Mr. Weadick closes debate on Motion 518; Motion 518 carried: “Be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly urge the government to consider exempting seniors from paying the education portion of property taxes”

2009 November 27
by psbaa

The following is copied from the November 23, 2009 (afternoon) printed transcripts of the Legislative debate and discussion.


518. Mr. Weadick moved:

Be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly urge the government

to consider exempting seniors from paying the education

portion of property taxes.

 

Mr. Weadick (Lethbrdige-West PC): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I

won’t speak for very long, but I sure appreciate the excellent debate that

we’ve had on this motion. What’s really been heartening to hear is the

support that there is across the board for our seniors in the province of

Alberta. What I really wanted to take a minute to say is that through our

minister of seniors and through the department and through many of

our departments we have some of the finest seniors’ programs in the

country. We’ve made a real commitment to try to help our seniors

stay in their homes. We know that it’s cost effective for seniors to

stay in their homes, it’s cost effective to provide health care and

other support services in their homes, and it’s a much higher quality

of life for seniors to be able to stay in their homes.

 

This is really an issue that’s about fairness. Seniors that live in

lodges do not have to pay property tax, so this is something that

would allow a level playing field for all of our seniors, allow them

to stay at home longer. I think that’s been a goal of this government.

I’ve heard our Premier talk many, many times about how critically

important it is to allow our seniors to age with the highest and the

best quality of life. When I go out and talk to seniors, that best

quality of life is right in their own homes, right in their own

communities, with their families, with their children, on their farms,

in the places where they grew up, and I think we need to support

that. This is a wonderful opportunity to do that. This is a chance for

us to give them that little extra bit of help beyond all those wonderful

programs. This is just to say thank you for all those years that

you paid taxes, that you supported our children in their education.

This is a little bit that we can give back.

 

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

[Motion Other than Government Motion 518 carried] (1958 – 1959)

Ms Pastoor speaks in support of Motion 518

2009 November 27
by psbaa

The following is copied from the November 23, 2009 (afternoon) printed transcripts of the Legislative debate and discussion.


518. Mr. Weadick moved:

Be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly urge the government

to consider exempting seniors from paying the education

portion of property taxes.

 

Ms Pastoor (Lethbridge-East Lib): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It

is with particular delight that I stand today to support this motion

from my colleague from Lethbridge-West. I think it is a very good

motion. As we all know, often a private member’s motion will move

into a private member’s bill, or if it’s really a good one – and in this

case I would hope it would be that – it could move into a government

bill, and then the discourse, of course, goes on a totally different level.

 

The Member for Lethbridge-West and I actually speak to the same

seniors, so to put the Member for Airdrie-Chestermere’s concern at

rest, never, never have we ever been mixed up between who’s west

and who’s east.

 

There are any number of ways that we can discuss this, but I think

the concept that the member is bringing forward is that in some

fashion we have to be able to give our seniors a break on their

property tax if, in fact, we want them to stay in their homes. One of

the other suggestions that could be brought forward, in addition to

the two or three other concepts that are for further debate, could

possibly be that some seniors could be evaluated on a means test, as

they will be for their pharmaceutical plan. I know that that’s very,

very unpopular amongst seniors, particularly the older ones that we

have today, who respect their privacy. They have their privacy, and

to have to share all of this type of personal information is often very

difficult for them, but I think that could be one fair way of at least

looking at what we should be doing with these property taxes.

 

One of the other suggestions that I’ve heard but in a different

fashion when I talked to different seniors’ groups is that instead of

the money going into general revenue, where basically the education

tax goes at this point in time, it would go directly to the minister of

seniors, and then from there those dollars could be put out to support

seniors’ centres, and then the seniors’ centres could be providing

many more services so that seniors don’t have to go to doctors’

offices, don’t have to go to government offices. The care and the

information that they would need would be at their seniors’ centres.

It was very interesting as I went across the province to four or five

different areas, both rural and urban, if a municipality had strong

seniors’ centres with a large number of members, then they were

very much in favour of that idea. But if they didn’t have a seniors’

centre that provided the extra and didn’t have a large membership,

they were basically opposed to that idea. I think that the idea has

merit, at least to be discussed.

 

I would like to go back and just say that I’m certainly in support

of this motion and thank the Member for Lethbridge-West for

bringing it forward. I think it’s time that we had this discussion.

This is the first step. I’m trusting that next year we will be able to

have steps 2, 3, and 4 and actually come to some sort of a consensus

where seniors will get the break on the education portion of their

property tax. Seniors have paid their dues.

 

I think that when we look at education – and I realize the importance

of it. I think it’s also very important that we support our

seniors and keep them healthy. In the long run we may be educating

our young but at a high, high cost to our health care if we have to

look after seniors that can’t live in their homes and have to come

into the health care system. It is a bit of a catch-22. I think it’s

something that would certainly require more discussion. In terms of

how we level off who is responsible for education, shouldn’t it be

the parents and, certainly at the postsecondary education level,

perhaps the students themselves through loans and whatever? The

seniors should get the breaks that they need to be able to live in

dignity and respect to the end of their days.

 

Thank you. (1958)

Mrs. Forsyth speaks in support of Motion 518

2009 November 27
by psbaa

The following is copied from the November 23, 2009 (afternoon) printed transcripts of the Legislative debate and discussion.


518. Mr. Weadick moved:

Be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly urge the government

to consider exempting seniors from paying the education

portion of property taxes.

Mrs. Forsyth (Calgary-Fish Creek PC): Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I’m pleased to rise and join the discussion on Motion 518, which calls

for exempting seniors from paying the education portion of their property

tax. Our government recognizes the tremendous contributions seniors

have made to our province, and a central focus of our government’s

economic recovery plan, The Way Forward, is to help seniors by

supporting the programs and services they need most, such as health

care and housing.

 

I believe this motion asks our government to consider an important

change that could alleviate the tax burden on senior homeowners.

Exempting seniors from this tax would especially help senior

Albertans who are living on limited incomes. Senior homeowners

could refocus the financial savings from this tax exemption to other

priority areas. We know seniors still bear a cost related to home

ownership, and with more money in their pockets they may be able

to afford important home upgrades. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker,

seniors who have a less comfortable financial situation are often

more reliant on community and financial supports. If we provided

them with more savings, we could potentially reduce their dependance

on the services and programs. The savings from this exemption

for those seniors could largely outweigh the decrease in revenue to

the Alberta school foundation fund as seniors represent a small

portion of the taxpayers who contribute to this fund.

 

Alberta has the lowest percentage of seniors in comparison to

other provinces. They represent only 11 per cent of our population.

With this proportion of our population likely to increase in the years

to come, this demographic shift would only slightly slow the

increasing portion of education funding from the ASFF over general

revenue. Moreover, providing an exemption from the education

property tax would greatly assist many seniors throughout the

province. These savings will allow seniors an opportunity to

improve their quality of life by using their financial savings to

supplement other wellness aids. I think this is just one of the many

benefits our government should look at when considering whether

or not to exempt seniors from this tax.

 

Mr. Speaker, at the latter point of their life seniors have often

already supported their children and grandchildren through the

primary and secondary levels of school, fulfilling their obligations

to this essential service. Additionally, seniors have contributed to

the tax base for years. This motion will assist those seniors who are

on below-average incomes and dependent on assistance programs.

Mostly and more importantly, the exemption put forth in Motion 518

will strengthen the financial independence of seniors. Alberta’s

seniors have contributed to building strong communities across this

province and continue to help build these communities today. We

need to assess every option we have to ensure that they are receiving

the support they need and deserve.

 

I believe this motion proposes a fiscally sound objective that will

assist our province’s elders, and I am pleased to offer my support.

Thank you. (1957 – 1958)

Mr. Quest discusses Motion 518

2009 November 26
by psbaa

The following is copied from the November 23, 2009 (afternoon) printed transcripts of the Legislative debate and discussion.


518. Mr. Weadick moved:

Be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly urge the government

to consider exempting seniors from paying the education

portion of property taxes.

 

Mr. Quest (Strathcona PC): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d also like

to commend the hon. Member for Lethbridge-West for bringing forward

this motion. I appreciate the opportunity to rise and add to the debate on

Motion 518, which urges the government to consider exempting seniors

from paying the education portion of property taxes.

 

There’s a long history of funding education in Alberta, and

property tax has been a source of this education funding since 1905.

As many of you are already aware, the Alberta school foundation

fund was established in ’94. Property tax revenue for education is

collected from municipalities four times a year and is deposited in

the ASFF for reallocation to school boards. The education property

tax funds about 21 per cent of education expenditures, not including

capital, while the remainder comes out of general revenues.

Currently, in ’09, property assessed at $400,000 has an annual

education property tax of $1,356 for the same year, or $339 per

$100,000 of the assessed value.

 

Mr. Speaker, I think it’s important to note that education property

tax has been lowered or frozen every year for the past 16 years.

Reductions for 2009 and 2008 were 16 per cent and 10 per cent

respectively. Further, I believe you must consider the assistance

that’s already been put in place for seniors under the education

property tax assistance for seniors program, already in place since

2004. The program is not based on income. It protects all seniors,

65 and homeowners, from increases in the education property tax by

providing a refund. In 2006 nearly all seniors in Alberta received

some income from government transfer payments.

 

I think it’s also important that we examine the demographics of

our seniors population in this province. In 1972 there were a total of

123,000 seniors compared to 361,000 in ’07, a nearly 300 per cent

increase compared to a 200 per cent increase in the population

overall. By 2031 it’s projected there will be more than 880,000

seniors in Alberta, amounting to 20 per cent of the total population.

Most seniors live in private households. In 2006 about 71 per cent

of seniors in Alberta lived in homes which they owned. Of the

seniors that owned homes, 20 per cent had a mortgage; the remaining

80 per cent had no mortgage. Such an amendment would

exempt seniors from the education property tax and would help

senior homeowners who depend on fixed incomes. With additional

income some seniors could potentially keep their homes longer,

aging in place, and as such it is possible to improve the quality of

life of senior homeowners.

 

Mr. Speaker, everyone benefits from and should support education

in their communities. Many seniors are grandparents, and it may be

justified that they are supporting the educational well-being of

children in Alberta. Other demographics could also benefit from not

having to pay the education property tax on a needs-based justification.

Essentially, since 2004 seniors have been protected from

increases in the education property tax. I think the ideas that were

discussed by the hon. Member for Airdrie-Chestermere earlier

definitely have merit. We need to do something to keep our seniors

in their own homes.

 

Mr. Speaker, there is merit to both sides of the argument. Motion

518 could potentially help seniors who are on fixed incomes. At the

same time, we do have programs in place to support our aging

population with their needs. I think it’s an important dialogue. I

look forward to continued discussion on this issue and will watch

with interest further debate on Motion 518. (1957)

Mrs. Jablonski speaks against Motion 518: “With the current level of assistance available to seniors combined with the benefits of receiving quality and essential services from Albertans educated in our schools, I am not supportive”

2009 November 26

The following is copied from the November 23, 2009 (afternoon) printed transcripts of the Legislative debate and discussion.


518. Mr. Weadick moved:

Be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly urge the government

to consider exempting seniors from paying the education

portion of property taxes.

 

Mrs. Jablonski (Red Deer-North PC): Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A quality education system benefits everyone. Just as the Member for

Calgary-Buffalo suggested, this bill has pluses and this bill has minuses.

Alberta students become our future doctors, engineers, teachers,

tradespeople, police officers. They perform valuable roles in our society,

and their roles include caring for and serving our seniors. All Alberta

property owners support the system by paying the education portion

of their property taxes. Currently there are almost 400,000 seniors

in this province, with about 70 per cent owning their own homes and

paying property taxes. We do have the education property tax

assistance program for seniors to help senior homeowners with their

property taxes.

 

For the 2008 tax year approximately 72,000 seniors’ households

benefited from the program with an average rebate of $85. In

addition, municipalities such as Edmonton, Strathcona county, St.

Albert, Brooks, and Grande Prairie have rebate programs to help

with property taxes for low-income seniors. Calgary also has a

program to waive increases to municipal property taxes for lowincome

homeowners.

 

We have to keep in mind, Mr. Speaker, that our population is

aging. Within 20 years about 1 in 5 Albertans will be a senior. With

the focus on keeping our assistance for seniors sustainable, which

the Demographic Planning Commission heard is important to

Albertans, we need to ensure we continue to assist those seniors who

are most in need. It’s also important to keep in mind the full picture

of government assistance for seniors and not just look at one

program.

 

Across all ministries this government has budgeted more than $2.5

billion to seniors alone this year through income supplements and

assistance with a variety of expenses, including prescription drugs,

long-term care, housing, dental work, special needs, and the aids to

daily living program as well as eyeglasses. Together these programs

and benefits provide seniors in Alberta with one of the most

comprehensive benefit packages in the country. These programs are

essential in relieving the burden on low-income seniors.

 

With the current level of assistance available to seniors combined

with the benefits of receiving quality and essential services from

Albertans educated in our schools, I am not supportive of Motion

518 at this time.

 

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (1957)

Mr. Hehr speaks against Motion 518, suggests alternatives like those in British Columbia would work better

2009 November 26
by psbaa

The following is copied from the November 23, 2009 (afternoon) printed transcripts of the Legislative debate and discussion.


518. Mr. Weadick moved:

Be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly urge the government

to consider exempting seniors from paying the education

portion of property taxes.

 

Mr. Hehr (Calgary-Buffalo Lib): Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It’s indeed a privilege to rise and talk on Motion 518, the education

property tax exemption for seniors. I’d like to start by thanking the

Member for Lethbridge-West for making this motion. I do recognize

that the intent of the motion is really on noble grounds in that many

of our seniors, in particular, right now are having a difficult time making

ends meet. This would serve to reduce some of the expenditures that some

of those seniors are facing at this time.

 

That being said, I do look at things in an overall picture. Education

is very important to our province, very important to most

people, including most seniors, and they would recognize the need

for some collection of taxation to go towards the provision of a

publicly funded education system. So it’s definitely a bill that has

pluses and minuses.

 

I must say that my comments are very similar to those of the

Member for Airdrie-Chestermere. I want to point that out because

it’s rare that I find myself at times in this Legislature echoing the

comments of the Member for Airdrie-Chestermere, but on this,

essentially, my comments are on all fours with him.

 

Right now we could tailor this legislation better than the way it is

currently crafted. There are many seniors in our province who have

done very well over the last number of years and who are able to

contribute to the running of the public education of our youth.

Accordingly, I think some of the models could be, I guess, switched

a little bit to be targeted towards more lower income seniors, people

who are having a more difficult time, maybe extending limits of

where currently the support needs are. You know, some seniors,

who are extremely wealthy, I think could and should continue to pay

the tax.

 

I really like the idea of possibly deferring these taxes as in the

B.C. models. Couldn’t the Public Affairs Bureau, when they’re done

with advertising that rolling brownouts may occur, get on the

“wouldn’t it be nice?” sort of refrain that you hear on TV, where

they’re selling those deferred mortgage payments? We can roll out

that advertisement to our seniors that they don’t have to pay their

education property taxes for a number of years, that they can

essentially be deferred for a long time, and that they’re paid back

when they eventually leave their homes. I think those are much

better ways to run a tax system. I think they’re more targeted than

an outright, blanket revision of seniors from paying into the system,

shall we say.

 

Like I said, I support the intent of Motion 518, which is to assist

seniors who are being squeezed by fixed incomes and rising costs,

but those people whom we should help are those people who are

truly on fixed incomes who are being squeezed. Some seniors may

be on fixed incomes. However, they’re not necessarily under the

definition of being squeezed.

 

In conclusion, again I’d like to thank the Member for Lethbridge-

West for recognizing that many seniors are out there in a difficult

time and for bringing this motion forward to highlight that fact.

However, I think there are just better ways, both within our tax

system and in the way we’ve set up things, that are available in other

jurisdictions, like B.C. and others, that we could learn from.

I thank you very much for allowing me speak on this motion, Mr.

Speaker. (1956 – 1957)

Mr. Fawcett offers support for Motion 518: “I think it would go to assist those seniors in my area that are just having a hard time in paying their financial obligations”

2009 November 26
by psbaa

The following is copied from the November 23, 2009 (afternoon) printed transcripts of the Legislative debate and discussion.


518. Mr. Weadick moved:

Be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly urge the government

to consider exempting seniors from paying the education

portion of property taxes.

 

Mr. Fawcett (Calgary-North Hill PC): Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, want to commend the Member for Lethbridge-West for bringing

this forward. I have a large number of seniors in my constituency, and

as was mentioned by the Member for Calgary-Varsity, my constituency is

primarily made up of what you would call inner-city neighborhoods now

that 50 years ago, when many of the houses were built, were what would

typically be known as suburban communities. Particularly over the

last, say, decade those properties have seen exponential increases in

their property taxes. When I was door-knocking during the campaign,

and when I go around and talk to seniors in my constituency,

a number of them brought this particular issue up as a huge concern

for them as to how they were going to make ends meet being on a

fixed income and seeing these exponential year-over-year increases

on their property.

 

There’s no doubt that living in these communities has a distinct

advantage and that many of these properties are sought after because

of their close proximity to downtown, Mr. Speaker. I know that to

get from my place to downtown even in rush hour only takes me

about eight to 10 minutes, and that’s something that we put a

premium on, but that’s done a lot to increase the property values in

the area, and many of the seniors just can’t, with their current

financial situations, deal with this. So I do commend the Member

for Lethbridge-West for bringing this forward because it does

recognize a huge issue in my constituency.

 

I want to also applaud the comments of the Member for Airdrie-

Chestermere because as I remember going around and talking to

seniors during the election campaign over a year and a half ago, it

kind of dawned on me that the education portion of the property tax

was a tax base where I thought that the government could use some

creativity to try to help seniors a little bit better with their financial

picture, particularly those that are really struggling with exponential

cost increases on their property tax bills. One of the things that I

know was discussed in talking with seniors in my area was the

thought of: well, if you’re going to collect the tax revenue, why isn’t

it dedicated specifically towards seniors’ programs instead of

education, or why don’t you just cut the tax altogether?

 

Then, as the Member for Airdrie-Chestermere indicated earlier in

his comments, the B.C. government has its own model of how they

provide some relief to seniors that are in these difficult positions.

Not only do they talk about the education portion of the property tax

but the whole entire aspect of property taxes. So these are all good

discussions that I think are important to have.

 

Obviously, as the demographics in our province shift and we have

more and more seniors, the programs and benefits that are offered to

seniors are going to come under considerable financial constraints,

so the thought of dedicating that tax revenue specifically to seniors’

programming such as pharmaceuticals or assisted living or long-term

care is also another option.

 

On the other hand, there was a lot of mention leading up to the last

election about what to do with this portion of the property tax. I

know the mayor from Calgary had a certain proposal out there as to

how the province should forgive this area of property taxes and hand

it over to municipalities. Again, I believe that that’s probably not

needed as our province, our government, has provided municipalities

an unprecedented amount of money through the municipal

sustainability initiative.

 

The point is, Mr. Speaker, that this is an area where I think we can

do some considerable work, I certainly will be supporting this

motion because I think it would go to assist those seniors in my area

that are just having a hard time in paying their financial obligations.

I know that when I get my property tax bills every month, I shake

my head. I know that I have to pay it, but it’s a tough pill to

swallow, Mr. Speaker. I can just imagine what it’s like to have lived

in those communities your whole, entire life, raise your family and

live in that house, and feel like you might have to move out because

the property taxes are just too high for you to meet.

 

That being said, obviously education is something that’s a priority

of our government. It’s certainly key to our economic recovery

moving forward. I don’t want this to be construed as the government

not supporting education. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that with

the funding framework that we have in education today, this money

is collected and is put into general revenue. I know that there are

some technicalities amongst that, but I believe that the education

portion of the property tax – and I can’t remember if this is an exact

number – only pays for about 20 per cent of the money that we

spend on education anyway, and about 80 per cent of it, in fact,

comes from general revenue.

 

The other fact is that it doesn’t matter whether you indicate on

your property tax bill or your census whether you support the public

system or the separate system. The funding flow is based on the

students that are enrolled. In fact, I know of many examples where,

you know, someone has indicated on their census that they support

the separate school system. They have one child in the separate

school system, another in the public, and in fact that tax money, that

public money, still flows to the appropriate school board where that

child is getting their education. Really, this issue around the

education portion of the property tax is not really linked to any sort

of education funding, Mr. Speaker.

 

I just wanted to make it clear, in supporting this motion, that I still

strongly support the commitment that this government has made in

making education a priority in this province. I believe that on a per

capita basis, right from K to our postsecondary institutions, we do

provide some of the largest funding blocks in all of Canada.

 

With that, Mr. Speaker, this is certainly a motion that would go a

long way to help the seniors in my area. If not implemented, I

would at least urge the government and the minister – I see the

Minister of Seniors and Community Supports there, who’s been a

great advocate for seniors; I know the Member for Whitecourt-Ste.

Anne has been a huge advocate for seniors and chairs our seniors

advisory panel – to look at some innovative ways that might assist

seniors, whether it’s keeping the tax in place and dedicating it

specifically to seniors’ programming or whether it’s a deferral

program, from the Member for Airdrie-Chestermere, or whether the

government just has that revenue that it could forgo by getting rid of

the tax altogether.

 

I know that the Member for Lethbridge-West mentioned at the

beginning of his remarks that the financial picture in this province

has certainly changed greatly over the last year, from where it

looked like, you know, this revenue might be something that the

province could forgo. That might not be an option, Mr. Speaker, but

I think that the issue and the intent behind the Member for

Lethbridge-West was to really help those seniors that have built our

communities, that still want to live in our communities continue to

be contributing members by living in their own homes.

 

With that, Mr. Speaker, I’m open to listening to debate from other

members. (1955 – 1956)

Mr. Anderson speaks against Motion 518, suggests alternatives would work better

2009 November 26
by psbaa

The following is copied from the November 23, 2009 (afternoon) printed transcripts of the Legislative debate and discussion.


518. Mr. Weadick moved:

Be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly urge the government

to consider exempting seniors from paying the education

portion of property taxes.

 

Mr. Anderson (Airdire-Chestermere PC): Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to address Motion 518, and I want to commend the hon. Member

for Lethbridge-West – I would never want to call you the hon. Member for

Lethbridge-East – for bringing this forward because I know where that

pressure point is coming from. I understand that seniors are very, very

vulnerable to changes in the economic climate because they are on

fixed incomes, and they’re very vulnerable to changes in taxation

because they are on fixed incomes. I don’t in any way with my

comments here today want to undermine the very serious issues that

seniors, especially today’s seniors, are dealing with in regard to

increasing costs of living and fixed incomes, even decreasing

incomes if you take into account the problems in the stock market of

late.

 

I don’t think that solving this issue by essentially exempting them

from property tax is the right move going forward. I think that

education, the education of our youth, the education of children, is

important to society as a whole, not just to the parents who have

their kids in school, not just to nonseniors. It’s important to seniors

that our children are properly educated and that there is sufficient

funding for our public schools to appropriately educate our kids. I

don’t think that it’s fair to exempt them from education taxes.

 

However, having said that, realizing the pressure that they’re

under – you know, there’s a book that I read last year. No, it would

have been two years ago, during the summer. It is called The Seven

Habits of Highly Effective People by Stephen Covey, a very good

book. I suggest that if you haven’t read it, if anybody in the House

hasn’t read it, by all means take a look at it. It’s very, very profound

advice and a very good read. One of the seven habits that he talks

about in that book is synergy. He talks about how we often think of

things in society and debates and issues in society as win-lose, how

there’s always a winner and there’s always a loser. So we either tax

seniors through property taxes, and then they’re the loser, or we

don’t, and they’re the winner. There are a hundred different

examples of that that we see every day.

 

What synergy means is that you find win-win situations or winwin-

win situations. There are ways, there are solutions that are out

there that allow everybody to win if we’re willing to work together

and be innovative and get away from the status quo that sometimes

we as policy-makers or as people in general fall into.

 

I hope that maybe we can find a more synergistic way to deal with

this problem. I think everyone in this House understands fully the

need to assist our seniors with the escalating costs that they’re

facing. We also see the need to continue to have property taxes or

school education portions of the property taxes paid for the benefit

of our kids, for the benefit of schools and education.

 

Is there a solution? Well, one of the solutions that I think many

people in this party have been talking about for some time – I know

the hon. Member for Whitecourt-Ste. Anne, who’s not here today,

has done a lot of work on this issue – and others believe we might

want look at is something like the program they have in British

Columbia where they allow seniors to defer their property taxes as

a lien, basically, against their home. In other words, they don’t pay

the property taxes to the government. That amount that they owe the

government in that year: they still owe the government that amount,

but it is placed as a lien against the title of their home so that when

they sell the home or they pass on and dispose of the home, that

asset, to their heirs, the government then collects at that time the

outstanding lien, the outstanding property taxes that were due on that

home.

 

It’s a fascinating program to look at because I think it accomplishes

the synergy that I was talking about. It’s a cost-neutral

program for the government. They still get the property taxes for

education. They might, for the first little bit, have to wait a little

longer for it, but it’s also cost-neutral in that there is a very respectable

rate of interest. It’s not too much, but it’s enough to cover the

costs of inflation and of administering the program. It is cost-neutral

to government, so they can continue to make the investments in

education that are needed. At the same time, it allows seniors to

defer, in some cases, hundreds of dollars in property taxes that they

would have otherwise had to pay. They still do have to pay those

taxes. It’s just that it’s when they sell their home or their home is

disposed of upon their passing away.

 

It’s a win-win situation there. Of course, by lowering the property

tax for them, by essentially allowing them to go several decades in

their senior years without paying their property taxes if they so

choose – it’s a totally optional program, obviously – it frees up a lot

of income for them or takes away an expense, I guess you could say.

That makes a big, big difference for seniors, especially when

housing prices escalate and property taxes, of course, escalate with

those housing prices. My understanding of the B.C. program is that

it doesn’t just apply to the education portion of property taxes, which

we’ve frozen anyway as far as my understanding is right now in

Alberta; it also applies to their entire property taxes.

 

It really is, I think, a win-win scenario for all people involved,

especially seniors. I hope that instead of looking at a win-lose

proposition that we should have seniors’ education portion of

property taxes or we should cut those, maybe we should look at a

way that all sides can benefit and we can get the same benefits as a

society that we do now from payment of those education property

taxes.

 

Again, I admire and thank the hon. member for bringing this

motion forward. It addresses a very key and important issue that

seniors are dealing with right now. Although I will be voting against

this specific motion, I think that the debate and discussion that he

has caused by bringing this motion forward was worth while.

I appreciate the House’s attention while I spoke of this. Thank

you very much. (1954 – 1955)

Mr. Chase speaks in support of Motion 518: “property taxes are absolutely undermining their quality of life”

2009 November 26
by psbaa

The following is copied from the November 23, 2009 (afternoon) printed transcripts of the Legislative debate and discussion.


518. Mr. Weadick moved:

Be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly urge the government

to consider exempting seniors from paying the education

portion of property taxes.

 

Mr. Chase (Calgary-Varsity Lib): Thank you very much. I

speak in favour of Motion 518. What Motion 518 will cause to happen

is finally the promise that Premier Klein made back in 1994, 15 years ago,

that when we were back in a position of having the debt paid off – well,

of course, he didn’t anticipate that we were going to go back into debt

again. That being said, the promise was made to seniors 15 years ago that

the education portion of the property tax, that they’re currently suffering,

would finally be removed as it was prior to the harsh treatment

they received along with every other member of society and social

service back in the 1990s.

 

This is finally providing that promise. It may be 15 years late, and

a number of fixed-income seniors may have had to move from their

current dwellings into either continuing care or long-term care, but

the notion of keeping seniors in place and aging in place is absolutely

wonderful. It’s not only ethically and morally defensible, but

from an economic standpoint if we can keep a senior in their home

with some visiting nurse, whether it be the old-style VON, for

example, or through support from the health regions, this is wonderful.

 

Now, there are programs that currently exist which would make

Motion 518 realizable when it comes to aging in place. For

example, the Meals on Wheels program is now approaching its 43rd

year. It started out operating out of church basements, and it has

expanded to deal with the ever-increasing aging population, of

which the Member for Lethbridge-East, being a little younger than

myself – I can truly appreciate that we’re part of that generation, the

baby boomers, who are certainly soon going to be requiring that

support.

 

Meals on Wheels provides a series of supports. It not only

delivers meals; it delivers the opportunity for seniors to actually do

a little bit of stockpiling if they have sufficient independence to be

able to warm up their own foods. For those who don’t have that type

of independence or are nervous about cooking, they can provide the

warmed meals right there on the spot.

 

Now, to the government’s credit they have provided grants. I

would suggest that within the last five years, I think, the total of

grants for Meals on Wheels is approaching approximately $6

million, and I stand to be corrected if I’ve lowballed that amount.

But I know that Meals on Wheels has currently purchased a large

property which would suit their purpose, but they have not sufficient

funding to have the kitchens developed in this large warehouse that

was once a sports store. Alderman John Mar has recommended to

his city council aldermen that they consider providing some millions

of dollars of support in terms of bridge funding so that if that facility

isn’t actually going to be where the new Meals on Wheels is set up,

they could at least either use the money that they’ve accumulated

from the acquisition of the property to purchase another property or

use the money that Alderman Mar has suggested to provide the

equipment for the existing facility.

 

Bringing the Meals on Wheels out of their current small location

on Macleod Trail and moving it further to the northeast would be of

great aid to what Motion 518 from the hon. Member for Lethbridge-

West is proposing because, obviously, in order to keep seniors in

their homes, they’re going to need supports. When you consider the

economic argument of having a senior take up an acute-care bed at

a cost of $1,900 a day, think of how much farther and how much

more humanely we could deal with seniors by supporting programs

like Meals on Wheels, supporting programs of visiting home care,

visiting services, for example, for cleaning and so on.

 

Now, the unfortunate part for a senior who lives in the inner city,

because at that point it might have been sort of a suburban circumstance

when they first bought their home for under $10,000, is that

the property taxes are absolutely undermining their quality of life,

yet they’re afraid of the costs associated with a continuing care

facility, where they’re nickel and dimed for every piece of toilet

paper, for every Depend, for every kind of service that they need as

opposed to the long-term care potential. The hon. Member for

Lethbridge-East has brought up so many questions over the years

about the importance of aging in place, and there’s no better place

within the possibilities of living at home.

 

I lost my mother two years ago January. My dad had tried very

much to accommodate the aging-in-place scenario. My dad,

incidentally, is 86. He did everything in his power to keep my mom

in that place on 37th Avenue S.W., as much as he could. Then my

dad’s own well-being was starting to suffer after he had done as

much as he could. I helped, my brother helped, my sister helped, our

spouses helped, but it was getting to the point where that aging in the

house could no longer take place. At that point, regrettably, father

sought out some care facility. To their credit, Cedars Villa did the

best they could until, unfortunately, my mother passed away.

 

Given the fact that so many of us are in that sort of squeeze

generation, where we have grandchildren, on the one hand, and

aging parents, on the other, anything that can be done to support our

parents – as I noted, three years from this past Sunday I’m going to

be at that pensionable circumstance, and I’d like to think that there

was support for me. Mind you, I’m fortunate because I have the

benefit of a teacher’s pension, and I will have the benefit at the point

that I retire of having the allowance that’s provided for retiring

MLAs. But the majority of fixed-income seniors don’t have those

benefits. As I say, their properties, while taxed highly, don’t have

the actual value. It’s their location, not their physical structure, that

accounts for the cost, and they don’t have the money to fix it up. We

do have little programs like Snow Angels and so on to assist them,

but if Motion 518 goes from the initial stage that’s being proposed

and actually turns into law, then seniors are going to benefit.

 

I thank the hon. Member for Lethbridge-West for finally keeping

Premier Klein’s promise, 15 years late, but for those seniors who

still can benefit from it, better late than never. (1953 – 1954)

Mr. Weadick introduces Motion 518: “Be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly urge the government to consider exempting seniors from paying the education portion of property taxes”

2009 November 26
by psbaa

The following is copied from the November 23, 2009 (afternoon) printed transcripts of the Legislative debate and discussion.


518. Mr. Weadick moved:

Be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly urge the government

to consider exempting seniors from paying the education

portion of property taxes.

 

Mr. Weadick (Lethbridge-West PC): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s

a pleasure to rise today on the Monday towards the end of this session.

Private members’ business is that unique opportunity where we as private

members get to come forward with ideas or recommendations from our

communities that represent the fabric and the fibre of our communities. It’s

a real pleasure for me to rise today on an issue that has been brought

to me many times in my community and that I feel is very important.

I rise to open debate on Motion 518.

 

Mr. Speaker, this motion proposes that the government consider

exempting seniors from having to pay education property taxes.

Now, when I brought this idea forward over a year ago, we hadn’t

seen the downturn in the economy. Things were humming along

quite nicely in Alberta. Since then we have seen some impact, so I

am going to preface my opening remarks by saying that I believe

that if we bring this in – I’m hoping everyone will support it – we

bring it in at the time when we’re back in the black and we’ve

moved the province forward through this recessionary time and

we’re again showing the kind of surpluses within our province.

 

Alberta’s seniors’ community has a very, very strong and proud

history in this province. This motion is the result of many discussions

with seniors and seniors’ organizations in Lethbridge, and I

wanted to make a special note of two of those, Mr. Speaker.

Lethbridge Senior Citizens Organization represents about 4,000

people in Lethbridge. Nord-Bridge seniors’ centre has, I believe,

around 2,000 members. These are organizations that work very,

very hard night and day to represent and provide services to the

seniors in our community. They have met with me and talked to me

about how important it is to try to help seniors stay in their own

homes.

 

Our seniors today have experienced a great deal of change in the

past few years. Many of our seniors are facing financial hardship

today, and I believe this deserves our attention. Mr. Speaker,

impacts from the markets as they went down reduced returns on our

seniors’ investments, and fixed incomes have created significant

challenges for the seniors in our communities. As Alberta seniors

continue to enrich our communities as our parents and our grandparents,

as our neighbours and so forth, it is timely that we look at ways

to ensure that our Alberta seniors are able to make the most of their

retirement years.

 

Seniors are also some our most active and valuable volunteers.

They help maintain the fabulous quality of life we enjoy in Alberta,

Mr. Speaker, and we need to help them stay in their own homes.

Seventy-one per cent of Alberta’s seniors live in their own homes.

I can honestly tell you that home is where the heart is, and it’s where

the heart is for our seniors. I don’t want to see our seniors have to

leave their own homes due to financial hardship. Motion 518 is

aimed at helping alleviate the financial pressures that our senior

homeowners are facing. This is about fairness to our seniors. Living

in lodges, they do not pay property taxes, so this would be an

opportunity to level the playing field.

 

As the hon. members likely know, property taxes have been a

source of education funding since Alberta became a province in

1905. While municipalities are currently in control of their property

tax structure and assessment, the province sets its requirement for

collecting property tax revenue for education in terms of amounts

deposited into the Alberta school foundation. Because of their

ability to provide a large and stable resource for education, property

taxes have helped ensure that young Albertans receive a quality

education and are prepared to lead the province as our previous

generations have so capably done.

 

Interestingly enough, Mr. Speaker, over time the general revenue

fund has provided an increasing portion of education funding. Over

the past 16 years education property taxes themselves have been

either reduced or frozen and are now 40 per cent lower than they

were in 1993. Currently about 21 per cent of education spending is

funded by the education property tax while the remainder comes

from general revenue. Although it has been suggested that the

education portion of property taxes be abolished altogether, Motion

518 simply proposes we alleviate the burden on our seniors, who in

many cases need it the most, Mr. Speaker.

 

As baby boomers continue to age, Alberta is currently seeing a

rapid shift in our seniors’ demographics. Seniors now make up just

over 10 per cent of our total population, but it’s estimated that in the

next 20 years that will grow to 20 per cent of our population. This

accounts for a sector of the population that is growing at a faster rate

than any other in Alberta, and we are committed to helping them

maintain the quality of life they deserve. Mr. Speaker, this means

helping our seniors age in place. Seniors should be able to remain

at home in the communities they know and love. We have committed

to this principle through our continuing care strategy. Part of this

is helping seniors with home care when they’re able to remain at

home, alleviating the pressure on seniors’ facilities. We must help

seniors to age in the right place, and for many of our seniors that

right place is right in their own homes.

 

Although seniors are by no means the only group facing financial

challenges due to the high cost of living and of maintaining their

properties, they certainly share some unique challenges, including

potential expenses for medical assistance and services. By eliminating

this portion of the property taxes for seniors, we can ensure that

our senior homeowners can retain some extra money, helping them

remain in their homes longer and maintain a suitable quality of life.

Mr. Speaker, I would encourage all members to join me in

supporting Motion 518 in an effort to address the financial pressure

of some of our most valuable friends, parents, and grandparents: our

seniors. Thank you. (1953)