Subscribe to our Newsletter

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Bill 21 - Heating Oil and Propane Rebate Act

October 15, 2008 - Committee of the Whole

Ms Blakeman: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. This is another, sort of, smaller bill in that it is essentially replacing an out of date act but leaving in the rebates for heating oil and propane. Let me just say from the outset that I would really prefer that we stopped subsidizing consumption and that we really try and refocus on promoting conservation.

Having said that, I recognize that we live in a northern climate. People need to have their propane heat. I used to have a recreational property that was heated by propane, and, boy, when that tank ran out, you were in big trouble. So I understand how important heating oil and propane is to many households. But, really, the group that benefits from rebates is essentially the companies. They have no incentive to try and improve anything because the government gets in the way and pays part of the consumer’s bill. So the consumer is helped, and I know that those consumers are happy to be helped, but it does nothing to encourage any kind of conservation. That’s just a small, well, a very large contextual proviso for me to start with.

However, let’s deal with what’s in front of us. My caucus has indicated their willingness to support Bill 21, the Heating Oil and Propane Rebate Act, but we have real concerns about one section. So I would like to introduce an amendment. Oh, look at that. The magical pages have already distributed the amendment. Thank you so much for that assistance.

All we are trying to do here is remove one section in the act. You know, I could refer very quickly to the Gary Dickson memorial argument about putting things into regulations and how they should be referred to the Law and Regulations Committee. Unfortunately, the government saw fit to disband the Law and Regulations Committee, so we can’t even refer the regulations there anymore.

It’s bad enough that a number of things are being referred to regulation – and that turns up in section 3(b): “the terms and conditions that may be prescribed by regulation” – but worse than that, more offensive, is 3(c), which says, “any terms and conditions the Minister considers appropriate.” Anything at all. So under the terms and conditions section, which is 3, it says that a rebate is subject to the following terms and conditions, (a), (b), and (c), “any terms and conditions the Minister considers appropriate.”

Is this reasonable? No, it’s not. I don’t think it is reasonable. If there was some sort of catastrophe or financial or environmental concern, the government has ways and means of being able to affect how this program is delivered. To give itself the flat-out, total dictatorship-level powers that are anticipated in 3(c) is just offensive to me. This is not a reflection on any member of the front bench because – who knows? – who is the minister today could be a different person tomorrow. [interjection] Well, I don’t know who it is, and I don’t care for the purposes of this context. Oh, there he is. He’s identifying himself. It could be a different person tomorrow.

It’s about the idea that the government would pass legislation that would give themselves that kind of wide open, unfettered, unaccountable, nontransparent power. Here we have a new Premier, who came in by touting his transparency and accountability, and all I’ve seen is the opposite of that. Here we have a bill that’s brought forward under his auspices, and the first thing is: “No, we don’t have to answer to anybody for this. Lets just give ourselves a clause in which we can do anything, any – any – terms and conditions.”

Mr. Ouellette: That’s pretty wide open, then.

Ms Blakeman: That is very wide open. It’s too wide open. The comment that comes back from my well-meaning colleagues across the way is: just trust us. No.

Mr. Hancock: Well, why not?

Ms Blakeman: Because you haven’t proven yourself to be trustworthy around issues like this. Let me give you a couple of examples. [interjections] Oh my goodness, this is going to be such an energizing discussion. I’m so glad people are engaged. I live to have members of the Assembly engaged in debate. Excellent. I’m looking forward to your input on this.

Now I’ve lost my train of thought. [interjections] I’ll just have to start over again. That’s what happens when you get me too far off topic here.

It’s about trusting the government. Right now, for example, we have a slush fund under the Solicitor General and Minister of Public Security. It’s sitting at over $45 million. Now, that slush fund comes from the surcharge on fines that are paid by people: you know, traffic bylaws, for the most part. Those fines are usually collected by the feds, by the province, and it flows into the fund. It is specifically designated in there that that money is to flow back out again to victims of crime. Well, if that’s the case, why has that fund accumulated in less than 10 years $45 million? Clearly, those funds are not flowing back out to victims of crime and to organizations that serve victims of crime or work to prevent crime. There’s one very quick example of why I don’t trust the government when they give themselves unfettered ability to do any of this.

I’m thrilled to see the amount of engagement that we have on the floor now, so I won’t take up much more time talking about the amendment. [interjection] Did I hear someone urging me to speak longer? I think I did.

An Hon. Member: I think you’re hallucinating.

Ms Blakeman: No. I think I heard them, and I know where they’re sitting. Thank you so much for that encouragement. It’s always nice to be encouraged in the Assembly.

I am moving this amendment on behalf of my colleague the Member for Edmonton-Riverview. The amendment, which I’m assuming would now be called amendment A1, is moving that the act be amended “by striking out section 3(c).” As I’ve already talked about, 3(c) is the one that gives the minister “any terms and conditions the Minister considers appropriate.” Frankly, I don’t think that this section is doing a minister any favours because it leaves it very wide open for them. Imagine the pressure they could be under from any number of advocacy groups or perhaps even their own colleagues pressuring them to give out more rebates, less rebates, more money, rebates only to this particular geographic area. Anything would be okay under the terms of 3(c). Imagine. They have no protection. They can’t back off and go: “You know what? Quit lobbying me. I’m not going to authorize rebates for propane and heating oil to this particular geographic area in Alberta because I’m not allowed to under the act.” They don’t even have that to protect themselves. They could be manoeuvred or bullied or argued into just about any reason to be extending or cancelling or enhancing these rebates. That’s the position that the minister is put in by this act.

It flows both ways. One is too much power that we’re handing over to the government, that is totally unaccountable. I know how these guys work. You know, when we ask questions about this and the accountability, the next thing we’re going to hear is: well, check the public accounts. Sure. Public accounts are for the year ending on March 31, and the next thing we’ll know is that we’ll see those public accounts, the first round of them, in September. We start to look at them in the fall sitting, so it’s at least six months. By the time we complete them, you’re well in a year down the road, and in some cases you will be almost two years out of sync with the actual dates that you’re talking about.

So don’t tell me that that accountability comes through Public Accounts, despite the Herculean efforts of my colleague from Edmonton-Gold Bar as the chair and many of the members who sit on the committee with great due diligence at that delightful time of 8:30 in the morning on Wednesdays and other times. You know, I know they’re trying to do the best job there, but you don’t get accountability two years after the fact. That’s not accountability, and it’s not transparency.

So I urge everyone to support this amendment A1, which would remove section 3(c). That is the section that is allowing “any terms and conditions the Minister considers appropriate” for rebates. Thank you very much for the opportunity to present this amendment on behalf of my colleague for Edmonton Riverview. I look forward to the debate.