April 9, 1998 Alberta Hansard 1481 Legislative Assembly of Alberta Title: Thursday, April 9, 1998 1:30 p.m. Date: 98/04/09 [The Speaker in the chair] head: Prayers THE SPEAKER: Good afternoon. Let us pray. Our divine Father, as we conclude for this week our work in this Assembly, we ask for your strength and encouragement in our service of you through our services of others. We thank Y ou for Y our abundant blessings to our province. Amen. Please be seated. And to the hon. Member for Edmonton-Rutherford, welcome back. [applause] head: Introduction of Visitors THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-West.

MS KRYCZKA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to introduce to you and through you two of my constituents who are visiting us this afternoon. Mr . Danny Dalla-Longa is a former Member of this Legislative Assembly. Accompanying him is Shelley Kwinter. I would ask them to please rise and receive the warm welcome of this Assembly. head: Presenting Petitions THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. MS BLAKEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to present another petition signed by a number of people in support of protecting gays and lesbians from discrimination.

Thank you. head: Tabling Returns and Reports THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Olds-Didsbury-Three Hills. MR. MARZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to table five copies of letters from constituents and Albertans outside my constituency in support of the Supreme Court ruling regarding adding sexual orientation to the human rights bill. They number 22. I'd also like to table copies from constituents and some Albertans that are not in favour of the government adding sexual orientation to the Alberta Individual's Rights Protection Act. They number 357. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Energy. DR.

WEST: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Following a question from the Member for Edmonton-Calder yesterday, I'd like to table six copies of the final report of London Economics on their study of market power and mitigation methods for Alberta. These are opinions and conclusions of London Economics, and they were used as the basis for the formation of the policy that's inside Bill 27. This was sent to all members of the electric utility advisory committee. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Advanced Education and Career Development. MR. DUNFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a number of tablings today.

First are the 1997 reports of the Students Finance Board, the annual report, the Banff Centre Foundation, the University of Alberta Foundation, the University of Calgary Foundation, the University of Lethbridge Foundation, the Public Colleges Foundation of Alberta, the Athabasca University Foundation, and the Technical Institutes Foundation of Alberta. Secondly, I have four copies of a memo from Mr. Jack Davis, the Deputy Minister of Executive Council, and Mr. Jim Dixon, Alberta's Public Service Commissioner, addressed to deputy ministers. Mr.

Speaker, the memo outlines the management reward strategy which is the province's new compensation program for managers in the public sector. Also, Mr. Speaker, I have four copies of a report that I've received on salaries for provincial government deputy ministers. This report is from a private-sector group that I commissioned. I do want to mention that Mr. Paul Wacko was a member of that committee, and certainly we express sympathy to his family on his passing. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Labour. MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have two tablings today.

One is from the University of Calgary, which is located in the heart of and is in many cases the heart of Calgary-Varsity. I'm proud to be a graduate of that fine institution. Four copies of their community report entitled New Directions Now. Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I wish to table four copies of the Workers' Compensation Act Appeals Commission annual report noting that they have worked in their business plan to move down the period from initiation of appeals to disposition. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Rutherford. MR. WICKMAN: Mr. Speaker, could you bear with me?

I have three tablings to make.

The first tabling is five copies of a letter addressed to Members of the Legislative Assembly expressing my gratitude for their kindness during my hospitalization and recov- ery, including the Premier, his near visit bumped because of surgery, the kind note of the Minister of Municipal Affairs, the Minister of Justice for sending flowers, the Minister of Commu- nity Development, the Member for Edmonton-Whitemud for bringing up a copy of the Throne Speech signed by the Premier, and my colleagues, the Member for Edmonton-Calder, who made sure I didn't miss anything that happened in this House, the Leader of the Opposition.

I thank you all for the kindness that was shown. [applause] My next tabling is my expenses for the last fiscal period, which I understand all Members of the Legislative Assembly have tabled. Lastly, Mr. Speaker, in compliance with the wishes of my constituents I'm tabling all the faxes and letters I've received and the results of phone calls to my constituency office and my home dealing with the ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. MS BLAKEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have two tablings today.

The first is 35 more letters, E-mails, and correspondence from constituents and other Albertans supporting the Supreme Court decision. The second is an accounting of the letters and calls received by

1482 Alberta Hansard April 9, 1998 my office both in support and against the Supreme Court decision, and I'd like to say that it's 88 percent in support of the decision. Thank you very much. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. MR. MacDONALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise this afternoon to table four copies of a letter from a constituent of mine. She is a young woman with three children who unfortu- nately was the victim of a bad blood transfusion in 1985, four months before the magical cutoff of 1986 regarding the hepatitis C compensation package. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Calder.

MR. WHITE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to table some documents in contrast to some of the information delivered by the Minister of Energy. This is a paper produced by his own department on Alberta electrical industry restructuring, a technical discussion paper titled

Definitions: Residual Benefit & Stranded Costs. That's one tabling. The second tabling is simply a graph that ou tlines what the expected values are in the year 2020. It's quite explicit, sir. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Manning. MR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have been asked to table five copies of letters and petitions regarding concerns in the county of Smoky Lake. Mr.

Speaker, I would like to table five copies of a letter from a constituent of Edmonton-Manning to the environment minister stating his dismay at the increase of bureaucracy in the fishing and hunting licences. head: Introduction of Guests THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Energy. DR. WEST: Oh, yes. Thanks, Mr. Speaker. It's my pleasure today to introduce 24 students and nine adults from the Tulliby Lake school. They are from grades 6 to 9. They are accompa- nied by teachers Mr. Elgin Pawlak and Ms Sandra Lawson. They're in the northeast part of the province.

It isn't a large school, but it is a strong school in the sense that they hold on to their values in Tulliby Lake and speak with principle and put that type of living into their children. I think that the Tulliby Lake school for its size exemplifies what we want out of our education system. I would ask them to stand – they're in the members' gallery – and receive the warm welcome of this House. 1:40 THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Redwater. MR. BRODA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is my pleasure to introduce to you and through you to this Assembly four visitors that I have here today.

Two of them are exchange students, and I hope I can pronounce their names properly. Klara Sebkova is from Prague 4, Czech Republic. She is attending the H.A. Kostash school in Smoky Lake, and she's in grade 12. Her host family is Trevor and Judy Henry of Smoky Lake. The next student is Natsuko Kodama of Ehime, Japan. She's also attending H.A. Kostash school and is in grade 10. Her host family is Sharon Doshewnek and family of Smoky Lake. They are seated in the members' gallery. Also, accompanying them is Mrs. Judy Henry and her daughter Miss Shelby Henry.

I'd ask them to please rise and receive the warm welcome of this Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Intergovernmental and Aboriginal Affairs. MR. HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have two sets of introductions today. First, I would like to introduce to you and through you to this Assembly a gentleman who has been a fixture in our province in aboriginal affairs matters, Mr. Sam Sinclair. Accompanying him as well is one of his cohorts, Mr. Richard Whitford, of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples of Alberta. I'd like them to rise and receive the warm welcome of the House.

I'd also like to introduce to you and through you to members of the Assembly a family who is visiting us in Edmonton from Sweden, Mr. Kenet Sjöström, his wife, Inger Sjöström, and their daughter Catrin. They're in the members' gallery, and I would also ask them to rise and receive the warm welcome of the House. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Creek. MR. ZWOZDESKY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to intro- duce to you and through you to the House a constituent of mine, Dave Schroder, who is visiting the Legislative Assembly for his first time.

He's a keen observer of politics and of the democratic process, and he's here to see it in action. I would ask him to rise and please receive the warm welcome of all my colleagues. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for St. Albert. MRS. O'NEILL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It gives me pleasure today to introduce to you and through you to Members of the Legislative Assembly a resident of St. Albert and a director of network services for TransAlta, Mr. Yves Tremblay.

He's seated in the members' gallery, and I'd ask him to please rise and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. head: Ministerial Statements Leader of the Opposition MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, today is the last day the hon. Member for Edmonton-McClung will sit in this Assembly as Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. On behalf of every member of the government caucus I rise to express my best wishes to the hon. member. For many years, both inside and outside of the Legislative Assembly, the hon. member has represented his constituents and his party with skill, passion, a nd total dedication.

He has continually brought distinction to this Assembly and its legacy of democracy and open debate. Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and I go back to 1989, and we have developed a bit of a special relationship. Ever since I was appointed to this Assembly, he has been my appointed critic. Although he and I have frequently disagreed on various issues, his commitment to building a strong Alberta has never been in doubt. I can honestly say that under his leadership the Liberal Party of Alberta has maintained a voice that continues to be heard by all members of this Assembly on both sides of the floor.

In a democratic system such as ours, Mr. Speaker, it is so important to have an articulate and honourable opposition. When this Assembly reconvenes after the Easter recess, the

April 9, 1998 Alberta Hansard 1483 Official Opposition will have a new leader. On behalf of my caucus colleagues I extend my best wishes to the hon. member as well as to his wife and family, whom I'm sure all understand too well the sacrifices and costs that leadership of a party can exact. Mr. Speaker, I know this is a bit unparliamentary, but just this once allow me to say: Grant, thank you for a job well done. Thank you. [applause] THE SPEAKER: Hon. Leader of the Official Opposition, it's customary in Ministerial Statements to hear a response. MR. MITCHELL: Mr.

Speaker, thank you very much for allowing us to depart, if I might say, a little bit from tradition to do something that has meant a great deal to me and I know to my family as well. I did almost react, as the opposition leader does. When the Premier, Ralph, called me Grant, I almost got up and said, “Point of order, Mr. Speaker.” I have found in what you have said, Mr. Premier, a great graciousness and thoughtfulness and consideration, and I appreci- ate it immensely.

While it was a wonderful tribute to me – and I might tell you that I'll be saving that Hansard for my children and Teresa and my grandchildren – it also is a great tribute to how this Legislative Assembly does bring out the best in each and every one of us and is really ultimately a triumph of ideas and debate over personalities. Y ou demonstrated that today, and I appreciate it greatly.

While I cannot say that every experience I have had as Leader of the Opposition has been pure pleasure – I notice that the Premier is laughing, and I would only ask him why he is laugh- ing, because I think as leaders we share some understanding of what I mean – I can say that every one of these experiences I have savoured. They have been unequivocally challenging, and they have been deeply, deeply rewarding.

As much as I have waited to be in government and have long wanted to be in government and longed to be in government, I have never wavered in the privilege that I have felt in being given the task of being an opposition member and an opposition leader over all the years that I have spent in this Legislative Assembly. I have been so fortunate to have had a caucus like this caucus to work with. I know the Premier will agree that it is a wonderful thing to work with a strong, dedicated, powerful group of people, and I would recognize each and every one of them.

I also have to say that there's been a special spice in my role as opposition leader, because I have, if I can admit this openly, faced one of the most successful Premiers and governments, one of the most prominent Premiers and governments in this entire country. Very few opposition leaders could claim to have had the chance to hone their skills in this important role against such a formida- ble, challenging government. I also want to mention something of the Speaker. Mr.

Speaker, you have indicated to all of us for the period of time that you've been in here something that's so important to this Legislative Assembly, and that is an undying, unwavering commitment to the integrity and the sense of importance and significance of this institution. I appreciate that very, very much. I was honoured, as they will be, that you would have mentioned my family: Teresa, Lucas, Liam, and Grady. I know everyone in this Legislative Assembly knows how much they sacrifice and the dedication that we require of them and ask of them in order to do the jobs that we do.

I am very, very privileged to have had the support I've had from the most remarkable wife, Teresa, and three wonderful children over these 12 years in this time in opposition. In fact, they can take a great deal of credit for the strength that I have had to be able to perform this job. 1:50 I would also, of course, and most importantly like to thank the people of Alberta who have given me the trust to be an opposition leader and an opposition member. As every one of us knows, that is an undeniable privilege of great proportion and something that we take with us for the rest of our lives.

Finally, I would like to conclude simply by saying that I have been so fortunate to have had the time in this Legislative Assem- bly and the experiences that I have had.

As Leader of the Opposition I have been immensely privileged to serve the people of Alberta in the capacity that I have been able to do so, and I have been very, very privileged as well to have been a leader amongst 82 other dedicated, committed leaders, each and every one of us committed to a single sense of purpose, and that is to continuing to ensure that Alberta is the best place in the world. [applause] head: Oral Question Period THE SPEAKER: The Leader of the Official Opposition. MR. MITCHELL: Back to normal, Mr. Speaker. Sexual Orientation MR. MITCHELL: For seven years, Mr.

Speaker, this govern- ment has fought hard in the courts, some would argue and I would, against equal rights for a group of Alberta citizens. This has fostered an atmosphere, unfortunately, of hatred and intoler- ance in this province. Some of the letters which our caucus has received and which I know the government has received and some of the phone calls are certainly evidence of that unfortunate circumstance. Today, very fortunately, the Premier has done the right thing.

Given that this government has spent well over a million dollars fighting against equal rights for all Albertans, will the Premier commit to putting at least as much money into public education on this issue as he has spent fighting this case all the way to the Supreme Court? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, I'm not exactly sure how much money has been spent, first of all, on the original trial relative to Vriend, the subsequent appeal, and then the appeal by Mr. Vriend to the Supreme Court of Canada.

I can tell the hon. member that this situation and the meaning of the Supreme Court ruling has to be articulated, and it has to be articulated clearly so people know exactly what it means. Mr. Speaker, beginning next week, I believe as early as Wednesday if we can get the copy prepared and finalized, advertisements will be going in newspapers throughout the province.

It's anticipated that there will be a radio and television campaign as well to clearly articulate the meaning of the Supreme Court ruling so that Albertans can have a good understanding that this simply means that no longer will people be discriminated against relative to housing, employment, services, and some other areas on the basis of sexual orientation. MR. MITCHELL: I think we're all very encouraged by that. Given the lies – I use that word; it's a strong word – which are being circulated in this province by such groups as the Family Action Coalition, will the Premier commit specifically to at least

1484 Alberta Hansard April 9, 1998 responding to that group's television ads, television ad for television ad, newspaper ad for newspaper ad, pamphlet for pamphlet, so that all Albertans can be assured of the truth? MR. KLEIN: Well, Mr. Speaker, this is a communications plan, and certainly we've got to get the facts out there as the facts are. We want to speak and articulate th e situation as it relates to the facts of the situation.

If we could concentrate on what this ruling means and concentrate on the law as it now stands – that is, the human rights legislation as it now stands – then I think Albertans will have a clearer understanding as to what it is that has hap- pened over this past week. MR. MITCHELL: Will the Premier commit to amending Alberta's human rights legislation to include sexual orientation so that Albertans can read our own document and know what their rights are instead of having to read a 100-page Supreme Court ruling? MR. KLEIN: Well, Mr.

Speaker, the Charter has not been amended, but it's quite clear now that sexual orientation has been read into the Charter as it has now been read into our legislation. So the legislation as it now stands includes sexual orientation. THE SPEAKER: Second Official Opposition main question. The hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo. Private Health Services MR. DICKSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Y esterday the Premier described his health-for-profit bill, Bill 37, as an “innocuous” piece of legislation. The last bill he described that way was the bill to extinguish the Charter rights of 703 sexual sterilization victims.

My question to the Premier this afternoon is this: has his commitment to public health care for Albertans deteriorated to such an extent that he can describe as innocuous a bill which provides an absolute blueprint for the expanded role of private, for-profit health care services? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, I would argue that it doesn't. It simply provides safeguards that allow the Minister of Health to ensure that the fundamental principles of the Canada Health Act are being met.

If the hon. member wants to read something more into the bill than is already there, I guess that's entirely up to him, but I simply see this as a bill that provides some safeguards. I'll have the hon. minister supplement. MR. JONSON: Mr.

Speaker, during a previous session of this Assembly the opposition members were very concerned about proposals and of course the Health Resource Group clinic and requested, as did members of our caucus, that we have put in place a process whereby we can control, we have the power of approval, we make sure that there is not harm done to the public system with respect to the esta blishment of a private type of facility whether it's the Gimbel clinic or the HRG clinic. That is what this particular piece of legislation does. It provides for those controls and the ability to do it with a legislative mandate. MR.

DICKSON: Mr. Speaker, this government's record on private health care speaks for itself. My supplementary question, then, to the Premier would be this: how can the public have any confidence that the government will protect the public interest when it comes to health care when the bill has been brought in without any public consultation, virtually lost in the storm of attention that's been focused on the Vriend decision? MR. KLEIN: Oh, Mr. Speaker, there was no sinister plot to bring that piece of legislation in during the midst of a controversy on another issue.

It was brought forth in the normal manner of bringing legislation to this Assembly. There is nothing surrepti- tious about this whatsoever. It's simply a bill to make sure that whatever is done relative to private health care, if you want to call it that, is done in accordance with the Canada Health Act, that it simply doesn't violate the Canada Health Act, and it gives the authority for the minister to deal with these situations on an as- needs basis. MR. DICKSON: Mr.

Speaker, my final question is: for all of those Albertans who have not been impressed with this govern- ment's bill preparation record, why will the Premier not do what was done with the health information bill, what the Premier proposes to do with the health professions bill, which is to let it die on the Order Paper, and if he still persists in doing this, bring it back next year after all Albertans have had a chance to be heard? 2:00 MR. KLEIN: Well, Mr.

Speaker, it is before the Legislature now, and there is ample opportunity to have the bill debated, including the idea that it be allowed to die on the Order Paper. This bill will be treated the same as any other piece of legislation. Over 40 pieces of legislation have been brought to this Assembly thus far. They're all good pieces of legislation. Some of them have been approved already, and some have been enacted into law. There are some occasions when legislation, very, very complex legislation, is taken out for public discussion.

Indeed there were four years of public consultation prior to the introduction of Bill 27, the electrical deregulation bill. Mr. Speaker, I recall a bill that I introduced when I was the minister of the environment, the Alberta Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, again a very complex bill that took about 10 pi eces of legislation and consolidated that legislation, and it was deemed appropriate that that bill be taken out for public consultation. But, Mr. Speaker, with the amount of legislation we deal with, there simply is not enough time.

None of us would live long enough to have public consultation on each and every piece of legislation. THE SPEAKER: Third Official Opposition main question. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark. Doctors' Fee Negotiations MS LEIBOVICI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Over and over we hear this government claiming that children are its top priority, but yet again actions speak louder than words. Pediatricians are now limiting services, and the very health and well-being of Alberta's children are being jeopardized by the Minister of Health's lack of action.

My questions are to the minister of privatization – the Minister of Health. With the health of Alberta's children at stake, what action is the minister taking to resolve the dispute? MR. JONSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to first of all just review some information with respect to the Calgary health

April 9, 1998 Alberta Hansard 1485 authority, because I suspect that the member is alluding to some job action that is evidently occurring in Calgary. We have provided to the Calgary health authority, the authority delivering service which includes the child ren's hospital, 51 additional millions of dollars in operating expenses, or 7.8 percent; $105 million in capital and Y2K funding; another $12 million, or 14.9 percent, to fund provincewide services. So I think we've taken very significant steps to make sure that the regional health authority has adequate funding.

This very unfortunate situation with respect to the children's hospital is part, I guess, of job pressure or part of a negotiation stance. We recognize that the pediatricians are a very, very important part, as are all doctors, of our overall health delivery system, but we stand ready to meet at the table to negotiate a contract with the Alberta Medical Association, Mr. Speaker. We are continuing to pay all doctors in the province. The Alberta Medical Association itself some months ago requested that there be a two-month extension of the agreement, which we agreed to.

Therefore, I think we are supporting health care in this province, including the children's hospital's patients. MS LEIBOVICI: Well, it's interesting to note that the Minister of Labour and the Premier were able to settle the support worker and LPN strikes within one day. What are you doing to settle the job action by the doctors? MR. JONSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, certainly I commend the Premier and the Minister of Labour with respect to that particular dispute. However, as I recall, that had gone on over a long period of time, and there was already the stage of mediation taking place over a lengthy period of time.

Also, I believe, a contract had run out. Mr. Speaker, in this particular case, we want to be able to meet with the doctors and ascertain what their current negotiating position is. Quite frankly, we do not want to go by media reports, and we would like to get back to the table to ascertain that. MS LEIBOVICI: Well, is the Minister of Health then saying that he is waiting for the Premier to pick up the phone to Bill Ander- son and settle th e dispute today? What are you doing about it? It's time to settle it. MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, I have met with our negotiating team.

They continue to endeavour to set up a meeting with the Alberta Medical Association. The hon. member says that's not good enough. I cannot understand why, when the parties involved are quite prepared to sit down and negotiate. THE SPEAKER: The leader of the ND opposition. Sexual Orientation (continued) MS BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm pleased that two- thirds of the government caucus agreed today to follow the Premier's lead and accept the Supreme Court ruling in the Vriend case.

However, I am concerned that the government's decision to try to build legislative fences around the decision will only prolong the agony felt by gays and lesbians in this province for at least the next six weeks, if not longer. I wonder if the Premier would clarify something from the news release issued earlier today by the government. Why did it link pedophilia to homosex- uality when the Premier knows full well that the vast majority of pedophiles are heterosexuals and that pedophilia has nothing to do with equality rights for gays and lesbians? MR.

KLEIN: The only reason that was mentioned in the news release, Mr. Speaker, is that this was one of the issues that has been raised publicly, you know, through information or misinfor- mation. I think we need to look at some of these questions. Again, there is nothing surreptitious about this. These are some of the concerns that have been raised by Albertans. We have a task force in place that will continue to do its work and l ook at some of these issues. MS BARRETT: Okay. I'll accept it on face value. Mr. Speaker, this has been a seven-year roller coaster for a lot of people.

I'd like to ask the Premier what he believes is to be gained by these so-called public consultations in such an emotion- ally charged atmosphere? Can he defend the necessity of this? Why can't it wait? MR. KLEIN: Well, Mr. Speaker, it's just a natural extension of what the caucus did today relative to not invoking the notwith- standing clause. I think we have to address these questions as soon as possible. To bury our heads in the sand and to say that these issues do not exist would be fundamentally and morally wrong.

There is a very, very large constituency out there who is concerned about some of these issues, and I think they have to be addressed. MS BARRETT: Well, Mr. Speaker, if the Premier is so deter- mined to hold these additional public consultations, why are they being conducted by a cabinet committee, some of whose ministers have very outspoken opinions on the subject, rather than an impartial body, the impartial body that should be doing it, the Human Rights and Citizenship Commission? [interjections] They did it before. MR. KLEIN: Well, Mr.

Speaker, we would like to look at these situations as a government, and if the ND opposition wants to look at these situations as the third party, they're perfectly entitled to look at these matters. At some point it will come back to our caucus, perhaps to this Legislative Assembly, and we'll have the discussion on it. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Wetaskiwin-Camrose, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Rutherford. Educational Consortia MR. JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the Minister of Education.

In 1995 the Department of Education provided a three-year commitment of nearly $2 million to establish regional consortia to support in-service training and professional develop- ment for educators and providers of education. Today I under- stand that there are six such consortia serving various areas of the province. Now that the initial three-year period has elapsed, what is the minister's evaluation of the consortia in serving the needs of their stakeholders? 2:10 MR. MAR: Mr. Speaker, I have gotten feedback on the success of consortia throughout the province of Alberta.

I think that they have done a very fine job in providing in-servicing for new

1486 Alberta Hansard April 9, 1998 initiatives like school councils and site-based management. As well, the in-service training has been provided to a wide number of stakeholders, people who have influence in student learning: teachers, school councils, school trustees, and administrators. In the first full year of the implementation of consortia, more than 13,000 people had received in-servicing, and the satisfaction level expressed by participants has been very high. Satisfaction levels for participants are at the 95 percent range.

The results of random satisfaction surveys to measure how well consortia are doing have also been consistently high, and the feedback overall has been very positive. MR. JOHNSON: To the same minister: now that the funding period has elapsed, how will regional consortia be funded in the future? MR. MAR: Mr.

Speaker, at the outset the consortia were designed to operate independently and become self-sustaining with jurisdictions and schools and partner organizations providing their expertise and paying expenses for representatives of consortia boards of directors and providing in-kind services, things like office space and technology support. The funds for the profes- sional development and the curriculum in-service are included in the basic instruction block. As the member indicated, $2 million was provided for the first three years for infrastructure and in- servicing.

Consortia have indicated that they need more time in order to get their own funding in place. Government funding for this program was scheduled to end August 31 of this year. In response to the consortia, who have indicated that they need more time for this transition, we will provide an additional $800,000 for the 1998-99 year for infrastructure, and consortia will continue to fund their own programs on a self-sustaining basis. MR. JOHNSON: Finally to the same minister: are all regions of the province served by at least one of these consortia? MR. MAR: Mr.

Speaker, all but two separate school boards currently participate in consortia. I understand that one of those separate school boards is on the verge of signing on but has not yet done so. About 40 funded private schools also access the services of consortia. All school authorities have access to the services of a consortium. So there is very broad support and wide access to this program by stakeholders throughout the province of Alberta. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Rutherford, followed by the hon. Member for Banff-Cochrane. [applause] VLT Plebiscites MR. WICKMAN: Through you, Mr. Speaker. Mr.

Premier, in the past you have promised – let me remind you: you have promised – to remove VLTs within seven days of the filing of a successful petition. Not the Gaming and Liquor Commission but you, Mr. Premier. In light of the decision by the highest court of Alberta in regards to the Wood Buffalo petition, will you commit to your original promise and remove the machines now? MR. KLEIN: Mr.

Speaker, indeed it is the policy of this govern- ment that when municipalities hold a plebiscite and if the plebi- scite is to remove the machin es, the resolution would then be forwarded to the Alberta Liquor and Gaming Commission, and in accordance with policy the commission would remove the machines. We cannot tell the commission – it is a quasi-judicial body. Certainly they are aware of the policy. They know the policy, and indeed the policy has been followed in two instances. In the town of Rocky Mountain House and in the town of Sylvan Lake VLTs were indeed removed.

They were not removed in the town of Lacombe, where the va lidity of the plebiscite was challenged and it was ruled that the plebiscite indeed was not valid. Therefore, there might or there might not be another plebiscite. I don't know what the town council there plans to do in Lacombe. Mr. Speaker, with respect to Wood Buffalo, I don't know as of this moment where the resolution of the council is, whether that resolution has been communicated to the commission. If it has, it will be up to the commission to act or to withhold action, pending an application by the appellant to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Now, I understand . . . [interjections] Well, first of all, Mr. Speaker, the rules are quite clear. Once notification has been received by contract that the machines are to be removed, the seven days' notice has to be served. That is under the contract. So even if we received the notification today, there would still be seven days before the machines are removed. That is the law, and that is a contractual obligation.

If there is a subsequent court action, then I think the commission will take a look at that court action and will rule whether it's deemed appropriate in light of the court action to remove the machines. MR. WICKMAN: Mr. Premier, let me get this clear. Through you, Mr. Speaker: Mr. Premier, are you now saying that you're prepared to use further pending court action as a stalling device in the removal of these machines? MR. KLEIN: No, Mr. Speaker, I'm not saying that at all. This government does not get involved at that level. We are not going to get involved in any court cases relative to the removal of machines.

I understand that the individual, the hotelier who took the case to the Alberta Court of Appeal and lost is now giving consideration to an application to the Supreme Court of Canada to have that case reviewed by the highest court. MR. WICKMAN: Mr. Speaker, through you to the Premier. Mr. Premier, my last question: will you now do the honourable thing and hold a provincewide plebiscite and deal with this issue once and for all? MR. KLEIN: Well, I'm glad the hon. member has been keeping up to date on this issue because we've been through it many times in this Legislative Assembly.

The Gordon report clearly states – and it was a recommendation that was accepted – that this whole matter of gambling would be reviewed by the end of August 1998. That review is now taking place, Mr. Speaker, as it relates to VLTs as well as all other forms of gambling. Really, the culmination of this review will take place near the end of this month in Medicine Hat when we convene a summit and bring all parties together relative to the issue of gambling, including the issue of VLTs.

Hopefully, we'll be able to frame some recom- mendations coming out of that meeting and take whatever action then is deemed to be appropriate. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Banff-Cochrane, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. Public Service Salaries MRS. TARCHUK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question today

April 9, 1998 Alberta Hansard 1487 is to the minister responsible for the personnel administration office. As we all know, the government is currently in contract negotiations with over 20,000 members of the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees. Will the minister please update the House on the status of these negotiations? MR. DUNFORD: I'd be glad to, Mr. Speaker. First, let me start, though, by indicating that we acknowledge that the Alberta public service contributed very significantly to this province's fiscal success, and those efforts deserve to be rewarded.

I'm pleased to report to the House today that government employees have recently ratified a master agreement that covers issues such as hours of work, working conditions, and the return of three unpaid holidays. In addition, seven of 12 bargaining subsidiaries have ratified deals for an additional 2.3 percent effective Septem- ber 1, 1997, and 2.25 percent effective September 1, 1998. Those subsidiary agreements also include an achievement bonus of 2 percent for employees, which will be included in their April paycheques.

I'd like to assure the House that negotiations are progressing with the remaining bargaining subsidiaries. 2:20 MRS. TARCHUK: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, to the same minister: since the government is making progress with its unionized employees, can the minister inform the House about the new compensation program brought forward today for non-union employees? MR. DUNFORD: Y es, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to say that ensuring a public service management compensation program that is flexible and market driven was one of the key recommendations, as we all recall, from the Alberta Growth Summit.

So the new management reward strategy follows through on that recommenda- tion by focusing compensation on goals set in the ministry business plans. Now, this is the key reason the government brought forward the concept of achievement bonuses in the February budget. The new compensation package for government managers focuses on ensuring that we will be able to retain, attract, and develop the talent and employees required to serve the needs of Albertans into the next century. MRS. TARCHUK: Mr. Speaker, my final question is to the same minister.

Earlier today the minister tabled a report on compensa- tion for deputy ministers. Can the minister inform the House if he plans on implementing all of the recommendations of the report? MR. DUNFORD: Well, Mr. Speaker, last fall I did ask a private- sector committee to make recommendations regarding compensa- tion levels for deputy ministers and other senior government officials. As mentioned, I did table that report today in the House.

The committee was asked to examine the question of appropriate compensation, to compare compensation levels with other jurisdictions, and to make recommendations on salary levels for senior officials. The government will be studying the committee's recommendations and a decision regarding senior officials' pay will be made in the next little while. THE SPEAKER: Ooh, it sounds to me like the Easter bunny's arrived. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods, followed by the hon. Member for Clover Bar-Fort Saskatchewan. School Achievement Tests DR. MASSEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A private company has listed 75 schools, many of which, year after year, do poorly on Alberta achievement tests. These schools, coincidentally, are located in low-income areas of the province, in parts of Edmon- ton, the Northern Lights and the Northland school divisions. My questions are to the Minister of Education. What responsibility does the minister take for the continued poor performance of these schools? MR. MAR: Mr. Speaker, I would be the first one to agree with the hon. member if he said that the objective of the Department of Education was to improve all of these schools.

It has to be noted that the Department of Education, this government, does not as a policy endorse the ranking of schools. That is not the purpose of achievement tests. The purpose of achievement tests is to be able to identify those areas where we have weaknesses and challenges to face and come up with solutions for fixing those problems. The 75 schools that are referred to in this private report that is put out by an individual – frankl y, I think the school boards are concerned about the performance of these schools, but they're dealing with it positively. They recognize the challenges that they have.

They know there are some difficulties they'll have to deal with. But those school boards are doing a good job of identifying those problems and putting the solutions in place. Obviously, the solution is not to lower the standards that our schools are expected to achieve but rather to ensure that more schools can jump over the bar. We want every school in this province to succeed, Mr. Speaker. DR. MASSEY: My question, then, is to the same minister. If ranking isn't the purpose of the achievement tests, why are the scores made public? MR. MAR: Mr.

Speaker, you know, on the one hand the opposition would have us release information pursuant to FOIP, and on the other hand they would have us suppress it. Y ou cannot have it both ways. These achievement tests are done partly as an accountability measure, partly as a way of identifying difficulties and challenges. Obvi ously this information must be public. DR. MASSEY: Thank you. Again, to this same minister: given that testing these students year after year is like taking a patient's temperature over and over again without treating the underlying illness, what is the minister doing?

Exactly what are you going to do about the problem? MR. MAR: Well, Mr. Speaker, the analogy presented by this hon. member is not an appropriate analogy because in his analogy he's assuming that these schools aren't improving. In fact, we do want to see a pattern of improvement over time. It would be a good idea to measure the temperature of a patient from time to time to monitor whether or not the treatment you're giving is in fact working. That's what's happening with schools. We are employing new ways, dealing with new solutions of how to deal with problems.

For example, the early literacy program: if that's identified as an issue on grade 3 achievement tests, then the introduction of an early literacy program should help improve the results in grade 3 literacy. If it doesn't, then we'll have to go

1488 Alberta Hansard April 9, 1998 back to the drawing board and find out what kind of a program will work. It's absolutely appropriate that from year to year we measure results, because parents want to know, regardless of the type of program that a school board or a school uses for t eaching children, that their kids are learning the material. How we know that they've learned is through achievement tests on an annual basis. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Clover Bar-Fort Saskatch- ewan, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Manning. Used Oil Management MR. LOUGHEED: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Over the past couple of months several constituents have expressed their concern to me regarding the cost and fees charged to them for oil, oil containers and filters, and for oil changes at their local garage. To the Minister of Environmental Protection: can you please explain the purpose behind the development of the Alberta Used Oil Management Association and what's expected to be achieved by that association? MR. LUND: Mr. Speaker, this initiative came from the industry. AUOMA was formed by the industry, and of course industry recognizes the importance of protecting the environment.

They recognized that there were some 32 million litres of used oil that disappeared in the province each year. That's equivalent to one of the supertankers, so it's a lot of oil. Now, of course a large portion of that is consumed, but there is a lot of it that is thrown out and wasted. It is a renewable resource that we should be recycling. As well as that, there's a very large volume of oil containers and filters that end up in the landfill, so the industry came forward with a proposal that would see those different products brought back and recycled where they can be.

In the case of the filters they will be broken down and the material used for new products. MR. LOUGHEED: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My constituents also have questions regarding the reason they do not receive a refund when they return oil filters and used oil to the appropriate recycling station. MR. LUND: Mr. Speaker, I think it's unfair to compare this particular program with the deposit/return system we use for bottles. When they brought the proposal forward, I did ask them that very same question. It was interesting.

They were really concerned relative to the oil that in fact if there was a return, there would be a temptation to use solvents or other materials to mix with the oil to increase the quantity, and that could render the oil unusable. As to the containers and the filters, to set up another system and track the money and actually have it paid back out again adds a very large administrative cost. So the fact is that there's going to be an attempt to see, through education, if we can't get the program to work without the return. 2:30 MR. LOUGHEED: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Given that there's been no change in the behaviour of some people with respect to getting rid of their used containers and filters, does the minister have any mechanism in place to prevent this and achieve the objective; namely, to lessen pollution? MR. LUND: Mr. Speaker, before we implemented the program – and incidentally, the only involvement of government was to pass a regulation that put in motion the charge. This, as I said earlier, was an industry-driven initiative.

We believe – and we got this information from the six sites that were demonstration sites prior to the implementation of the program provincewide – that through education and awareness in fact we will see the recovery increase. There are currently about 200 sites in the province that accept oil. There are some 50 sites that will be bottle depots, ecocentres, so you can take your bottles, oil, and containers all to one location, but there are some other locations that just accept the oil, oil filters, and containers. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Manning, followed by the hon.

Member for Innisfail-Sylvan Lake. Support for Municipalities MR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Municipal Affairs has totally ignored the Growth Summit and has passed the buck to yet another committee. Well, Madam Minister, your new committee just doesn't cut it. Even after years of cuts and sacrifices both Edmonton and Calgary have made it clear that property taxes still must go up. My questions are to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Why do committees come first and taxpayers second? MS EVANS: Well, Mr. Speaker, they don't come first and taxpayers second.

I'm totally unclear on what the hon. member is referencing. MR. GIBBONS: My second question: what was the point of inviting the municipalities to the Growth Summit if you're going to reject their recommendations? MS EVANS: Mr. Speaker, I think there's clear evidence that our government hasn't rejected their recommendations. As I repeated earlier this week, our Premier is chairing a task force on infra- structure. We're working diligently with municipalities and their associations to resolve those issues.

We're examining the impact of education and property taxes in those high-growth areas which have had large increases for taxpayers. We have provided dollars this year for assessors and assessment methodology so that we can improve by $5 million the grants to municipalities to help them offset the costs that are being maintained and claimed as a result of the assessments and the move to market value assessments. Probably the most outstanding thing we have done, with the participation of both rural and urban municipalities, is engage in intermunicipal seminars on planning.

We've gone to regions throughout the province on five different occasions and had huge response from people who are working to become more co- operative, more together in their planning, collaborative, sharing their resources. Mr. Speaker, I hear far fewer complaints from municipalities than I do from the hon. members. MR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, my last question is to the same minister. Why does the government continue to encourage increases in property taxes with another 40 percent cut in municipal assistance? MS EVANS: Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to again address the matter of what the business of Municipal Affairs is. We engage throughout

April 9, 1998 Alberta Hansard 1489 the province in assuring that assessments are as accurate as possible. We do not advocate tax increases. We do not maintain in any way that people should be increasing taxes, but we recognize and respond responsibly to those people who recognize that they have needs in their community, and we acknowledge that they have taken action that's appropriate to benefit their own ratepayers. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Innisfail-Sylvan Lake, followed by the hon. Member for Spruce Grove-Sturgeon-St. Albert. Farm Fuel MR. SEVERTSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The president of the Alberta Sod Growers Association has contacted me as well as other sod farmers in my constituency. They are concerned that they have recently lost their right to use farm fuel to haul their products to market. My question is to the Provincial Treasurer. Can the minister advise if this is in fact the case? MR. DA Y: Let me be very clear, Mr. Speaker: yes and no. The way the issue has developed, it was never actually the policy of the government that the sod farmers would be able to use the exempt fuel.

To clarify it but also to help them in terms of transporting their product on their own property and doing their work on their own land, it was put in regulation that they were able to use the exempt fuel on their own land, but it was very clear in the regulation that they could not use exempt fuel if they were out on the highway and hauling to a consumer, either retail or wholesale. What happened was a particular producer became, I think, creative – and I'll use that in the proper entrepreneurial sense – and actually struck a lease agreement with a retailer, leasing the land around that retail operation.

Then the sod farmer was able to truck the product down the highway and actually to the retailer, but the farmer was leasing the land. So then he said, “That's actually my land, and I'm allowed to travel on my own land,” et cetera. It went to a court case, and the court case determined that the regulation needed to be changed to really make it clear that it would only be actually on their own existing land. So it never was a policy, but some creative entrepreneurial spirit took over, and it began to happen in practice. MR. SEVERTSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My first supple- mentary is to the same minister.

It is my understanding that most Alberta sod farmers had reacted to the court case by getting farm plates on their trucks and using farm fuel. Why is it that sod farmers were not made aware of the upcoming changes? MR. DA Y: Actually, Mr. Speaker, we were not aware that following the case sod farmers began to do this as a matter of practice. It was indicated at the time to the industry that because of the court case, as soon as the Fuel Tax Act came up for revision, in fact the regulation would be made very clear and that practice would come to an end.

That act didn't come up for revision until this year, so it sounds like over time just because of an absence of statement on it, more and more of the sod farmers actually began in practice to do this. MR. SEVERTSON: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary is to the same minister. Sod farmers typically sign contracts a year in advance and can't change the pricing that they have set. They are now caught in the squeeze because they thought they qualified for the use of farm fuel. Will the minister consider relief for these farmers so they will not lose? MR. DA Y: Mr.

Speaker, the Member for Innisfail-Sylvan Lake has been doing some good work on this, pretty aggressively I might add, and hasn't given me any rest on it. I've had officials actually check the situation and look at the implication, even if there are any implications on the budget process.

My feeling is that he makes a valid point on behalf of the industry, that rather than pointing a finger of right or wrong or who should have communicated what, the fact is that these particular producers have purchased fuel and do have some long-term contracts based on the fact that they thought they were going to receive this benefit. So the member can announce to that industry that we will put a moratorium on our plans for this year in terms of the benefit. The producers will continue to enjoy that benefit for this year.

We'll immediately start a consultation process with them to see what the implications will be for '99. I don't want them making long-term contracts now, but for this year we'll put that moratorium in place. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Spruce Grove-Sturgeon- St. Albert and then the hon. Member for St. Albert. Long-term Care MRS. SOETAERT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. While this government hides its inaction behind task forces, seniors in this province are ending up in long-term care facilities far away from their spouses, from their families, and from their friends.

Seniors and their families are told that there are seamless boundaries between health regions, but the reality is that seniors from Morinville, who should be placed in St. Albert or Westlock, are being sent off to Mayerthorpe, an hour and a half away. Just last week the Minister of Health was suggesting that seniors from Peace River s hould be pl aced in long-term care beds in McLennan. My questions are to the Minister of Health.

Is it government policy that a husband, wife, or child should have to travel two or three hours to give care and comfort to a loved one in a long-term care facility far away, like Peace River to McLennan or Morinville to Mayerthorpe? 2:40 MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, first of all, the overall policy of most of the regional health authorities is to have seniors as close to their family and home as possible. In terms of overall planning, most of them also do use a first-available-bed policy in terms of someone who's been in acute care being transferred to a long-term care facility.

Then as soon as possible and there are opportunities to transfer, they work the person back to their home community. I've found, examining this issue, that it is working, and seniors do get back to their home area. Now, we should be very clear, Mr. Speaker, b ecause I think there has been a misleading reference made with respect to the Peace River situation. Y es, some weeks ago the Minister of Public Works, Supply and Services and myself did tour five hospitals in total in the Peace River country, and we were looking at the long-term care pressures in Peace River.

Now, our observation was that there was capacity, that there were a number of beds available in McLennan. McLennan is about a half-hour drive from Peace River, as I understand it. The other thing is that we were advised that a number of the residents in Peace River are

1490 Alberta Hansard April 9, 1998 actually from the Keeweetinok regional health authority and from the High Prairie area and the area east of McLennan. So we thought it might be logical for those people to be in McLennan rather than in Peace River. MRS. SOETAERT: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, given that these policies aren't working because there aren't e nough beds in the right places, I'd like to know what the minister is going to do right now to make sure that families can be closer together. MR. JONSON: Well, Mr.

Speaker, first of all, I just went through an example that I think the hon. member was not portraying quite correctly. That is that there are beds available close to the residences or the sites that we were discussing. The observation we made was that, yes, there was an opportunity to move people closer to their home communities. Now, with respect to the overall system, Mr. Speaker, as I've said, yes, we do have an aging population, and we have a long- term care review committee that's working on long-term planning.

We do have our health authorities with a policy for getting seniors back to their preferred location. Y es, it also does take some time in some cases because we have to work thr ough the capacity of the number of beds that are available in the system. MRS. SOETAERT: Thank you. When will the minister instruct each health authority to stop discriminating against long-term care patients who live outside of their RHA's boundaries? WestView and Aspen cannot even get on the Capital list. They can't even get on the list. MR. JONSON: Mr.

Speaker, if a person is resident in the Aspen health authority, it would seem logical to me that they would make their first effort to locate people within the Aspen region. I'm quite aware of the Aspen region and have had some first-hand experience in this area over the past number of months. They do endeavour and I think they are finding beds for their long-term care patients.

I agree that they follow the first-available-bed policy, but they do make a conscious effort to move people back to their preferred location. head: Members' Statements THE SPEAKER: Hon. members, we'll begin Members' State- ments in 30 seconds from now in this order: first of all, the hon. Member for Calgary-Glenmore, then the hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie, and then the hon. Member for Calgary- Currie. So in 30 seconds from now I'll call on the hon. Member for Calgary-Glenmore. Wong Family Centennial MR. STEVENS: Mr.

Speaker, one of my constituents, Jim Wong, brought to my attention the wonderful o ccasion of his family celebrating their 101st anniversary in Alberta. Given the family's strong connection to the Olds area, the hon. Member for Olds- Didsbury-Three Hills and I cast lo ts for the privilege of giving this statement, and I'm pleased to be speaking this afternoon. In 1897, Wong Y et, an adventuresome young man from Taishan county in south China, embarked on a long sea voyage to Canada, known as the land of the golden mountain. He settled in the tiny prairie hamlet of Olds in the North West Territories.

Wong Y et was a hardworking, frugal man with an instinct that this region held promise for his family and future generations. He started a hand laundry, which flourished, and in 1903 summoned his son, Wong Pond, to join him. Together they expanded the laundry to include a restaurant and bakery that became the gathering place for local farmers, ranchers, and merchants. Wong Y et was known fondly as Daddy Wong. Wong Pond founded the Public Lunch Cafe in 1918, which is still in operation today.

The building is a candidate for replication in Calgary's Heritage Park for inclusion as a typical prairie Chinese restaurant. In 1922, Wong Pond's son Frank arrived from China, and together they added a theatre, billiards hall, and barbershop to the restaurant business. Frank married Irene Won, a school t eacher from Victoria, B.C., and they raised five children. Like Wong Y et and Wong Pond, Frank and his family were active in the Olds and district community. Frank Wong earned a solid reputation for integrity and honesty throughout the region.

Frank passed away in 1996, and a trust fund for the Olds hospital was established in his memory. Irene Wong, now 94, continues to live at the family home in Olds. The 101 years have passed quickly. Alberta has changed from a desolate prairie territory to a thriving, multifaceted province. The Wong family thank their forefathers for having the courage and vision to come to Alberta and for providing them with the opportunity to prove that Canada is indeed the land of the golden mountain. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. National Wildlife Week MS CARLSON: Mr.

Speaker, this is National Wildlife Week. This week focuses our attention on one of the most important natural resources: wildlife. Alberta is fortunate to still have a few relatively unspoiled areas of our province where woodland caribou, wood buffalo, and grizzly bears can roam and the odd wild Tory. Human pressures are breaking these areas into smaller and smaller pieces. Seismic lines, roads to oil and gas wells, and logging dissect the landscape in even remote areas, often opening the way for more human traffic and disturbance from hikers, hunters, and all-terrain vehicles.

Protecting the natural habitat is essential if we are to protect the rich diversity of wildlife that we still have in Alberta. The government has its special places program that is intended to do this. In many cases, these so-called protected areas allow too many competing activities that will inevitably affect the wildlife populations. The government has set up a committee to work on protecting our endangered species. That committee consists mainly of those who use the land rather than wildlife experts, who know and understand the needs of the endangered species.

We must not wait until a species is on the vulnerable or endangered list before taking action. By then it may be too late, for once their habitat is gone, there is nowhere for these animals to live. We have seen the effect of human pressures on our fish populations. People warned the government years ago that better management was needed to protect our fish stocks. Recently I received a list of 150 Alberta lakes that show that the walleye stocks have collapsed in about a quarter of them and were vulnerable in another quarter. How many years will it take for those fish stocks to recover?

Wouldn't it have been better to take action earlier to limit fishing and protect spawning areas? I think attention to the protection of spawning habitat is particularly important this year when National Wildlife Week has as its focus

April 9, 1998 Alberta Hansard 1491 to protect our shorelines. But the lesson we must learn from this situation with walleye, northern pike, and other fish is that we must not make the same mistakes with all of our animals. I would like to commend the work of those who fight to protect our wildlife and their natural habitats and ask the government to work with them. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Currie. 2:50 J.R. Shaw MRS. BURGENER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Each year four people are named to the Canadian Business Hall of Fame. On April 1, 1998, Calgarian J.R.

Shaw, chairman and chief executive officer of Shaw Communications Inc., was inducted into the Canadian Business Hall of Fame. Founded by Junior Achieve- ment in 1979, this award recognizes outstanding Canadian entrepreneurs. Chosen for his vision, standard of excellence, and contribution to Canada's prosperity, J.R. Shaw is an inspiration to all Albertans. J.R., as he is fondly known, is the chairman and chief executive officer of Shaw Communications. The cable and communications company he founded in 1966 now serves an estimated 20 percent of the Canadian cable and television market.

J.R. built a small family business into a true western success story. A diversified Canadian communications company, Shaw provides electronic link to millions of people through cable television, telecommunica- tions, high-speed Internet access, paging, special television programming networks, radio, satellite and digital delivery of music. The Shaw name is well known, but I'd like to highlight two programs that we should focus on. Shaw Communications has been a leader in the YTV programming, which has capitalized on Canada's reputation in children's television.

It also has an innovative partnership with Access TV in developing and deliver- ing postsecondary educational programs and opportunities. I ask the Members of this Legisl ative Assembly to join me in congratulating a Calgarian, J.R. Shaw, a 1998 member of the Canadian Business Hall of Fame. head: Projected Government Business THE SPEAKER: The hon. Opposition House Leader. MR. SAPERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would now call upon the Deputy Government House Leader to share with the Assembly the projected government business for the week following our break. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Deputy Government House Leader. MR.

HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm pleased to advise the House that on Monday, April 20, after 1:30 p.m. under Government Bills and Orders for second reading we anticipate dealing with Bill 35, presuming we don't complete dealing with it today, Bill 39, Bill 41, Bill 21, and Bill 38, and then as per the Order Paper. After 8 p.m. under Government Bills and Orders in Committee of the Whole: Bill 25, Bill 35, Bill 39, Bill 41, Bill 21, Bill 38, and Bill 27, and then as per the Order Paper.

On Tuesday, April 21, after 4:30 p.m. under Government Bills and Orders for third reading: bills 20, 23, 28, 29, 30, 33, 36, 24, 13, and then as per the Order Paper. At 8 p.m. under Govern- ment Bills and Orders we would anticipate proceeding with bills 2, 37, and 27.

On Wednesday, April 22, at 8 p.m. and on Thursday, April 23, in the afternoon under Government Bills and Orders we would anticipate proceeding as per the Order Paper: on Wednesday, Committee of the Whole, and on Thursday, third reading and Committee of the Whole. head: Orders of the Day head: Private Bills head: Third Reading Bill Pr. 3 Alberta Wheat Pool Amendment Act, 1998 THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Little Bow. MR. McFARLAND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move third reading of Bill Pr. 3, the Alberta Wheat Pool Amendment Act, 1998. [Motion carried; Bill Pr. 3 read a third time] head: Government Bills and Orders head: Second Reading Bill 40 Senatorial Selection Amendment Act, 1998 THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Intergovernmental and Aboriginal Affairs. MR. HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm pleased to rise today to move second reading of Bill 40, the Senatorial Selection Amendment Act, and to speak briefly to it.

The bill, although short in length, I think is an important bill, not important in the sense that it will have a great impact on people's day-to-day lives but important for what it says about Alberta's views on Canada and the role they see Alberta playing in Confederation. As all members of this Assembly will agree, Albertans care deeply about our country, and nowhere was this more evident than during our consultations on the Calgary declaration. Albertans appreciate that Canada has a privileged place in the family of nations and that what Canadians have accomplished together is truly remarkable.

Importantly, however, they also believe that Canada can be improved, that the operation of our federal system can be made more effective. Albertans probably more than most Canadians have demonstrated a creative ability to think of new ways of doing things and to devise constructive alternatives to the political status quo. One of those constructive ideas was and is the reform of Canada's Senate. Albertans were pioneers of the idea of a triple E Senate and leaders in pursuit of the constitutional changes necessary to make it a reality.

In 1989 Alberta conducted the very first election of a nominee to the Senate and in 1990 saw the successful candidate, Stan Waters, become the only Senator in Canada's history to have an electoral mandate from the people that he was appointed to represent. Albertans have made it clear to the government that they do not want Stan Waters to become a historical footnote. Rather, they want to continue to democratically elect people who are to represent their interests in the institutions of government. One would think that this desire would be easily understood and widely accepted.

Unfortunately, it is not a desire the federal government has been willing to honour. This refusal to act on Albertans' clearly expressed desire naturally leads me into a discussion of the

1492 Alberta Hansard April 9, 1998 purposes of the amendments which are before the Legislature. When the Senatorial Selection Act was introduced in 1989, the act was premised on the existence of a formal federal commitment made at the Meech Lake negotiations. The parties agreed to appoint Senators based on lists of provincial nominees until such time as agreement on Senate reform was achieved. Alberta seized on this opportunity to push the question of Senate reform forward by choosing to elect its list of nominees.

While the federal government of the day was not happy about the government's actions, they were eventually compelled to accede to the wishes of Albertans. With the failure of the Meech Lake accord, however, there is no longer any federal commitment to appoint Senators from provincial lists. As indefensible as the present Senate is, the expiry of the Meech Lake commitment has allowed the federal government to fall back on the practice of Prime Ministerial appointments. Whenever a vacancy has opened in the Senate, Premier Klein has reiterated the province's position in favour of electing our Senate nominees.

Inevitably, the federal response is a polite brush-off and a quick appointment of a new Senator. It is the practice of rapid appointments that is the first target of the proposed amendments to the Senatorial Selection Act. In choosing to fill Alberta's Senate v acancies rapidly, the Prime Minister has denied Albertans even the opportunity to consider making their own selection for who should represent Alberta in the Senate. Accordingly, the first change that has been proposed to the legislation is to amend the act to allow for the election of nominees whether or not a vacancy actually exists.

This would allow Albertans to select their nominee to the Senate. The Prime Minister would then have a much more difficult choice: either to appoint Alberta's duly elected nominee or to directly overrule Alberta's choice of a Senator with his own patronage appointment. The second objective of Bill 40 also arises out of the different circumstances that currently exist compared to the situation in 1989. In 1989 the province had a fair degree of confidence that the federal government would appoint the eventual winner of a Senate election.

By definition, a vacancy existed that needed to be filled, and the federal government was comm itted to naming someone suggested by the province. While the federal govern- ment could stall on filling the vacancy, which it did, eventually the pressure to fill the vacancy with the elected nominee was irresistible. Now, however, we are amending the act to allow for nominees to be elected potentially years in advance of an actual vacancy.

We are also faced with a Prime Minister who has a track record of ignoring the desire of Albertans in this regard to the point where a successful nominee may not be appointed to the Senate for a long time, if ever. As a result, we are building in an option which would allow the province to provide financial support to successful nominees for the time between their election and their appointment to the Senate. A key to exercising this option will be to define exactly what the province expects of a Senate nominee to ensure that Albertans receive value for the money spent. This is new territory for Alberta.

When Stan Waters was elected, no role of office was defined, nor was financial support offered. If this course of action is chosen, a great deal of thought and reflection will be required before regulations are enacted. I stress again that these provisions only enable the government to pass regulations providing support in appropriate circumstances. They do not commit the government to doing so.

In the event of a change of heart by the federal government, Alberta could still hold Senate elections as vacancies arose, with the expectation that nominees would be quickly appointed to the Senate with no need for support. 3:00 The third objective of the bill is to make sure that the electoral machinery established in the Senatorial Selection Act remains in good working order. As a result of our review of the legislation a number of housekeeping amendments have been made to ensure that references to other acts remain current and that all of the relevant acts operate smoothly together.

The one substantive change arising from this review was an amendment to place the timing of a Senate election on the same footing as the timing of municipal elections. This is only, of course, in the event that the province chooses to hold a Senate election in conjunction with provincewide municipal elections. Making the Senatorial Selection Act consistent with municipal practices will ease the concerns expressed by some municipalities during the 1989 election. The final objective of Bill 40 is to extend the life of the act until December 31, 2004.

I believe a sunset clause is still appropriate for this legislation, because we must allow for the possibility that Alberta's long campaign for Senate reform will eventually succeed. By 2004 there is a chance that we will have accom- plished satisfactory Senate reform. If not, the clause will provide us with an opportunity to review our strategy and to review our legislation and options again. With those introductory comments, Mr. Speaker, I would look forward to listening to other views of members of this Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glenora. MR. SAPERS: Thanks very much, Mr. Speaker.

The Senatorial Selection Amendment Act is anothe r one of those bills that the government brings forward for very little apparent reason other than to pick a fight with somebody, and in this case it would be the federal government. Now, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Intergovernmental and Aboriginal Affairs was very accurate when he said that Albertans have been at the forefront of the fight for a reformed Senate.

In fact, it was one Albertan in particular that I can recall, a former colleague of mine by the name of Nick Taylor, who gave that issue particular profile in this Assembly and was instrumental in the law that was created in 1989 which led to the eventual election of Stan Waters and then the appointment of that nominee to the Red Chamber. So there can be no misunderstanding where the commitment of the Alberta Liberal Party is to meaningful Senate reform. It's only in that context that I want to make the following comments. The three Es that the minister referred to are equal, effective, and then elected.

Those three Es are like the three legs of a tripod. Taken together they build a sturdy foundation upon which Senate reform can take place. But if you take out any one of those legs of the tripod, what you're left with is a very shaky foundation indeed, something that ultimately will be unsupport- able. It makes no sense to get out of step or out of sequence and simply hold an election without making sure that all of the other components, the other two legs of the tripod, are fixed firmly in place.

If we want to work for a meaningful, effective, responsi- ble, and responsive Senate, then we should be doing that in concert with the other political jurisdictions in this country. We should not be doing it by waving a red flag and taunting some other government to do something else.

April 9, 1998 Alberta Hansard 1493 Now, the minister of intergovernmental affairs mentioned that we have a Prime Minister who has been singularly unresponsive. I don't know on what grounds he bases that. I do not r ecall the Premier of Alberta standing up and saying: here's a list of appointees, Mr. Prime Minister; please choose from our list. I don't remember the Premier of Alberta saying: hold it; we want to have an election first. In fact, that didn't happen. We've had three appointments from Alberta to the Senate, and in not one of those cases was there a challenge from the province of Alberta.

So this is an untested theory on the part of the Minister of Intergovernmental and Aboriginal Affairs that we have an unresponsive Prime Minister. I happen to think that we have a very responsive, responsible, and democratically elected Prime Minister that enjoys the support of most Canadians from coast to coast to coast, including Albertans. So we certainly can't make this the Prime Minister's fault, and I think you shouldn't be pointing fingers too far afield here.

I think the minister might be able to point fingers a little bit closer to home, because Alberta has had the ability to work co- operatively since the demise of Meech Lake with the other provinces and the federal government to ensure that there will be meaningful Senate reform. Mr. Speaker, the fact is that Bill 40, as I started my comments, is one of those sloga n bills that the government wants to wave around to make it look like they're doing something. In fact, what they're doing is using Bill 40 as a smoke screen to sort of obscure some of the issues at home.

They want Albertans not to be thinking about municipal downloading. They want Albertans not to be thinking about potentials for conflicts of interest in livestock identification. They want Albertans not to be thinking about Bill 27. They want Albertans not to be thinking about labour unrest. They want Albertans not to be thinking about the Human Rights Commission. They want Albertans not to be thinking about the courts. They want Albertans not to be thinking about obscenely high tuition rates. They don't want Albertans to think about any of those things.

They want Albertans to be thinking about senatorial elections, standby prophylactic senatorial elections. They want the people of Alberta to rise up and rush to a balloting place and hold an election for a position that does not exist and participate in an election process that has no force in law.

They would then suggest that once Albertans flocked to the balloting places to hold such a meaningless election, the taxpayers of Alberta should not just pay for that process, which would be millions of dollars, but should subsequently pay for those winners of the electoral lottery, who would then be flown at taxpayers' expense to Ottawa, put up no doubt in first-class hotels, and be paid to drink tea while they watch from the gallery what the real Senators are doing, just waiting for a vacancy. And they said normal doesn't live in Alberta anymore.

I would suggest that there is little justification for the senatorial standby election act or whatever it is the Minister of Intergovern- mental and Aboriginal Affairs is calling Bill 40. There is little justification for it. What we should be doing instead is putting ourselves firmly on the path towards real Senate reform. And we can do that. We will march hand in hand with this government. As wrong-minded as they have been in the past, we would be willing to work with them in th e future to ensure a meaningful role for the Senate and Senators.

We would be hoping that the government is not serious about this flawed plan, and we would be hoping that Bill 40 will soon find its pl ace in the dustheap of legislation that other bills that have originated in this session have ended up in. Mr. Speaker, the issue isn't whether or not there should be a reformed Senate; there should be. The issue isn't whether or not elections can be part of that reform, because they may well be.

The issue is whether or not we should have a piece of legislation that cannot compel another jurisdiction to do anything, that can give only false promise to Albertans who may believe, who may be somehow convinced that the government is actually doing something meaningful, and whether or not we should try to perpetuate this . . . MR. HAVELOCK: Reality. MR. SAPERS: Falsehood. Thank you, Mr. Minister. That's the most polite word. . . . this falsehood on the people of Alberta. I say that we should not. I would say that no member of the Official Opposi- tion will participate in perpetuating such a falsehood.

I would ask that the government reconsider this rather ill-conceived plan. The issue needs to clearly be focused, and that issue is the need for meaningful Senate reform, not this single leg of the tripod being implemented out of step with the rest of what might in fact result in meaningful reform. Mr. Speaker, this bill, I will also note in my concluding statements, would really only be given life until the year 2004. That would be a good thing. It's a start.

What we may be forced to do is bring in an amendment at some point if it looks like the government won't see its way clear to do the right thing and just let this bill die, as it should. We might be forced to do something like move an amendment that says that the bill would only be in force, let's say, until April 21, 1998, or something like that. MR. PASZKOWSKI: It might not pass either. 3:10 MR. SAPERS: Well, the minister of transportation is advising that it might not pass, and I know that he is speaking about the bill and not my proposed amendment.

I applaud him for that and will be looking forward to his support in helping to defeat this government initiative. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. MR. HAVELOCK: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to move that we adjourn debate on Bill 40. THE SPEAKER: On the motion by the hon. Government House Leader to adjourn the debate, all those members in favour, please say aye. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye. THE SPEAKER: Opposed, please say no. SOME HON. MEMBERS: No. THE SPEAKER: The motion is carried.

Bill 35 Colleges, Technical Institutes and Universities Statutes Amendment Act, 1998 [Debate adjourned April 7: Ms Blakeman speaking] THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. MS BLAKEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was able to get a

1494 Alberta Hansard April 9, 1998 few minutes into the comments that I wanted to make on Bill 35 in second reading. At this point I should correct an omission that I made when I was speaking the other day. I omitted to mention that the University of Lethbridge does deliver a bachelor of management program here in Edmonton. Therefore, I can add the University of Lethbridge to the list of postsecondary institutions in Edmonton-Centre. When we examine this bill and the idea of a 30 percent cap on the tuition for postsecondary institutions, I think we have to ask ourselves what our priorities are.

Is our priority a well-educated, well-balanced, healthy society? Is our priority people before money? I don't think this bill satisfies any of those things. I think this bill is about money, or cash, before quality of life. I think it's about money before our youth and their better education. Y ou often hear an argument about intergenerational debt, that we have to cut all of our services now and reduce our debt and our deficit so we don't pass any of this on to the next generation.

Frankly, I think that debt has already been passed on to the next generation, and through measures like a 30 percent cap on postsecondary institutions we have created almost instantaneous debt for any of our young people either considering postsecondary education or graduating from a postsecondary institution. The amount of the student loans or the student debt – I think other people have spoken of the exact figures, but I know that the loan debt a student could graduate with from a postsecondary education was averaging out at $25,000.

I don't think many of the people in this Chamber, those who did graduate from a postsecondary education, graduated with a $25,000 debt. That is an enormous burden to start your career with.

I believe that through measures such as this, intergenerational debt has been transferred immediately and unfairly onto the next generation of educated people, to whom we look to start a career, to advance through the world, and frankly to become our leaders so that when we in this Chamber are hopefully enjoying our retirement, we have a well-educated, well-balanced, healthy group of people who are the leaders when we are in retirement. I don't know how that is supposed to happen with this. [Mrs.

Gordon in the chair] How long do you think it's going to take somebody who's graduating with a $25,000 debt in their early 20s to work that debt off? They are going to have a lower earning power in those early days. They are able to make less significant payments on a loan. How long will they have to wait to start a family, if that's important to them and they want to have money saved towards that, or to buy a house so then they can be paying property taxes and contributing back into the cycle of taxation here? I think this cripples the early years of young adulthood with a heavy debt load.

I'm asking the sponsor of the bill, who is the Minister of Advanced Education and Career Development, to reconsider this. I truly believe that this is not a helpful way to go at it, and I truly question the priorities of the minister and of the government. Are these their priorities then? Is th is where they want to go? I understand that this government feels that a user-pay system is important, but I also hear them talking about investment and about long-term investment, and I think that's what education is about.

I don't believe that burdening people with enormous tuition costs and probable debt upon graduation is a positive long-term investment. I think there's a second side to that coin, and that is the side that precludes people from considering postsecondary education. I know it has caused some young people that I know and have spoken to serious consideration about whether they're even going to consider a postsecondary education, and that I find really . . . MR. DUNFORD: What did you advise them? MS BLAKEMAN: Well, I don't know how to advise young people about that.

I feel that I was very lucky, but I cannot advise someone to incur that kind of debt load. I'm having trouble with that. So we have students who are considering whether or not they even want to get involved in a postsecondary education because they're afraid of how much it's going to cost them. I think one of the things I value most about Alberta and Canada is that, up until now anyway, the thought of a postsecondary education was not too far beyond the reach of almost any young person in this province or in this country, but I think we've hit the point where it is beyond them.

Another point is that with the 30 percent cap it's an open-ended deal. We're saying, “Go for the 30 percent now,” but is 30 percent now . . . [interjections] Speaker's Ruling Decorum THE ACTING SPEAKER: Hon. member, just a moment. Hon. Minister of Transportation and Utilities, I'll be glad to recognize you after the hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. I'd dearly love to encourage everyone to take their conversations outside, but I think probably some whips might get very upset with the Speaker for doing so. So I would ask that we let the hon. member who has the floor speak. MS BLAKEMAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I am delighted that there is such interest in the debate and in the long-term prospects for our young people in Alberta. Debate Continued MS BLAKEMAN: We were talking about a 30 percent cap and the fact that this is essentially an open-ended deal in that a 30 percent cap this year might turn out to be a $3,000 tuition, but without any defining parameters around that, 30 percent two years from now could be $5,000 or $10,000 because there's no end cap on it. It's simply 30 percent of the net of what the university requires.

I think that is unwise and unfair. 3:20 I know the minister has heard some protests from students, and I won't go on on that. But I'd like the minister to think and to respond to me about the situation students are getting themselves into where, in order to keep their student loan costs down, they're working more part-time work while they're in university or postsecondary education. Sorry; I always mean to include all of the postsecondary institutions as I'm speaking here. So they're having to work more part-time work to subsidize and to keep their loans down.

Perhaps in some cases or perhaps all the time – the minister could probably inform me – they may have to take longer to complete their degree. That in turn, it strikes me, can mean they've got a longer time that they're having to go back and apply for loans, and they're incurring more debt as a student and perhaps more debt for their family if their family is able to support them.

April 9, 1998 Alberta Hansard 1495 The other thing is that in some faculties students are not allowed to work. They're told, “Y ou must concentrate; you must complete this degree within a certain amount of time.” They don't have the opportunity to work, or the amount they can work is very limited. Perhaps they can only work on weekends and not at all at night. MRS. SOETAERT: And they have to study. MS BLAKEMAN: And they have to study. So they're not able to earn as much money. They're perhaps not able to earn any additional money to assist themselves throughout the year.

I don't know about the other members in the Chamber, but when I went to university, I wa s in a faculty that specifically precluded me from working while I was taking courses. When I look back now, I don't know how I could possibly do this. I mean, I didn't come from a well-to-do family by any means, and I managed to peg things together to get through it.

But if that is making me hesitate, in looking back, about whether or not I could have made it through postsecondary education – and my parents are teachers; education was really important to them – then how many other students are we discouraging from pursuing this? I don't want to paint a really dark and cloudy future out there, but I think we need to seriously consider whether this is the message we want to be sending out, whether this is really where our priority lies.

I believe that education is an investment, and I do look to the government to be providing the foundation for that education, both K to 12 and postsecondary education. Those are the points that I really wanted to make in second reading on this bill. I do not think it's a good idea. I'm sure the minister will be up to answer some of the points I've raised, but it strikes me that yet again the government is making a choice to put money or the need for them to make money or reimburse themselves with money before what is truly good for Albertans in the future.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to this, and I appreciate the enthusiasm that it's been met with. THE ACTING SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton- Norwood. MS OLSEN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I just have a couple of comments to make on this particular piece of legislation. I recognize that the hon. member is committed to a tuition cap, but it's a black cap that he's committed to, a black cap of 30 percent. It's very black. I know the hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre didn't want to cast doom and gloom, but that was a black cap, with 30 percent on it.

I believe that our students now are taking on as much work as they can and as many courses as they can. As a matter of fact, many students are cutting back on the number of courses they're taking in order to work more, which means they're staying in university longer. It's taking longer to achieve a four-year degree as a result of having to work more. We notice that the tuition in this province has continued to rise. We can compare the average tuition of about $3,300 here in this province to that on the coast of about $2,100 at Simon Fraser, in that area, and about $2,200 at U of Vic, in that area.

I wonder why here we are in a tremendous ec onomic situation in this province, where it is much cheaper to live and our economy is much better and we have a tremendous number of opportunities for graduates, but in a province where the economy is very much a black problem, they can still offer tuition fees that are about $1,000 a year lower than ours.

So I wonder if the balance is here, if they're looking at the need to ensure that as many students as possible get a postsecondary education without having to compromise some of those students who come from disadvantaged backgrounds and from environments where there's not a tremen- dous amount of money available. They're making if far more affordable. We also have to look at the future, and this province is blessed with having, as I said, a tremendous economic situation. [inter- jections] Well, we're not going to go that far.

The minister of transportation wants me to say that the minister of advanced education is blessed. Well, maybe on Sundays. Easter Sunday. However, I think it's very important to note that we have a shortage of highly technically skilled students and people coming out of the technical colleges. There's a shortage of people who can operate within the global environment. That's going to get bigger, but it's going to get more expensive to get our students to that point, and I'm wondering where it's going to stop. I'm wondering: from the minister's perspective on this, is 30 percent where it's going to stop?

Or are we now going to have regula- tions so we can go to 33 percent, 34 percent, 35 percent? Where does it really stop for the government? Twenty percent seems pretty good. MRS. SOETAERT: Affordable, realistic. MS OLSEN: It is very realistic, and it's realistic for students. They won't have to work as many part-time jobs. I think every student I've talked to is working and is working more often than they want, as I've said before. We know that the average net debt for students has grown from $6,000 to $16,000 from 1987 to 1995. That's a tremendous increase.

If 56 percent of an average student loan is used to pay for tuition, that leaves them, then, with a very small amount of money for the rest of the year to pay for living expenses, the cost of books and supplies, food, those kinds of things. Those are for students not living at home, and even if they are living at home, the leftover dough at the end of the month isn't very high. So I look down the road and I say: well, you know, I have a 13-year-old son right now who, at this point anyway, has every intention of going to university. I wonder: what is the cost of that going to be to me and to him?

What is his student debt level going to be? Is he going to be able to afford to stay in this province and go to school? What if he doesn't? Is that money going to follow him to another institution? Certainly there are other provinces with higher tuition fees. However, those are smaller institutions. I can think of some that I looked at when I was looking at Maclean's magazine, the university issue with the rankings . Some of those institutions were much higher than our own. However, there are others that are much lower. We know that tuition rates are going to go to 30 percent.

They may not be there now, but obviously that's where they're going to go to because that's where the minister set the ceiling. Is there going to be a corresponding increase, then, in the grants that are going to be available, or is there going to be a corresponding increase in student loans? So we're going to see the cost of tuition rise, we're going to see the student loans rise, and then our kids are going to come out of university with a tremendous debt load that doesn't allow them to start off and carry on in the work environment without having to pay their salaries to huge, huge loans.

1496 Alberta Hansard April 9, 1998 [The Deputy Speaker in the chair] So with those few comments and knowing that the minister wants to trade his black tuition cap for something different, I'll take leave and allow someone else to speak. 3:30 THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton- Castle Downs. MS PAUL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too, will join the debate on Bill 35, Colleges, Technical Institutes and Universities Statutes Amendment Act, 1998.

In reviewing the bill, I find it difficult to see that putting the black cap at 30 percent – as has been pointed out earlier, that cap can increase with time – for 1998. Then what happens in a few years? The increase continues. As a matter of fact, in 1986 the cap was at 12 percent. By 1998 we're already at 30 percent, and there is probably no end to the increases. Mr. Speaker, having said that, we've talked about the merits of higher learning, higher education.

As we enter the demands of education through economic demands, higher institutions of learning – as Albertans enter the workforce, we recognize the need for more advanced education. Qualifications are higher, standards are higher, and costs are higher. A lot of families, in situations in my riding for instance, are struggling to put their children through postsecondary education. They are finding that both members of the family have to work as costs increase. A lot of students when they do go to university or college are not living at home, and the onus is on the parents to supplement the income of the student.

Well, when they're not living at home, that obviously is not the case. So then we come to the unfortunate mishap of a lot of students having to drop out because of costs, and it comes right down to that. Apartments in any city that has higher learning, universities or NAIT or SAIT or whatever, are able to ask a little bit more in terms of rent money. The housing is more costly; room and board is more costly. It just inflates, and students have to take on more jobs. They have to rely on family; they have to rely on friends. I've met a number of students who have to have two or three jobs just to meet tuition.

We've had students come outside the Legislature, and they're protesting the high increase in tuition. They have to be listened to. These are our children. These are Alberta's future. They are the children in each of our ridings. We have to make a very, very conscious effort to support their endeavours. Mr. Speaker, I find that Bill 35 is one of the initiatives of this government which puts a lot of us in opposition in an awkward position. I concur with the fact that we need to legislate caps on tuition, but I find that I don't agree with the level, as I've stated earlier, of 30 percent. It is not acceptable.

We would certainly like to make a very strong amendment to this bill at some point, and then we will discuss the merits of the amendment at a future time. Actually, in some regard it would be really easy and not terribly productive to rant and rage about tuition. I mean, we could all get carried away and say no, no, no and carry on, but I think, Mr. Speaker, this issue is one of seriousness. I say that with all due respect for the struggle that students are having in trying to get a higher education in this province.

I hope it doesn't come down to the fact that a lot of our students have to leave the province of Alberta and seek the learning and skills that are necessary in the workforce in another province. I think, Mr. Speaker, the onus is on us in this Legislature, in the government, to make sure that all students are privy to an accessible education. A lot of problems that we have in society unfortunately stem from a group of people who perhaps have not had the advantage of further education. We find them on social assistance and on the welfare rolls.

I think if we track back the events or the occurrences of some of the displays of bad behav- iour on the streets, we find that it's due to a lack of education. It stems back a lot of times to incentives through parent encour- agement, and it's also dictated by dollars and cents. That is very unfortunate, because everybody should be entitled to be allowed or feel welcome and feel it is in the realm of possibility to be able to go to school and not incur a heavy debt by the time they finish.

I think that scares off a lot of students, when they think they're going to start off with a $35,000, $40,000 debt by the time they graduate from university. I, fortunately, was not one of these people who had to work or struggle to go to university. My parents were able to accommodate the needs of the family. MRS. SOETAERT: Y ou were lucky. MS PAUL: That's correct. I was very fortunate, Mr. Speaker, so I have a lot of empathy for young people who do not have that opportunity. Also, we should identify, as I've pointed out, that the student population in terms of age has increased.

I think with this cap of 30 percent, the assumption is that the student would be living at home, but as I've already pointed out, that is not necessarily the right assumption. I think the government should have a serious look at that as well. Mr. Speaker, I do want to reiterate that I feel this is a very important bill. It does deserve discussion from all members of the House . It is the future o f Albertans . It is the future o f our children. It must be discussed. It must change. The cap of 30 percent is not acceptable. It's going to increase in a few years, and I don't think that's acceptable.

I will not be supporting the bill at all. I think the black cap has spoken on its own merit. It is black, and I believe that it would be a black day for our students. With those comments, Mr. Speaker, I'll take my seat. 3:40 THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Spruce Grove- Sturgeon-St. Albert. MRS. SOETAERT: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I think I'd be disappointing my constituents if I didn't take the opportu- nity to voice my concerns about this bill. I know the minister of transportation thought I'd mention 794 and the students that travel it every day to university.

That is part of the concern, but it's not part of the bill. In all seriousness, everyone well remembers and knows Senator Nick Taylor. He used to always say – which I could have mentioned in the previous bill had I had the opportunity to speak, but I didn't – that our greatest resource is not in the ground; it is between our ears, implying that the best money spent . . . AN HON. MEMBER: Our ears. MRS. SOETAERT: Our ears, the Liberal ears. . . . implying that the best money we could spend as a govern- ment, as a society, as parents would be to invest in our children's education.

April 9, 1998 Alberta Hansard 1497 SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MRS. SOETAERT: There's agreement over there, so that's good, but actions speak louder than words. I know, because I've often spoken loudly, but nobody seems to hear over there. [interjec- tions] Grande Prairie-Wapiti I know is dying to speak on this, because he loves entering debate with me. I'm sure he'll say 30 percent is too high. But I cannot speak for him, and I'm sure he will take that opportunity. I want to express some concerns that we see our students facing.

I know students who, if they're going to the University of Alberta right now, have tuition of around $4,000. That doesn't even touch books or student union fees or all those extras. [interjection] Thirty-eight hundred dollars? Thirty-four hundred dollars; pardon me. Obviously my son is getting money from his mother that he shouldn't be. Except that it varies by the number of courses you take and the department that you are in, and that's really good for me to hear. [interjections] It does actually. [interjection] It is difficult for students who go full-time because it's expensive.

It's very difficult to make $4,000 in the summer months. AN HON. MEMBER: Nothing's free. Nothing in this world is free. MRS. SOETAERT: Nothing in the world is free. Of course not. But you know what? Let's be realistic. If you're 19 years old and you get a summer job . . . Speaker's Ruling Decorum THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, we're about to depart this Chamber for a considerable period of time. The hon. member is attempting to speak to Bill 35. The chair would encourage her to do just that, rather than engaging all of the different members that are near or far in her debate.

Hon. members, please don't be tempted by this invitation by either the chair or the hon. member to engage in debate, except if you want to debate, please rise in your place and in your turn and speak to the bill at hand. But if we could have the hon. Member for Spruce Grove-Sturgeon-St. Albert stick to the bill, then we can all perhaps have a happier afternoon. MRS. SOETAERT: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I know it's tempting for people to hop into the discourse b ecause I like to, you know, encourage debate. But I respect what you're saying, and I will speak to the bill. Debate Continued MRS.

SOETAERT: I want to give for an example a student who is going full-time, who has approximately a $3,500 tuition to pay. Either they're driving from home or living in town. If they're driving from home, they need a vehicle if they live out in the country. Y ou have to pay gas and parking. If you live in town, you have to catch a bus. If your parents live close to a university, that is very fortunate for you. But the reality in Alberta is that most of our students don't live near a university.

They've got that expense of either physically getting an apartment in town or driving to town every day on bad highways like 794. On top of that they have books, their rent, and, you know, they do have some living expenses. I would venture to say that most students are not extravagant. They aren't. They don't have an extensive wardrobe, and they don't have an extensive social life – well, that costs them money; let's put in that way. They really don't. They work hard in order to pass, and they don't have much free time.

When all is said and done, most have to take out a loan from the bank because over the summer you ca nnot make $7,000 or even $6,000. At the 7 bucks an hour that most students get paid you can't make enough to survive a year at university. So, then, this government is assuming that you will automatically go in debt if you're a student. That's the assumption at a 30 percent cap. Y ou are expecting students to be in debt. The minister indicates that only 50 percent of them will be in debt, and it is assumed that the rest are being sponsored by a parent or a guardian or someone who cares about them who has money.

That to me is a double standard. That's a double standard. Realistically, I'm saying that those students who put themselves through on their own will be in debt. I'm going to go through this again. Try making 7 bucks an hour, living on your own, paying your own tuition, your own rent, your own gas for probably an old jalopy that you drive. Try being a full-time student making 7 bucks an hour through the four summer months. Y ou can't do it without getting in debt. Even if you have a part- time job – I know of students who do – this government is expecting people to be in debt. That's disappointing.

We've all agreed in here that the most valuable thing we can do is educate our young people. So actions speak louder than words, and I would say 30 percent is too high a cap. [interjections] Y ou know, people say you don't need a car. Then you must live near the university and catch a bus. How fortunate that you live near a university. There are people who don't, many of us. How much is a bus pass right now? MR. SAPERS: Fifty bucks. MRS. SOETAERT: Fifty bucks a month. If you go to university and you need to catch a bus for the eight months, at 50 bucks that's $400 more.

They're assuming you can pay your own car insurance, that you can catch a ride with a friend. Y ou know, Mr. Speaker, I don't think you should get some- thing for nothing. I really don't, although – and I've often wondered this myself – there are people that would say: should postsecondary education be as accessible as kindergarten to grade 12 within this province? Wouldn't that be an ideal situation? I don't think it's realistic, given the constraints of budgets. But wouldn't that be a phenomenal move for society? Y ou know, there was a time when after grade 8 you paid your own way.

People thought: that's ridiculous to pay for grade 12. Now it's acceptable by society that you would at least pay up to grade 12, that a government would provide that. So some people laugh and say that's absolutely ridiculous to say it should be free. I think it's something worthy of debate as well.

Maybe there will be a time – and maybe we'll see it – when secondary education may be so valued in our society that we make it as accessible as possible for as many students that want to access it, that we value it that much. 3:50 Interestingly, the other expense that I find – and I don't think it's addressed in this bill – is that there's a $40 or $45 ticket to apply to go to university or Grant MacEwan or Grande Prairie college or wherever you're going with each application. I think that's something the minister should look at, that if you apply to

1498 Alberta Hansard April 9, 1998 a university and perhaps you aren't allowed in or are unable to get into one faculty, that application and the money for it would be transferable to another. Thos e kinds of things are added little expenses every time a student turns around. Now, I know that many banks have a lending procedure for students, and it gives them a fairly reasonable lending rate and lending plan.

Let's say you borrow $5,000 in the first year and over the course of the summer you pay back a portion of it, maybe have a bit for the next year's tuition, but the second year you're close to $8,000, $9,000 in debt. Eventually, at the end of four years, you could be $15, 000 in debt. That's an extremely high burden before you've even started at a job. I really do believe the minister of advanced education takes pride in his role as the minister of advanced education. We don't want to be too enthusiastic about that, but I do think he does take pride in that role. But that holds a tremendous responsibility.

If his role is to make sure that as many students as can, that want to, that have the ability to, have the opportunity to go to secondary education in this province, then I would venture to say that it's his responsibility within his caucus, within this Legislature to make it as accessible as possible. There is no doubt that accessibility is tied to dollars. It's quite a heavy burden that students get out with right now when you're talking close to a $20,000 debt. That's too much. I'd hate to see people not go because the debt load is too much for them. A missed opportunity.

We can say: well, you can always go back later in life. That's true, but it's much more difficult to go back later in life. Most people have mort- gages and families and jobs. To go back later on in life is very difficult and just as expensive. Mr. Speaker, you know, I like to agree when I can with this government, but I can't agree on this tuition cap. I can't. I know people are disappointed with that. I know they respect my opinion on that, and they take it under advisement regularly when I speak here.

I really feel for those students who right now don't have the financial support of families who can afford this and who are looking at a tremendous debt before they are even out in the workforce. It's not like school is just a breeze. School is a lot of hard work. It's hard to see the rewards of that if you're going further and further in debt while you're going to school. I very much value education. I value secondary education. I picture a day – and I hope I will see it in this society – when we value education so much that it's accessible just as kindergarten to grade 12 is. That would be an ideal society.

Maybe it's not realistic right now in 1998, but that would be a wonderful goal for a government, to encourage that. We may not achieve it during this government's reign but maybe someday. So with those words and concer ns that the tuition cap is too high, I will take my seat and thank you for the opportunity to speak to Bill 35. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Airdrie-Rocky View. MS HALEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I promise not to take a real long time, but I did want to talk about Bill 35 and the hon. minister's attempt here to cap tuition fees at 30 percent.

I listened very carefully to the previous speaker and the comments that she was making, and I want to talk to you about some of the kids that I've dealt with in my riding, including my own son. A while ago in the Assembly I rose to make a member's statement on a group that I had met with. These were young people going to the University of Calgary, and I took them a bunch of information about tuition fees and . . . MRS. SOETAERT: Were they Tory party members? MS HALEY: No. Actually, hon. member, they weren't party members, but I'd appreciate your keeping your interjections to a minimum.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member. MS HALEY: I'll get there, Mr. Speaker. The point of the meeting was to try and talk to them about what their concerns were with regard to university, to the costs involved for them to go to university, and what other problems they might have felt about government policies. The interesting thing that came out of that meeting was not that the tuition fees were too high – they didn't think they were – not that they had to borrow money to go. They felt that that was fair.

What came out of that meeting was their concern about employment standards and not knowing that there were employment standards. Many of them felt that over the previous two or three years, while they'd had part-time jobs in high school and once they also got into university, many of them had been taken for granted, felt a little bit abused by some of their employers, and had absolutely no knowledge of the rights that they had and that they do have the ability to protect themselves or have themselves defended. I have a son in university, and I want to talk about him.

He's a young man of 20 years of age, working very hard, taking courses at the U of C, and he also has to have a part-time job in order to pay his tuition fees. He borrows money from the local bank because he doesn't qualify for a student loan, so he has no hope of being able to reap any benefit on a grant or a reduction in how much he owes. His comments to me are that he will pay less in the tuition fees than he would in fact pay to buy a new car, and that's for a four-year program. He feels that his education is of far more benefit to him than a new car would be.

I think that at some point you have to have perspective on this issue. We're not asking these kids to pay 100 percent. They are subsidized to the tune of 70 percent by the taxpayers of this province, and I think that's ample. I think from my son's point of view and from a number of other young people that I've talked to that what they want more than anything is for the universities to be accountable back to them on how the money is spent at the university level and what actually gets classified into operating expenses.

My only request of the minister would be to ensure that those young people do have a voice back to that administrative level and that they have an opportunity to clearly understand what goes into creating that 30 percent tuition cap and that they have some ability to help control that. With that, Mr. Speaker, I will take my seat. Thank you. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Red Deer- South. MR. DOERKSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wanted to add a few comments about Bill 35 as well this afternoon.

There have been some comments made about the importance of postsecondary education for our students, and I certainly agree with that a hundred percent. But I do agree with the minister's recommenda- tion here on legislating the 30 percent cap. It was an issue that came up, actually prior to the election, by the Red Deer College Students' Association. The then president approached me, and while it was the government po licy at that time, they were

April 9, 1998 Alberta Hansard 1499 somewhat concerned that that policy could be changed and wanted to see it put into legislation. That is exactly what the minister is doing with this piece of legislation, and I support that. But there are a couple of other comments I want to make as they relate to postsecondary education, b ecause there have been a number of things happen in the province over the last four or five years that are really quite significant. 4:00 Mr. Speaker, you don't always have to go to an institution to get your education.

I was at actually a signing ceremony this week in Calgary, at the University of Calgary, between the certified general accountants and the University of Calgary to deliver a distance education degree. It's called a bachelor of accounting science degree. It is designed solely for distance education. Y ou can take that anywhere in Alberta, anywhere in Canada, anywhere in the world. Upon completion of that program, you will receive a University of Calgary degree and a certified general accountant designation. It's an example of a very positive collaborative approach. Y ou can take this at your home.

So there are some innovative things that are happening when it comes to postsecondary education, and we have got to stop looking primarily at bricks and mortar and look at different ways of delivering education. We're in a different world, our kids are in a different world, and we have to and the universities have to and the technical schools have to find different ways to respond to the demand. Another positive thing has happened.

If we go back even prior to just when I came into office in the first year, 1993, one of the common concerns that arose from students was transferability of credits from institution to institution. They would take one course here and not be given credit for it over there, or they couldn't take a program at Red Deer College, transfer it to the University of Alberta or the University of Calgary and have it accepted. What has happened over the last four years is we have seen a really positive move to collaborative degrees. Red Deer College now offers . . . MR.

SAPERS: What has this got to do with the tuition cap bill? MR. DOERKSEN: Well, I'm generally speaking to the principle of the bill, hon. member, which is what you're permitted to do in second reading. There have been many comments made about the value of postsecondary education, and I'm just adding to that. We're talking about the cost of education for kids and how to make it better; okay? I'm saying that with the collaborative approach, if you lo