Alberta Hansard — 5 March 1998, Afternoon sitting (13:30) (Legislature 24, Session 2)

19980305

Alberta — Debates (Hansard)

March 5, 1998 Alberta Hansard 703 Legislative Assembly of Alberta Title: Thursday, March 5, 1998 1:30 p.m. Date: 98/03/05 [The Speaker in the chair] head: Prayers THE SPEAKER: Good afternoon. Let us pray. Our Father, we thank Y ou for Y our abundant blessings to our province and ourselves. We ask Y ou to ensure to us Y our guidance and the will to follow it. Amen. Please be seated. head: Introduction of Visitors THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Intergovernmental and Aboriginal Affairs. MR. HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm pleased to introduce to you and through you to members of this Assembly Mr.

John Weekes, the Canadian ambassador to the World Trade Organization in Geneva. I'd like to take this opportunity to officially welcome Mr. Weekes to Alberta and to wish him an enjoyable and productive stay in our province. Alberta has had the pleasure of working with Mr. Weekes on the NAFTA negotiations in the past and looks forward to future dealings concerning the World Trade Organization. The world trade negotiations over the next two years could affect Alberta's interests significantly. We look forward to r eceiving Mr. Weekes' support for Alberta interests.

I'd ask the ambassador to please rise in the gallery and with Helmut Mach, who is accompanying him from our own Intergovernmental and Aboriginal Affairs department, receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. MR. DA Y: Mr. Speaker, our province is well served in Ottawa by its MPs representing Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition on the federal scene, and I'm pleased to say that several of those MPs are with us today. I would ask them to stand, and I would ask members to hold their applause until all have been introduced. I would first like to acknowledge Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz, MP for Y ellowhead; Mr.

Rick Casson, MP for Lethbridge; Mr. Eric Lowther, MP for Calgary Centre; Mr. Dale Johnston, MP for Wetaskiwin; Mr. Ken Epp, MP for Elk Island; Mr. Jack Ramsay, MP for Crowfoot; Mr. David Chatters, MP for Athabasca. Mr. Chatters is accompanied by his wife, Evie. We are delighted to have our MPs with us here today, and I would ask the Assembly to join in a warm Alberta welcome. head: Presenting Petitions THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. MS BLAKEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have two petitions here today.

The first one is signed by 109 members of the medical profession, and they are asking that legislation that was similar to that included in Bill 29 from the last s itting not be brought forward until there is further consultation and a very similar petition signed by 77 members of the medical profession, all being physicians, asking for the same thing, that there be further consultation around this issue. Thank you. head: Tabling Returns and Reports THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General. MR. HAVELOCK: Y es. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'd like to table with the House today five copies of a letter dated March 5, 1998, addressed to you. I'm tabling it on behalf of the Premier. If you would give me just a moment, I'd like to read into the record the content of the letter. Dear Mr. Speaker: I wish to place on the record on March 5, 1998, my sincere apologies to the Honourable Member, Gene Zwozdesky, Edmonton-Mill Creek.

It was inappropriate for me to question his credibility during Question Period yesterday in the Legislature relative to the letter that he sent to me requesting that I ask the Auditor General to launch a special duty review of Alberta's financial involvement in the Alberta-Pacific Pulp Mill Project. I wish to advise the Honourable Member that his letter has been forwarded to the Auditor General for consideration. MRS. McCLELLAN: Mr. Speaker, today I have four filings.

One is a copy of a letter sent to the Women's Inter-Church Council of Canada, recognizing the World Day of Prayer, which is observed tomorrow, March 6. Also an information bulletin about International Women's Day, which is celebrated around the world on March 8: this year's theme is The Evolution of Wom en's Rights: A Lifelong Commitment. Third is a news release on the very special occasion of the signing ceremony to twin our Alberta Provincial Museum with the historical museum of Hokkaido.

Fourth is the function to kick off the Wild Rose Foundation International Conference of Volunteer Effort to be held in Edmonton in August. I am filing copies of all of those, Mr. Speaker. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo. MR. DICKSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm pleased to table this afternoon copies of a document entitled Shut the Door on Private for Profit Health Care. This is a document that was being distributed at the rally that took pl ace just an hour ago at Edmonton City Hall for concerned Edmontonians worried about access to health care. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Provincial Treasurer. MR.

DA Y: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Goepel Shields & Partners is a Canadian internationally known financial investment and advisory services corporation that was retained to do a fairness opinion on the recent transaction related to the Al-Pac venture and the province of Alberta. I'm happy to table copies today of their evaluation, which indicates concerns related to the province if it were to continue to hold on to this particular arrangement. Concerns briefly, Mr. Speaker, were that “the rate of interest paid on the . . .

Loans is less than a market rate;” number two, “in the event of Al-Pac encountering financial difficulty, the Banks . . . have security ranking in priority to the Alberta Loans”; and the analysis concludes that “a significant portion of the payments made by Al-Pac to the Province . . . will not be received until well into the future.” They conclude by saying: Based upon and subject to the foregoing, we are of the opinion that the terms of the Offer are fair, from a financial point of view, to the Province of Alberta.

704 Alberta Hansard March 5, 1998 THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Calder. MR. WHITE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd table today copies of the Alberta Forest Conservation Strategy. It's the outcome of some four years of the public consultation process. To my knowledge the product of their consultation has not been filed in this Legislature by anyone on the government side and in fact has been mentioned in the painfully small document called The Alberta Forest Legacy, which purports to be the framework for the implementation of this report. So I table this for those in the Legislature that wish to view same.

Thank you, sir. head: Introduction of Guests THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Spruce Grove-Sturgeon- St. Albert. MRS. SOETAERT: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It's certainly my honour today to introduce to you and through you to the members of the Assembly 109 guests. [interjection] Y es. We're great out in my neck of the woods in St. Albert. They're from Bertha Kennedy school, in fact the first school I taught at. They are here with their teachers, Mr. and Mrs. Dolores and Brent Andressen, Mrs. Sonia Reid, Mrs. Sharon Prefontaine, Ms Shauna Petrone. Mr.

Bob Charchun is a student t eacher with them, and Ms Patty Y achimec is the TA. They're here with parents Mrs. Nora Ward, Mr. Charles Tutty, Mrs. Lodja Sloan, and Mr. Lance Primmer. The tour guides tell me that these are just such smart students, and they ask the best questions. They're very knowledgeable, and it is a credit to their teachers, not their MLA. I would ask them to please rise and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. They're in both galleries. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Government House Leader. MR. HAVELOCK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce to you and through you to members of the Assembly a young man who has gained national prominence. In fact he's better known for having burritos delivered to the Senate. He's also established himself as a prominent Canadian flag-waver right across this country, and he has his proud father, the Provincial Treasurer, sitting in the House today. I'd like to have Mr. Logan Day stand and receive the warm welcome of the House. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Clover Bar-Fort Saskatchewan. MR. LOUGHEED: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'd like to introduce to you and thr ough you to the members of this Assembly 33 students from Holy Redeemer school. They are accompanied by their teacher for the day, Glenn J ohnston, and parents Colleen Papenbrock, Anna Tchir, and Shelley Lothian, a former student of mine from Ardrossan. Will they rise, please, and be greeted by the Assembly. Thank you. 1:40 THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Redwater. MR. BRODA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It gives me great pleasure to introduce to you and through you to this Assembly a former neighbour and a good friend of mine from my former hometown of Legal.

He is also the former Conservative Member of Parliament, Mr. Walter Van De Walle. Also accompanying him is his son George. They are seated in the members' gallery. I would ask them to please rise and receive the warm welcome of this Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Labour. MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It gives me great pleasure today to introduce to you and through you to members of the Assembly the vice-president for youth in the Calgary-Varsity constituency. I would ask that Jill Leese please stand and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. head: Ministerial Statements Paralympic Games MRS.

McCLELLAN: Mr. Speaker, today I'd like to talk about some of Canada's finest and most dedicated athletes who will be competing in the 1998 Paralympic Games in Nagano. Following the glitter and excitement of the world Olympics is not easy, but for these Canadians the Paralympic Games will be their chance to make their athletic dreams come true. From March 5 to 14 Nagano will host more than 1,000 athletes with disabilities from 32 countries around the world.

Thirty-two Canadian athletes including nine Albertans will compete in four of the five sports featured at the games: alpine skiing, biathlon, cross-country skiing, and sledge hockey. While not an official Olympic event, the Paralympics give these athletes an opportunity to get a little of the Olympic experience. The games are held in the Olympic host community. Participants stay in the same Olympic villages and use the Olympic event venues. The theme of the 1998 Paralympics is very appropriate: friendship and warmth. I can think of no better way to sum up an event such as this.

The people of Nagano will continue in their role as the gracious host to the world. The games will also allow athletes to make new friends with athletes from all around the world. Most importantly, Mr. Speaker, the games will continue to promote understanding and respect for people with disabilities. These people are athletes like any other. They have all worked very hard to earn a spot on the Paralympic team. They are all proud to represent their country, and they all dream of wearing a gold medal around their neck.

These Canadian athletes have chosen to lead by example and not let their disabilities stand in the way of their dreams. While some people may choose to focus on what they can't do, these individuals are ready to show the world what they can do. Much like our Olympic team, I suspect that our Paralympic team may also break some records in Nagano. Regardless of the outcome, I am very proud of these athletes. Their quest to be the best in the world makes them excellent role models for all Canadian athletes.

I call on all members of this Assembly to join me in wishing the very best to these Alberta athletes and all of our country's competitors and coaches on the Canadian Paralympic team. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. MS BLAKEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On behalf of the Liberal opposition I'd like to join with the minister in wishing the very best to all of Canada's athletes and coaches on the Canadian

March 5, 1998 Alberta Hansard 705 Paralympic team, especially those from Alberta. A tip of the hat to the athletes' families and friends as well. Despite incredible obstacles, including sometimes societal prejudice, these athletes have reached the pinnacle of excellence in their respective sports. Not only have they taken these challenges head-on, but they have also strived and achieved a level of athletic success that many can only imagine. At times any one of us may find ourselves facing difficulties and challenges that seem impossible to overcome.

However, during those times we need look no further than these athletes for our inspiration. Once again, on behalf of the Liberal caucus I would like to extend our best wishes to these athletes in Nagano, and in keeping with this year's theme, we wish you friendship and warmth. Thank you. head: Oral Question Period THE SPEAKER: The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition. Doctors' Fee Negotiations MR. MITCHELL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have here a copy of a letter from what must be a very frustrated president of the Alberta Medical Association to his members outlining a detailed process by which doctors can directly bill their patients. This is called opting out. Albertans literally face the prospect of having to use their Visa cards for medical services which are insured everywhere else in Canada. To the Minister of Health: why won't he begin to negotiate with the Alberta Medical Association in good faith so that doctors aren't forced by their frustration with this process to opt out en masse? MR. JONSON: Mr.

Speaker, I think it is very important to indicate, first of all, that we have an agreement with the Alberta Medical Association which does not expire until March 31 of this year. The second thing is that we have been negotiating with the Alberta Medical Association in good faith for a number of weeks; actually it stretches to months. We do not regard the negotiations as being stalled or in any way inhibited. We are quite prepared through our negotiating committee to meet with the Alberta Medical Association to further discuss and negotiate another agreement which would reach into the years ahead.

This particular letter with some reference to job action I think is really not applicable at this time because from our point of view we want to continue negotiations with the AMA. MR. MITCHELL: This letter isn't in the context of job action. It's quite a different letter, Mr. Speaker. What are the minister's contingency plans to deal with the problems that will arise, surely, when doctors across Alberta begin to direct bill their patients because they no longer trust that this government is prepared to negotiate in good faith? MR. JONSON: Well, Mr.

Speaker, I think it should be emphasized first of all that through Alberta Health we continue to pay doctors. I think it's a very effective and speedy system of remuneration for the claims that they submit. We certainly do not intend to discontinue that. As I've indicated here, we do not look at the current state of negotiations from the point of view of there being any justification for doctors to suggest or to threaten to in any way inhibit the delivery of their services across the province by this type of approach.

As I've indicated, I'd like to emphasize that we have endeavoured to be reasonable in our negotiations. We have, Mr. Speaker, made progress on a number of points. We want to sit down and continue that process. MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, could the minister tell us what steps he's going to take right now, specific steps, to ensure that Albertans are not reduced to using their Visa card to cover their health care instead of their Alberta health care card? [interjections] MR. JONSON: Mr.

Speaker, I have to almost conclude from the comments across the way and the comments which are somewhat of an interruption right now that the member across the way really does not want to see the successful and constructive conclusion of these negotiations and, on the other hand, wants to get into these other types of activities. That's not the point of view from which we are working. Certainly we want to conclude negotiations successfully.

We do not want to see any disruptions that certainly would be caused by this type of action. 1:50 In terms of contingencies and plans in the eventuality of some very unfortunate developments that might involve some kind of action on the part of the AMA that is not in keeping with the interests of the health care syst em, we will consult with the College of Physicians and Surgeons. We will certainly endeavour to plan for that, but that is not our focus. Our focus is getting an agreement with the Alberta Medical Association. THE SPEAKER: Second Official Opposition main question. The hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo.

Mental Health Services MR. DICKSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In the Calgary health region children and adults who need psychiatric treatment are currently waiting for as long as 10 months for an appointment. The only alternative is the emergency at an acute care hospital. But there is a problem there. The six beds in the mental health unit at the Alberta Children's hosp ital are routinely full. As a result, adolescents who are suicidal are now put into a regular acute care bed but with a uniformed security guard standing or sitting beside the bed. My question is to the Minister of Health.

Is this the province's response to the growing need for psychiatric care, to treat our sick children as if they were prisoners? MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, our response as a government, which the hon. member across the way is well aware of, is to increase mental health funding, as previously a nnounced, at a percentage rate beyond that of other levels of funding.

It is to work with the regional health authorities in terms of strengthening community services and, in terms of the specific references being made, yes, to work with the regional health authorities and through the mental health board to provide better community care for young adolescents. The reference, however, at the end of the member's question is something that I think – sadly perhaps there are cases where security is necessary. There do sometimes have to be contained units for psychiatric care.

In terms of ensuring security, I think that given the circumstances, the regional health authority is acting responsibly. MR. DICKSON: Mr. Speaker, the follow-up to the minister would be this: why not simply provide the appropriate services for

706 Alberta Hansard March 5, 1998 these sick children instead of spending money on uniformed security guards with absolutely no medical training? MR. JONSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, acute care mental health services are offered through the regional health authority. This has been the case in this province for a long period of time. I think that the regional health authority in Calgary is working at improving their overall mental health services to patients.

I would just like to indicate that this is a priority in terms of Alberta Health's overall business plan, and the authorities in Calgary are working on the particular problem. MR. DICKSON: Mr. Speaker, my final question to the same minister would be this: since the government is only providing a fraction of the dollars that the minister's own advisers have told him is necessary for mental health services, how, realistically, does he plan on avoiding more of these kinds of problems in the immediate future and the foreseeable future? MR. JONSON: Well, Mr.

Speaker, it is a very important matter, but the whole point the member seems to skirt around is basically that we are putting add itional funds into mental health. We are working on improving these types of services in conjunction with the regional health authority, and that is the plan to address this overall need. THE SPEAKER: Third Official Opposition main question. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glenora. Y ou really did try hard. This is good. MR. SAPERS: It's not over yet, Mr. Speaker. Head Start Program MR. SAPERS: The early Head Start program at Mayfield school is a model program of early intervention.

It's family focused; it integrates health, education, and social services. In fact, it has everything that this government says it wants for children and for families at risk. But this program has been told that it's going to lose at least 15 percent of its funding. This means, Mr. Speaker, that families and children are going to be turned away. To the Minister of Family and Social Services. On the one hand the minister states that his department's goal is to support families at risk, but on the other hand he cuts programs that embody those goals of early intervention and prevention.

How does the minister justify this contradiction? DR. OBERG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With regards to that particular Head Start program I'm not entirely sure where the hon. member is coming from. We cut early intervention funding from $20 million initially down to $13 million, and then we put it back up to $17 million. Wh at we explic itly told the organizations that had early intervention funding is that we would pay for what works. If the hon. member is saying that this is a good program, I really don't think they have anything to worry about. MR.

SAPERS: Will the Minister of Family and Social Services commit in the House that the Ma yfield early intervention Head Start program will not lose one cent of its funding this fiscal year? DR. OBERG: Mr. Speaker, no, I won't. What I will commit, though, is that if this is a good program, if this program is working well, it will not lose any funding. I do not know the exact program that he is talking about, but I will commit that if it is a good program, if it is one that is helping children, if it is functioning and working well, it won't lose money. MR.

SAPERS: Given that the Minister of Family and Social Services won't guarantee to protect that program and given that the Department of Justice business plan promises to ensure the availability of early intervention for at-risk programs, will the Minister of Justice provide the money that's needed for this program that the Minister of Family and Social Services is threatening to take away? MR. HAVELOCK: That's a good question, Mr. Speaker.

Certainly the more that the Department of Justice can do with respect to early intervention the better, because quite frankly by the time young people reach the justice system it's often too late to change their behaviour. I won't make the commitment that from my budget I will be directing dollars to the Family and Social Services budget. Nevertheless, I think the minister answered the budget question.

What I'd like to do is just take a moment to point out to the House what we in Justice are doing in conjunction with the Department of Family and Social Services and the minister responsible for children's services. We are working with them, and we are also in conjunction with that aggressively pursuing, for example, the establishment of youth justice committees throughout the province, which are working very effectively. We have put into place some new incarceration options such as young offender camps, which have a very successful rate of recidivism.

We have some joint initiatives which we're developing with the department of community services regarding after-release programs. We have also been pushing for changes to the Y oung Offenders Act with respect to those young people who commit serious and/or violent crimes or chronically reoffend, because they need to know that there will be consequences for their actions. Senate Election MS BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, let me get this straight.

The Premier wants to spend millions of taxpayers' dollars on a popularity contest, a senatorial beauty pageant, for a Senate vacancy that doesn't exist and that might not exist for another three years. Then the Premier's going to take even more taxpayers' money to pay this person to sit in the gallery watching the sleepy Senators below. Meanwhile, back at home health and education are in a crisis and sick people are being turned away.

My question to the minister of federal and intergovernmental affairs is this: how can this government justify using this diversionary tactic of a Senate popularity contest to divert attention from the serious crisis in health care? MR. HANCOCK: Well, Mr. Speaker, first I would like to remind the hon. member that the name of the department has been changed to Intergovernmental and Aboriginal Affairs to reflect the true nature of the department and the work that we do. Mr.

Speaker, the whole question of senatorial election is obviously not to divert attention from some of the urgent and pressing issues of the day in Alberta but rather to respond to the wishes of the Alberta people expressed over the last 10 years at least and perhaps longer that we want to have an effective and elected and equal Senate in Ottawa. It's time to get on with that job. 2:00 MS BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, maybe the Provincial Treasurer can

March 5, 1998 Alberta Hansard 707 tell us how the government can justify the spending of $3 million to $4 million on an election to nowhere and then additional costs of $80,000 plus who knows how much more in expenses just to have a Senate chaperon taking up space on Parliament Hill? MR. DA Y: Mr. Speaker, I understand that socialists have difficulty understanding issues that would be of importance to a provincial government especially, because by nature they are strong central planners and they like large bureaucracies. She seemed to be concerned about health and education.

Maybe if we had had equal representation in the Senate when the federal Liberals slashed our health and social transfers by 38 percent – 38 percent. Down it went. THE SPEAKER: Somehow I knew it was too good to be true. AN HON. MEMBER: Y ou mean there's more? MS BARRETT: Y es. If you gave me 10 questions a day, I'd use them.

Given that the Premier's Senate election will do nothing to change the fact that the Senate is a useless, archaic institution that exists solely to reward Tory and Liberal cronies like Ron Ghitter and Nick Taylor, will the acting Premier . . . [interjections] Don't you want me to ask my question? Come on; yell “question.” [interjections] I do have a question. THE SPEAKER: Okay. Y ou were at, “Will the acting Premier” dot, dot, dot. MS BARRETT: I'll fill in the dots for you; I'll connect them.

Will the acting Premier commit to providing an option on this potential ballot for Albertans to vote for an AAA Senate: abolish, abolish, abolish? MR. DA Y: Mr. Speaker, I'll agree with one interesting portion of the NDP position here. There was a fascinating transformation. We heard years ago from across the way from a Liberal that the Senate was just an awful place and needed to be abolished and everything else. As soon as he was gone from here, he got an invitation to join that august body, and pssht he was gone, as the song says. But I'll go on. Mr. Speaker, this is not a trivial item.

In other countries – and pardon me for reflecting on the U.S. We know that usually that results in a tirade of accusations about some other kind of a system, but I can tell you that in that country and in a number of other civilized western democracies we have a balance; we have a bicameral House whereby regional representation is not thwarted. I'm surprised that somebody who was elected by Albertans would fail to recognize the fact that abolishing the Senate accomplishes nothing. We still become the subjects of colonial rule by central planning governments.

It is only an elected Senate that is going to fix that, and I congratulate the Premier for being very excited about the fact that we can be seen here as starting a process which will reverse that inequity, and one day true democracy will rule in this country. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Fort, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Manning. [interjections] Okay. Okay. I know it's Thursday, full moon coming and all of that, but . . . The hon. Member for Calgary-Fort. Intergovernmental Affairs MR. CAO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am very pleased to join the lively questioning from the hon.

Member for Edmonton- Highlands. Alberta has achieved a leadership role at the national level such as our current economic and social model for the country, the Calgary declaration on unity, and the federal loyal opposition with grass roots in Alberta. I also see that the Premier is not available this afternoon, so my questions are to the minister of intergovernmental affairs. Reflecting the questions from my constituents on the subject of national unity, constitutional reform, and senatorial reform, could the minister tell Albertans the position of our provincial government on the election of our Senate? MR.

HANCOCK: Mr. Speaker, I'd be pleased to add to my earlier comments that we continue to support, reaffirm the support for a triple E elected Senate. I have been directed by government and by our caucus to look at potential changes to the Senatorial Selection Act so that we might proceed to pursue that agenda and try to see whether it would be possible to have Senators elected, given that as we've seen in the last few years, when there is a vacancy in the Senate, there hasn't been sufficient time left by the Prime Minister between the vacancy and the new appointment to use our Senatorial Selection Act. MR.

CAO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My second question is also to the same minister. Will the government proceed with an election of Senate nominees in conjunction with the municipal elections in the fall? MR. HANCOCK: Well, Mr. Speaker, I can advise the House that I have been asked to bring forward amendments to the Senatorial Selection Act to allow for that possibility. The government will make a decision shortly, after we look into the requirements of an election, the cost, and whether it will help to achieve our objectives. We'll make a decision in the next month or so as to that possibility. MR. CAO: Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. My last question is to the same minister. Can the minister update Albertans on the progress of the Calgary declaration? MR. HANCOCK: Y es, Mr. Speaker. The Calgary declaration, the fundamental principles of which were approved unanimously in this House in December, has proceeded across the c ountry. Legislatures across the country have been addressing it. All but five have addressed it so far. B.C. has a report in from their committee and will be taking it to their House this spring. Manitoba, as well, has a report from their committee and will be taking it to their House this spring.

In fact, probably the last jurisdiction to deal with the Calgary declaration and the principles from the Calgary declaration will be Nova Scotia because they've gone to an election, but we hope that they will be back in session in the spring as well and will deal with it. I'm given to understand that the federal government might take the lead from what the provinces have accomplished in this discussion across the country and perhaps will consider introducing a resolution in their House as well. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Manning, followed by the hon. Member for Clover Bar-Fort Saskatchewan.

708 Alberta Hansard March 5, 1998 VLT Plebiscites MR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. At the drop of a hat the government is ready to hold a vote on the Senate seat, but the problems that directly impact families and communities are ignored. The Election Act clearly says that we can have a provincewide plebiscite on VLTs anytime. To the Minister of Municipal Affairs: how many polls, letters, or petitions does the minister have asking for a Senate vote during the municipal elections? MS EVANS: Mr. Speaker, I would have to research that information. I don't have that available. MR.

GIBBONS: My first supplementary, Mr. Speaker, is to the same minister. Why not have a VLT vote this year when it's clearly needed and wait to have a Senate vote when the seat actually becomes available? MS EVANS: Mr. Speaker, in this House the Premier has discussed and announced the summit on VLTs, on the whole of gambling. There has been discussion in the past from ministers. There has been discussion from municipalities that they have provided me, documented evidence that they prefer to have those votes taken at a local, municipal level.

I think that is the way the whole thrust of the Municipal Government Act directs. I don't think the municipalities want our direction on when they should hold a vote on any issue in this province. I think they really would like to think that they had some kind of opportunity to be a part of the process and consultation. 2:10 MR. GIBBONS: Then why does the government defend democracy at the federal level but support dictatorship at the provincial level? THE SPEAKER: Hon. member, that question wasn't directed to any member of Executive Council. The hon. Member for Clover Bar-Fort Saskatchewan, followed by the hon.

Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. Newspaper Carriers MR. LOUGHEED: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In June of 1997 the Workers' Compensation Board announced that newspaper carriers are workers under the Workers' Compensation Act. This decision means that Alberta daily and weekly newspapers must pay compensation insurance premiums on behalf of newspaper carriers. Alberta's weekly newspapers contend that the people who deliver their papers are private contractors and not newspaper employees and as such those contractors should be responsible for their own WCB coverage.

My question to the Minister of Labour: can the minister please explain how the WCB can justify this added payroll tax on Alberta weekly newspapers? MR. SMITH: There's much interest in the answer to this question, Mr. Speaker. Self-employed individuals who do not work for a principal employer and have no employees are not subject to the act. The WCB has determined, as the member's

preamble clearly stated, that there is a change in relationship with the way that newspaper carriers are compensated. In the past, certainly when I was a newspaper carrier and I'm sure you were probably yourself, carriers purchased newspapers from the publisher to be sold to the subscribers at a markup. Today in most cases the publisher collects payment for the newspaper and directly pays the carrier for the work. So under the act the majority of Alberta employers are required to carry workers' compensation coverage for their employees. MR. LOUGHEED: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Given that there appear to be weekly newspapers that continue to use contracted newspaper carriers, can the minister explain why these small businesses should now have to submit WCB premiums on their behalf? MR. SMITH: Well, Mr. Speaker, the situation differs from one workplace to another. They can be reviewed on a one-on-one basis to determine the relationship between the carrier and the publisher, and if the newspaper carrier is an independent contractor, WCB coverage may indeed not be mandatory. MR. LOUGHEED: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

But given that some Alberta publishers feel the WCB has made an arbitrary decision about this issue with no consultation or discussion, the final question to the minister would be: what can he do to ensure that these Alberta weekly newspapers are not unfairly dealt with by the WCB? MR. SMITH: It's a good question, Mr. Speaker. What I would do is advise them that as any employer or employee can do, they can go to the Workers' Compensation Board to appeal the decisions of the board. They can do that through an appeal committee, an assessment appeal, through the Appeals Commission, and finally through the Ombudsman.

It is also possible for the WCB to ask the government to make an exemption, to exempt an industry sector from the Workers' Compensation Act, which has been done in the past for other industries as well. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar, followed by the hon. Member for St. Albert. Pine Shake Roofing MR. MacDONALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There are still more problems in the Department of Labour. Now it appears that the minister doesn't even know what's going on.

Y esterday the minister stood right there and told this House not once but twice that his department neither approves nor disapproves the use of any products, including the shoddy pine shakes that were installed on many Alberta homes in the last five years. My first question today is to the Minister of Labour. How could you stand here yesterday and deny responsibility . . . MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I'm not denying any responsibility at all. MR. MacDONALD: . . . when this letter signed by your department's research and approvals officer and these product listings are on your department's . . .

Speaker's Ruling Brevity THE SPEAKER: An interesting thing has transpired, hon. member. The minister got up and responded to your question. [interjections] The flow of this question period has always been with minimal

March 5, 1998 Alberta Hansard 709 interjections by the Speaker. The Speaker has always followed the tradition of allowing a member to raise the question and to allow the thing to flow without having an interruption every time. Now, I know there has been a quick Minister of Labour on his feet, always it seems when the quick question comes from the hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. It was very quick action here. This is good. This is good. Would you please proceed with your second question. Pine Shake Roofing (continued) MR. MacDONALD: Thank you. My second question is to the Provincial Treasurer, Mr. Speaker.

Due to the problems in the Department of Labour, is your department willing to compensate the homeowners where the Minister of Labour will not stand up and be responsible for his department's actions? I want you to tell this House if you will be responsible financially for the mistakes that have been made by that department. MR. DA Y: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour is entirely competent in the execution of his duties, and we will continue to see that takes place because that's the type of person he is and we appreciate that. MR. MacDONALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My third question is to the Minister of Labour. In order to comply with the new standards set by the Canadian Construction Materials Centre, is your department conducting monthly inspections on the production of pine shakes in Millar Western in Whitecourt? MR. SMITH: As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, we are conducting inspections. We have the problem in the hand, and we anticipate bringing the Building Code forward.

I would remind the member, after he insults Alberta businesses about shoddy equipment, shoddy manufacturing practices, that it is the Building Technical Council that makes recommendations for changes in the code. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for St. Albert, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Calder. Capital Region Hospital Services MRS. O'NEILL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Over the past few months and in particular during the last couple of weeks the residents of the Capital region have read and heard about and some have experienced both the strengths and the pressures of our health care system.

My question is to the Minister of Health. Would the minister please tell us what he has ascertained to be the real cause or causes of the situation as it unfolded last week? MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, certainly the emergency wards in the Capital health region, as I indicated earlier this week, were extremely busy, backed up if you will, over the weekend. There are certainly a number of factors involved, but as the Premier indicated and I later indicated, the primary factor, the very unusual factor which affected emergency wards all across western Canada was a particularly virulent flu virus.

The other specific thing I think should be realized is that, yes, there are sufferers of the flu that enter the emergency wards directly. Where this type of epidemic affects a system, any health care system in western Canada – but it certainly affected the Capital region – is that through our public health system, for the safety of all involved, long-term care centres that have this flu virus spreading through the residents were quarantined in, I think, a very responsible public health approach. However, Mr. Speaker, this prevents any further admissions out of the acute care system of the region.

Therefore a normal flow of individuals and their treatment was stopped because of that quarantine in 14 out of the 20 long-term care centres in the Capital region. MRS. O'NEILL: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, given the fact that our government does not address problems by indelicately isolating individual cases in the public forum, would the minister please tell us if there is a plan to deal with the situation and, if so, what is the plan? MR. JONSON: Well, certainly, Mr.

Speaker, the Capital region – we've been working with them – has advised us and I have advised this Assembly that they are expanding their emergency and acute care capacity through their planning, which is moving ahead as quickly as possible for the upgrading and reopening of emergency services at the Grey Nuns hospital in this city. They have already expanded – and I've shared the numbers with the Assembly before – their overall bed capacity. The significant amount of additional funding that has already been announced I have outlined in considerable detail for the Assembly.

They are working towards increasing their capacity in this particular area. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Calder, followed by the hon. Member for Innisfail-Sylvan Lake. 2:20 Energy Department Reorganization MR. WHITE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Energy is infamous for downsizing and nakedizing government departments and agencies. I think he's quite proud of the fact quite frankly.

We now learn that part of the Minister of Energy's restructuring initiative is that that Minister of Energy is considering the transfer of Edmonton-based operations of the Alberta Geological Survey and the EUBs utility division to Calgary, affecting some 60 Edmonton-based staff members. The question is to the minister. Wh y is the minister considering moving these Edmonton-based operations to Calgary? DR. WEST: Mr. Speaker, there's been no decision made because there's an ongoing review at this present time. MR. WHITE: Mr. Speaker, thank you.

My second question is to the minister of intergovernmental affairs, or IGA, I believe, it is. [interjections] Sorry. It's Intergovernmental and Aboriginal Affairs. Quite frankly, as this minister is the representative of Edmonton in the cabinet, what is he doing to maintain these jobs in our city? MR. HANCOCK: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think it's quite inappropriate for the hon. member to be asking me a question about the Minister of Energy's department. I would decline to answer it on that basis.

But I would say this, that I have always played a part at the cabinet table, since I've been appointed, in making sure that Edmonton is well represented and that this government takes into account the needs of Edmonton. MR. WHITE: Mr. Speaker, to the same minister. It's often been advertised, in fact, that you are Edmonton's representative. Y et

710 Alberta Hansard March 5, 1998 you were just asked a question as to how you are carrying out those responsibilities, and you don't answer. MR. HANCOCK: Mr. Speaker, again I would indicate to the hon. member that the purpose of question period is to ask people for responses about their departmental responsibilities. The Department of Energy is not my particular responsibility.

I did answer the question, and that is that I take every opportunity I can as a member of this caucus and this cabinet to promote the interests of Edmonton, to encourage the government of Alberta to take into account the interests of Edmonton citizens and to make sure that Edmonton is not unduly . . . AN HON. MEMBER: What about the capital region? MR. HANCOCK: The capital region as well. Speaker's Ruling Questions outside Ministerial Responsibility THE SPEAKER: Hon. minister, you're absolutely correct.

Such a question is not within the administrative competence of the Department of Intergovernmental and Aboriginal Affairs. The chair was listening very carefully to your response. If you had stopped when you said, “It's not within my administrative competence,” that would have ended it. Then the hon. minister proceeded to provide some more information, at which point in time the chair was not going to interject if the hon. minister wanted to provide an answer. The hon. Member for Innisfail-Sylvan Lake, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Glengarry. Health Professions Legislation MR. SEVERTSON: Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. I've met with registered nurses and received calls from nurses in my constituency that ha ve expressed serious concern about the proposed health profession act. One of their major concerns is based on their feeling that registered nurses retain their own professional legislation, legislation that is distinct from other health professions. My question today is to the Minister of Labour. Can the minister please tell me and my constituents why he feels it's necessary to have one piece of legislation covering all Alberta's health professions? MR. SAPERS: Power and control. MR. SMITH: Thanks, Mr. Speaker.

The opposition members have put out their solution of power and control. It is not the reason the government is looking forward to this legislation. What this does is combine 29 health professions into one consistent piece of legislation. It talks a bout consistency, public hearings, governance, registration, continuing competency, certainly the work that the hon.

Member for Medicine Hat has done over a wide period of time to create the environment where not only the nurses can participate, which they have done very well, but the other 28 professions, who are in varying stages of agreement with this legislation, for them to be able to come together in an ongoing consultation manner, to be able to talk about legislation that makes people more acc ountable, more transparent, and for the public to understand more easily and on a more facile basis what it is they do and how they do it. MR. SEVERTSON: Mr.

Speaker, if the intention is to have consistency, can the Minister of Labour please tell the Legislature why the current proposals would result in nurses who teach or work in administration not having to be registered or being able to opt out of the act? MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, a well-crafted question, if I may say so. Let me acknowledge that this is an issue of concern raised by registered nurses. We believe that continued consultation will result in acceptable compromise. We've talked a bout this in question period before. Consultation will continue.

As a matter of fact, I'll table six copies from the AARN newsletter. The chair of the committee, Rob Renner, the Member for Medicine Hat, chair of the Health Workforce Rebalancing Committee, has done just an outstanding job of explaining in clear-cut fashion the intent of the legislation, the timing, and the need for careful, close, and complete consultation. MR. SEVERTSON: Mr. Speaker, my final question is to the Minister of Labour and deals with the concerns related to me about the use of regulation versus statute.

Can the minister indicate why it is proposed that the scope of practice and registered activities be defined in regulation and not in legislation? MR. SMITH: Let me assure the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, that scope of practice will be included in the health professions act, not regulation, and restricted activities will be included in the Government Organization Act, not regulation. We have had an ongoing debate, as you well know: legislation versus regulation. We can commit at this time to those two key phrases in this particular piece of legislation being enshrined in the legislation itself. THE SPEAKER: The hon.

Member for Edmonton-Glengarry, followed by the hon. Member for Bonnyville-Cold Lake. Workers' Compensation Board MR. BONNER: Y es. Here we go. Mr. Speaker, a new era has begun at Alberta Workers' Compensation Board with the recent appointment of a new board chairman and a new president and CEO. It is hoped that this new era w ill be characterized as one of openness and accountab ility. In his 1997 report the Auditor General criticized the WCB as not being fully acc ountable to its stakeholders, for not including key accountability information in its annual report on objectives.

To the Minister of Labour: will the WCB's adopting the Auditor General's recommendations give their stakeholders the same info rmation that they send to the minister? 2:30 MR. SMITH: Again, a carefully crafted and properly worded question, Mr. Speaker. I compliment the member. In fact, it's my understanding that indeed there will be consistency of information with respect to the Auditor General, stakeholder compliance, and that of government. I think the key issue is that the WCB is an arm's-length, board-governed organization. It does not use taxpayers' money.

It is employers' premium money that is now at the lowest rates in Canada, as you as well as I'm sure many others know. Also, it has paid out more per year this last year to claimants than ever before. So I see that really being a fundamental issue between the Auditor General and the WCB in terms of its compliance to AG requests and what needs to be disclosed in the marketplace to be consistent with generally accepted accounting principles.

March 5, 1998 Alberta Hansard 711 MR. BONNER: Mr. Speaker, will any future editions of the board's report on objectives include information on the assets of the board, including its investments and the assumptions the board uses to calculate its claim benefit liabilities? MR. SMITH: That's a pretty technical question, Mr. Speaker. I think what I would do is take that under advisement and suggest to the WCB board of directors to hopefully provide further information to this House. MR.

BONNER: Given that the past CEO had one of the highest salaries in the provincial government at over $350,000, will salary and benefit information also be included in this report, as the Auditor General has recommended? MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, as a correction has been noted in some of the local political newsletters, that is not a salary of the provincial government. That is a salary of the Workers' Compensation Board, which does not take one dollar of taxpayers' money. It is employer premium money, and I understand that in their annual report they have a disclosure program on salaries and benefits to executives.

English as a Second Language MR. DUCHARME: Mr. Speaker, the English as a Second Language program will be expanded to provide instruction to Canadian-born students who require English-language assistance. My question is to the Minister of Education. Could you please explain how this program will be implemented? MR. MAR: Mr. Speaker, as members of this Assembly are aware, this government recently announced a major reinvestment in the area of education in the amount of 380 million new dollars and a redirection of 60 million additional dollars towards the classroom.

Of that, $5 million has been reallocated to the area of English as a Second Language programs to ensure that not only foreign-born but also Canadian-born students are eligible for this programming. Mr. Speaker, school boards have been asked to identify the numbers of ESL students, including those that are Canadian born, by the 9th of March of this year. Funding for those students will begin in the fall, in September of this year, the 1998-99 school year. Boards will be provided with . . . THE SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. minister. In a few minutes from now the estimates for the Department of Education are coming up.

They're designated. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Creek. CIC Canola Industries Canada Inc. MR. ZWOZDESKY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In 1996 CIC Canola Industries owed Alberta Treasury Branches $4.75 million. In exchange for that $4.75 million debt, ATB accepted 780,000 shares in CIC Canola Industries. CIC is now owned by Canadian Agra Foods, whose 1997 financial statements report a $34 million loss, unfortunately, and state that there is significant doubt that the company will be able to continue as a going concern.

My questions are to the Provincial Treasurer since Alberta taxpayers ultimately backstop the ATB. Is it true that the Alberta Treasury Branches will receive only pennies on the dollar for their $4.75 million investment in this company? MR. DA Y: Mr. Speaker, I'm a little surprised at the question. I don't want to respond too strenuously to the member to suggest any lack of credibility on his part. The relationship of this particular organization, both with government and then to ATB, goes back to about 1978. Of course the relationship now is strictly with the Alberta Treasury Branch. Well, Mr.

Speaker, only last week and the week before the member for Edmonton – Glengarry? Gold Bar? – two or three days in a row with some intensity, which I appreciated, pressed me on the question, saying: are you sure the government does not get involved with ATB loans and ATB arrangements with other companies? I said and made it very clear at that point that the government does not get involved in those loans or those relationships. That's something this member here has also pressed me on. I'm somewhat surprised by his question today. MR. ZWOZDESKY: Mr.

Treasurer, those shares are trading at around 64 cents today, so there's a potential for serious loss. I want to ask the Treasurer, in light of his comments just now, if the quarterly reports he receives from Alberta Treasury Branches include something with respect to this company referred to? MR. DA Y: Mr. Speaker, last year by virtue of legislation here in this House the government took extra steps to make sure that there was a clear arm's-length relationship between government and ATB. As a matter of fact there was an independent board put in place.

It was a year ago in June that the ATB for the first time ever since 1938, believe it or not, actually had an annual report put out and the board of directors present to answer questions. As a matter of fact, since then they have been following what is normal business practice consistent with other financial institutions in terms of putting out quarterly reports. Those quarterly reports are done publicly, and, I might add, show that there's a considerable turnaround related to ATB.

Once they took the severe loan loss provisions last year, those quarterly reports have been very positive and in fact have reported to the profit position of that organization. Again, when these quarterly reports are issued publicly and, as a matter of fact, with considerable media around them, why the member wouldn't have access to those reports I don't know. I'd be happy to send him the ones that I receive, which are available to all Alberta taxpayers. MR. ZWOZDESKY: Thank you for that, hon. Treasurer.

Will you at the same time provide me and other members of this House with a report that shows how many shares were redeemed by the Treasury Branches and at what price over the last year in this particular company? MR. DA Y: Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker. It's a bad week for the member opposite. I understand that. But why would I as Treasurer report on financial dealings between ATB and another corporate entity in this province? I don't know why I would do that. As a matter of fact, if I did, the member for Edmonton – Gold Bar? Glengarry? Somewhere – would jump up and say, “Mr.

Treasurer, you just said last week that you don't get involved in this kind of stuff.” So I totally fail to understand why these types of questions are coming. THE SPEAKER: Hon. members and the hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar, the hon. Minister of Labour has requested leave to supplement an answer.

712 Alberta Hansard March 5, 1998 Pine Shake Roofing (continued) MR. SMITH: Thanks, Mr. Speaker. I'd just like to table this letter that I have in my possession addressed to the manufacturers of pine shakes from Alberta Labour. Key paragraph: Although there have been no reports of roof assembly failure (i.e. water penetration into an attic space) and although neither the Alberta Building Code nor the C.S.A. Standard 01 18.3 address product life span, Alberta Labour believes that a pine shake treated to provide durability, may be more appropriate to use in Alberta's climate. MR. MacDONALD: Mr.

Speaker, I also would like to table a document from the minister's department, and this is a document authorizing A1 Shakes to produce shakes and shingles in this province to sell. This is authorized by your department, and it comes from the safety and standards branch. Now, if I could ask you this question: why has your department not yet issued a product warning so that homeowners and prospective buyers know about this serious problem? MR. SMITH: The letter's been tabled, Mr. Speaker. head: Members' Statements THE SPEAKER: Today three hon. members have indicated a desire to present a member's statement.

We'll begin and proceed in this order: first of all, the hon. Member for Wetaskiwin- Camrose, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary-Currie. 2:40 Communities against Cancer MR. JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to inform the members of this Assembly of the events taking place in my constituency by Communities against Cancer, a committee of people from Wetaskiwin, Camrose, Millet, and surr ounding areas whose goal is to raise funds directly for the Cross Cancer Institute.

The Cross Cancer Institute provides vital services and support to those residents of this part of Alberta for the diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of cancer. The main event will be a fund-raiser and gala dinner on March 6 in Wetaskiwin featuring the new film The Gift, based on the journey of Debbie McLean-Lentz, a cancer survivor and resident of Wetaskiwin. Twenty years ago Ms McLean-Lentz was diagnosed with cancer. Since that time, she has dedicated herself to providing hope to others whose lives are touched by the diagnosis of this disease.

In recognition of her commitment to those who face living with cancer, Debbie has received a Terry Fox award from the Terry Fox Foundation. In addition to the screening of the film, this gala event will also include live and silent auctions. It has been sold out for several weeks. Local schools have also been involved in fund-raising with penny drives, bake sales, and talent auctions. The organizers are sure that $10,000 will be raised by the schools in Camrose and Wetaskiwin. The two cities are also having coffee for cancer days, where businesses donate their coffee sales to fight cancer.

The Boston Pizzas in Camrose and Wetaskiwin are doing their part with a wing challenge, with local people raising pledges to see how many wings they can eat in 45 minutes. Local hairdressers are also donating some of their earnings on specified days. Every year there are 4,000 new patients to the Cross Cancer Institute, and approximately 125,000 outpatient visits are made annually. I would like to challenge other communities and schools in Alberta to join in the Communities against Cancer campaign. Let's see how much we can raise to help stamp out this dreadful disease. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon.

Member for Edmonton-Centre. International Women's Day MS BLAKEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Three days from today, on Sunday, March 8, we recognize and celebrate International Women's Day and this year's theme: the evolution of women's rights, a lifelong commitment. For me this is a day both of celebration and rededication to the pursuit of equality for women. What to celebrate? Well, I am 40 this year, and my grandmother is 97. What assistance from legislation and social change can my generation benefit from that my grandmother's could not?

A Matrimonial Property Act to guarantee a share of the family's assets; a maintenance enforcement program to get support money for our children; shelters for battered women and their children to find safety; pay equity; human rights legislation which prohibits discrimination based on gender; the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; access to education; the pill and other medically safe birth control; choices in reproductive health and childbearing; better access to elected positions; licensed day care for our children; almost equal access to bank loans and other business opportunities.

We've come a long way and we have a distance to go in achieving equality for women in Alberta. Some of the programs I mentioned before are in place, but it is still difficult for women to take full advantage of them. The feminization of poverty continues. We struggle for quality, affordable child care, for freedom from violence and harassment in the home, the work- place, and on the street, for employment equity, for value and respect in our work in the home and raising children as well as our contributions to the workforce and the community.

The female garment workers protested and worked to improve conditions for women on March 8, 1857 and 1908. So on March 8, 1998, and in keeping with this year's theme, please celebrate women's achievements and keep your lifelong commitment to the evolution of women's rights. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Currie. Learning Disabilities Month MRS. BURGENER: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, 1998 is the 27th anniversary of the Learning Disabilities Association of Canada, and March has been declared Learning Disabilities Month across this country.

The goal of the Learning Disabilities Association of Alberta, Calgary chapter, is to increase Calgarians' awareness of learning disabilities and the services available to assist people with these disabilities. In the comments I'm making, I would like to broaden the awareness to all members of the Assembly and their own communities. A number of organizations in Calgary support this initiative: the Calgary Learning Centre, Dr. Oakley school with the CBE, and St. Charles school with the Catholic board, which are in my constituency, to name a few. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to share

March 5, 1998 Alberta Hansard 713 some of the issues about learning disabilities with my colleagues. Learning disabilities are a congenital neurological condition which impact the lives of children and adults and affect all facets of human functioning, including social functioning. Typically only three percent of school-age children with learning disabilities receive special services within their sc hools. The effects of learning disabilities can be long-term and far-reaching. Research shows that 30 to 70 percent of young offenders and inmates have experienced learning disability problems.

Adults with learning disabilities who have not received appropriate education or training typically hold a job for only three months. Employers, when questioned about why these persons have left their employment, relate the fact that social skills are their deficit rather than any job-skill problems. Mr. Speaker, very little if any attention is being paid to the correlation between school failure, including dropout, and children and youth who come into conflict with the law. In 1991 20 percent of 20 year olds had not completed high school.

Leavers were most likely to come from single- or no-parent homes with low socioeconomic backgrounds, and 33 percent of leavers came from high-risk. That's shared with other family economic situations. I'd like to take this opportunity to bring attention to the work that they do and to continue to promote their efforts. THE SPEAKER: Before we call Orders of the Day, might we revert briefly to Introduction of Guests? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. head: Introduction of Guests (reversion) THE SPEAKER: The hon. minister responsible for children's services. MS CALAHASEN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

It's a privilege indeed to introduce to you and to Members of the Legislative Assembly 20 visitors; 19 of them actually are adult students who attend A VC Lesser Slave Lake at Grouard. I'm really pleased today to have their MP here also, to see that they do travel to Edmonton. They are currently enrolled in the social work program, and they're here today to see what occurrences are in the Legislative Assembly. With them is Reg Smith, their instructor. I'd appreciate it if they could rise and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. head: Projected Government Business MR.

SAPERS: Under Standing Order 7(5) I'd call upon the Deputy Government House Leader to state the government's order of business for next week. MR. HANCOCK: Mr. Speaker, I'd be pleased to so advise. On Monday, March 9, under Government Bills and Orders we'd proceed first with Government Motion 22 with respect to the Chief Electoral Officer Search Committee, then second reading of bills 19, 20, 22, and 23 and as per the Order Paper.

At 8 p.m. we would resolve into Committee of Supply with respect to reporting Public Works, Supply and Services, Labour, Economic Development, Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, Energy, and Education. On Tuesday, March 10, under Government Bills and Orders we would proceed with second reading on bills 19, 20, 22, and 23 and as per the Order Paper. At 8 p.m. on that date we would resolve into Committee of Supply, reporting Advanced Education and Career Development, Transportation, Treasury, science, research, and information technology; and then as per the Order Paper.

On Wednesday, March 1 1, at 8 p.m. we would be in Committee of Supply reporting Executive Council, designated supply subcommittees, Justice and Attorney General, Municipal Affairs, and Health; and then proceed to Government Bills and Orders as per the Order Paper. On Thursday, March 12, in Committee of Supply the designated estimates for Community Development; and then under Government Bills and Orders, as per the Order Paper. 2:50 head: Orders of the Day head: Committee of Supply [Mr.

Tannas in the chair] THE CHAIRMAN: I'd call the Committee of Supply to order. head: Main Estimates 1998-99 Education THE CHAIRMAN: We'll invite the hon. Minister of Education to make his opening comments, and then we'll invite Edmonton- Mill Woods to ask questions, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands and others as the afternoon proceeds. Hon. minister. MR. MAR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Colleagues, today I want to look at the questions that were raised on Monday night, when I first presented the main estimates for the Department of Education for fiscal 1998-99.

At the outset I'd like to say that I found the questions to be constructive and to be valuable, and this afternoon I will be responding to all of the questions with the exception of one question from the hon. Member for Edmonton- Mill Woods that will require a little bit more detail. I will provide him that response in written format. Several MLAs did ask when we would get to the answers, and they'll get them right now, again, in the order in which they were asked. Mr.

Chairman, first of all, the Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods noted changes in our performance measures from year to year and asked how we can show annual improvements if the measurements change. The simple answer is that the three-year plan is a living document, and it reflects changes in priority year by year. As we achieve our goals in one year, the measure for that goal can be dropped and replaced with a measure that relates to a new goal or strategy. As we gain experience from results reporting, we learn which measures will provide value and which do not.

Also, we dropped some of the measures because the Auditor General asked us to rely less on satisfaction measures when measuring performance. However, Mr. Chairman, there is a core set of measures that remains the same from year to year to provide continuity; for example, public satisfaction with quality of education. The member asked why my department and not an independent agency identifies the measures and tracks performance, and the fact is that national and international tests are conducted and reported by third-party agencies.

A third of the satisfaction data comes from surveys conducted by independent research firms. Interprovincial

714 Alberta Hansard March 5, 1998 comparisons of expenditures come from Statistics Canada. Our results reports are reviewed by the Auditor General and, starting this year, will be subject to a full audit. As to the kinds of measures that would be appropriate, the member asked about class size, a request to waive regulations, and our fiscal effort.

Recent reports of the Canadian Education Association show that, again, class size is not connected to results unless you make dramatic changes to classroom size, and I quote from their report: class sizes of 17 or fewer do improve achievement but by amounts which seem modest in relation to their costs and in relation to other alternatives. Small-group, intensive instruction like our early literacy initiative is a more viable alternative and cost-effective. The number of requests to waive regulations does not seem to me to be an appropriate measure.

However, if a regulation interferes with school boards doi ng their job, we are certainly interested in looking at it and possibly changing it. I would be most interested in boards telling me which regulations they want to waive, and next year I will report on the number of requests my department receives. As to the relative fiscal effort of the Department of Education, the Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods is asking about expenditures in Education and in a range of government departments relative to gross domestic product.

This is the question that will require a little more work, and I will get back to the member on this matter in writing because of the detail involved. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods asked a number of questions. The member started by comparing our spending to that of other provinces and states, and as I have said before, Mr. Chairman, it is not where we rank in spending but where we rank in results that really counts.

The most recent international results again show that our students are outperforming those in the rest of Canada and in the United States, and that, in my opinion, is the real measure of success. Regarding the $380 million reinvestment, this government does not believe in a minimum funding for education. Rather, we believe that the reinvestment provides an appropriate level of funding for school boards to meet all the basic instructional needs of their students, including teachers and learning resources.

The measures that show if this funding is appropriate are in our three- year plan; for example, student achievement measures and satisfaction with value for money spent. Measures for new areas like the early literacy initiative are being developed in consultation with teachers and school boards. If the member wants to see a plan for sustained growth in education funding, I would refer him to First Things First: Our Children and also the document contained in our three-year plan.

Both of these plans outline three years of funding growth and identify where those dollars are going, and yes, some measures rely on data collected over time. There are many short-term measures that show student outcomes on an annual basis. We will act on the short-term results to improve student learning while we track other results over the longer term. Now, an hon. member did ask questions and make comments about language learning in Saturday morning schools, as they are sometimes referred to.

Many heritage language schools are private schools, and the ones that are accredited offer an approved program and employ certificated teachers. These schools receive credit enrollment unit funding at the same rate as other accredited private schools. On student behaviour on school buses, the School Act requires that every school board have a policy on student conduct and discipline and enact those policies to ensure the safety of staff and students. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glengarry asked a number of questions that covered a great deal of territory.

To answer some of the questions by the member about money for tec hnology to support the new math program, funding for learning resources is included in the basic instruction grant, which is going up by $174 per student beginning this September. Additional funds for technology are available through the $20 million annual technology integration fund. The hon. member asked several questions about provincial achievement tests; first of all, the cost. The budget for the entire provincial achievement testing program is $3.85 million a year.

That works out to $9.58 per test written, which is the lowest cost in the nation. Next were questions about the validity of these examinations using reused test questions. Some of the questions are reused. To ensure that the tests are valid, we consult extensively with educators and involve teachers in the test design. We go through a thorough statistical review at the end of the test, and we report on the repeated questions as well as the new questions. So what do these tests measure? They are based on the approved program of studies for that subject area at that grade level. Finally, Mr.

Chairman, the tests improve student learning by identifying where any problems may lie so those problems can be addressed through changes in teaching a program or in curriculum. First, by putting enough money back into education to return the teachers' 5 percent, a look at the 1997-98 school year shows that in the school jurisdictions that have settled with their teachers, the average increase is 3.4 percent, bringing the average salary increase since 1995-96 to over 6 percent. Charter schools are working, and they're working well. Both students and parents are satisfied.

These schools are monitored annually for compliance to provincial legislation, to regulation and policy, and also to their charter. Charter schools must also meet the same accountability requirements as other public schools. With experience and in-service, charter school boards are becoming more knowledgeable and sophisticated. A list of charter schools is available from the Alberta Education web site. Looking at high school completion rates, first I must correct a misunderstanding. Our targets have not changed. They have been and still are 75 percent.

The actual achievement in 1996-97 is 69 percent, and this figure demonstrates that we have more work to do in this area. The member had asked about prekindergarten. My department provides funding for prekindergarten students with mild and moderate disabilities at three years and six months and with severe disabilities, including the hearing impaired, at two years and six months. 3:00 Looking at property taxes, this government has lowered the provincial mill rate for education purposes five years in a row.

However, municipalities are assessing taxes on real market value, and accordingly, as real market value for the property goes up, so does the average tax bill. That is where the $46 million increase in property taxes comes from. I must note that property taxes are contributing less to public education funding than they used to. In 1996-97 property taxes contributed 55.6 percent of the operating support for public and separate school boards for grades 1 through 12. In 1998-99 that is down to 48.1 percent.

As to what kind of effect the reinvestment will have on the pupil/teacher ratio, that is for local sc hool boards to determine.

March 5, 1998 Alberta Hansard 715 I fully expect that programs like career and technology studies, other work skills options, and technology-based learning will improve parent confidence that their children will be prepared for life after graduation. Turning to the questions from the Member for Edmonton- Strathcona, improving high school completion is a priority area for improvement in our three-year plan. We expect a combination of strategies to help us achieve the 2000-2001 target of a 75 percent completion rate.

Looking at the tables on page 134, in the first table we are looking at parents of all students K to 12 and a measure of their general satisfaction with education. The second table measures only parents of high school students and looks specifically at satisfaction with preparation of their children for work or further study. As I already said, we look to work skills options and technology-based learning to improve parent confidence in this last area. Still looking at our targets in our estimates, yes, in some places our targets do not reflect historical trends.

That is because we have taken steps and developed strategies that will make a difference, for example in technology. With more computers in our schools, learning outcomes now identified for students, new industry training partnerships, and teacher training, including the Telus Learning Connection, we expect to achieve the new targets. As to the member's last question on Monday, looking at the estimates for l998-99, I cannot understand how the member can call miserly a $221 million increase in education funding in the first of three years. Turning to the Member for St.

Albert, the first answer is: yes, the funding in the basic instruction grant for mild and moderate special needs does include students who are gifted and talented. I welcome the hon. member's interest in children's services. Financially my department is targeting funding for native education initiatives jointly with Family and Social Services and is working with Alberta Health to improve speech and language assistance in our schools. We are still working with other departments to identify further opportunities to jointly serve students in difficult circumstances. In technology, Mr.

Chairman, we expect most technology learning to be integrated into the curriculum. The department is working on a draft curriculum integration guide. Where appropriate, students may need to learn technology skills in a dedicated class. Student achievement will be measured against learning outcomes we identified for technology. With respect to the cut in federal transfer payments for official languages, we rolled the Alberta commitment for official languages into the basic instruction grant when we developed our new funding framework. That funding remains in place.

On the member's tax question, school boards may levy a special school tax to raise up to 3 percent of their budget but only after a successful plebiscite, and the funds must be used as stated on their resolution. To answer the member's question, these funds go directly to the school boards. The only cost to the government would be a very small amount for monitoring expenditures and revenues. Turning to the hon. Member for Edmonton-Glenora on, first of all, technology, the 80 percent target for satisfaction with schools helping students improve their computer skills is realistic.

Teachers are developing their tec hnology skills. The Telus Learning Connection is a valuable resource for teachers learning to use technology. Students can further their knowledge and skills through certain courses in the career and technol ogy studies program. We have now defined learner outcomes for our students. The department is working on a curriculum integration plan for technology. I believe that if two-thirds of our high school students currently are satisfied that school is improving their computer skills, that is realistic.

After all, we only have had a few years of integrating technology into our schools so far. Turning to high school completion rates, I believe that the target of completing high school within six years of entering grade 9 is appropriate, given the range of work skills programs and other options that are now available to our students. I also believe that a 75 percent completion rate in six years is appropriate. The other 25 percent, I must note, is not a failure rate.

Some students stay in school but take longer to complete, and many of those who drop out initially go back later and complete their schooling as adults. Some students have such severe disabilities that achieving a high school diploma is not possible. About dividing taxpayers into parents and public. Actually we do not have a measure for taxpayers. In fact, we do not use the word “taxpayer” in any of our measures.

We do measure differences in satisfaction levels for parents and the public because the results show that people who are closer to the education system tend to rate a higher satisfaction level than those who are less involved. I must respond strongly to the member's comments about the target for satisfaction. It is never all right for someone to not be satisfied; however, targets must also be achievable. As much as we would wish it, it is not possible to satisfy everyone.

For example, I note that some targets are being questioned as being too ambitious while those same targets are being criticized for not being high enough. Looking at the member's questions about special needs, I'm confident that the 30 percent increase in funding for students with severe physical and mental disabilities will provide the programs and resources these students need and will lead to greater parent satisfaction with these services. The action plan is in our three-year plan and is in First Things First. The reinvestment plan will provide appropriate resources.

I expect that the new math curriculum for high school will improve student achievement in this area. Improving high school achievement in math is one of our priorities for improvement in our three-year plan. School boards and t eachers have a three-year notice before a new curriculum is introduced, so they have time to get the resources in place and become familiar with the material. Postsecondary institutions are included on the curriculum development committees so that they also know how changes in the curriculum will affect students coming to their institutions.

Looking at the value for money spent, our current target is a satisfaction rate of three out of four Albertans. I, too, would like to see a satisfaction rate of 99 percent, but as I said before, laudable as this would be, it is not realistically attainable. As to whether or not the satisfaction levels would create pressure for private schools, I believe that parents base those decisions first on which school offers the learning programs that are best for their sons and daughters, their children.

If they do c hoose a private school on the basis of value, it is value measured by what kind of education their child receives, not how much money is spent. Finally, to address the member's question about privatization. Since we posted our first three-year plan in 1995-96, we have evaluated our activities according to the core business for Alberta Education. Providing direct service to our students is not a core business of government. We have divested and will divest any direct services that could be provided by an organization or

716 Alberta Hansard March 5, 1998 industry outside government, especially a public education entity such as a school board. Mr. Chairman, I believe that covers the questions from Monday of this week, and I certainly am happy to entertain further questions today. Thank you. THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Spruce Grove- Sturgeon-St. Albert, followed by Edmonton-Highlands. MRS. SOETAERT: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the answers that the minister has given us. The minister knows quite well that I feel very strongly about education, and that's no secret. I used to teach.

I have children in school, and I am married to a teacher. So maybe it's a biased presentation that I sometimes make on behalf of education, but I would venture to say that maybe it's an informed presentation and questions that I ask to the minister today, with no bias but certainly with a sincere caring about what is happening and some very real concerns. The minister mentioned in his reply to one of the questions today that he would venture to ask school boards which regulations they would like waived.

Then my question on that would be: can the Leduc school board on behalf of Thorsby school ask the minister to waive the regulations for the school building regulations? Would you honour their request that they be waived so they can build the facility according to what their community has asked for instead of what your bureaucrats have insisted upon? So I sincerely ask that question to the minister. 3:10 I want to mention for a while in my role as Transportation critic that I'm very concerned about the situation with buses.

I know the minister finds it difficult to respond to all of these, but I want to express my concern about the funding for school buses. If we don't fund that properly, our equipment across this province will be too old – that comes under the Transportation budget to schools – and it doesn't pay for our owner/operators to deliver the s e r v i c e . I ' m s u r e t h a t m a n y o f y o u h a v e h e a r d t h a t c o n c e r n across the province. I have here a letter that was sent to the minister, and I think it speaks very well.

It's from the school council chair at Camilla school in my riding, and his question is about the Rural Transportation Task Force, which I would like to speak to for a few minutes. I notice that within that, some areas will get more funding and some will get less. This creates a dilemma on two counts. For example, Parkland school division, which is part of my riding, will lose money. I know from discussions with them that they have talked about having to charge bus fees across the whole county. They haven't had to do that yet.

I don't find that to be an equitable issue when some people's children do pay bus fees across the province and some don't. So I would ask the minister if he is addressing that anywhere in the budget. I don't see it, but I would certainly hope that he would look at that. I notice, on the flip side, that some will get more funding. However, it will be phased in over such a period of time that they don't know if they can survive while they're waiting for the funding to catch up to them. To put it in a nutshell, if I may quote a paragraph here from this letter from Mr.

Joe Dwyer: Our School Division has operated an efficient and effective transportation system and made every effort to put all of our instructional funds into the classroom. However, years of frozen funding and increased costs to our bus contractors have taken their toll. Some bus rides are excessively long and contractors are operating at a “break even” level if they are fortunate. Our local bus contractors have provided safe and caring service to our students and we wish to continue to have them provide transportation services rather than some large contractor to whom our children are just numbers.

Now, I'm referring to a rural riding, and I know that many here understand that those are often single owner/operators, people who know the families around them and who really are concerned about children's safety. To continue with the letter: Our children's safety is of paramount concern to us. Recent news coverage has shown that some of the larger contractors' buses have not met safety standards. We strongly urge you to eliminate the phased in increase of transportation funding and to provide the required funds immediately to school systems who are in need as evidenced by the study done and the recommendations.

We trust that you will consider our request to the benefit of Alberta's greatest resource, our children. I am sure the minister will resp ond, hopefully favourably, to them. I want to mention a few things that have been discussed in this Legislature before, and I'm wondering if they're being addressed by the minister. Will the Famous Five be included in the curriculum and at what age level? If it will, it's going to need some funding. I think that would be an interesting project for people to work on, and I'm sure that many in the department would be interested in doing it.

A second thing that I and others in this caucus feel: maybe in the curriculum some education programs about violence against women and domestic violence. Maybe we will make it so that we won't need shelters. Wouldn't it be nice if we didn't need them? It's a sad state that we do and it's reality that we do, but if we started educating our young people about the realities of domestic violence, then maybe we wouldn't need them later on. I have a request from Edmonton-Centre that asks: how about equal funding for sports activities and teams as compared to sports for boys?

It would be interesting to do an analogy on that to see if more money is spent in that neck of the woods, a little more than the others. I want to address class size. The minister, I think, found some archaic report that said that class size doesn't mean anything. I would venture to say that smaller classes – and no one can deny that – are better for our children. So I would encourage the minister to make that one of his goals, that we ha ve a smaller class size. First thing this morning, Mr. Chairman, I stopped by a school in my riding and just had coffee with the teachers.

I said: “This afternoon I'm going to be able to ask the Minister of Education anything about how he has spent money. Do you want to ask him any questions?” Naturally, they did. So this is directly from that group of teachers, and here are their requests and their questions. One concern was that there was no renovation money sent to any of the St. Albert schools. They were wondering why they didn't qualify and why they were not on the renovation list for schools. One teacher expressed that she didn't feel that the minister was taking the money problems seriously enough, and I would venture to say that he isn't.

She said, “We spend more time talking about money and how we can cut corners here and there than we do about the quality of education for our children.” A 20 percent increase in private school funding was the rumour yesterday, and they were very concerned about that rumour and wanted to know if it was true. If the report hasn't been made public yet, why does the press have it? So I would respectfully

March 5, 1998 Alberta Hansard 717 ask for an answer on the private school funding issue. A number felt that this competition that the government always says is healthy is creating an adversarial role between schools, that instead of wanting to share and co-operate, people turn inward to protect what is their own. They feel that that adversarial role between schools is very unhealthy and that the minister's squeeze on money for these schools and students is creating not the best of climates in schools. A huge concern for proper funding for moderate-needs children.

A man was giving me an example of a foster child that he and his wife take care of. Last year that child was in a class of 15 students with an aide, and this year that student is in a regular class with 30 other students. The teacher is feeling very frustrated that she cannot meet that child's needs, and certainly the child is feeling lost. So I would certainly like the minister to address the issue of moderate needs. It is not being met. Another person expressed a real concern over money spent on advertising and marketing.

I've got to say that when I open the paper and I see “Come to our school; it's the greatest school in the county or in the city,” I can't help but know that the price of that ad is 50 or 100 bucks. Couldn't that money be better spent? Because of these cuts and the lobbying for students and the competitive edge, we're now wasting dollars. I would say that education dollars should not be spent on advertising. They should be spent on our children. Because of that inequity and the competitiveness between schools we're now spending money on advertising.

Now, I would venture to say that that's a waste, and I know hon. members have to agree with me on that one. So I have grave concerns over that. 3:20 Another one said: “Y ou know, teachers are holding it together. The system would fail, but teachers are holding it together. But the money crunch just cannot continue.” I agree with them. I see them dealing more and more with money issues and budget issues than professional development, than new programs for children, than being able to give individual time to children, and that's a pity.

They are now working at fund-raising, at advertising and marketing, at lobbying for students. Being a competitive school in a business world is not what a school is about. A school is not about the competitive business edge. A school is about our children and about delivering the best possible publicly funded education that we possibly can. I would venture to say that because of this government's lack of commitment to education, we're ending up in a very sad and sorry state of affairs in our schools. I was speaking to a principal this morning at another school, and he said: “Y ou know what?

We meet as principals and we never talk about programs or students. We talk about: will your budget balance?” I'm finding that many school boards are unable to balance their budgets, because they just possibly can't. Now, I don't know if that's the minister's secret plan to get more money for school boards, that if they're all in the red, he'll be able to say they can't possibly do it, and he'll get some emergency funding for them. I've heard that that could be a rumour, that his plan is that if everybody runs in the red, we'll be able to give them more money because that's the squeeze they're in.

I think that's a terrible situation to put school board members and principals in, where they have a choice of: can this child get the program he needs, or do I run in the red? That's what's happening. I would venture to say that it is time the minister seriously committed to giving back the 5 percent cut that teachers quite willingly took so that this government could get out of its own Conservative debt. I'd venture to say that they took that 5 percent cut when everybody was biting the bullet, and they have not received it back. Some have; many have not.

In fact, one gentleman told me about his pay stub in 1986; his take-home pay was only $40 less than it is now, in 1998. Now, that's a pretty sad statement on the progress that teachers have made with regard to pay equity. I think that if the minister truly cares about his employees – he employs teachers, and it is part of his responsibility to deliver the best program we possibly can for our children – I would venture to say that he has to treat them with more respect. [interjection] The Member for Little Bow says a teacher isn't worth 40 bucks a day. Is that what you said, Little Bow? That's appalling. MR.

McFARLAND: No. I said 40 will make him a better teacher. MRS. SOETAERT: So I would venture to say that the minister should show a little more respect to his own employees. I think that the morale is very low. I would ask the minister this: how many teachers are on stress leave? How many principals are on stress leave? Has there been any opportunity to provide professional development? I am very concerned about what is happening in our schools and in our classrooms. I think the morale is down because of the a ttitude of the minister, who keeps saying: I've put more money into it.

In reality, the money is barely meeting the rise in the number of students. If the MLAs haven't talked to their own schools and their own teachers, then it is time they did. Walk thr ough those schools, talk to those teachers, and honestly try to get a feel of where they're coming from. They will tell you that the quality of education is in jeopardy because classrooms are crowded – we all know classes should be smaller, that education is served far better from smaller classrooms – that the children with moderate needs are not being served, and the demand in our classroom, the class sizes, is astronomical. Mr.

Chairman, I know there are many other people who want to take the opportunity to speak today, but just to recap so that the minister gets this clearly. I'm very concerned about transportation funding; it's insufficient. We're going to be running with old buses across this province, and bus owner/operators will not be able to keep afloat. It doesn't make sense for them to keep running a business for nothing. I am very concerned about class size. Any study that shows class size does not mean anything is absolute hogwash.

I'm very concerned about the autonomy of local schools and school boards, especially in the area of Thorsby. I want teachers and principals to be able to spend time on education concerns, on children and programs, not wondering if they're ever going to see a decent dollar for their children. One final thing. I'm wondering if the minister can explain his trip and what that meant to the students. Did that have anything to do with his Education portfolio? What was spent on that trip? What educational meetings were set up? Or was it a trip with regard to education? I have no idea.

If maybe the minister could table his agenda: who he met, what was spent, and who went with him? We'd hate to pay for any extras who were just along for the ride. I'm certain that money could be wisely spent in classrooms. So I would just respectfully request the information on that trip. I am very concerned about school boards. They are working very hard to keep things afloat , but they just don't know where else they're going to squeeze the money from. We're going to end up with more user fees, especially with transportation.

718 Alberta Hansard March 5, 1998 With those few concerns, I hope the minister has seriously listened or will, respectfully, read Hansard so that he can get the full impact of my very sincere and very concerned thoughts regarding the budget allotted for Education. Thank you. THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands. MS BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll thank the minister for coming across and sharing with me a report that he made public this afternoon after question period. The report is on the recommendations of the Private Schools Funding Task Force.

Sure enough, the speculation that Steve Chase of the Calgary Herald had was correct. The recommendation is that the private, unaccountable schools get a 20 percent increase in their basic instruction grants, which will mean that it will come up to 60 percent of the basic instruction grant provided to public schools. I must condemn this immediately. First of all, it means another $8 million. That's a total of $48 million that isn't going into the public system – is not going into the public system.

I will get to some graphs in a few minutes that will demonstrate just how badly the public system needs those dollars. I'm absolutely appalled. Another recommendation that the government has accepted just moments ago, number 7: “Private schools should continue to have the right to select students.” That's the very reason we shouldn't be funding them, because of their exclusivity. “Select students:” they want to pick and choose who can come to their schools. Well, the public system doesn't do it that way, Mr. Chairman.

In fact, the public system is incredibly inclusive, more inclusive now than it was when I was in school. That's the way it should be. Now, here is an utterly, utterly astonishing recommendation, number 15: “Each funded private school should be required to designate a principal who has an approved teaching certificate.” Holy Dinah. Are they ever moving fast out of the 16th century. They're going at rocket speed.

The government has actually said that, yes, they will agree to this recommendation. “A principal who has an approved teaching certificate.” Where in the public system would you find a principal who doesn't have an approved teaching certificate? I condemn this report from page 1 to page – what is it? – 44, with the sole exception of one recommendation, number 14, which the government has not accepted but which it will do because it's going to apply it to all schools. I will read that into the record.

A new requirement should be introduced which specifically states that all private schools must not offer programs that in theory or in practice will promote or foster doctrines of racial or ethnic superiority or persecution, religious intolerance or persecution, social change through violent action, or disobedience of laws. As if we couldn't have had that in the School Act a few decades or more ago. 3:30 Eight million dollars more is a requisition that's going to have to come in front of this Asse mbly. Guess how I'm voting, Mr. Chairman? I'm voting no on that question.

I vote no on the question right now in front of us under line item 2 dot 2 dot 2 – gee, I'm using computer language – which asks for $40,810,000 for public schools. I vote no. If I had been here – well, I was here last year. I did vote no. Y ou know, three and a half years out of this place was such bliss. I forget that I had that period of time in my life when I worked in the real world. I just got to criticize you from TV shows, and if I didn't want to, I didn't have to let you respond. I loved it.

The Minister of Community Development will know that, but we actually had a good show when she was Health minister. We had a very positive show. Anyway, what was in front of us in this main estimates book was a requisition for nearly $41 million. That constitutes more than a $2 million increase compared to last year, and now we're going to get a supplementary requisition for an extra $8 million. Shame on this government. Shame on any government that won't stop schools that promote exclusivity, that want to handpick based very often upon religious orientation.

They have the ability to go under the public education umbrella system. No problem. The only problem is that they want the right to discriminate. Shame. Wrong. Now, to the real issue here; well, not the real issue. Let's get back to public schools. I'll get this photocopied for the minister prior to his response on Monday. I went to a meeting with the Edmonton public school board this morning. They provided me with a graph. It shows in constant dollars that in 1987 their budget was hovering just under $300 million. They showed me the graph that again shows in constant dollars where they were in 1997. Guess what?

Just barely over $300 million. Now, you take into account inflation, increased enrollment, not to mention trying to settle with their workers who acquiesced to the government's demand that they take a 5 percent pay decrease, and the school board, now trying to settle with their workers, has agreed. Those people paid an extra tax for far too long just because they were public-sector employees.

And it turns out of course we had multibillion dollar surpluses each and every one of those years when the government was saying, “We may have a deficit,” or “We've got a balanced budget.” Don't tell me they didn't know they'd have multibillion dollar surpluses; $14.9 billion in surpluses over a five-year period. That's no mistake. Once, a mistake. Twice, a heck of a coincidence. Five times? It was a lie – a lie. On pages 134 and 135 of the estimates the performance measures are there. I know that the minister responded a little while ago to previous questions about those performance measures. Mr.

Chairman, do you know what's missing? The real obvious one, folks. Y oo-hoo. Wakey-wakey. It's 1998. The teacher/pupil ratios are not mentioned. Now, is that an accident? A coincidence? I don't think so. I think the government will do anything to spin away from the fact that their underfunding since 1993 of the public education system has been detrimental to all involved in the school system. Again, one more time, a pox on both sides of the House that voted for that crippling, strangling legislation that said that if there are any surplus dollars, they must go exclusively to the debt.

Honest to God, I must have spent half my time on air criticizing that bill. I should have been back in here. I should have run in a by-election. That's what I should have done. I would have had that legislation undone. Now, it is also pointed out to me that interns in the classroom are no substitute for smaller classes. Study after study has shown that. I'll tell you what all the school boards would like, having been on that hideous roller-coaster that they were on between 1993 and 1996. They would like a legislative requirement for kindergarten. I think they have the right to that. Let's put it in legislation.

Let's put it in the statutes and see how easy it would be to undo after the fact. [Mrs. Gordon in the chair]

March 5, 1998 Alberta Hansard 719 I know of a school board that, because of its having incurred a deficit, is now effectively reducing its per pupil grant to the schools in its district. That points out again the problem of underfunding, just as the parents having to pay now between $30 and $230 per student for things like books, pencils, sports. Now, the Edmonton public school board, Madam Chairman, used to supply all materials for elementary school, all materials. We're talking crayons, scribblers, the whole thing. They no longer can; they don't have the money.

I noticed that in his response the Education minister talked about the new math curriculum. Y eah, real exciting, sure. Did the budget reflect the cost of the $25 per text book needed to conform to the new math curriculum? No. No school in the province, no high school is getting that money, that 25 bucks per textbook that they're being told they must acquire but not getting any money for. If you look at the Edmonton public school board's figures, it would appear that they got with the current budget somewhere between 1 and a half and 2 and a half percent increase in actual funding.

However, if you don't allow for the giving back of the 5 percent for the school staff, including the teachers, which by the way the government is doing – government is settling; the Labour minister is settling contracts with AUPE members. They're getting their 5 percent back plus a couple of percent. Ah, but the schools: no. They're expected to swallow that themselves, either that or have fewer teachers, which means larger class sizes. I mean, talk about a vicious circle here.

In fact, if all is taken into account; that is, population increases, inflation, plus partly paying the teachers back – remember, for over two years the Edmonton public school employees have only gotten 3.35 percent of that 5 percent cut returned to their pockets or to their paycheques, and they lost over 300 t eachers in the system during the era of severe cuts. So what we've got is really no increase at all in net funding for the Edmonton public school board. I know that that's going to be the case throughout the province.

I will conclude by observing that the estimates do reflect the phasing out of the machinery and equipment tax. I know I did a show on this one as well; right? I did a TV show on this one. I did them five days a week, and I was always doing provincial stuff. The phasing out of the machinery and equipment tax was supposed to be replaced by another tax. That hasn't happened. Where is the other corporate tax that the report recommended replace the M and E tax? It ain't there. As a result, if you live in Edmonton, 52 percent of your property taxes are going to pay for education.

Now, I've got to ask myself: how many times do I have to pay for things around here? I pay my taxes for health care. I pay my health care premiums, and now the government is saying: oh, we'd like to open the door wide to private, for-profit hospitals and other related facilities, so you can pay one more time. Well, I pay my income taxes. I pay my property taxes. Y ou know what I get for my property taxes? I get snow that's not cleared in the winter because the city of Edmonton took a 70 percent cut in its funding in the last five years.

I pay my taxes, and I can't get my garbage picked up once a week because the city took a 70 percent cut. The city ideologically said: well, we can't raise taxes. Well, even if they could, they amount to flat taxes. Most people in this city who own a home are paying somewhere between $800 and $1,600 a year in property taxes. That's a flat tax by any other name, as far as I'm concerned. If I owned a multibillion dollar house – or mi llion I should say. Y ou'd have to stretch your mansion a long way around the world to come up with a multibillion dollar home; wouldn't you?

A multimillion, with an M, dollar home: yeah, I'd be paying a lot more than that. Most of us don't have multimillion dollar homes. So what we have is taxpayers paying taxes and paying more taxes and getting reduced services. To add insult to injury, the $ 40 million that this government was prepared to steal out of the public education system, which is crippling – they're now going to give not just that $40 million but another $8 million to private schools, who boast about their ability to discriminate, who boast about their ability to exclude people. Shame on them. 3:40 THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The hon.

Member for Edmonton- Mill Woods. DR. MASSEY: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I would like to make some further comments with regard to the estimates, and I would break them into two parts. First, I'd like to ask some questions of the department based on a response I received from the minister last year. I had asked a question about site-based management.

Part of the reply I received talked a bout administration costs and instructional costs, the governance of the system, and how those caps have been set: a 4 percent cap for boards with more than 6,000 students and 6 percent for boards with less than 2,000 students and between 4 and 6 percent on a sliding scale for those boards in between. I'd like to quote what it goes on to say. It says: the costs associated with system instruction support will include support staff, certificated and uncertificated, and associated activities provided across the entire school jurisdiction.

Well, Madam Chairman, clearly that is not the case. These regulations that came in in 1995 are being challenged. There's been a recent submission by the College of Alberta School Superintendents in a document entitled: Statement of Concern for the Failure of Restrictions Upon System Wide Instructional Support Services for Schools. The superintendents, who are, I think, in a fairly good position to know what is going on, take the government to task for the effect that those caps have had on their school districts and, in particular, individual schools.

They indicate that the capping has had a negative impact on individual students, and it's resulting in a diminishment of systemwide instructional support services. At the root of their argument is that there are a number of things that a large unit like a school system or a school district can carry out that individual schools can't, or if individual schools try to carry on those activities, there is a duplication of service and a wasting of money and a wasting of resources.

They also indicate that using the school unit in many cases does not provide enough dollars for an individual school to provide a required or an additional service. They have some other complaints about the impact of the caps along with moving to site-based management. They make the statement that schools are becoming “isolated islands.” I think that that's anything but what we had hoped would happen with site-based management and the kinds of caps that were put in place to try to divert dollars to the classroom.

They also indicate that the whole notion of long-term planning has been thrown into confusion and that it's really very difficult to do the kind of long- term planning that's required by school districts if schools are to be served the way they should be and if students and parents are to have the programs that we want in place. They also indicate that the smaller schools, in particular, are

720 Alberta Hansard March 5, 1998 having a difficult time because, again, they don't have the resources to pay for specialists. They don't have the resources to buy the kinds of instructional resources that students need. I guess the bottom line is that they make a statement that “the viability of student learning” is being threatened and the move, in their words, “is hurting kids.” So I'd like to ask if there is money in the department's budget to evaluate site-based management and the impact that it's having, particularly on small schools in the province. What is happening to those schools?

Are the kinds of charges levied by the College of Alberta School Superintendents valid causes? Are the kinds of concerns that they had widespread? Are they shared by a number of boards? They indicate, of course, that in terms of the instructional program, there are other concerns that have arisen. Economies of scale are threatened. Where school districts could buy on a districtwide basis for schools, that's been destroyed by some of the caps and the move to site-based management.

They list a series of other items that they indicate this loss of economy of scale has imposed on school systems and that this is detrimental to the task that school districts are trying to carry out. So I would like some information from the government about the move to site-based management, how effective the caps are. Is the rhetoric about local control with site-based management an actuality in the schools of the province, or is it in the minds of the people in the Department of Education?

I'm not that well prepared, Madam Chairman, but I would like to, if I could, refer to and ask some questions about the Private Schools Funding Task Force, whose report was released this afternoon. I've only had a chance to skim the text and to look at the background provided by the Alberta government, the Department of Education. Y ou can't help but feel saddened, feel greatly disappointed at the kind of recommendations that were made by the task force, and even further disappointed by the government's response to those recommendations, which for the most part has been to almost accept them as they are.

I think it's a blow for public education, and it must be a banner day for the supporters of private schools. I'd like to refer to a number of the recommendations that have been accepted by the government. The leak that we heard from the media yesterday has been confirmed. The private schools' funding will move to 60 percent of the basic instruction grant provided to the public schools. This is a 20 percent increase. In terms of the figures given, it's going to result in an additional cost of $1.9 million in 1999-2000, and it's going to make an additional cost of $5.3 million in 2000-2001.

This is in addition to the funding that the government already has in its three-year plans. For the life of me, I cannot understand how a government that has pleaded poverty and has indicated that there is no money for special-needs children, that there's no money for the increase in kindergarten instruction, can endorse a recommendation that diverts more public funds to private schools. It just seems somewhat incredible.

It's even more incredible when you think of the thousands and thousands of Albertans who have signed petitions, that have been tabled in this Assembly, who have objected to any increase in funding for private schools and the even more thousands who have objected to any funding for private schools. I think it's a recommendation that is going to stir some action on the part of public school supporters, b ecause it's certainly against the belief of what I think the majority of Albertans support.

That is that we need a strong public school system, and if private schools want to operate, they do so and they pay their way. Private schools serve private interests and should be paid from private sources. That's recommendation 4 in the report we have been given this afternoon. 3:50 Recommendation 6 is equally disturbing because it sets in place the automatic gain for private schools of anything that the public system gets. If the public system is given special funding for any project, recommendation 6 automatically passes similar money on to the private schools.

That has to be an incredible gain for private schools, that they automatically get any money the public school systems receive. Item 7 is the item that has really been at the heart of many of the arguments against private schools these last number of months. It seems so indefensible. How can the government continue to support the notion that private schools should continue to have the right to select students? That just seems to be so antidemocratic, that an institution receiving public funds can exclude members of the public from participating in the activities of that institution.

Just incredibly antidemocratic. I'd like to mention recommendation 12. It says it's accepted, and it says: We will require . . . And this is the government. . . . greater reporting of funded private schools and the requirement to develop and maintain policies consistent with those of the Minister. Well, just how is that going to happen? There are hundreds of private schools in this province. How are they going to be monitored? The Department of Education now is running one of the largest school districts, the private sc hool system, in the province.

The assurance that these schools are going to be monitored in the way that public schools are monitored, through elected school boards, is just not here in this kind of a recommendation. I'll be interested in the days ahead to see how the Minister of Education proposes that this monitoring take place. I look at recommendation 21. I think public school boards are going to have, again, a great deal of difficulty with this.

If I could paraphrase what it says: when school boards have determined that a youngster needs a special education program, then the parent is given the choice of sending their youngster to an appropriate private school. Again, that's a dramatic change, and it's going to mean great growth, I would predict, in the private schools that focus on accommodating youngsters with special needs. It's something that school boards have fo ught against.

It's something that has been a source of great contention for boards, when parents come with a youngster and insist that the board pay for their youngster's education at another institution. This number 21, if I'm reading it correctly, is now going to give those parents that option. They'll be able to go to Edmonton public and say: I want to send my youngster, who needs a special program, to private school X, and please pass me the money. It's quite incredible. I'd like to look at item 17, and again it's one where private schools will have no restraint on the kind of tuition that they levy.

They're going to be able to accept all the public dollars that are contained in the report, a 20 percent increase, and they are still going to have no cap on the kinds of tuitions they charge. If we wonder why there might be some attraction to private schools, then this is the root of the problem here. What draws people to private schools? High on the list of any survey of parents are small classes. And how do you get small classes? Y ou get small classes by having lots of teachers, and that way you'll be able to

March 5, 1998 Alberta Hansard 721 keep the class size d

Document details

Collection	Alberta — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	19980305
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	L24 S2 19980305 1330 01 han.pdf
Language	en
Format	json
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	3ff2919ca4f95382bb328d2c4ea0302388e3d55b

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