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”
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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”
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)
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)
