Alberta Hansard — 24 June 1986, Afternoon sitting (14:30) (Legislature 21, Session 1)

19860624

Alberta — Debates (Hansard)

June 24, 1986 ALBERTA HANSARD 187 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA Title: Tuesday, June 24, 1986 2:30 p.m. [The House met at 2:30 p.m.] PRAYERS [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] head: INTRODUCTION OF BILLS Bill 253 Victim of Crime Levy Act MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce two Bills today. The first is Bill 253, the Victim of Crime Levy Act. This Bill will add a levy on fines given to persons convicted of offences under enactments of the province or the federal government. The minimum levy would be $25 and the maximum would be 25 percent of any fine, not to exceed $1,250.

No levies would be payable where a con ditional or absolute discharge has been given or where the offence is one in which a court appearance can be waived on payment of a prescribed fee. [Leave granted; Bill 253 read a first time] Bill 250 Profit from Crime Act MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, the second Bill is Bill 250, the Profit from Crime Act, which would permit a victim of a crime or, if there is no victim of a crime, the Attorney General, to apply to the court to declare profits from a crime as such.

Once so declared, the Attorney General shall hold such moneys in trust to be used to compensate victims of that crime. [Leave granted; Bill 250 read a first time] Bill 241 Religious and Ethnic Holidays Act MS BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I request leave to introduce Bill 241, the Religious and Ethnic Holidays Act.

This Bill would amend the Employment Standards Act to allow an employee to take as a holiday any day of special ethnocultural or religious significance to that employee, inasmuch as the employee would be required to either make up the time or take time off without pay. [Leave granted; Bill 241 read a first time] head: TABLING RETURNS AND REPORTS MR. KOWALSKI: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the first annual report of the Alberta Special Waste Management Corporation for the year ended March 31, 1985. MR. SHABEN: Mr.

Speaker, I wish to table two annual reports: first, the annual report of the Department of Eco nomic Development for the year ended March 31, 1985, and the annual report of the Alberta Opportunity Company for the year ended March 31, 1986. DR. WEBBER: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased today to table the 1984 annual report of the Alberta Petroleum Marketing Commission. In addition, I would also like to table the fourth annual report of the Alberta Petroleum Incentives Program Fund for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1985. MR. ISLEY: Mr.

Speaker, I wish to table three annual reports: number one, the annual report of the Alberta Association of Architects; secondly, the annual report of the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists, and Geophysicists of Alberta; and thirdly, the annual report of the Department of Public Works, Supply and Services. MR. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased today as well to table two annual reports for the fiscal year 1984-85. The first is the Alberta Art Foundation report and the second, the Alberta Foundation for the Performing Arts. head: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS MR. NELSON: Mr.

Speaker, it is a sincere pleasure today for me to be able to introduce to you, and through you to the members of the Assembly, 34 students, along with their teacher and parents, from St. Mark school in the grand constituency of Calgary McCall. These are grade 6 students and will soon be venturing into new opportunities in another school, we hope. They are here today with Mike O'Brien and parents R. Koski, R. Ernani, T. Mitchell, E. Koch, and F. Edwards. I would ask that they rise and receive the warm welcome of this Assembly. MR.

GOGO: For some 11 or 12 years we in Alberta have had the good fortune of sponsoring the Legislative intern program. It's been without question a great success for not only the members of the House but for the individuals involved. Seated today in your gallery, Mr. Speaker, are this year's Legislative interns, many of whom will be leaving shortly. We wish to wish them well in their future endea vours. I'd like to introduce them.

If they'll rise as I read their names, perhaps at the conclusion the Assembly can indicate its response to their service here in the Assembly: first of all, Brad Marks, Aniko Szojka, Brad Faught, Gary Sandberg, Thorsten Duebel, Caryn Duncan, Jennifer Keenan, and Rhonda Jansen. I would invite members of the Assembly to give these people a good send-off. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce to you, and through you to the members of the Legislature, some very interested and concerned Albertans that were quite involved in the last election campaign.

These people are here for two very basic purposes: first of all, to observe their MLA in action here in the Legislature; and secondly, to prepare themselves and pick out their seats for the 1990 campaign. I'd like a number of our candidates and interested persons who are guests to stand and be recognized by the Legislature. MRS. CRIPPS: Mr. Speaker, it's a real privilege for me to introduce 28 grade 6 students from the Breton elementary school. They asked me what a minister does, and I told them that some of us are still trying to define that. Hopefully,

188 ALBERTA HANSARD June 24, 1986 very soon we'll have a better definition. Would they rise and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. MR. ELZINGA: Mr. Speaker, I too have the pleasure to introduce to you, and through you, 48 students from our constituency who are from the St. Theresa elementary school, with their teachers Connie Poschmann and Donna Irons. They are in the members' gallery, and I would ask these students and teachers to rise so that they might receive the traditional warm welcome of this Chamber. DR. REID: Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure today to introduce a gentleman, a constituent of mine.

But he has a closer connection to this Legislature in that he is the father of the new Member for Red Deer North: Mr. Stockwell Day senior. Would he rise and receive the welcome. head: ORAL QUESTION PERIOD DR. BUCK: I rise on a point of order. The point of order is the question of ministerial supplementing of questions after the question period. It seems to me that when a question is asked and the minister comes back after question period, it doesn't afford any opportunity for the person who asked the question to possibly ask one or two supplementary questions. Mr.

Speaker, I would ask you to consider that possibly those supplementary answers be given at the start of question period so that the person asking the question could ask a supplementary further on, because it seems that the person makes a statement, which is almost like a ministerial statement, without an opportunity for the ques tioner to ask a supplementary. MR. SPEAKER: I realize that the information I was given yesterday did happen to go on for some length, and as you have pointed out, it does present a difficulty with respect to asking any questions. I wonder if the hon.

Member for Clover Bar would mind if I raise from Beauchesne citation 369, that A question of privilege or point of order raised during the oral Question Period ought to be taken up after the oral Question Period, unless the Speaker considers it to be an extremely grave matter. I would hope that in future points of order and points of privilege will come at the end of question period. However, I've listened carefully to you, and I will take the matter under advisement and deal with it in the course of the next 24 hours. Direct Billing for Medical Services MR. MARTIN: Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to direct the first question to the Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care. The Alberta Medical Association is advising Alberta doctors that patients from Ontario seeking care should be billed directly. My question is: what steps is the minister taking to discourage the use of tourists visiting Alberta as pawns in a dispute in Ontario? MR. M. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, it has always been my understanding that doctors in any province in Canada are entitled to bill directly patients who come from another province, either as tourists or visitors.

The situation in Alberta as it rests today is no different than it has been for some length of time. The doctors can either bill the health care plan of another province directly or bill the patient directly. As far as I'm aware, that is not any offence to the Canada Health Act. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question. Would the min ister not agree that this is a relatively new development, though, that previously it was done between the plans and that this is different? Will the minister look into this and see for sure that the portability requirements of the Canada Health Act are being fulfilled? MR. M.

MOORE: Mr. Speaker, according to the information that I have, the hon. Leader of the Opposition is mistaken in his belief that this is something new. In fact, doctors in this province have for some length of time been able either to bill patients from other provinces directly or to bill the other provincial health care plan. In other words, nothing has changed that I'm aware of MR. MARTIN: A supplementary. Maybe they were doing that, but the vast majority were done specifically from plan to plan, and they weren't directly billed.

There is now a memo from the Alberta Medical Association saying that they should in all cases directly bill. In view of the fact that this certainly doesn't help the tourism industry, would the minister take it upon himself in this House to look into this matter and suggest that this is an unacceptable practice? MR. M. MOORE: Once again I have to say, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. Leader of the Opposition is mistaken in his belief that something different is now occurring.

In fact, it's been accepted practice right across Canada for physicians to bill patients directly when they come from another province, as opposed to billing their plan. According to my information it's occurred throughout this province on a regular basis, so nothing has really changed. There's no crisis in the medical care system in Alberta; in fact, every thing is working well. MR. MARTIN: It's my understanding that this isn't hap pening in other provinces, and it has to do with this dispute in Ontario.

My question is: is the minister saying that as far as his department and the minister himself are concerned, this is acceptable practice, that tourists from Ontario should be directly billed even if they have limited means? MR. M. MOORE: In fact, Mr. Speaker, the incidence of doctors billing patients directly in other provinces does occur. The Alberta health care insurance plan, for which I have some responsibility, does in fact pay Albertans for services provided in other provinces that are direct billed to those individuals. So nothing is changed there either; that's always been a practice that has occurred.

A physician has a right under the plan, in this province or anywhere else, as I understand it, either to direct bill the patient from another province or to bill the plan directly. Health Care Insurance Plan MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, I'd also like to direct another set of questions to the Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care. They flow from questions I asked the minister on Friday, I quote his statement: Indeed, there can be situations existing in this province or any other where certain services would be billed directly, not covered by health care insurance, or extra

June 24, 1986 ALBERTA HANSARD 189 billed, and you might still [probably] meet the terms of the Canada Health Act. My question: could the minister be a little more specific and tell the Assembly what services that the province now offers fall into this type of category he's talking about? MR. M. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, we are presently in the process of some negotiations with both the federal government and the Alberta Medical Association relative to matters involving extra billing and the outstanding dollars available to Alberta from Ottawa that are being withheld because of the Canada Health Act.

While we're in those negotiations it's not my intention to elaborate on what's being discussed, except to say that there are certain matters involving insured services under the Alberta health care insurance plan that are not required by the Canada Health Act and could be categorized, I guess, as non-medically required services, that we have some consideration of moving to a category outside of the Alberta health care insurance plan. They involve for the most part quite nonessential matters, such as cosmetic surgery. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question to the minister.

I find this offensive, that the only discussion that is going on in an important thing like medicare is between the minister and the medical profession. Surely the rest of the people of Alberta and this Assembly of democratically elected people should know what those discussions are. My question is: is the minister now prepared to tell us this? The people of Alberta want to know. MR. M. MOORE: Mr.

Speaker, when we've had an oppor tunity to complete our discussions with the Alberta Medical Association and the federal government and when I've had an opportunity for full discussion of those matters within the government caucus, there will be full opportunity for members of the Legislature to debate whatever decisions we come to. MR. MARTIN: In all due fairness, the government caucus doesn't represent all the people of Alberta, and this is changing medicare. The minister talks about cosmetic surgery perhaps no longer being covered.

My question: how does the minister intend to determine what types of cosmetic surgery are crucial to the health and well-being of Albertans and which are not? MR. M. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, the process of coming to some decision on these matters simply has to involve dis cussions that are private between myself, in this case, and others who have a direct interest, like the Alberta Medical Association. The process also has to involve some support from my colleagues in the government caucus before I elaborate on what we've chosen to do in the Legislative Assembly.

If there are amendments required to any legislation to accommodate the kind of decision we reach, then the Bill will be tabled in the House for first reading, and there will be an opportunity for discussion. If there are changes with respect to the fiscal plan of the government of Alberta because of decisions we make, again, those matters can be debated during the course of estimates of the Department of Hospitals and Medical Care. So there will be full opportunity, Mr. Speaker, for the hon.

Leader of the Opposition in his role to comment on whatever decisions we do reach, but the member will simply have to wait until there is an opportunity for him to do that. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question. I find the min ister's answers unacceptable. Medicare is not a private club between him and the medical profession in this province and you can debate it after the fact.

To be specific, because there are a lot of people concerned about this, can the minister assure the Assembly that Alber tans need have no concern that this government will remove chiropractic and physiotherapy services insured by the Alberta health care insurance plan? MR. M. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, it's not my responsibility to ensure the hon. Leader of the Opposition of anything. We're in the process of negotiations. I've said in this House that our aim is to make sure that the federal minister is satisfied that Alberta has met the spirit and the intent of the Canada Health Act.

The process of that is to negotiate with the Alberta Medical Association and with the federal minister and consider all the avenues that are open to us. I have no apologies whatever to make for following that line, and in due course the hon. member will be enlightened by what we've been able to agree to. MR. TAYLOR: A supplementary to the hon. minister.

In view of the fact that the Chiropractic Association has released new sheets saying that over a quarter of a million Albertans avail themselves of chiropractic services, can he give some sort of assurance to the people of Alberta that he's not going to bargain away chiropractic services in order to get doctors to do away with extra billing? MR. M, MOORE: Mr. Speaker, I have not made any comments whatever about this matter, and I take no respon sibility for either the Leader of the Official Opposition's or the Leader of the Liberal Party's suggestion that something is being bargained away.

If they want to continue with that line of thinking, that's entirely up to them, but there are literally hundreds of items covered by health care insurance that either one of the hon. members could suggest tomorrow that somebody is bargaining away. Quite frankly, what we're trying to do on this side of the House is create a situation where Albertans can continue to have, as they've had for a good number of years, the best health care plan in Canada, bar none, in spite of the Canada Health Act. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister of hospitals.

Is the government considering a review of the premium rates in the province of Alberta, in light of some of the problems that may be on the horizon or that they're facing at the present time? MR. M. MOORE: As far as I'm aware, Mr. Speaker, on every occasion that the Provincial Treasurer and the Treasury Board review the expenditure and budgetary requirements of this government for a new fiscal year, matters of that nature are considered. Social Services Staffing Levels MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, to the hon. Minister of Social Services.

Concerns continue to be raised by Alberta social workers facing unmanageable and unacceptable workloads, even facing violence now. Can the minister confirm that over the last eight weeks, four out of six child care

190 ALBERTA HANSARD June 24, 1986 investigators at her department's Fort Road office in Edmonton have quit because of unreasonable workloads? MRS. OSTERMAN: Mr. Speaker, that's a matter of some detail in a district office that I can provide the hon. member by checking with my department. MR. TAYLOR: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister maybe confirm that the number of investigations performed by child care investigators in the Fort Road office have been as high as 400 in one month, a total of over 66 cases a month for each of the six investigators? MR.

SPEAKER: The difficulty with the line of the question — it is really in such detail that it probably has to come onto the Order Paper under a motion for a return. Perhaps you can phrase the question in another way. MR. TAYLOR: I submit, Mr. Speaker, that it is of some importance, because we are losing social workers right at the time we need them most in our society. If we wait for the hon. minister on the Order Paper, it could go on for months.

Can the minister ensure the House that her depart ment is taking steps to ensure that a sufficient number of child care workers, income security workers, are on staff to adequately perform the functions in the Fort Road office? MRS. OSTERMAN: Again, Mr. Speaker, while I can't speak to a specific district office, the hon. leader of the Liberal Party will be aware that as a result of questions raised in the House over the last few days, in fact I had asked all six regions for an assessment of the workload, particularly of the frontline workers. MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, to the minister.

I must confess that I don't see why she can't say that at least adequate numbers have been retained. But maybe the minister could tell us why she has been delaying a request by the Alberta Association of Social Workers to meet with her in an attempt to resolve the problems currently being encountered by social workers in this province? MRS. OSTERMAN: Mr. Speaker, when I have an oppor tunity — with respect to the number of requests for meetings, it would probably range in the hundreds — I certainly will. As a matter of fact, I believe that meeting is scheduled for early September.

MS MJOLSNESS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I'm wondering if the Minister of Social Services is prepared to take action and when this action will be taken, depending on the results of this information that's coming forward from these regional offices. MRS. OSTERMAN: Some action has already been taken, Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in the House earlier with respect to a question. That is in the Calgary region. Action with respect to the Edmonton region, which I believe to be one of the most critical areas, is imminent. Farm Credit Stability Program MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr.

Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Agriculture, and it's with regard to the new funding for agricultural programs. On June 16 the Associate Minister of Agriculture indicated that the $2 billion available to farmers under the Alberta farm credit stability program is in addition to the $1 billion already out in long-term credit through AADC. Can the hon. minister tell the House whether existing AADC loans will be subtracted from the $200,000 limit in the Alberta farm credit stability program, thereby reducing the maximum amount a farmer is able to apply for? MR. ELZINGA: Mr.

Speaker, let me in responding to the hon. member indicate at the outset that it is our hope to have legislation before this House very soon as it relates to the farm credit stability program and indicate to him, as we indicated during the election campaign, that there will be no stacking of the programs. There will be a limit of $200,000 available to the farming population on a per farm basis — $600,000 in the event that there is a corporate structure in place — but there will be no stacking. If an individual has a $150,000 loan from ADC, they can get an additional $50,000 under this program.

The reason for that is so that it will have a broad acceptability to all farmers. We're not limiting it or allowing it to be stacked so that it will have a greater participation of farmers in Alberta. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the Provincial Treasurer. It's with regard to the comment made on April 4 by the hon. former Treasurer of the province. He indicated that the Heritage Savings Trust Fund, particularly

section 10, the marketable securities, would be one of the sources of the $2 billion. This

section presently has $1.3 billion in it. I want to ask the Provincial Treasurer whether the government intends to use this

section of the fund, and if so, what precautions have been taken to assure that no loss will be incurred to the province from such practices as cashing bonds or other securities prior to maturity date, such as the loss that took place in 1981 of some $60 million because of cashing a bond at an inopportune time? MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I believe that over the past few days in question period since the election we have attempted to present to the House a rough outline of our plan for financing the farm stability program, the 9 percent long-term debt program.

At the present time it's our intention to fund that program by borrowings of the government to put in place this remarkable $2 billion program and, of course, the $750 million long-term financing program. We will finance that by long-term borrowings of the government. As I indicated before, it is our intention in the short term to ensure that this program is up and running, to draw upon the available sources to us, including the money in the Heritage Savings Trust Fund, to ensure that the program does get up and get going.

But to be very clear, this 9 percent long-term financing program will be funded by borrowings by the province from other traditional sources. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the Provincial Treasurer. In the current budget some $25 million has been set aside for the program. Could the Provincial Treasurer indicate whether all the borrowings that will take place — all of the other moneys necessary, the $1.9 billion — will be borrowed on the open market? If not, how much of the Heritage Savings Trust Fund would be in that mix? MR. JOHNSTON: Mr.

Speaker, I think it's essentially the same question that was asked just a few minutes ago. You

June 24, 1986 ALBERTA HANSARD 191 have drawn across the trail some other items, which perhaps could be described in the estimates during debates, which will be coming up very soon, except to say again that we will borrow the money and put in place this program to make it operate for both small businesses and for the farm sector as well. We may have to on a short-term basis use the existing resources available to the government, including the liquidity of the Heritage Savings Trust Fund and the liquidity of the General Revenue Fund.

But we will borrow from a variety of sources, traditional markets, the required funds to put these two programs in place. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a final . . . MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry, but the hon. member has had his three supplementary questions. Indeed, the Treasurer was right; it was the same question asked for the second time, and it really does precipitate debate with respect to our estimates. The hon. Member for Vermilion-Viking fol lowed by the member for . . . I happened to be glancing down at the wrong time, did I? I see. I recognize the Member for Vegreville. A supplementary. MR.

FOX: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A supplementary to the hon. Minister of Agriculture concerning the $200,000 limit on the funding for this program. I've had a number of submissions from individuals and farm groups expressing concern that the limit might not be adequate. Has the minister any plans or process with which this limit can be reviewed after the program has been in place for some time? MR. ELZINGA: Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon.

Member for Vegreville, during the election campaign just past, whereby we received overwhelming support from the rural population of this province, we indicated that we were going to set the limit at $200,000, and it was quite widely accepted. I should share with him at the same time, though, that all programs within our department are constantly being reviewed so that they are very responsive to the agricultural sector. MR. TAYLOR: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the Provincial Treasurer and possibly to the Minister of Agri culture.

Last week the Provincial Treasurer assured the House that he would investigate the possibility, when talking with the banks and financial institutions, of whether some of these loans could be in the form of preferred shares — in other words, a dividend where the farmer would only be paying 5 or 6 percent and taking advantage of the tax laws that allow a dividend to be issued. Has he had time to talk to the financial institutions to see whether they would put in place preferred shares rather than loans, which mean a 5 or 6 percent interest rate? MR. JOHNSTON: Mr.

Speaker, I don't want to debate fundamentals of finance, but it's my recollection that if it's a dividend and you pay a return to the borrower by way of dividend, it's not deductible for tax purposes. Although we're not encouraging the farming community to incur losses, I would suspect that they would rather have the deduction than have a dividend payment. Federal Farm Credit Review DR. WEST: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to address a question to the hon. Minister of Agriculture.

How does the federal farm debt review board's projected plans relate to Alberta agriculture, our farmers' position, and this government's present direction? MR. ELZINGA: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the federal farm credit review board, let me share with the hon. Member for Vermilion-Viking that we as a government are in favour of anything that is beneficial to the farming population.

We haven't seen all the final details or the final thrust that the federal Agriculture minister would like to take, but we do have some concerns in that in the event that it does go too far, it could inhibit credit availability to our agricultural sector, and we wish to put that one concern forward. DR. WEST: A supplementary. Does this review board intrude on any provincial jurisdictions or agencies such as the Agricultural Development Corporation? MR. ELZINGA: In responding to the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, let me indicate that we are presently assessing that.

But I would like to underscore that presently we, within our provincial jurisdiction, do have enterprise coun selling through ADC, plus we do have counselling services through our department, so that in the event that the farming population does face difficulties, we do offer expert coun selling to help them relieve themselves of these difficulties. Secondary Education MS LAING: Mr. Speaker, Wednesday last the Minister of Education told us that she wants to be very comfortable with all matters raised by the public before putting a new School Act before the Assembly.

I want to ask the minister whether she is taking the same careful approach with implementation of the secondary education policy, and will she be reviewing the deadlines in the action plan published this January? MRS. BETKOWSKI: In answer to the first question, Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes. I think it's important to note that on the secondary policy implementation, in terms of its effect on the program this fall with students and teachers, there are only two changes taking place. One is to move the passing grade for grade 7 and above from 40 percent to 50 percent.

The second change is to move away from B options, which are deemed to be less important than the other optional subjects that are currently in place. So yes, I will certainly be careful and am reviewing the imple mentation, but those two changes I do support, and they will go through this fall. MS LAING: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. In view of the fact that the minister will be reviewing the secondary education policy, I'm wondering if she will be looking into the public concerns that have been produced in the early streaming of students based on achievement rather than ability.

What safeguards can the minister outline which will protect against this? MRS. BETKOWSKI: Mr. Speaker, I share some concerns about the streamlining in terms of the way it's been described to me by representatives of the public. I'm certainly looking at the matter. I intend to appoint a public advisory committee made up of major groups within the education process in Alberta, including teachers and trustees and members of the public, to ensure that that implementation moves along well as we proceed with the 10-year program that's already outlined for it. MS LAING: A supplementary.

The department's required component of courses will be 80 percent, according to the

192 ALBERTA HANSARD June 24, 1986 secondary education action plan. Will the minister be looking into what reasons the department has concluded that local teachers and jurisdictions must be so limited in determining what is needed by their students? MRS. BETKOWSKI: Mr. Speaker, I believe there's a very strong mandate for the implementation of the new basics program, which is basically what the hon. member is asking. Those basics require that the core subjects, as they're called, receive 80 percent of the time. I support that, and I think it's a very important part of the secondary policy committee. MS LAING: Mr.

Speaker, the April Speech from the Throne indicates that the secondary education policy will put greater emphasis upon the mastery of attitudes. Would the minister assure us what process will be used to determine the attitudes which will be required and the mechanisms used to evaluate whether a student has mastered these attitudes? MRS. BETKOWSKI: Mr. Speaker, that subject is one that I intend to have the policy implementation committee look at very carefully, and I believe they will do an important review of all the matters raised by the hon. member. MR. SPEAKER: The hon.

Member for Ponoka Rimbey, a supplementary on this issue? MR. JONSON: I'll pass for the moment, Mr. Speaker. ACCESS MR. GOGO: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Technology, Research and Telecommunications. It con cerns ACCESS, the Alberta Educational Communications Corporation. I've been informed that the regional office of ACCESS in Lethbridge is being closed. If this is true, could the minister advise the Assembly as to why? MR. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon. Member for Lethbridge West, there were originally four regional offices of ACCESS.

They were primarily for the purpose of assisting teachers directly in schools by showing them the various technologies and products that were available. One was closed almost two years ago. The other three are being closed in August. They are being closed following a survey of teachers that was done, which apparently showed that about 75 percent of those responding reported that they were now able to get the same kind of information and assistance directly through their school boards.

I think it's an acknowledgment of the substantial change which has occurred in the type of teaching resources which have become very generally available on a local basis and has made this service no longer necessary. I should indicate that two phone numbers have been established for the public and for the use of teachers. They are 1-800 numbers, so there is no charge, unlike the 1-900 numbers for which there is a charge to the customer. MR. GOGO: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. For 14 or 15 years ACCESS came under the aegis of either the Department of Education or Advanced Education.

It's now under a new portfolio, technology. Could I ask the minister whether this indicates a shift in priorities of ACCESS and the role of ACCESS from one of education to one of technology or broadcasting in Alberta? MR. YOUNG: Not really, Mr. Speaker. The ACCESS board has on it representatives of educators and in addition has a special panel — I guess one could call it a panel or a committee — of educators who identify priorities in terms of the materials they would like to have produced or resources they would like to have available. That is very closely considered.

I think there is a very, very strong and close direction to educators. MR. GOGO: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker, if I may. I believe it was January '85 when ACCESS launched a major television network across the province in terms of content. Is the government or the minister giving any consideration that the very intelligent debates in this Legislative Assembly be broadcast through Alberta via the ACCESS network? MR. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure I heard the complete question. I missed a few words when I was trying to listen to the hon. Member for Lethbridge West.

However, I do recall that there was indeed a review of the cost of televising the deliberations and pronouncements of this august Assembly and that it appeared to be a very expensive undertaking. That's the reason it was not done at the time, as I recall. I would be quite pleased to have the situation reviewed, if that is a high priority of this Assembly. MR. GOGO: If I could just throw it in, I don't know whether it's a high priority of this Assembly, but I think it should be a high priority of the government to see that Albertans are well informed as to deliberations of this House. Natural Gas Deregulation MR.

CHUMIR: Mr. Speaker, a question to the hon. Minister of Energy. The government agreed in the Western Accord to total gas deregulation, which means a free market between buyer and seller. Would the minister not agree that it is a built-in and fundamental exception to total gas deregulation where a 15-year supply of gas is required to be reserved for Canadian use so that it can't be sold into the competing United States market? DR. WEBBER: Mr.

Speaker, with respect to the decision of the National Energy Board to come up with what I believe the hon. member is referring to, the 15 — which is a ratio between reserves and production — as opposed to having a 25-year surplus test previously, there has been concern expressed in the industry that the new ruling of the National Energy Board is such that they have some real concerns about it, particularly when the reserves are cal culated differently than what the previous situation was. It was expected that the National Energy Board would be looking at forecasted reserves.

So, in fact, the ratio of 15 might turn out to be the equivalent of 21 or 22 years under the previous test. That particular concern has been raised by a number of people. It's a concern that we have and one we intend to follow up on. MR. SPEAKER: Not another question of opinion, please. A supplementary. MR. CHUMIR: I also have been hearing concerns from the oil and gas industry about the effects of deregulation. Does the 15-year surplus supply not mean that Alberta gas producers get all the disadvantages of low prices when there

June 24, 1986 ALBERTA HANSARD 193 is oversupply and none of the benefits of higher prices when there is a shortage of supply because of the lack of competition into the United States market? DR. WEBBER: What was the question the hon. member had? He made a statement, but I didn't hear a question. MR. SPEAKER: Agreed. Next supplementary, please. MR. CHUMIR: Why did the government agree, if there is unhappiness amongst the oil and gas industry with respect to the requirement to have a reserve of natural gas for Canadian supplies?

If this affects the total free market, which was supposedly agreed to under the Western Accord, why did the government enter into such an arrangement under the Western Accord, if that does not reflect the free- market system? DR. WEBBER: Mr. Speaker, the U.S. market is what the producers in this country want to have access to. The industry and both levels of government, in entering into the agreement, wanted the same objective. As the hon. member knows, we've had a surplus and have a bubble of gas supply in the United States, and the market conditions at the present time are much lower than they were in the past.

It is anticipated that when the bubble works its way through the system, we'll have higher prices in the United States. So we want to have access to that market. In the process of deregulation that was the objective. We have a number of steps to accomplish before we will be satisfied that deregulation will work. We've had a couple of decisions from the National Energy Board, one on the surplus tests and the recent one with respect to the take- or-pay provisions. Our own ERCB will be having hearings related to the surplus tests as well.

So we have a number of steps to follow up on, but we are still looking at November 1 as the date of implementation, recognizing that we want to make sure that Alberta producers are not going to be disadvantaged because of the regulation. MR. CHUMIR: The government wanted access, and the industry wanted access to the U.S. markets. Nobody is happy with the National Energy Board's decision. Oil and gas prices are collapsing. Why is the government not ready to ask for a delay in deregulation of gas prices, as was suggested by former Premier Lougheed, who was one of the authors of the Western Accord? DR. WEBBER: Mr.

Speaker, certainly there are those who are suggesting that we do delay beyond the date of November 1. There are also a number of people in the industry, including some of the umbrella organizations, who are saying that we should proceed to work towards that date and, if we can't accomplish what we want to accomplish by that date, for us to consider moving beyond that deadline. I intend to have discussions with my provincial colleagues in Saskatchewan and British Columbia and also the federal minister to assess the situation and then decide whether or not we should proceed at that time or delay. MR. PASHAK: Mr.

Speaker, supplementary to the Minister of Energy. In this deregulated environment, what specific steps does the minister intend to take to ensure that the vital interests of Alberta gas consumers, homeowners, and the petrochemical industry are protected? DR. WEBBER: Mr. Speaker, in terms of who the member wants to consider, is it the Alberta consumers? Is it the producers? In the province of Alberta, we have an unre gulated market, in terms that sales can be made and purchases can be made in Alberta. Agreements can be reached between the producers and the consumers.

That's the whole intent of deregulation, so that we can have a marketplace, so that people can look around for the best deals possible. Calgary General Hospital MRS. MIROSH: Mr. Speaker, to the hon. Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care. I would like to ask a question in regard to the present status of the upgrading of the Calgary General hospital. MR. M. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, in early 1984 the government granted approval for Calgary General hospital to plan for a capital project that would substantially upgrade the existing hospital.

I believe it was in January 1985 that it was indicated to the hospital that that project should be contained within limits of $100 million for the total upgrading. The board of the Calgary General hospital in March of this year submitted the parameters of their project to the Department of Hospitals and Medical Care, with an indication that the total project would cost in the neighborhood of $140 million. That total project as was submitted then is currently under review by officials in my department. MRS. MIROSH: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. When will this review be completed? MR. M. MOORE: Mr.

Speaker, I would expect that the review would be completed by the end of August. Fort Saskatchewan Correctional Centre DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address my question to the Solicitor General and ask if he's had the opportunity to find out why a $600,000 tender was let for renovations for the old Fort institution, in light of the fact that we're building a new $44 million correctional institution in Fort Saskatchewan? MR. ROSTAD: Mr. Speaker, I should have been more adept yesterday at referring the hon. member to the Minister of Public Works, Supply and Services, who has jurisdiction on tendering.

If I may, he may wish to respond to it now. MR. ISLEY: Mr. Speaker, the $609,000-plus contract that the hon. member is referring to is a contract that was awarded in February 1986. It will be completed in August of 1986. The purpose is to comply with the fire marshall's requirement on the existing institution and some building code requirements so that we can continue to operate the facility safely for at least two years. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister.

Can the minister of public works indicate what consultation took place between the minister's department and the citizens of Fort Saskatchewan as to the selection of the site of the new institution? MR. ISLEY: Mr. Speaker, consultations took place between the Department of Public Works, Supply and Services and, of course, the Department of the Solicitor General, that we

194 ALBERTA HANSARD June 24, 1986 were doing the project for. Consultations also occurred between those two parties and the elected representatives of the city of Fort Saskatchewan. Public hearings were conducted on the development permit by the city of Fort Saskatchewan. So as near as I can determine, there was full opportunity for input. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, to the minister. Can the minister indicate what the future is of the present institution when the institution is vacated to move into the new area? What will become of that property at the present site? MR. ISLEY: Mr.

Speaker, that has not yet been finalized. The city of Fort Saskatchewan has expressed an interest in the land on which the existing institution is located. Dis cussions have been occurring between officials of the city and members of my department. I have a meeting at 7:30 tomorrow morning with the mayor of Fort Saskatchewan and some of his official staff dealing with that exact matter. MR. TAYLOR: A supplemental, Mr. Speaker. Is the min ister actually going to go ahead with that cost to taxpayers' money, in view of the fact that the constituency did not vote for a government member? MR.

SPEAKER: The time for the question period has expired. ORDERS OF THE DAY head: WRITTEN QUESTIONS 137. Mr.

Fox asked the government the following question: With regard to foreclosure actions undertaken by or on behalf of the Alberta Agricultural Development Corporation against Albertans in each of the fiscal years 1982-83, 1983- 84, 1984-85, and 1985-86, what was (1) the number of such actions commenced, (2) the number of such actions that reached the stage of solicitor's formal demand for payment, (3) the number of such actions that reached the final order stage, and (4) the number of such actions in process on the last day of the fiscal year? MR. HORSMAN: Mr.

Speaker, the government will accept question 137, and I would move that question 132 and Motion for a Return 145 stand and retain their places on the Order Paper. [Motion carried] MR. SPEAKER: Could we ask for a bit of order in the press gallery, please. Thank you very much. head: MOTIONS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT MOTIONS 203. Moved by Mrs. Koper:

Be it resolved that the government investigate ways to encourage private businesses, in conjunction with their employees, to establish employer-supported child care centres. [Adjourned debate June 17: Mrs. Koper] MRS. KOPER: Mr. Speaker, in resuming debate on Motion 203, I would like to briefly review what has been previously said on the topic of employer-supported child care. The need for quality care was first examined and is based on the increased participation of women in the work force actually making career choices to stay working. As well, the structure of the family in our society has drastically changed.

Only 13 percent of families in Alberta are composed of husband and wife teams with only the male being the breadwinner; 52 percent of families receiving income had both the husband and wife working. MR. SPEAKER: Excuse me, hon. member. Members of the Assembly and persons in the galleries, could I ask you, please, to turn down the volume and be more quiet so that we could give the member the attention she deserves. Thank you. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, on the point that you've raised. I remember that in Members' Services we were discussing the upgrading of the sound system. Either I am getting deafer, Mr.

Speaker, or you're getting deafer or the members are not speaking as loudly as they should be, because the system seems to be grinding down, not going up. I don't know if it's a technical problem or if we're not speaking into the microphone. MR. SPEAKER: Or we're all aging rapidly together. MRS. KOPER: Mr. Speaker, I shall try to speak more directly into the microphone. When I left off, I had mentioned that 52 percent of families receiving income had husbands and wives both working.

In addition, the fastest growing segment of the work force in Alberta is mothers of preschool children, 63 percent of working women in Alberta. As women return to the work force, employers are becoming far more aware of their potential to contribute to the quality of their employ ees' lives. Furthermore, consideration of their employees and their family problems is beginning to have an impact in the area of management and productivity in businesses.

It was also noted formerly that there were gaps in the present delivery system of child care services; for example, many parents work shift work and need some flexibility in hours. There is the problem of when children are sick and need extra care at home. Accessibility to child care centres was mentioned and, for very young children, places either near the work place or near the home. So the need does exist for counselling and information for parents so they make wise choices in where their children are cared for.

The terms "employer-supported day care" or "work- related day care" describe a broad range of programs that may be made available by an employer to employees only or to employees and the families in the community and may be defined as the following: a program established by and/or having some ongoing involvement with a sponsoring employer or employee group for the purpose of meeting the child care needs of parents in the employ of the sponsor. Mr.

Speaker, employer-supported child care measures can take on forms other than group child care and on-site care and may vary all the way from an employer offering purely moral and counselling support to employees for the idea, to centres that are totally funded by the employer.

June 24, 1986 ALBERTA HANSARD 195 Most work-related child care programs in Canada are delivered through group child care centres at or near the work place, and this can best be described as on-site care. Employers provide capital costs or space and work with employees to generate the program, and basically the facil ities that meet day care regulations are supplied by the employer. A good example is in Edmonton, where the Canada Place Child Care Society is planning to open a day care centre in Canada Place.

The space has been provided, and with grants and employee contributions this society will offer a program very close to us here in the Legislature. However, parents may not want or need a service in the work place nearly as much as they need help in finding, selecting, or paying for child care in the community. In 1984 there were only 17 employer-supported programs in all of Canada, and they basically represented 3 percent of the licensed child care spaces available.

As I pointed out before, most of them occur in health care institutions or educational institutions and are operated at arm's length by a society, with very heavy involvement of the parents. Very few are associated in any way with private corporations. Sizes vary from 15 to 80 children. The common factor is that the occupancy rate is very high. In Alberta two work-related day care centres presently exist, one of them in Calgary at Bethany Care Centre and the other in the Edmonton Hospital Workers' Child Care Centre. Both report a high degree of satisfaction from both employers and users of the centres.

The Edmonton Hospital Workers' Child Care Centre has not only established a centre caring for the children of employees that work in health care institutions and the community surrounding; they have also established a network of family day homes all over the city so that parents can leave their children in family-like settings close to their own homes. The society also has gone even further and provided training to these day home workers, Mr. Speaker, to ensure the quality of care given to children enrolled in the program.

A study done on these health-related day cares in Alberta found that while management was not particularly aware of any benefits as to productivity, the employees found that the program was highly important for their continued employ ment. They reported less stress and greater happiness with working hours. Although supervisors didn't notice the change, the employees felt that they were far more productive because they weren't worried about their child's safety and they were close to them. The parent employees were one hundred percent satisfied with the program and definitely would use it. Mr.

Speaker and hon. members, one knows that there are benefits that can accrue to children, to their families, and to employers when such a co-operative project . . . There are other means of encouraging such employer- supported child care that basically copy models. One of them copies a model used in the United States; that is, new tax incentives could be encouraged which would allow the employer to include approved child care to the employee as a benefit.

With a work force composed of single parents, older people, younger people, two-earner families, single women, and single men, trying to satisfy that wide range of workers with a traditional set of benefits is almost impossible. So to the core benefit programs of health insurance, life insurance, disability insurance, employment insurance, the vacation package, and pensions, we could consider other perks. Some are commonly given now, such as holiday vacations. What was the other one I was thinking about? Profit sharing and how employers use unused vacation days.

The cost of day care could be considered as a requisite for doing business, and child care could become a deductible expense for either employer or employee. Another alternative could be for a business or a corporation to negotiate a discount with child care centres throughout the city and provide a greater choice of locations throughout the province for parents in placing their children. There is a voucher program that could operate where the employer subsidizes day care in the way expense accounts and accom modation have long been paid for by businesses. Mr.

Speaker, employer participation may be as simple as counselling; it may get more complicated, to capital cost, space. It could be incorporated into the tax plan. There are many other possibilities too, and I hope they will be considered in the debate. But the most essential ingredient is to ensure the quality of child care.

In this regard I would like to table three documents that I believe are important information for all hon. members and for parents in general in discussing the issues of day care: first of all, the day care regulations under the Social Care Facilities Licensing Act; a day care fact sheet that tells exactly what the support of the province is to day care; and a parents' guide to choosing a day care. I feel these are important tools in ensuring the quality of the care.

This government has made a deep commitment to ensure that Albertans and their families needing child care have care that is accessible and affordable for their children. I would ask all hon. members to please consider this motion and think of creative alternatives whereby employers and their employees can be introduced to programs that may meet the needs of working parents in a better way. MS LAING: I would like to speak to this motion, Mr. Speaker.

I welcome the recognition of the need for day care and, in some cases, for on-site day care, particularly for young children, so that the mother/child bond can in fact be maintained. For instance, if a mother with a young child is nursing the infant, that can continue. I think that is a very worth while and laudable recognition of the mother/ child bond and the need to maintain that. I would be concerned, however, that some of the caring for the child would not then mean that standards or the amount of staff present would be reduced.

I think it is very important that the mother would be there in a support role in order to maintain the relationship with the child. I am concerned that these may be considered private, profit- making enterprises. My reading of the research is that some profit-making day cares are in fact excellent, but the prob ability that they are excellent is less high than those that are nonprofit. Therefore, I have real concerns about the privatization or the profit-making side of this. I'm also concerned that subsidies or tax dollars would be used to maintain profits in that area.

I think we must be sure that if it is required or suggested that employers must have day care facilities on site, they [do not] in fact then turn away from hiring women with children. Again, that is a concern I would have. Thank you. MR. PAYNE: I must admit, Mr. Speaker, that my initial intention as I approached this motion was to do so from the perspective of what's best for the children.

I suspect that a good number of our members who will be participating in this motion debate today will approach it from that perspective, and I appreciate that all of our members would in all likelihood regard that perspective as the priority.

196 ALBERTA HANSARD June 24, 1986 There is one other perspective that I'd like to make a few comments on, Mr. Speaker, and that's what the impli cations of this motion are for business in Alberta. However, before doing so, I want to express my extreme disappoint ment at remarks made in the Assembly in recent days by the opposition with respect to day care standards in Alberta. For the record, I would like to state in the simplest but firmest terms possible that in the vitally important area of day care standards, this province is indisputably the leader in this nation.

Might I add that our opposition members would be well advised to reconsider their knee-jerk and regrettably predictable response to our day care achieve ments. Regrettably, Mr. Speaker, time doesn't permit an exhaus tive overview of those achievements, but let me cite a few for the record. First, Alberta has 48 percent more day care centre spaces per capita than Manitoba, its closest rival, and 87 percent more than Ontario. Second, Alberta has more child care spaces on Indian reserves than any other province in Canada except Ontario.

Third, Alberta's child/ staff ratios are among the best in Canada; only British Columbia has child/staff ratio requirements which in general are stricter than those in Alberta. Fourth, Alberta unques tionably has the strictest group size requirements in Canada. Fifth, Alberta's per capita day care spending is higher than that of any province except Quebec. Sixth, the cost to parents for day care is lower than that in most other provinces. Mr.

Speaker, I wish I had more time and perhaps another forum to elaborate on this admittedly brief but impressive list, but I hope I have made the point that no one on either side of this House need be ashamed or embarrassed about this province's day care standards. They're the best in the country. Mr. Speaker, I'd now like to return to the perspective I mentioned earlier; that is, the implications of on-site day care centres for business in Alberta. In all candour, coming from a fairly right-wing riding and a fairly right-wing background, I initially approached my research with some skepticism.

Frankly, from my preliminary research it would appear that the implications for business in Alberta are positive with respect to on-site day care centres. First of all, what's the trend? The best data I could get is from the United States, but I think the trends there in all likelihood are being paralleled here in Canada. In 1978 — and these are United States statistics — there were only 100 business organizations involved with day care. Some six years later, in 1984, that number had grown to 1,500, and according to a recent issue of Harvard Business Review, there are now 2,500.

If you were to plot that trend, that curve on a graph, I'm sure you would appreciate that it's going practically straight up. Why? There is a growing body of evidence that company-sponsored day care pays off in a number of benefits that affect the balance sheet positively. As mentioned last week by the sponsor of this motion, the Member for Calgary Foothills, a study of the Texas Woman's University showed that a $50,000 investment in a day care program on site can save some $3 million in employee turnover, training, and lost work time.

At Nylon- craft Inc., a 450-employee company in Indiana, 85 percent of the employees are women, most of them single parents with young children. After implementing an on-site day care centre, Nyloncraft realized improved morale, absenteeism declined to an extremely low 3 percent, and turnover was substantially reduced. Nyloncraft discovered that its child care centre produced an unexpected benefit: it helped sell the company to potential customers who were visibly impressed with Nyloncraft's progressive approach to the day care issue. Continuing the theme of what the implications for business are, Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to refer to a study in 1980 by the Women's Bureau of the United States Department of Labor. The report indicated the results of a nationwide survey of employer-sponsored child care centres. Again, because of the limited time available, I can only skim across the highlights of that report, but there were six conclusions that I would like to share with the members of the Assembly today. First, there was an increased ability on behalf of those sponsoring employers to attract employees.

Prospective employees, those in the job market, simply felt that those kinds of establishments were better places to work even if it meant a lower wage or salary. Two, lower absenteeism; three, improved employee attitudes toward their work; four, favourable public relations or publicity to the employer; a lower job turnover rate; and improved community relations. Mr. Speaker, perhaps it might be useful to you and to the members in the Chamber this afternoon to point out that there is quite a range of employer-supported day care options available to employers.

First, the obvious one of course is to provide day care privately at the worksite wherein a commercial operator provides day care which is financially and administratively independent of the employer; secondly, a private day care centre near but not actually at the worksite; third, a workers' fund, to which the sponsoring member alluded earlier today, to provide child care — a number of organizations have done that quite successfully; fourth, a day care counsellor in the workplace assists employers in locating child care services; five, employer cash allowances for child care — the employer offers regular cash allowances to employees with children to offset the cost of their day care arrangements; six, work-related family child care in which the employer organizes supervised family day care homes to accommodate employee needs; seven, a voucher system is one possibility wherein the employer purchases vouchers from a day care centre and issues them to employees on varying criteria; and eight, industrial family care workers, in which employers hire care-givers who are available to go into the home of an employee who requires short-term or emergency child care.

Mr. Speaker, I'm not suggesting for a moment that that's an exhaustive list, but I think it is sufficient to indicate to all the members today that there really is a wide range of options available to those employers who indeed detect this balance sheet and/or humanitarian benefit and decide to proceed with one or more of these options. The motion reads:

Be it resolved that the government investigate ways to encourage private businesses . . . to establish employer- supported child care centres. I will leave to the sponsor — perhaps in her concluding remarks — and to other members ways in which government can do so. But one that I would like to make a fleeting reference to, Mr. Speaker, is to explore possible tax incen tives for employers who support work-related day care. Such incentives could cover relief from property tax to special credits for capital and operating expenditures.

These might apply whether the employer support is directly to a company department or through the establishment of a nonprofit entity, to which would permit greater involvement by parents.

June 24, 1986 ALBERTA HANSARD 197 Once again and in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge that obviously the most important perspective in evaluating this motion, or indeed evaluating any child care-related motion, is the perspective of what's best for the children. There are of course many perspectives from which to evaluate the motion, but from the perspective of business alone I am more than prepared to add my support to this excellent motion. Thank you. MS MJOLSNESS: I stand, Mr. Speaker, to debate this motion and to point out some of the concerns I have with it.

Before I do so, I'd like to comment on something that the Member for Calgary Fish Creek has said. I would ask him to read any documents put out by any organization or agency that has any dealings with day care, and he will find among his readings that Alberta does not, in fact, have outstanding day care standards; we happen to have the lowest standards in Canada.

I can appreciate and understand the difficulties that the Member for Calgary Foothills experienced as a working mother, and I commend her for being so concerned with the whole area of day care and for putting forth some very excellent information in regard to day care. I'm deeply moved by the fact that so many members from across the floor are so concerned about what's best for our children. The member has recognized the importance of quality day care by stating how important it is in the early years that we give our children adequate care.

After all, of course, this a time when children develop a personality and a sense of self-worth, and we set the foundations for them to become well-adjusted, trusting individuals. We seem to agree on all of this, among other things, and we recognize the importance of quality day care; yet the Member for Calgary Foothills spoke out against the Bill presented to this Assembly that would guarantee that high- quality care to every child placed in a centre. This, quite frankly, confuses me and is my whole concern with this particular motion.

It seems to me that this government does not support the notion of guaranteed quality care for our children and parents, yet they are entertaining a motion to move into new areas of child care. It is all fine and wonderful to seem progressive and caring and suggest that we investigate new alternatives to day care in addition to what already exists. However, I caution this Assembly that before we start investigating additional options to child care, we must recognize and accept the weaknesses that now exist in our present system and work toward correcting them.

It's only after we do this that we should investigate new areas of day care. If we neglect to do this and subsequently start moving into new areas of day care, I'm afraid that the weaknesses now present in our system will simply be transferred into these new centres and consequently we will have less adequate day care than we have now. Many of us in this Assembly have expressed some very serious concerns with the current day care system in Alberta.

We're concerned about the lack of training for staff, the space allocations for our children in these day care centres, and the total environment that they're exposed to. Is that child being intellectually and emotionally stimulated? Are that child's individual and special needs being met? Yes, we're also concerned about the high percentage of private day care centres. We happen to have the highest percentage in Canada right now. True, there are some excellent private day care centres; no one is arguing that fact.

But when a province has a majority of day cares in the hands of private operators, then profit becomes the number one motivator When profit is the number one motivator, our children become a commodity. We have had several members from across this Assembly bragging about how many millions of dollars they pour into day care. I'd like to know where the majority of this money is going. Is it in fact being utilized to improve the day care centres, or is it merely going into the pockets of the private day care operators? Also, is the money being utilized to benefit our children in those particular day care centres?

I think that when you have profit as the number one motivator, the children in that particular facility become secondary and the overall quality care of those children also becomes secondary in many cases. I'd like to remind members that day care is not and should not be a business; it's a social and educational service that we provide to our children.

So with these concerns in mind, I must reiterate the fact that before we move into new areas of day care — although I do realize that we must expand our child care centres to meet the needs of those who, for example, work shift work or weekends or whatever — before we investigate new areas of child care, I urge the government to first raise the calibre of the day care we have right now in the province. The final point that I'd like to make pertains to one portion of the motion: that the government investigate ways to encourage private businesses . . . to establish employer-supported child care centres.

If the government is going to investigate the whole area of private business getting into day care and establishing day care centres, I wonder why the public sector would not have been included in this motion. We know that a large portion of the population in Alberta works for either the federal or provincial governments, and these people should not be ignored in the Bill, as it intends to do. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I ask the Assembly to consider strongly the concerns that I've raised.

Although I don't disagree totally with this motion and in moving into new areas of day care, I think it's imperative that we raise the level of quality of day care before we move into any other day cares. Thank you. MRS. HEWES: Mr. Speaker, I'm always pleased to see the initiatives of members of this House to promote improved child care in Alberta. Last week I spoke at some length in support of a Bill that was introduced in regard to standards. I won't repeat myself on much of that, and I do accept the fact that this province spends more money than most in day care services. That's a matter of record.

I must say, Mr. Speaker, that it has not been my experience that Alberta in any way is a leader in child care standards. I mentioned the other day that we have recently had a federal day care commission touring our country. We should all look forward with interest to the report of that com mission, because I think it will reveal some of the frailties and shortfalls in what is happening in this province and in other provinces relative to the care of children who, we have to remember, are a very vulnerable clientele.

There is an urgent need to change and improve the standards in this province, and that has been attested to in many different ways by different organizations and groups. When the province first got very strongly into the business of day care, they appointed a commission under Dr. Myer

198 ALBERTA HANSARD June 24, 1986 Horowitz to investigate what was needed, and Dr. Horowitz with some very important colleagues did an excellent study. The province did not agree with the recommendations and put in place recommendations that were quite different. I don't comprehend, Mr. Speaker, why they bothered with the commission under those circumstances, but that in fact is what happened. That commission and others since then have stressed the need for training for child care workers.

We do have in our province a number of excellent training centres for child care, but this has not appeared to convince the government or the department that the child care workers' training standards are insufficient in Alberta. [Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair] The child/staff ratio also comes under considerable scru tiny. There is no question about the problem of account ability, particularly in centres that are operated for a profit. They are not required to account to anyone as to their bookkeeping.

A private, nonprofit centre, on the other hand, does in fact have a community board, and the staff and the bookkeepers must account to them and that community board to the family and community support services in the municipality as to how the money is spent, what the relative pay scales of the workers are, and what their training is. In addition, Mr. Speaker, we have the problem of mon itoring of child care centres by other than consumers. I think we should remember that when parents visit they go twice a day.

They go once in the morning to leave the child and once in the afternoon or evening to pick up the child. I'm not sure how many centres would welcome 30 or 40 parents dropping in throughout the day. I suppose we're going to find that out. But that monitoring by parents is a very cursory one at best. The parent is in a hurry. Often there are other children waiting. I believe there needs to be a very stringent system of accountability for how the immense subsidies that we make, how the money is spent, and the monitoring of the actual care of the children by professional people other than parents. Mr.

Speaker, some years ago the hon. Member from Taber-Warner introduced a plan — I'm sorry he's not in the House, because I think it was an important one — to increase over time the staff training of child care workers currently occupied in day care. I thought this was a very good and important program. It was going to allow private, for-profit centres to increase the training of their staff and yet not handicap them in any way. For some inexplicable reason that important idea and important proposal, which could have been accommodated, was discontinued.

Hopefully the review of standards will take place, as it is urgently needed in this province. There are municipalities all across Alberta that have begged the province to do it, and I hope they will respond to that. A couple of words of caution, Mr. Speaker. I do believe that parents need options as to where they place their child, in what type of centre, and to be sure, it might be more convenient and easier for the parent to visit if the child were in a day care centre close to the parents' place of work.

But we must also remember that the majority of parents who have their children in day care live on the periphery of our municipalities and they should have appro priate choices. They may not choose to take a small child, usually on public transit, for a half or three-quarter hour trip in the morning and a half or three-quarter hour trip at night in rush hour. I believe that while the idea of day care centres at the place of employment is a good one, we still have to keep the options open for parents as to which is more convenient and safest for their child.

We also need to work with our municipalities who, through zoning bylaws, bonusing, and development permits, can give incentives to builders and developers, people in construction, to put day care centres in at the point of design. This allows much more leeway and flexibility as to the placement of the centre to provide that there will be outdoor play space rather than a dozen or more little children linked together with a rope going off on their outing, as we sometimes see.

I believe it's important to work with muni cipalities, and I would hope that that is part of the proposal that we see here, because I think municipalities would co operate in this regard. I think it's also important to work with developers, to offer them incentives to place these kinds of centres within their developments. Mr. Speaker, just a final word.

I would hope that in studying this important resolution the government will deter mine the numbers of workers in government, wherever they work, who use or need or could make use of day care services, and I would further hope that if we are going to encourage employers in this regard, the government shows leadership by building in a day care centre here and in other places of employment where large numbers of parents have indicated that they have use of such a centre.

I think this kind of leadership on the part of the government would indeed pave the way for many other private owners and employers to do the same thing. MR. McEACHERN: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a few comments in this debate. I think that the motion has some merit. I have some reservations about it. I would like to first compliment the Member for Calgary Fish Creek on the great variety of suggestions he brings forward, because I certainly think we should consider all the possible angles. In fact, there's no need to necessarily choose one and then stay with that entirely.

As the previous speaker said, we can maybe have several alternatives that offer people many alternatives. The Member for Calgary Fish Creek, however, did fall into the trap that the government has a tendency to do in this province, and that is to quote some statistics and some dollar numbers and say, "Because we do this and because we do that we are first in this, this, and this." I would just like to mention in that context that sometimes that ends up sounding a little foolish, like a former minister of hospitals in this government that bragged that in Alberta we have the lowest medicare premiums in the country.

Well, we do if you count that only three provinces have medical premiums and ours happens to be the lowest, but we have seven with zero premiums. That is the absurdity to which sometimes we go to be always first and best when, in fact, maybe a lot of dollars doesn't necessarily always make for the best system. It depends on how they're spent and how much caring goes with those dollars. One of the basic things that bothers me a little bit about getting into this area of employer and employee agreed- upon centres is the lack of universality.

For example, we do not in our education system — I'm a teacher, and I understand and appreciate that we have a universal education system for all people from age six to 16. Is there any reason why we should stop and accept anything less for people from a few months old to five or six years old, when in fact, as my colleague from Edmonton Avonmore pointed out, that is the most crucial time in the growth and the development of a human being? While we may have a

June 24, 1986 ALBERTA HANSARD 199 variety of flexibilities within a system, it does seem to me very important that it be universal and that it encompass day care centres for everyone. Your day care proposal would not quite do that. Of course, I realize you're adding it on to what we've got. Even so, the hodgepodge of the two would not necessarily guarantee that. In conclusion, I would like to say that, yes, we need to talk about what is best for children but, please, what is best for all children. Look at the whole society, not just some of those children. MR. MUSGREAVE: Mr.

Speaker, I hesitate to get into this debate, because I've heard so many half-statements, half-truths, and generalizations that I must confess I could not retain my temper to get up and speak coherently. First of all, however, I'd like to point out that when I was an alderman in the city of Calgary and a member of Pleasant Heights United Church, it was indicated to me that there was a great lack of day care centres in the city of Calgary. So under our social service community development program, we encouraged certain agencies throughout the city to set up private day care centres.

These were nonprofit centres, and the one I was involved in involved such churches as the Catholics, the Presbyterians, and the Baptists on the north hill of the city of Calgary. I'd just like to read a statement from our director of that centre, who I point out has been the same director for 16 years. She has 48 places; she has a waiting list for fall enrollment. Her comment was that "Day care standards have been greatly improved over the past 16 years." She does point out that it would be advantageous to have better training for workers.

In our particular centre we use people who have been through the two-year program at Mount Royal College. I would point out to the members that perhaps the reason we don't have universal day care is that our society is not ready to accept it. If I listened to the comments the various members made, I would suggest that my wife, who raised four children, is not qualified in your eyes. The reason she's not qualified is that she only has a grade 12 education. Obviously she's not equipped to be a good mother, according to your standards. I agree that statistics can be used to present whatever case you want to make.

That's why I'd like to point out some statistics that I'm not going to use. I have several day care centres in my constituency, and I've represented it now for 11 years. Mr. Speaker, in my constituency I also have one beautiful centre erected by the city of Calgary, and it's run by the Canadian Union of Public Employees. Of all the day care centres in my constituency, in 11 years I've never had one complaint from one mother or one father about the care in any centre, except the one the Canadian Union of Public Employees runs.

The only complaint I've had from that one, though, is that the director is unhappy with the various forms and requirements that have to be fulfilled in order to make sure that the public's money is being spent wisely. I would suggest that if the standards are as deplorable as some of the members opposite try to imply, surely in that period of time I would have heard from someone. But I have heard from no one, and I don't have an unlisted phone number. My name is in the phone book, and there are two numbers. I'm available, and I also have an answering service.

So there's no excuse for anybody saying they could not contact me. To deal with the motion, Mr. Speaker, I have some problems with the motion. In our last election campaign this party said that one of the objectives we had was less government, less involvement in people's affairs. I would suggest that this motion hardly suggests that. Then I'd like to ask the question: how do you encourage employers? Do you go to an employer and say, "It's a good idea, it might cost you money, it's going to make your work force happier, it will make them more productive, and it may even save you money"?

I think we're going to have some difficulties with that. As the Member for Edmonton Gold Bar suggested, maybe we should have tax incentives. I think one of the problems we have in this country is that we have too many tax incentives and not enough people paying their bills. We have a huge deficit. AN HON. MEMBER: Developed by the Liberals. MR. MUSGREAVE: It doesn't matter who it was developed by. The important thing is that Canadian citizens are prepared to live with it, and many of us seem to want to make it larger. I have some difficulties with the suggestion of the member, though, for other reasons.

Some members have already raised it: the problem of access to the workplace by outside contacts; for example, your health inspectors or your welfare or child care inspectors who have to come. Problems of getting to workplaces with young children have been raised, and parking or hanging on straps in a LRT system or buses. You have the baby in one hand and lunch in the other. I remember that I used to ride to work on the bus for 25 years. When I was down at city hall saying that everybody should use public transit, I was one of those people who believed in what I said.

It was very distressing to me to go past the Pleasant Heights day care centre I previously mentioned to you at 7 o'clock on a winter's morning and see some poor mother taking her child out of the car and into the centre. I thought there was something wrong in our society when this situation prevailed. We can go through all the good reasons why women have to work and all the rest of it, but I would like to come back to the motion and ask the hon. member: do we encourage employers by giving capital grants, or do we increase the subsidy if the child is placed in the work centre versus the neighbourhood centre?

How do you get an outdoor play area in downtown Calgary or Edmonton when the price of land is like it is? I happen to live near the Bethany centre in Calgary, which is one of the day care centres mentioned earlier. I happen to see those young children go by, and I'm pleased to see them go by. Sometimes they're on a rope; sometimes they're not. But I think it's better to see them going by where I live than being tied together on a rope going down Jasper Avenue or 8th Avenue in Calgary.

I'd like to ask the hon. member who provided the motion why we should be taxing citizens to provide such a service when many people in our community are opposed to the whole idea of child care centres. I know there are some people, and they are throughout the country, who still think women should stay home. We know that 60 percent or more of women go out to work. Some have to and some want to, but the fact remains they're out working. As women take their place in our economy, it reflects in improved education and the improvement in advancement of opportunities. Obviously, the need for day care is going

200 ALBERTA HANSARD June 24, 1986 to increase. I would like to ask everyone, since we all seem to talk about women being liberated: why is there such an emphasis on women and where they work? Why not the husband and where he works? I discussed this with some day care experts in Calgary. They said, "Sure, it's a great idea; the parents could visit at noon." What happens as in the case of my daughter and son-in-law? He teaches high school in Bowness, and she works in downtown Calgary. My two grandchildren were in the Bethany centre, which is midway between the two of them. I don't know how you rationalize that.

Getting back to the reaction of day care experts, they agree that there are lots of advantages if it is in the centre where a parent is working. If a child were sick, there could be a quick response. I'd like to come back to the concerns of the small business community. We hear people talk in the House about how wonderful and important the small business community is and how many jobs it creates. I ask you: how many small businesses could afford to have a day care centre for one or two children in their workplace? In my opinion, the whole idea is fraught with too many difficulties.

Mention was also made of shifts, store hours, and 24-hour work shifts. What about the problem of reduced transportation schedules on weekends, which is also a con cern you'd have to worry about if you had the day care centre at the place of work?

I guess my main concern is that the government can encourage by legislation, by bribery, by using grants or subsidies, by offering tax incentives, but I notice that most of the organizations or institutes that are offering these services now in Canada — universities, hospitals; these kinds of institutions — are those that never have to worry about where the dollars come from. They've never worried about where the dollars come from. They leave it to the politicians to worry about that. I think we should look at this more carefully. I really feel that it is lacking in an economic evaluation.

It's the kind of thing that everybody says it's a good idea, but then when you ask them who's going to pay for it, "Well, obviously the government has to pay for it or the large corporations." I just leave this thought with you: in the city of Calgary earlier this year there was an 18 percent vacancy in the day care centres, and they decided the main reason was that so many people have lost their jobs. Parents are going back home and looking after the children. Now you want to add more to the burden to make this worse. Frankly, I have great difficulty in supporting the motion.

I appreciate what the hon. member was doing, and I appreciate her concerns, but I feel that at this time it's something we can't afford and, as such, I therefore couldn't support it. MR. YOUNIE: Mr. Speaker, a few points to make about this issue. One has to do with the actual value of having the day care in the workplace. As was announced fairly recently, my wife and I had a second child. If we are going to use the private day care system, if and when my wife chooses to go back to work, we will be faced with the problem of taking children two different directions to two different day cares.

One day care takes children age three months to two years and another one two years and so on. Those kinds of difficulties might be solved if my workplace happened to have a day care. I would point out that I would not mind being the husband if in fact it was I who took the children to the day care at my workplace. It would be nice to see the government investigating and showing leadership in this issue by opening up one at my place of work. There is a lovely outdoor play area with a most delightful fountain, flowers, and so on. I think the value of it is obvious.

The benefits for both the employer who provides this service for his workers and the people that that employer hires are obvious. In terms of standards, I think the point was made on this side that the standards are not good enough, that they could be improved. The Member for Calgary McKnight went on to conclude that we were saying every day care in the province is deplorable and quoted the fact that he had not had any complaints in 11 years as support that that's not the case.

I think there is a big difference between day cares which are so deplorable that they excite a public outcry and day cares that have standards good enough that a parent may not see fit to complain but may move his or her children from one day care to another in trying to find a better one. We're accused of being extremists. I don't see where it has to be this extreme where they're either perfect or deplorable. In fact, I think there are a lot of very mediocre day cares where children are babysat safely, but they are not nurtured constructively and humanely. I think that is what we want to be looking for.

In terms of the issue of free-enterprise day cares versus publicly supported day cares, I think the members on the opposite side are the ones who most often try to tout the benefits of free enterprise and explain to us that in fact free enterprise is the system that allows people to get the most money by providing the least service and, therefore, maximizing profit to its fullest. In terms of production of widgets, that's a great principle. I can choose to buy the cheap widgets that last for a week or the really great ones that last for decades; that is my choice as a consumer.

When it comes to dealing with children and raising them, when it comes to providing necessary day care for them, and when it comes to perhaps many, many single parents who, because of the substandard pay they will get, will have to choose the cheapest possible private-enterprise day care, even though it provides minimal service for them and their children, then we are looking at something that should not fall in the free-enterprise realm and in fact should be used very rightfully for many parents to try to break out from the poverty cycle by providing the best nurturing for their children regardless of the parents' ability to pay.

So I think when we look at this issue . . . AN HON. MEMBER: Like the post office. MR. YOUNIE: Which works faster than some private courier services I've used, Mr. Speaker, and cheaper on occasion. Anyway that has little to do with day care; I don't mail my child anywhere.

I think it's very important to consider in our encouragement of employers to provide day care services that we be very concerned about the standard of service they will be sup plying and that part of the government's encouragement be in the form of an education program to employers to explain to them why they can benefit financially by providing the highest standard of day care service for the parents that they employ, because those benefits are there for them. Thank you. MRS. MIROSH: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to speak to this motion.

My feeling regarding work-related day care space for children strongly favours this motion. The number

June 24, 1986 ALBERTA HANSARD 201 of women in the work force today is soaring, as my colleague from Calgary Foothills has already expressed. Almost three- quarters of all part-time workers are women; 13.5 percent of Canadians in the labour force work part-time; 57 percent of employed mothers with children under 11 years are in the work force; 82 percent part-time workers and 68 percent full-time workers are found in occupations such as clerical, services, sales, and health care givers. Employment in Alberta for women specifically rose last year, while the national rate remained unchanged.

The Alberta rate for unemployment remains fourth lowest in the country. Women account for the majority of the increase in employment. Women also account for the decrease in unemployment. Women are generally responsible for the care of their children. Parents, whether they're men or women, single or married, must take the initial responsibility in caring for their children. It is indeed with anxiety and guilt that parents leave their children in another person's care. There should be avenues to ease this burden.

Whether we as this Assembly agree or not, the working parent is on the increase; thus the provision of day care is on. the increase and is becoming a fact of our modern life. There are many institutions throughout this province providing day care for the children, and they are funded by the province at the cost of $57 million annually. This province helps achieve a very high standard of day care, as my colleagues have already alluded to. There has certainly been criticism as to the quality of care, of day cares, and the facilities provided throughout this province.

At the risk of our children they could be profiting very heavily. When I have researched this information in the city of Calgary, the criticism of day care and quality came from other day care operators, not from the parents. Again I say the assurance of quality of care must be ensued by the parents. During my interviews with various day care users and my investigation of studies, it appears that the highest quality of day care and the longest running facilities are those which allow a high degree of employer, union, employee, parent, and day care staff involvement.

The most successful and highest quality operators in Calgary are communities, YWCA, cultural centres, the city day care services, and specifically work-related facilities such as the Bethany care hospital. Parents look for convenience and quality when they're placing their children in day cares. Work-related day care or employer-supported care can be one very important component in a diversified system meet ing the needs of working parents and their children. This program can be defined as a program established by having involvement with a sponsoring employer and employee groups working together.

This day care can be owned and operated by the employer and employee having direct input into the hiring of qualified staff, offering quality programs, and continued input into the physical needs of this centre. The entire management responsibility would be put on the part of the employer and the employee, as would other extra activities maintained within this workplace. The support from the employer could include subsidy costs for utilities, rent, and maintenance and could also assist in fund-raising to help offset the day care costs. The government is already subsidizing programs.

We don't need any more subsidy. The centres located on the worksite can be achieved on a co-operative basis. Users operate and control the centre. Work day care is not a new idea. This idea existed in 1940, when women were needed to work in factories while the men went out to the war, and it should work again today. A further example of a work care system: San Francisco has become the first city in North America to build child care requirements into their building code. Devel opers now must provide free space or pay $1 a square foot towards a nearby day care centre.

Workplace day care is an excellent opportunity for every one to enjoy. Work day care centres provide opportunities for parents to interact with their children throughout the day. It also removes anxiety for both the parent and the children. It also reduces job absenteeism. However, most important, it leaves the responsibility to the parent. Mr. Speaker, I'm a working mother, and I don't depend on day care to raise my children. I look after it as a responsible parent. I look after my children as a responsible parent. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to support this motion. DR. ELLIOTT: Mr.

Speaker, it's my pleasure to make a few comments on this motion. I thank the Member for Calgary Foothills for bringing the motion forward for dis cussion. Obviously, it has attracted a lot of attention. As has already been said by several others, my real concern in this motion is the topic of the child. One thing that bothers me deeply in our society is the possible threat of inadequate attention to the child, inadequate care, in fact, verging on child abuse. The whole topic of this support system in our society reminds me of many others which we have seen coming along recently as new ideas or new approaches.

Many of us here were raised in a society that didn't have day care centres. We had other support systems going for us. In recent years it seems that we've seen things come along like wheelchair ramps, which we didn't have before because we hadn't given that topic that kind of consideration, yet there we have a group of people in our society with a real need. All of a sudden our cities throughout all of North America, around the world in fact, now have wheelchair ramps at intersections.

A lot of discussion took place in this Legislature recently on the use of special numbers in elevators for the blind and other features in our day-to-day life where we could be of assistance to the blind — people with a specific need. Yet for so many years we've been ignoring it. I worked for an organization that had a very specific feel for people who became very sick and had a health problem on the job. This bothered me because when you see people on the payroll not pulling their weight, particularly in a public service sector, you begin to wonder at the real role of our society.

I checked this out with some corporate citizens in the community and was quickly told that, yes, we have national and international banks with people with 25, 30, or 35 years' service, who for reasons beyond their control have become very sick, and they had to be looked after. These responsibilities are assumed by our society, and we do in fact look after them. We have an interesting arrangement in Grande Prairie right now called our Crystal Park school, where we have the seriously disabled child from kindergarten through to grade 9 now in school with the able-bodied.

We have these students studying together and playing together, the able- bodied students assisting the severely handicapped students. They are all learning together, rather than having these people segregated, one group of people going one way, one another. This is a relatively new approach. Or is it? Maybe back in one time or another before we had institutions for the disabled, maybe the disabled were at home, and we

202 ALBERTA HANSARD June 24, 1986 had the home care right at home where the able and the disabled lived together, loved, grew up, and enjoyed each others' experiences. We have gone the the cycle of having disabled people in institutions. Now we have them back in the school in Grande Prairie working together. Palliative care: we had the discussion on that a while ago, as though the whole system was just discovered in Alberta the last year or two or three.

I remember asking a senior nurse in the Beaverlodge area, "What are we doing about palliative care?" She laughed and said, "That's a city term, Bob, because in places like Grande Prairie where we have small hospitals, palliative care has been a major function of this community and the hospital through parents, friends, and extended family ever since the community was developed." Women's shelters: I never heard of a women's shelter until somebody showed me where Odyssey House was in Grande Prairie, and that's just in the last few years. Where were we with women's shelters prior to the time that we had them?

Why do we have women's shelters? I know why people go to women's shelters. But why in our society do we have this need for people to have to turn to an organ ization or a facility like the women's shelter for that kind of help? I know I'm going backwards one step in trying to find solutions and answers to some of the things I find worrisome that come to my mind in reviewing the issues associated with this motion.

By the way of interest, getting back to the motion, the women's shelter in Grande Prairie known as Odyssey House does have a built-in day care system in the backyard, with a fence high enough around it to keep the father from coming and snatching away the children. Going back into the history of day care, our child care systems have changed considerably over the years. I'm sure most of us in this Assembly grew up with the care that was required without going to a day care system.

This is no surprise for mothers of previous times, particularly farming mothers, some of whom we have right here in this Legislature, who did their work in the workplace, and the child was looked after too. I know a mother in this Legislature that had the playpen right out in the garden, where the child could be protected from hurting himself and at the same time the mother could keep an eye on him. The farm children were raised along with the stooks, and the farm collie was sometimes the best babysitter. But that opportunity isn't available to all.

That's why we find all of a sudden that we have these other requirements. Reference was made to an early attempt at day care systems in the workplace with the munitions factories in Canada. But it only lasted until the end of the war, and then that was abdicated and went on and was transferred to the provinces and the municipalities. Today we have a society where apparently there is need for more money.

We have children in single-parent homes, and we have a need to develop and refine a system to accommodate this society where, for reasons that aren't always clear, it's been deemed necessary that both parents seek an income to supply the needs and the wants — and I underline the wants — that are important to all members of the family. This means a child care system in which the employee and the employer may well be called upon to have an input. We call that a work-related day care system.

Also in this area I think the role of government must be considered for the various reasons of tax concessions, sub sidies, or a redistribution of those funds that are presently designated for day care systems in our society could well be used to advantage with the workplace employer through matching dollars of one form or another. I do get concerned about the reasons we need these day care systems. I look upon this opportunity for re-examination. I think we have a real role here for the parent to re examine their position. What is their responsibility? And what do I mean by their responsibility?

I'm fascinated by the statement made by the Member for Edmonton Centre last Friday when he was talking about the Mackenzie health services centre. He called it the Taj Mahal of the north, and he was critical of the kind of people who require the services in that centre. He made examples and he implied some irresponsibility. He didn't give many facts, and I didn't have time to review his statement to determine what the facts might be, but he did say that it was the most expensive and the least required form of medical services.

I'm inclined to piggyback on that statement and apply that kind of a thing to a portion of those needs which are identified for day care centres. Is there a responsibility, or is it irresponsibility? He talked about the drink and the smoke and the stress and people should take more time for love. My question is: why do we have this growing need for day care today? Where does the responsibility lie? Do we have people that are in there for the two incomes just so that they can meet their own greed, so they can have more of the things that they want, not what they necessarily need but they want?

I'm not talking about any particular group of people in our society, Mr. Speaker, but I'm talking about young couples who seem to be just excessively anxious to get into the life and the world of the middle-aged and the seniors. They seem to want to make that trip to Hawaii annually; they seem to want to have that motor home, the skidoos, the trail bikes, the larger home, the swimming pool; and they've hardly reached the age of 25. It seems interesting to me, Mr. Speaker, that we have to have that kind of greed to get there so fast. [Mr.

Speaker in the Chair] Then we have those people who, for reasons that might be important to them but are not clear to me, become single mothers. Again, where is the responsibility? Is it a divorce breakdown? Why? Are people showing good responsibility towards each other? More and more young mothers with babies out of wedlock. Where is the responsibility? I think we all as members of the society share that. Where are we with our home?

Where's the kitchen table discussion that gets the message of responsibility through to students and through to people in the family to keep them from getting into the position where we have single-parent fam ilies, divorces, and kids that have to go to day care so some parent can go out and get a job? The fact remains that these are the situations that we have in our system today. They're around us, and we have these people reflected on the unemployment roll. Now we have the employer.

Maybe there's an opportunity here for the employer to be of major assistance in the development of workplace day care centres so that he can provide an opportunity — which was discussed and reviewed earlier — for these, again, primarily young mothers to get into the work system, establish a life for themselves, get on with their life, break out of that routine where they're stuck in an institution with their baby, and become an effective and important part of society.

June 24, 1986 ALBERTA HANSARD 203 Mr. Speaker, I think I will terminate my comments there, primarily with reference to the fact that because Alberta is so heavily committed to the day care approach to life at this time, it seems to me appropriate to suggest that our government seriously consider using some of that commit ment to approach certain employers to determine if they could be of assistance in a co-operative way to get day care into more of our workplaces. I would suggest, as has been suggested perhaps earlier today, that this be considered in our public buildings for starters.

I believe that we would be solving two problems by promoting and supporting this motion. I see an opportunity to help a lot of people who need help. I see an opportunity to provide perhaps a little more secure future for children who today may not have much of a future. I see an opportunity for employers to obtain and recruit and save and keep their help by offering workplace day care. And I see an opportunity for young mothers who need that sort of guidance and help and support to get on with their lives. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. REV. ROBERTS: Mr.

Speaker, I'm enjoying these debates on these motions, not only for the content that they have in them but also for the growing cracks that we on this side see in the government members and in their caucus. Can they ever get it together, or are they always speaking in this kind of doublespeak and double-talk? How possibly can the one Conservative member — maybe she's a pro gressive and the rest are the conservatives; that oxymoron Progressive Conservative is something I've always had trou ble with.

But how can one hon. member who presents this motion talk so glowingly about the need for children's care and this particular way of funding that and then another hon. member, the one from Lethbridge West, I believe, say that any funding of day care leads to increased rates of divorce? Or how can one member say that, yes, we need to be child-centred in this regard and then talk about that, no, really funding of day care leads to better business. Mr. Speaker, these apparent contradictions in the government's mind can only lead us on this side to be extremely optimistic about the future of such debates.

My biggest problem with this, as members on this side have continued to allude to, is the fact that though this may be proceeding in a useful direction, that employer-operated day cares would meet the needs of many people, it does at the same time leave many, many people out: those in small businesses, those in small organizations, those mothers or fathers who happen to be self-employed. In our own situation my wife plays in the Edmonton Symphony Orchestra, where there's been a veritable baby boom amongst members in the orchestra.

They have tried repeatedly to set up their own day care centre while members are rehearsing or practising or having concerts for the enjoyment of Edmon tonians. But the economy of scale just does not permit it, no matter how much government assistance they might receive. As well, in terms of looking at support for this, I would then look, as the hon. member to my left here, in terms of the Legislative Assembly.

If this motion were to go through, can't we please get some funding for us here at the Legislature so that we can bring our children to work and have them join in in question period and other debates, as they would be so delightful?

On the other hand, because we have not been able to find support for our two children at any of these employer- centred places, we have shopped around all over the city and have found such glaring discrepancies in what is available for privately operated day care centres: everything from a glorified babysitting service that's dirt cheap to a stimulating, exciting, high-quality day care which has a two-and-a-half- year waiting list. Mr.

Speaker, it also galls me to think that we in this province stipulate that people need to have a four-year university education to be well educated and mature in their life before they can teach kindergarten but that we don't need any such requirement to teach and be supportive and be employed as a day care centre worker. At the same time, we lose millions of dollars because the Canada assist ance plan won't offset the Alberta public dollars which go to private, for-profit day care centres, which 90 percent of Alberta's are.

We could spend our dollars better by pro moting nonprofit child care, get the Canada assistance plan dollars back to our coffers, improve the training standards of our day care people, and promote better employer- facilitated child care to the benefit of all parents and their kids with this political will. Before I conclude, Mr.

Speaker, I not only bring to the attention of all hon. members the situation they are decrying in terms of care for our children in this society but warn them that in the future this issue is going to be turned in another direction; that is, as we learn more and more about social day care programs for our elderly, that more and more of our senior citizens of Alberta are without their families, are lonely, are depressed, and need some social day care centres and facilities in which they can receive some sense of community and some sense of support. Their families aren't doing it.

They're often single elderly people. What is the role of government in this issue, in this kind of situation? I conclude by commending the progressive who brought this motion forward for our attention. I warn them of other areas of this debate which will not let us go. I hope this does not die on the Order Paper but rather that we can come together as responsible representatives of our people and bring forth better day care for our children and for our elderly. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. CHUMIR: I rise to speak mercilessly briefly, Mr.

Speaker, as a childless member in favour of day care in general and the potential benefits of day care at the workplace in particular. I had no intention of rising to speak on this matter until I heard the comments of the hon. Member for Calgary Fish Creek, as a result of which I was overcome by irresistible impulse. I thought I was hearing somebody from Texas. To hear the hon. member, one would think we had come as close to perfection as was humanly possible in our day care system.

Of course, that's the sign of the true Conservative: total tolerance and satisfaction with the status quo rather than an attempt to look for ways to improve conditions in our society. Of course, our society is changing, and it's important for us to develop institutions to meet the needs which arise from such change. It is quite clear that many of the day care centres operating in this province are indeed excellent.

However, no less an authority than the head of the school of social work at the University of Calgary earlier this year issued a very well publicized report in which he was strongly critical of stan dards in many of our day cares in the absence of regulation and inspection of the quality of day care. Anybody who took the trouble to read the newspapers in the city of Calgary earlier this year could not avoid noticing that there

204 ALBERTA HANSARD June 24, 1986 were a number of very, serious problems arising on a regular basis with our day care system. Mr. Speaker, I would like to note that insofar as the comments of the hon. Member for Calgary Fish Creek are concerned, I share the views already expressed by the hon. Member for Edmonton Kingsway that there is an undue emphasis on numbers: square feet, numbers of spaces, and cold, hard cash expenditures. It reminds me of the recol lections I have of that mininovel Le Petit Prince, in which there was discussion of how grown-ups like numbers. Mr.

Speaker, the children of this province deserve more than statistics. They deserve the very best standards we are able to provide, whether they be in government-operated or privately run day cares. We can do better, and I support this motion. DR. CASSIN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to speak in favour of Motion 203. I do not, however, support the concept that government should be in the child care centre business except where it pertains to its own employees. I do support the concept that it could play a very useful role in encour aging private business, employers, and other groups to provide this service.

I also appreciate that this is a hard sell to business at this particular time in our history, as suggested by the Member for Calgary McKnight, but this is the time to develop the infrastructure, most of which is already in place. I also feel that government needs to play a very important role in maintaining the regulations and standards for these facilities, to go beyond the minimum requirements of the physical plant, the health standards, the basic requirements, and supervision, but more important, to the quality of the programs and the individuals providing these services.

This is no longer a babysitting service. Mr. Speaker, we should recognize the opportunity to create meaningful, service- oriented jobs for those qualified people who will make this a career choice rather than a stopgap until something better comes along. One has only to reflect on our present situation. I was certainly made aware of this problem during the recent campaign, and I'm certain that many of my colleagues who sit in this House had a similar experience.

It was brought to my attention that a large number of our preschool children are spending the majority of their early and very formative years in day care centres under the care of a surrogate parent who serves as a role model during the most active portion of the day, at a time of the day when most of the communication takes place, and spending the majority of their time with their parents during the sleeping hours.

I appreciate the concept of quality time, but I still have to look critically at the seven- to eight-hour period each day spent with different people, many of whom may be at the lower end of the pay scale, many of whom may lack communication skills, many of whom may not be the ideal role model. I do recognize, however, that there are some shining and excellent examples of some very good day care centres and dedicated and responsible people. But because this industry has grown so rapidly in response to the demand, I appreciate that the opposite is all too often true.

I would therefore suggest that if we are to encourage both industry and the public sector to provide these facilities, there is a need to look closely at our accreditation programs for both the facility and the staff, a screening and training program, and ideally on-site supervised training so that those individuals with the right attitude and aptitude for the demands of this job are selected. There should be incentives for young people to consider this occupation for a career choice.

I would like to refer to the author Naisbitt, who said in Megatrends that we've gone through the industrial revolution and are presently in the communication and high-tech rev olution but with that we have to look at high touch. There's going to be a lot more in the way of demand for people involved with dealing with other people and providing these services at both ends of the scale, both from the standpoint of the early development years and, as has been mentioned earlier, to our seniors.

This is not just a women's issue; it is not just an issue of the two-cheque household syndrome; this is not just an issue of the single parent. It is more often today an issue of choice between career and raising a family. I won't discuss the social implications of this change in our society and the impact it has on the family and will have on other social questions, as alluded to by the hon. Member for Lethbridge West. We are making choices, and for each of these choices there is a price to be paid.

It should be noted that there is an increased incidence of men taking respon sibility for child custody, so this is an issue that concerns all of us. We have already heard from the opposition of the 36- cent wage gap between men and women. Part of this differential has to be attributed to experience and education, but for the most

part it's because of families needing the mothers at home, which denies them the time and devotion to build a career. I believe that the availability of day care at the place of work can play a role in offsetting some of these differences. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that most initiatives today have been taken by hospitals and institutions in the public sector, and I believe that they should be commended for their actions.

I personally cannot understand why we sacrifice so much in the way of professional training and expertise that has been invested in the women of this nation by not providing alternatives to let them carry on with their careers during the child-rearing years. Many who lose their accre ditation after 10 or more years of absence from their chosen careers have elected to do something else; nursing is just one example. For the past 70 years and more specifically during times of crises and world wars, women have been encouraged to enter the workplace, and child care centres were set up to respond to that need.

When the crisis was over, they returned to their home and in most cases to the traditional role of mother and homemaker. This would appear not to be the case at this time. Yes, some were forced into the workplace by double-digit inflation to help the family secure the home and to maintain their standard of living. This time, however, more are returning to universities, postsecondary education, and to pursue a career. Historians may prove us wrong, Mr. Speaker, but I believe that industry must recognize this apparent social change.

I will support the motion so that the government can take the initiatives to address thi

Document details

Collection	Alberta — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	19860624
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	L21 S1 19860624 1430 01 han.pdf
Language	en
Format	json
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	36a51700c0f0ba64f5a33f6d751dfae165919013

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (json).