Ms Blakeman: Thank you very much, and thank you to the chair. I did not actually discuss this with the minister, but I assumed that we could manage to do a joint 20 minute exchange. That’s okay with him – I’m getting the nod – so thank you very much to the table.

A couple of things to start out with. I would have liked to have introduced to you one of our researchers in the Liberal caucus who works with me on this particular department. Her name is Kristen McFaden. However, I share Kristen with three or four other ministry portfolios. She is also responsible for developing and working with the issues that we raise in the Public Accounts Committee and, of course, for any of the bills that come forward under any of those departments, which have been quite a few so far. So I was not able to have her come and join me in the House today, which is unfortunate for both of us, but on we go.

I would also appreciate that for any questions the minister is unable to answer or any level of detail he can’t provide off the top of his head, if he could provide those back to me within two weeks, please, so I’d have time to review it before the final vote. I will also say that the community is encouraged by this minister, and it is with great hope that we go forward, recognizing that the government has heard some of the issues that have been raised consistently and over a very long period of time by this community, of which I am proud to be a member. We hope this will all work well.

What I would like to talk about today are the arts as in the fine arts, this community spirit program, funding under heritage, human rights, the voluntary sector, lottery funded initiatives, bingos. I’d also like to talk about the city of Edmonton arts policy, the Art of Living, and I’ll also use an opportunity around cultural industries to talk about what Quebec and Ontario are doing.

I’ll just remind the minister of what I’ve been campaigning for for a number of years, which culminated in a policy that we went into the last election with and which, I think, was heavily influenced by the arts community in Alberta. They helped me develop it. Let me put that on the record at the beginning of this discussion. We were looking to double the funding to the AFA immediately and to triple it within three years. We wanted to see the government pursue status of the artist legislation. We wanted an Alberta arts festival launched that would be equivalent to the Alberta Games so that it moved from small centre to small centre every two years. Very important, we felt it was, to create an Alberta film and television tax credit, to pilot an Alberta publishers’ fund, to develop a capital investment strategy for heritage and cultural buildings, and for many years – and I think this first came from my colleague for Edmonton- Glengarry – to eliminate entrance fees for youth to cultural facilities. We wanted to see a ministry established, and in fact that has happened, and we’re very pleased to see it happen. It does cover arts, culture, and heritage. We’re also hoping to see an annual provincial arts festival to showcase artistic talents. Indeed, I think it’s very important that this community has managed to get an arts agenda up. They were successful in getting it up, and it became a part of the discussion for the leaders’ debate in the Progressive Conservative Party, and then it carried through into the election, which is good.

The most critical issue facing Alberta artists both for work and for living space in Alberta today is availability of affordable living and work space, and I know my colleague from Calgary Currie is going to concentrate on that a bit more.

I’m sorry. I forgot. The last thing out of our cultural policy was to conduct an inventory of cultural spaces in Alberta. I know that without even having conducted that, we are very short on performing spaces here in Edmonton, including a specialized dance space, and very short on visual art space in Calgary. The community does not have the resources to either conduct an inventory or to come at this with an overall plan, and we really need the ministry to look at this. Second to that is creative housing for artists. We have examples in Edmonton of ArtsHab, which was mostly live work spaces, but there were two independent studios included in it that I think the Edmonton Arts Council is continuing to pursue. My question to the minister is: what is he doing? What is part of his plan for this ministry? Is there any targeted funding that would ensure that the artists in our cities are not driven away because of a lack of available space for them to be able to afford the rents and to be able to rent space in which to produce or to create their art? That’s the first question I’ll put out to the minister.

The Chair: The hon. minister.

Mr. Blackett: Thank you. The question: what are we doing? We’re doing several things. The first thing upon taking on this position, I realized that we have to know where we’re starting from. We have to take an inventory of all the different space that we have in Alberta, as you suggested, and we’re in the process of doing that. In dealing with the issues in Calgary and in Edmonton, I met with the mayor of Edmonton yesterday, and we talked about this very issue along with the city’s new cultural policy. We have to come up with some creative solutions in working with the city of Edmonton, how we come up with space. The mayor identified the exact same thing that you identified. How do we find space for artists, and how do we find affordable space for them if they’re struggling to survive? Our third tenet of the cultural policy of Alberta, the Spirit of Alberta, is excellence. You can’t get excellence if you can’t apply your craft because you’re worried about the rent or you can’t afford your instruments; you can’t afford all the necessities to ply that craft. So we are certainly going to go with that. We are a big contributor to the Cultural Olympiad, which, in leading up to 2010, will help focus on that.

To answer your specific question about some sort of festival, we are planning an arts day for Alberta. I believe one will be in Edmonton and one in Calgary, if I’m not mistaken, in the month of September. We’d love to have one everywhere, but one thing we’re going to do beyond that – I believe that the only way you can know what’s going on in the community is to be out there, involved, and I’m trying to get to as many places as I can. This summer, once the Legislature stops sitting, I plan to go to all the different places in Alberta, whether that’s Lac La Biche or Rosebud or the badlands. I’ve had many invitations, and I want to go take a look. The meeting that we had with the mayor – and I hope to have one with the mayor of Calgary – is a start.

We acknowledge that there is an issue, and we’re going to move forward. I look forward to having further discussions with you on doing that.

Ms Blakeman: Okay. I appreciate the commitment to be aware of that issue. We’re also looking for targeted funding, so if you’re developing next year’s budget, we need it now. We are losing some of our younger artists, unfortunately. Those are the ones that really revitalize and keep your community thriving, but they can’t do the rents here, so they’re going to Saskatchewan and even further afield to Manitoba, where it’s just possible for them to be able to afford their rents.

I’d like to move on to book publishing, which was another area that we were particularly targeting with our Alberta Liberal policy. I am very concerned. I think the last book that we had published here in Alberta was more than a year ago, and it was one single novel. We have lost 11 publishers out of this province. I actually don’t know if there is a publisher left here. I don’t think there is. I understand that the Book Publishers Association of Alberta has sent a plan to the minister.

There are two issues here. One is around the whole concept of cultural industries, which this government has struggled with for a long period of time. AFA is clearly uncomfortable with the concept. But, if I may, I will refer the minister to some of the work that’s been done in Quebec and Ontario on cultural industries. These guys have got a handle on it. Quebec culture is a force, and they have a special agency that is set up to deal specifically with cultural industries and the promotion and distribution of Quebec culture through cultural industries. They speak that dual language of entrepreneurial practices and culture development, and they’re very clear about what they’re to do. It covers book publishing, recording and variety shows, film and television production, and arts and fine crafts.

I will refer the minister and his able staff to this. I just got this off their website. It includes a number of assistance programs, tax incentives, a business bank. I’ll just delve into that for a second. They actually offer financial services to these organizations, including loans and loan guarantees, and in exceptional cases they may in fact invest in a project or put up share capital. They also offer export assistance, which is sorely needed, seeing as the feds have stepped back from that. So this is about our ability to take our cultural industries and promote them outside of the province, but it’s also about bringing others into the province.

Ontario has done the same thing. They run the Ontario Media Development Corporation. Again, you can find that on their website at omdc.on.ca. They’re basically set up to do exactly the same thing. They have resolved their struggle over what to do with cultural industries, and we haven’t in Alberta.

So I’m back to the issue that’s happened around publishing. It’s that we’re really not willing to support publishers because the AFA views them as a for profit business. Therefore, why would they be giving them cultural money? But, you know, those individual publishers are not going to survive in the kind of competition that we have in Canada and in Alberta here. We can’t get our own stories published. We can’t compete in that marketplace. So do we say, “Well, fine; if you can’t compete, then blow off, honey”? No, I don’t think we should be doing that. I think we recognize that this is part of our cultural identity, and we step up to the plate and figure out a way to assist them.

Now, I’m wondering what has been the response to the Book Publishers Association of Alberta’s proposal around establishing a fund. I know that in some other provinces they’ve actually looked at tax incentives. This is suggesting a fund. I would be interested in seeing how open the minister is to this particular idea. Will he commit to separate funding for book publishers and work with something like this fund? Otherwise, we’ve got the decimation of that industry in this province.

As well, I’m concerned about timing on this one. Will he commit to a fund or some sort of direct funding for book publishers, and will it come in some sort of time? We really are at the edge of the chasm here. When I look at where we were five years ago in book publishing and what they were telling us then and where we are today, I don’t think we’re going to last much longer. So if we don’t see some pretty significant uptake on this right now, I think we could be here a year from now and it’s no longer on the table because it’s not possible. So could the minister give me his vision or his plans on that, please?

Mr. Blackett: Obviously, all our cultural industries are important to us. It’s one of the four planks of our cultural policy, one being access for all Albertans regardless of their socioeconomic income or where they live. The second is building capacities in our communities to be able to house those performing arts. The third is the excellence. The fourth is enhancement and sustainability of our cultural industries: “increased growth, sustainability and investment in Alberta’s cultural industries, including film and television, sound recording and book and magazine publishing.” That’s what we want to do.

We’ve had a new ministry here since March 12. You know, our culture and arts were buried in a larger department. I’ve been trying to get around to all the different stakeholders, and I do have a meeting set up with the Alberta publishers association. I think that’s sometime in the next couple of weeks. I haven’t got to the funding proposal yet, but we’ll certainly address that. We understand that they tell our stories. Just like all our cultural industries, whether it’s film or television, they’re all vital. We need to make sure that Albertans tell our stories, that we have here for future generations an industry to be able to do that.

As to what we’re going to be able to contribute in terms of funding, we’ll see what funding avenues are available to us. We’ll take a look at it. We want to sit down with them sooner rather than later and have a discussion, and we’ll see where we go from there.

The Chair: The hon. member.

Ms Blakeman: Thank you. I want to move on and talk about the community spirit program. The question that I’ve been asked by the community is: what is the community spirit program? It appears to be two grant programs. We just want this on the record: what is the community spirit program? There’s $100 million allocated to it in the budget, $80 million of which is this enhanced charitable tax credit, which is basically forgone revenue, and $20 million is the exact donation program.

So a couple of questions off the top. What happens to the remainder of the $80 million if the tax credits are undersubscribed? In other words, if you don’t have enough people donating money that would qualify, if you don’t hit the $80 million mark, then does the rest of the money get given in a cash way, or is it simply rescinded, disappear into thin air? [interjection] I have someone contributing to this from over on the other side. I’m sure he’ll be joining the debate at some point. Is that the Member for Lac La Biche St. Paul, by any chance, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, that’s contributing to this? I’m looking forward to his on the record comments.

What happens if the $80 million in tax credits isn’t used? Will the money be allocated somewhere else, or is it simply gone? Correspondingly, if the money is oversubscribed, will additional money be put into the fund to take us to the end of the year? That certainly happens in a number of other cases. For example, the housing fund, the rental eviction fund: there was additional money put in. If this is oversubscribed, would the same thing happen?

I’m interested to know how community spirit – and I’ve put little quotations around that – would be measured. If we’re standing here five years from now, how do we measure that community spirit? Is it by the simple number of donations that have taken place?

Specific to the donation problem what I’m seeing here – and I’m interested in exactly how the minister interprets this – is a set- up that essentially sends the not for profits, not only the arts but all of the voluntary based organizations, into a profit motivator, that they need to raise this money in order to continue giving their services. It’s trying to put them into a profit mode instead of a service giving mode because they only qualify for these donations if they raise it from individual donors. It’s not counting anything they’ve raised from corporations. It’s not counting anything they’ve raised from casinos and bingos or through special events. All of that is an enormous amount of effort from the staff and volunteers already involved in that voluntary sector, including the arts, and now we’re being told, “Well, you’re only going to qualify for this if you raise money from individual donors,” which is dang hard to do. It’s a lot of effort.

The minister has heard me speak already a number of times in this House. His colleagues that were elected previously have heard me speak a lot more about the diminished capacity we have in this voluntary charitable sector right now, and here we have a program saying: let us dangle $20 million in front of you, but you can only have it if you set aside doing the work that you need to be doing and go out and raise individual donations from people in order to qualify for a bit more money. Why didn’t you just give the money to them? Why didn’t you just put it into the core funding? That has been shortchanged for a number of years.

I know this is an incentive to have the groups show that they’re connected to their community. You know what? The government has been saying that for a long time, and what ends up happening is that we have these organizations, including the arts, who are – I mean, I ran a number of these organizations. I couldn’t afford a fundraising person. So you know who did it? I did it as the executive director. The secretary did it. The production manager did it. We all joined together to try and raise money. So I am not seeing how this is a tremendous step forward in helping the not for profit sector. [Ms Blakeman’s speaking time expired]

The Chair: Hon. Member for Edmonton Centre, do you want to continue on the second 20 minutes?

Ms Blakeman: Yes. Thank you.

As part of these whole donation programs I take the $80 million that was set up to be around donations from individuals – it’s recognizing almost 50 per cent, although to be fair, 29 per cent of that is the federal credit. You’re upping the provincial tax recognition from 12 to 21 per cent, and that brings you to the 50 per cent you keep talking about. In fact, for the province you’re really talking 21 per cent. That’s the $80 million.

I want to focus back on this $20 million donation program because I really see this as a step backward. I think it is once again directing attention away from these groups that have diminished capacity, are trying to deliver their programs, and now, “You can only get more money if you go out and spend even more time trying to raise individual donations,” which is very time consuming and difficult and expensive to do. To get a thousand people to each donate a hundred bucks to you is a lot more time consuming and expensive than to hit up one corporation for one donation of a similar size. It puts the onus of supporting the not for profits on the communities and on the very individuals, and I think it is forcing these same organizations to make fundraising their priority rather than delivering their service.

I’m going to take my seat, and I want to hear back from the minister on what his plans were around this. I’m getting some cheering from the other side. I’m just betting that that’s coming from Edmonton Castle Downs.

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Blackett: Well, to answer that first question that you had about the $80 million tax credit, if it’s undersubscribed, that’s revenue forgone from the government, so the revenue disappears. If it’s oversubscribed, however, we will honour those tax credits. Like you had mentioned, there are two components. Let’s not hang our hat on just the $20 million. It’s a hundred million combined, and that’s not insignificant, coupled with the other programs, such as CIP and CFEP and the MCFP, if it’s applicable, that those organizations can utilize. Plus we’re working with the Alberta nonvoluntary sector initiative, or ANVSI, and I’m working with this sector to come up with some other solutions.

As for the $20 million, what Albertans have said in their history is: we want programs that are donor driven; we want to give a hand up, not a handout. We have 19,000 voluntary and charitable organizations. You take $20 million and divide it among 19,000 organizations, what do you get? Now, there’s always going to be a problem. One of the big problems I see is that we have some large organizations, who I don’t have to mention, that have full time people to fill out all the processes and all the applications. We wanted to try to get money down to the second and third tier organizations. Aside from just picking those and giving it to them, which is way too subjective – and I’m sure the Auditor General would have something to say about that – we wanted to come up with what we thought was the best process: to have a pool with a limit, so it’s $20 million; no individual organization gets more than $25,000, so somebody can’t come in and hog a big chunk of that; and we wanted to make sure that there was a cap also for a three year period, which was $50,000. Understanding that it’s hard to get donations, if we start leaving exceptions to the rule for everything, we’ll have an accounting nightmare. We have to have a program if we want these to continue. If I have to go back to my colleagues to get future funding, we want to make sure that we do this in a prudent and efficient fashion so that we can continue these valuable programs.

Ms Blakeman: Thank you. If the minister could share with me the documentation that he has that supports his statement that this is what the public wanted. I’m assuming there that you did some polls or studies or something, and if I could get a copy of that I’d appreciate it. Thank you very much.

It doesn’t sound like I can get the minister to commit to a publicly funded mechanism by which these organizations could just access funds without having the additional onus of fundraising. You seem quite committed to marrying the fundraising with them being able to receive any additional dollars. And he’s shaking his head; that’s most unfortunate. Okay. Because it’s not recognizing the work that they’re already doing.

Mr. Blackett: Do you want me to answer the question? I said that that was what the program was designed for. At the end of the day we always want to make sure the money gets into the hands of the people who are delivering the services for Albertans. If we have to look at that going forward and somehow tweak that to be able to make that more accessible, then we’ll look at that. I’ve just stated what our principal idea is going forward.

Ms Blakeman:Okay. Now, I notice that government funding for the voluntary sector services has decreased. Can the minister talk a bit here about how he expects that organizations have the capacity to raise these additional funds when you’re reducing your funding to the voluntary sector and they’re already struggling with a number of capacity issues? How did the ministry see that this was actually going to happen?

Mr. Blackett: The reason that there’s a funding decrease is because last year we gave $350,000 in one time funding to the Alberta nonprofit/voluntary sector initiative. It was one time funding. There was no promise for that in 2008 2009. There’s where the deficiency lies.

Ms Blakeman: Okay. Could the minister talk a little bit about why the choice was made to restrict this particular program to individual donors only, please? As I said before, it’s not recognizing money raised through bingo efforts, through casino efforts – and those are voluntary driven, as you know – or through their corporate fundraising or their special events. This is very specific with the individual donations. Can you tell me why that choice was made?

Mr. Blackett: Other than the fact that it is very convoluted and very complicated, funds that are derived from casinos are funds that aren’t accessible to every organization, so we don’t want to prejudice against an organization. We want to create a level playing field for everyone. Those organizations that have professional fundraisers and those organizations that have access to that may have somewhat of an unfair advantage.

Corporate donations. We already recognize the corporate donations through our lottery funded programs, such as CIP and CFEP. I guess the reasoning behind it is that we’re giving that. They’re able to use that in terms of those matching fund programs. If they’re not able to get the $25,000 from this, they can certainly apply through CIP or CFEP and be able to access that using the exact same funds that you mentioned, whether it’s casinos, whether it’s from corporate fundraising, or whether it’s through special events.

Ms Blakeman: Well, I take the minister’s point that the casinos and bingos are not available to everyone. That’s based on government restrictions – his own government’s restrictions – as to who can access that.

Mr. Blackett: It’s based on the available pool of money. It’s not available to everybody because there’s only so much money to go around. There are only so many dates that those organizations can actually conduct those events.

Ms Blakeman: True. But adult recreation groups still can’t access those funds, and that is a government policy. As well, both the CIP and the CFEP grants are not available to many. CFEP, for example, is about facilities. If you don’t have a facility, you’re not accessing that. So there’s a little bit of inconsistency here, to my eye. I’d like to move on and talk about heritage. I’m wondering what specific areas of infrastructure the heritage infrastructure maintenance money will be given to, and if I could get a project list. This is on page 109 of the government estimates, and it’s 4.0.6, heritage infrastructure maintenance, $5.9 million, new allocation. Could I get a list of who that’s going to, please?

Now, I notice that the Edmonton Arts Council arts policy is recommending 11 actions to be taken for heritage in the city. It’s generally recognized that heritage needs to build more infrastructure. It also needs to take care of the infrastructure that it’s got. What is being anticipated in the monies that are available under vote 4 to help, or is that what’s expected to be paid for out of that $5.9 million?

Mr. Blackett: In response to the first part of your question, of that $5.899 million, $2.459 million goes to defer heritage infrastructure at various sites for reroofing, painting, flooring, window and door repairs, plastering, Slemko barn restoration, et cetera; $2 million is going to the Turner Valley gas plant for preservation, stabilization, maintenance, and development plan for the historic buildings, structures, and landscapes; $862,000 is going to the historic Bitumount for preservation, stabilization, maintenance, and development plan for the historic buildings, structures, and landscapes; and $578,000 is going to capital maintenance, various sites, for ongoing restoration, preservation, conservation, and maintenance, and it includes the Ukrainian Cultural Heritage Village, Brooks Aqueduct, Leitch Collieries, and site upgrades in Okotoks Erratic.

The Chair: The hon. member.

Ms Blakeman: Thank you. If that wasn’t the complete list, then could I get the complete list, please? I was listening, and there were a couple places where it said: among other things. So if that’s not the complete list, then could I get the complete list?

Mr. Blackett: If there are some that are missing here that we haven’t specifically mentioned, I will give you a written response on those.

Ms Blakeman: Thank you. On page 123 is the breakdown for the human rights, citizenship, and multiculturalism education fund. This has decreased. There’s a sort of switch here. We’ve decreased $320,000 from the support to community groups and increased the education programs by $545,000. It sounds to me like we’re taking away from money for actual projects like, for example, daycare support. I know that a number of the groups that used to apply to this fund were usually smaller organizations. The ones I worked with were usually women’s settlement services, and they were looking for things like payment for daycare while they held an event, for example. So if money has shifted from support to community groups to the education programs, what was the thinking behind this? Why did the department make these decisions to shift that money? Is there some sort of redefinition that’s happening here?

Mr. Blackett: As far as I can tell, we have increased our funding by 10.8 per cent. The increase is primarily due to $160,000 additional funding to support the implementation of the new cultural policy and education initiatives and then $70,000 for other minor increases. We haven’t reduced the money; we’ve actually increased the money.

Ms Blakeman: You’ve shifted it between two votes. If you look on page 123, under Expense, Program, support to community groups is currently $1.34 million. The budget for last year was $1.66 million, so $1.34 million would definitely be less. The actual for the previous year was $1.2 million. The forecast for this year is $1.6 million. That’s a decrease. The next line down is education programs. It turns up as $900,000. The forecast for the end of this year is $355,000. That would be a decrease.

Mr. Blackett: Okay. The reallocation, as you’ve mentioned. Those priorities are set by our advisory committee based on their current discussions with stakeholders and clients. The increase indicates ongoing commitment; 90 per cent went to the government of Alberta to fund these activities.

Ms Blakeman: If I’m hearing the minister correctly, then, the advisory group that runs this fund has in consultation with the stakeholders decided to reallocate this money from one group to another. Well, I’m concerned, given the increase in demand. If we’re smart, the increase that we should be focusing on is for settlement services and integration of immigrants. I’m a little concerned when I see money being shifted around there unless I know that we’re still going to get the money on the front line for those groups that are trying to deliver services. That’s my concern there.

I also want to address what is happening with human rights overall, which appears as vote 5 in your department estimates, page 109 specifically, and it does actually turn up in other places. These are detailed questions which you will likely not have at the top of your head. I’m looking for the number of files that were carried over from the previous fiscal year, the number of files that were opened under the Human Rights Commission in the past year, the number of files that were resolved or closed in the year, and the number that went to the commission.

I understand that there is some interest or openness in reviewing how the Human Rights Commission actually operates and what possibilities there are in updating what’s happening here. There has always been a mandate and a real push and focus on settling. I think that for the number of people that actually brought a complaint, they’ve not felt that that was really what they wanted, being forced to settle with somebody, and that anyone that was actually found in violation really didn’t have to pay very much of a penalty for being in violation because it was always a sort of mediated compromise, which wasn’t acting as much of a disincentive. I’m interested in what the minister foresees for the Human Rights Commission.

Mr. Blackett: Well, thank you for that question. As you know, human rights are important to all Albertans. I think 88 per cent of adult Albertans say that they believe human rights are well protected in Alberta, but I know that there are some issues. I’ve had them at the constituency level. I’ve had them at the ministerial level. I understood them before I came to this Legislature.

Now, I don’t have all the details that you’re looking for, but in 2007 2008 we closed 733 complaints. I don’t know how many of those complaints had carried over, but we will get you those details. As I said several weeks ago in this Legislature, it is incumbent upon me as a new minister to take a look at not just the legislation but the whole Human Rights Commission. The more that I delved into it in discussions with department officials and some outside advice, we realized at the beginning of the process that we were looking for a new chief commissioner to replace Charlach Mackintosh, who had served us for 14 years.

Now, as everybody knows from reading the paper, unless you’re hiding under a rock, human rights commissions are being assailed across Canada because there’s a belief that they’re not fulfilling the mandate that they were given. Alberta is a unique place because we have an arm’s length quasi judicial body that isn’t under the Minister of Justice. It’s actually under the Minister of Culture and Community Spirit, and it sits with citizenship and multiculturalism as it has the Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act. I think it’s really important that we preserve that, but important to preserving that is making sure that Albertans have confidence in doing that.

Starting off with the chief commissioner, the chief commissioner is the person responsible for overseeing the complaints as it stands now, helping decide whether those complaints are resolved through reconciliation, whether they’re going to go to a tribunal, the composition of that tribunal, picking those commissioners on that tribunal, also whether or not there’s an appeal mechanism to the Court of Queen’s Bench. [Mr. Blackett’s speaking time expired]

The Chair: Thank you. We are now in the third 20 minutes of the first hour of the Official Opposition.

Do you want to continue, hon. member?

Ms Blakeman: Yes. Thank you. I’ll let the minister continue just so we can close that piece of it off.

Thank you.

Mr. Blackett: To get to the point, the position was advertised back in December 2007. In looking at the terms of reference that were given at the time, one thing that jumped out at me was that a law degree was preferred. Well, anybody knows that nowadays with the complexity of the legality that is involved in all these different cases, you need more than a law degree. I advocate that we need some-body who is of the stature of a judge, who has the capability or the skill set to be able to determine where all those cases go, somebody who has the ability to put the blindfold on, balance the scales whether we’re looking at racism or whether we’re looking at freedom of expression or freedom of speech. So we’re going to continue on with that.

As we go through that process and as we get the chief commissioner in place, then we will start to go through the other parts and address some of those other issues that you mentioned. But we’re going to take our time and go through and make sure that we correct it properly for all Albertans.

The Chair: The hon. member.

Ms Blakeman: Thank you. One of the outstanding issues around – I don’t remember the new name of this act now – the Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act is that this government has steadfastly refused to write in protection of sexual orientation as one of the prohibited grounds of discrimination, which, frankly, I think is a real black eye against this province. We don’t deserve that black eye. We’re better than that. But it does stand as a reminder to many people that although the federal courts have insisted that the law be interpreted that way, we have not followed through and actually opened up the act, amended it, and included those words under prohibited grounds of discrimination. My question to the minister: does he plan to do this, to write in sexual orientation to the Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act?

Mr. Blackett: Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned before, we’re going through a review. The last part of our review will be legislation, which will arguably be the most contentious part of that. We are cognizant that we’re in 2008, and we would love to bring our Alberta legislation in line with that. One thing we have to do when we open legislation, if we open up legislation, is that we have to consider every particular group. Right now all legislation is reviewed on a regular basis to ensure that it meets its intended purpose in the most efficient and effective way possible. We welcome all comments on that. When we get to the legislation, we will do what we think is prudent. I will make a presentation to my caucus, and then we will go forward from there, but I am not yet able to make that commitment to you.

Ms Blakeman: I’m sorry to hear that. I’ll be very interested to hear how it would be inefficient or ineffective to include sexual orientation under prohibited grounds of discrimination. It would be ineffective or inefficient. That one I’m looking forward to, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Blackett: Well, I don’t remember saying ineffective or inefficient. All I was saying is that once we look at legislation, there are many different groups, many different interests that have to be considered, and obviously protection against sexual orientation would be one of those that we will consider.

Ms Blakeman: Boy, that’s a nice slow pitch over centre plate. Are there groups that are being considered here that would somehow preclude you being able to include sexual orientation?

Mr. Blackett: Absolutely not.

Ms Blakeman: I’m going to move on temporarily to lottery funded initiatives on page 125 of the government estimates. There is an indicator that 3.0.2, major community facilities program, is the second and possibly final year. The minister noted that in his remarks, and it is written into the budget documents. Why would that be? We have a large number of facilities. Does the government somehow think that we’ve now dealt with all of these with the $140 million last year and $140 million this year? I mean, I’m looking at the Citadel. That was built in 1976. The windows have got to be replaced there. I think they’ve already undertaken some major work around their furnace. There’s more work to be done on the Jubilee auditoria, both north and south. We’ve got institutions like the Winspear coming up that are in need of ongoing maintenance. I mean, how the government ever thought we could just, you know, have these buildings, have people pay to build them and donate money to them and then kind of – what? – leave them to sit. It’s a problem with infrastructure across this government. What else is supposed to happen? We’ve got a two year program here. What happens next?

Go ahead.

Mr. Blackett: We just stated in the budget that when this program was first proposed, it was a two year program. I certainly would advocate strongly to my colleagues that we continue this program. As we all know, Alberta is in a period of tremendous growth, and we have a lot of things that we have to get caught up on. This program has been extremely popular; one could almost say oversubscribed. But we have to go through the budget process, and I for one will be advocating that we continue this program.

Ms Blakeman: Okay. That’s encouraging.

Vote 3.0.4, the community initiatives program, has actually seen a reduction in the amount that is available to it. Could I get an explanation of where that money went? Was it reallocated, and if it was, where did it go? If not, why was the money taken away?

Vote 3.0.7, other initiatives. Now, this was the slush fund. I’m wondering exactly what projects are anticipated being funded or are budgeted to be funded under 3.0.7. Is there unallocated money in there that is available throughout the year if additional projects come up? This is the slush fund that had no criteria, no deadline for application. There was no jury process. It was decided by the minister. It’s a pretty interesting fund. I’m wondering if there are definitive projects that have been allocated out of the $7.9 million that is in this fund this year. Is any of it allocated?

This also has had a decrease in funding. Yeah, it has. It has come down from $11 million to $7.9 million, and I’m interested in why that’s happened. That money used to just sit in there and, basically – well, actually, exclusively – members of the government were able to access it. Now there’s been a decrease in it. Can the minister explain the decrease and tell me what money is going to come out of there?

Mr. Blackett: Well, first of all, with respect to the community initiatives program, there was a decrease. I think it was a small one, but it was a decrease nonetheless because at budget time we had to reallocate some monies to some other programs.

With respect to the other initiatives on the one hand it’s a slush fund, and then on the other hand you’re questioning why we slashed it. We can’t have it both ways. I’m a strong advocate for both of those.

In the other initiatives programs some of the things that we funded are the Alberta portion of the Trans Canada Trail project, helping to build a food bank in Airdrie, a new Ronald McDonald house in Calgary, supporting the 2007 World Cup of Cross country Skiing, assisting with the development of Good Neighbours and Goodwill centres across Alberta. As I had mentioned before, there are some organizations that don’t have access to the funds because they can’t quality for some of those programs. We are able to help some of those organizations through the other initiatives programs.

Ms Blakeman: Thank you. They’re both perfectly legitimate questions. There has been a decrease in the amount of money. Why? The groups that you just mentioned: is that the allocation for this budget, or is that money that has gone out previously? If it’s not the allocation for this budget, then what are the plans for that money in this budget?

Mr. Blackett: For this year we have allocated $3.624 million, so it’s not all allocated because we want to allow ourselves the ability to react if there’s a crisis or if there’s some worthy group that comes forward. Right now we have Alpine Canada, $300,000; Hockey Canada, which we’ve had an ongoing relationship with, $500,000; the McMahon Stadium Society, $175,000; the Culinary Arts Foundation, $75,000; Alberta Junior Hockey League, $190,000; the Rick Hansen initiative, $1 million; the Calgary Stampede, supporting bid for the Grey Cup for 2009, $1.1 million; and we have special sporting events for $1 million, for a total of $3.624 out of our $7.9 million, I believe.

Ms Blakeman: So half of it’s allocated, and half of it’s not allocated. Okay. Thank you.

A couple of other questions. I’d like to know specifically what 3.0.9, bingo associations, is? That’s gone from $5.7 million to $10 million to $13 million. I don’t think that’s a flow through account, so I’m interested in what’s happening with that.

I’m also wondering about the bid for the Portrait Gallery. Now, if neither Edmonton nor Calgary succeeds in getting the Portrait Gallery, what happens to that $40 million? Is it reallocated, or does it just disappear out of the budget? It’s dependent on one of the two of them securing that particular project. Interestingly enough, the Calgary bid didn’t want government money in, so they developed that as part of an initiative on a private development and were willing to go ahead without any government money. Well, that’s actually part of the requirement, I think, from the Portrait Gallery, or at least it was a requirement from the city of Calgary.

My second question is how the bid for that gallery impacts the plans for the Royal Alberta Museum, and specifically what is happening with the Royal Alberta Museum. Lots of rumours. I’m now hearing that there is a plan afoot to have the old site, the existing site, be sort of a natural history museum and that our very own Terrace Building here would be torn down and that a human history museum would be build there that would be sort of the Royal Alberta Museum part 2. My concern about this is a piecemeal redevelopment of the Legislature Grounds.

Is this minister going to spearhead another committee that is going to look at how the Legislature Grounds are developed? What’s happening with the Royal Alberta Museum? Are they going to be able to complete their downgraded plan B? How much truth is there to the rumours that it’s now going to be split up and that there will be one built on these grounds, or how far ahead is that? That rumour keeps persisting; it keeps coming up. So it’s some kind of a zombie because it keeps rising from the dead. Is there another plan, maybe yet a third plan, that’s out there about shifting it somewhere entirely?

Just before I forget. Many years ago, in the early 2000s – I think it might have been 2001 or 2002 – there was an extensive cultural workers report that was done for the department. I’m wondering what has happened to that report. Did any of it ever get implemented? Is it sitting collecting dust on a shelf? There was a lot of work done to look at what was happening to cultural workers, programs that could support it. I talked about it in the budget debates of the day, when the Member for Lethbridge West was the minister that was responsible for it. That’s when he would have been Employment and Immigration, I think. I’m wondering what has happened to that report and if any of it got implemented or is being considered or if it’s just gone.

I still need to go on and talk about the Spirit of Alberta cultural policy, the AFA blueprints, and the voluntary sector, and I’m running out of time here.

Mr. Blackett: Can we answer those first four questions for you first?

Ms Blakeman: Yep.

Mr. Blackett: First of all, for the bingos that is flow through money.

That $3 million increase was just the increase in flow through from last year.

With respect to the Portrait Gallery, that $40 million, it’s news to me that Calgary isn’t interested in the money, but right now that’s set aside for the winning bid. It’s open to them. If they choose not to, they choose not to. That money, for all intents and purposes, would go back to the Treasury Board. We would certainly strongly advocate that we utilize that money somewhere within our department.

With respect to the Royal Alberta Museum I have met with the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Infrastructure. We realize that Albertans and Edmontonians, in particular, have been after us to do something about the Royal Alberta Museum for a very long time. We are looking at moving forward with a plan. Right now I’d say that we’re advocating a two site plan, so that would be an enhancement of the existing Royal Alberta Museum on the Glenora site. You have the option of making a large museum on the Glenora site or on the Legislature Grounds, but you have to take into account that a large site could overpower either Government House on the Glenora grounds or the Legislature Building, which will be a hundred years old in 2012. So we are looking at: how do we come up with supporting the two?

We have $170 million already committed from our government plus $30 million from the federal government, but we’re not doing it piecemeal. What we’re doing is looking comprehensively at redevelopment of the Legislature Grounds: two museums, two tourist attractions. We also have a problem right now, as you well know, with the Royal Alberta Museum: where do we store our artifacts? We have to look at a place to be able to do that even while we’re renovating that site. The Terrace Building is a phenomenal site overlooking the river valley, and we think that it would be well served there. Part of the whole redevelopment means that we have to renovate the federal building and be able to move some of those people into that.

We will rediscover, redevelop, invigorate the whole Legislature Grounds, and I think Albertans will be happy when they see what we’re planning to do.

Ms Blakeman: Well, when is the minister going to roll this whole plan out? This is the first public pronouncement that I’m hearing about this, that there actually will be two sites being developed. I’m not hearing that there’s a comprehensive plan that will be presented to whom for the whole grounds. I sat on a committee that looked at this, and the committee died a swift death, although members continued to be paid for a long period of time. Do we get to see the whole plan? Who’s developing this plan? Is this just intergovernment? Is anybody else going to be in on this one? How long is that going to take? What money is being committed to it? What happens to the Glenora site? It’s supposed to be going ahead. Is it now going to wait until the second one is developed and funded before it moves ahead?

Mr. Blackett: Well, the discussions are early. We’ve just had the discussions on this in the last two weeks. I met with the mayor yesterday, just apprising him of what we’re thinking of doing. We have to obviously contact our stakeholders. The mayor and the city are very much behind the idea that we’re proposing. Obviously, it entails a great deal of money. There is a great deal of intergovernmental collaboration involved, and we will do that. I assure you that when we have the necessary information, in due time – and it won’t be a long time – I will be more than happy to present that to Albertans.

Ms Blakeman: Thank you. I’d like to go on and talk about the Spirit of Alberta cultural policy. Now, I notice that when I look at the city of Edmonton policy, which is gorgeous, called The Art of Living: A Plan for Securing the Future of Arts and Heritage in the City of Edmonton, 2008 2018, they can actually manage to come up with not only a number of essays that describe the vision but recommendations. Included in the recommendations are implementation resources, organizations that will be affiliated to do it, what they’re going to be providing, the amount of money, and the timeline. They do that for every single recommendation in here, and we’ve never been able to get that from the AFA. So when do we get something from the AFA that gives us an action plan that we can actually follow with timelines…

[…]

Ms Blakeman: Well, I can’t let that one go by. Let me be clear. I don’t think that the not for profit sector is ungrateful in any way, shape, or form for any of the money that’s coming, but Alberta is a land of huge opportunity, with billion – billion – dollar surpluses. You know, should we crawl on the ground across broken glass in our gratefulness for a hundred million dollars? I think the province could pony up, particularly because the cultural sector and the voluntary sector have been ignored for a very long time.

We really appreciate the fact that there now is a Ministry of Culture and Community Spirit. We really appreciate the fact that there is a minister that appears to be interested in moving forward. But let’s put this in perspective of the last 25 years.

The hundred million dollars is very nice, but it does depend on the donations coming in. It does depend on those very same organizations being able to put initiatives in place to raise that money. So it’s not, strictly speaking, a handout. They’re going to have to work very hard for this money, and some of them won’t be able to get it. You know, don’t dump on me because I’m bringing forward a critical voice to you. That’s what you get when you’re in government, and that’s part of holding you accountable here. I’m sure the minister can manage to take the criticisms that are being aimed at him and doesn’t need to be defended from the backbench. I’m sure he’s doing just fine.

I’m going back to the cultural, fine arts sector – let’s call it fine arts so that we know what we’re talking about here – and to I think it’s called the Spirit of Alberta money that’s being given there. There’s $12 million to go to the AFA and implement the government’s cultural policy; $9 million is going to the AFA. A million more is going into film. That’s leaving a couple of million that is left to sort of implement whatever is the rest of this policy. To me it’s not clear what the rest of this policy is. We’ve got some vague references to culture. We’ve got nothing that’s specific by way of action plans.

Earlier I was referencing the city of Edmonton’s Art of Living, in which we are able to not only get a number of very thoughtful essays from people but some very specific and forward reaching action plans. They’ve assumed the policy to support the arts. They’ve moved into the action plan complete with who’s supposed to do it, how long, what the timelines are, who’s going to pay for it, and how much money it’s going to cost. I wonder why the city of Edmonton can manage to do that, yet we’ve had a number of different blue-prints brought forward by the AFA, and we still don’t have that level of detail. Is that what this extra $2 million or so is supposed to pay for? Is that what we’re looking for, that we could expect a document like this with the kind of work that’s been done?

It sounds to me like the community spirit program has already been done by a government backbench committee, so what else is coming forward under this amount of money? What else is going to be implemented out of the money that’s left over here? When I look at it, yeah, we’ve got the $12 million, $9 million you take off, and out of that, you’re taking off an additional $1.6 million for film. So you’re left with about $1.5 million according to my reading of what the press releases and all tell us. Everything else is supposed to come under this increased funding. In comparison we’ve got horse racing getting $48 million. Exactly how is this Spirit of Alberta policy supposed to roll out, or is that it? Is the $12 million being allocated to AFA and the film fund?

While we’re talking about the film fund, I want to see if the minister is considering changing the way we are allocating money to the film sector. The film sector has been very clear for some period of time that the grant program that is in place now is not as productive and useful for them as using a tax credit system, and they really want to move to that. I gave a couple of names to the minister of people to talk to that were very well versed in the community. I’m hoping that the government will be able to move into that. If it is able to move into a tax credit system, will it be able to increase beyond that $20 million that’s currently in the budget? Basically, that should be almost an unending fund because the more money that is generated by the film activity benefits all Albertans. Is the minister considering changing the way the film fund works and moving it from a grant program to a tax or employment credit base, either one? What exactly is the Spirit of Alberta cultural policy, and how does that money flow out to it? In the longer term are we looking to get any kind of significant increase to the AFA?

The $9 million, as grateful as everybody is for it, does not even address how far behind we have fallen in our grant monies given cost of living since we last had a substantial increase in 1988. So $12 million to 2008 is 20 years of time. You know, that $12 million is not catching up to what we’ve lost through inflationary processes over that period of time. There have been a couple of small increases in the kind of $3 million range, but when are we actually going to get ahead of this mark instead of small things that start to catch us up?

Mr. Blackett: Well, to start with, as far as the $12 million, $9 million went to AFA, $1.6 million to the film development fund, $840,000 to Alberta Historical Resources Foundation, and $500,000 was to the cultural policy co ordination office.

We have the policy right now, but we’re in the process of implementing that. Jeffrey Anderson is taking the lead within our department to come out with the implementation of the policy, looking at access, capacity, excellence in support of our cultural industries. I’ve got a breakdown of where all the money of that $9 million went, and I’d be more than happy to send that to you in writing if you’re interested.

With respect to horse racing it’s not like we take out $48 million and give it to horse racing. Horse racing gets to keep a percentage of the money that’s generated from the slot machines that they have. Some of that money goes back towards breeding programs and infrastructure within that industry.

Lastly, in the film industry we absolutely want to look at a long term funding model with respect to tax credits because that’s probably what makes sense to create a level playing field. We want to be able to keep those actors, directors, writers, grips, whoever, in Alberta. We have to compete against British Columbia. We have to compete against Saskatchewan, Quebec, Ontario, and northern American states. We’re working on that. The business case is about to be presented to me. I’ve been meeting with some of the different stakeholders, and we will work to make sure that we have some sort of plan for the 2009 2010 budget season.

Ms Blakeman: As part of all the rethinking that the minister is doing, is there a commitment to look at a much longer and farther reaching capital redevelopment plan for cultural institutions? That’s pretty wide ranging, Mr. Minister, because that’s including some of the stuff that’s currently being captured under the major community facilities program but also some of the specific arts venues that I talked about when we started this debate. That’s a lot more of an investment over a longer period of time. I know that the government came out with a 20 year capital plan, which was pretty vague and very hard to pin the government down on, but even something like a five year capital plan for cultural facilities would be very helpful. On the horse racing, yes, we very well know that this is not government allocated money, that they get to keep money that they are raising, but they got a sweet deal. Frankly, if they weren’t around taking that money out of the slots, that money would be going to a number of the other charitable and voluntary organizations. Do I view that money as being allocated to horse racing when it could be going to other voluntary and charitable based organizations? You betcha. Absolutely. I think it’s inappropriate, but I’ve made no secret of that over many years.

In response to my question about how much money was actually going into the Spirit of Alberta cultural policy, what I heard from you in the end was that it’s in about the $300,000 range that is being set aside for that out of the $12 million. Thank you for that answer.

I’d like to talk about the voluntary sector now. Under the goal in the business plan on page 66 we’ve got a key goal that is to support the nonprofit, voluntary sector, yet there are very few details as to what this means and, specifically, how that sort of general proclamation would be implemented. The majority of the strategy seemed to centre around the donation program and implementing province-wide training opportunities, and I’d like the minister to expand on that. What is the plan to recruit and retain these volunteers? I mean, providing training opportunities is fine, but we don’t have the capacity right now in many cases to keep the volunteers that we have. What is the minister anticipating here? I’m not seeing a lot of money attached to this goal except for what looks to be the donation programs, and we’ve already talked about how difficult it is for that sector to reallocate their human resources to raising that money as compared to providing a service. What is this plan to recruit and retain that we’re getting out of the business plan?

I notice that the funding for the voluntary sector services de-creased by about $200,000, and if I could get an explanation for that, please, that would be helpful. As well, if there is a real emphasis on volunteers, which I seem to be seeing an indication of from the minister, I’m wondering why there was no increase, then, to the Wild Rose Foundation, which is the foundation that has traditionally been there to support and enhance the voluntary experience? If I could get answers from him on those.

One more thing on the voluntary sector, and that’s around space. We’ve just had a couple of group presentations to the Edmonton city council around the need for space for groups that are operating in the charitable or voluntary sector, and they can’t afford the rents. They don’t know what they’re going to do. They’re trying to come together and realize some economies of scale. They are looking for space from the city of Edmonton. You are very blessed in Calgary to have the support of the Kahanoff Foundation with the office building they provided, and they’re now building a second one, a tower, for the organizations.

The provincial government has funded the Percy Page Centre for provincial arts and recreation groups for some time, but we need more. We are very concerned that we are going to simply have some organizations shut down because they can’t find space they can afford to operate in. I’m talking about groups like Canadian Paraplegic, about Big Brothers and Big Sisters, John Howard. I mean, there are just organizations right across the spectrum that are all struggling to find space.

I know the city is trying to work on this. They understand and are stepping up to the plate. In Calgary you’ve got the Kahanoff centre. What additional movements – money, planning, support – is this ministry willing to give that sector by way of space? When the Edmonton Sexual Assault Centre is looking at having an increase, that their $89,000 a year rent is going to double or triple, that’s a pretty scary thought. Do we really want to lose an organization like that because they can’t afford to pay rent?

Mr. Blackett: If I can keep all these questions straight, the first one was with respect to assisting the nonprofit, voluntary sector. We’ve done a lot of things that we’re moving forward on, and we haven’t got it all done yet. In meeting with our mayor yesterday, we talked about space and those organizations that are housed or not housed in space that they can either afford or can continue to reside in. We’re going to have to work together not only with the city of Edmonton but also with some of my colleagues in cabinet to come up with some solutions. It’s not one where I can just come up with an ad hoc solution overnight, but it’s something that we’ll certainly look at because we do value them.

With respect to that sector, also, a framework has been developed to re examine, clarify, and strengthen the relationship between the province and the sector, signed by the minister of municipal affairs and housing on behalf of the government back in 2007. The purpose of the initiative was to help develop a sustainable nonprofit voluntary sector that has the ability to deliver programs and services that contribute to strong and vibrant communities. You know, I’ve tasked and challenged people within my department to find out how we’re going to do some of these things long term. I think the donor program was recognized because the majority of funds for most of these nonprofit organizations come from donations, but I understand that that’s not all of it. We have to take a look at that, and we will continue to do so.

With respect to cultural facilities and referring to the cultural policy our goal is to enhance community capacity to support and promote cultural activity. It’s not culture specific, but there are those funding programs through CFEP and MCFP that we can utilize for some of that building. We’ve also spent money for the upgrading of both Jubilee auditoria. Lastly, community spirit is designed to help the nonprofit organizations with operating cash for things like rent, utilities, and, most importantly, salaries.

I’m not sure if I’ve answered all your questions or not. I think you asked for some examples of MCFP for culture facilities: the Art Gallery of Alberta, Citadel Theatre, Edmonton concert hall, and Camrose Performing Arts Centre. I’m pretty sure there’s funding that has gone through there for the clay district in Medicine Hat and some others that aren’t on that list.

I’ll say in closing that we’ve committed ourselves in dollars with a new ministry. We’re not going to attack everything at once. We’ve come up with monies to target a lot of different areas. Going forward we’ll continue to take a look at where we need to allocate those dollars, but overall I’m still getting an inventory of all our cultural properties throughout the province, looking at where the deficiencies are, consulting with the stakeholders to tell me where those deficiencies are. So when we get new monies, if we have new monies, where should we channel those? You’ll advocate for Edmonton, somebody will advocate for Calgary, and somebody will advocate for many other areas in the province, and we have to decide where it’s best utilized.

Ms Blakeman: Yeah, the last bit is what I was really looking for. I was looking for a longer term plan once you have an inventory because it’s a lot more money than what is available out of a CFEP grant, which has got a $125,000 ceiling on it, and again it’s got to be matched funds. So if we’re really going to create things like a new performance space to replace the Kaasa Theatre, that the government took away, that’s a lot more than $125,000 that’s available through a CFEP grant, and ditto for, you know, artist live work spaces.

That whole section that I was doing was on the sort of voluntary sector and talking about their need for space and assistance for them. You’ve met with the mayor of Edmonton – I appreciate that – but there are voluntary groups that are across the province, and the unmanaged growth that the government has been pleased to accelerate has really had a discriminatory effect on that voluntary sector. They don’t have the money to pay those kinds of increases in rent and utilities and electrical bills, never mind wages. So that sector is looking for fairly concrete help in that particular direction, and I’m trying to steer you there. I was looking for the details of exactly what you were trying to do to fulfill that goal where you were talking about implementing province wide training opportunities. I didn’t quite understand what you were trying to do there.

[…]

Ms Blakeman: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I’m just going through The Spirit of Alberta: Alberta’s Cultural Policy. Just to expand on some of the points that I was raising before, when you look at the goals that are set out on page 11 of this, you know, it would be very helpful. We’ve got goal B.

Enhance community capacity to support and promote cultural activity. In support of Goal B, the government commits to:
• Encourage greater private charitable giving to non Profit organizations.

Well, we know how that’s going to happen.

• Provide funding for communities to plan, build and upgrade cultural and recreational facilities.

Well, I keep asking that question. I’m not quite sure how that’s supposed to happen. It goes on.

• Explore opportunities to enhance partnerships amongst all three levels of government, the private sector, non profit organizations, cultural and educational institutions and individuals for the promotion and support of culture in Alberta.

I’m not quite sure what that means either. It’s kind of vague. I’m going back again to what the city of Edmonton has done. It would be really helpful if we had something that attached to each of these goals that actually gave us who was responsible for doing this in very concrete terms. Is it the government? Is it this department? Is it individuals? Is it the Ministry of Municipal Affairs? Exactly who’s responsible for doing this, when is it supposed to be done, and how much money is being allocated to it by whom? In some cases you may well have built a partnership that says the city of Edmonton is going to put in X amount, the city of Calgary is going to put in X amount, you’re going to have a private donor that’s going to work on a sound stage, you know, et cetera, et cetera, but there’s just a lack of detail in these goals and strategies, that makes it very hard to measure.

As I looked for the measurement, indeed, I did find something. At the very end of this, on page 13, it says, “Measuring Performance.” Well, I think that if you had a little conversation with the Auditor General, he’d take you a bit to task. You know, “the goals and strategies of the Cultural Policy are successfully implemented.” Well, as I’ve just said, we can’t really tell exactly what you mean to do from those goals and strategies, so it’s hard to tell exactly when they’re successfully implemented.

Another bullet point: “An effective communications strategy for the Cultural Policy is developed, implemented and updated as needed.” How do we measure that? Is there to be a certain amount of money spent on this? Is there supposed to be a certain number of activities that will implement this? What would those be? Is there going to be a brochure aside from what you’ve already done? What exactly does that mean? How do I measure that a year from now? You’re not giving me a lot to work with here. I think you could be much more detailed in what you’re doing. You may well have a plan that people are going to follow through on this, and that would be great, but it needs fleshing out. I recognize that the minister is committed to doing that, but it’d sure be nice to see it.

There’s obviously nothing for the minister to answer there because I’m just going back on a point I’ve raised a number of times. I have some very specific questions that I would like to ask. On page 107 of the estimates book I’m wondering what the equipment is for the ministry. It’s under the expenses vote, equipment/inventory purchases, ministry support services, which is vote 1, $395,000 in equipment for the ministry. I’m just wondering what that is exactly.

Maybe I’ll do these sort of three questions at a time, and then I’ll let you answer them.

On page 108, the very first line, 1.0.1, minister’s office. I’m wondering how we arrived at this amount of money. It’s saying that in the ’06 07 year the actual amount for the minister’s office was $223,000. Now, we’re up to $549,000. But this ministry didn’t exist, so it was in with a number of other ones. So how exactly did this get calculated? Did you take – you know, there were four things in that other ministry: recreation, parks, culture, and tourism. So what did they do, just divide by four, and that’s 25 per cent of the budget?

It’s pretty impressive. I mean, going from $223,000 in ’06- 07 – a budgeted amount last year of $265,000 – in fact, it got to $428,000. Now, we’re looking at $549,000 for the minister’s office. Actually, that whole first vote, vote 1, on page 108, in essence we’ve gone from $4.5 million in ’06 07. The actual for the year we’re in is $5.4 million, and now we’re going up to $7.3 million. Yahoo. Wow. That’s a lot of money. How is that all rolling out? Maybe I could get some explanations about that.

So in total we’ve seen the ministry support go from $4.5 million to $7.3 million. I’ll let the minister answer those very specific questions.

The Chair: The hon. minister.

Mr. Blackett: All right. On your first question the $395,000 is for information systems.

Number two, with respect to the $223,000, that’s 50 per cent of the budget from Tourism, Parks, Recreation and Culture that existed last year. So you’ve got $223,000, which was $446,000. There’s an increase this year because, obviously, with a separate office there’s going to be an increase because we’ve got two separate ministries. On the third one, the increase, breaking that down, $879,000 was increased primarily due to migrating computer systems to the government of Alberta network and other corporate initiative projects; $488,000 was a portion of the 2007 08 budgets for the minister’s office and the deputy minister’s office from the before ministry of tourism, parks, recreation, and culture, which was transferred to the Ministry of Culture and Community Spirit. The estimate for 2008 09 represents the requirements for a separate office for a full year, $415,000 is funding to support the information technology strategic plan, $89,000 is an increase primarily related to the need for additional human resource consultants, and $28,000 for other increases. And I think that other human resource consultants would be other people. We needed more bodies to do the work.

The Chair: The hon. member.

Ms Blakeman: Thank you. When this was part of another ministry, we were spending approximately $4.5 million on ministry support services, which includes the minister’s office, the deputy minister’s office, communications, and human resources. In the last budget, in which, again, this ministry didn’t exist separately, the forecast was actually $5.4 million, and the increase is still fairly significant. I’ll just take it that this is in creating your new office, but it’s an impressive amount of money for the minister’s office.

In vote 2.0.5, film development, in fact it shows that in ’06 07 that was at $27 million, and then for the year just ended the forecast was $18 million, and now we’re up to $19.6 million. If we could get an explanation of what happened, going from $27 million to $18 million and then back up to $19.6 million, that would be good. On page 117 it’s giving me that the full time equivalent employment for the department is 554, which is up from 538 in the last budget, so we get an additional approximately 20 people there. This is detail, so you’ll have to give this to me in writing later, but if I could get a breakdown of how these FTEs are assigned through the various votes that you have; for example, how many FTEs are under vote 2.0.1, program support, how many are under vote 2.0.5, film development, et cetera.

I’ll stop there and let you answer those questions.

Mr. Blackett: With respect to your first question we restate everything through a comparable budget, so on that first issue of going from $27,000 to $19,000 – that’s actually not the first question. Sorry. That’s the second question. We restate everything through a comparable budget. On the film development the reason for the reduction is that we gave a $12,500 one time catch up fund to the film industry. That’s why there’s a difference from $19.69 million to $27 million: because that was not repeated.

Lastly, we will provide the updated information that you request. I have FTE positions by area but not in the specific detail that you require, so we will get that for you.

Ms Blakeman: Okay. On page 118 – these are statutory votes – the Queen’s golden jubilee scholarships appear as a flat $10,000, yet when I look at page 123, that appears under the program expense Queen’s golden jubilee awards and medals as $70,000, and it’s in fact increased. It was $48,000 in ’06 07. It was budgeted to go to $70,000. In fact, it was only $50,000, but now it’s back budgeted again at $70,000. Can you tell me what else is in there? I’m assuming that some of this is awards. The medals are over; that happened in 2001, I think. What’s the difference between the $10,000 located in one part of your budget and the $70,000 located in the other part of the budget? If you could explain that, please.

Mr. Blackett: Well, the $10,000 is for the Queen’s golden jubilee scholarships, and the $70,000 is for the Queen’s golden jubilee awards and medals. One graduating high school student from each high school in Alberta is eligible for the Premier’s citizenship award, a plaque which recognizes the student’s excellence in citizenship, leadership, community service, and volunteering. The Queen’s golden jubilee citizenship medals and $5,000 in awards are presented annually to the most outstanding graduating high school students in Alberta who receive the Premier’s citizenship awards. That’s where that $70,000 comes from.

Ms Blakeman: Oh, they’re two completely different programs. So the $10,000 is one thing, and the $70,000 is another thing. They’re not together.

Mr. Blackett: Yes.

Ms Blakeman: Okay. Good.

I’d like to go back to that IT. What exactly is being added here through the new IT money, which was the $395,000 that I identified in my first question? That was on page 107. If the minister is able to tell me exactly what’s being added here. Is this software programs? Is it web design? Is it support for groups that are trying to have interactive online map searches to find heritage festivals across Alberta? Tell me what exactly this IT money is being spent on. The second piece of that is the $12 million, the one time injection for catch up in the film fund. Did that include the $5 million for Passchendaele? Where’s the Passchendaele money? Was it the year before? I thought it wasn’t going to be spent until the movie was shot, and the movie was shot. The $12 million catch up sounds like Passchendaele wasn’t inside of it, but I’ll let him answer.

Mr. Blackett: With respect to the $395,000 we’ll give you a detailed breakdown in writing for that.

As well, the Passchendaele money that you talked about was paid out in 2006 2007. That was $35,000.

Ms Blakeman: I think the minister is just consulting, and he will be standing with an answer imminently.

In the meantime, I’m just trying to find out what’s in that $12 million – that was the one time catch up fund – and where the money is for Passchendaele. My understanding was that although the deal was swung, it was not to be allocated until the movie was shot. It was shot this summer, so I’m wondering why it would be in any other budget except for last year’s.

Mr. Blackett: From what I understand in conferring with my department officials, under 3.0.12 there’s a $35 million item there for the Alberta 2005 centennial initiative, and $5.5 million is going towards that program. That is, I understand, held in trust. So that will be going to that group.

Ms Blakeman: I’m sorry. The Passchendaele movie is coming out of $35 million that’s under the Alberta 2005 centennial initiative?

Mr. Blackett: It was held in trust, so the money is there. They will get their money.

Ms Blakeman: Isn’t that an interesting way to do things.

Mr. Blackett: It was a centennial project.

Ms Blakeman: Okay. Then the rest of the $12 million was catch up money.

I think I’m almost out of time here, but there are minor increases that are happening in heritage. I’m wondering: is that also including some major restoration amounts? I heard the minister talk about the Turner Valley gas plant. There were a number of issues there around environmental concerns and disturbing the site. [Ms Blakeman’s speaking time expired] I’m not going to get that question out.

Thank you.