Alberta Hansard — 21 November 2000, Afternoon sitting (13:30) (Legislature 24, Session 4)

20001121

Alberta — Debates (Hansard)

November 21, 2000 Alberta Hansard 1989 Legislative Assembly of Alberta Title: Tuesday, November 21, 2000 1:30 p.m. Date: 00/11/21 [The Speaker in the chair] head: Prayers THE SPEAKER: Good afternoon. Let us pray. Lord, renew us with Your strength. Focus us in our deliberations. Challenge us in our service of the people of this great province. Amen. Please be seated. head: Introduction of Visitors MR. MAR: Mr. Speaker, I’m pleased to introduce to you and through you to members of this Assembly the newly elected board of directors of the Alberta Long Term Care Association.

Seated in your gallery are President Greer Black, Vice-president Helen Lantz, Vice-president Wayne McKendrick, Vice-president Phil Gaudet, and directors Nora Kirkham, Greg Ulveland, and John Pray. Past President David Martin and executive director and former member of this Assembly Dianne Mirosh are also in the Speaker’s gallery. I would ask that these guests rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of this Assembly. head: Presenting Petitions MRS. O’NEILL: Mr. Speaker, I present in the Assembly today a petition signed by 56 St.

Albertans, a total of 178 names of individu- als who are advocating that Alberta health professionals be able “to opt out of those medical procedures that offend a tenet of their religion, or their belief that human life is sacred.” THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Bow. MRS. LAING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m pleased to present a petition of 38 people of Calgary and surrounding area in support of Bill 212, the human rights conscience legislation for health care workers. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Beverly- Clareview. MR. YANKOWSKY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to table petitions containing 219 names from Athabasca-Wabasca constitu- ency, 87 names from Calgary-Elbow constituency, 127 names from Calgary-Varsity constituency, 112 names from Grande Prairie- Wapiti and Grande Prairie-Smoky constituencies, 261 names from Lethbridge-West constituency, 175 names from Sherwood Park constituency, and 413 names from Wainwright cons tituency.

The petitioners are urging the Legislative Assembly of Alberta to introduce amendments to the Alberta human rights act to allow health professionals “to opt out of those . . . procedures that offend a tenet of their religion, or their belief that human life is sacred.” THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Little Bow. MR. McFARLAND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to table today petitions bearing 406 names, mostly from Coaldale, Picture Butte, Hays, Vauxhall, Enchant, Iron Springs, Stirling, Coalhurst, Lomond, Nobleford, Diamond City, Monarch, county of Lethbridge, and eight other communities outside the Little Bow riding supporting the move under Bill 212. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Glenmore. MR. STEVENS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to present a petition signed by 89 Albertans, including 13 from Calgary-Glenmore, urging the Government of Alberta to introduce amendments to the Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act to allow Alberta health professionals to opt out of those medical procedures that offend a tenet of their religion, or their belief that human life is sacred. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Lethbridge-East. DR. NICOL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to present a petition this afternoon from 51 residents of Lethbridge-East.

They are petitioning the Legislative Assembly of Alberta to urge the govern- ment to introduce amendments to the Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act to allow Alberta health [care] professionals to opt out of those medical procedures that offend a tenet of their religion, or their belief in the life of humans. THE SPEAKER: The hon. leader of the third party. DR. PANNU: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a petition to present to the Assembly in which the si gnatories are requesting that the Assembly “pass a Bill banning private for-profit hospitals in Alberta so that the integrity of the public, universal health care system may be maintained.” head: Reading and Receiving Petitions THE SPEAKER: The hon. leader of the third party. DR. PANNU: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I request that the petition I presented yesterday be now read and received. Thank you.

THE CLERK: We the undersigned residents of the province of Alberta hereby petition the Legislative Assembly of Alberta to pass a Bill banning private for-profit hospitals in Alberta so that the integrity of the public, universal health care system may be maintained. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Beverly- Clareview. MR. YANKOWSKY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I also would like to ask that the petitions I presented yesterday be now read and received.

THE CLERK: We, the undersigned residents of Alberta, petition the Legislative Assembly of Alberta to urge the Government of Alberta to introduce amendments to the Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Act to allow Alberta health professionals to opt out of those medical procedures that offend a tenet of their religion, or their belief that human life is sacred. head: Notices of Motions THE SPEAKER: The Associate Minister of Health and Wellness.

1990 Alberta Hansard November 21, 2000 MR. ZWOZDESKY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today pursuant to Standing Order 34(2)(

a) to gi ve notice that tomorrow I will rise again and move that written ques tions and motions for returns appearing on Wednesday’s Order Paper do stand and retain their places. head: Introduction of Bills THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Fish Creek. Bill 29 Protection of Children Involved in Prostitution Amendment Act, 2000 MRS. FORSYTH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I request leave to introduce a bill, being the Protection of Children Involved in Prostitution Amendment Act, 2000. It’s important to note that the legislation framework will be maintained. The act is solid, and it is working well.

With it we have effectively provided support to many sexually exploited and abused Alberta children. These amendments are simply designed to strengthen this important legislation and enhance its effectiveness. The amendments have two purposes: to enable children to obtain additional care and to ensure that children’s rights are protected. Some of the amendments are based upon recommendations made by police, social workers, and service providers. They suggested several changes that would enable them to provide additional care to these victimized children.

In keeping with the recommendations the amendments propose extending the initial confinement period from 72 hours to a maximum of five days. They also allow a protection-of-children-involved-in-prostitution director to apply for a maximum of two additional confinement periods of up to 21 days each. This additional time will enable social workers to stabilize the child, keep the child, break this cycle of abuse, and begin the recovery process in a safe and secure environment. The remaining amendments ensure that children’s rights are protected. Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. [Motion carried; Bill 29 read a first time] THE SPEAKER: The hon. Government House Leader. MR. HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move that Bill 29 be placed on the Order Paper under Government Bills and Orders. [Motion carried] THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark. Bill 221 Public Health Care Protection Statutes Amendment Act, 2000 MS LEIBOVICI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It gives me great pleasure this afternoon to introduce Bill 221, the Public Health Care Protection Statutes Amendment Act. This bill amends several health statutes to protect our public health care system.

The major focus of this bill is the repeal of Bill 11, ensuring that overnight patient stays must be performed in a public hospital and strengthening conflict of interest provisions. I look forward to the debate on this bill as the occasion arises. Thank you very much. [Motion carried; Bill 221 read a first time] 1:40 head: Tabling Returns and Reports THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Medicine Hat. MR. RENNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I’m pleased to table today the appropriate number of copies of a letter addressed to me from Students Against Drinking and Driving in Medicine Hat and area, congratulating the government on recent changes to legislation to reduce the number of impaired drivers on our roads. They also presented me with a banner which I will be discussing in Members’ Statements later on. MR. DICKSON: Mr. Speaker, I’ll move quickly. I have seven different tablings.

The first one is a copy of the reasons for judg- ment of Provincial Court Judge Karen Jordan, dated July 28, 2000, and her judicial determination that the current child prostitution law lacked procedural safeguards for children; secondly, a copy of the British Columbia Secure Care Act, passed by that Legislature on July 6, 2000.

Since Bill 29 deals only with the abuse of young people, I’ll be tabling some documents dealing with the larger challenge posed by street prostitution in Calgary: firstly, A Community Resources Handbook on Prostitution Issues, prepared by the Calgary Police Service vice unit and CAAPI, Communities for Awareness & Action on Prostitution Issues; a two-page description of CAAPI activities since it was created in September of 1997; a three-page

summary of community volunteer hours donated to CAAPI, totaling $300,567; the Community Strategies Repor t to the SPC on Community and Protective Services of the city of Calgary; and finally, a report presented to the Calgary Police Commission entitled Overview of Prostitution Activity in Calgary. Thank you very much. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glenora. MR. SAPERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have one document. It’s double sided, and I’ll refer to both sides.

It’s based on information that has been prepared by Brad Severin, the senior tax manager of BDO Dunwoody, as well as some reports in the Edmonton Journal with an analysis of the so-called Day/Klein Alberta Flat Tax – that was their characterization – as well as information prepared in an

article titled Shifting the Burden, by Greg Flanagan. The material has been condensed and consolidated by Mr. Bill Daly, B.Com, MBA. What it demonstrates in bot h the text and the chart is the effect of the flat tax on Albertans and, as a result of the Paul Martin mini-budget, it indicates that the 37 percent . . . THE SPEAKER: Well, thank you very much. We’ll accept the tabling, hon. member. Please, please, would you also refer to Hansard, my comments last Thursday and Monday in terms of naming names. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark. MS LEIBOVICI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise this afternoon to present two separate tablings. They are from the Alberta Committee of Citizens with Disabilities and the Alberta Association for Community Living. They are addressed to the Minister of Commu- nity Development as well as to Members of the Legislative Assem- bly, and they’re with regards to the controversy around the Anno Domini exhibit. Thank you very much. THE SPEAKER: And to the hon. Member for Edmonton-

November 21, 2000 Alberta Hansard 1991 Meadowlark, congratulations, this day being your 25th wedding anniversary. The hon. leader of the third party. DR. PANNU: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’ve got two tablings this afternoon. The first one is copies of a report called Child Poverty in Canada, Report Card 2000. This report concludes that one in five children in Canada still lives in poverty, an increase of 402,000 since 1989. The second tabling, Mr.

Speaker, is a letter that I r eceived from the president of the Alberta College of Social Workers, asking the Members of the Legislative Assembly to increase Alberta’s welfare rates and recognize that “irrespective of any definition, poverty has a profound and sustained adverse impact on the overall health and well-being of Albertans including young children.” Thank you, Mr. Speaker. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. MS BLAKEMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to table five copies of an excellent

article from Alberta Views magazine entitled Born in Alberta: Midwives Struggle to Bring a Healthy New Attitude into the Birthing World. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. DR. MASSEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With permission I would file five copies of Paid in Full: Who Pays for University Education in BC? by Robert Allen, who makes the argument in the paper that university students actually pay for their tuition and their education in full. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glengarry. MR. BONNER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

With your permission I have a number of tablings this afternoon. The first is a letter to the Premier dated October 9, 1998, wherein an injured worker identified 10 problem areas with WCB. Seven of these were included in the Appeals Commission report in the review of the Appeals Commission by Justice Friedman yesterday.

The second is a follow-up letter dated October 13, 1998, again to the Premier from an injured worker, regarding representation on the board of directors of WCB wherein he recommended that there be two injured workers, one representing the northern part of the province and the other representing the south. A third letter: the Premier’s response to his letters, dated Novem- ber 25, 1998. Finally, another letter to an injured Calgary worker from the Minister of Human Resources and Employment outlining the procedure for handling the reports on the WCB when they are completed. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon.

Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. MR. MacDONALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have two docu- ments to table this afternoon. Both these documents I received from Municipal Affairs in a FOIP request. The first document is from a homeowner in Nottingham district in Sherwood Park, very con- cerned about the rotting pine shakes on the roof. The second document is also from a couple who were very concerned about their dream home; they cannot afford to put a new roof on it. The original roof was pine shakes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Human Resources and Employment. MR.

DUNFORD: Thank you very much. I have five reports to table today. The first is the 1999-2000 annual report for the Alberta Registered Professional Foresters Association; also the Alberta Dental Association, January 1, ’99, to December 31, 1999; the Alberta Veterinary Medical Association, November 1, 1998, to October 31, 1999; the College of Chiropractors of Alberta, April 1, 1999, to March 31, 2000; and the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta, April 1, 1999, to March 31, 2000. MR. DICKSON: Mr.

Speaker, I’m pleased to table the November 20, 2000, report from the United Nations on the sexual commercial- ization of children. Thank you. head: Introduction of Guests THE SPEAKER: The hon. Deputy Speaker. MR. TANNAS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m pleased to acknowl- edge on behalf of all members that today, November 21, is the 21st anniversary of the hon. Speaker of this House, who was first elected to the Legislative Assembly of Alberta for the Barrhead-Westlock constituency in the by-election of November 21, 1979. I’d ask all members to join me in showing our congratulations on this occasion.

THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Whitecourt-Ste. Anne. MR. TRYNCHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On your behalf I’d like to introduce to the Legislative Assembly this afternoon guests who are seated in the members’ gallery: Florence Burette from Belgium, who is with the Rotary International youth exchange hosted by the Westlock Rotary Club; Henricke Marsman from Holland, who is with the ASSE international exchange; and Liesa Barens from Germany, who is staying with farming relatives. These students are continuing their high school studi es at R.F.

Staples school in Westlock and are accompanied by Les Dunford, publisher of the Town & Country, a local weekly news publication. On your behalf I would ask them to rise and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. 1:50 THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General. MR. HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s my pleasure today to introduce to you and through you to members of this Assembly 45 grade 6 students and their teachers Mrs. Esteves and Miss Ewald along with parent helpers Mrs. Adams and Mrs. Schramm from the Brander Gardens elementary school in my constituency of Edmonton-Whitemud.

They’re here today to observe question period and to visit the Legislature, and they’re seated in the mem- bers’ gallery. I’d ask that they please rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of this Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. MS CARLSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today it’s a pleasure for me to introduce 47 students who will be joining us at 2 o’clock. They were particularly interested in hearing the Premier respond to questions that will be asked. They are from Ekota elementary

1992 Alberta Hansard November 21, 2000 school, and today they will be accompanied by Mrs. Andrea Cooper, Miss Colleen Reeder, and Mr. Donald Auch, all teachers at that school, and by parent Mrs. Heather Pollock. So I’m hoping that the Assembly will welcome them in absentia, because they will be following the transcript in Hansard. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. MR. MacDONALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have two groups of students that I would like introduced to the Assembly this afternoon. The first group is from Terr ace Heights sc hool. There are two classes.

There are 49 pleasant and polite students. They are accompanied today by their teacher Mr. Tom Jaques, also another teacher, Jennifer Bruns, and aid Toni Smith. Also joining the group are parent helpers Chris Hardeman, Dorothy Janetzki, Audrey Bliss, Lorna Doan, and Julie Green. Some of the students are in the public gallery, and if they would now rise and receive the warm and traditional welcome of the Assembly, I would be grateful. Mr. Speaker, the second group that I would like to introduce this afternoon to you and through you to all hon. members of this Assembly is a group of 10 students.

They are accompanied by their teacher Daiana Andreoli. They are from the Learning Store on Whyte, and I would like to say that one of these students has visited the Gold Bar constituency office to discuss issues of concern with me, and I was delighted that she took time from her

schedule to come and visit. I would like to introduce Katey Brisson, Daemon Bordian, Craig Doran, Joel Byggdin, Amber Jacobs, Miranda Jacobs, Samantha Carter, Jodi Mandick, Jaime Mandick, and Ryan Cyr to all hon. members of the Assembly. They’re in the public gallery, and if they would now rise and receive the warm and traditional welcome of the Assembly, I would be grateful. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Infrastructure. MR. STELMACH: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to introduce to you and through you to members of this Assembly, seated in the public gallery, thr ee visitors: Mr.

Bill Brown and Ms Sheelagh Weslosky, accompanied by Mr. Thomas Lukaszuk, whose face will be a little more familiar in this Assembly in the very near future. I would ask them to rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of this Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. MS BLAKEMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I wasn’t sure that I’d be able to do this, but thank you very much. I’d like to introduce to you and through you to Members of the Legislative Assembly again my school.

McDougall elementary/junior high school is here participating in the School at the Legislature program, and today they are watching the proceedings from the members’ gallery. I would ask them to please rise and accept the warm welcome of the Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Health and Wellness. MR. MAR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Earlier this afternoon I introduced to you and members of the Assembly some of the newly elected board of directors of the Alberta Long Term Care Associa- tion.

I also note in the gallery today some other members of the Alberta Long Term Care Association who are attending the associa- tion’s annual general meetings here in the city of Edmonton. They are seated in the members’ gallery, and I would ask that they, too, rise and receive the warm welcome of this Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Children’s Services. MS EVANS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m pleased to rise today and to introduce to you and through you to members of this Legislature the Team Alberta that looks after children who need protection from child abuse in the form of prostitution.

They are from both Calgary and Edmonton and are seated in the public gallery.

From the city of Edmonton police, Detective Guy Pilon and Detective Brian Robert- son; from Wood’s Homes in Calgary, Madelyn MacDonald, manager of the Safe House; from Calgary Rocky View child and family service authority, Ruth Copot, the executive manager, and Julia Casey, a prostitution worker; from Calgary as well, a volunteer protective worker, Karen Prosiak; from the Metis Child and Family Services, the executive director, Don Langford; Richard Ouelett, the manager of child and family services crisis unit from Ma’Mowe, and Kim Harboway, also from the Ma’Mowe region; Bev Oldham, the program manager of child and youth services from Catholic Social Services; Kevin Hood, manager of the protection of children involved in prostitution initiative; and from the city of Edmonton, police communications, Anette Bidniak.

They are in the public gallery, and I would ask them to rise and receive the traditional warm welcome today. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Manning. MR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to introduce to you and through you to the Members of the Legislative Assembly representatives of CAUS, which is the Council of Alberta University Students. I met with three of them today, and I recognize one other one. They are Naomi Agard of the U of A, Leslie Church from the U of A, Dezmond Bel zeck from U of Lethbridge, and Duncan Wojtaszek from U of C.

They are meeting with MLAs to discuss two very important items: tuition and fees and student loans and learners’ assistance. They are in the public gallery, and I would like them to now stand and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glenora. MR. SAPERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to take an opportunity to introduce through you to members of the Assembly 27 students and their teacher. They’re currently on their tour of the Assembly building and will be joining us shortly, but I would like it noted that they were visiting. They’re visiting us from St.

Martin’s Catholic school: teacher Natalie Harasymiw and her 27 very, very dedicated students in the Ukrainian bilingual program. They’ll be watching the proceedings shortly, and I’m sure that they will have many, many questions when they get back to their classroom. Thank you. head: Oral Question Period THE SPEAKER: First main question. The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition. Electric Utilities Deregulation MRS. MacBETH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday the Premier claimed that the electricity bills for residential consumers would go down in 2001 under his botched electricity deregulation scheme, more infamously known as the KEP. Mr. Speaker, a September 15, 2000, information request filed by

November 21, 2000 Alberta Hansard 1993 ATCO Utilities to the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board on the regulated rate option shows clearly that electricity rates will go up between 57 and 80 percent at least for residential customers in the year 2001. I’d like to table that document now. So either the Premier is being misinformed by the Ministry of Resource Develop- ment or he doesn’t understand how electricity prices are set in Alberta or he’s out of touch with the reality of skyrocketing electricity prices for residences, for seniors, for renters, for farmers, and for small businesses across Alberta.

My questions are to the Premier. Will the Premier stand up in this Assembly and apologize to Albertans for spreading misinformation on electricity rates when the facts clearly show that electricity rates are going up under his deregulation scheme? MR. KLEIN: No, Mr. Speaker, but I would suggest that the hon. leader of the Liberal opposition should be apologizing to Albertans for the malicious scare tactics she’s trying to use. 2:00 MRS. MacBETH: Mr.

Speaker, why would the Premier deliberately misinform Albertans when he claimed that the electricity bill for an ATCO residential customer would go down by $20 per month next year when the evidence from ATCO, which I have just tabled, shows it will go up by $36.48 per month, a 45 percent increase including his infamous rebate? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, this matter is now before the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board. I don’t know. Does this member assume or presume to prejudge what the board might or might not do? You know, this is a quasi-judicial board that is set up to hear applications for rate increases.

We don’t know what is going to happen. Is she suggesting now that perhaps she would like to direct the board to bring in a judgment that might coincide with her statements? I think that’s very presumptuous of her. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Provincial Treasurer. DR. WEST: Yes, and on the first assumption that the hon. Leader of the Opposition made, the rates regardless of what they are will go down $20 a month starting January 1. So to tell somebody that the rates are not going to go down by $20 is misleading the public.

Again I reiterate that as the minister responsible for the balancing pool and what’s going out, the rates that we’re going to subtract the $20 from will be determined by the EUB, which hasn’t taken place yet, and therefore no matter what the letter is or what the assumption is from ATCO Electric, they do not have their rates set yet. THE SPEAKER: The hon. leader. MRS. MacBETH: Thank you. In fact, the ATCO numbers show that the rate would go up by 71 percent without the rebate, and we negative it down to 45 percent with the rebate, so my question is back to the Premier, Mr. Speaker.

Does this Premier have one shred of evidence from his own researchers or from his own office which shows that electricity rates will do anything but go up, or is he simply trying to bury his own personal responsibility for skyrocket- ing electricity prices in Alberta come 2001? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, yes. Electricity rates are increasing. That is a fact. I would point out that the government is providing very generous shielding from rising electricity rates. In some cases, including the rebate and the $20 monthly reduction in power rates, some households will benefit to the tune of some $840.

That’s a very significant amount of money. We’re doing all we can to try to encourage new energy to come onstream as quickly as possible. The demand is growing above the forecasted rate due to the outstanding ec onomic conditions in this province, Mr. Speaker, but the main point here is that while electricity rates are going up, we’ve been able, because of prudent fiscal management, to provide very generous rebates and power rate reductions. Speaker’s Ruling Parliamentary Language THE SPEAKER: Before recognizing the hon.

Leader of the Official Opposition for her second main question, just a comment coming out of Beauchesne with respect to language. While this chair would certainly encourage vigorous, pointed questions and answers in the question period, it would like to point out that in the rules that we do follow, in Beauchesne 489 there are a number of phrases that have been ruled unparliamentary.

There are a number of such phrases beginning with the word “deliberate:” deliberate distortion, deliberate malignity, deliberate falsehood, deliberately distorted, deliberately misstated the truth, deliberately misled, deliberately misleading.

In 490, “since 1958” a few certain words, with respect, have been used in certain contexts, but Beauchesne 492 clearly looks at the phrase “deliberately misinforming,” and it basically indicated that it has “caused intervention,” and “deliberately misleading” is in there following “deliberately misinforming.” So look, let’s be vigorous, let’s be aggressive, and all of that, but let’s also have some decorum. The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition. The second main question. Electric Utilities Deregulation (continued) MRS. MacBETH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

EPCOR has also filed an information request with the Energy and Utilities Board compar- ing rates for residential and other customers in 2000 and 2001 for its southern Alberta customers, and I am happy to table that information for members of the House. My questions are again to the Premier. Will the Premier confirm that an average residential consumer in southern Alberta under EPCOR will see at least a 25 percent increase in their electricity bill next year under his deregulation scheme, not the decrease he wrongly claimed yesterday? MR. KLEIN: Mr.

Speaker, I can’t confirm anything that is before a regulatory agency. You know, they could go in and ask for a 300 or 400 percent increase. We don’t know what is going to happen. This is a quasi-judicial board. I can tell you one thing, Mr. Speaker. This government on behalf of the people of this province will be intervening in all of these cases where power companies are seeking rate increases.

In the spirit of co-operation, rather than fear mongering, I would invite the Liberals to join with us in that intervention, because it is not in any one’s political interest to see high power rates and to erode the Alberta advantage. MRS. MacBETH: Mr. Speaker, will the Premier confirm, then, that an average commercial customer in southern Alberta, according to EPCOR and the information that they have filed with the EUB, will see at least a 33 percent increase in their electricity bill in 2001 under his deregulation scheme?

1994 Alberta Hansard November 21, 2000 MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, again, it would be highly inappropriate for anyone to really comment on a situation that is now before a regulatory agency. I have indicated that there are a number of applications for rate increases, and this government will be interven- ing to protect as much as we possibly can the interests of Albertans. MRS. MacBETH: Well, Mr.

Speaker, will the Premier confirm that an average farmer in southern Alberta, under the EPCOR rules and the EPCOR filing, will see a 57 percent increase in their electricity bills according to the EPCOR documents filed with the EUB? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, again, I can’t confirm anything because this is now before a regulatory agency, a quasi-judicial process. Mr. Speaker, I can confirm, however, that we have put in place for the farm community, for the busin ess community, for the institu- tional community a program that is close to $800 million to alleviate the rising costs of electricity. I can confirm that.

THE SPEAKER: Third question. The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition. Electric Utility Costs MRS. MacBETH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Alberta classrooms are overcrowded and are lacking adequate resources to deal with special education needs of our students. Parents continue to work casinos and fund-raisers to pay for basic education needs.

The government’s own numbers indicate that an average elementary school with 175 students will see its monthly electricity bill increase by $1,474 – these are the government’s own numbers – while receiving a rebate of $393 per month, leaving a shortfall of nearly $1,100 per month to our typical elementary school. My questions are to this Premier. What part of the school budget is the government advising elemen- tary school principals to take the money out of to pay for an extra $1,100 to buy the electricity they need to light the school? MR.

KLEIN: This is pure speculation, and the member’s statements are not entirely true, because what she fails to mention is the $800 million rebate program that we have put in place to help institutions such as schools. 2:10 Relative to this particular case, Mr. Speaker, some work is being done in conjunction with the Treasurer and the hon. Minister of Learning, and I’ll have both these ministers respond. DR. WEST: Mr.

Speaker, we are working with Learning through Treasury to look at how we can mitigate some of the cost of the energy, natural gas and electricity, and the amount of rise in the fuel cost used in buses and otherwise. We’ll be looking at that between the two departments. Out of a $4 and a half billion budget that we have involved in Learning, we’re probably looking at something between $12 million and $30 million for Learning if we could find it either internally or through operation and maintenance, working with Infrastructure.

This will not be directed only to Learning, but we’ll also be looking at health care and other public buildings in the province of Alberta. I believe that on a percentage basis they’re trying to scare the public and the parents and the schools into thinking that something is totally out of control, but I would suggest that $15 million, plus or minus, to address electricity out of a $17 and a half billion budget is not something to alarm Albertans about. THE SPEAKER: Short? Okay. DR. OBERG: Yes. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I was just going to add one point, and that is that the school boards together with the universities and the public sector are looking through their organization called PICA to enter the upcoming energy auction to attempt to get lower prices. I believe that this is a very good way for the schools and the universities to purchase lower priced energy, and they are presently in the process of doing that. MRS. MacBETH: So, in other words, school boards have to hire a market analyst in electricity, and maybe they’ll pay for that too. My question is back to the Premier.

With Alberta Learning’s last annual budget recording that 26 of the provincial school boards ran operating deficits last year, how many more school boards are going to be forced into a deficit position because of this government’s skyrocketing electricity prices? MR. KLEIN: Well, Mr. Speaker, again, I will have the hon. Minister of Learning respond, followed by the Provincial Treasurer. DR. OBERG: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The reason that 26 boards ran deficits is quite simply that they dipped into their operating reserves.

By dipping into their operating reserves, they showed a deficit in their operating budget. This was a planned expense, and these boards did not have a deficit. DR. WEST: And, Mr. Speaker, on top of that last year we put 158 some million dollars into picking up some deficits in this province, and besides picking up deficits, like with the Calgary school board, we also applied those dollars through to the other boards and some of them are running surpluses today. I would suggest that in the three-year business plans we also put another 19 percent increase over the three years into the Department of Learning.

I would think that if we can’t accommodate some of the ups and downs of a budget of that largesse, then we’re not very good managers. I would suggest that the hon. member of the Liberal opposition stop fear mongering out there to the general public. Indeed, most of these administrative changes are internal to any organization and not just to education or to health or to running law courts or to running your individual homes or businesses. I believe that time and records will show that this type of direction by the opposition . . . THE SPEAKER: Hon.

Leader of the Official Opposition, please proceed with your next question. MRS. MacBETH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I know the Provincial Treasurer and the Premier would love to blame the utility compa- nies, but the responsibility for this is squarely with the provincial government. Mr.

Speaker, given that grants for grades 1 through 9 were scheduled to increase by $123 per student next year but now electricity bills, according to ATCO and EPCOR and the govern- ment’s own numbers, could increase by $75 per student, will this government commit to increasing student grants so that our children won’t be penalized for the mismanagement of electricity deregula- tion in this province? MR. KLEIN: Mr.

Speaker, that question has been answered, but I would point out that there has been absolutely no mismanagement, and, yes, we will ensure that our children, the children of this province, are well educated in accordance with the rules and regulations set down by a very competent Minister of Learning.

November 21, 2000 Alberta Hansard 1995 THE SPEAKER: The hon. deputy leader of the third party. Natural Gas Pricing MR. MASON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This government’s policy has supported the wholesale export of Alberta natural gas into the American market forcing Albertans to pay California prices for natural gas. Yesterday the price of natural gas crossed the threshold of $8 Canadian per gigajoule, an all-time high.

Royalty revenue from natural gas prices is pouring into the provincial treasury at a record rate, yet Albertans are being threatened with bankruptcy and cutbacks in school programs b ecause they can’t afford to pay for basic utilities. To the Premier: given record high prices for natural gas, what does the government plan to assist school boards, universi- ties, health authorities, municipalities as well as average Alberta households with skyrocketing utility prices? MR. KLEIN: Mr.

Speaker, relative to natural gas, yes, we’re very fortunate to be the gas producer of the nation, and, yes, the price of gas is contributing significantly to provincial government coffers. That’s why we’ve been able to provide a $300 rebate to every individual over the age of 16. That’s why we’re able, in conjunction with the Provincial Treasurer and the Minister of Resource Develop- ment, to look at what we can do to further assist in the area of public institutions, including schools and universities and hospitals. I would remind the hon. member that in Alberta the price of gas per gigajoule is $5.80.

That’s the November price. In Calgary it’s $6.16. In Regina it’s $6.25. In Manitoba it’s $6.37. In British Columbia it’s $7.57. That’s Vancouver. In Toronto it’s $7.84, and, Mr. Speaker, in Montreal it’s $11.08. We’re still the lowest. MR. MASON: Mr. Speaker, I hope the Premier’s numbers check out a little better than the ones he gave yesterday in the House. Given the huge benefit of record high natural gas prices to the provincial treasury and the energy industry, why will the govern- ment not commit to a plan that will directly assist public institutions with rising utility costs? MR. KLEIN: We have, Mr.

Speaker. I just want to comment on a comment that was made by the hon. member. The prices that I have quoted, Mr. Speaker, are accurate prices. The source is the Canadian Gas Price Reporter , and it comes from the October and November 2000 issues. MR. MASON: Mr. Speaker, how can the Premier say that the government has done all that it can to address skyrocketing utility costs when school boards, universities, health authorities, municipal- ities, and average Alberta households clearly can’t afford to keep paying more and more for their gas and electricity? MR. KLEIN: Mr.

Speaker, I have never said that we’re doing all that we can. If there’s more that needs to be done, we will do it, but let’s talk about what we have done: three rebate programs, one in the order of $800 million, to alleviate the rising costs of electricity as it relates to businesses, farm communities, public institutions; a $20 a month rebate or reduction in everyone’s electricity bill, starting January 1; and a $300 cash rebate to every Albertan over the age of 16, the first installment of which will be going out, I think, within the week. 2:20 DR. WEST: Mr.

Speaker, could I just add one thing to what the Premier just said? Rising gas prices and that do return quite a bit of royalties to the province, but we’re forgetting one thing. In the province of Alberta, besides the rebates that the Premier is talking about, we have been able, starting January 1, to lower personal income taxes by 20 percent in this province. We have been able to lower the education portion of the property taxes on residential properties. We are able to start rolling back small business taxes and corporate taxes.

All of these will help these individual residences, buildings, businesses to pay their increase in electrical and their increase in gas costs. As we go forward, since ’94 till now, because of the buoyancy in the oil and gas industry, we have been able to lower our debt to $8 billion, releasing $1 billion in interest. As well, we have been able to address individual needs . . . THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Fort, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. Child Prostitution MR. CAO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Given that a few weeks ago the president of a community association in my riding came to my office to raise issues on prostitution activities – these activities threaten the health and the safety of the residents and the young people, especially those involved – my question is to the hon. Minister of Children’s Services. In light of the pending decision on the judicial review, what are you going to do to protect the youth against prostitution? MS EVANS: Mr. Speaker, it’s well known by yourself that there has been a tabling today. I will not reference that.

Rather, I will talk about the fact that since Judge Jordan provided a ruling that raised questions about the PCHIP Act, we have gone to court with two pieces of legislation: the PCHIP Act as well as the Child Welfare Act. We have taken the time to do our best to provide all of that legislative support when an apprehension takes place.

We have in fact taken the time to evaluate and discuss with the members of the street teams, members that I’ve introduced here today, what the options are in which we could deploy to provide strength and even greater program delivery to those children who are in fact sexually abused by the predators and pimps that have been among them in this society. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Fort. MR. CAO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My first supplemental question is to the same minister. What specific action are you proposing? MS EVANS: Mr. Speaker, in a

summary, and more to come later, we are proposing an extension of an o pportunity for confinement, and we are proposing an opportunity for additional treatments in a situation where the director would bring that forward towards the courts as a valued and responsible thing to do for the child. We are proposing to make those kinds of treatments available for a longer period of time and in fact an extension beyond a first extension to enable the child to be free from abuse and to get whatever corrective action is possible for any substance abuse that might have occurred during the time prior to their apprehension.

THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Fort. MR. CAO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My last supplemental question is to the same minister. What is the government doing to help children at risk in the interim? MS EVANS: Mr. Speaker, regrettably there was a delay of some of

1996 Alberta Hansard November 21, 2000 the apprehensions in that period first following Judge Jordan’s ruling, but since that time at least 23 children have been appre- hended using either the PCHIP Act or the new policy directives under the Child Welfare Act. I’m very confident that the work that has been done to try and protect these exploited children has been maintaining its consistency in the last few weeks. We’ve had such rigorous support of the legislation that may come forward later that we are very pleased that we can report that we are working as well as we possibly can. THE SPEAKER: The hon.

Member for Mill Woods, followed by the hon. Member for Olds-Didsbury-Three Hills. School Infrastructure Grants DR. MASSEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With a three-quarter billion dollar backlog of needed school repairs and construction the government has announced the new century schools fund. Edmon- ton public and Edmonton Catholic schools received $6.6 million, or about 2.8 percent of the $238 million in grants. My questions are to the Minister of Infrastructure. Does the minister deem this grant to the Edmonton boards fair given the age of their current school building stock and the need for schools in suburbs?

THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Infrastructure. MR. STELMACH: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to inform this House that the criteria that have been established for new school construction, modernization, and renovation is fully transparent, and all school boards know what they have to do to meet the current criteria. THE SPEAKER: The hon. member. DR. MASSEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. How then did the minister determine the allocation of these moneys when the Auditor General has indicated that the goals of his department and the goals of the Department of Learning don’t necessarily match?

So how do you come up with the allocation? MR. STELMACH: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know where the hon. member is coming from in terms of the goals. [interjections] No, he’s the one that said that, not the Auditor General. He’s the one that made that statement here in the House. One of the things that we have in the Department of Infrastructure, Mr. Speaker, is a very close working relationship with a number of ministries. One is the Minister of Learning, the other is the minister of health. We also work with the Minister of Community Develop- ment.

What happens is that the programming is decided upon by those various ministries. Then they come to us in terms of infra- structure and ask us to find the funds necessary to put those facilities in place. Now, with respect to the dollars that were given, I repeat: there are very clear criteria established by the School Boards Association of this province. If you don’t like those criteria, go back and get them changed with the authority. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. DR. MASSEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again to the same minister: can the minister explain to this Assembly why local school board priorities are not honoured when school building grants are determined and allocated? Why don’t you honour those priorities? MR. STELMACH: Mr. Speaker, again the hon. member is saying, “not honoured.” We put $235 million in additional funds this year that have to be expended before the end of this budget year, March 31, 2001, and a further $400 million in the budget year 2001-2002. This morning I even told all of the school boards that were in attendance today that we know that all of that construction cannot occur.

Over a billion dollars worth of construction and renovation in this province cannot occur in one year. It may take three years to do it all, and we will partner with them. We’ll park the money with them. They can draw interest on it and plan all of their construction in a very co-ordinated way and get the best value for their tax dollars. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Olds-Didsbury-Three Hills, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Glengarry. Hormones in Meat Exports MR. MARZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today are to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development.

There’s a preliminary report out by the European Commission that questions Canada’s control of chemical residues, including hormones, in live animals and animal products. It goes on to recommend that the European Commission ensure that Canada food commodities of animal origin not be imported until these deficiencies have been rectified. As Alberta is an exporter of beef and animal products to the European Community, would the minister please update this House as to what is taking place and what the minister is doing about it? THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. MR.

LUND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. What is happening is protectionism at its very worst. It’s true that there is a mechanism in the WTO’s systems where sanitary and photosanitary items can be identified, but to say that Canada is outside of those is really a stretch. The fact is that we have some of the safest processing and the best protocol in the world in Canada, and Alberta, of course, has extremely good and tight regulations relative to the safety of food. Now, it’s an interesting situation, because in Canada we restrict the sale of drugs and the sale of certain hormones,

whereas in the European Union they just restrict the use. So, of course, there is much more danger in the European Union, in fact, of products getting into the food chain that should not be there. It’s also quite intere sting to note that the European Union has great difficulty with disease. I believe that probably a lot of this is to draw attention away from their problems and focus it on another area. But I can assure the people of Alberta and the people of Canada that the meat in this province and in this country is ex- tremely safe. The protocol is there, and it’s adhered to. 2:30 THE SPEAKER: The hon.

Member for Olds-Didsbury-Three Hills. MR. MARZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the same minister: can the minister indicate what the next steps are, and how will Alberta insist in ensuring that this decision is overturned? MR. LUND: Mr. Speaker, another interesting thing to note is that in fact the Europeans have not found any contaminants in the samples that they have conducted, but the process is one where they do an audit, and that is what’s happened. This is a draft report. The audit is sent to Canada, and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and Health Canada will be responding to it. It then goes back, and the

November 21, 2000 Alberta Hansard 1997 final report out of the EU should be available sometime in the latter part of December. THE SPEAKER: The hon. member. MR. MARZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again to the same minister: how significant to Alberta’s economy is our export of meat products to the European Community? MR. LUND: Mr. Speaker , out of Alberta there’s only about $1 million worth of product that goes to the EU. Really that’s only about .04 percent of our total exports, so it’s not large.

I guess what we are really concerned about is that in fact the European Union would indicate that there is a problem with the safety of our meat products in Canada, and that is just simply not the case. We will be working very closely with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and Health Canada to prove that it’s not the case. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glengarry, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary-Fish Creek. Workers’ Compensation Review MR. BONNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday the Minister of Human Resources and Employment, who’s responsible for the Workers’ Compensation Board, released two separate reports condemning the Workers’ Compensation Board as unfair and unaccountable. The first report on the appeal system, chaired by retired Justice Friedman, found that workers, employers, and advocates had an overall dissatisfaction rate of 70 percent with the effectiveness of the system.

The report states: Each Committee member has expressed concern about what seems to be a well-entrenched culture of denial within the [Workers’ Compensation Board] and one which treats many long-term disability claimants with suspicion. Further, the report states that “the greatest and most immediate need is to bring accountability into the appeals process.” My questions are for the Minister of Human Resources and Employment. In response to a question from the media yesterday, I heard the minister say that he was not surprised by the findings of the reports, and if that is the case, why did he not act before now?

MR. DUNFORD: I would just like to remind the hon. member of the process that we went through. There had been a number of letters that had been received by the ministry and of course we were aware of certain activities that were taking place on the streets here in Edmonton. Clearly, action was required, and I believe that I accepted the res ponsibility of that action. I put together two committees to look into the situation, and we released those reports the other day. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glengarry. MR. BONNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Will the minister commit to this House that he will make every effort to implement the majority of the excellent recommendations contained in the two reports, as he indicated in his letter dated June 20, 2000, to Mr. Allan Jobson, an injured worker in Calgary, where the minister said: Later in the fall when the review process is complete, I will forward the committees’ findings to Rick Lelacheur, Chair, the Board of Directors and Mary Cameron, CEO and President of [the Workers’ Compensation Board] for implementation. MR.

DUNFORD: That in fact has been done in the sense that copies of the report, as they were released to the public yesterday, were forwarded to the Workers’ Compensation Board, and I’ve asked for a response and a plan of action as to how they plan to deal with the recommendations. In the meantime, of course, there are other stakeholders in the province that have to have an opportunity now to react to the recommendations, and of course, Mr. Speaker, we will be allowing an opportunity for that to happen. The time frame that’s been set is that they have until January 31 of 2001 to respond. MR. BONNER: Mr.

Speaker, in a WCB news release today it states, “The recommendations will be incorporated into the WCB’s service consultation review.” Does this mean that the minister has trans- ferred the implementation of these recommendations of the two reports to the Workers’ Compensation Board? MR. DUNFORD: Not at all, Mr. Speaker. As the hon. member should know – and I assume that he does – the recommendations covered not only legislation and regulation but also policy.

As the hon. member is also aware, my responsibility as far as it relates to Workers’ Compensation is for the administration of the act, and of course I accept that responsibility. As he knows, within the act there is a board of directors that is then responsible for the day-to-day operation of Workers’ Compensation. So I would expect them to look very closely at those recommendations that call for policy changes, and I’ll make the commitment. I’ll accept what responsi- bility I have as to whether or not there will be changes in legislation and regulation. THE SPEAKER: The hon.

Member for Calgary-Fish Creek, followed by the hon. Member for Spruce Grove-Sturgeon-St. Albert. Fraudulent Telemarketing MRS. FORSYTH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Fraudulent telemarket- ers and mail-order swindlers will steal millions of dollars this year from Albertans. These professional con artists peddle everything and anything. These scam artists are very inventive and persuasive. Telephone calls and colourful mailers offering pr oducts at greatly reduced rates and free prizes can sound very exciting, but simply they are lies. My questions are all to the Minister of Government Services.

Given the recent telephone scam where people are being contacted and told that someone in their family is ill or in trouble and are being asked to call a number with an 890 area code, which creates long-distance charges, what is your department doing about this? THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Government Services. MRS. NELSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Telephone marketing scams are becoming a way of life today as we have more electronic transfers, I guess, and the high-tech industry is moving into some of the marketing schemes. The hon. member is quite right.

We have seen an increase in some of these scams in the province of Alberta. In fact, this last year we’ve had over $600,000 worth of complaints that have come through to the consumer side of our ministry. I will say at the very beginning that if you’re offered something that sounds too good to be true, it probably is. So consumers need to be aware that they should not be conned into thinking they’re getting something for nothing or getting a special deal without fully investigating it. In this particular case of people phoning with regard to this 890

1998 Alberta Hansard November 21, 2000 area code, the RCMP and the local police were on to this scam very quickly and issued a full alert to consumers and to regulators throughout the province and across Canada. What we are able to do is to work with the authorities to help warn people against some of these scam artists. We have a consumer information line that we have put in place this year – it actually has had over 80,000 calls to it – where we ask people to call in before you make the commitment. Call in even if you have, and if you need help, we will help you out. It’s a toll-free number.

We’ve been trying to launch more awareness on, again, trying not to be suckered into the deal of: have I got a deal for you. These freebies just are not that. They are scams. We’re working with the authorities, the police – the local police and the RCMP – and other jurisdictions to make awareness out there for consumers. 2:40 THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Fish Creek. MRS. FORSYTH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Most of my second question has been answered by the minister, so I’ll go to my third one, please.

Given that these fly-by-night or boiler room operations, as they are commonly known, are using leased office space and can pack up in a flash, what laws are in effect to protect Albertans? MRS. NELSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, again we worked hard this last year. As most members will remember, we brought in place a new Fair Trading Act in the province, which puts some meat into the penalties and provided for some protection for consumers. This act has penalties of up to $100,000 and/or two years in jail.

This first year of operation we have actually completed 1,600 investigations under this act under consumer protection, so it is working. We are going to continue to be tough but fair as far as our consumer protection legislation goes. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Spruce Grove-Sturgeon-St. Albert, followed by the hon. Member for Red Deer-North. School Board Finances MRS. SOETAERT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You know, the government pretends that public education is adequately funded. In fact, they’ve repeated this fallacy so often that they’ve actually begun to believe it.

While the government’s ministers are off touring Poland and Mexico, parents, students, and teachers are left behind back home selling entertainment books and working casinos to try to pay for school basics or just fighting to keep their commu- nity school open. My questions are to the Minister of Learning. Why is the Peace River sc hool board being forced to consider closing up to 10 community schools, including Whitelaw and Nampa, while the government has a $5 billion surplus and enough money for cabinet ministers to tour all over the world at taxpayers’ expense? THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Learning. DR.

OBERG: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. To start this off, I would just like to say that the hon. member was recently in the Strathmore-Brooks constituency to hear some issues. She stood up here in the Legislature and talked about highway 1 and highway 38. There is no highway 38, and that wasn’t even where the intersection was where there were problems. I think this hon. member should take a look around when she is traveling around the province at taxpayers’ expense and at least find out what the issues are before she talks about it in the Legislature. Mr.

Speaker, what the hon. member has talked about is the issue in Peace River. In P eace River they have some schools where the attendance is down. They are looking at what to do with them. They are looking at possible different explanations as to how they can group their students to give the students the most learning opportunities that they can. The Department of Learning is about learning opportunities. We have increased the budget this year alone 8.8 percent, and that is money that has gone directly to the school boards.

In our business plan, as the hon. member knows, there’s a 19 percent increase over the next three years. Mr. Speaker, I would invite the minister for intergovernmental affairs to comment on travel around the world. THE SPEAKER: No. We’re going to go on. The hon. member. MRS. SOETAERT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My second question is to the Minister of Learning.

How is it that after waiting nine months for a dyslexia diagnosis at the Glenrose, a Grande Cache family’s nine-year-old daughter is placed in a classroom with 33 other students and no special help, yet this government has a $5 billion surplus and a team of ministerial globe-trotters? DR. OBERG: Mr. Speaker, I just wonder what the hon. member’s constituents would say when she comes down to Brooks and she doesn’t know what is going on. Perhaps she should actually listen when she comes to a meeting.

The people in my constituency were asking, “When are we going to be getting highway 38?” because it hasn’t been there before. What the hon. member has asked the question about has to do with the flexibility of the school boards. The school boards are given a grant at this moment for X number of dollars per student. It is up to the school board then how that grant is dished out, how it is done. Mr. Speaker, that is the way it is done. The school board receives the grants. The school board then allocates it out.

A class of 33: again, I don’t know the individual circumstances, but I’d be more than happy to talk about class size at any time with this hon. member. THE SPEAKER: The hon. member. MRS. SOETAERT: Thank you. Will the minister explain, then, how it is that a school in Claresholm has no proper music or physical education programs, a shortage of classrooms, and grades 2 and 6 classes with over 30 students while your government has a $5 billion surplus and enough money for cabinet to take trips to Asia and Europe? MRS. McCLELLAN: Mr.

Speaker, I simply have to comment, and I’ll stand on the record of priorities for education and health in this province. I am disappointed in the hon. member opposite, and frankly I am surprised by her comments, because as a person who has sat in this Legislature, as a citizen and a well-educated person, she must understand that 1 in 3 jobs in this province depends on international travel. She must understand that about 80 percent of what we produce in this province is exported.

She must understand that the livelihood, the education, the health care of every citizen in this province depends on international trade. To suggest that any minister travels for any other reason than to sell Alberta and the Alberta advantage does this hon. member disservice. As I said, I am disappointed and certainly expected more knowledge of the importance of international trade in this area.

November 21, 2000 Alberta Hansard 1999 THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Red Deer-North, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. Classroom Sizes MRS. JABLONSKI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We know teachers play a very important role in the success and development of our children. They strive to ensure that every child is safe, motivated, and challenged. Teachers and parents continue to share with me their concerns about the size of some of the classrooms in local schools, especially in the younger grades. My question is for the Minister of Learning.

If we know that smaller class sizes help teachers in delivering the highest qua lity of education, why do we not set a maximum limit on class sizes? DR. OBERG: Mr. Speaker, that’s an absolutely excellent question, and it’s great to get such a good question. I have looked at the issue of class size backwards and forwards and every way within. [interjections] If the hon. members across the way would like to hear the answer, perhaps they could be quiet. I recently received what is called a small-class project which deals with the whole issue of class size.

This was the project that was done in Edmonton, and it was dealt with with the $500,000 that we gave to the Edmonton public school system. I will just comment on some of the statements that they have made in this. First of all, what they did is they reviewed the literature around the world. They reviewed the literature on class size. The first comment they make is that in 1998 Jeremy Finn, who had reviewed all the literature, says that he believes that the issues around class size persist because of the, and I quote: powerful commonsense appeal of small classes to alleviate problems indigenous to our classrooms.

They go on further, and they talk about the STAR project. The STAR one was a project in Tennessee that realistically set the tone for what is happening in class size. Upon critiquing the STAR project, a Mr. Hanushek says: the net benefit to achievement was a onetime one-quarter standard deviation improvement in test scores for those kindergarten or first grade children in small classes; although the initial gain was maintained, scores did not continue to improve. I will go to the Calgary board of education. I believe this is very important.

Lytton and Pyryt in 1998 did a study on the Calgary board of education. [interjections] Mr. Speaker, I know that they don’t believe Calgary has anything to do with Alberta, but it is extremely important to us. Lytton and Pyryt found that one variable that appeared to have no practical effect on achievement was class size. THE SPEAKER: Hon. minister, I trust you have copies to table. 2:50 MRS. JABLONSKI: Mr. Speaker, my first supplemental is to the same minister. What is the government doing to reduce class sizes in high-needs schools? DR. OBERG: Well, Mr.

Speaker, as I alluded, we gave $500,000 to the Edmonton public school system to identify this exact issue. To decrease the class size in high-needs schools in grade 1, $500,000 was put into the Edmonton public school system. The results of that were very, very positive. The bottom line is that when it comes to class size funding, school boards must have the flexibility. They must have the flexibility to do one-on-one teaching. They must have the flexibility to indeed, in some cases, decrease class size. They must have that flexibility.

As a matter of fact, I’ve spent over the last five days with the School Boards Association and the various school boards around the province, and almost to a T, when posed with that question, they said that they would opt for flexibility as opposed to me enveloping funds and forcing a class size upon them. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Red Deer-North. MRS. JABLONSKI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. What is the minis- ter’s response to parents and teachers who say that current class sizes are affecting the performance of Alberta students? DR. OBERG: Well, first of all, Mr.

Speaker, when you take a look at our achievement tests, when you take a look at our standings around the world, when you take a look at any parameter that we are measured with with students around the world, what we see is that everything . . . MRS. SOETAERT: Aren’t you going to do anything about class size? DR. OBERG: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Spruce Grove- Sturgeon-St. Albert has asked about class size. Obviously she is not listening to what I’m saying, so perhaps she just could be listening. Our students have increased significantly over the past three and four years in all aspects of achievement tests.

Mr. Speaker, our diploma exams are down slightly this year, but our students in Alberta are getting excellent education and are only improving. head: Members’ Statements THE SPEAKER: In 30 seconds, hon. members, I’ll call upon the first of three members today to participate in Members’ Statements. The hon. Member for Medicine Hat. Students Against Drinking and Driving MR. RENNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to take this opportunity today to congratulate a group of people in my commu- nity who believe that youth leadership and a positive attitude are the best methods for saving lives and preventing injuries caused by drinking and driving. Dedicated to addressing the issues of impaired driving, Students Against Drinking and Driving, or SADD, encourages student awareness of the consequences of driving while under the influence of alcohol. Promoting alternatives to drinking and driving, SADD encourages students not to participate in activities that may end with destructive and often fatal consequences.

Instead, SADD chapters work with students all over Canada in an effort to build their confidence and learn how to manage their behaviour in ways that result in safer choices. Mr. Speaker, recently I had the pleasure of receiving a banner from Students Against Drinking and Driving chapters in the Medicine Hat area. There are currently chapters active at Crescent Heights high school in Medicine Hat and Eagle Butte high school in Dunmore.

They presented me with a banner signed by hundreds of students from throughout southeastern Alberta, along with a letter congratulating the government on recent legislative changes. They also encouraged us to continue to support programs aimed at reducing impaired driving. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the use of props in the Legislative Assembly is prohibited by our Standing Orders, so I am unable to display the banner at this time. I would, however, like to thank you and your staff for assisting me in having the banner displayed in an appropriate place in the Legislature Building. This morning I was

2000 Alberta Hansard November 21, 2000 pleased to have you join me as a photograph was taken. It is my intention to return the banner as well as copies of the photograph to the students at Crescent Heights high school. I ask all members to join me in extending congratulations to these outstanding students. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Rutherford. Persons with Disabilities MR. WICKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. One of the things I want to do before I leave this distinguished room, the Legislative Assembly, is get on record the priorities for persons with disabilities, as I see them.

This should be of particular interest to the Member for Clover Bar-Fort Saskatchewan, the chairman of the Premier’s Council on the Status of Persons with Disabilities, and to the Associate Minister of Health and Wellness. Parking. The parking situation has become ridiculous, with a sevenfold increase in placards in recent years. There is a solution that’s a no-brainer.

The solution is that you have a two-tiered system: wider stalls for wheelchair use only – they would be identified maybe with a red placard – and then family parking for the elderly, expectant mothers, and people with small children, that would be identified with a different-coloured placard, possibly blue. The building code. The building code has to be revamped. We still have architects and planners in this city who build a wheelchair ramp in front of a handicap parking stall. When you park, you can’t get on the sidewalk.

Or they design a nice cubicle in the washroom, but the door goes inside instead of out, so when you get in there, you can’t close the door behind you. It has to be spelled out in detail for some of them. Education. What the Minister of Learning did at NorQuest, the learning centre, is good. I toured that the other day, and that concept should be pushed even further. AISH. I think the minister is reviewing AISH. At least, I hope he is. There is a need for an ongoing review of regulations.

Home care: we need sufficient funds for home care b ecause disabled persons, like anybody else, prefer to live in the community instead of an institution. Employment. There’s always a shortage of employment, particularly for persons with very severe disabilities. For somebody like myself, it’s not too difficult, but for somebody with a real severe difficulty, it’s very difficult. In that short period of time of two minutes I’ve spelled out those five as the priorities that have been relayed to me by persons with disabilities. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Bow. Affordable Housing MRS.

LAING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. November 22 is national housing strategy day to mark the second anniversary of the meeting of big-city mayors and the caucus of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, which declared homelessness to be a national disaster. In Calgary the number of homeless people continues to increase. The city of Calgary census of the homeless in May showed an increase of 800 people in spite of the excellent work being done by the Calgary Homeless Foundation, the drop-in centre, the Salvation Army, the Mustard Seed, the Inn from the Cold, and other frontline agencies.

Many people are drawn to Alberta in search of a new way of life due to our vibrant economy and our high employment rate. Mr. Speaker, they find jobs. What they cannot find are affordable homes. The buildings today being done consist of high-scale condominiums and costly suburban family housing. There’s a great need for affordable housing for single men and women, young couples starting out, and low-income families. Today there is an ever increasing number of families and children on the street.

When I attended the national symposium on homelessness held in Toronto, there was a consensus that strong action is necessary by three levels of government and the whole community to address this growing problem. Many initiatives were put forward as possible ways to increase affordable housing. Some suggestions included tax credits for developers and builders, a GST exemption on affordable housing building material, and an easement of municipal zoning bylaws to encourage the creation of secondary suites.

Measures to keep people in their homes once they have found affordable housing would include a range of support services to meet their needs and prevent eviction. This support service could be as simple as a loan of $38 to make up a shortage in their rent or perhaps directing a person to the appropriate agency for assistance with their problems. Emergency shelters are only stopgaps. They provide a mat to sleep on and a roof over your head, but they’re not an adequate form of housing, and when it’s time to leave, where do you go?

Homelessness is a growing problem which affects all of us, and an important solution is affordable housing, which requires the efforts of everyone. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo on a point of order. Point of Order Questions outside Ministerial Responsibility MR. DICKSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The point of order arises from the first set of questions by the Leader of the Official Opposi- tion to the hon. Premier. I think it was the first answer to the first question. There was a surprising intervention by the Provincial Treasurer.

Now, the authorities I would cite would be Beauchesne 409(6) and then also, if we look at House of Commons Procedure and Practice, page 427. We talk about questions that should not “address a Minister’s former portfolio or any other presumed functions.” 3:00 I was looking at this grand new seating plan for the Legislative Assembly – I think this has just been redone – and as I look at the list for the bench opposite, I see we have somebody described as the Member for Athabasca-Wabasca, Minister of Resource Develop- ment.

Then I look down and I see that the Member for Vermilion- Lloydminster is designated Provincial Treasurer. Now, I listened carefully, and although I haven’t seen the Blues, the question did not relate to anything within the responsibility of the Provincial Treasurer. The response, more surprisingly, would have been perfectly appropriate coming from somebody who was responsible for Resource Development, but what we heard was the Provincial Treasurer speaking about the energy program and the energy policy of the province of Alberta. I guess my question is this, Mr. Speaker.

You’ve been encourag- ing us in the short life so far of this fall session to make sure we refer to members by their proper title, but you’ll understand if members opposite are a little puzzled, because we’re not sure, now, who is going to answer questions for the energy policy of the government of the province of Alberta, if not the Premier. I’m sure that quite

November 21, 2000 Alberta Hansard 2001 apart from whatever embarrassment may be done to the minister who has that responsibility by having his overeager colleague spring to action, it does make it a bit puzzling. I suppose if we’re going to allow the Provincial Treasurer to answer and supplement those kinds of questions, then I trust that you will permit me and my colleagues to put questions to such members as we choose rather than those that fall simply within their narrow departmental and portfolio responsi- bility. Thank you very much. MR. HANCOCK: Well, Mr. Speaker, the hon.

Opposition House Leader obviously didn’t listen very clearly to the answer of the Provincial Treasurer. He very clearly said, when he got to his feet – I heard him; mind you, I’m sitting quite close – that he was the minister responsible for the power balancing pool. He has responsi- bility in this area. When the members of the opposition want to raise questions about how Albertans are affected by power rates, that clearly falls into the area of the power balancing pool and very clearly falls into the competence of the Provincial Treasurer to comment on it.

As well, however, members opposite have been straying into other areas relative to that context of energy and how it relates to learning and how it relates to other areas. One of the areas that clearly he had talked about was the effect on Albertans of the government’s fiscal policies relative to energy and other areas.

The Treasurer is certainly competent to talk about the benefit that Albertans get, the Alberta advantage, which comes from the prudent fiscal manage- ment of this province resulting in moneys available to provide for tax relief and for energy tax rebates, which are clearly within the purview and competence of the Provincial Treasurer. Specifically with respect to that particular question, the Provincial Treasurer provided his grounds of competence to answer the question in his answer to the question. THE SPEAKER: Hon. members, the point of order raised today by the hon.

Member for Calgary-Buffalo was an interesting one, but clearly the response is found in the various rules of the books that we generally follow, Beauchesne’s Parliamentary Rules & Forms, and the hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo did refer to Beauchesne 409(6). A question must be within the administrative competence of the Government. The Minister to whom the question is directed is responsible to the House for his or her present Ministry and not for any decisions taken in a previous portfolio.

Generally that’s viewed to mean the following: that when a question comes along to the minister asking the minister to review something that’s happened in Switzerland, there would be an intervention because that clearly is not within the administrative competence of the government, of this government anyway, in terms of something afar. Generally that’s the way we’ve dealt with it. Now, more interestingly, though, perhaps it’s prudent once in a while to review some of these things. Under “Replies to Oral Questions” in Beauchesne 416:

(1) A Minister may decline to answer a question without stating the reason for refusing, and insistence on an answer is out of order, with no debate being allowed. A refusal to answer cannot be raised as a question of privilege, nor is it regular to comment upon such a refusal. A Member may put a question but has no right to insist upon an answer.

(2) An answer to a question cannot be insisted upon if the answer be refused by the Minister on the ground of the public interest; nor can the question be replaced on the Notice Paper. The refusal of a Minister to answer on this ground cannot be raised as a matter of privilege. 417. Answers to questions should be as brief as possible, deal with the matter raised and should not provoke debate. I like that rule. 418. The Speaker has stated, “Hon. Members may not realize it but questions are actually put to the Government. The Govern- ment decides who will answer.” Questions do not go to ministers.

They go to ministers as members of a government. 419. The Prime Minister answers for the government as a whole and is entitled to answer any question relating to any ministerial portfolio and matter of policy. Likewise, the Prime Minister is entitled to delegate this responsibility to the Deputy Prime Minister even when the Pr ime Minister is present in the House. 420.

The Speaker has stated, “Of course, the Chair will allow a question to be put to a certain Minister; but it cannot insist that that Minister rather than another should answer it.” Then, interestingly enough, in that excellent book called House of Commons Procedure and Practice , which certainly both House leaders have and which the chair would like to advise both House leaders that the chair regularly spends Saturday mornings reviewing, the chair would simply like to draw to the attention of all hon. members – I believe this is on page 432: Questions, although customarily addressed to specific Ministers, are directed to the Ministry as a whol e.

It is the prerogative of the government to designate which Minister responds to which question. The Prime Minister (or the Deputy Prime Minister or any other Minister acting on behalf of the Prime Minister) may respond to any or all questions posed during Question Period. Only one Minister may respond to a question, and it need not be the one to whom the question is addressed who actually answers it. A different Minister may, under certain circumstances, reply to a supplementary question. The Speaker has no authority to compel a particular Minister to respond to a question. Okay. The bottom line is this.

In the order of precedence that we have in this House – and this has been utilized before – it’s the chair’s understanding that the Provincial Treasurer in fact acts first in the order of precedence after the Premier. So that would, in essence, be akin to something coming out of Beauchesne and the Canadian House of Commons saying that one would be the Prime Minister, i.e. the first minister, and the other one would be the Deputy Prime Minister, or the second minister. Clearly, in the order of precedence that would provide the hon. Provincial Treasurer to supplement an answer.

Secondly, in hearing the first question – and the chair did pay particular attention to it – one could almost argue that because it had to do with electricity, had to do with the fiscal side, the economic side, it would be rather normal for the Provincial Treasurer to supplement if there was something worthy to supplement or add to the question at hand. Now, very specifically to you, hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo. Should the hon.

Member for Calgary-Buffalo or any other member in this House choose to direct a question to any member of Execu- tive Council and it is not within the administrative purview of the particular minister – as an example, if an hon. member wanted to address a question with respect to education but directed it to the Minister of Community Development as a kind of a pesky, you know, testy little thing to be mischievous, well, it would be quickly reported by all the media in the world that the hon. member who had directed the question had not done their homework and was unable to ascertain which particular minister of Executive Council was responsible particularly.

So it’s a sharp-edged sword that cuts both ways. The bottom line is: if we address the questions to who is normally the minister of the department responsible for it, other ministers from time to time are

2002 Alberta Hansard November 21, 2000 in a position to supplement. In the case of the order of pr ecedence that we all follow in this particular House, it would not be uncom- mon for the Provincial Treasurer, who is first on the list in the order of precedence after the Premier, to be in a position to supplement, if we in fact abide by the rules found in other parliaments in the country of Canada. So it was worthy of discussion today, hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo.

Thank you very much. head: Orders of the Day head: Public Bills and Orders Other than Government Bills and Orders head: Second Reading Bill 210 Traffic Safety Amendment Act, 2000 [Adjourned debate November 20: Mrs. Gordon] THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. MS BLAKEMAN: Thank you very much. I’m pleased to have this opportunity to rise and speak in second reading on Bill 210, the Traffic Safety Amendment Act, 2000. I carefully read Hansard of the member who proposed the bill as well as Hansard of the several members who have spoken since then.

This is an interesting bill, because I think people, myself included, have a varied reaction to what’s being proposed. When I first thought of this in my personal experience, certainly drunk drivers cause fatalities, but they also cause life-changing, lifelong injury. The fatality has a terrible effect on the members of their families and their friends who are left behind: perhaps office workers, business associates, friends at school, et cetera.

But to me, certainly where my personal experience is, injuries caused by drunk drivers that don’t result in fata lities also have a lifelong effect on family and friends and neighbours and coworkers and friends at school. 3:10 There is a story like that in my family. We had a family member who was driving from Regina to Saskatoon late at night. They were still feeling pretty good after a day of meetings and thought they’d drive back that evening. The roads should be fairly empty.

A young person, who was well over the limit for blood alcohol and was driving the wrong way down one way of the dual carriageway, plowed into my family member and left them with lifelong injuries, multiple leg fractures which resulted in the person having to walk with a cane for the rest of their life. Essentially the side mirror came through and hit them in the face, as a result of the driver h itting them. Their jaw was rearranged and all of their teeth – there were extensive multiple operations to try and rebuild the teeth and the jaw – and they lost an eye.

I think drunk drivers have an effect on everybody in our society. Certainly the groups like MADD and PAID – and I think there’s a student version of this as well – have been absolutely right and quite successful in publicizing the effects of drunk driving on our society. Those campaigns are often referred to by people as being successful, and I think the reduction that we can see in the fatalities and injuries caused by impaired drivers is obvious. They have contributed to this being less acceptable. Drinking and driving is less acceptable in society.

Just to return briefly to finishing this story, I think certainly the effect it had on my family member and on the rest of the family is that this person used to drive a lot. They really liked to get in the car and drive to Montana or drive down east, and with those kinds of injuries they sustained, that just isn’t a possibility anymore. I think flying is not in a budgetary realm of possibilities, so that’s pretty much curtailed that sort of traveling.

This person was very active, did a lot of volunteering, very active with the church, continued to work a number of different consulting positions, and this has really affected their ability to do that. You know, when you’re not steady on your pins because of an injury, you don’t really like to be out at night when it’s dark. We live in a northern climate here, so we are dealing with icy roads and icy sidewalks. It’s scary for somebody that has suffered that kind of an injury.

As I said, they were dealing w ith Saskatchewan insurance laws, which I frankly don’t understand, and I gather that this young driver had been arrested before for impaired driving, in fact had lost their licence and was driving that night without a licence.

Something happened with the insurance, something about a fund that’s set aside for uninsured drivers, and you know, by the time the smoke cleared, this injury cost my family a lot of money because the am ount of money that came out of that pool nowhere near covered the trips of family members from Alberta into Saskatchewan to be with this person in the hospital, and there had to be several of them. They were in the hospital for about thr ee months, and that tells you the extent of their injuries. So it’s a terrible blight on our society. I really, truly detest drunks, and I detest drunken drivers.

I just have no time or patience. There is no reason for anybody to be truly impaired and to get behind the wheel of a vehicle. There just isn’t. Frankly, they deserve every- thing they get. Now, I look at the member’s own figures that I took from Hansard, and I’ve noticed something. Maybe the member will have time to answer what’s going on here. In her own figures she notes that of the fatalities caused by drunk drivers, 62 percent were over 15 percent, or .15, we would call it, 22 percent were between .081 and .15, and 16 percent were somewhere between .001 and .08.

So somehow in there the percentage of fatalities that are created by lowering the acceptable blood alcohol content from .08 to .05 is a little hazy. It looks like it’s less than 16 percent. What else could society be doing or could we be doing as legislators to cut down on the amount of fatalities and injuries from impaired drivers? Leaving aside the responsibility of the impaired driver, let’s look at what else we could be doing to discourage that and to make roadways safer. I think there’s still work that could be done around highway and road maintenance and highway and road design.

I’m sure we all have our piece of highway – I’m sorry; I don’t. But many of the members that have ridings outside of the metropolitan areas most likely have a little stretch of highway that’s a killer. Everybody in the area knows it, and they refer to it with some sort of nickname that indicates that. So there are things that we could be doing to improve highway maintenance and design that would cut down on some of those injuries. I’ve also had it pointed out that in some cases highway signage would reduce this. Now, what else could we be doing?

How could we be affecting people more to not even consider drinking and driving? I look at funding for the DARE programs. I know that the Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark and at least one of my other colleagues have lobbied the Minister of Justice for increased f unds to pay for the training of DARE officers. That budget hasn’t increased by that much. There’s some astronomical waiting list of schools and of grade 6 classes in Alberta that really want to have a DARE program, and there aren’t enough people trained in Alberta to be able to go around and fill that demand.

So there’s another area where we could be doing something very constructive by putting enough funding into that program to train enough police officers to, in fact, be going

November 21, 2000 Alberta Hansard 2003 out and giving those DARE programs to every grade 6 class in Alberta. What’s wrong with that? I also think we should look at the funding for AADAC. They’ve been reducing the amount of money available for AADAC, and that’s a rate of recidivism that we’re worried about there. If people have already acknowledged that they have an alcohol abuse problem, then what are we doing do get them out of that perma- nently? I would say that we should look for funding for AADAC and please quit cutting it.

When I look at the province’s own traffic safety in Alberta statistics, I note that “of all drivers involved in fatal collisions 22.8% had consumed alcohol before the crash.” It doesn’t give us the level of their blood alcohol content. “Of all drivers involved in injury collisions 5.6% had consumed alcohol before the crash.” This opens another whole discussion. I do wonder sometimes. We’ve made it so easy to get alcohol. I think there is personal responsibility to be . . . [interjection] Yeah, I hear what the Member for Edmonton- Highlands is saying, and that’s why I’m struggling with it.

This government certainly leads the wa y in sort of putting intrusive legislation on people to stop them from having that leeway to make their own bad decision. I guess because I grew up in an Alberta society that was heavily permeated by Social Credit doctrine and where everything was very carefully regulated - but why do we have to buy alcohol at 2 o’clock in the morning? Why do we have to buy alcohol on Sunday? I guess that’s just personal responsibility. It’s not for me to say that other people shouldn’t be buying it. They can buy it if they want to.

I guess I just would choose not to. 3:20 Part of what concerns me about this legislation – and I’ve talked a lot about the positive sides of it. What essentially bothers me about the legislation is that I think we run the risk of making criminals out of decent Albertans. We all understand what .08 is, where the impaired level is for ourselves. I know that that’s one drink and no more for me, that I’m well under. I don’t know what the blood alcohol content would be for me if it was lowered to .05. I might be a criminal.

Are we then saying, “Don’t drink and drive, period, ever,” that no alcohol passes your lips even if it’s five hours later? I looked at the factors, and this is again from some great, long paper. To estimate blood alcohol content, knowledge of certain factors is required. These may include: sex; age; height; weight; consumption start time and stop time; pattern of drinking; type of alcohol consumed including number of drinks, size and alcohol content; time for which [the blood alcohol content] is being calculated (or BAC value(

s) detected if a retrograde or antero- grade extrapolation is required); times meals eaten; disease states; any medications that were taken. That’s a whole whack of stuff to try and figure out. So I’m wondering if what the member is trying to propose here is that no one should ever drink and get behind the wheel of a car, and if that’s what being suggested, then is there a sort of time line that goes along with this? I don’t want to see a regulation come in that is hard for Albertans to figure out and as a result we criminalize average Albertans unnecessarily.

Again, I started out by saying that I’ve got no patience for truly impaired people, for drunks that kill or hurt people on the road. I just don’t have any time for it. But I found that with the work of groups like MADD and PAID, understanding societally was improving and that everybody sort of knew where .08 was. I don’t think they know where .05 is. I don’t want to see that done to average Albertans. I’m looking forward to the rest of the debate on this bill because I really am undecided about whether to support it or not. I think the intent behind it’s really good.

I think that a lot of work has been done by the member to come to that point, but I think there are a lot of things to consider there: whether in fact this is the right level to set, what educational campaigns will be put in pl ace for people, whether they get the kind of education about that list of stuff that they’re supposed to keep in mind that I read into the record, whether we are really going to make a significant reduction in the numbers of fatalities and injuries when we’re dealing with the fairly narrow band of percentages that I went over earlier.

Somewhere under 16 percent of the people that have had impaired accidents in the past would be captured by this legislation. So a number of questions and concerns there. I’m sure everybody in here has got a personal experience with this. Everybody is uneasy about the amount of drinking and driving that goes on and, I think, frankly, about the amount of wildly impaired driving that goes on still. I look forward to the rest of the debate, because I haven’t made up my mind on this one yet. Thank you for the opportunity to raise the points that I did raise. MR. DOERKSEN: Mr.

Speaker, there are individuals who are listening to this debate outside of the Assembly. I want to assure them that I will try to speak slowly and clearly and articulate my phrases, but should I get carried away and go on too quickly, they should know that they can always read the remarks in Hansard, that they will be put into the record that way, and I would encourage them to do that. Also, Mr. Speaker, referring to your earlier comments, I just wanted to pass on a remark to you about when you were ruling on the previous point of order. That certainly was a magniloquent speech. That was a magniloquent speech.

You see, in our house- hold we try to increase our vocabulary. My kids will want to know that I used that word in the speech today, so I can show them in Hansard that in fact I used it. The other day I used another term, “pleonastic questioning.” It is a pleasure today to stand in the Assembly, Mr. Speaker, and to add to the debate on private member’s Bill 210, presented by my colleague representing Calgary-Fish Creek. I want to commend the Member for Calgary-Fish Creek because I think she understands the importance of private members’ bills in our Legislature.

Alberta in the last years has actually had quite a number of private members’ bills pass through all the stages and in fact become incorporated into legislation. I think that’s a significant improvement to the parlia- mentary tradition that has kind of evolved here in Alberta. She’s also recognized one other very important point in drafting a private member’s bill, and that is that you have to keep it short and specific and to the point to advance a particular cause. That is exactly what she has done.

The previous speaker referred to a number of different suggestions that would be helpful in terms of addressing the whole problem with drinking and driving and too much consumption and access and the DARE program, but, Mr. Speaker, that is not what this bill is all about. If you would incorpo- rate all of those suggestions in to a private member’s bill, the possibility of it actually passing through this Assembly would be greatly diminished.

In fact, what the member has suggested – and I’m reading right out of the bill – is that if a peace officer, by reason of an analysis of the breath or blood of the driver of a motor vehicle, has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the driver has co nsumed alcohol in such a quantity that the concentration of alcohol in that person’s blood exceeds 50 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood, the peace officer shall require the driver to surrende r the driver’s operator’s licence to the peace officer.

2004 Alberta Hansard November 21, 2000 Mr. Speaker, I think that’s pretty clear in terms of what the intention here is. For a long time in this Assembly I have been an advocate of taking preventative measures to eliminate or to reduce motor vehicle accidents. Some members will recall that in 1995, in fact, Bill 212, the Motor Vehicle Administration Amendment Act, proposed that Alberta institute a form of graduated licensing to allow new drivers to gain driving experience under the safest possible conditions.

I’m proud that that initiative passed, received royal assent, and in fact will become part of the Traffic Safety Act. The purpose of that initiative was to save lives in Al berta, and the initiative from the Member for Calgary-Fish Creek has the same goal. Bill 210 proposes to take action and to be proactive on an issue that poses a great threat to the safety and health of Albertans, and that is accidents that are caused by impaired drivers. Mr. Speaker, our police need tools to protect society from impaired drivers and especially hard-core drinkers who are resistant to change.

Statistics indicate that it is not the younger people now who are the repeat offenders of our impaired driving laws. It is the older drivers, who are into a lifestyle, a bad habit, and are finding it difficult to change. My colleague from Calgary-Fish Creek shares my concern for traffic safety in Alberta and rightfully so when one considers the statistics. In 1998, 1 in 5 drivers involved in fatal collisions had consumed alcohol. To make matters worse, as the severity of the collision increased, from nonfatal to fatal, the involvement of alcohol also dramatically increased. Mr.

Speaker, I see my time is up, and I will be glad to continue my debate on the morrow. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Red Deer-South has interrupted himself. It is now 3:30. We must move on to the other remaining business we have scheduled for today. 3:30 head: Motions Other than Government Motions Labour Legislation Review 513. Mr. Fischer moved:

Be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly urge the govern- ment to re-examine Alberta’s existing Labour Relations Code and Public Service Employee Relations Act and propose recommendations for their improvement, particularly with respect to collective bargaining agreements. [Debate adjourned November 14: Mr. Severtson speaking] THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Innisfail-Sylvan Lake. MR. SEVERTSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m happy to speak on Motion 513, sponsored by my hon. colleague from Wainwright. I want to thank him for bringing forth a motion on collective bargaining in Alberta.

This can be a controversial issue to discuss in this Legislature, but it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t talk about it. By engaging in a reasoned discussion of issues surrounding collective bargaining and labour relations, we further our understanding, and from this we may be laying a solid foundation for policy down the road. I think, as well, that the fact the hon. Member for Wainwright is bringing forward a motion at this time shows his willingness to support labour and a good labour relationship climate in Alberta during this time of prosperity.

As the member stated, we are always looking at ways of doing things better, and if there are better methods for collective bargaining in Alberta, then we’re willing to discuss them and potentially implement them. Mr. Speaker, we also want to discuss any changes we are making with the relevant stakeholders involved. We want to hear what employers, unions, and workers are saying about the possible changes. It’s through this consultation that good policy benefiting all Albertans is made.

I respect the message that he’s conveying to the House, that collective bargaining does not have to be a lose/lose or does not have to be a win/lose but in fact can be a win/win situation. I’d like to spend a few moments replying to the comments by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar, b ecause I really think that he’s confused on a few points. First and foremost, this motion is about strengthening the collective bargaining process and the labour climate in Alberta, and if you read the comments by my colleague from Wainwright, you’ll see this. Mr.

Speaker, this motion applies equally to all workers in the province. It asks the government to look for alternatives that will improve the collective bargaining process for everyone in Alberta. I’d also like to mention that the hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar stated that there had been only one strike involving teachers since 1972. Well, I’d like to clarify for him – I have a list – that from 1971 to 2000 there were about 25 strikes or lockouts and then mention a few of them: Sherwood Park in 1990, Calgary in 1980, ’91, and ’92, and Battle River in ’92. I find it humorous that the hon.

Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar would skew the intention of the motion for this political purpose. It’s almost like he didn’t listen to what my colleagues had to say, because if he had listened, he would know that Motion 513 is balanced and is in the interests of all Albertans, all employees and employers. We have a good system in place right now and a fair, stable relationship climate. There are areas that need to be examined, and that is what we have done in this debate. Mr. Speaker, I’d like to discu ss the positives of our system, because there are many.

You wouldn’t know it from listening to the opposition, but things are going all right in Alberta. In 1999 Alberta lost 1.23 person-days per 10,000 person-days of work due to strikes and lockouts. This is the second lowest rate in Canada, after Prince Edward Island. This very low rate was accomplished through relationship building with key industry stakeholders. Again, who better to consult about a fair workplace than those people involved in it every day? This means asking both sides of the workplace, employers and workers, what they think is good and what they think could be changed.

A balanced approach has led to stability and a low work-stoppage rate, which is good for all Albertans. We are committed to a safe, fair, productive, and innovative workplace in Alberta, and by and large we have laid the groundwork for this. I think the Minister of Human Resources and Employment should take a lot of credit for creating this environment. Under his leadership Alberta has seen a stable and growing workforce. In this time of growth and expansion in our economy a productive, harmonized labour climate is vital.

With 1.5 million Albertans currently employed and 33,600 new jobs created over the first nine months of 2000 alone, it is something we have to keep striving for. [The Deputy Speaker in the chair] It should be noted that Alberta enjoys the strongest productivity growth in Canada, the highest level of productivity of all the provinces, but, Mr. Speaker, there are many areas where we can do things better. I’m committed to the collective bargaining process. At all times it is better for the parties to come to some settlement at the table themselves as a community-based solution.

Bargaining in good faith is always better for the labour relationship climate than imposing settlements. When settlements are imposed, both sides

November 21, 2000 Alberta Hansard 2005 come away from the process feeling cheated, even if that was not the case. Mr. Speaker, I think every member of this Assembly has had at one time or another a potential fo r work stoppage in his constitu- ency, and I also bet you that the vast majority of those potential work stoppages were resolved before a strike or lockout occurred. So there was the potential, but it was avoided. Now, the point I think my colleague wanted to make and one that I wholeheartedly agree with is that even though there was no work stoppage, the damage was already done.

Both sides participating in contract negotiations came away from the process feeling stressed out, feeling pushed around, and feeling ripped off. The zero-sum nature of contract negotiation creates an environment of mistrust and stress. Tell me: is it the basis for a peaceful and productive work climate in the future when you have employees feeling disempowered by the process? Are they going to be happy, efficient members of a team down the road? No, of course not. Now, Mr. Speaker, this is not the case in every contract negotia- tion that occurs in Alberta, but it is the case in some.

So if we can somehow improve the process of these high-stress negotiations and create a more productive environment, one that’s positive and that labour relations can be built from, isn’t that an improvement and isn’t it good for the province? I think it is. A reasonable solution to bargaining is what workers in this province want, and on the part of this government we are committed to the collective bargaining process. We respect that process, and we support agreements r eached at local levels as opposed to anything forced.

The interest-based bargaining method my col- league discussed may be one such solution for certain cases that arise. As my colleague stated, the most important aspect of interest- based bargaining is that both sides share information about their interests and concerns. They create a menu of possible solutions to their concerns and work to achieve solutions that best meet every- body’s needs. Brainstorming is an important tool in creating an environment of free-flowing exchange. Participants are encouraged to consider each other’s ideas and to build on each other’s t houghts.

This builds a positive environment from which negotiations can flow. Now, to me this sounds like a much better premise to build a contract and a viable future than a high-stress, winner-take-all environment. 3:40 Mr. Speaker, it may be asking too much to believe that negotiators from both sides during bargaining would all play fair and share each other’s secrets and agenda.

In my opinion, interest-based bargaining is not a panacea for unhealthy labour/management relationships, and it shouldn’t be viewed as a replacement for the adversarial bargain- ing which all parties must embrace, but there are times when it can work. I know for a fact that interest-based bargaining is being successfully used across the United States, in states with diverse labour relations environments like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Arizona, to name a few.

In the Iowa public school system, where there are three counties w ith historically strained la- bour/management relationships, interest-based bargaining has led to a new environment of trust and a new way of dealing with griev- ances. In the words of one Iowa teacher: “People used to fear the adversarial approach. With the interest-based approach, it’s much easier.” I know, as well, that interest-based bargaining was used during a contract negotiation by the Ottawa Citizen newspaper and its employees to come to a successful agreement.

The guild, one of Canada’s largest media unions, with more that 7,000 members in television, radio, and print, represented the employees. The union newsletter reported: interest-based bargaining produces speedy pact in Ottawa. They also reported that negotiators still had to tread carefully, but there was no question there was less stress and tension during the bargaining. As well, the League of Educational Adminis- trators, Directors and Superintendents of Saskatchewan have expressed interest in using this process.

Large companies like Intel and IBM have adopted some form of open-door dispute resolution and have reported an improved labour climate. Mr. Speaker, the alternatives my colleague from Wainwright has proposed are not just theoretical. They have worked in the real world. What has worked so well for people in other parts of North America may work here, and we should be open to this possibility. I want to close by reiterating that we have a pretty good system currently in place in Alberta.

We know this from statistics I mentioned earlier: having the second lowest person-day loss due to work stoppages in this country and having the highest level of productivity in Canada; the fact that we have an employment standards call centre that has sent information to more than 150,000 employers and employees across the province on the

interpretation and application of the Employment Standards Code each year; the youth employment strategy, offering young people the opportunity to acquire skills and knowledge for career planning. All these initiatives have created a sk illed, pr oductive, and knowledgeable workforce, which in my opinion is also vital to labour relations. Having a top-notch, informed labour force means that good deci- sions have been made by negotiators in resolving disputes. As I stated in my comments today, there have been cases where the process has broken down, and the outcome in these cases was less than optimal.

The labour relations climate was damaged, and it has taken years, in some cases, to repair it and get back to the viable framework of peace. Mr. Speaker, we have seen cases where using an alternative like the interest-based bargaining method has pro- duced positive results. I say to my colleagues, in asking them to support this motion, that we should put two and two together and realize that there are cases where the process has broken down and that if there’s a method that may be used to avoid a breakdown, why shouldn’t we use it in Alberta?

That is what this motion is about: looking at alternatives and making the process work better. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton- Highlands in the few minutes remaining. MR. MASON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was trained for 11 years in city council to speak in five-minute periods, so this may be my opportunity, and perhaps other members could learn from this example as well. I appreciate the hon. member’s motion that he’s put forward calling for a review. I guess I would say first of all, Mr.

Speaker, that there’s nothing that is wrong per se with looking at interest- based bargaining, but I also feel that given the government’s record in this matter, there’s cause for some concern since the motion is not worded in a way that deals strictly with an examination of interest- based bargaining but is designed to have a complete, open, and unencumbered review of our labour legislation in this province. The previous times that the government has looked at labour legislation, we’ve always ended up, at least from the point of view of workers, with a worse situation than when we started.

That is, I guess, what the concern is on my part. It may interest one of the ministers to know that not only was I involved in a power company making decisions but also involved on the management side in a number of labour discussions and negotiations. I found that one of the things that happens most often

2006 Alberta Hansard November 21, 2000 is that one of the parties loses patience with the adversarial collec- tive bargaining system, and they begin to believe that it won’t produce results in the end. We saw that, I think, a couple of times. Once I was involved on the Library Board when we were dealing with our employees there in a negotiation. They were difficult negotiations, Mr. Speaker, and they went on for some time.

It was clear on the part of some members of the administration of the library and indeed some members of the Library Board that they lost patience and gave up and just believed that there was no alternative to either a strike or a lockout. Those of us who believed in the collective bargaining system persevered and went the extra mile to review the various demands in the negotiations again and again, and we eventually came to an agreement that was beneficial to both parties, and that was using the existing system that we have here.

I had a similar experience in the city of Edmonton when we dealt with negotiations around our DATS drivers, our disabled adult transportation system drivers. They were difficult again, Mr. Speaker, and again there were people that wanted to give up on the collective bargaining system and not see it through to produce the results that it’s completely capable of reaching.

In the end, those of us who insisted that we continue the negotiations succeeded in getting an agreement that gave those drivers their first collective agreement at considerably less cost to the city than was originally projected by our administration. So I think the first thing I’d like to say is that it can work. The second thing that I would like to say, Mr.

Speaker, is that there are a number of things I would like to see from the government in terms of improving collective bargaining legislation before I’m willing to support a motion like this that could in fact open the door to right-to-work legislation right after the next provincial election. That’s what the fear is. It definitely is the fear I have. There’s no recognition of the right to strike in this province. There’s no protection against the use of replacement workers. Mr.

Speaker, I think we should be extending prorated benefits to part- time and casual workers, equivalent to those that are provided to full-time workers. We should be extending employment standards, health and safety, and workers’ compensation legislation to farms and ranches employing three or more workers. If the government is willing to do those kinds of things, then I think we would be prepared to look at some sort of review, but the kinds of reviews that have been done in the past have certainly prejudiced workers’ rights. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Under Standing Order 8(4) I must put all questions to conclude debate on the motion. [The voice vote indicated that the motion carried] [Several members rose calling for a division.

The division bell was rung at 3:50 p.m.] [Ten minutes having elapsed, the Assembly divided] [The Deputy Speaker in the chair] For the motion: Amery Dunford Marz Boutilier Evans McFarland Broda Friedel Melchin Burgener Haley Nelson Calahasen Herard Renner Cao Hierath Severtson Cardinal Hlady Strang Coutts Jablonski Taylor Doerksen Langevin West Ducharme Magnus Against the motion: Blakeman Mar Pannu Bonner Mason Soetaert Carlson Nicol Woloshyn Dickson O’Neill Yankowsky MacDonald Totals: For – 29 Against – 13 [Motion Other than Government Motion 513 carried] Pension Reform 514. Mr. Hlady moved:

Be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly urge the govern- ment to examine its future in the Canada pension plan or explore other options, including a made-in-Alberta pension plan or a mandatory personal retirement savings plan. THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Mountain View. MR. HLADY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to bring forward Motion 514 for the consideration of the Legislative Assembly. I would like to begin today, Mr. Speaker, by explaining the rationale behind this motion.

I must emphasize that this motion does not call for Alberta to opt out of the Canada pension plan immediately. It does not necessarily call for Alberta to opt out of the Canada pension plan at all. What it does do is acknowledge that the current state of the CPP represents an extremely urgent issue that warrants a high level of preparedness on the part of our government.

To give some sense of the magnitude of the problem, I can tell you that one 1999 survey revealed that fully 76 percent of all Canadians believe they will receive either a smaller Canada pension than those retiring today or else no Canada pension at all. I happen to share that concern, and I know that many of my colleagues do as well, if not for themselves then certainly for their children and grandchildren.

Now, I don’t think it comes as a surprise to anyone in this House that the future stability of the Canada pension plan is in serious doubt, but to really understand why the security of our retirement savings is so precarious, we must understand the nature of the CPP. The CPP was established in 1966 as a mandatory, earnings-related pension plan. Unfortunately, it was also established according to a pay-as-you-go, or pay-go, formula.

Under this formula the CPP is largely unfunded b ecause the benefits paid to current retirees are financed not by the permanent assets of the plan but by the contribu- tions of current employees. This means that the CPP is currently liable for an estimated $465 billion in future benefit payments. MR. MAGNUS: How much? MR. HLADY: An estimated $465 billion, while it actually only has $36.5 billion in assets on hand. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it does not take a genius or even an economist to figure out that a pay-go system is only viable as long as the funds entering the system in cont

Document details

Collection	Alberta — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20001121
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	L24 S4 20001121 1330 01 han.pdf
Language	en
Format	json
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	7b4e0e6cd490d7bf96a1bf65ba9252e9dbe52ea4

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