan would see generators with the lowest cost used first. The higher-cost generators would come on line only as more demand is placed on the system.

And the cost savings would be passed on to Albertans.

2. FIXED-RATE COMPENSATION

Electricity generators are currently paid according to the daily Power Pool Price. Because this price is set through a bidding process, it is unstable and often much higher than the actual cost of producing electricity.

Compensating generators with a fixed rate based on fuel costs, depreciation, operation and maintenance, and a fair return on investment would give Albertans affordable electricity and generators fair compensation.

Investors would also be more likely to build new generation because the risk has been removed with a guaranteed return on investment.

3. ONE LOW RATE

Under the current system, the Regulated Rate Option will end in 2006 and consumers will have to shop around for the best rate.

Our plan would see the Power Pool set one low rate for all customers.

Commercial, industrial, farm and REA customers with a metering device could buy directly from the Power Pool.

4. ONE POWER COMPANY

Under our plan, residential customers would be billed by the same company that maintains the wires and reads the meter.

The one low rate would be offered by all wire-service providers so Albertans would only have to deal with one company for meter readings, bill payments, and power outages.

5. STREAMLINE THE SYSTEM

• Eliminate the Balancing Pool and roll its functions into the Power Pool.
• Eliminate the Transmission Administrator and replace with a Transmission Department created as part of the Power Pool to deal with ongoing electricity wire issues.
• Eliminate the Market Surveillance Administration. (The need to monitor for manipulation will disappear.)

6. INCORPORATE LONG-TERM PLANNING

Add a Planning Council under the direction of the Power Pool to:

• forecast future energy requirements and ensure they are met
• establish the reliability criteria for generation and transmission
• design options for meeting long-term capacity and energy requirements
• identify the lowest cost option for new generation

7. CUT OUT THE MIDDLEMAN

The Power Purchase Arrangements (PPAs) transferred the rights to use the generating plants that existed before 1995 to new “ownership” for 20 years. In 2000 industry paid $2.1-billion for the rights.

PPA holders currently supply electricity to the pool at spot prices, which are much higher than the marginal cost of producing the electricity.

Our plan would see the Power Pool take over the PPA holders’ obligation to pay the fixed and variable costs to the plant owners, eliminating the middleman.

It doesn’t make economic sense to have PPAs. They drive up costs. They don’t make the market more competitive. And they don’t result in lower costs.

Our plan un-bungles the mess created by deregulation.

[direct link to this article]

What are these energy contracts they’re now selling?

As of June 2003, Alberta’s electricity and natural gas industries are fully deregulated. For consumers, this means that you must decide whether to sign electricity and natural gas contracts. An energy contract is an agreement between you and an energy retailer (also called an energy marketer) to provide you with electricity or natural gas at a fixed price for a certain period of time. In other words, the price you pay for electricity will be the same every month for the duration of your contract. Contracts have benefits, but they also have drawbacks. Read on to find out more.

Do I have to sign an energy contract?

No! If you don’t sign a contract, you can remain on the RRO (or regulated rate option) for electricity prices until 2006. The RRO is fixed – you pay the same price for electricity every month. After 2006, if you haven’t signed a contract, you will pay a “flow-through” or “spot market” price for electricity. This means that you will pay the market price for electricity every month. The market price changes rapidly, so your bills will change, too.

What are the drawbacks of signing a contract?

Contracts give you certainty, but certainty comes at a price. Energy retailers will charge you a premium (built into the price they charge for electricity or natural gas) in exchange for guaranteeing stable prices. The price you pay will be the same every month, but in the long run there’s a good chance you will be paying more than someone who chose to pay the market price.

Why do I feel like I am choosing between a rock and a hard place?

Because you are! Deregulation picks winner and losers. The ‘choice’ between volatile monthly rates and energy contracts (with premiums built right in!) proves consumers lose and industry wins.

Who should sign a contract?

The Alberta Liberal Opposition believes that no Albertan should have to sign a contract and that there should be one low electricity rate for all Albertans. Unfortunately, deregulation doesn’t offer this. If you need to plan ahead and cannot afford wild ups and downs in your bills, you should consider locking into a contract to give yourself certainty.

What’s a better deal, the default option or an energy contract?

It is anybody’s guess! No one knows for certain whether the spot electricity price will average out to more or less than contract prices. The best deal is the Alberta Liberal Low-Cost Power for Alberta plan, which guarantees that everyone pays the lowest possible prices.

Air miles or two months free? How do I know which one is right for me?

Don’t get caught up in gimmicks that only disguise higher prices. The best way to choose a contract is to go back through your old bills and see what rate you paid for electricity (on average) over the last year. Try to find a contract that offers you a similar rate. Albertans are finding that regardless of what retailers offer to dress it up, electricity prices are still higher than what they should be. That’s the great rip-off of deregulation.

How can I be sure the company I am dealing with is reliable?

You can take action to protect yourself from scams. All energy retailers and door-to-door marketers must show identification, so ask for it. Before you sign a contract, you should also call Alberta Government Services (toll-free) at 1–877–427–4088 to make sure the retailer is licensed. You can also check the retailer registry online at http://www.customerchoice.gov.ab.ca.

If I don’t sign a contract will my power get cut-off?

No. As long as your payments are up-to-date, energy retailers cannot adjust, discontinue, disconnect, change or in any way alter your electricity service until after you send them a signed copy of an energy contract.

Do I have to sign on the spot?

No! The energy retailer must give you time to look over the contract and compare prices. You never have to sign on the spot.

Do I need separate contracts for electricity and natural gas?

No. You can choose whether you want separate contracts or whether you want to “bundle” your utilities together. Choose the option that gives you the best possible deal on both electricity and natural gas.

How can I be sure I am not paying too much?

The only way to guarantee that you don’t pay too much is to unplug deregulation. The Alberta Liberal Opposition’s Low-Cost Power for Alberta Plan guarantees that you always pay the lowest rate possible. Under deregulation, there is always the possibility of additional rate riders, premiums and hidden fees.

Why is the Alberta Liberal Opposition explaining contracts when they want to unplug deregulation?

The Alberta Liberal Opposition knows that deregulation in Alberta has failed and should be unplugged. However, only the Alberta government can decide to unplug. We won’t let Albertans struggle in the dark until the Alberta government realizes, like the government in California, that unplugging is the only solution to skyrocketing utility bills. Alberta consumers are entitled to the information they need to make wise decisions. We are committed to providing this information.

If there is a problem, who should I call?

Nothing is simple under deregulation. Here’s a quick guide to sorting out the confusion:

• If you experience a problem with a retailer or a door-to-door marketer, call Alberta Government Services at 1-877-427-4088 to report them.
• If you have a problem with your power service (such as an outage or fallen wire), you need to call your wire services provider (WSP). Their contact information should be listed somewhere on your power bill.
• If there is a problem with you power bill, call the energy retailer. Your retailer’s name and contact information should be printed prominently on the bill.

Wouldn’t it be easier if you only had to call one number?

With the Alberta Liberal Low-Cost Power for Alberta plan, Albertans would only have to deal with one power company for all their electricity needs.

What if I have a question that is not answered here?

Here are two places to call for help:

• You can call the government’s Public Information Centre at (780) 427-0265. You can call toll-free from anywhere in Alberta by first dialing the Rite Number, 310-0000.
• You can contact the Alberta Liberal Opposition through our website at http://www.albertaunplugged.com by calling the Rite Number, 310-0000, and asking to speak to the Official Opposition. We would be more than happy to listen to your concerns about energy deregulation and offer our solutions.



[direct link to this article]

[direct link to this article]

It’s time for the province to support Alberta’s cattle ranchers by loosening the stranglehold of the “big three” meat packers. 

Loosening the Stranglehold of the Packers

• There are only three packing companies: Cargill, Lakeside, and XL foods; these packers owned 13.4 % of the cattle in Alberta in 2003.
• The three packing companies process at least 90% of the cattle slaughtered in Alberta ( Auditor General Report on BSE assistance July 27,2004)
• These three packing plants have received over $12 million in grants from 1987 to 2000.
• From 1992-1995 Cargill received almost $2.5 million of the $12 million in grants. (Alberta Government Public Accounts Grants Books)
• These three packing companies received $45 million of the $400 million in compensation funds.

The Alberta Liberal Plan

The Alberta Liberals believe there is an alternative by supporting Alberta entrepreneurs:

• An Alberta Government should provide infrastructure for water, roads and land to help get small packing plants off the ground.
• Appoint a “beef czar” reporting directly to the Premier– an Albertan with an ear to the ground in the cattle industry, the environment, trade and the needs of local authorities – instructed to move the industry forward.
• Set a 10 per cent cap on the slaughter of the big three coming from their self-owned herds.
• Restrict market share and control of Lakside, Cargill, and XL Packers until healthy market conditions return.  This may require capping processing capacity of these companies and placing a moratorium on the purchase of Alberta-based processing companies.

The Existing Environment

• The Alberta Government forced the Tender Beef Co-op to establish its plant in B.C. due to bureaucratic red tape.
• The Tender Beef Co-op in Alberta ran into land purchasing and provincial support problems with its original location in Beaverlodge, Alberta.(Herald Tribune Grande Prairie Aug 30/04)
• The Government of B.C. lured away the packing plant and the 60 full time jobs from Beaverlodge when they offered land, 15 acres of low cost city property and a government promise to help remove any obstacles in development.
• There are groups starting packing plants across Alberta; we should support them and the jobs they create instead of forcing them to other provinces offering a better business environment to ranchers.

Capping the Lakeside Cargill and XL Foods Plant Operations

• Alberta currently has no legislation to cap the size of the herd that packers can own.
• Cargill has bought up a packing plant Caravelle in Spruce Grove this is not helping diversify the sale of beef and therefore allows the big 3 packing plants to control even more of the beef market.
• Lakeside is planning a large expansion to its plant in Brooks which will further consolidate ownership of cattle processing among the big 3 packing plants.

Packers and the Necessary Controls

• A 10% cap would allow packers to always have stock on hand for processing, however, not enough to control the market price of cattle by flooding the markets.(Approved by the Alberta Cattle Feeder annual meeting) (Source The Western Producer March 4/04)
• The distinction of the 10% of the slaughter rather than the size of the herd insures that packers are processing 90% of cattle owned by Albertans out of their total monthly amount.
• Albertans require legal protection from packer monopolies similar to the U.S. in order to support a strong open economy in the trade of cattle.
• In the United States, the 1921 U.S. Packers and Stockyards Act protects livestock and poultry producers by prohibiting monopolistic or predatory practices that force sellers to accept lower prices than would be available through free competition.

Control in the Market

• The BSE Crisis has demonstrated we cannot have all of our focus on the U.S. and we need to seek out new markets for the high amount of product we have to export
• Canadian Beef exports of $633 million to the United States were down just $78 million ($711 million) for the same market period (Jan to May) 2004 over 2003. (The Western Producer August 26/04)
• Total Canadian beef exports were down a total $72,584,698 in 2003 due to an increase in sales to Macau, Poland, Philippines, and the Caribbean. (The Western Producer August 26/04)
• The value of Canadian beef exports remained surprisingly strong during the BSE crisis; significant questions remain on how Alberta ranchers were hit so hard while large processing companies saw profit rise by over 280 per cent.
• “The frustration is that had we have been self sufficient in processing capacity coming into this, Canada would by–and–large have recovered from its BSE cattle price crisis,” Ted Haney, Canadian Beef Export Federation.
• The Alberta Government needs to support increased research into all markets along with the development of the new packing plants so that we can have demand for the product before it is completed.

[direct link to this article]

Ms Blakeman: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The film industry in Alberta is in a very grave situation, but the Minister of Culture and Community Spirit is being divisive rather than constructive.

The minister has recently described film unions as selfish and acting like children, which isn’t very helpful. To the Minister of Culture and Community Spirit: why did the minister claim during budget debates that the head of IATSE, Damian Petti, was in a November meeting with the minister and the president of CFTPA, Norm Bolen, and somehow refused to co-operate, when Mr. Petti and Mr. Bolen have never met?

Mr. Blackett: Well, Mr. Speaker, there’s no smoking gun here. What I did say at estimates was that I had met with Mr. Bolen, who is the head of the CFTPA, and I had met with Mr. Petti on the same day. I didn’t say that they were in the same room.

With respect to the fact that I said that they were acting like children, I said that in our film industry there are many reasons why we have to be competitive in Alberta. That’s because we have a film development program that has a labour rate that’s competitive with Ontario, with British Columbia, but we need co-operation from our film producers and our unions and guilds. British Columbia and Ontario have an agreement . . .

The Speaker: Sorry. The hon. member has the floor.

Ms Blakeman: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Well, back to the same minister. Given that IATSE has signed a binding agreement with 250 producers for a North American low-budget agreement, which helps Alberta producers, why does the minister ignore that in favour of advocating a nonbinding contract with Canadian producers? How does that help Alberta film workers?

Mr. Blackett: I said it again in estimates, Mr. Speaker. That’s great that they have a binding agreement with low-budget films. The question was: why do we not have larger productions that employ more Albertans? I said that if we want to get more large productions into Alberta, then we need those agreements similar to the ones that we have with the small producers to attract those people from the States and from other countries and across Canada to our province.

Ms Blakeman: It needs to be a binding agreement, Minister. Back to the same minister: why did the minister dismiss as grandstanding a gathering of almost 300 concerned film actors, stage workers, directors, set dressers, makeup artists, DOPs, and other film workers? Why did you dismiss them as grandstanding rather than taking their concerns seriously and working with them, not against them?

Mr. Blackett: Well, Mr. Speaker, if they were really interested in talking to me, they wouldn’t have given me less than 48 hours to respond to their invitation knowing full well that I was in Vancouver and I wouldn’t be back in Calgary until late in the day last Monday. They can call whenever they want. If they want a chance to talk to me – I’ve talked to hundreds of them in the past; I will continue to do so in the future – my door is always open, and we’re available.

Alberta Hansard, March 8, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Mr. Chase: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Last month the government announced a memorandum of understanding on aboriginal education with treaty chiefs and the federal government. 

Motion, however, should not be confused with progress. On aboriginal education this government is standing still and in some areas is actually going backwards. To the Minister of Education. The partnership memorandum seems to be an agreement to come up with a strategy later, an IOU rather than an MOU. Will this MOU require the provincial government to actually come forward with any new resources to improve aboriginal learning outcomes?

Mr. Hancock: Well, Mr. Speaker, the memorandum of agreement that was signed a week ago last Wednesday together with the partnership agreement which we signed last fall are two very, very important steps forward. First of all, the partnership agreement that we signed last fall with the grand chiefs of treaties 6, 7, and 8 and the president of the Métis Settlements General Council and the president of the Métis Nation of Alberta set up a partnership with Advanced Education, Education, and Aboriginal Relations, working with those groups to really focus on how we can move aboriginal education, First Nations and Métis education, forward in this province. This new partnership, that includes the federal ministry: I’ll be able to elaborate further, Mr. Speaker, on the good work.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Mr. Chase: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There’s a tremendous difference between smoking a ceremonial pipe and blowing smoke. Provincial per-student funding for First Nations learners has been frozen at last year’s level and only increased by $12 the year before that. How are school districts supposed to improve aboriginal learning outcomes when their ministry is standing still?

Mr. Hancock: Far from standing still, we’ve made the most progress in this area that has been made in ages. First of all, the progress really is the leadership of the communities themselves, the leadership together with the province and now the federal government signing on, making it the highest priority.

Mr. Speaker, I wouldn’t be in that member’s position of making light of very important ceremonies that people undertake in terms of the pipe ceremonies at the start. We take very, very seriously our partnership with treaties 6, 7, and 8, our partnership with the Métis Settlements General Council, and the work of all of us to make sure that, first, the achievement gap is eliminated between First Nations and Métis students and other students of Alberta.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Mr. Chase: Thank you. I certainly don’t take First Nations’ ceremonies for granted. I’m a big fan of the Black Elk sacred pipe, as one example.

High school completion rates for First Nations students are at 52 per cent compared to 79 per cent for all other students. But Budget 2010 eliminates grants intended to boost high school completion rates. Why is this minister backtracking on raising completion rates for aboriginal learners?

Mr. Hancock: Absolutely not backtracking on that. In fact, it’s still one of the most important things we can do; that is, to ensure that each and every one of the students in this province regardless of their background, regardless of whether they live on a First Nation or in a city or a town or in a rural area – every single student matters. Every student, every day. No exceptions.

Alberta Hansard, March 8, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Mr. Kang: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Alberta is at a crisis point in the battle against impaired driving, and Mothers Against Drunk Driving have called repeatedly for the government to step up to the plate. 

My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Will you commit to lowering the acceptable blood-alcohol content for operating a vehicle to 0.5?

Mr. Ouellette: Mr. Speaker, impaired driving is a crime, and it’s treated as such in this province. Our message has always been clear: don’t drink and drive, or sooner or later we’re going to get you. We’re going to keep our policemen on the roads. We’re going to keep doing everything we possibly can to catch the people that drink and drive and keep them off the roads.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Mr. Kang: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Minister, your message is not working. In 2007 there was a 19 per cent increase in the rate of impaired driving, and 2008 brought a 40 per cent increase. That’s pitiful. Will the Minister of Transportation be forecasting doubledigit increases to the rate of impaired driving again in 2009?

Mr. Ouellette: Mr. Speaker, we’ve been expanding our program. We brought in last year as part of our program a regulation that now we also convict people that are driving under any type of drugs, whether it’s prescription drugs or anything else. Under our graduated driver’s licence for all new drivers there’s absolutely zero tolerance; they can’t have any type of alcohol in their system. We plan on keeping the pressure on.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Mr. Kang: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We are not talking about GDL drivers; we are talking about drivers who already have the licences. Twenty two per cent of drivers who suffered a fatal crash in 2008 had consumed alcohol prior to the accident. The government’s inaction is killing people. Why doesn’t the minister amend the Traffic Safety Act to increase the current 24-hour suspension to a week-long penalty?

Mr. Ouellette: Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, we look at the whole system. We’re going to make sure that Justice does their part of it, that the Solicitor General does their part of it, and we’re doing our utmost to keep drivers safe in Alberta.

Alberta Hansard, March 8, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Ms Pastoor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The way the government has handled the growing syphilis rates in Alberta is embarrassing. 

Firing three top public health officers and proceeding to do virtually nothing for three years has seen infection rates soar. Syphilis is entirely treatable, and for Alberta to have twice the national average for infection rates shows this government has ignored their own advice and allowed this situation to get out of hand.

To the Minister of Health and Wellness. The former minister of health apparently ignored this issue. Will the minister finally act on the recommendations made in 2007 and have a province-wide campaign?

The Speaker: The hon. minister.

Mr. Zwozdesky: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The spreading of an infectious disease is a great concern to all of us. I thank the member, actually, for raising the issue because we do have a plan in place now, and there is a little bit more of an addition to that plan coming soon that will see, among other things, targeted interventions with certain population areas and certain population groups. That plan will also include establishing a 14-member group that will look further into the prevention aspects of this particular issue, and there are other enhanced clinical screenings being done as well.

Ms Pastoor: A proper health care system should have enough capacity to shift resources when needed and not completely drop everything else. This appears to have been the case under the H1N1. What is the minister doing to make sure that we have very balanced public health?

The Speaker: The hon. minister.

Mr. Zwozdesky: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In fact, the chief medical officer for health, who is one of many advisers to me as minister, has the additional parts to that plan. That’ll be coming out very soon, hon. member, and I’ll be sharing that with the public.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Ms Pastoor: Thank you. I wonder if the minister could tell me just on what basis the projection was made by the public health officer. You’ve talked about the plan coming forward. Is there a specific timeline?

Mr. Zwozdesky: Well, Mr. Speaker, we’re already establishing the new 14-member team as we speak. But there will be more specific actions very soon that we’ll be rolling out that will address exactly that issue. It’s a cause for concern to be sure, and we’re targeting to get back to zero within five years, which is a very realistic projection at this stage.

Alberta Hansard, March 8, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Mr. Taylor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. By ramming through Bill 50 last year, this government took away a landowner’s right to be consulted in the construction of high-voltage power lines. 

Now that projects are being planned, landowners are frustrated that they’re being left out of decisions that are severely affecting the value of their property. For example, a 40-acre strip by Crossfield is virtually unsellable because of uncertainty on where those transmission lines are going to go up. To the Minister of Energy: how are Albertans supposed to invest in this province when they’re kept in the dark and they aren’t given any power to protect their interests?

Mr. Liepert: Mr. Speaker, there are a whole bunch of accusations made in that preamble that are completely false. What Bill 50 did was ensure that we not have hearings around the need. The need is evident, and Bill 50 passed the House last fall. What are taking place right now are negotiations with the various proponents of the transmission lines, with the landowners, and it’ll be going before a hearing shortly.

Mr. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, instead of consultations this government prefers information sessions so that people can find out what this government has already decided. With this Big Brother mentality what process is left for Albertans to make their concerns known to this government, Minister?

Mr. Liepert: Well, Mr. Speaker, first of all, any Albertan has the opportunity through any elected official to make their views known relative to any issue. I would suggest that if there’s a particular situation that this member has that he would like to draw to my attention as a minister of the Crown, I would also be open to those suggestions. Then on the official side of it, as I said, the hearings will begin. There’s ample opportunity there as well, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, we’ve heard reports that the so-called experts sent to these sessions not only lack knowledge, but they also met Albertans’ concerns with contempt. Given this government’s track record for silencing Albertans or attempting to silence them, how can Albertans have any confidence that this government will finally hear and act on their concerns?

Mr. Liepert: Well, Mr. Speaker, I’m not quite sure where the member is getting his information. He prefaced his question by: we hear. I’m not sure where he hears. But, certainly, in the process of going forward with the negotiations with landowners, I’m informed by many of those who are involved that negotiations are proceeding satisfactorily.

Alberta Hansard, March 8, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Mr. Hehr: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. One-third of homicides committed in Alberta are a result of domestic violence. 

Every year over 12,000 women are forced to live in shelters while more than 14,000 are turned away because of lack of space. Yes, Mr. Speaker, you heard that correctly: 14,000 women fleeing from abuse are turned away every year. To the Premier: when will this government take action to help the 14,000 women who are unable to be accommodated in shelters?

Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, not only has the budget increased for housing and accommodation; there are dollars put into a number of areas. One is to get the message across to many Albertans in terms of the physical and verbal abuse within families, especially towards women and their children. There are many not-for-profit agencies that have undertaken the education process in this province. But we will continue to keep ensuring that we work with agencies, that there is appropriate housing, and provide comfort for those that have been abused by their families.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Mr. Hehr: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that the message is getting out there, but it is awful slowly. We need to do something for those 14,000 women who are fleeing violence right now. In that regard, why aren’t we increasing our operational funding right now to improve more shelter space to help these 14,000 women fleeing these horrible, horrible situations today?

Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, having attended many of the fundraising events that raise funds to supplement those that are provided by government to the various agencies providing housing, counselling, and protection and in speaking to the president, she was quite satisfied in terms of the direction the government is taking and the increase in funding. We’ll continue to do that in spite of the fact that, you know, our resources are constrained. But this is a serious matter. We take it very seriously. Yes, education will help, but there are other ways of intervening to ensure that women are protected in their own homes.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Mr. Hehr: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I know money is tight right now, but if this government is looking for money, we can always look to the $50 million that is ready and able to help people in the victims of crime fund. Why isn’t this money being put to use right now to help these 14,000 women who are fleeing domestic violence situations?

Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, I’m not responsible for the fund, but the minister that is responsible can certainly answer the question. Mr. Oberle: Mr. Speaker, the member will know that we have allocated millions of dollars to help victims of crime. The surplus in the fund is required to achieve stabilization. Nonetheless, my department is looking at it, and we’ll report in due time.

Alberta Hansard, March 8, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Mr. Chase: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Children and Youth Services is a ministry in crisis, a broken system that puts children’s lives at risk. 

It is a system where qualifications aren’t valued, where monitoring is not a priority, and where screening of foster and kinship homes is insufficient. There is something systemic and fundamentally wrong with this ministry which will not be resolved by simply changing ministers. To the Premier. The current system is costing children their lives. What specific actions is the Premier taking now to fix the system to ensure that we don’t see another life lost?

Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, it’s always a tragedy when a child dies no matter what the circumstances. Certainly, you know, as a father and a grandfather – and many of us are parents and grandparents – this is a serious situation, and our hearts go out to the families involved. The minister has ordered an investigation, and she may have further detail in this particular case.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Mr. Chase: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again to the Premier: when will this government introduce legislation to ensure that all individuals who care for our most vulnerable population are properly qualified?

Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, foster parents do exceptional work in this province. There are many, many untold stories of children’s lives that have been turned around through the exceptional care of foster parents. As I said before, the minister is undertaking an investigation in this particular matter. Once the results are provided to the minister, she will take action.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Mr. Chase: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Front-line workers are facing enormous caseloads. They cannot provide the help because the government has not helped them. Will the Premier require that the children’s advocate report directly to the Legislature as a first step to improving transparency and accountability within the ministry?

This is the case in all other provinces.

Mr. Stelmach: As I said, Mr. Speaker, this matter is under investigation. The minister will review the results of that investigation and make the appropriate decisions.

Alberta Hansard, March 8, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Dr. Taft: Well, thanks, Mr. Speaker. Since the nationally respected Alberta Cancer Board was dissolved by this government, a major voice for cancer care in this province has been silenced. 

This government has been told there is not enough capacity for cancer care in Calgary since at least 2003, yet it fails to act. Even if work began now on a new facility, it would still be several more years before it would be up and running. My question is to the Premier. How many more years are the people of Calgary going to have to wait before they get a full-fledged cancer hospital?

Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, cancer care is a priority for my government. Alberta Health Services is looking at improving access to cancer treatment and not concentrating always on the bricks and mortar.

Any further questions the minister of health can give more information on.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Dr. Taft: Thanks, Mr. Speaker. Well, I’ll try the Premier on this. Is the Premier aware that the site in which cancer services are being delivered at the Holy Cross, which is rented on behalf of the Tom Baker centre, is the subject of a very serious class-action suit concerning deadly asbestos poisoning?

Mr. Zwozdesky: Mr. Speaker, I think I’ve made it clear in this House on a number of occasions that the health infrastructure capital plan will be unveiled on or about March 31, and that will include looking at cancer facilities in Calgary.

Dr. Taft: Well, I’ll repeat the question to the minister. The Tom Baker centre is so crowded, Mr. Speaker, it has to deliver services in rented spaces. One of these spaces is the former Holy Cross Centre. So again to the minister: is the minister aware that the site in which cancer services are being delivered at the Holy Cross is the subject of a very serious class-action suit concerning deadly asbestos poisoning?

Mr. Zwozdesky: Mr. Speaker, no, I am not aware of the asbestos issue that has just been raised, but I can assure this member that I’ll look into it right away. In the meantime I would like to assure all Albertans who are listening and watching and those who are participating in this debate that we are going to be adding more capacity for cancer care in Calgary. I believe it’s the McCaig centre that will be opening relatively soon, and that will take some stress off the system. But let’s wait for the capital plan to come out in its formal sense in a couple of weeks.

Alberta Hansard, March 8, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Canadians value law and order very highly; it’s part of our national culture.

Early in our history, North West Mounted Police established themselves across the Prairies before the arrival of the European settlers to ensure that the law and peace were upheld and respected.

Peter Schiemann, Brock Myrol, Anthony Gordon and Leo Johnston were following that proud tradition when they were senselessly murdered. There are no words that can ever heal the pain of this tragedy, but I hope their loved ones can take some solace in the deeply felt regrets and compassion that all Albertans felt and continue to feel surrounding this terrible incident.

In many ways, the men and women of the RCMP and our other police and peace services are ordinary people: husbands, wives, sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, parents. But in one particular way, they are truly extraordinary: for the sake of the safety of their fellow Canadians, they risk everything, every day. Sometimes, as in Mayerthorpe five years ago, they pay a terrible price for their altruism.

For their sacrifice, we are eternally grateful. May their friends and families take comfort in the knowledge that their loss was not in vain, but upheld the highest ideals of our civilization.

Office of the Leader of the Official Opposition
Communications Department
1-866-633-4214

[direct link to this article]

Every day the Legislature is convened, Alberta Liberal MLAs ask between seven and nine questions to the Premier and his ministers. 

Typically only the first two or three questions are picked up by the media. Here are some questions and government responses Albertans might be interested in:

Kevin Taft investigates the disbanding of Grande Prairie’s bone and joint clinic – see http://bit.ly/ahHg5w

Laurie Blakeman wonders why the Stelmach administration isn’t pursuing a wider range of opportunities to reduce Alberta’s carbon footprint – see http://bit.ly/arAkez

Darshan Kang continues to push the Stelmach administration to support Calgary’s vital airport tunnel – see http://bit.ly/akmWrg

Kent Hehr pushes the Stelmach administration to do something about the deplorable overcrowding at the Edmonton Remand Centre – see http://bit.ly/dh42SM

Bridget Pastoor wants to know whatever happened to the police college promised to Fort Macleod – see http://bit.ly/dcibWC

To ask MLAs about these questions, contact us at 1-866-633-4214.

– 30 –

For more information contact:

albertaliberalcaucus
1-866-633-4214

[direct link to this article]

Ms Pastoor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You know, I didn’t get a chance to go to the Olympics either.

This week the Edmonton city council passed their municipal development plan, which included a section on food and urban agriculture. The local food industry has a significant impact on the economy, environment, social, and cultural growth in urban areas. To the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development. Sustainable food systems will be a defining aspect of our urban areas in the future. Has the minister incorporated this into long . . .

The Speaker: Hon. minister, you can proceed.

Mr. Hayden: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am indeed pleased that the member opposite is such a supporter of the local food industry because, of course, it’s hugely important to our province’s economy.

It is one area of agriculture that we’ve seen the greatest increase, 30 per cent, in our farmers’ markets over the past couple of years. The products and the variety that they’re producing and that they’re showcasing around the world now are available right here in Alberta, and I hope people take advantage.

Ms Pastoor: The expansion of urban areas has led to dramatic losses of prime agricultural land, yet this is not the focus in the land-use framework. What is the minister doing to address this issue?

The Speaker: The hon. minister.

Mr. Hayden: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If I recall rightly, I believe about 4 to 5 per cent of the provincial land base is urban settings. Unfortunately, one of the problems with that is that around these centres is some of the best soil that we have in our entire province. But the markets continue to increase around our urban centres for products and things that are being brought in, so people can do that shopping within a hundred kilometres.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Ms Pastoor: Thank you. That’s the urban side of it, but I still think we have to protect our agricultural land. Will the minister introduce initiatives to encourage municipalities to include food and urban agriculture as a central aspect of the development plans?

The Speaker: The hon. minister.

Mr. Hayden: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As a past municipal politician I would expect that the member opposite would understand that land-use issues are issues that are at the local level. It’s their responsibility. I expect that they do very much consider at their tables the highest and best use for land and try to make their decisions based on good information.

Alberta Hansard, February 25, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Mr. Chase: Mr. Speaker, world-wide economic conditions have impacted all Canadians, but they’ve had dire consequences for a group of former Nortel employees living in Alberta whose LTD and pension benefits were cut off when Nortel collapsed. 

To add insult to injury, the federal government permitted the sale of Nortel’s assets without guaranteeing employee compensation as a precondition. To our EI minister. Ontario is the only province with a pension benefits guarantee fund that’s funded entirely by corporate contributions. Will the minister commit to similar measures in this province to protect vulnerable Albertans?

The Speaker: The hon. minister.

Mr. Lukaszuk: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s always horrible when a situation like this occurs and workers and their families are left without income.

I have to say two things. Number one, it’s very rare for it to occur in Alberta. I must say that my provincial counterparts as early as the beginning of this week have raised this issue at our federal-provincial-territorial meeting to the federal minister. It is squarely a federal matter, so if there is any provincial overlay, I would suggest the member direct his subsequent two questions to our minister of finance.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Mr. Chase: Thank you. To whoever wishes to answer, I am pleased to hear that these discussions are occurring. The effect is going to be felt in Alberta because we’ll be picking up the pieces. Since Nortel’s bankruptcy proceedings began, what efforts has the ministry made to ensure that the federal government amends the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to provide protection for employees affected by corporate bankruptcy? The hon. minister of finance would be fine.

The Speaker: The hon. minister.

Dr. Morton: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I would have assumed the hon. member would know, both of Nortel’s pension plans are registered in Ontario and regulated by the Ontario superintendent of pensions. That’s because of their location of Ontario. There is a federal dimension as well. We have been in touch, as the other minister has indicated, with the feds, but this is largely outside of our jurisdiction.

Mr. Chase: What I’m hoping is that this government will stand up for Alberta’s former Nortel employees who are being directly affected by the bankruptcy. It’s our problem now, and working with the feds is part of the solution, but we have to come up with a made-in-Alberta solution as well.

Mr. Speaker, the Ontario government has promised former Nortel employees that the first $1,000 of their monthly pension payments will be guaranteed, and Quebec offered some pension protection to Nortel retirees in October of 2009 . . .

The Speaker: The hon. minister. [interjection] The hon. minister has the floor.

Dr. Morton: Well, again, Mr. Speaker, it’s not surprising that Ontario has done this since both of the Nortel pension plans are registered in Ontario and regulated by Ontario. I would tell the hon. member and the House that the Alberta superintendent is consulting with Alberta Justice currently as to whether or not we would have the opportunity to intervene in the March 3 hearing about the Nortel settlement and, if we can, to possibly object to that.

Alberta Hansard, February 25, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Mr. Hehr: Well, Mr. Speaker, the proposed changes to Alberta’s electoral boundaries provide further evidence that the growing pains that we are experiencing in this great province are very real and very evident. 

The current provincial budget frequently incorporates the term “finding efficiencies.” How about this efficiency: keep Alberta’s Legislature at 83 seats and save millions. Will the minister consent to doing this?

The Speaker: The hon. minister.

Ms Redford: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I understand that the boundaries commission has provided a report reflecting the current state of the legislation in Alberta. There’s much time for public comment, and I’ll look forward to what the result might be in the future.

Mr. Hehr: Well, regarding public comment much of that has already been made to the commission. It was noted in the report that many Albertans really don’t want another four MLAs. So how about following the first rule of democracy, listening to these people and not incorporating these four MLAs?

Speaker’s Ruling

Questions about Legislation

The Speaker: Well, hon. member, the first rule of democracy is to uphold the laws of the province of Alberta. This Assembly has passed a piece of legislation mandating 87 electoral divisions. Is the hon. member asking the Minister of Justice to not observe the law, to break the law?

I’m sorry. You’re going on to your third question, please.

Number of Provincial Constituencies

(continued)

Mr. Hehr: Okay. Here’s my third question, then. If that is in fact true, can we put forward some new legislation, then, to keep it at 83 seats so that we don’t have another four?

Ms Redford: Well, Mr. Speaker, the Legislature is open for public business, and if the member wants to introduce legislation, he’s certainly entitled to do that.

Alberta Hansard, February 25, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Ms Blakeman: I’m sorry. I didn’t know that it was puffball day. [interjections] I didn’t know. I didn’t get the memo. 

Energy efficiency is an essential step towards achieving Alberta’s emission targets and the most effective means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions from a cost perspective. Guys, it’s low-hanging fruit.

To the Minister of Environment: will the minister include a minimum standard of EnerGuide 80 for all new home construction going forward into the energy efficiency legislation?

Mr. Renner: Well, Mr. Speaker, in the words of the member opposite, it’s puffball day. I’ll hit one out of the park for her. The issue is not for the Minister of Environment to make that decision. I advise the minister responsible, who is the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Ms Blakeman: You’re supposed to be guiding this government in environmental policy.

Question 2 to the same minister: given that energy efficiency in homes increases property values while significantly benefiting our environment, will the minister include mandatory third-party energy efficiency labelling of new homes in the energy efficiency legislation or talk to his friend about it?

Mr. Renner: Well, Mr. Speaker, there are a myriad of opportunities that we have to incent and enhance the degree of energy efficiency. That is the responsibility and the role of the Minister of Environment, to point those opportunities out; in fact, to urge caucus to adopt those. But I think it would be presumptuous in the extreme for me to tell this member that I can promise something that is not within my jurisdiction to implement.

Ms Blakeman: Well, why doesn’t the minister share with us exactly what he is doing to get his colleague to implement this legislation?

There’s a puffball for you. Go ahead. Hit it out of the park.

Mr. Renner: Mr. Speaker, we have initiated an interdepartmental committee that is responsible for reviewing all things related to the building code and other matters with respect to energy efficiency. That will then drive towards a recommendation that comes forward not only from Environment but from Municipal Affairs, from other ministries, not the least of which is Treasury Board because some of this will involve public dollars. At that point in time we will make a decision, and I’ll be more than happy to advise the member what it is.

Alberta Hansard, February 25, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Mr. Taylor: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I don’t know how I’m going to follow that, but I’ll try.

Today we learned of another move by oil sands companies to limit the amount of bitumen being upgraded here in the province of Alberta. We need this value-added industry. We need the jobs and the taxes that it brings, and we need the industrial by-products that it makes. To the Minister of Energy: does the minister accept that this cutback and others like it are a serious blow to maintaining a substantial upgrading industry in the province of Alberta?

Mr. Liepert: Well, as I’ve stated in the House before, Mr. Speaker, these are business decisions, and they’re made on the basis of whether or not they’re economically profitable. Ideally, obviously, Alberta would like to have more upgrader capacity in Alberta, but when the margin is very narrow, you’re not likely to encourage private-sector investment in that business.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Mr. Taylor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The government keeps talking about bitumen royalties in kind, but these kinds of shifts indicate that that’s not going to keep a very large proportion of bitumen here in Alberta, so I’d like to know from the minister what’s next. What else does the minister have to use because the bitumen royalty in kind program seems clearly not to be enough?

Mr. Liepert: Well, I don’t agree with the member, Mr. Speaker. The bitumen royalty in kind is a very important program that’s been introduced by our government. We believe over time that that will be a very wise decision. As production ramps up, there are opportunities for increased bitumen for the people of Alberta. As you know, we have a proposal out there right now for an upgrader to upgrade the Alberta portion of the BRIK program, and I think that’s going to be, if we look back 10 years from now, a very important decision.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Mr. Taylor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. While we wait for the government to act, long-term decisions are getting finalized by industry. I understand the proposal is out there. We need some time, but time matters. So how long do Albertans have to wait before the minister starts to push other means of adding value here in the province?

Mr. Liepert: Well, again, I don’t agree with the preamble, Mr. Speaker. The impression was left that somehow Alberta is not coming forward with initiatives. The BRIK initiative is a clear indication of what we’re prepared to do to ensure that Albertans going forward have the opportunity to benefit from upgraded bitumen in this province, and we’ll continue to do that.

Alberta Hansard, February 25, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Mr. MacDonald: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. When asked about appointments to cabinet policy committees on Tuesday, it was stated that members were paid according to order in council, but that wasn’t the question. 

The question was: how are Conservative members appointed? The Legislative Assembly Act states that to be paid for committee work, members must be appointed by order in council, by regulation, or ministerial order.

To the Premier: since we know the appointments were not made by order in council, how did the Premier appoint all 69 Conservative members to the cabinet policy committees without violating the Legislative Assembly Act?

Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, I believe the other day the member asked for a copy of the order in council. Unfortunately, I didn’t bring it with me here today, but I believe that order in council was issued close to two years ago. It’s public. For all orders in council, as soon as they’re signed, copies are left with all members of the media. I know the media has them, and we’ll make sure that a copy is given to the opposition.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Mr. MacDonald: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Clearly, the Premier is confused and does not understand. We’re not after the order in council that set up the fee schedule for the committee work. We are after the order in council, if it does exist, for the appointments to the five cabinet policy committees that you set up so that each and every Conservative MLA last year received $1.4 million. Show us that order in council, or you’re in violation of the act.

Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, let’s be very clear. Each member did not receive $1.4 million. You know, one day we don’t have an order in council, and today we do have an order in council. All members were appointed to CPC through ministerial order. The order in council gave, very publicly, the rate of pay to those members.

Mr. MacDonald: He’s digging himself in deeper, Mr. Speaker.

Again to the Premier. If what the Premier stated on Tuesday is true, that the cabinet policy committees are “not committees of the Legislature,” why does the order in council or the ministerial order that sets out the fee schedule for these committees fall under the authority of the Legislative Assembly Act, specifically section 37?

Are you not violating that section?

Mr. Hancock: Mr. Speaker, this is almost a point of privilege at this stage.

An Hon. Member: He needs a lawyer.

Mr. Hancock: The hon. member is not entitled to ask for legal advice, but he probably should get legal advice if he can’t even read section 37 of the Legislative Assembly Act, which allows for the payment of members in a number of different circumstances. One of the ways that Members of the Legislative Assembly are paid is pursuant to the Legislative Assembly Act and the allocations under the Members’ Services Committee. Another way that Members of the Legislative Assembly are paid is if they take on other responsibilities. Some serve as members of Executive Council, some serve as members of cabinet policy committees, as an example, and some in the past have served as members of agencies, boards, and commissions, and the Legislative Assembly Act specifically allows and provides for that.

Alberta Hansard, February 25, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Dr. Swann: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday in the House the Premier was asked questions that came directly from guests in the gallery. 

The Premier was dismissive and perhaps disrespectful of the guests by not answering their questions. Today we ask the Premier to do the right thing and provide real answers, that the guests were seeking.

To the Premier. The Seniors budget shows $119 million allocated to supports for the delivery system. What does this money pay for, and why is there such a large difference in how this is allocated across six PDD regions?

Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, we have provision for discussion of estimates. All departments are bringing their estimates forward. I believe the opposition has close to two hours on each department to ask these questions. The ministers are able to provide specifics to every line item in that budget.

Dr. Swann: Well, Mr. Speaker, another question from yesterday: why is $915,000 going to board governance when the board members are typically volunteers? Why is there such a large difference in this spending between the six regions?

Mr. Stelmach: A very good question. We’ll find out during the estimates why the discrepancy, and if there are some boards that are charging more for their input as board members than others, then we want to know about it. If some are doing that on a volunteer basis, we certainly commend them and will try and find out why other boards aren’t doing it.

Dr. Swann: Well, since Seniors is already done, Mr. Speaker, I guess I would ask a third question to the Premier. The minister of seniors stated that the PDD budget will not be increased but that any efficiency savings that come from her department would be directed to front-line staff. How much will need to be found in efficiencies to accommodate PDD caseloads, that are increasing by 50 to 100 per year?

Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, the overall support for the vulnerable has increased in the budget, but the question I would have to the hon. member is: why is it that the good questions have now come from those that offered those questions and not from members across the House? Now he’s saying that we’ve already done the estimates and that we can’t ask those questions. I would say: put those questions all in writing, and the minister will give detail to every question.

The Speaker: Second Official Opposition main question. The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition.

Municipal Sustainability Funding

Dr. Swann: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This government likes to talk up its municipal sustainability funding. In fact, in press releases it’s claiming that the municipal sustainability initiative will be maintained over time, but this program is now being stretched out far beyond the original number of years. Again to the Premier: given that the government is providing less each year than was agreed upon when the MSI was signed three years ago, why is the government claiming in press releases that funding has actually increased?

Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, we are committed to $11.3 billion over 10 years. Given this economic downturn I spoke very honestly in open dialogue with municipalities and said: “Look, we can’t dip even further into savings than we have already to date to sustain municipal funding. Would you be open to stretching that 10-year period another year or two?” All municipalities agree that that’s the way to go. They appreciate the funding. Notwithstanding the fact that it isn’t as much as what they thought they were going to receive in the original plan, it is still much more than any other province supports their municipalities anywhere in the country of Canada.

Dr. Swann: Well, again, Mr. Speaker, the question was: why is the government claiming to be increasing the funding?

Mr. Stelmach: Municipalities are receiving today more for infrastructure than back in 2007. That’s very clear.

Dr. Swann: Well, Mr. Speaker, the original deal promised to stretch out over 10 years, but now the money is going to be stretched over more, so less money each year. Does the Premier accept that his government broke its word again to municipalities in the province?

Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, we’re working in partnership with
municipalities.

The other thing is that we are receiving some very, very, very good tenders on infrastructure in the province, whether it be the building of roads, replacement of water or sewer, improvements to infrastructure no matter where we are in the province of Alberta, sometimes with as much as 40 per cent savings. So there may be less going this year in terms of some very specific grants, but on the other hand we’re getting a very good buy for the money that we’re investing in infrastructure. I would say that most municipalities said that it more than equals what they’ve seen in reduction in their municipal funding.

Alberta Hansard, February 25, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Mr. Kang: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Calgary is now the fourth-largest city and its airport is the third busiest in the country. 

The airport is expanding, and we need to provide for growth around it. The deadline for commitments from the federal and provincial governments for the Calgary International Airport tunnel is approaching, and after March 1 without those commitments the deal is dead.

To the Minister of Transportation: why are you killing any chance of Calgary having this necessary airport tunnel by not providing any support, sir?

Mr. Ouellette: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is absolutely wrong again today. We supply all kinds of support to the city of Calgary. This is a municipal, local road, and the municipal district of the city of Calgary should be making their priorities on what they do with the money we give them on what roads they plan to build.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Mr. Kang: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The city of Calgary already committed $50 million, and the airport authority committed $40 million. This issue is a provincial one, not just one for the city of Calgary. This government should be looking at the issue from this perspective, not running away from it.

To the minister again: why isn’t the government treating this vital tunnel as an issue of provincial importance?

Mr. Ouellette: Mr. Speaker, this hon. member knows that every single issue in the province is an issue for this government, but there are ways of handling the issues. I can’t run out and try and find money on a tree somewhere to start supporting areas that are not my responsibility.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Mr. Kang: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just as it would improve Alberta’s competitiveness for the federal government to open up the Calgary airport to more flights from overseas, so too would it improve Alberta’s competitiveness to have an airport that is fully accessible to the whole city of Calgary and the whole of Alberta.

Why is the minister unable to see the competitiveness incentive behind this?

Mr. Ouellette: Mr. Speaker, I also have to tell the hon. member that he’s into another area that’s not my jurisdiction. Other airlines’ open skies agreements are the full purview of the federal government. They regulate who is allowed to fly into this country, province, wherever you want to call it. I’ve written letters to that minister agreeing that Alberta would love to have open skies and bring more people and allow other airlines to fly into Calgary and to fly into Edmonton so that we have more competitive rates for all of our constituents.

Alberta Hansard, February 24, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Ms Blakeman: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Window rebates, the inclusion of rental properties in rebate initiatives, and support for walking and cycling infrastructure are all smaller but significant initiatives to help reduce emissions. 

Further areas for the government to pursue are greener building codes and legislation to support the construction and demolition waste reduction program. To the Minister of Environment. Construction waste makes up 25 per cent of our total waste in Alberta, but only 10 per cent is recycled. When will the minister introduce construction and demolition waste reduction legislation? It’s ready to go. It was supposed to come in the fall. Will we see it this spring?

Mr. Renner: Mr. Speaker, we’re currently engaged in conversations with the Alberta Construction Association and others associated with this initiative. We have a memorandum of understanding in place.

I can advise the member that that dialogue is ongoing, and I am hopeful that we will be able to move forward as soon as possible.

Ms Blakeman: That was a nonanswer.

To the same minister: since 96 per cent of Albertans feel that conservation and energy efficiency in our homes is important and 86 per cent of Albertans are willing to pay more for this feature when purchasing a new home, when will the minister increase the energy efficiency requirements for new homes in the provincial building codes? That’s directed to the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Mr. Goudreau: Mr. Speaker, I’m sorry. I wasn’t paying attention to the question.

Ms Blakeman: Well, that’s typical but unfortunate.

Back to the Minister of Environment. Since there is a high degree of support for legislated energy efficiency targets and the government’s own 2008 climate change strategy promised it would develop an energy efficiency act, when will the minister introduce energy efficiency legislation?

Mr. Renner: Well, Mr. Speaker, the issue of energy efficiency is one that’s critical if we’re going to be able to accomplish the much-needed commitment that we have to CO2 reduction in our overall climate change strategy. That being said, the legislation that’s already in place, the climate change and emissions management legislation, has significant amount of authority under our regulation-making powers, and we anticipate that we’ll probably have a two-step approach. We’ll be moving forward under existing legislation and then introducing new . . .

Alberta Hansard, February 24, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Mr. Hehr: Mr. Speaker, the recent changes to the mission and vision of Elections Alberta highlight the inadequacies of the current approach to democratic renewal in Alberta. 

While the former Chief Electoral Officer engaged and encouraged the voting public, his replacement seems to have a less ambitious agenda. Why won’t the minister admit what Albertans already know? Real democratic reform to Alberta’s electoral system is not on the government agenda.

Ms Redford: Well, Mr. Speaker, there’s legislation coming before this House very shortly that’s going to deal with a number of great recommendations that were made by both the current Chief Electoral Officer and the former Chief Electoral Officer. I would say that the future of democracy in Alberta is certainly well and good in place, and he shouldn’t be predicting anything else.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Mr. Hehr: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. Stakeholder groups have spoken to me about what they perceive to be a wilful blindness to solve the problems that have been identified to the government many years ago. An example of this is providing university students with the ability to choose their ordinary residence for the purpose of voting. Why does this government refuse to act when these Albertans are asking for these types of changes?

The Speaker: The hon. minister.

Ms Redford: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We think that’s an issue of a great deal of importance, as did the former Chief Electoral Officer. We’ve carefully reviewed the legislation, and I believe students do have that right at the moment.

Mr. Hehr: Well, Mr. Speaker, I realize that the Chief Electoral Officer is an officer of this Assembly, but it baffles me why this Legislature would hire an individual who does not want to actually promote individuals voting in elections. What bothers me more is the fact that this minister appears to be satisfied with a 41 per cent voter participation rate in Alberta. To that end, how many of the former electoral reforms will the Justice minister be bringing forward out of the 180 recommendations?

Ms Redford: Well, Mr. Speaker, the legislation will be before this House shortly, and the hon. member will be able to see that for himself. I’m not going to debate that ahead of time. Mr. Speaker, the other thing that I think is very important to discuss here is this constant association between the voter turnout and whether or not democracy is in peril. In this very House one hon. member from this member’s caucus speculated on 10 or 15 reasons why people may or may not have voted in the last election, and none of them had to do with democracy.

Alberta Hansard, February 24, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Mr. Chase: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The nature of care that not only protects but nurtures children with disabilities in Alberta is of the utmost importance in ensuring that they experience the best quality of life possible. 

It is therefore essential that there be appropriate placements and ongoing evaluation of the care that is provided for vulnerable disabled children. To the minister: given the highly specific individual needs of disabled children, can the minister briefly introduce and follow up in writing what quality and quantity of training specific to physical or mental disabilities is required for Children and Youth Services staff above and beyond the limited staff members in the family support for children with disabilities program?

The Speaker: The hon. minister.

Mrs. Fritz: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I can tell you that the family support for children with disabilities program is highly valued by our families. We did have a survey, and 86 per cent of families said that they value this program and recognize the good support and services that we do offer because it’s customized to the needs of the child. I know this member does care about this area. I’ve seen you at many organizations out in the community, hon. member. What you’ve requested in writing – I think it would be the multidisciplinary teams that you’re looking at for the specialized services – I can provide.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Mr. Chase: Thank you. I appreciate the follow-up, Madam Minister.

Is the minister absolutely certain that all Children and Youth Services staff are adequately trained and have the necessary understanding and experience to provide the proper placements and supports to Alberta’s vulnerable disabled children?

Mrs. Fritz: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely certain. I go back to what I said earlier about the families, to what we hear back from the families. I’ve been told that this is a leading program across Canada, and that’s because of the good specialized support services that we offer to families. This is a $120 million area of the budget. We’ve added another $5 million in this coming budget to the programs, and it’s with that support. As I said, hon. member, I will provide the information you are seeking.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Mr. Chase: Thank you. What type of follow-up does the ministry conduct to ensure the well-being of disabled children after they have been placed in either foster care or kinship care? How frequently does the support evaluation occur to ensure that the placement and care continue to be appropriate?

Mrs. Fritz: Mr. Speaker, with the foster care program there was a review that was done two years ago. That review did show that there needed to be more extensive assessment with families, and that would include families with children with disabilities. That assessment is, of course, face-to-face interviews. Those have increased on a monthly basis as well as on a quarterly basis. I can get back to you as well about the orientation, the home training, and the follow-up.

Alberta Hansard, February 24, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Dr. Taft: Thanks, Mr. Speaker. Well, it’s an important day for health care in Grande Prairie. 

The bone and joint clinic at the QE II hospital in Grande Prairie reduced waiting times and human suffering by accelerating hip and knee surgery, yet despite the surge in orthopaedic funding announced last week, this clinic in Grande Prairie is being disbanded this week.

To the Minister of Health and Wellness: who made the decision to phase out this program, and why?

Mr. Zwozdesky: Mr. Speaker, I’m not aware of the funding being phased out or ended per se. What I do know is that the current arrangement expires I think at the end of this fiscal year, but that issue is up to Alberta Health Services to review. As people here know, I’m meeting with them later tonight. Hon. member, I’d be pleased to address that question with Alberta Health Services later this evening.

Dr. Taft: Well, please do so because my information, which is very firm, is that they basically took their last patient on Monday. Again to the same minister: what steps will be taken to ensure that the people of the Peace Country have similar access to orthopaedic surgery as the people of Calgary?

Mr. Zwozdesky: Mr. Speaker, I think we should make it clear that the clinic being talked about didn’t actually, to my knowledge at least, perform surgeries at the site. They did more of the coordination of ensuring that the services got provided somewhere in the region around there. So if there’s an issue here with respect to services for Peace River or other locations you’ve mentioned, then that, too, can come under the discussion this evening, and I’ll make sure it does.

Dr. Taft: It was a co-ordinating service that, as I said, accelerated wait times and helped reduce people’s suffering, and it should be continued.

Again to the same minister. Alberta Health Services has a hip and knee steering committee, which had a role – and I know this in writing – in deciding to fund this clinic last June. Who are the members of the Alberta Health Services hip and knee steering committee, what’s their mandate, and exactly who are they accountable to?

Mr. Zwozdesky: Mr. Speaker, I’ll get the names that the member seeks; I don’t have them with me, obviously. I know that about six years ago when we created this hip and knee steering committee as a subgroup of a larger management committee, its purpose really was to look at reducing wait times and managing the times better. I think they did a good job, hon. member. I’m curious to know about the funding issue that you mentioned, so I will find out about that and get back to you with the answers.

Alberta Hansard, February 24, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Mr. Taylor: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. An interesting report came out today from the University of Calgary School of Public Policy, comparing Alberta, B.C., Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, and the state of Texas. 

The report states that Alberta is the least competitive of those jurisdictions for oil and gas investment. This is extremely concerning. To the Premier: what are the Premier’s thoughts about the conclusions this report presents?

Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, it clearly follows what the government has in place. We have the Competitiveness Act before this House that’s being debated. We want to ensure that we’re the best place to do business in the North American continent. There have been substantial changes in not only price but in the availability of gas in shale, and that’s changed the situation considerably. So we’re waiting for the competitiveness review to be done and also completion of the act so that we can undertake putting the competitiveness review in place.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Mr. Taylor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. When I asked the Minister of Energy about upcoming royalty changes, he stated, “The framework itself is in place and will stay in place.” Does the Premier now think that more needs to be done than the tweaks to the payouts that the minister is considering?

Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, we will have the most competitive and innovative economy in North America. I just ask him to wait and listen for the completion and the presentation of the report, which will be here soon.

Mr. Taylor: You’re not asking me to wait; you’re asking 78,000 unemployed Albertans to wait.

We’re hearing these days of record land sales in the province because of the interest in the Duvernay shale gas play, and you might almost be able to kid yourself into thinking that happy days are here again if it weren’t for those 78,000 unemployed and wereit not for this School of Public Policy report. To the Premier: is the province still committed to its own competitiveness review?

Mr. Stelmach: Yes, we are.

Alberta Hansard, February 24, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Ms Pastoor: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you, Madam Minister. I think we understand the difference between what they do, the care that they deliver, but I think the question was: what is the discrepancy between being able to run boards with volunteers and actually having to pay $915,000 for board governance?

My next question would be: with the estimates and target budget of 2010-11 and 2011-12 being the same as the 2009-10 forecast of $597 million . . .

The Speaker: The hon. minister.

Mrs. Jablonski: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. What I would like to say is that because this program is so important to this government, we want to make sure that the program is very consistent throughout the province. We want to make sure that there’s clarity in the program.

We want to make sure that there’s efficiency and effectiveness, especially effectiveness, to the services that we provide. The most important things besides all of those is that this program is sustainable now and into the future. So we have a plan in place. It’s our six-priority action plan, which we have travelled across the province and talked to people about to make this an even better program.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Ms Pastoor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In the budget debate the minister of seniors stated that they were projecting PDD clients to increase from 50 to 100 people in the coming year. How does the minister expect to deal with the AUPE increases, annualized cost for individuals who have come into the service and that the budget is still being held at the ’09-10 rate?

Mrs. Jablonski: Mr. Speaker, the member across is absolutely correct when she says that our budget remains level. I think that’s a wonderful accomplishment considering what’s happening in these times. We are always looking for efficiencies in our program so that we can support our people with developmental disabilities, so we will be looking for those efficiencies, and any savings that we find within my ministry will go directly to the front line for people with disabilities.

Alberta Hansard, February 24, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Dr. Swann: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Today in the House we have roughly a hundred guests whose quality of life has been negatively affected because of government changes to the persons with developmental disabilities program. 

They have sent me the following basic questions they want asked to the Premier. To the Premier: what did the province do with the $1,403.60 raised at a bottle drive in January and delivered here on February 10?

Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, this government is committed to supporting adults with developmental disabilities, and we’re also committed to ensuring that the program that we have in place is sustainable for years to come to support all Albertans with developmental disabilities. The PDD program continues to be well funded. I believe it’s in the area of about $600 million.

Any of the other details with respect to the program the minister responsible can answer.

Dr. Swann: Well, again to the Premier. According to the Seniors and Community Supports business plan and budget for 2010 the total estimate for direct operations for PDD, their community boards, is $15.8 million. How many individuals would this support?

The Speaker: The hon. minister.

Mrs. Jablonski: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The PDD program is very important to this government and to all MLAs in this Assembly. I know that first-hand because I’ve heard from many of them. I’m committed to this program, and I can tell you that with the direct program we have for our people with developmental disabilities, in Michener I know we have approximately 270 people that are served in that program.

Dr. Swann: Well, again, Mr. Speaker, we’re looking for some evidence that this money is being spent on the delivery of care to persons with developmental disabilities. What does the $119 million under supports to delivery system pay? What does it pay for, and why is there such a large difference in how this is allocated across the six PDD regions?

Mrs. Jablonski: Mr. Speaker, the PDD program that we have here in Alberta is one of the very best in Canada. This program and our budget show our commitment to people with developmental disabilities. The goal of the program is to help our people with developmental disabilities to live the most independent and the best life that they can live. I’d like to quote my friends from the Camrose Association for Community Living where they say: our purpose is to help our friends with developmental disabilities live their best life.

Alberta Hansard, February 24, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Calgary – Darshan Kang, Alberta Liberal critic for Infrastructure and Transportation, has sent a letter to all Alberta’s MLAs asking them to support the construction of a tunnel under the Calgary International Airport’s new runway. 

The tunnel is needed to compensate for the closure of Barlow Trail north of McKnight boulevard, which connects northeast Calgary with the airport. Without the tunnel, all traffic from the area will be routed onto Country Hills Boulevard and Deerfoot Trail, to the detriment of local business and quality of life. The proposed tunnel would also provide a future link for light rail to the airport; without it, C-train service to the airport may never happen.

“Without this tunnel,” Kang’s letter reads, “the City of Calgary will face increased gridlock, a worsening environment, a poorer quality of life and the provincial road known as Deerfoot Trail will remain a traffic hazard.”

Kang’s letter asks MLAs of all parties to urge the Stelmach administration to step up and show leadership by signing on to a funding deal that would partner the City of Calgary and the Calgary Airport Authority with the federal and provincial governments.

– 30 –

Attached: Kang’s letter to MLAs

For more information contact:

albertaliberalcaucus
1-866-633-4214

[direct link to this article]

Alberta Liberal MLA Bridget Pastoor’s Motion 501 passed in the Legislature on Monday. 

Motion 501 reads: “Be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly urge the Government to establish an independent Commission to review the current salaries and benefits for Members of the Legislative Assembly and to report to the Government and this Assembly on whether the current overall remuneration for Members is fair and adequate.”

With the weight of the Assembly behind the motion, the Premier agreed in Question Period on Tuesday that his government would begin work to follow the advice of the Assembly. 

[direct link to this article]

Mr. Kang: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Driving from Calgary to Edmonton, one can’t help but notice a variety of signs on private property, from semi-trailer billboards to the hay bale towers advertising feed, yet this minister specifically targets antinuclear signs, and his answers have not cleared things up. 

This issue is not just about removal of signs on private property; it is about a situation where of all the signs out there on the highways of the Peace Country only the signs against nuclear power were specifically targeted. To the minister: why?

Mr. Ouellette: Mr. Speaker, I’ve got to tell you that this hon. member is absolutely wrong. Look, I’ve told him many times that this department has a policy that we do not allow signs within our right-of-way, and they’re noncompliant 300 metres on private land outside the right-of-way. On outside the right-of-way signs we send out letters telling people that they’re not compliant and to remove the signs, but we don’t remove them. Inside the right-of-way it doesn’t matter what’s on the sign. If they’re not compliant, we will remove them.

Mr. Kang: Mr. Speaker, this is about expressing freedom of speech, and it has nothing to do with the right-of-way. It is not right that only the signs expressing opposition to a government policy are removed. We haven’t had an answer on this. Perhaps the minister doesn’t know why his department is having this removal done.

What investigation of this has he undertaken?

Mr. Ouellette: Mr. Speaker, this policy has absolutely nothing to do with freedom of speech. It has to do with noncompliant signs within a right-of-way, and if the signs are noncompliant, it doesn’t matter what’s written on them; they’re going to be removed.

Mr. Kang: Those signs were not in noncompliance, Mr. Speaker. When can we and the people of the Peace Country expect to see a public formal review and report on this matter?

Mr. Ouellette: Mr. Speaker, we’re looking into some of the claims, but I’ve got to tell this hon. member: they are noncompliant. We don’t allow signs in the right-of-way.

Alberta Hansard, February 23, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Ms Blakeman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Walking and cycling have been used throughout the world to reduce car usage, road wear and improve citizen health and community connectivity. 

This government is doing the oil and gas sector a disservice in terms of meeting our emissions targets when it insists on spending billions on one big-ticket CCS but ignores the smaller initiatives that can have significant, enduring effects.

To the Minister of Environment: what is the province doing to encourage more people-oriented initiatives like building cycling lanes and walking trails?

Mr. Renner: Well, Mr. Speaker, while I appreciate that there may be some environmental benefits to cycling and walking, I’d suggest that the benefits probably accrue more to the cyclers and the walkers. She may want to address that question to the minister of health.

Ms Blakeman: Well, I think that if they’re walking or cycling, they may not be driving, and that should help us.

To the same minister: given that the municipal sustainability initiative has been cut two years in a row and given all the other areas this wonder-fund is supposed to cover for cities, how does the minister expect cities to extract money to pay for environmental programs which are more the minister’s responsibility?

Mr. Renner: Well, Mr. Speaker, we just recently announced a $2 million contribution to a project jointly managed by AUMA and AAMD and C that will create a centre of excellence for municipalities large and small throughout the province to find opportunities for them to significantly increase their energy efficiency and at the same time decrease their environmental footprint. So while we’re not expecting that we’ll pay for the initiatives, we certainly will give them the expertise that they need to find the direction that they’re going.

Ms Blakeman: To the same minister. Well, here’s an opportunity. Why doesn’t the minister amend the Green TRIP program to include incentives to expand walking and cycling infrastructure?

Mr. Renner: Well, Mr. Speaker, I wouldn’t necessarily be opposed to doing such a thing, but I do want to point out that the Green TRIP program is designed to reduce in a significant way the carbon footprint. And while I said at the outset that there may be some marginal benefits from this, I don’t think that’s the best bang for the buck for this program.

Alberta Hansard, February 23, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Ms Pastoor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We speak of the extreme importance of oil and gas in Alberta and to Albertans, but we can’t lose sight of Alberta south of Calgary. 

The promised police college is very important for police services, retaining our rural culture, and fostering economic diversity in our rural communities.

To the Solicitor General. Fort Macleod has had this carrot dangled in front of it since 2006. Why has the minister waited so long to provide them with answers?

Mr. Oberle: Well, Mr. Speaker, I haven’t waited all that long. I’ve been in the position for about a month.

The hon. member will know the conditions under which this college was first suggested, that being that it gets private funding and it’s operationally self-sufficient. Given the fact that I can’t identify private funding to that level, I have no public funds to proceed. Given that, I will do everything I can to make this project proceed, but I can’t make any promises at this time.

Ms Pastoor: Thank you for that. I think that’s a tiny little door that’s opened.

My next question is: can we expect a concrete, well-prepared, long-term implementation strategy or evidence of any sort of planning? What kind of work has been done to actually attract private? Should we maybe rethink private?

Mr. Oberle: Well, we can rethink private if we want, Mr. Speaker, but the fact remains that I don’t have any public funds available to me right now. As the hon. member pointed out, we need long-term planning. I think we have a capital plan that stretches out for a very long term. In order to pull this project off, I would need to find a way to reprofile that, and I can’t do that right now.

Ms Pastoor: Okay. My next question to the same minister: I guess, given those answers, what I’d like to hear is that there is a pledge that it will be built.

Mr. Oberle: I’ve made about the clearest pledge I can make, Mr. Speaker, and that is that I will work very hard for the citizens of Fort Macleod and the MLA that represents this area. I feel for their position. I will do everything I can to make that college happen.

Alberta Hansard, February 23, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Mr. Hehr: Mr. Speaker, Albertans have been both supportive and proud of our troops serving overseas in the protection and defence of people’s right to vote for a democratically elected representative. 

Given this backdrop, my question is for the Justice minister. Why did your government select an individual to run Elections Alberta who does not believe that it’s his job to encourage people to vote, or is this the government’s whole idea?

The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

Ms Redford: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s not my understanding that the government did select this individual. I believe that was the purview of this House.

Mr. Hehr: I understand that, but we all know who actually selects these individuals to run our departments.

Do you think it’s possible for your department to maybe instruct this individual that their mandate is to encourage active participation in getting Albertans to vote, or are you going to ignore that job?

Speaker’s Ruling

Questions about Officers of the Assembly

The Speaker: Well, hon. member, just for clarification. The person in question, the Chief Electoral Officer, is an officer of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta, not the government of Alberta. If it came to my attention that a minister of the Crown was actually intervening in the affairs of an officer of the Legislative Assembly, there would be an intervention all right. It would come from me.

Third question.

Chief Electoral Officer
(continued)

Mr. Hehr: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker, for that. I guess I just like the old way when the old guy was actually trying to actively promote things and actually get people to vote, but who am I to argue with the process that we have in place here?

I guess my final question for the political minister – I mean the Justice minister – is that given her answers today are what most people already know, are there really any substantive changes coming to the electoral act? Can we see some fixed election dates? Can we see some reform to university students being able to vote at the schools where they’re going to school? Or what’s going on?

The Speaker: The hon. minister.

Ms Redford: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The first thing I’d say is that if there are people in Alberta that are concerned about the efficiency, the transparency, or the honesty of this system, I would suggest that one of the reasons for that might be because of the sort of information that’s being propagated through the prelims to these questions. However, Mr. Speaker, as I have said on more than a regular basis, we will be introducing amendments to the Election Act based on the recommendations of the Chief Electoral Officer, both the current one and the previous one, as a result of lessons learned from the past two elections that are printed in published reports. I think we’ll have a great debate in the Legislature.

Alberta Hansard, February 23, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Mr. Taylor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday the Minister of Municipal Affairs responded to my questions by saying that the government wants to “level the playing field” with election financing laws for municipalities. 

But here’s the thing. The individual wards in Edmonton and Calgary are bigger than many entire municipalities, with 60,000 or more constituents. So what playing field is the minister trying to level, the urban-metro one with 60,000-plus constituents or the rural one with 10,000?

The Speaker: The hon. minister.

Mr. Goudreau: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Certainly, I was reiterating some of the comments that we are hearing from Albertans in general. Albertans are believing in accountability, and they are wanting to see transparency within their local governments. They believe that those issues are important. So part of the process of Bill 203 was the fact that we are trying to have the same rules for every elected official across the province of Alberta.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Mr. Taylor: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would think that you would be trying to raise the bar rather than lower the bar. Given that the city of Edmonton has election financing rules that are already more comprehensive and in some ways stricter than the provincial rules, is the government trying to make Edmonton conform to weakened average provincial rules?

Mr. Goudreau: Mr. Speaker, certainly the regulations and the rules and the amendments to the bill that are coming forward will provide some clarity to all municipal elected officials. I recognize that Edmonton has their own rules and regulations. When we do introduce the amendments, it’s going to complement those types of decisions that they’ve made in the past.

Mr. Taylor: Well, Mr. Speaker, I don’t know about clarity, but there’s a big fat catch-22 here. Candidates are individually responsible for their campaign debts, but if the debt is greater than $5,000, they can’t pay it individually because that would contravene the act’s limits. How would the minister advise that this situation be addressed?

Mr. Goudreau: Mr. Speaker, I think, you know, aside from disclosing the information that will be coming up after our break, that clarity will be provided when we introduce the amendments.

Alberta Hansard, February 23, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Mr. MacDonald: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. According to the Legislative Assembly Act in order to be paid for sitting on a cabinet policy committee, three things must happen: payments must be reported, the rate of payment must be set through order in council, and the appointments to these committees must be done by an order in council, by a ministerial order, or by regulation. 

My first question is to the Premier: why did the Premier appoint 69 government MLAs, that were paid last year $1.4 million, to five cabinet policy committees without issuing an order in council?

The Speaker: The hon. Government House Leader.

Mr. Hancock: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. All members on CPCs are paid in accordance with an order in council that was passed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

Mr. MacDonald: Again, Mr. Speaker, to the Premier: given that we have requested a copy of this order in council going back to December 9, 2009, when will this order in council be made public?

Mr. Hancock: All orders in council are published and made public.

Mr. MacDonald: It is interesting, Mr. Speaker, that this one to date has not.

Now, again to the Premier. The Premier set up these appointments; he can answer this question. Who in the Premier’s office decided to set up the cabinet policy committees in such a way that the Legislative Assembly Act was not followed when those appointments were set up?

Mr. Stelmach: They’re not committees of the Legislature.

Alberta Hansard, February 23, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Dr. Swann: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today I want to acknowledge that yesterday afternoon the Assembly unanimously passed the Alberta Liberals’ Motion 501, which called for an independent review of MLA pay. 

This is a very encouraging step. How this government responds to the passing of this motion will be a true test of its openness and accountability.

To the Premier: when will the Premier establish an independent committee to review MLA pay?

Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, we will begin to work on establishing the committee. Because it was a motion passed before the House, it’s incumbent upon the government to begin those discussions, and I’m open to the opposition taking part in those discussions just like we have MLAs taking part in the Members’ Services Committee. We have members of all parties represented.

Dr. Swann: Thank you to the Premier. Again to the Premier: what does the Premier envision as the scope of the committee?

Mr. Stelmach: I have some ideas. I’m sure the Liberals have some ideas. The other parties have some ideas. Let’s come together and build a committee and bring clarity to this issue.

Dr. Swann: Very good. Finally, to the Premier: does the Premier envision the committee being functional by this fall?

Mr. Stelmach: Yes.

Peter Lougheed Centre Beds

Dr. Swann: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Two weeks ago we asked the minister of health when the 140 empty beds at the Peter Lougheed hospital in Calgary would be opened to provide relief to the overburdened hospitals in Calgary. The minister said that he had already told Alberta Health Services to look into it, so these questions are to the minister. When can Calgary see these 140 beds opened?

Mr. Zwozdesky: Mr. Speaker, what I said was that I would pass that information along to Alberta Health Services, and in fact it’s on our agenda for further discussion tomorrow evening. I don’t think that a decision will be made tomorrow evening, but it’s up for discussion. It all has to be part of our longer term capital plan, which I said we would have ready on or about March 31.

The Speaker: The hon. leader.

Dr. Swann: Thanks, Mr. Speaker. According to the March 2009 CEO’s report of Alberta Health Services it was estimated that $48 million to $50 million would be needed in operating funds for the 140 beds at the Peter Lougheed. When these beds are open, will Health Services make this funding part of their permanent operating costs for the next five years, or is this a one-off this year?

Mr. Zwozdesky: Mr. Speaker, the answer in large part will come when we have the five-year funding plan in place. That’ll be starting on April 1, 2010, and those very considerations and concerns that the hon. member has raised will be given the exact discussion that he requested and that I have demanded.

The Speaker: The hon. leader.

Dr. Swann: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Existing hospitals are already understaffed. How many RNs and LPNs and support staff will be needed if those 140 beds are to be kept open?

Mr. Zwozdesky: Well, I don’t have the math in my head, Mr. Speaker. I visited that particular Peter Lougheed Centre a couple of weeks ago, and I can tell you that the nurses and the LPNs and the docs and the nurse practitioners and the front-line triage people are working extremely hard, and they’re very pleased, as are the patients, to have the new wing open. What we’re looking at now is: what’s the best use of the 140 beds that had to be closed? We’re considering all of that right now.

Alberta Hansard, February 23, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Mr. Chase: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This government disbanded the board of trustees of the Northland school division last month. 

Since then Albertans have been learning more and more about the social and economic challenges facing residents of Northland. My questions are to the Minister of Education. Given that the challenges facing Northland were beyond the capacity of the trustees alone to address, would you please describe the efforts your ministry has made to involve other ministries such as children’s, Aboriginal Relations, and employment to support the work of the board of trustees, and will the minister table evidence of this previous . . .

The Speaker: The hon. minister has the floor.

Mr. Hancock: Well, Mr. Speaker, we work very closely with Health and Wellness, with Children’s Services, with Aboriginal Relations, and with other ministries to make sure that we don’t operate in a silo whether it’s in the Northland school division or any other school division in the province. The absolute ability for us to co-operate in the interest of children is one of our primary purposes. The first phone calls I made after the changes to cabinet were to the Minister of Health and Wellness and to the Minister of Children’s Services, talking about the need for us to continue our collaborative processes supporting children in the education process.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Mr. Chase: Thank you. Part of the question that you may have missed was the tabling of those initiatives prior to the disbanding of the Northland school board.

Given that the previous efforts of the trustees and the government did not succeed in producing acceptable academic results in Northland, what new resources and supports is the government placing at the disposal of the official trustee appointed last month?

Mr. Hancock: Mr. Speaker, I think it’s very prudent not to give people answers while you’re still asking the questions. We have a review team in place that’s visiting each and every one of the communities involved in Northland, talking with the families in the communities, talking with the educators in those communities, working with the official trustee. Rushing in with a dump truck load of programs before we’ve asked all the questions and analyzed what we can best do to create the community engagement, the community value for education that’s so necessary to succeed I think would be imprudent.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Mr. Chase: Thank you. This problem has existed for over 20 years. The government took very dramatic action, blaming the trustees. It would be nice to know what some of the remedies are.

Finally, when the inquiries committee’s six-month deadline is up, will the minister release the report to the public immediately along with a timeline for acting on the committee’s recommendations?

Mr. Hancock: Mr. Speaker, I take offence to the idea that anybody blamed the trustees. I was very clear that I wasn’t blaming trustees. What we were looking for was another way to deal with a very, very important issue so that the children could be put first and we could find a way to move forward with results for the children. The trustees that were involved are still in place, as a matter of fact, as chairmen of their local councils, to which they’re elected. We still hope that they will participate in this process. It’s not about the trustees; it’s about the children. We’ll focus on that and make sure that we get it right.

Alberta Hansard, February 22, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Ms Pastoor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In this year’s budget debate for Seniors and Community Supports the minister stated that over the next three years all of the 9,200 people supported by Persons with Developmental Disabilities will be reassessed using the supports intensity scale, SIS, to determine how much support they receive. 

To the Minister of Seniors and Community Supports: what will be the total cost of performing the reassessment of PDD individuals, and will this be coming from the department’s budget or from the PDD community boards’ budget?

Mrs. Jablonski: Mr. Speaker, the cost of implementing the SIS supports assessment tool is very minimal. We did have to hire four people, but they’re hired temporarily to help us get through the next few years in the assessment process. The cost of the assessment will come from the PDD budget.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Ms Pastoor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister explain where the supports intensity scale came from and what the cost is of purchasing it and using it?

Mrs. Jablonski: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the cost for the SIS supports – the software that we have and the computer, the training, all of that – is very minimal. We did purchase it; I’m not sure what the name of the company is. The reason we purchased the SIS assessment tool is because it’s a very well-researched program. It’s used in 23 different states, and it’s used in two other provinces.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Ms Pastoor: Thank you. I guess my point on that question was that I believe it’s American.

Will the minister inform the House how the level of PDD supports was determined before SIS and whether there’s an evaluation process to track the difference between the new SIS and the previous method?

Mrs. Jablonski: Mr. Speaker, once a person is determined to be eligible for PDD, there is an assessment process. We have six different regional community boards, and the evaluations they use have evolved throughout the years. They’re not necessarily the same, and they’re not necessarily consistent. We felt that it was very important that each individual in Alberta is assessed in a very consistent way, so we have a process now where somebody in Grande Prairie or a person with similar disabilities in Lethbridge can be assessed equally and fairly through the same system.

Alberta Hansard, February 22, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Ms Blakeman: Thank you very much. Mr. Speaker, meeting climate change goals is more than carbon capture and storage. 

It must include energy efficiency measures. The province is partnering with the feds through EcoEnergy to offer rebates to home and condo owners on boilers, hot water, and insulation, but the feds will also cover windows. Given that the purpose of rebates is to incent people to make improvement they wouldn’t otherwise make and that windows are responsible for up to 50 per cent loss of energy efficiency, not including them is a big error. To the Minister of Environment: has the government moved any closer to funding window replacement as part of the energy efficiency rebate program?

Mr. Renner: Mr. Speaker, the consumer rebate program has been up and in operation for some time now. Unfortunately, it does not include windows. I can’t advise the member of anything different than that. It’s a matter of getting the maximum amount of efficiency out of a limited amount of dollars.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Ms Blakeman: Thank you. Back to the same minister. Although they meet the under-three-storeys requirement, most three-floor walk-ups are not eligible because they’re rental units. Why doesn’t the government include these under the rebate program?

Mr. Renner: Well, Mr. Speaker, the issue around rental units is a good one. I, frankly, would welcome some feedback and some suggestions from the opposition on how we might deal with that because in most rental units it is up to the tenant to pay for the cost of utilities. There’s really no incentive even if there is a consumer rebate in the hands of the owner of the building. So it’s necessary to try to point the rebate to the person who has the responsibility.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Ms Blakeman: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The minister is exactly right. The individual renter has to pay the utilities but has no control over the energy efficiency of the building. That goes to the apartment owner, and they have no incentive to do anything because they’re not paying the utilities. My recommendation to the minister: will he consider creating a special category for these kinds of rental buildings?

Mr. Renner: Well, Mr. Speaker, I’d be happy to create a special category, but as I just enunciated and the member confirmed, a category is not what’s needed. What is needed here is being able to target the funds to the individuals that have control over making the decisions.

Alberta Hansard, February 22, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Mr. Hehr: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Recently the deplorable state of Edmonton’s Remand Centre was highlighted in the legal decision Trang versus Alberta, Edmonton Remand Centre. 

Clearly the commentary contained in this legal decision is a black mark on justice in Alberta. To the Solicitor General. This Queen’s Bench decision noted the inhumane conditions in Edmonton’s Remand Centre amounted to Charter of Rights and Freedoms violations. Accordingly, what is the Sol Gen doing to rectify these ongoing and persistent violations at the facility?

Mr. Oberle: Well, Mr. Speaker, the decision is not a black mark on justice in Alberta. It’s certainly a cause for concern in the operation of our corrections facility, namely the Edmonton Remand Centre, but it is not a black mark on justice in Alberta. I don’t accept that preamble at all.

Mr. Hehr: Black mark, cause for concern: tomayto, tomahto.

Mr. Speaker, the Alberta court noted that a major problem in Edmonton’s Remand Centre was overcrowding, overcrowding that still exists today. Given that the new remand centre is not to be finished until 2012, what interim measures are being introduced to address these issues?

Mr. Oberle: Well, Mr. Speaker, the decision in question is still, in fact, before the courts, and Alberta at this point has not decided whether or not to appeal the decision. However, I can tell the member that we have taken steps to resolve most of the issues in the judgment, and we’ll continue to work on it.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Mr. Hehr: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. Despite what the Solicitor General says, we all know here that there are 800 inmates in the Edmonton Remand Centre at night. Really, that place is supposed to hold 500. What is he doing besides telling the House one thing when another situation exists? What is he really doing to rectify this ongoing Charter violation?

Mr. Oberle: I am and my department is working on resolving the issues within the Edmonton Remand Centre, and we’re quite busy constructing a new one if the hon. member would care to go for a little drive, Mr. Speaker.

Alberta Hansard, February 22, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Mr. Taylor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This government didn’t think through the effect that new legislation would have on municipal election campaigns. 

According to the new rules, municipalities are going to hold onto funds for the candidates, but with campaign money not being released to the candidates until just four weeks to go before voters go to the polls, there will be no way to pay for most aspects of a municipal election campaign.

To the Minister of Municipal Affairs: how is a candidate supposed to pay for signs, billboards, brochures, and even rent a campaign office without the money to pay for them?

Mr. Goudreau: Mr. Speaker, just as a reminder to the members of the House Bill 203, which was a private member’s bill, was passed in this Legislature. We are now working to ensure that when it does take effect, it is workable, it is practical, and it aligns with the legislation that we presently have. We will be bringing forward amendments to that effect.

Mr. Taylor: Oh, that should work well. We’re bringing forward government amendments to a private member’s bill that the government has proclaimed without consulting with the AUMA and the AAMD and C. Why didn’t you consult with them before proclaiming this legislation?

Mr. Goudreau: Mr. Speaker, again, not to defend the rights of a private member’s bill, but there was a fair amount of consultation that did occur. My understanding is that there were contacts made with the AUMA, their executive, and representatives from AUMA as well as AAMD and C, so there was ongoing dialogue that way. As well, there were a number of letters and correspondence that were received from numerous elected officials from across the province as Bill 203 was developed.

Mr. Taylor: Well, Mr. Speaker, if that consultation with members of the AUMA and AAMD and C that the minister talks about, whether, you know, as members of those organizations or individual mayors, city councillors, town councillors, and so on and so forth, actually happened before the proclamation of this legislation – and the minister has already admitted that it needs to be amended, and it will be amended – why did they go ahead and proclaim the legislation? Why not just hold off on it till you’ve got it right?

Mr. Goudreau: Mr. Speaker, what we heard from people across the province is that, you know, generally Albertans believe in accountability, they believe in transparency, and they believe that our local governments are extremely important in providing the services to Albertans. We are attempting to level the playing field so that all municipal candidates across the province are governed by the same rules. Now, we are hearing from Albertans who are asking us to move forward with these particular initiatives, and I would dare say that the vast majority of people who talk about it want to see limits placed on such things as election spending.

Alberta Hansard, February 22, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Mr. MacDonald: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the Premier: why are appointments of Conservative MLAs to the Treasury Board and the Agenda and Priorities Committee done through an order in council, which is published, while appointments to the Conservative cabinet policy committees are not done through order in council but done through the Premier’s office? 

Those appointments are done in secrecy.

Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, they can’t be secret because everybody knows who sits on what committee, so I’m not quite sure where the member is going with it. We do have members that are appointed to what we call cabinet policy committees. They’re there to talk about issues that come forward from Albertans, whether it be looking at regulations or laws that some constituents are asking us to put in place. They vet, discuss it, and bring it forward as a recommendation.

Mr. MacDonald: Again, Mr. Speaker, to the Premier: what legislative authority is the Premier using to appoint and pay Conservative caucus members to the internal cabinet policy committees, which meet behind closed doors?

Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, the CPCs, the cabinet policy committees, were put together to discuss issues and policies that come forward and to bring those recommendations. Many of those recommendations lead to legislation, and that legislation ends up here in the House for full and open debate, as does every piece of legislation.

Mr. MacDonald: Again, Mr. Speaker, to the Premier: is the Premier’s exercise of this authority to appoint and pay cabinet policy committee members a violation of the Legislative Assembly Act, specifically section 37? Did you read that before you appointed those people?

Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, I always trust you as the Speaker of this Assembly to make sure that nobody at all breaks any legislation with respect to this legislation.

The other thing is that I’m sure that across this way and in that party over there, even the party of three, they get paid for a whip, an assistant whip, and a House leader, and all of those things are paid for through the Legislative Assembly.

The Speaker: The payment for whips, though, only applies to officially recognized parties, so in the case of the third party that wouldn’t happen.

Alberta Hansard, February 22, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Dr. Swann: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Last Thursday the Justice minister said that the most important thing for Elections Alberta to do was to ensure that Albertans have confidence in their electoral system. 

Well, Albertans do not have confidence in their electoral system. They want to remedy 2008’s pitiful 41 per cent voter turnout. Isn’t the minister concerned that the erosion of democracy in Alberta is happening, enough to commit to allowing postsecondary campuses to have polling stations for students?

The Speaker: The hon. minister.

Ms Redford: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do not believe that democracy is eroding in Alberta. Everyone is entitled to their opinion; that’s what democracy is all about. However, we will be, as I said last Thursday, introducing legislation in due course that will respond to recommendations that have been made by the Chief Electoral Officer.

Dr. Swann: Well, Mr. Speaker, a 41 per cent voting turnout is not a success in most people’s books. That’s a failing grade. Of the 182 recommendations from the former Chief Electoral Officer one key recommendation was to increase accessibility of polls. I would be placing polling stations in high-traffic public locations. Will the minister do the same?

The Speaker: The hon. minister.

Ms Redford: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. First of all, it’s not my job to do that. It’s the Chief Electoral Officer’s job to do that. Secondly, Mr. Speaker, that question has been raised in this House before, and I’d be happy either now or at some other point in the debate to expand on the impracticalities of that.

Dr. Swann: Practical or not, Mr. Speaker, last week the new Chief Electoral Officer said that it wasn’t his job to get people out to vote. This seems quite consistent with this minister’s approach to electoral reform. Was this by design or was this coincidence that you both said the same thing?

Ms Redford: Well, Mr. Speaker, I’m not sure I understood the question, but if the question was, “Did I intend to ensure that people could have sensible and fair access to vote?” then our response to the report will address that in a very full way and ensure that that happens.

The Speaker: Second Official Opposition main question. The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition.

Protection of Children in Care

Dr. Swann: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The $27 million cut from child intervention services will without a doubt adversely affect the care of vulnerable children and youth. There will be fewer dollars for caseworkers, that are already overwhelmed by caseloads, caseworkers that supervise children and youth in very vulnerable situations, that provide safety and security when children need it most.

To the Premier: how will the cuts to intervention services not lead to reduced monitoring in homes protecting children? How will it not produce that?

Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, children are a priority for this government, especially their safety, and those that are also in the care of government. The minister has laid out a very clear, articulate plan, and she’d be able to comment further on her plan.

Dr. Swann: Well, to the minister, then: how will the cuts not reduce services and monitoring in homes where children are most at risk?

The Speaker: The hon. minister.

Mrs. Fritz: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On the cuts I can tell you, hon. member, I appreciate your concern, and I can understand that concern. I want you to know very clearly that with the change in this budget, the way the budget has been allocated, the restructuring of this budget will not affect front-line staff, critical workers, which you’re concerned about. It will not affect accreditation of programs. In fact, the change in programs is because of efficiencies that have been created, and I can share that with you in another question.

Dr. Swann: That’s really hard to believe, Mr. Speaker, when we’ve seen 75 per cent cuts in the last three years to in-home supervision.

How can the minister justify these comments?

Mrs. Fritz: Well, Mr. Speaker, one thing I’ve learned, especially in this session, is that I need to look into the statistic that this member has brought forward. I don’t know if it’s accurate. Having said that, I can tell you that the efficiencies that have been created with child intervention very clearly have been with the movement of the youth that are in group homes, which on average per youth is $14,000 per month, for more permanency in foster homes. We’ve created over 900 spaces with foster homes and kinship care over the last 18 months. Foster homes and kinship care are on average about $1,500 a month, so there are savings and efficiencies in that area.

Alberta Hansard, February 22, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Edmonton – Bridget Pastoor, Alberta Liberal MLA for Lethbridge-East, is introducing her Motion 501 at the Legislature this afternoon. The motion calls for the creation of an independent committee to review MLA pay and benefits. 

The motion reads, “Be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly urge the Government to establish an independent Commission to review the current salaries and benefits for Members of the Legislative Assembly and to report to the Government and this Assembly on whether the current overall remuneration for Members is fair and adequate.”

Pastoor is bringing the motion forward because she believes it’s fundamentally unfair that MLAs should have the power to set their own salaries, and that such power fosters an atmosphere of entitlement. Right now, the Premier and his Ministers can vote salary increases for themselves without any checks or balances, behind closed doors. In 2008, Cabinet voted themselves a 30% increase to their Ministerial allowances, 35% for the Premier – making Ed Stelmach the highest-paid Premier in Canada.

When the public objected, the Premier engineered modest salary cuts, 6% for himself and 3% for Cabinet – in other words, using the power to set salaries for purely political ends.

“If the Premier and his MLAs truly believe in transparency and accountability, I don’t see how they can vote against this motion,” Pastoor says. “An independent review committee would take the politics out of the compensation process and give Albertans more trust and confidence in their elected officials.”

Pastoor notes that a review committee would present the Assembly with reasonable compensation options, with comparisons to other Canadian jurisdictions. “We’d be able to vote on a compensation package with a clear conscience,” Pastoor says.

– 30 –

For more information contact:

albertaliberalcaucus
1-866-633-4214

[direct link to this article]

Every day the Legislature is convened, Alberta Liberal MLAs ask between seven and nine questions to the Premier and his ministers. 

Typically only the first two or three questions are picked up by the media. Here are some questions and government responses Albertans might be interested in:

Laurie Blakeman asks for better protection for Alberta’s water supply – see http://bit.ly/cbH1Yq

Darshan Kang stands up for the free speech rights of Albertans forced to take down protest signs – see http://bit.ly/aWQxck

Hugh MacDonald demands that the Stelmach Conservatives acknowledge not just their deficit, but the debt they’ve created – see http://bit.ly/9MAsLK

Bridget Pastoor discovers that the new “intensity scale” to determine PDD supports could result in reduction of benefits to vulnerable Albertans – see http://bit.ly/9IG3k4

Dave Taylor wonders how Albertans who depend on rent supplements will stay in their homes when supplements expire in one year, but the waiting list to get into affordable housing is three years long – see http://bit.ly/c3s0oj

To ask MLAs about these questions, contact us at 1-866-633-4214.

– 30 –

For more information contact:

albertaliberalcaucus
1-866-633-4214

[direct link to this article]

Mr. Taylor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There seems to be a bit of a misplaced focus when it comes to addressing the negative reputation that the oil sands are getting. 

On the one hand, this government is putting out promotional pamphlets in Alberta schools, and the Ministry of Energy is measuring their performance in shaping Albertans’ knowledge of the energy industry. But the danger to our industry comes, I think, from ignorance from outside the province.

To the Minister of Energy: why the misplaced priorities?

Mr. Liepert: Well, I wouldn’t agree with that statement, Mr. Speaker. It’s not one or the other. Clearly, one of the things that we need to do is continue to inform and ensure that Albertans understand the importance of the energy industry in this province. There have been and will continue to be initiatives externally. That’s not going to change.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Mr. Taylor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This week in budget debates the Minister of Energy acknowledged that the government was not doing enough to promote the oil sands. We agree. What is this minister going to do differently from the last Minister of Energy in that regard?

Mr. Liepert: I missed part of that question, Mr. Speaker, but I think that in essence it’s: what are we going to do? I would suggest to the member that we’re going to do many of the things we outlined in our business plan and more.

Mr. Taylor: To improve the reputation of the oil sands, the minister has to concentrate his efforts beyond Alberta’s borders. Given that, is the minister concerned about the clear failure of our lobbyists in our offices in Washington?

Mr. Liepert: Well, that’s not a fair statement, Mr. Speaker. You know, the world is – what? – 8 billion people or whatever it is. It’s a massive task to counter some of those well-funded organizations that want to destroy our industry. We need to do everything we can to fight back.

Alberta Hansard, February 18, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Mr. MacDonald: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Last year taxpayers paid each and every government MLA a total of over $1.4 million to sit on internal cabinet policy committees. 

My first question is to the President of the Treasury Board. How are government members appointed to the cabinet policy committees?

Mr. Snelgrove: Mr. Speaker, the selection of the committee members for the cabinet policy is done by the Premier and Executive Council.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Mr. MacDonald: Thank you very much. Again to the same minister: for the government members appointed to the cabinet policy committees by the Premier through Executive Council, are they appointed by order in council, by regulation, or ministerial order?

Mr. Snelgrove: I guess I’m just from the old club, Mr. Speaker. When somebody tells me to show up at a committee meeting, I go. I really didn’t ask who appointed me.

Mr. MacDonald: Again to the President of the Treasury Board: will the hon. minister provide to this Assembly the statutory instrument by which these members were appointed to these five separate cabinet policy committees and received last year over $1.4 million in payment?

Mr. Snelgrove: Mr. Speaker, we can provide and have provided to this Assembly what every member of this Assembly gets paid from different committees. If the hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar has forgotten his particular amount, I see here he was paid as the chair of the legislative Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

Mr. MacDonald: That’s public.

Mr. Snelgrove: Yeah, it is public, as we were all paid. Who appointed you to that? Amount paid for policy field committees: $11,000, $16,750. Who appointed you to those?

Alberta Hansard, February 18, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Ms Pastoor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Albertans are going in ever-increasing numbers to farmers’ markets both urban and rural, yet because of the design of our agricultural industry, often as a result of the government funding structure, small family farms continue to disappear from the Alberta landscape. 

This government just recently announced Explore Local, a program that’s meant to “capture growth opportunities in the local food market.” To the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development: through this initiative how many dollars will go directly to new and small-scale, locally focused producers?

The Speaker: The hon. minister.

Mr. Hayden: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will get the number for the hon. member on what would qualify in that particular category, but of course with these programs there are a number of categories that qualify for funding. Those categories that are accessed first by whatever area of the industry will get the money. We have seen an over 30 per cent increase in market garden sales over the past couple of years, and it’s a huge opportunity for Alberta.

The Speaker: Hon. member, that number is in the budget, which has already been tabled.

Ms Pastoor: If I’d found it, I would have probably not asked the question.

The Speaker: Please continue.

Ms Pastoor: What is the minister using as a funding definition for farming when small farm-direct producers are not included? I think that was partly in your last answer.

The Speaker: The hon. minister.

Mr. Hayden: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We work with a number of small producers. We have people that are working off of acreages right now, and the hon. member and others have given me names of producers that want to access our programs. Some of these are becoming very profitable, and the understanding within the community in Alberta of the value of the safety and quality of the food that’s produced here is really being showcased in those markets.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Ms Pastoor: Thank you. When will the minister introduce farmdirect initiatives that will help small family and unconventional farmers compete against the huge industrial farms?

The Speaker: The hon. minister.

Mr. Hayden: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In fact, we already do. What you would consider large operations in the province, about 20 per cent of the agricultural operations in Alberta, produce about 80 per cent of the agricultural goods. The remainder are what would be considered smaller or medium-sized operations. When we talk about that and think about the size of those things, an average livestock operation provides the protein requirements for about 900 people. So these may be considered small, but in fact they’re very big operations.

Alberta Hansard, February 18, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Ms Blakeman: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The issue of industry water use continues to be a concern. 

We still have oil sands production using a minimum of two barrels of water per barrel of oil, and other methods of resource extraction anticipate using more water, not less water. My questions are to the Minister of Environment. How can the minister be certain that the current system is able to handle increasingly water-intensive unconventional oil and gas production?

Mr. Renner: Well, Mr. Speaker, the issue of the use of water is dealt with in two ways. First of all, we have a requirement in place, particularly for injection uses – and the member referred to the new types of oil exploration and industrial work that require water – that they have as first choice and be able to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the department that saline water is not available. So that deals with part of it. The other part is that we put maximums on the amount of water that can be withdrawn to protect the integrity of the stream itself.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Ms Blakeman: Thank you very much. Well, given that some of Alberta’s biggest oil sands producers have said that they would not voluntarily stop pulling water during low-stream flow, is the government going to make compliance compulsory to save our water? It has to be compulsory.

Mr. Renner: Well, Mr. Speaker, the issue here is that the total amount of water that is currently under licence in the Athabasca River is a minute portion of the overall stream flow. What we’re talking about is future users that will come on stream. In that respect we’ve made it very, very clear that the in-stream flow needs of the Athabasca River and virtually any other river in Alberta will have to be recognized before there is industrial use.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Ms Blakeman: Thank you. Back to the same minister. Some companies are still using fresh water in deep formations for enhanced oil recovery. Will the minister ban this practice?

Mr. Renner: Well, Mr. Speaker, again, it’s not so black and white. It would be nice if it were. The fact of the matter, as I’ve already indicated in the answer to my first question, is that there is a requirement that the primary source of water for these kinds of facilities would be saline water, would be brackish water, would be salt water. There are certain circumstances where there is not access to that source of water, and in those circumstances and those circumstances only they can receive a waiver.

Alberta Hansard, February 18, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Mr. Hehr: Thanks, Mr. Speaker. Albertans know their electoral system is badly broken, yet the government keeps applying tiny bits of Scotch tape to the Election Act instead of enacting real reform.

To the Minister of Justice. You were quoted today as follows: we believe the system that we have now serves Albertans well. How can you justify that statement given the well-documented problems in the last election?

The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

Ms Redford: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I stand by that statement. I believe that the most important thing that Elections Alberta needs to do is to ensure that there is a system that Albertans can have confidence in to elect a government, and I believe that that is what happened. That doesn’t mean to say that there isn’t room for improvement. We have of course received recommendations from the former Chief Electoral Officer with suggested changes that related to the last two elections, and we’ll be responding in due time. Mr. Hehr: Well, I thank the political minister for that answer, and I’d encourage her to implement some of those 182 changes she mentioned of the last gentleman who actually held the position before.

Of those 182 recommendations one was fixed election dates. Can we look forward to seeing those? Many of my constituents really have expressed an interest in seeing that coming forward.

The Speaker: The hon. minister.

Ms Redford: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I know that there are a number of opinions with respect to fixed election dates. The opinion of this government is that they are not necessary for us. We believe that it is possible and quite reasonable for elections in Alberta to be run according to when it is appropriate to call an election. We’ve seen in other provinces criticism that once you have fixed election dates, the government agenda tends to drive toward that date, and I think it impacts good government.

Mr. Hehr: Now, I guess my follow-up question to the answer would be that if you deem that fixed election dates are not necessary, is that you answering as the political minister or as the Justice minister when you answer that question?

The Speaker: The hon. minister.

Ms Redford: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My job with respect to the Election Act is to be the Justice minister. My job is to ensure that we respond to the recommendations of the Chief Electoral Officer, and that is the job that I will do.

Alberta Hansard, February 18, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Dr. Taft: Thanks, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Health and Wellness.

The minister needs to answer an obvious question that he completely evaded yesterday.

Why is Calgary receiving funding for an extra 200 hip and knee procedures in the next six weeks while Edmonton is receiving funding for only 16?

Mr. Zwozdesky: Mr. Speaker, the simple answer is that the surgical teams are ready and able to do those extra surgeries in Calgary. In Edmonton we spoke with the Royal Alex this morning, and they would tell you that they have a temporary shortage of anaesthetists.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Dr. Taft: Well, thanks. It’s interesting that he spoke to them this morning because this announcement was made several days ago.

To the same minister: given that he’s admitted, or indicated, that waiting lists are kept by local surgeons, which local surgeons in Edmonton were consulted about their wait-lists before this morning?

Mr. Zwozdesky: Well, Mr. Speaker, I was actually in a different meeting when I phoned for other purposes, and that’s where that information came from, but I’ll try and get that answer for you, hon. member. I know that we talked with a lot of people across the province, and if you want a definitive list of doctors, I’ll try and get that for you. It wasn’t I who did the phoning – it was Alberta Health Services – but I’ll get that information for you.

Dr. Taft: Okay. I’ll look forward to that being presented in this Assembly.

Again to the same minister: while he’s tabling the list of surgeons that his people consulted in making up this 10 to 1 discrepancy in favour of Calgary, will he also table the wait-lists and the wait times for hip and knee surgeries at all Edmonton and Calgary facilities so that we can know whether or not this decision was based on good evidence or on politics or on strategic marketing by HRC?

Mr. Zwozdesky: Mr. Speaker, I believe what I indicated yesterday and perhaps in days earlier is that staff with Alberta Health Services had talked with doctors and surgical team members and/or staff or whomever in various parts of the province, so I’ll try and get that list more definitively defined for you. I’ll try and get you more information on the question you’ve just asked as well. Those are details that are really in the hands of Alberta Health Services, but I’ll see what I can do to help you out.

Alberta Hansard, February 18, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Mr. Chase: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There has been a tradition across Canada of sharing the costs of postsecondary education between provincial governments, which pay two-thirds, and students, who pay one-third. 

But as the hon. Leader of the Official Opposition has demonstrated, this balance is being jeopardized as the government downloads more of the cost to students. To the minister of advanced education. The government’s failure to invest in postsecondary institutions is forcing them to ask for massive hikes to tuition in professional faculties. Why is the minister not coming forward with a clearer position on these increases?

Mr. Horner: Well, Mr. Speaker, I don’t know how much clearer I could be on this issue. The institutions told us that when we froze tuitions at the 2004 levels, there may have been some areas where we made an error. I simply said to them: “If you believe that there was an error made in 2004, present those facts to me and to the students, and let’s have a look at them. If there was an error, we’ll fix it.” That’s the only adjustments we’re talking about. The CPI cap on tuitions of 1.5 per cent for this year stands.

Mr. Chase: Given that postsecondary institutions are trying to make up for their reduced provincial funding by raising additional fees, will the minister solve both the students’ and institutions’ dilemma by investing the necessary funds to eliminate the need for mandatory fee hikes?

Mr. Horner: Today, as I stand here, I know of one, maybe two institutions out of the 26 that we work with within the province that are talking about external fees of, you know, a significant nature. We’re still working with the postsecondary system and crunching the numbers to ensure that we have accessibility, that we have affordability for the students. So to say that the entire system is looking at these huge increases is simply not correct, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Mr. Chase: Thank you. In response to my questions yesterday regarding postsecondary funding, the minister stated, “Unfortunately, he hasn’t been reading the truth.” My quest for the truth continues. Given that students need to make admission decisions and institutions need to set their budgets, when can they expect definitive answers from this minister?

Mr. Horner: Well, Mr. Speaker, as I said to the hon. member several times with regard to the market modifier question, which is what he’s after, so far I believe I’ve received from three institutions their proposals. We’re reviewing them as we speak, and within weeks we will be able to deliver what we think is going to be the appropriate response to those postsecondary institutions so that they can ensure that they have their tuitions in the calendars at the appropriate time so that students and parents can make the appropriate decisions as to where the kids want to go for their postsecondary.

Alberta Hansard, February 18, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Dr. Swann: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday in the House the minister of advanced education said, “the base operating grants of every institution in this province [are] protected.”

This morning, however, it was revealed that by consolidating a series of separate grants, the government has effectively hidden a reduction in expected grant funding of $27 million to the University of Alberta. If the minister won’t give Albertans a straight answer, perhaps the Premier will. Students in postsecondary institutions have ridden this government boom-and-bust fiscal roller coaster for far too long. When is the Premier going to start treating postsecondary education as an investment by delivering a plan for stable, predictable funding?

Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Minister of Advanced Education and Technology has met with all of the postsecondary institutions and gave them good information on what to expect from this year’s budget. He is continuing to work with them to ensure that postsecondary education remains a priority for this government.

Dr. Swann: Mr. Speaker, this government’s incompetent management is close to creating a crisis in postsecondary education. Cutbacks and tuition hikes are not the solution. Why isn’t this government exploring constructive options such as low-interest loans for postsecondary institutions, that would allow them to maintain capacity as Alberta’s economy recovers?

Mr. Horner: Well, Mr. Speaker, I’d be more than happy to correct some of the gross errors in the preamble. Number one, the tuition increases this year are based on the CPI cap. We are maintaining that cap as an investment in this province’s future. Number two, the base operating grant for all of the postsecondary institutions in the province of Alberta for the past six years has gone up 42 per cent, and we protected that. That’s a great investment in the future of this province.

Dr. Swann: Mr. Speaker, this government has also eliminated targeted funding to high-demand programs which produce skilled workers. Alberta will need these workers as we emerge out of the recession. Is the Premier not concerned that in addition to running up a massive budget deficit, his legacy will be presiding over a massive skills deficit?

The Speaker: The hon. Deputy Premier.

Mr. Horner: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again, I’m not exactly sure where the hon. member is doing his research, other than perhaps the Edmonton Journal, which I would advise is probably not the best place to do his research given the fact that what he’s talking about is probably rumour as opposed to actual fact. The training part of it in terms of apprenticeship is based on the demand of the number of apprentices that are showing up at the postsecondary institutions. We have a very good handle on where that’s going, and this province does more training of apprentices per capita than any other province in the country.

Alberta Hansard, February 18, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Darshan Kang, Alberta Liberal MLA for Calgary-McCall, delivers his Response to the Throne Speech in English and Punjabi.

[direct link to this article]

Darshan Kang, Alberta Liberal MLA for Calgary-McCall, concludes his Response to the Throne Speech, delivered in Punjabi and English.

[direct link to this article]

Mr. Chase: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If the government succeeds in creating a functional competitiveness board, the first priority the board should review is the government’s own postsecondary education policy, which is rapidly making Alberta less competitive. 

My questions are to the minister of advanced education. How can the minister trumpet Alberta innovation while cutting funding for research and technology commercialization by $35 million?

The Speaker: The hon. Deputy Premier.

Mr. Horner: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I really do look forward to the discussion around our estimates because the hon. member may have missed a couple of things. When we consolidated a number of entities in Alberta Innovates, we did have some changes to our budget, but I can assure the hon. member that the Premier’s vision of the next generation economy is clearly on track based on what we’ve done with Alberta Innovates and Campus Alberta. And I would correct the hon. member: the international community is looking at Campus Alberta as the system to look at and perhaps follow in the future.

Mr. Chase: They’re going to have to look really hard to find it. By freezing base operating grants, the minister has put faculty layoffs and unpaid furlough days on the table as universities struggle to balance their budgets. Is this what, in quotes, world-class universities look like to this government?

Mr. Horner: Well, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is obviously aware that Campus Alberta is all of the postsecondary institutions across the province, and if he hasn’t figured that out yet, as my critic I would encourage him to go to the website and read what we’ve done over the last two years. I’m sure he would find that very enlightening.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, other jurisdictions in North America that one would consider world class, like Harvard or MIT or Berkeley, have had 20 to 30 per cent cuts to their base operating grants. Indeed, we’ll get into the budget debate, but the base operating grants of every institution in this province were protected.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Mr. Chase: Thank you. Rather than finding it enlightening, I’m finding that a number of university students are finding their wallets considerably lighter based on your policies.

Given that we already have the lowest postsecondary enrolment in the country, how is Alberta supposed to compete with our provincial counterparts for talent when this minister is considering tuition increases as large as 70 per cent?

Mr. Horner: Well, Mr. Speaker, here we go with the nabobs of negativity and the purveyors of pessimism. Obviously, the hon. member has been reading a lot of newspapers. He’s been reading a lot of blogs. He’s been reading a lot of other things. Unfortunately, he hasn’t been reading the truth.

Alberta Hansard, February 17, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Mr. Kang: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday the minister said that only one antinuclear sign in Peace River was inappropriately taken down, but according to other accounts many signs were on private property and were specifically targeted while real estate signs were left alone. 

To the Minister of Transportation: would the minister explain this, please?

Mr. Ouellette: Mr. Speaker, all I can explain is that I think we have a good policy to keep people safe in Alberta. I know that our policy states that if signs are improperly placed in road allowances, our maintenance contractors are forced to take them down. As far as actually knowing exactly what that maintenance contractor did, I’m trying to find all that information out. I can tell you that there was one sign that definitely was taken down that was on private property, and we built that private property owner a new sign.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Mr. Kang: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I don’t think those signs were emitting any radiation so that they were not safe for the public. To the minister again: will the minister clear up the confusion and table the instructions Alberta Transportation gave to the contractor about removing antinuclear signs?

Mr. Ouellette: Mr. Speaker, I’m under the impression here that everything that I’ve questioned on this – what was given as a direction from our department was to make sure that people are compliant and follow the rules. The rules are there to keep all of our travelling public safe.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Mr. Kang: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Why are those rules only for antinuclear signs? To the minister again. If taking down private signs is a matter of safety, then signs across the province should be taken down. Could the minister please tell us how many signs on private property are pulled down annually throughout the province?

Mr. Ouellette: Mr. Speaker, on private property probably or hopefully very, very few. There should be none. We do send out letters to everybody that’s within our 300-metre zone, even though it’s private, and say: “You’re not compliant with the law. Please remove the signs.” We don’t go in and remove them ourselves.

Alberta Hansard, February 17, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Ms Pastoor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. According to the Canadian beef producers as of January 1, 2010, cattle inventories are at their lowest in 15 years and hog inventories at their lowest in 12 years. 

Last year the Alberta livestock and meat strategy and agency received over $100 million in government funding, with a similar amount estimated for the next year.

To the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development: how can the minister deem this an effective use of these dollars while the industry continues to deteriorate?

The Speaker: The hon. minister.

Mr. Hayden: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Of course, ALMA, that was just referred to, is an agency that has just started up, and we’re already seeing good results from that agency. A lot of their work is the promotion and working toward new markets globally, which are going to be very necessary. The industries that the hon. member opposite spoke about: about 50 per cent of our market needs to be global, outside of our boundaries, and about 50 per cent domestic. But we did experience an economic correction globally that has been very difficult on all industries.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Ms Pastoor: Thank you. You’ve partly answered my next question, but I would like a little bit more. This government keeps throwing money at the industry, but the real problems are structural. Besides writing cheques, what plans does the minister have to meet the ongoing challenges that are facing the Alberta livestock industries?

Mr. Hayden: Mr. Speaker, I couldn’t disagree more. I would not characterize the support to the agriculture industry, that is our largest renewable resource industry and our second largest industry in the province, as throwing money at an industry. I would say that that’s investing in Alberta’s future.

Ms Pastoor: Clever semantics.

When the government made check-offs voluntary, they were acting in the interest of the big beef producers at the expense of small family ranchers. How is this ministry helping our regular Alberta beef and hog producers as they attempt to compete in an industry that appears to have turned into a near monopoly?

Mr. Hayden: Mr. Speaker, all parts of the value chain are important. As I’ve stated to a number of the groups that I’ve spoken with and where I’ve spoken publicly since being appointed minister for this ministry, the primary producers are of utmost importance. Without the primary producers the rest of the value chain collapses. All portions of that value chain need to be profitable and healthy, and we’re working towards that.

Alberta Hansard, February 17, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Mr. Hehr: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Employment and Immigration mused about the government’s $26 million handout to Horse Racing Alberta. 

A recent report submitted by George Cuff & Associates to the Solicitor General shows that horse racing is a dying industry kept on life support by revenue from slot machines and offtrack betting. Accordingly, how can the Solicitor General claim that spending $26 million on horse racing and a breed renewal program represents sound fiscal policy?

The Speaker: The hon. Solicitor General and Minister of Public Security.

Mr. Oberle: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The member would know or should know by now that the government does not transfer taxpayers’ dollars to Horse Racing Alberta. It’s a contract that Horse Racing Alberta has with the provincial government that allows it to keep a portion of the revenues generated from gaming facilities at racing tracks.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Mr. Hehr: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’ve read the report, and the report indicates something different than what the hon. member just answered, so I guess before I ask my final supplemental: have you read the Cuff report?

Mr. Oberle: Mr. Speaker, the member is in error. It’s quite clear that the government of Alberta has a contract with Horse Racing Alberta which allows them a portion of the revenues that are generated from slot machines at racing entertainment centres.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Mr. Hehr: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. This report that maybe the hon. member has or hasn’t read indicates that instead of merely regulating horse racing, the government has chosen to actively promote the industry. To the same minister: why is a government that is allegedly not in the business of being in business actively promoting and propping up an industry most Albertans don’t care about to the tune of $26 million?

Mr. Oberle: Mr. Speaker, I’ll point out again that those monies are generated from slot machines that are run at racing entertainment centres, and while a portion of the money that is generated there goes to Horse Racing Alberta, another portion of it goes to fund charitable organizations across our province, maybe some of them in that member’s constituency.

Alberta Hansard, February 17, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Ms Blakeman: Thanks very much, Mr. Speaker. This government is not helping our oil and gas industry by failing to take the lead on environmental protection. 

Instead, the government is jeopardizing this sector, its reputation, Alberta’s competitiveness, and the ability to maintain a strong industry into the future. We can have both a strong energy policy and a strong environmental policy. My questions are to the Minister of Environment. The energy sector is getting ramped up. Why isn’t environmental protection?

Mr. Renner: Well, Mr. Speaker, I couldn’t agree with the member more when she says that our ability to conduct business in the world of resource development is dependent upon our ability to demonstrate clearly that we have the necessary regulatory environment in place to ensure that we protect the environment and develop those resources appropriately. I couldn’t disagree with the member more when she says that Alberta Environment is not ramping up and preparing for it. That’s exactly why we’re developing the cumulative effects environmental management.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Ms Blakeman: Thank you. Back to the same minister: given that the land-use framework banks on growing production in the oil sands and thus intensity targets will not be effective in even maintaining the current levels of carbon output, when will the minister implement hard targets?

Mr. Renner: Mr. Speaker, the issue of hard targets is very much part of the discussion that’s ongoing now nationally and internationally. To directly answer the member’s question, Alberta will adopt hard targets when the rest of North America adopts those same hard targets.

Dr. Taft: Well, that’s leadership.

Ms Blakeman: Yeah. Dawdling at the back.

Okay. To the same minister: given that the ministry has had significant cuts for the upcoming year, how does the minister expect to do more monitoring and compliance enforcement for more industrial activity with less money?

Mr. Renner: Well, Mr. Speaker, that question is just about impossible to answer in the 30 seconds that you will allow me. So I would suggest that this member come to the estimates for the Department of Environment, and I will be more than happy to go through it in great detail for her.

Alberta Hansard, February 17, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Mr. MacDonald: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, when the Official Opposition asked the Premier about our public debt, he stated, “We are not adding to our debt.”

Page 24 of the fiscal plan, the government’s budget, states explicitly that this government plans to directly borrow $3.3 billion over the next three years. My first question is to the President of the Treasury Board. If direct borrowing is not considered a debt, what exactly did the Premier mean yesterday in the House?

Mr. Snelgrove: Mr. Speaker, borrowing $3.3 billion is a debt, and when it’s spent on capital projects for the government, it becomes an asset. In our consolidated financial statement we will offset borrowed money with a capital project, which at the end of the day balances even, gets us good value to continue to build while prices are right.

Mr. MacDonald: Again to the same minister: why are debt servicing costs doubling over the next four years to over $400 million?

Mr. Snelgrove: Mr. Speaker, we also have tools that have been used very effectively by this government, some P3 partnership groups that are building ring roads around these cities, that need to be paid for. All of the capital debt that we’re assuming is accounted for I think on page 70, where it spells out that this interest will be paid to support our capital investment in our infrastructure.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Mr. MacDonald: Thank you. I would remind the President of the Treasury Board that the 3P debt, all 5 billion plus dollars of it, is in another section of the fiscal plan. We’re not talking about 3P debt here.

Now, again, if you borrow money, you have to pay it back. That’s a debt. What is this government’s plan to pay back the $3.3 billion in debt that it is taking on as a direct result of your years of fiscal mismanagement?

Mr. Snelgrove: Mr. Speaker, you know what? We do believe in Alberta, and we believe in Albertans. We believe that if we invest in the infrastructure that enables business to thrive and come to Alberta and grow its economy, we will take our fair share as the Alberta government, we’ll reinvest it in the programs that they all want us to, in health and education, and we’ll build a bigger pie rather than shrink the pie and all suffer and be happy together like them.

Alberta Hansard, February 17, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Dr. Taft: Thanks, Mr. Speaker. People are asking me why the vast majority of surgeries announced yesterday by the Minister of Health and Wellness are going to for-profit health corporations in Calgary. 

According to Alberta Health Services Calgary gets 200 extra hip and knee surgeries in the next six weeks while Edmonton and presumably all of northern Alberta get a total of 16. To the minister: why the 10 to 1 discrepancy in favour of Calgary?

Mr. Zwozdesky: Mr. Speaker, that is an offensive question, and the member knows it. The fact is that waiting lists are managed by doctors, not by this minister and not by the Health Services people.

Waiting times are what we’re trying to impact, and if we get that right, and I think we are, it will affect the waiting lists. The fact is that these lists are done up at the local level by the surgeons, and when they compile all of their information, they tell us where it is that the lists are needed to be dealt with as expeditiously as possible. It turns out that in this case, for this one example, the member may be right. But we could look at other examples, too, of different surgeries.

Dr. Taft: Well, to this same minister: is this government paying a premium to the for-profit orthopaedic centres for hip and knee surgeries? In other words, will the for-profit providers be paid exactly the same as public hospitals for the same kind of cases, or will they be paid more?

Mr. Zwozdesky: Mr. Speaker, that’s a very good question. The fact is that you can’t compare one system that finitely with the other because in the public system there are a lot of costs that are absorbed by the public institution, which don’t stand out and jump off the page, but when you contract out, you get an exact amount. You can’t do and you can’t compare the math that simply and that easily. To answer the member’s question just a little bit further, a cost-benefit analysis is being done with respect to some of these surgeries right now. I’ll ask for more to be done, and I’ll be happy to share it with the hon. member.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Dr. Taft: Well, thanks, Mr. Speaker. Calgary’s system of for-profit cataract surgery has been plagued with problems for years, including conflicts of interest, long waiting lists, and quality concerns. In Edmonton’s public system these are simply nonissues. Why is the Minister of Health and Wellness rewarding the problems in Calgary’s for-profit system and penalizing the successes of public care in Edmonton?

Mr. Zwozdesky: Mr. Speaker, there’s an RFP process going on across the province right now. It’s a request for proposals. It will be brought forward. There’s a cost analysis coming forward. I can tell the hon. member and all Albertans, for that matter, that when you look at the costs for cataract surgeries, regardless where they’re done but in this case Calgary specifically, the cost on average is less when they’re contracted out than when they’re done in the public institution, and we’re going to prove that.

Alberta Hansard, February 17, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Dr. Swann: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My heart goes out to all Albertans whose surgery has been delayed because of this government’s mismanagement of the health care system. 

We support reducing wait times and wait-lists. Our concern is the way this government is handling and accomplishing this task. Of the hip and knee surgeries announced yesterday, 83 per cent are going to be performed at a premium at for-profit corporate health centres. To the Minister of Health and Wellness: will the minister tell Albertans how much of the $8 million boost is going to for-profit hip and knee surgery providers?

Mr. Zwozdesky: Mr. Speaker, the point here is that people who are enduring long waiting lists don’t have to wait as long anymore because we’re speeding things up. I have asked for a cost-benefit analysis to be done. That’s being done because I want to make sure that for the services we’re providing to Albertans, we’re getting fair dollar value. At the same time I want to assure Albertans that regardless of where they get that surgery performed, it’s fully covered by this government.

Dr. Swann: Well, again to the same minister: why are we giving so much less to public institutions versus for-profit private providers?

Mr. Zwozdesky: Mr. Speaker, I think that if you took an analysis of the $9 billion – that’s with a B for Bob, $9 billion – that we’re putting into Alberta Health Services’ budget, with the increase that we’ve given them, guaranteed 6 per cent over the next three years after we’ve adjusted their base, you would find that by far the largest amount of that money is going into public institutions and publicly funded services.

Dr. Swann: The minister seems to be able to provide exact numbers of procedures for the funding to each institution, but he will not give us the exact dollar amount. Will you present the House with a dollar amount that’s going to the private versus the public system in this $8 million?

Mr. Zwozdesky: Mr. Speaker, as soon as those surgeries are performed and accomplished, that’s public information. Everyone has access to it. This is an open and transparent process. What we’ve done is work with those providers, those professionals, those surgeons, those surgical teams, and the list goes on, all across the province. They’re the ones who deserve the credit for stepping up to the plate and saying: yes, we will work some weekends to accomplish this; yes, those of us who are working part-time will work more full-time hours. Those who are already working fulltime will work some overtime to help accomplish this for Albertans.

Alberta Hansard, February 17, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Mr. Hehr: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The land-use framework progress report was released last week, and despite the report being labelled a progress report, I can see very little progress that has actually happened. 

To the Minister of Sustainable Resource Development. It’s been well over a year since the land-use framework was created, and only two regional plans are in the process of being established. When can we finally expect to see anything concrete come out of the land-use framework?

Mr. Knight: Well, Mr. Speaker, the land-use framework initiative, of course, is extremely important for all areas of Alberta. But let’s be reasonable about how we’re going to approach this thing because I don’t think that it would be in anybody’s interest, particularly not in the interests of Albertans, to go out there with a shotgun approach and try to develop a land-use framework for all seven regions at the same time. We’ve done some very, very good work in the lower Athabasca, and that plan is moving ahead now very nicely. The regional advisory commission have most of their work together, and we are expecting a report from them at the end of March.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Mr. Hehr: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again to the minister: has there been some meaningful consultation done with the Métis communities in those areas?

Mr. Knight: Yes, Mr. Speaker, in fact, they have. There are aboriginal people involved in the regional advisory committee, so they have representation on the committees and are responsible for taking that information back to their own communities. We know that this is one of the areas that in order for this to be successful, we will continue and we have to continue to have meaningful consultation with aboriginal groups.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Mr. Hehr: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again to the same minister. Developments in Sylvan Lake are currently happening that will have a major impact on the Red Deer regional plan that is being created. How will these developments, that are going forward as we speak, be dealt with by your department without the actual implementation of the land-use framework having gone through yet?

Mr. Knight: Well, Mr. Speaker, that is one issue of many. Of course, as the member opposite would very well understand and realize, you cannot stop the development of the province of Alberta while you develop a land-use framework and then start again. The natural gas industry in Alberta is again, you know, going to come to the fore. The development of forestry continues. The development of communities across the province continues. The land-use framework will have to take into account all of those developments as it moves forward and as we get the plans in place.

Alberta Hansard, February 16, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Mr. Taylor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Housing and Urban Affairs has stated that the $13 million cut to rent supplements reflects the fact that fewer people require assistance. 

The direct-to-tenant rent supplement program has a one-year expiry date, and seeing that the program started last April, support is running out.

To the minister of housing: while the rent subsidy is only one year long, the wait-list to get into affordable housing is almost three years long. How are people supposed to pay their rent without support while they wait another two years for affordable housing?

The Speaker: The hon. minister.

Mr. Denis: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to thank the member for that question, but what he doesn’t recognize is that we’re supporting those most in need. There are always people who may be in need, but at the same time we have to set a guideline because we want to be compassionate most to the taxpayers but, as well, to those in need. We will continue to support those most in need of rent assistance.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Mr. Taylor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I guess, you know, we’re talking in a sense about rationing. One way to reduce wait-lists is to reduce the number of people who qualify for support. It sounds like that’s what he’s done. Will the minister explain the changes which have been recently made to tighten up the qualifying criteria for rent supplements and affordable housing?

Mr. Denis: Mr. Speaker, it really saddens me, the approach that this member has taken to such an important program. The means test that we have had over the last several years remains the same. It is more stringent than other provinces’, but that enables us to target hard-working taxpayers’ money to those most in need.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Mr. Taylor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I see no reason for the minister to get sad. All the minister needs to do is answer the questions. With fewer people qualifying for assistance and more people running out of rent supports, has the minister given up on the Housing First policy and now back to the old approach of merely managing homelessness?

Mr. Denis: Mr. Speaker, there’s one government in the country that has a 10-year plan to end homelessness, and that is the government of Alberta. That’s the plan that we will continue on forward.

Thank you.

Alberta Hansard, February 16, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Ms Pastoor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m still receiving many, many inquiries about the PDD. 

Last Thursday the Minister of Seniors and Community Supports stated that people on PDD will not be reassessed for eligibility for PDD but that funding and the support that they receive will be reassessed using the supports intensity scale. My question is to the Minister of Seniors and Community Supports. Will the minister tell the Assembly how many different ways were being used to determine how much funding support disabled Albertans were entitled to before the introduction of the supports intensity scale?

The Speaker: The hon. minister.

Mrs. Jablonski: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The PDD program is very important to me and to this government and to the 9,200 people that it serves. We have implemented a supports intensity scale, but I’d like to make something very clear: it’s totally and completely different from the eligibility requirement. Once somebody passes the eligibility requirement, which are two criteria, they are in the PDD program. Once they are in the program, we need to determine what kinds of supports and services they need. We need to be clear about that, and we need to be consistent throughout the province.

Ms Pastoor: Thank you for that. And, yes, I do understand the distinction, but there still are many questions.

Can the minister tell the Assembly what the supports intensity scale actually measures and how this would be different from how staff and funding are currently allocated?

The Speaker: The hon. minister.

Mrs. Jablonski: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The important thing about the supports intensity scale is that it looks at many things. One of the things that it builds on is the natural supports that a person might have, so it won’t necessarily change the way services and supports are given to a PDD individual at this time. What it will do is that it will ensure that the supports that we do provide for PDD clients are consistent throughout the province for the same sorts of disabilities.

Ms Pastoor: Last Thursday the minister stated that if a disabled Albertan is currently receiving the correct level of supports, that will not change, but the obvious question is: could someone’s supports be decreased after the reassessment using the supports intensity scale?

Mrs. Jablonski: Mr. Speaker, it’s really important that when we have a program that’s a provincial program, we treat everyone equitably and fairly across the province. It is possible that there may be somebody in a corner of the province that is receiving perhaps more supports than somebody with that certain kind of disability really needs, and that’s not doing a person a favour when we give them more than they need.

Alberta Hansard, February 16, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Mr. Kang: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. People in Peace River don’t want a nuclear plant in their backyard, but they aren’t allowed to express themselves. 

They have put up signs protesting the proposed nuclear plant, but Transportation officials have taken these signs down.

To the Minister of Transportation: why are Department of Transportation officials targeting antinuclear signs?

Mr. Ouellette: Well, Mr. Speaker, the policy within this government, as everybody knows, is that you have to have permits to put signs up within the highway rights-of-way, strictly for the safety of motorists. Therefore, our policy is that if there are people that put signs up within our rights-of way, we take them down or they get a letter to take them down. If they’re not removed, we remove them. I understand that that policy was followed.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Mr. Kang: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My understanding is that policy was not followed. Transportation officials are out there to make the highways safer for Albertans.

To the minister again: is targeting antinuclear science an indication that this government only respects free speech when it is convenient?

Mr. Ouellette: Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker. We respect free speech all the time, but we cannot allow people to put things in the right-of-way. Our maintenance contractor’s job is that if they see things in the right-of-way, they have to go remove them. That policy is there for the safety of Albertans.

Mr. Kang: Well, Mr. Speaker, by going over and taking those signs down, I think those officials were trespassing on private property.

To the same minister again. We are spending millions of dollars selling Alberta’s image at the Olympics, yet back at home this government can’t uphold basic rights of free speech. What is the minister doing to ensure that this doesn’t happen again?

Mr. Ouellette: Mr. Speaker, there was one sign. I agree with the hon. member that there was one sign that was on private property. I’m just going by hearsay, trying to get to the bottom of everything that happened there, but apparently someone was asked by the maintenance contractor if they wanted that sign to go also, and they had said yes, so they removed it. When I found out about it and when our department found out about it, immediately they made a new sign and took it back to that private property, the one that was on private property.

Alberta Hansard, February 16, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Mr. MacDonald: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This Progressive Conservative government’s balance sheet indicates that the government liabilities will increase by over $10 billion in the next three years. 

My first question is to the Premier. Why are liabilities increasing by $10 billion in such a short period of time?

Mr. Horner: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. President of the Treasury Board can probably provide a better response.

Mr. Snelgrove: He might as well get to his next question. It’ll be the same one.

Mr. MacDonald: Ten billion dollars on the hook, and he’s got no answer. That doesn’t surprise me. That doesn’t surprise taxpayers either. Again to the Premier: what is the government’s plan to address this $10 billion liability?

Mr. Snelgrove: Mr. Speaker, there are two sides to a balance sheet, expenditures and assets. We’re building in Alberta some of the most forward-thinking, some of the most economic-enabling assets this country has ever seen. We believe that by growing the economic pie, there will be more money for Albertans to do the good work that they want us to do. So when we build a road, when we build an overpass, when we build a government building, when we build a hospital, it shows on our balance sheet as an asset. If you only look at expenditures, you won’t get a true picture of the assets in Alberta, and our assets per Albertan compared to the rest of Canada are multi, multithousands of dollars more.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Mr. MacDonald: Thank you. It’s interesting to note that the President of the Treasury of Board only reads one part of the balance sheet.

Now, again, to whoever can answer over there: where will the money come from to pay for the $10 billion increase in liabilities? Are you going to pick the pockets of the poor again?

Mr. Snelgrove: Mr. Speaker, we’ve explained as slowly as we can explain, and we’ve put it in documents that are hundreds of pages thick about how we intend to use the sustainability fund, which is our savings account which we put there as a rainy-day fund to carry Alberta’s economy through to the next expansion situation, that we’ll be in far ahead of the rest of the country. In here it very clearly explains that we will use our sustainability fund. Our economic growth is based on very sound projections of energy and the Canadian dollar, interest rates, and it shows clearly how we’ll be back in the black in 2012-13. It’s simply explained in the budget.

Read it.

Alberta Hansard, February 16, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Mr. Chase: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The all-you-can-eat Tory buffet is now airborne. 

Taxpayer travelling-trough tickets to the government of Alberta’s version of gravy trains, planes, and automobiles have been doled out to the Premier and half his cabinet.

Competing in the frequent-flyers-of-Olympic-excess event are our Premier and intergovernmental affairs minister. In the who-canluxuriate-the-longest competition we have the Minister of Culture and Community Spirit facing off with the Minister of Tourism, Perks and Vacations. To the Premier: are you not concerned about the Olympian optics of your high-flying excesses during a time of recessional lows?

Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, you know, there is some negativity on the other side of the House, but I can tell you that on this side of the House there is a huge amount of optimism. I’m looking forward to Canada’s Vancouver Olympics. I mean, all roads to Vancouver lead through Alberta. What better way to promote this great province than at Alberta House, Alberta Plaza, right in the city of Vancouver, during the world Olympics? By the way, 3.5 billion people are watching the Olympics – 3.5 billion. What better market than right here in Alberta?

Mr. Chase: Again to the Premier: did you and your cabinet not receive the memo that going for the gold refers to the athletic competition and not your personal withdrawal from the public purse?

Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, as Albertans we’re very, very proud of the role that we are playing in the Vancouver Olympics. We’ve supported the Olympics over the last three years by making improvements to the Calgary Olympic Park. We’ve also sent hundreds of volunteers that have supported the Vancouver Olympics over the last number of years in preparation for this huge event.

You know, it’s difficult for our Alberta athletes to be enthused and want to do their best when this side of the House constantly wants to drag them down – drag them down – and not have them do better.

Mr. Chase: While showcasing Alberta athletic and artistic talent has value, political pandering does not. Given the budgetary restraints you have placed on PDD, children, seniors, and postsecondary students, how do you justify your partisan expenses?

Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, there are all kinds of positive messages that can be delivered by elected officials or volunteers, all Albertans. I invite this House, all political stripes, no matter where they sit in this House, to take part in these events. If they want to participate at Alberta Plaza and Alberta House, so be it. We’d gladly support any political party in terms of selling and promoting the province of Alberta because, again, we are very, very proud of our province.

Alberta Hansard, February 16, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Dr. Taft: Thanks, Mr. Speaker. Today this government announced it was holding the Royal Alex orthopaedic centre to an increase of a mere 16 extra knee and hip procedures. 

In comparison, it’s giving a for-profit corporation subsidies for an extra 180, more than 10 times as much money for corporate medicine as for a public hospital.

To the Premier: why is this government letting the state-of-the-art public orthopaedic facility at the Royal Alex sit underutilized while it pours huge subsidies into corporate medicine?

Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, we’re the only jurisdiction to commit to a five-year increased funding to a publicly funded health care system, and we remain committed to that goal. We also remain committed to the best-performing publicly funded health care system in Canada.

Dr. Taft: Well, I hope everybody in Alberta is noticing he’s not saying publicly delivered because it’s going to be delivered through private, for-profit corporations. In fact, this government is providing 750 extra cataract surgeries at for-profit private providers and only 175 at the public Royal Alex centre. To the Premier: why is this government pouring more money into private, for-profit cataract surgery instead of into public services?

Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day it’s access and it’s quality, and that is our goal here, to increase access and the quality of care in this province. Once again, we’re going to show leadership with a five-year funding commitment to a publicly funded health care system.

Dr. Taft: Mr. Speaker, the Premier should know that every single assessment I’ve seen of Calgary versus Edmonton on cataract surgeries shows that Edmonton delivers better value, higher quality, and lower cost. My question is to the Premier. How is this government going to responsibly hold to account the funding it’s providing to for-profit, corporate health care?

Mr. Zwozdesky: Mr. Speaker, this is just an example of very selective reading on the part of the hon. member asking the question because what he forgot to tell people is that there are 175 cataracts scheduled for the Royal Alex, there are 60 colonoscopies scheduled for the Royal Alex, and there are a number of hip replacements and knee replacements and robotic urologies all scheduled at the Royal Alex. This numbers well over 200. Regardless of where the services are provided, be they in a public setting or a private setting, they are publicly funded by this government.

Alberta Hansard, February 16, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Dr. Swann: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Alberta spends more than it makes in stable and reliable revenue. 

What we’re using to fix that gap is the rapidly shrinking sustainability fund. At some point this government will have to increase its revenue or lower its spending. Every new finance minister seems to see the problem clearly, but none actually do anything about it. To the Premier. I’ll ask again: what is this Premier doing to fix our problem of spending more than we collect through stable revenue?

Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, we are not spending money we don’t have. We have a large sustainability fund that we are using to cushion the blow to our revenue stream. It’s in the amount of about $17 billion. We also have an additional savings fund, the Alberta heritage savings trust fund, which is a separate fund, and that fund is there for our grandkids and our grandkids’ grandkids. So, again, two funds. We’ve put the savings in place just to deal with dropping revenues like we’ve seen lately.

Dr. Swann: Last August the finance minister said that this government would not allow the sustainability fund to be drained, yet that’s exactly what’s happening now. Where will the government find the money to balance the books when the sustainability fund is gone?

Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, we are using the sustainability fund to cushion the blow to our revenues. We want to be back in the black by 2012-13, and we will be. We will be replenishing the sustainability fund for, again, sometime in the future that we see another drop in revenues or another economic downturn.

Dr. Swann: Surely the Premier doesn’t manage his farm that way. The volatility of oil and gas prices will not go away. Something needs to change here. Why does the Premier continue to ignore the fact that using our savings account to cover shortfalls again this year is simply a Band-aid? It does nothing to address our unstable funding.

Mr. Stelmach: Mr. Speaker, again, I think the hon. leader perhaps isn’t fully aware of what we’ve done as a government. We’re the only jurisdiction in Canada to set aside a separate fund, a cash surplus fund, to help cushion the revenues. We are not adding to our debt. We’re the only jurisdiction that, even though we’re running a deficit, is not adding to our debt. That is substantial. We will be the first to come out of this, leading Canada out of the recession.

Alberta Hansard, February 16, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Alberta Liberal MLA and Environment critic Laurie Blakeman holds Environment Minister Rob Renner accountable for the Stelmach administration’s poor environmental record.

[direct link to this article]

Official Opposition Leader David Swann asks Health Minister Gene Zwozdesky why Albertans are still facing long wait times for hip and knee surgery, and if the Minister has a plan for fixing health care other than throwing more money at the problem. 

[direct link to this article]

Alberta Liberal MLA for Calgary-McCall and Official Opposition Infrastructure/Transportation critic Darshan Kang questions the Stelmach Conservatives’ decision not to fund the Calgary Airport Tunnel, a vital piece of infrastructure for the province.

[direct link to this article]

Calgary – Darshan Kang, Alberta Liberal critic for Infrastructure and Transportation, says that the construction of a tunnel to compensate for the closure of Barlow Trail north of McKnight Boulevard is absolutely necessary to protect the quality of life and economic prosperity of northeast Calgary. 

The addition of a fourth runway to the Calgary International Airport will result in the partial closure of Barlow Trail, an important transportation link connecting northeast Calgary with the airport. Unless a tunnel under the runway is completed, all traffic will be routed onto Country Hills Boulevard and the already congested Deerfoot Trail, with huge impacts on local businesses and the quality of life of Calgarians.

Kang is urging the Stelmach Conservatives to join the City of Calgary and the Calgary Airport Authority in pledging the necessary funds to complete the project and to meet with the federal government to secure their cooperation and funding. The cost is estimated at $287 million now, but will be much more expensive if the project is delayed. Alberta’s share would be roughly a third of that cost.

Kang met with Transportation Minister Luke Ouellette on Wednesday afternoon to argue in the tunnel’s favour, but the Minister told Kang that Calgary is already getting enough infrastructure money.

“I told the Minister I’ve been working on this ever since I learned we need this airport tunnel,” Kang says. “I asked the Minister to give his full support for the airport tunnel, because it would not only be good for northeast Calgary, but for the whole of Calgary, the province and the country.”

Kang has raised the issue multiple times in the Legislature, citing widespread concerns in Calgary about traffic jams, environmental and safety issues, and the spectre of huge economic impacts on local businesses that depend upon access to the airport.

“As of now there are between forty and fifty thousand cars travelling on Barlow every day, and all of those cars will be funneled off onto Deerfoot Trail. Deerfoot Trail is already at capacity and we sit in traffic jams for hours and hours. We need this airport tunnel to have a free flow of traffic around the airport,” Kang says.

“There are 200,000 people on the east side of Calgary who will be affected by this immediately,” Kang says. “All Albertans will be affected if we don’t build this airport tunnel.”

– 30 –

For more information contact:

albertaliberalcaucus
1-866-633-4214

[direct link to this article]

Mr. MacDonald: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Treasury Board budget estimates forecast $30 million in separation payments this fiscal year. 

My first question is to the President of the Treasury Board. What is the $30 million in separation payments for?

Mr. Snelgrove: Well, Mr. Speaker, generally when we put aside money for separation payments, it’s to pay people that are leaving government.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Mr. MacDonald: Thank you. That certainly confirms that there are plans by this government to lay civil servants off.

Again to the President of the Treasury Board: how are you going to calculate these separation payments fairly given that Paddy Meade, when she left Alberta Health Services after 10 months’ employment, was paid $1.3 million in severance?

Mr. Snelgrove: Mr. Speaker, we have a very consistent approach to the employees that work on behalf of the Alberta government. It is certainly not our pleasure or what we like to do to have to narrow down our number of employees that work for the Alberta government, but there are times that change, there are processes that we do better, there are IT improvements that we’re able to do better, and occasionally people on our staff, both management and union, are let go. We very fairly deal with these people on a basis that’s predetermined by their agreement with us.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Mr. MacDonald: Thank you. Again to the same minister, Mr. Speaker: how is the government going to calculate these separation payments fairly after providing Jack Davis, the CEO of the Calgary health region, with a $1.6 million severance package and a $22,490-a-month pension for life?

Mr. Snelgrove: Mr. Speaker, that severance was given by the Calgary regional health authority, which is one darn good reason why we needed to bring all of these regions under one management. I’m sure that people were dealt with separately. There’s no one in this House, I would presume, and probably very few Albertans that believe that some of the people that were let go earned or deserved those severances, but unfortunately when deals are made and contracts are signed, then you have to live up to them, and you go forward, not backwards.

Alberta Hansard, February 11, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Ms Pastoor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The plans that the Minister of Seniors and Community Supports has for the persons with developmental disabilities program are not clear, making the future of this program quite uncertain. 

To the minister: what was the minister’s reasoning for creating a new PDD eligibility criterion, and what evidence was used in its creation?

Mrs. Jablonski: Mr. Speaker, it’s very important to me that every Albertan with a developmental disability is treated fairly and equally across the province. The eligibility requirement that the member refers to has not been changed. What we have changed is that instead of having it just in policy, it’s now in regulation. The regulation provides more clarity and consistency throughout the province, and that was my purpose for putting it into place.

Ms Pastoor: Why is the minister making all PDD-funded individuals undergo reassessment with the new eligibility criterion?

Mrs. Jablonski: Mr. Speaker, the eligibility criterion is not new. Any person that is PDD funded and is eligible for our supports will not have to go through any new assessments or program. What we have that is new is something that’s called the supports intensity scale. This is a new assessment tool that we are using to ensure once again that all persons with disabilities in the province of Alberta are treated the same from north to south, east to west.

Ms Pastoor: Will the minister guarantee that all people currently on PDD will not be denied PDD supports after the reassessments have been finished?

Mrs. Jablonski: Mr. Speaker, any person in Alberta with developmental disabilities who is eligible for our funding supports and services will receive the supports and services that they are eligible for, and if they are receiving the correct supports, nothing will change.

Alberta Hansard, February 11, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Mr. Chase: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Child intervention services suffered a debilitating $27 million cut in this week’s budget. 

Essential services like child protection, family supports, and assistance for families providing permanent homes to children and youth are the programs that will suffer. To the Minister of Children and Youth Services: given that Alberta already has one of the highest per capita populations of children in custody in Canada, why has the minister further reduced in-home support for children and their families?

The Speaker: The hon. minister.

Mrs. Fritz: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I mentioned to you earlier in the Assembly, it really is about early intervention, and the intervention area of the budget is multidimensional. We have some very good organizations in the province. Most recently in Calgary we had the FASD Conference, 600 participants, and every one of those people in that room worked with agencies in some way, whether it was policing, psychologists, health care with nurses, psychiatrists, just a number of people working together for that early intervention, to go in and assist that family so that the child does not need to be taken into care. That’s cost-effective.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Mr. Chase: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like the hon. minister to go back in time to her former career and recall the times when she physically patched up broken families. I would like to see that type of compassion demonstrated with families within Children and Youth Services.

This government is full of mixed priorities and mixed messages. Can the minister clarify how these proposed cuts reflect the government’s commitment to protect the most vulnerable Albertans?

Mrs. Fritz: Well, Mr. Speaker, I don’t want you to be misled into thinking that there are cuts throughout this whole budget because that’s just not the case. There have been some cost-effective measures with the budget, which we’ve been asked for; all ministries were over the past year. I can tell you very clearly that the early intervention side of the budget, where the reduction is going to occur, is because it is cost-effective with what we’ve seen with the good programs over the past year that are showing really strong results. Tomorrow you will see the announcement of the triple-P program, which is the positive parenting program through parent link centres. They’re making a real difference out there in the community.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Mr. Chase: Thank you. I would just like the minister to note that it is considerably less expensive to maintain the children and support them within their homes rather than to institutionalize them. There are a number of loving foster care parents out there – and I thank the families that provide that support – but it’s less expensive to look after them within their families.

This ministry has been in crisis for years. Why should Albertans trust that these cuts won’t bring about further decreases in the quality of already constrained services?

Mrs. Fritz: Well, Mr. Speaker, I’m pleased to see that the member agrees with me about the early intervention piece where you actually assist families with positive parenting skills, which the community is coming together to do. We just had the 100th anniversary yesterday of the Bissell Centre, and that’s very much a part of their work. That’s where you have the success of the family, and you don’t take the children or youth into care. Foster parents: I agree that, you know, that’s a very important program in this ministry, and that area is being increased by over $900,000.

Alberta Hansard, February 11, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Ms Blakeman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Climate change is a reality and poses a significant challenge for this province. 

Alberta Liberals believe government needs to act in good faith to reduce Alberta’s carbon footprint. To the Minister of Environment. The minister’s federal counterpart just came out with a target of 17 per cent reduction by 2020. How is Alberta going to participate in Canada meeting those targets?

Mr. Renner: Mr. Speaker, Alberta is going to participate in Canada meeting those targets by continuing to do what we’re already doing: by continuing to lead the way; by using the legislation that we already have in place in this province, that no other province has, quite frankly, that has mandatory reductions for large industrial emitters; like the announcement that we had at noon today, when we formed a partnership with our municipalities, put $2 million into a centre of excellence program so that municipalities can work to achieve reductions of their carbon footprint. Alberta will do its part.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Ms Blakeman: Thank you. Again to the same minister. Given that the feds have moved to hard caps, at some point the minister will have to stop dithering around with intensity emissions and put in real caps to meet the federal targets. When is this going to happen?

Mr. Renner: Mr. Speaker, the issue of hard caps versus intensity caps is something that is often the subject of much debate. But I remind the member that whether it’s intensity or whether it’s hard caps, the fact of the matter is that the legislation that we have in Alberta requires real reductions of CO2 on the part of industry. In the hard cap world, the European world, in case the member hasn’t noticed, there are actually allowances built into that system for growth. So whether you call it intensity or whether you call it hard cap, the fact of the matter is that you have to allow for growth.

That’s what our system does.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Ms Blakeman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the same minister. As a result of the government not having their act together on tailings ponds, on reclamation, on wetlands, on emissions, on the health of our northern aboriginal population, our international reputation is getting hammered, and our economy is being affected. When is the government going to ramp up Alberta’s environmental performance?

Mr. Renner: Mr. Speaker, that is the job that I have on a day-to-day basis. There is not a day that goes by that we are not pushing the envelope, that we are not improving the technology, improving the performance. That being said, let’s not overlook the tremendous amount of work that’s already in place. This is the most highly regulated industry in all of the world. That can improve and will improve, and it will do it under the stewardship of this government.

Alberta Hansard, February 11, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Mr. Kang: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This government talks about competitiveness but will not back the Calgary airport tunnel, a project that will keep businesses going, keep people employed, and increase tourism. 

This government talks about being green, but they won’t support a project that will keep cars, trucks, and airplanes from idling. To the Minister of Transportation: has the minister studied the economic and social impact of not building the tunnel?

Mr. Ouellette: Mr. Speaker, I know that the hon. member is trying to do the right thing, but I do not understand why he doesn’t understand that he’s trying to drag me into something that has nothing to do with my job. My job is to look after provincial highways in Alberta, and the airport tunnel is a municipal project. If you look back at the amount of money that we transferred to Calgary last year, there was double enough money there to build the tunnel if they would have made it their first priority.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Mr. Kang: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I don’t think the airport tunnel is a Calgary issue; it is an Alberta issue. The minister should be taking a look at the bigger picture.

To the minister again. The airport is already over capacity. Without an airport tunnel we can expect even more traffic problems. Why doesn’t the minister think that Calgary needs this airport tunnel?

Mr. Ouellette: Mr. Speaker, I absolutely have not at any time said that Calgary didn’t need it or did need it. I just said that it wasn’t our responsibility. I’ll tell you that this member will be one of the first people that will be out there if we change and if I sway from policy and do something that I’m not supposed to be looking after and look after it. They’ll be the first ones jumping down my throat on not following our policies.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Mr. Kang: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the contrary, I think I’ll be the first one applauding the minister to do the right thing, to come through with the funding for the airport tunnel.

To the minister again. The tunnel is a necessity for the LRT to go to the airport. Will the minister reconsider and put his support behind the airport tunnel?

Mr. Ouellette: Mr. Speaker, as you know, there’s new money going to Calgary in the new budget that just came out. They have to decide what their priorities are and what infrastructure they spend their money on. I’ll tell you, we have members on our side of the House, the Member for Calgary-Montrose and the Member for Calgary-Cross, that have been working very hard with my department also, trying to figure out how they could get support for the people in Calgary. We’re building a ring road around the city of Calgary to help get rid of the congestion that he’s talking about on the Deerfoot. Therefore, I want to stick to the job I’m doing and try to do the very best for Albertans that I can.

Alberta Hansard, February 11, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Mr. Taylor: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Well, you can see why the energy industry has lost so much confidence in this government. 

I mean, two of the most senior ministers apparently can’t agree on whether royalty changes are going to happen or not. Yesterday the Minister of Energy apparently told reporters that royalty changes were not going to take place a mere two hours after the finance minister told the same reporters the exact opposite.

To the Minister of Energy. Here’s your chance to clear things up. Will this government be fixing the royalty system in this province or not?

Mr. Liepert: Well, Mr. Speaker, I’m happy to clear things up because certain media have taken out of context what I believe was said yesterday. I can’t comment on what the finance minister said in a private meeting, but let me be very clear about what is happening. We are in the process of going through a competitiveness review. Part of that competitiveness review is to ensure that our royalty structures within the royalty framework are appropriate. There is no new royalty framework because that is much greater than just royalties, and that’s what will be coming as part of the competitiveness review.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Mr. Taylor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the same minister. I’m still wondering – I mean, I know media does sometimes take remarks out of context; it’s happened to me – how workers in the oil and gas industry, how investors in the oil and gas industry let alone other sectors of our economy are meant to trust a government that’s working, or being reported to work, at cross-purposes with itself?

Mr. Liepert: Well, I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, one thing that is certain: there’s a lot more trust in this government than in the Liberal opposition. In the last election the former leader was campaigning for higher royalties, and just a couple of weeks ago we had this particular leader, this particular opposition, come out with a report, which is the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers’ report, verbatim now as their new Liberal policy. So I have some difficulty understanding where they’re coming from.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Mr. Taylor: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. CAPP called. They’re wondering why you haven’t.

To the Minister of Energy: why aren’t you more aggressively pursuing a pipeline to the west coast? It’s not only royalties where this government needs to take urgent action. Our reliance on one single market south of the border places our energy exports at risk of boycott, so why aren’t you more aggressively pursuing a pipeline to the west coast?

Mr. Liepert: Well, I’ll be very happy to send a copy of our energy strategy over to the member because clearly outlined in our energy strategy are the initiatives that we are taking. We recognize that we do not want to be so reliant on one particular customer. There’s a lot of work going on there, Mr. Speaker.

Alberta Hansard, February 11, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Dr. Swann: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The Health Quality Council of Alberta recently released a report which highlighted that under the management of this government and Alberta Health Services emergency room wait times in Alberta have actually increased between 2007 and 2009. 

To the Minister of Health and Wellness: when will the minister provide details showing how the $1.7 billion increase to Alberta Health Services will improve emergency access for Albertans?

Mr. Zwozdesky: Mr. Speaker, very soon. In fact, I anticipate making an announcement next week with respect to a specific strategy that has been developed with, by, and for the Alberta Health Services folks to benefit all Albertans, and that will include looking at how we can reduce the wait times and how we can improve access time to family doctors and to specialists.

The Speaker: The hon. leader.

Dr. Swann: Thank you. How many additional acute care beds will this new funding mean for Calgary hospitals, now stretched beyond their limits?

Mr. Zwozdesky: Mr. Speaker, I just rushed in from Calgary. In fact, I was at the Peter Lougheed hospital just hours ago, and I met with people in the emergency department. I’m sure the member asking the question would be happy to know that I informed them that our capital plan is being worked on right now government-wide. It’s about a $7 billion plan this year. The Health and Wellness component of that for health facilities is going to be $2.5 billion, and we’ll have the details very soon.

The Speaker: The hon. leader.

Dr. Swann: Well, thank you. Then probably the minister will be able to answer the question about the 140 beds that lie empty in the Peter Lougheed hospital and why we’re going to wait three years for a new hospital when we have 140 empty beds in the Peter Lougheed that could be opened. When will they be opened?

Mr. Zwozdesky: Mr. Speaker, one of the wonderful things I learned today is that the new wing of the Peter Lougheed hospital is providing outstanding care, and those are 120 or thereabouts brand new beds. Unfortunately, in order to get those open, they had to close those that were in the existing facility. What I’ve said to them is that all we’ve done is sort of shift the number of beds from one centre to another. Those that are there and vacant in the existing Peter Lougheed wing I’ve asked Alberta Health Services if they would look at, now that they have their five-year funding plan in place and now that we’re moving forward, to see what can be done to utilize those beds as well.

Dr. Swann: Good news. Good news, Mr. Speaker. We’ll hold you to that.

The Speaker: Second Official Opposition main question. The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition.

Hip and Knee Surgeries

Dr. Swann: Since May of last year Edmontonians have been waiting in pain because this government cannot manage the health system. Last May the Royal Alexandra hospital was told that they’re working too efficiently, performing too many hips and knees, so their funding for elective surgery was cut by 15 per cent. To the same minister: given the budget increase will the Royal Alex now be directed to work to their full capacity and finally start reducing the number of Albertans waiting in pain for hip and knee surgery?

The Speaker: The hon. minister.

Mr. Zwozdesky: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was at the Royal Alex just last week, and I was there the week before. I was touring and learned a lot about how that hospital functions as part of my learning curve. Now that we have a fixed budget and now that we know a little bit more about the predictable and stable funding, I’m sure we’ll be able to address exactly those kinds of issues. I’m grateful for the honourable doctors and the hon. Leader of the Opposition’s question in that regard because it will help us focus on what’s important, our patients, and that’s what we’re doing.

The Speaker: The hon. leader.

Dr. Swann: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. A plan is what is needed, and this minister has yet to show that he has a plan other than to pile on more money. Are there enough staff to actually increase the number of hip and knee operations at the Alex? Staffing.

Mr. Zwozdesky: Mr. Speaker, staffing is an issue, and that’s why on Dr. Duckett’s blog today you will see a comment on how we’re going to retain the maximum number of people possible, how we might possibly be hiring even more people to keep up with the demands for the services that Albertans expect out of the Alberta health care system. We are focused on a plan, exactly that, that will deliver the best performing publicly funded health system in Canada right here in Alberta, and we’re going to get that done.

Dr. Swann: Well, what an interesting flip-flop in messaging from Dr. Duckett between this month and last.

If the minister has a plan, he should have specific details and outcomes. Can the minister tell Albertans how many more hip and knee surgeries the budget increase in Alberta Health Services will get for Albertans?

Mr. Zwozdesky: Mr. Speaker, that will depend partly on how quickly we can get on with activity-based funding, which addresses exactly that. We’ll know more by April 1, quite clearly. We’ll be having a meeting next week, which will bring together the nurses, the doctors, Alberta Health Services, myself, the hon. Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark. We’re going to sit down and thrash through some of this stuff, including performance measures, which I suspect is partly where the hon. leader is going. We’ll get there.

Alberta Hansard, February 11, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Alberta Liberal MLA Kent Hehr tries to find out what exactly the Stelmach administration’s new “Political Ministers” do.

[direct link to this article]

Official Opposition Energy critic Dave Taylor tries to get the new Energy Minister to reveal why the Competitiveness Review, much-needed by the oil and gas sector, has been delayed and delayed.

[direct link to this article]

Dr. Swann: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As Leader of the Official Opposition it’s a duty and privilege to rise today and respond to yesterday’s budget. 

I’m frankly astounded by the haphazard nature of this budget: massive spending increases in certain areas offset by drastic cuts in others. Far from striking a balance, this budget throws Alberta wildly off balance with no plan for sustainable spending and our province’s future prosperity in jeopardy. This is a balancing act all right, but it’s like a high-wire performance, a big show for the audience with potentially catastrophic consequences. Only it’s like the minister of finance is sitting safely on the sidelines, poking Albertans out onto the high wire without a net.

Over and over again during my time as Leader of the Opposition I’ve stated my belief that Alberta is in dire need of government that understands the importance of planning for the long term. Albertans have told me that they share this view, but clearly this Tory administration has no concept of what a long-term plan entails. Why else would they lurch from budget to budget, shifting priorities on the fly, commissioning studies only to abandon them, ignoring the advice of our Auditor General, and passing a law to make deficit spending illegal only to repeal that law as soon as oil and gas prices collapse? Is it a spending problem, or is it really a competence problem, Mr. Speaker? We believe this budget confirms that this government has a competence problem.

Both as a physician and a medical officer of health I took a careful, comprehensive approach to assessing problems, coming up with solutions in consultation with patients, and following up to be sure that my solutions were working then amending as necessary.

For example, if a patient came into the office with a headache, I couldn’t just give him a pill and send him away. I needed to know his medical history, what other medications he might be taking, what other medical conditions he had, problems at home and work, and so on. Once deciding together on a course of action, we would monitor the patient’s progress together and make changes to treatment as necessary.

The same common-sense approach must be applied and should be applied to policy problems. The state of public health care, the condition of our economy, social issues such as homelessness and child care: all of these require a responsible leadership to consider the big picture without the baggage of ideology or personal prejudice. Comprehensive analysis, full assessment, action, monitoring, and amendments as needed: that’s the approach a responsible government would take to the big issues of the day. Instead, we have ad hoc policy designed to address partisan political problems while many equally important issues get swept under the rug.

The cut to children’s services, for example, is a scandal. The decision to slash nearly $40 million from a crucial program is beneath contempt, especially when the amount being cut is the same as the amount being devoted to subsidizing the dying horse-racing industry. Mr. Speaker, Albertans care about children a helluva lot more than they care about horse racing. I’m profoundly disappointed by the lack of empathy and short-sightedness displayed by this administration’s decision, especially given the news stories of troubled foster families this past week.

Yesterday I talked about the impact of this administration’s cuts on Alberta’s students – the next generation of engineers, tradesmen, scientists, doctors, artists, the leaders and builders of tomorrow – over $200 million cut from Advanced Education and Technology, creating even higher student debt and imperilling access to postsecondary education. If there’s one investment that could lead to creating a sustainable economy for Alberta, surely it’s education. But this administration, with typical short-sightedness, just made it harder for countless Albertans to achieve their full potential. The consequences of this decision will affect Alberta’s prosperity for a long, long time to come.

It certainly makes it no easier to address our critical shortages of health care professionals. That $2 billion added to the health care budget won’t help much without new doctors and professionals to make the system work. Clearly, the heartfelt but logical appeal of University of Calgary medical students Rithesh Ram and Natarie Liu, whose letters I read yesterday in the House, fell on deaf ears. Student debt, already crippling, is going to rise even higher, and I don’t see how the minister of advanced education is going to deny any of the proposed tuition increases given these cuts. High youth unemployment, declined registered education savings plan values, frozen minimum wage: all these factors, combined with this administration’s cuts to advanced education, make this a terrible time to be a postsecondary student in Alberta.

Slashing income supports in an economic recession shows not only a lack of compassion for Albertans struggling to cope but again reinforces this administration’s reputation for short-sightedness. You predict that the unemployment picture is not going to improve in the near term, so why cut benefits? They’re going to be needed, especially since employment lags behind general economic growth. It takes time to recover lost jobs. In the meantime Alberta families will struggle to cope.

The choices made by this administration reveal a, quote, flavour-of-the-month mentality. It recognized correctly that Albertans are concerned about health care, but rather than addressing the complex problems of management and resource allocation, it has decided to take the easy road and, in relation to health care in particular, throw money at the problem.

I can’t imagine how the minister of finance wrapped his head around this administration’s incredible $2 billion increase in health care spending. In fact, there was a comment on Twitter yesterday that I thought was both funny and revealing. I’m paraphrasing: Mr. Premier, when your finance minister is in tears while reading the budget, that’s not a good sign.

You know, if I’d called upon this government to increase the health budget by $2 billion, the heckling from that side of the Assembly might very well have brought the House down around our heads. Yet here we have an ideologically conservative administration, or at least, certainly, an ideologically conservative minister, or so he tries to appear, telling Albertans that their prescription for saving health care is throwing dump truckloads full of money at the system. As a medical doctor I can tell you that, yes, the system needs money, but what it needs most is competent management. Given this administration’s disastrous record with public health care, why should anyone believe that this huge increase in the system’s budget will actually lead to better results?

This administration’s own throne speech, delivered just days ago, admitted that Alberta receives far less value per dollar spent on health care than other provinces. Now we’ll receive even less value per dollar, because I don’t trust this administration to use those extra resources any more efficiently. In fact, by cutting child intervention services and income supports, this will foster situations that cause bad health outcomes for hundreds, perhaps thousands of Albertans, and they’ll wind up in the health care system, costing that system much more in the long run.

I find it incredibly ironic that two years ago this very administration was trying to tell Albertans that health care spending was out of control. Oscar Wilde might not have been a big fan of consistency, but I think most Albertans do not want a government that’s constantly sending out mixed messages.

A few months ago this administration claimed that it could find $2 billion in savings through greater efficiency. You seem to have come up about $700 million short and certainly haven’t found any appreciable efficiencies in health care, not when, as I explained yesterday, there are cases of keeping patients in intensive care units for days at a cost of thousands of dollars rather than shelling out less than a hundred dollars for antibiotics. Or cases like a former friend forced to wait too long for what would have been an easy, inexpensive gall bladder operation, but delays resulted in a potentially lifethreatening infection, costing the system thousands of dollars and, more importantly, resulting in a vastly less desirable health outcome for my friend.

Yesterday in my response to the throne speech I shared some stories from the many Albertans who have contacted us with stories of how they’re trying to cope with this administration’s mistakes. I shared those stories because I think it’s important that we all remember that the decisions we make as elected representatives have real impacts on real people every day: our neighbours, our fellow citizens, the people that we have been entrusted to serve. When we fail them, we fail in our primary reason for being in the Assembly. I hope that at least a few government members will take these stories to heart because we all share some responsibility for them.

Here is one I did not bring up yesterday.

“After 10 years of billions of dollars in surplus we now find ourselves with $4 billion in deficit. Where did the money go? I live on a disability pension; I don’t have lot of money to throw around. I have multiple sclerosis, and on occasion I need a chiropractor and some adjustments. But Mr. Liepert saw fit to delist these treatments, and now I cannot afford to go to a chiropractor. I have no balance. I fall frequently and require adjustments often. Also, I cannot afford my prescriptions because the minister of health raised the price of the plus for Blue Cross from $44.00 to $82.00 per month. Doctor appointments are over a month’s wait. The more you can do, please do, and more power to you. We need help.”

Here’s another.

“I asked for hospital beds, not a $250 million a year ambulance transition. In April this year Alberta Health Services took over emergency medical services throughout Alberta at a cost of $250 million a year, forever, after refusing to release publicly the findings of the EMS discovery project in the former Peace and Palliser health regions. What is our health minister trying to hide? I wrote my local government MLA and received this response from her in writing. She stated: “I am unable to share these findings with you,” and later, “The findings of the EMS discovery projects cannot be released publicly.” Disgusting. Very George Bush style of governance. This was a great selling feature to taxpayers. For example, in Calgary, where EMS operations were close to $30 million a year, this was not supposed to be passed down to us. Then why is it I am now facing a 4.8 per cent property tax increase? The system is clearly not working.”

To conclude, Mr. Speaker, believe me, these stories represent just the tip of the iceberg. To paraphrase Shakespeare: this surely is the winter of Alberta discontent. This budget uses a boatload of cash to wallpaper over problems while failing to address fundamental issues of poor governance, mismanagement, and the failure to consider the long-term implications of habitual, moment-to-moment decisionmaking.

I believe that as a society we must do our best to live within our means so that future generations will not be compromised. As our First Nations citizens might say: we do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children.

This budget borrows heavily indeed from the next generation of Albertans. I only wish I could believe that this administration had the skills to put this loan to best use. Clearly, Mr. Speaker, we are dealing no longer with merely a financial problem but with a competence problem. There is a better way.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

[direct link to this article]

Ms Blakeman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Alberta’s tailings ponds give us an international black eye. 

They are an underfunded liability to Albertans and industry. They kill wildlife, and there’s a strong suspicion that they leak. We can’t blame industry for their choices or lack of action if the government doesn’t give clear, enforceable targets. Last year the ERCB put forward tailings performance criteria, and in October it was reported that seven of the nine projects will not meet the criteria by 2011 and some not for another 40 years.

To the minister: is the minister concerned that these companies aren’t meeting the ERCB’s criteria?

Mr. Renner: Well, Mr. Speaker, one of the issues that you have to deal with when you’re a regulator is balancing retrofits as opposed to new construction, and therein lies the issue. How do we incorporate new technology into existing facilities? When the member talks about adherence to a new policy, I can assure her that the new developments will be required to adhere to the new policy. How we bring older developments up to those new standards will take some time.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Ms Blakeman: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. These tailings ponds can be seen from outer space.

Back to the same minister: what are the penalties if companies fail to meet the targets?

Mr. Renner: Mr. Speaker, seeing something from space hardly qualifies it as an environmental hazard. I’d suggest that there are a lot of other things that can be seen from space as well.

The fact of the matter is that we have standards in this province. We hold companies accountable to meet those standards, and we continually strive to move those standards forward. The way we deal with tailings ponds in the long term is by changing the technology. That reduces the need for the tailings ponds in the first place.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Ms Blakeman: Thanks. I take it there are no penalties if they fail to meet the target, so the next question to the minister: when will this government require that best practice for cleanup technology be implemented by all companies across the board?

Mr. Renner: It’s really fun to be in the opposition, Mr. Speaker, because you can pretty much say anything you want and never be held accountable.

Like I said, Mr. Speaker, there are two very important factors when we discuss best practices. One is on new developments, and clearly there is an opportunity and a need for us to have best practices. The other is: how do you retrofit existing facilities? I can assure this member that we are pushing the envelope very hard on industry to come up on both sides of the equation, retrofitting the existing and bringing the new ones online with the best technology available.

Alberta Hansard, February 10, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Mr. Hehr: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The fight for the completion of the Bow Valley wildlife corridor connecting Kananaskis to Banff has been going on for nearly two decades. 

Instead of simply completing the corridor, this government has stalled any action on the part of local municipalities and approved further recreational development in the area.

To the Minister of Sustainable Resource Development: when will this ministry stop turning a blind eye to the building scientific evidence and complete the last three kilometres of this essential corridor?

Mr. Knight: Well, Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member would know, there is continuous work that goes on between a number of departments in this government, particularly SRD but others as well. The ministry that I came from, Energy, and I believe Environment also and Municipal Affairs all have some hand in working towards solutions to these problems. We’ll continue to do that.

Mr. Hehr: Well, I like to hear that all the ministries are working together, but it’s been two decades, so they’re working together rather slowly. Anyway, if they could complete some of this corridor with the minimum 450 metres and include this action in the South Saskatchewan regional plan – will those be included in the corridor when it’s complete?

Mr. Knight: Mr. Speaker, I would not be able to estimate at what point in time the whole corridor will be complete. I think we’ve had discussions over a period of time, that I could probably recall as likely 25 years, on the Y to Y corridor. This may or may not be part of that broader discussion. We’ll continue to work with the parties involved.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Mr. Hehr: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. Like you indicated, it has been 25 years, and this corridor is crucial to the survival of many species, including – get this – grizzly bears. The BearSmart program is not sufficient action on the part of this government. Will this minister take the necessary steps and complete the Bow Valley corridor now?

Mr. Knight: Well, Mr. Speaker, you know, the issue around species at risk is a very serious concern not only for Albertans but all Canadians. Many of the species at risk have been identified in the province of Alberta. We work very, very hard with all of the people that use the landscape for recreation, for activities in industry relative to agriculture, the forestry business, and others. From the point of view of just, “Let’s build a corridor someplace, and then everything is going to be fine,” I think the issue is much broader than that. We’re looking at it in the land-use framework and will develop the proper amount of space for Alberta’s wildlife.

Alberta Hansard, February 10, 2010

[direct link to this article]

Mr. Kang: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This government’s approach to problems is to strike a committee and leisurely review the situation while real people suffer. 

One area where Albertans deserve real action is on changes to the Condominium Property Act. Service Alberta says that it won’t be ready until 2012. To the Minister of Service Alberta. The condo act is actually out of date and hasn’t been substantially updated in 10 years. Does the ministry really think that making Alberta’s condo owners wait another two years is acceptable?

The Speaker: The hon. minister.

Mrs. Klimchuk: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With respect to the review of the Condominium Property Act right now we are working with a Condominium Property Act committee which consists of condominium owners, lawyers, property managers, and insurance providers. Part of that team is looking at moving forward and looking at some of the issues that need to be brought forward when we begin the consultation on the Condominium Property Act in the spring of 2011.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Mr. Kang: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the minister again: how many condo owners have to get lost in the system while your committee studies or looks at the problem or pays tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees before the minister decides to take action?

The Speaker: The hon. minister.

Mrs. Klimchuk: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As said previously, the complexity of the Condominium Property Act was reviewed in 2000. Moving forward, we want to make sure that the review we do is comprehensive and effective, and the fact is that with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, with the building codes there are issues there as well. When you look at some of the correspondence that’s coming to my office with respect to condominium reserve funds, all of the issues that are out there, there are a lot of tough issues out there. So I’m very happy that a lot of Albertans are writing to me on that.

The Speaker: The hon. member.

Mr. Kang: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the minister again. The major problem with the condo act is that Albertans have to go to court to enforce it. Why is the minister not willing to move quickly to put some teeth into the condo act so Albertans don’t have to go to court to enforce it?

The Speaker: The hon. minister.

Mrs. Klimchuk: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ultimately, with the Condominium Property Act, the way it’s set up now, there are courses of action that individuals can take if they want to go to legal action.

Again, the review of the Condominium Property Act: there are so many new issues this year that were not there in 2000, so part of the problem is making sure that all of those issues are dealt with so that it’s comprehensive and what we end up with is real and effective.

Alberta Hansard, February 10, 2010

[direct link to this article]