1. The Senior’s Action and Liaison Team (SALT) discussed the ACA request for priorities at our meeting on January 12, 2010. Because of the short (and informal) notice, we were unable to identify a single issue which we could present as our top priority. Our concerns are classified under three general areas: ongoing problems, short-term issues, and lack of due process.
2. There is an ongoing problem with the province’s finances. We believe that Alberta has a revenue problem, not a spending problem. The failure to plan adequately for the impact on revenues of a cyclical resource market, the uncertainties caused by changes and counter-changes in the royalty regime, and the foregone revenues resulting from the introduction of the flat rate tax (which has had little - if any - benefit for low and middle income groups) have all contributed to the problem. We need a secure revenue base to ensure the continuity of essential public services.
3. In the immediate future we are concerned about the introduction on July 1, 2010 of the Pharmaceutical Strategy. The cost implications for seniors with fixed incomes will be significant; we believe that many of the affected individuals are not yet aware of the Strategy and how it will affect them; and we question the wisdom of applying any strategy to a specified group (rather than the entire population).
4. As a group, we are committed to the principle that the democratic process should include informed public debate before the introduction of new policies and programs. Two examples will illustrate our concern about this: neither the Continuing Care Strategy nor the Pharmaceutical Strategy was accompanied by the information which would permit informed debate. As actual or potential users of these programs - and therefore primary stakeholders - we were presented with “the answer” without being told what the question was. When public hearings have been held, the feedback has not been reflected in subsequent reports or decisions. Proposals such as that for an Independent Seniors’ Advocate which would allow for greater input and security of service have been rejected. The recent changes to PDD funding are typical of a “top down” organizational structure and do little to inspire confidence.
Submitted on behalf of SALT
John Wodak, Chairman
January 13, 2010
No comments:
Post a Comment