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

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

The Speaker: The hon. minister.

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

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

The Speaker: The hon. minister.

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

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

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

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

Protection of Children in Care

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

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

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

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

The Speaker: The hon. minister.

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

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

How can the minister justify these comments?

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

Alberta Hansard, February 22, 2010

[direct link to this article]