Redford discusses relief program.
First phase in predicted 10-year plan
Premier Alison Redford announced Monday the provincial government has committed $1 billion to help cover the first phase of rebuilding after damage from the past week’s flooding in Alberta.
Redford sat down with the Calgary Herald on Monday to discuss the program, relief efforts and other issues related to the worst flood in Alberta’s history. The following are edited excerpts of the conversation, which took place minutes before the premier boarded a helicopter to tour damage in the Canmore area. Q: Do you think we’ve turned the corner on the worst of the flooding? What is your assessment of where we stand? Redford: We don’t know yet in Medicine Hat. We may be over it. We certainly have seen some significant changes there in terms of positive outcomes and things turning a little bit (from) the worst in the last 12 hours. I’m optimistic that in the next 24 to 36 hours, we move through this. … Q: You pledged $1 billion today for recovery. Is that going to be enough, or is that just the first phase? A: Oh, no … this is a preliminary decision. I don’t know how long this gets us through. This is for southern Alberta and also for Fort McMurray and it’s part of the disaster relief programs that will be put in place for both regions. It’s nowhere near enough. I don’t know what that number is going to be and there are people speculating as to what it might be.
That’s the work that we now have to do as a government, in terms of putting in place that plan. I’m frankly talking about probably a 10-year time frame to get through. That shouldn’t scare people. That means we’re going to do it well, effectively, we’re going to deal with what we need to on a priority basis and then we’re going to keep building …. Q: The Contingency Fund will be tapped for this, but that fund is only supposed to have about $600-700 million by the end of the fiscal year. Will you end up basically having to run that dry? A: You’ll see with the end-ofyear update (for 2012-13) on Thursday that we’ve done better than we expected to or that we’d anticipated, remember, in December.
The world seems so different now but you’ll remember in December, we talked about a $6-billion (revenue) shortfall. Of course, the markets have turned around, the (oil price) differential changed. If none of this had happened, you would’ve seen a much better end-of-year (financial statement) than had been forecast in December. So there is significantly more in that account.
But I also want to emphasize that one of the reasons there is cash today that we could allocate immediately, was because we did make the decision to change the way that we budget — and to not spend our cash on infrastructure simply because we have it, but to keep cash in the bank. … Q: Is there any suggestion that you won’t have the revenue capacity under existing means to pay for it and you may have introduce something like a tax? I know in Manitoba they just increased the PST to pay for the flooding there. A: It’s far too early to talk about that … we’re not quite through this yet. This is where the work begins, so we’re not going to talk about that. But we are going to do whatever it takes. … I said, and I was pretty frank today, we’re not going to be able to keep to timelines with respect to balancing the budget. … Q: How long do you think it’s going to be before we can realistically look at a balanced budget then? A: I think about the way the world has worked in the last five days, we don’t know what the final cost will be. … We haven’t even been able to assess whether or not all of the bridges that are still standing are going to be able to continue to stand. We are so far away from being able to make those sorts of decisions or make those sorts of conclusions with respect to even what it’s going to mean in terms of funding in the next 10 years, so I don’t know. Q: You’re giving people preloaded debit cards, but probably the bigger question for homeowners who’ve lost their homes is, will the government actually foot the entire bill for them to rebuild? A: This disaster relief program does exactly that. I made the point ... please ask people to go to government websites to get the information because there’s speculation out there — and emails going around — that if your house is on a flood plain, you’re not going to be covered.
None of that is true. … Q: Will it cover the entire costs? A: Yes. Q: So anybody who is in High River, that’s obviously a big concern, those people will have their entire costs covered? A: Yes. Q: So you’ll rebuild all those people’s homes? A: Yup. Q: On the First Nations front, I know it’s not a provincial jurisdictional issue but there’s obviously more than 1,000 people who don’t have a home to live in. A: Absolutely, we are not viewing this in any way around not taking care of Albertans. We’re not worried about whether this is federal or provincial jurisdiction. (Alberta Aboriginal Relations Minister) Robin Campbell was on the phone on Thursday and Friday with chiefs and as the situation unfolded, was right there with them. He and (Energy Minister) Ken Hughes are going to Siksika right now. … Q: So you’ll rebuild those homes there just like you would in Banff or High River? A: Yes. Q: Back in 2005 we had a flood and a task force was put together into the provincial response. Do you need to do another task force based upon what we’ve seen? A: No. … The way emergency management agency came together, the way local decision-makers were there, first responders, volunteers, the Red Cross — this was a catastrophe, but the response worked. … This whole approach that previous governments have had to responding to compensation for flood, we are changing. We want to make sure that people have funds through the disaster recovery program, we think in the next 10 days to two weeks, to get on with rebuilding their homes and their lives. … Q: The 2005 flooding report by former MLA George Groeneveld called for $300 million to be spent in flood mitigation and some of that work was done but a lot of it hasn’t been spent. We still allow development, for instance, on flood plains. Do you need to revisit that and do we need to prevent development on flood plains? Do we need to spend the additional $300 million? A: Of course, we talked to George right after this and you’ll know one of George’s comments was that if absolutely everything that had been recommended in that report had been completed today, it still wouldn’t have made a difference in terms of the impact of the flood.
But as (Municipal Affairs Minister) Doug Griffiths has said, I made a commitment when I ran to be leader of the party and became premier that we would act on that report — and we have acted on parts of that report. … There are houses that were destroyed that were built 100 years ago when we didn’t talk about zoning and flood plains and all of that. So I think that’s a discussion to have. And I think that is something we need to do more work on.