Subscribe to our Newsletter

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Main Supply Estimates - Seniors and Community Supports

Ms Blakeman: Thank you, and my thanks to the minister and her staff for spending the evening in the fabulous constituency of Edmonton-Centre. I have four issues that I would like to raise with the minister. The first one is a long-running issue in my constituency of which the minister and I have had a significant amount of correspondence, so this will be no doubt familiar to you. This is around the Kiwanis Place senior centre, and specifically relating this back to the budget. I believe this is vote 2.2 or vote 4.2.5. It’s not very descriptive in the line items.

Essentially what we have is Kiwanis Place is a large facility, between 280 and 300 residents on 18 floors of a renovated apartment building. This did not start out as a specific subsidized seniors’ residence. It started out as an apartment building and was retrofitted. The problem for us in this residence is the elevators. There are three elevators. They were meant for an apartment building. What’s happened over the years – as you’re well aware – is that the number of seniors who are actively using walkers has skyrocketed, and the number of people you can fit into one of these traditional sized elevators with walkers is significantly cut down, and we are now dealing with a lot of overcrowding and congestion and very long waits to move people around this apartment building, which is 18 floors. It’s not as though these seniors can just abandon their walker and hoof it on up the stairs for 10 flights. The result of this is that we have seniors waiting up to 90 minutes to be able to get down for mealtimes or return to their apartment.

The first correspondence that I had with the minister was September 16 in which I outlined this particular difficulty. The minister was kind enough to respond and identified that the Greater Edmonton Foundation, which is the organization that operates the building – the building itself is owned by the province of Alberta. The minister referred me to a fund that was available and referenced that Greater Edmonton Foundation had, in fact, requested funding and had been approved for $4.7 million plus an additional $860,000 between ’05-06 and ’07-08 and suggested that they submit a proposal under the new program, which, at that time, on October 22, was unnamed. It turned into the modernization and improvement program.

The issue there is yes indeed. Greater Edmonton had applied. They had tried to apply for the elevator and were told specifically that they couldn’t, that it was for windows, and there was to be no mechanical. The exception there might have been heating or ventilation. I’m sorry. My notes aren’t clear as to whether that was in or out, but it was around the windows. In fact, they used the money for windows and balconies, but were not allowed to use it for the elevator specifically.

Time goes on. At the beginning of September I raised this again in the House with the minister and followed up with that and got a very nice letter on January 20, which I applaud the minister’s efficiencies because it is almost identical to the letter I received on October 22. That was very efficient of the ministry staff to send me essentially the same letter, which, in fact, we now have the name of the program, which was the modernization and improvement program.

I’ve since corresponded back to the minister again dated March 31. The minister’s response back to me was they should apply for this other kind of funding. The problem is all of these grants require a 50 per cent pony up from the organization, and guess what? The building is owned by the province of Alberta and run by the city of Edmonton. The city of Edmonton rightly says why would they pony up 50 per cent for a building that’s owned by the province? So, no, you know – the city of Edmonton. Actually, additionally there is some flow-through money that’s coming from the province.

So we’re at an impasse here, Minister. I have 280 seniors that take 90 minutes to get down for breakfast. By the time they get back upstairs again, it’s time to turn around and come back down for lunch, et cetera. That is their day. And it’s dangerous. There’s an inconvenience and quality of life issue, and frankly there’s a very high-risk issue.

Just to illustrate this and make it come alive for everyone. Modern day gurnies will not fit in these elevators flat, so they get propped upright. Just imagine being a frail, elderly person that has had to call an ambulance. The gurney comes, straps you on. They get you to the elevator, tip you upright in order to get you in the elevator to bring you down and get you into an ambulance. High risk. Not very pleasant for a frail, elderly person.

So, Minister, work with me. How can we resolve this situation and work towards getting an additional elevator in this facility? We need the funding. These are independently living seniors. Can I invite the minister to come to the facility? They would be delighted to show you around. Don’t come at lunch because you’ll be in a long wait. I think this is quite serious, and I wanted to bring this up again in light of the budget debates today.

Mrs. Jablonski: Well, that you very much for outlining that very carefully for us. A couple of points that I would like to make. The Greater Edmonton Foundation is welcome to apply under the ASLI program, which is the affordable supportive living initiative. Yes, it is only a 50 per cent matching grant. However, the province owns the building, but the province doesn’t take any income from the Greater Edmonton Foundation. The income, the rent that people pay per month is paid directly to the foundation. The province takes none of that. At this time, this is the program that’s available.

I certainly understand the plight of our seniors, and yes, I would be willing to find time in my schedule to come and have a look because I certainly understand everything that you’ve said. Having made my point – I think you made it for me – they did receive $4.7 million and then another $860,000. They chose other priorities before this elevator. When we presented that…

Ms Blakeman: They weren’t allowed to use it for that.

Mrs. Jablonski: They weren’t allowed to use it for that?

Ms Blakeman: That’s right. They were specifically told they could not use it for the elevator. That’s why they took the elevator section off their grant, and they used it for what they were allowed to use it for, which was the windows and the balconies despite the fact that what they really wanted to use it for was an elevator.

Mrs. Jablonski: I understand that the $4.7 million and the $860,000 would have been 50 per cent funding towards their repairs as well, so how is the elevator any different than that? Like I said, they can now apply to the affordable supportive living initiative for the new elevator.

Ms Blakeman: Okay. Well, we will get the minister out. I will work with the staff to find an appropriate time. No, the province doesn’t take money from this, but frankly neither does the province really pay money towards what’s going on there in the operation of that particular facility. There has to be a way to find our way through this. We will work on getting the minister out.

I’m going to move on to the next issue I have here.

Mrs. Jablonski: Ms Blakeman, I just want to make one correction. I believe that there is LAP grant funding, which is the lodge assistance program. For low-income seniors we would provide $8.25 per day towards their fee, so we do put some funding into the facility to subsidize the rent.

Ms Blakeman: Well, yes, it’s paying for their food and their laundry service and the staff that are on site here, so it’s not as though GEF is collecting this and sitting on it. I mean, it’s going to pay for things that are directly affecting those seniors. We have to find a way to work this out.

I’m going to move on to the next issue. I want to make a point around vote 2.2.5, which is around dental and denture services. I notice that there was a slight drop in the amount of money that was available in this particular section. When I look on page 327 at seniors’ dental and optical assistance, last year it was budgeted for $69.664 million; $63.664 million was actually spent. The budget is very similar this year at $63.458 million. A consistent issue that is raised with me amongst seniors in Edmonton-Centre is that the maximum amount that is offered to assist low-income seniors with dentures and dental work is too small to cover the costs. Dentures are, to my eye, astonishingly expensive, in the sort of $3,000 to $6,000 range, and although the program is set up that you can get a maximum amount every X number of years, it’s not the X number of years that people are concerned about. It’s the amount that’s available.

I don’t know if there’s a way to rejig the program so that there’s a longer gap between when they can replace their dentures and that they could get more in one go. I’m not sure. But that is a consistent issue that is raised by my seniors.

Mrs. Jablonski: Thank you for that question. Our dental coverage is a maximum of $5,000 for every five years. That’s what you were referring to.

Just to let you know, anybody who’s in some serious condition or whatever can apply to the Alberta seniors’ benefit if they’re low-income seniors, and we would look at any extenuating circumstances through that program. We found that this was a number that we had to maintain in our budget. As you know, there were some restrictions this year, and I felt that it was important for us to cover the things that we did, but we weren’t able to cover everything that we wanted to simply because of government income.

Ms Blakeman: I understand that. That’s an issue that is raised consistently with me when I go out and go through the seniors’ residences that I have. I have a large seniors population. Thirteen per cent of my constituents are seniors, which is a fairly high percentage of seniors living in a given area. I have eight high-rise or multi-unit complexes of seniors in the fabulous constituency of Edmonton-Centre, so I end up dealing with a lot of seniors.

The third issue I want to raise and this is for information with the minister, is that a number of seniors have contacted me with concerns around the proposed health department change in the drug plan for seniors, which you are not responsible for but indirectly, I’m sure, will end up having a piece of.

One of the issues that has been raised is that thus far no one has talked about a hardship clause and two specific examples that have been raised for me is, well, that’s fine, we have X income and that means we would have to pay our copayment or our deductible. But what would happen – in one case they had just had a fairly significant additional condo assessment fee in the range of, I think, $8,000. They were having to do some significant repair, which is very common here. Most of my condos are retrofits from old apartment buildings, and this is not uncommon to get that kind of a bill slid under your door one day and you’re supposed to come up with a fair chunk of change in a specified period of time.

So what would a senior under those circumstances, that’s just been levied that kind of additional cost on their annual income – you know, is there any hardship clause or has anything been anticipated in that program that might be able to assist them or give them a longer period to pay or something? I’m just raising that for you.

The other example was having an adult child that either struggles with a mental illness, which is very common, and for a period of time may have to come back to the senior parent, and there are additional funds expended to care for that adult child. Thus far that drug program doesn’t seem to have anticipated changes or temporary financial hardship in the life of a senior. And I think that does need to be taken into consideration.

The last point I wish to raise is aro und AISH. Rent is always an issue for the people on AISH. They continue to ask me when the government will come in with a rent control program. I will raise it again. My colleague, Mr. Denis, tells me never, which I’m sorry to hear. It is an issue for people on AISH, and I want to raise that and make sure the minister is aware.

Additionally, the second problem that we encounter with irregularity if not frequency, is that when people are hospitalized in an Alberta hospital, after a certain period of time their AISH rates are reduced to almost nothing. And unfortunately, when they are then released from the hospital, hopefully in better shape mentally, they find that they have been evicted from their apartment and their belongings have either been thrown out or sold. So here they are, trying to get back on their feet and everything they ever owned is now gone and so is their apartment. I’m asking the minister to consider some kind of a program that would allow for storage or for payment for storage. I’ve heard this story too many times to blow it off as being one or two people.

I’m fortunate to have a very diverse population of constituents, but we do have a number of people who cluster in the downtown area, closer to services, who struggle with mental health so this, as I said, is a common story. I may not have dozens of people in a year, but it’s certainly a consistent theme and now they’ve got nothing but the clothes on their back. I don’t know how to resolve it. I don’t think it takes a lot of money. I don’t want you to spend a lot of money doing it, but somehow we need to be able to address this in a constructive fashion.

Thank you.

Mrs. Jablonski: Thank you, Ms Blakeman. I appreciate your comments and as far as the pharma strategy is concerned, you are aware, as you stated, it is part of Health and Wellness, but the Minister of Health and Wellness has stated publicly that he is reviewing the package, so I’ll take back the message of hardship cases and by working together maybe we can find a solution to that concern.

As far as the AISH, any AISH client or even an EI client or any low-income Albertan who’s having problems with rent, we have the homeless and eviction prevention fund. We expend a lot of funds in that area.

Ms Blakeman: Not if they’re hospitalized.

Mrs. Jablonski: That was your third point. But you said something about rent controls.

Ms Blakeman: Oh, sorry.

Mrs. Jablonski: Okay, so that was your second point. We’re looking at those programs and reviewing those programs now.

As far as AISH and the hospital concerns, it sounds like it’s something that we would have to look at to see how we could resolve that. It’s something that hasn’t been brought to my attention. I think that I have heard of that once, and we were able to resolve that. At this point in time I’m not aware of a program that works in that way, but certainly we can be looking at it because one of the things that we do with AISH is look at the individual needs of an AISH client. So now that you’ve raised this issue, we’ll take a look at it.

Ms Blakeman: Good. Thank you.