Alberta Hansard — 22 April 1999, Afternoon sitting (13:30) (Legislature 24, Session 3)

19990422

Alberta — Debates (Hansard)

April 22, 1999 Alberta Hansard 1205 Legislative Assembly of Alberta Title: Thursday, April 22, 1999 1:30 p.m. Date: 99/04/22 [The Speaker in the chair] head: Prayers THE SPEAKER: Good afternoon. Let us pray. Our Father, we confidently ask for Your strength and encourage- ment in our service of You through our service of others. We ask for Your gift of wisdom to guide us in making good laws and good decisions for the present and the future of Alberta. Amen. Please be seated. head: Introduction of Visitors MR. DAY: Mr.

Speaker, for Canadians it’s easy to take for granted certain principles of democracy like the principles of one person, one vote; freedom of speech; and the freedom to vote wit hout being discriminated against. For many people in the world, individuals, notably from countries such as South Africa, had to fight, had to work, had to hope, had to dream for such freedoms. Sometimes those dreams were dreamed behind bars as they waited and looked for the day when they would enjoy democracy. We have such a person with us today.

Coming to power in 1994 with the Nelson Mandela team and then becoming the Minister of Finance of one of the newly founded provinces in South Africa, the province of Mpumalanga, is Mr. Lassy Chiwayo. We have had the opportunity, as Alberta has been asked to join in a partnership with the province of Mpumalanga, to work with budgetary matters and finance matters. It’s been an exciting honour and privilege for us and for me to work with this particular individual. Mr.

Speaker, I would ask that we would warmly greet him, a freedom fighter and now a deficit fighter, the Minister of Finance for the province of Mpumalanga, the Hon. Lassy Chiwayo. As with any elected person, traveling with him is his trusty deputy minister, the head of the Department of Finance in the province of Mpumalanga, Mr. Sam Cronje. MR. TANNAS: Mr. Speaker, I’m pleased today to rise and introduce to you and through you to Members of the Legislative Assembly three individuals who are seated in your gallery.

They are Terry Meade, vice-president of operations, Alberta, Shaw Communications Inc.; from Richmond Hill, Ontario, is Mr. Peter Neilsen, director of government and industry relations, Shaw Communications Inc.; and Ms Laurie Templeton, manager of government relations and regulatory affairs, Alberta, Shaw Communications. I’d ask all three to now rise and receive the warm traditional welcome of our Assembly. head: Presenting Petitions THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Spruce Grove-Sturgeon-St. Albert. MRS. SOETAERT: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

It’s my pleasure today to table with the Assembly a petition signed by 97 residents of Edmonton and area. They are the SOS people who are petitioning the Legislative Assembly to urge the Government to increase funding of children in public and separate schools to a level that covers increased costs due to contract settlements, curriculum changes, technology, and aging schools. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview. MRS. SLOAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I also have a petition to table today signed by 35 residents of Edmonton.

The petition urges the Legislative Assembly to urge the Government of Alberta to hold widespread public hearings involving as many existin g clients as want to be heard before making any changes to the Assured Income for the Severely Handicapped program. head: Notices of Motions THE SPEAKER: The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition. MRS. MacBETH: Thanks, Mr. Speaker. I wish to serve notice that at the appropriate time after the daily Routine I will be moving the following motion:

Be it resolved that this Assembly recognize the urgent need for . . . public debate on the imminent job action at the Calgary board of education resulting from this government’s failure to adequately fund public education . . . to cover increased costs due to contract settlements, curriculum changes, technology, and aging schools. head: Tabling Returns and Reports THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General. MR. HAVELOCK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m pleased to table this afternoon five copies of the Alberta Summit on Justice final report. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona.

DR. PANNU: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m tabling today five copies of a memorandum sent to all principals of the Catholic schools in Calgary by the chief superintendent of their system advising them that they must cut back by 15 percent for the rest of the year all nonsalary budgets for this year and they cannot hire substitute t eachers for the remainder of this year. Also, the memo warned that 1999-2000 will be a year for retrenchments in spite of the increased budgetary allocations. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition. MRS. MacBETH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to table a letter which I wrote yesterday to the Pr emier with respec t to the issues facing Calgary parents and students. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Labour. MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m pleased to table today five copies of the Alberta Boilers Safety Association 1998 annual report. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Mountain View. MR. HLADY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m pleased to table five copies of a press release being issued in Vancouver today.

This release by the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment concerns pollution prevention awards to four Canadian companies. Of note is the award presented by council chairman Ty Lund to Amici Enterprises Inc. of Calgary.

1206 Alberta Hansard April 22, 1999 THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Intergovernmental and Aboriginal Affairs. MR. HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m pleased to table today the appropriate number of copies of the Métis Settlements Appeal Tribunal 1998 annual report. The Métis Settlements Appeal Tribunal hears issues within its jurisdiction relative to disputes on Métis settlements, and I would advise the House while I’m tabling it that we currently have a review of their jurisdiction happening, and I’d invite members to get involved in that if they so wish. head: Introduction of Guests THE SPEAKER: The hon.

Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. MS CARLSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m pleased today to be able to introduce two schools from my constituency. The first is Ellerslie elementary. We are visited today by 36 students who are in grade 6, their teacher and my good friend Mrs. Phyllis Olson, and program aide Mrs. Toni Smith. I would ask that they please rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of this Assembly. The second school here today is Holy Family school. These are also grade 6 students. This is a special school for me because both of my children have gone there. Today we have 58 students.

They are accompanied by teachers Mrs. Juliet Lidstone and Mrs. Beth Devlin and by helpers Mr. and Mrs. Bud and Louise Arbeau. I would ask that they please rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of this Assembly. MS EVANS: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to introduce to you and through you to this Assembly Sofia Arteta, an exchange student from Buenos Aires, Argentina, who is with us as a Rotary exchange student for one year. She’s in grade 12 at Archbishop Jordan high, and she’s also an international baccalaureate student. We are delighted to have her.

I would ask that Sofia and her accompanying Rotarian Dennis Pommen please stand. They’re in the members’ gallery. Would you all welcome them. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glenora. MR. SAPERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s my pleasure today to introduce to you and to all members of the Assembly a group of 32 visitors who are from the West Edmonton Christian school located in the constituency of Edmonton-Glenora, a school that I am well familiar with and have visited several times.

I’m going to have to visit it at least one more time because I was unable to join this group for a photograph earlier today, and I’m hoping they’ll indulge me and allow me to deliver the photographs in person back in the classroom. At this time I’d like to ask teacher Andy Renema and student teacher Justine Demoor along with parent helpers Milton Walters, Margaret Brandsma, Betty Kits-Goldstein, Steve Wilk, and Jenny Kadatz to please rise along with the students and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. 1:40 MRS.

O'NEILL: It gives me great pleasure this afternoon to introduce to you and through you to members of this Assembly two very valuable citizens and loving grandparents who reside in St. Albert. They are Mary and Gordon Smith. They are seated in the members’ gallery. They are accompanied also by Sister Frances MacDougall, who is a former resident of St. Albert and currently lives in Castle Downs. It would be of note to all of us and to your guest in the gallery, Mr. Speaker, that Sister Frances’ own sister Pat Mella is the Provincial Treasurer of the government of Prince Edward Island.

I would ask my three guests to please rise and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Little Bow, who’s celebrat- ing his 51st birthday. MR. McFARLAND: Mr. Speaker, would you like a gift? Mr. Speaker, I’m not sure that my guests have arrived yet. My indication was that they’d be here at 2 o’clock. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Fort McMurray. MR. BOUTILIER: Mr. Speaker, my guests are arriving at 2:30. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. MR. STELMACH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It’s indeed a pleasure to introduce to you and through you to members of this esteemed Legislature visitors from the county of Beaver and also from the town of Viking, famous for the Suter hockey family. We have seated in the members’ gallery Mr. Garry Wolosinka, mayor; Pam Mykityshyn, deputy mayor; Gabe Brissard, town councillor; Rod Krips, town administrator; Colin Lang, county of Beaver councillor; Vic Istace, county of Beaver public works foreman; and Mr. George Roddick, fire chief.

I’d ask them all to rise and receive the tradi- tional warm welcome of the Assembly. head: Oral Question Period THE SPEAKER: First Official Opposition main question. The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition. Education Funding MRS. MacBETH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We’ve heard the numbers $380 million, $600 million; we’ve even heard a billion dollars. This is the government’s spin on how much it claims to be investing in our children’s education, and it seems to grow daily. Now for the reality.

Compared to five years ago, accounting for inflation and 50,000 more students, this government is investing $500 less per student this year. Yes, three years from now $600 million is a lot of money, but so is 50,000 more students, and because of this government’s focus on the bottom line instead of the front line Calgary public’s students, parents, and teachers are staring at a strike. My questions are to the Acting Premier. Why is the government investing less in our children’s education? When does the Alberta advantage kick in for Calgary and Alberta students? MR. DAY: Well, Mr.

Speaker, spin it any way you want. The straight fact of the matter is that this year the increase to education over last year is 7.1 percent, far ahead, I’ll have the member know, of both inflation and population growth. So any way you want to measure it, it is a considerable increase, and that continues out over the next three years, an average of an 18 to 19 percent increase. It’s very significant. Mr. Speaker, there are also other provinces who don’t approach that per capita level of funding.

It would be interesting to see how they manage as well as they do even as they look to our province to see how well we manage. There are also school boards that post reserves and surpluses, and it might be interesting for school boards to exchange information on that basis also.

April 22, 1999 Alberta Hansard 1207 MRS. MacBETH: The Provincial Treasurer’s own numbers, Mr. Speaker. Why can’t he understand that there are 50,000 more students in the system and a dollar in 1999 does not go as far as a dollar in ’93? Parents understand it, t eachers understand it, and children are being forced to understand it. MR. DAY: Mr. Speaker, as I’ve indicated the increase is consider- able. We still haven’t heard from the Liberals how much is enough. They always want more.

I think as a matter of record it’s an interesting thing to note that when the leader of the Liberal opposition was the Minister of Education she funded 42 school boards that didn’t even have kids in them. MRS. MacBETH: Well, Mr. Speaker, if the Acting Premier wants to keep repeating inputs, that’s fine, but when is he going to address the outcomes that parents and teachers or students are dealing with daily, like outdated textbooks, unsafe schools, unmanageable class sizes, teachers that are struggling? When is he going to start talking about those realities in our classrooms? MR.

DAY: Actually outcomes are very important, Mr. Speaker, and that’s why among a number of outcomes that we do have in place are those related to achievement tests and of course departmental tests and international tests. In Canada of course, because education is a provincial jurisdiction, it’s a little more difficult to measure direct outcomes from province to province. The Leader of the Opposition may be interested in the results recently released in the United States.

Now, I know it’s always at some peril that we talk about the United States because we get accused of supporting different things, but of 50 states that registered -- it’s fascinating to look because there they have national standards related to testing. The state that has the highest per capita funding scored number 29 of 50 states in terms of achievements, and the state that scored the highest of all states in terms of achievement was 27th in funding. So there are some interesting things possibly to be learned there. THE SPEAKER: Second Official Opposition main question. The hon.

Leader of the Official Opposition, and it is the Leader of the Official Opposition that is being given the floor. Student Mental Health Services MRS. MacBETH: Mr. Speaker, to quote an educator from Fort McMurray: In the 23 years that I’ve been teaching, I’ve seen the number of children experiencing serious pe rsonal problems increase dramati- cally. At the same time, as a result of education funding cut- backs . . . many schools have been forced to reduce counselling. In this province troubled youth considered homicidal or suicidal may wait for over five months for treatment.

My questions are to the Minister of Education. What is the minister doing to ensure that troubled youth are receiving the counseling services that they need in order to get the service they need through our education system? MR. MAR: Mr. Speaker, I think this is an important issue that has been raised by the Leader of the Opposition. We need only look at newspaper accounts of situations that have existed in other jurisdic- tions to realize that this is a serious problem.

It is the kind of problem that does exist in other jurisdictions, but that does not mean we should turn a blind eye to the conditions that may exist that can give rise to suicidal or perhaps homicidal behaviour as the Leader of the Opposition has suggested. Mr. Speaker, we do take this seriously. We have worked with our partners, the Alberta School Boards Association and the Alberta Teachers’ Association, and other stakeholders to deal with issues as they relate to safe and caring schools. We are concerned about this.

We think that many of the things we’re doing are appropriate measures to try and prevent these situations to make sure that individual kids do get help. I would agree with the observation of the individual quoted by the Leader of the Opposition that there are probably an increasing number of such children. It is a difficult problem to deal with, but it is a serious one and to the extent we can, Mr. Speaker, we’re always prepared to work with our partners to deal with those issues. MRS.

MacBETH: What effort has the minister made with the Minister of Health to co-ordinate mental health services with services available for our students in the schools? MR. MAR: Mr. Speaker, that too is also a good question. The student health initiative should go a long ways, an investment by this government of 26 million some dollars, towards dealing with the co- ordination of efforts between health providers, social services, the Department of Education, and school boards. I’ve recently spoken with stakeholder groups about the student health initiative.

There is a great deal of very positive enthusiasm for that initiative, and I think that as a consequence of the province putting in the money to make such programs go and the commitment of various school jurisdic- tions to ensuring that the level of funding they currently provide for programs that deal with the co-o rdination of health services for students, it will be a very valuable addition to dealing with the types of issues raised by the Leader of the Opposition. 1:50 MRS. MacBETH: Mr.

Speaker, to the Minister of Justice: has he been included in these efforts to assist troubled youth in the justice system who need to access mental health services? MR. HAVELOCK: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we also work closely with the Department of Health and the Minister of Health and the Minister of Education regarding these types of issues, and in particular through our young offender programs the Department of Education is very much involved in addressing the needs of youth.

Both departments provide services to the young people who happen to be in our care and custody in our systems, and, yes, I’m happy to advise that we do work closely together. THE SPEAKER: Third Official Opposition main question. The hon. Member for Spruce Grove-Sturgeon-St. Albert. Education Funding (continued) MRS. SOETAERT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This government’s undermining of children in our public and separate school systems is not limited to Calgary.

Educators and families must cope with old, even dangerous schools in many smaller commun ities as they struggle to provide an excellent education for our students. Excel- lent local schools provide the foundation for future economic development in these communities and for the future of our children, yet this government is letting that foundation rot away. To the Minister of Education: given that safety inspection reports note that Exshaw school violates current building standards and would go up fast in a fire, what is the government doing right now to ensure the safety of students at Exshaw school? MR. MAR: Mr.

Speaker, in all cases that relate to health and safety issues, that is our top priority for capital expenditures.

1208 Alberta Hansard April 22, 1999 I wish to point out that the opposition has taken a tack of attempt- ing to pick out schools and suggest that the entire school system is crumbling. That would be in my opinion akin to taking a look at a barrel of apples and then picking out the ones that were blemished and assuming that they were all blemished. Now they go even further than that. They’re taking perfectly good apples and saying that they’re blemished. Well, Mr. Speaker, I’ve looked at a number of these situations where individual schools have been raised by members of the opposition.

They talked about a school in Entwistle that had over 50 kids in a classroom. They failed to mention that there are two teachers that team teach that class. They cited a case in Niton school where there was a grades 4/5/6 split. There is no such 4/5/6 split in that particular school. The fact is that in that particular school there is one teacher for every 21 students. There’s a number of circumstances that they’ve raised; for example, the school that they talked about, R.I. Baker school. They indicated that we had taken no action on it. In fact, the improvement of that school has already been approved.

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that we have a good education system that is occasionally excellent, and it would be most constructive if the members of the opposition would stop running down what is a very good education system. MRS. SOETAERT: Well, we’re not running down the new school in his riding. I do want to ask: when can a Stony Plain family paying over $550 a year in school fees expect some relief from this government? MR. MAR: Well, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows and all members of the Assembly know that the matter of school fees is a matter for local jurisdictions.

There are jurisdictions in this province where the fees that are charged on an annual basis are $45 a student. The opposition ought not be allowed to draw the conclusion that there is any amount of funding that is less than appropriate for schools in this province, when in fact there are school jurisdictions that can charge less than $50 a student per year. MRS. SOETAERT: I think he’s protesting a little too much, Mr. Speaker. My final question: with Vanier community Catholic school in Edson operating at over 105 percent capacity, when can those students expect relief from overcrowding?

Right now they can’t even gather for an assembly because it violates fire regulations. MR. MAR: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the capital projects that are approved in this province . . . [interjections] THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Education has the floor. MR. MAR: Mr. Speaker, the issue of capital projects that are approved in this province is an important question. There are four criteria that are applied by the school buildings branch in determin- ing the priority of school projects that are approved.

The first one is with respect to health and safety issues, and I can assure members of this Assembly that all matters that relate to health and safety that are submitted by school boards are approved. The second priority that there is for school capital projects is with respect to a critical need for new space. In all circumstances last year, Mr. Speaker, where school boards have submitted their capital projects where there is a requirement, a critical need for new space, all of those projects have also been satisfied for the current cycle of school approvals. The third and fourth criteria, Mr.

Speaker, are central moderniza- tion and noncritical need for new space. It is true that we have not satisfied every school board’s requests for categories that fall within the third and fourth categories. We’ve satisfied some but not all, but when it comes to health and safety and when it comes to critical need for new space, we do satisfy those requests by school boards. THE SPEAKER: On behalf of the NDP opposition, the hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona. Calgary Catholic School Board DR. PANNU: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Education minister has been holding up the Calgary Catholic school board as a shining example of fiscal virtue and responsibility. Earlier today I tabled a copy of the April 13 memorandum from the chief superintendent which was sent to all school principals in the Calgary Catholic district.

To the Minister of Education: if government education funding is indeed adequate, can the minister explain why the Calgary Catholic school district finds itself in such a desperate situation that the only way they can balance their budget is through such draconian measures as not hiring substitute teachers, reducing construc- tion/maintenance expenditures, and charging students 25 cents a page for photocopying? MR. MAR: Well, Mr.

Speaker, the first thing I’d like to point out is that the hon. member, who has asked I think a good question, used in the preface to his question the word “adequate.” According to the Oxford Dictionary, adequate implies “sufficient” and “satisfactory,” often with the implication of meaning barely so. It is our govern- ment’s position that we should fund schools appropriately, and according to that same dictionary source it means what is “suitable or proper.” So with that clarification at the outset, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say that I have looked into this particular situation.

The Calgary Catholic school board had initially predicted an operating deficit of $2.7 million for the 1998-99 school year, out of which it planned to cover out of its available reserves $10.7 million. A midyear projection recently revealed that the operating deficit may in fact increase to $4.2 million. So the board is taking appropriate steps to keep the projected deficit down to the amount of $2.7 million.

One thing that I wish to point out to the hon. member: to reduce the projected deficit the board is considering reducing costs for substitute teachers, but this is not a plan, from the information conveyed to me, this is not a proposal to eliminate all substitute teachers. Mr. Speaker, clauses in the collective agreement that cover substitute teachers will be honoured. There is a practice but not a policy that Calgary Catholic boards will provide substitute teachers for things like voluntary short-term absences like medical appoint- ments.

Those are the circumstances that are being referred to by example, but for example for long-term disability there will continue to be substitute teachers as required under the collective agreement. 2:00 DR. PANNU: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The superintendent’s memo is clear about whether or not subs can be hired, so I don’t need to repeat this.

Given that the minister considers that provincial education funding is appropriate and adequate, what does the minister say to students and parents in Calgary who are concerned about the fact that the Calgary Catholic board has concluded that it will have to make further retrenchment next year and the year after in order to maintain a balanced budget?

April 22, 1999 Alberta Hansard 1209 MR. MAR: Well, Mr. Speaker, the Catholic board in Calgary is one of the boards that I hold out as being a very responsible one, and the members that serve as trustees and the administration on that board are people that I have a great deal of time and respect for. Based on the average enrollment increases in the last two years, the govern- ment instructional and operating funding for Calgary Catholic is expected to be $213 million this coming 1999-2000 school year. This is a 7 percent increase, or $14 million, over the 1998-99 school year.

This is a significant amount of money, and I expect that the school board, as it has demonstrated in the past, will be fiscally responsible with this money. DR. PANNU: Mr. Speaker, my second supplementary is also to the minister. Does the minister think that the budgetary measures outlined in the Calgary Catholic school superintendent’s memo should be adopted by all school boards facing deficits and trying to satisfy the minister’s expectations? THE SPEAKER: Hon. Minister of Education, there’s a clear inference there for an opinion. That’s not the purpose of question period.

So, please, if you wish to proceed, fine. If not . . . MR. MAR: Well, Mr. Speaker, perhaps the only thing that I’ll say in response in that case is to say that we expect all school boards to be fiscally responsible. That is the reason why we elect trustees at the local level. I think this particular school board has taken a certain number of steps towards making sure that it can bring its spending in line with what its projected expenditures are. We would expect that all school boards would do the same thing, although not necessarily in the same manner that is set out by this particular school board.

Each case will depend on its own circumstances. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Glenmore, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Calder. Calgary Teachers’ Collective Bargaining MR. STEVENS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Calgary’s public school teachers have rejected the latest contract offer from the Calgary board of education and have announced that they will go on strike as of this upcoming Monday. Parents of students in Calgary’s public school system are deeply concerned about what may transpire for their children.

To the Minister of Education: can he explain to the House what will happen to grade 12 students if there is a strike? MR. MAR: Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by saying that I’m hopeful that negotiations between the Calgary board of education and its local of the Alberta teachers’ union will continue and that a resolu- tion can be achievable prior to strike action commencing on Monday next. However, parents and children in Calgary are wise to begin asking questions about how they will be affected. For graduating grade 12 students, Mr.

Speaker, the most signifi- cant issue for them is the matter of diploma examinations. If there is a strike by Calgary’s public teachers, there will be no interruption of diploma examinations. The Calgary board of education has committed itself to ensuring that these examinations w ill pro ceed. Through the board’s computer database every grade 12 student will be automatically registered for diploma examinations in the event that there is a strike.

The board, in co-operation with and with the assistance of my department, will also be informing students and parents of the arrangements that have been made for the writing of those exams. Mr. Speaker, I want to make it very clear in my concluding comment that grade 12 students will be writing diploma examina- tions. MR. STEVENS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the same minister: does the minister have the power to exempt students affected by the strike from diploma exams? MR. MAR: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that question is yes. In special circumstances a student can be exempted from writing a diploma examination.

This is done pursuant to the regulations set out in the student evaluation regulations, but this situation does not apply in a strike circumstance. Again, Mr. Speaker, the Calgary board of education has said that diploma examinations will go ahead, and my department will work with the board to ensure that happens. MR. STEVENS: Mr. Speaker, my fi nal question is to the Minister of Education. If there is a strike by Calgary teachers, what are the educational opportunities for students other than those in grade 12? MR. MAR: Mr.

Speaker, I’m advised by the Calgary board of education that in the event that there is a strike, the board will be taking steps to ensure that as many students as possible have the opportunity to continue their studies as effectively as possible. It is up to the school board to decide whether to open schools for study hall purposes, as an example. The school board may also provide students program access by registering with the Alberta Distance Learning Centre or by purchasing distance education and related materials for students through the Learning Resources Distributing Centre.

My department will work closely with the administrators from the Calgary board of education to ensure that public students are able to continue their education through any work disruption. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Calder, followed by the hon. Member for Highwood. Electric Utilities Deregulation MR. WHITE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And the woes of electrical deregulation continue on and on. This government’s policy of . . . AN HON. MEMBER: Sounds like you wanted brownouts last night. MR. WHITE: We could do with a little brownout in here, sir. THE SPEAKER: Hon.

Member for Edmonton-Calder, you have the floor. MR. WHITE: This government’s deregulation policy, maybe more properly called reregulation policy, is getting more and more reminiscent of moving the deck chairs around on the Titanic than it is a new policy. There are absolutely no studies of the impact of electrical deregulation on consumers and the rates they pay. There is no information on how balancing pool payments are going to be distributed, and there is absolutely no bar set as to how high and what the determination of a successful option of a power option is. Today we shall try stable rate op tions.

My questions are to the Minister of Energy. When a citizen can set a stable rate option for a five-year period, why are small commercial customers such as community leagues, curling rinks, charities, and nonprofit organiza- tions only eligible for three years of coverage? DR. WEST: Mr. Speaker, if anybody in the province of Alberta

1210 Alberta Hansard April 22, 1999 chooses to stay with a rate set by the company they’re with today, if they want to stay for 20 years, they can. If you understood what the definition of stable rate was -- it just closed the gaps so that nobody had to make any choice for five years if they so desired. After five years or three years or two years or 10 years, they can still accept the traditional generator and through a marketer or affiliate buy that power. So I don’t know what the question is about. MR. WHITE: Mr. Speaker, it’s difficult to deal with a minister that doesn’t understand the legislation.

The price does go up, sir. That’s the difference. Will the minister, then, answer this: how is the minister making this determination when a community league that has an ice service and has a 51 kilovolt amp need and requirement pays one rate and a 49 kilovolt amp user has a totally different rate and is not guaran- teed? DR. WEST: Mr. Speaker, if he would share the information with me, maybe I could give you a detailed readout of how everybody’s bill probably will vary in a deregulated market.

I mean, you’ll have people coming to individual players and saying: look; if you can regulate the amount of power you use at peak loads, say between 5 in the afternoon and 8 at night and you don’t leave your computers or your air conditioners on at certain times in the summer, then you’ll have a different rate than your neighbour who has six kids and indiscriminately leaves the power on all day long. The same with community leagues or other leagues. Some will pay, depending on their use of power, more or less than others. 2:10 There will be no absolute rate across the province like there has been in the past.

This is going to be a wide open marketplace, and people will have choices in what they pay for power according to how they use power. I think it’s going to be a tremendous market- place. Yes, some power rates may go up. If people use excessive amounts of power at peak load times, power could be higher. People will have choices to cut their power bill maybe up to 15, 20, 30 percent depending on how they use power. I think that’s the way it should be. MR. WHITE: Mr. Speaker, if the minister will not answer the questions based on his own announcements, then there are no further questions to ask.

THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Highwood, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. Adoptions by Same-sex Couples MR. TANNAS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My first question is to the Minister of Family and Social Services. Today’s headlines in the newspapers and on radio suggest that the Minister of Family and Social Services will be tabling legislation to permit gay adoptions. To the minister: will your proposed adoption legislation follow the Anne of Green Gables scenario, or will it expressly state that same- sex couples can adopt children in this province of Alberta? DR. OBERG: Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker. What we are proposing to bring forward to the Legislature is an amendment to the Child Welfare Act which will change

section 59(3).

Section 59(3) presently utilizes the term spouse. What we are looking at is one very simple change which would change the word spouse to stepparent. What this would recognize, as the hon. member has stated, is other types of relationships. The Anne of Green Gables model that he referred to is where a brother and a sister actually raised a child. This will enable people in different types of relation- ships to apply for adoption. I must caution the hon. member, though, that there still are vetoes that are available.

For example, in any private adoption when a child is 12 years old or older, he has a veto over the adoption. The guardian of the child has a veto over the adoption. So perhaps the guardian would be the biological father, as an example. That biological father would still have a veto over the adoption. Mr. Speaker, this is consistent with the approach that our caucus has taken when it comes to private adoptions, to get out of the business of private adoptions. Quite frankly there are vetoes available.

If the people who are involved want their child to be in, for example, a same-sex situation, they have the ability to do that under the proposed legislation that we’re changing. MR. TANNAS: Mr. Speaker, again to the Minister of Family and Social Services: does this change mean that the government is changing its position on having children who are permanent wards of the Crown fostered or adopted by same-sex couples? DR. OBERG: Mr. Speaker, this has not changed the government’s position. The government’s position has always been what is in the best interest of the child.

We have attempted to stay away from the politics of what is the best scenario for a child. We have quite simply said that we want to do what is in the best interest. Again, with this legislative change what we are attempting to do is not have a judge read the definition of spouse into our 60 other pieces of legislation that contain the word s pouse. Quite frankly there are numerous stepparent relationships in Alberta where two perhaps of the same sex, perhaps, as the hon. member has stated, a brother and sister have looked after children for five, 10, 12 years.

These people are wanting to formalize that relationship. We feel that because it is a private adoption, government should stay out of that business. MR. TANNAS: Mr. Speaker, my final question is to the Minister of Justice. To the minister: I have constituents who are interested in the fact that the government is withdrawing from the same-sex adoption court case in Calgary but wondered whether the government will be paying for the costs of the third party which now wishes to intervene in this process. MR. HAVELOCK: Mr.

Speaker, we do not fund arguments through government that are brought by third parties in the courts of the province. Power Engineers Regulations MR. MacDONALD: Mr. Speaker, there are still more problems in the Department of Labour. My first question is to the Minister of Labour. Why were the changes to the power engineers regulations already decided upon several months prior to consulting with the very people it affects: qualified power engineers? MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, the power engineers regulation is due for review. It’s as per the sunset clause, as has been clearly outlined by the government.

It was originally drafted 24 years ago, in 1975. Public consultation began February 13, 1999, and is expected to be complete sometime in April. So we’ve done the normal consultation process, the distribution of a discussion paper, an advertisement placed in daily newspapers advising the general public. There’s a number of issues involved in it recognizing the new technologies

April 22, 1999 Alberta Hansard 1211 that are out there, recognizing th e new job duties, recognizing the power plants, appropriate levels of competency. We are at the stage where following public consultation, the regulation is developed in co-operation with industry. MR. MacDONALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, my next question will also be to the Minister of Labour. If the changes weren’t predetermined, how does the minister explain this document from his department dated September 1998 in which the changes are already predetermined? Why have a consultation process when you’ve already decided? MR.

SMITH: That sneaky little member, Mr. Speaker, has actually got a copy of a public consultation document. I would look forward to him filling it out. He is a good person in the organization that he represents. I would hope that he would go carefully through that document and then start to fill it out and start to get involved in the consultation process. That’s exactly what it’s intended for. MR. MacDONALD: Mr. Speaker, this document is February 1999. This one is September 1998.

If this was supposed to be a working document, why wasn’t it shared with all the power engineers across the province so they could help in drafting the changes that are so important to their livelihood? MR. SMITH: The document is out there, Mr. Speaker. We’ve talked about public advertisements in papers; we’ve talked about working with the power engineers. As a matter of fact, we have a member in this caucus who’s closely involved with the power engineers. I don’t hear the question coming from this side. I think it’s good of you to find the document available for consultation.

Let’s go to work on it, put some facts together, get involved. We look forward to hearing the member’s input. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Currie, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo. Film Development Program MRS. BURGENER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This weekend the Alberta Motion Picture Industries Association is hosting its 25th annual Alberta film and TV awards here in Edmonton. This industry contributes to distinguish itself not only in its cultural contribution but also as significant leaders in promoting the Alberta advantage.

Through economic development, tourism, and technology this industry is key to Alberta’s diversified economy. My questions this afternoon are to the Minister of Community Development. Given that the Alberta film development program was introduced by our government on April 1, can the minister give the Assembly an update on the Alberta film development progress to date? MRS. McCLELLAN: Well, Mr. Speaker, first let me say on behalf, I’m sure, of all of the members in this Assembly congratulations to what we know as AMPIA on the 25th anniversary of their awards program.

I’m very proud to say that the Alberta film development program is working, that we’ve had 30 applications that have been received so far. I might add that they’re arriving daily, and judging by the number of calls for information, I expect that demand to be strong. Mr. Speaker, there has been about $2 million of the $5 million available in this program for this year that has been committed to filmmakers for productions that they will be mounting in Alberta this year.

I should add that that $2 million investment translates into at least $20 million of production in the province, an increase of $8 million over the year’s total production last year in Alberta. 2:20 MRS. BURGENER: My first supplemental to the same minister: who is eligible for the Alberta film development program grants, and how do they apply? MRS. McCLELLAN: Mr. Speaker, there’s a number of criteria which I would be prepared to share with all members. They must meet certain criteria. They must be Alberta-based, Alberta-con- trolled companies and/or be doing coproductions including such companies.

It is administered through the Department of Commu- nity Development by the Alberta Foundation for the Arts, and certainly the foundation would be prepared to provide any member with that information. I must say, Mr. Speaker, that a number of members in this Assembly worked very hard in ensuring that this very major industry remained in this province. I would particularly take the liberty of pointing out the Member for Airdrie-Rocky View, who led a very thorough review, worked with the stakeholders, as did many members, and I think we are seeing the results of that work today. MRS.

BURGENER: My final supplemental: given that the Depart- ment of Public Works, Supply and Services also contributes government support to the film industry, could that minister identify what resources are made available to the industry? MR. WOLOSHYN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The government is supportive of the film industry, and in addition to the Community Development programs we make available our facilities to the Alberta industry. We do have criteria which we follow to ensure that the facilities have an appropriate use to them.

I might add also that during the past three years there have been some 26 uses of our facilities and only two rejections. It’s also worthy to note that we attract people from beyond our boundaries. I believe the TV series Viper was using a transportation building in Airdrie for a number of years during its production. Also just lately in Edmonton there was a movie called Snow Day being filmed at Government House and the park down below. That movie brought in some $14 million, and that’s by Paramount Pictures.

So Alberta’s opening the doors to people, helping the local industry, as well as bringing in others from the outside. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo, followed by the hon. Member for West Yellowhead. Confidentiality of Health Records MR. DICKSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Earlier this month surgical patient records for 32 patients in the Calgary health region were found blowing around a private yard in the Sundance subdivi- sion at the other end of town from the hospital where they origi- nated.

This is disturbing, but what’s even more disturbing is that this happened less than one year after very prejudicial mental health records were discovered in the old General hospital. My question is to the Minister of Health. What specific steps did the minister take to respect and protect the confidentiality of patient records after the last episode less than 10 months ago? MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, certain ly these two situations with respect to a total lack of security, it would seem, with respect to sensitive health records is a reason for an area of concern.

With respect to the situation at the General hospital during the planned

1212 Alberta Hansard April 22, 1999 and acted upon demolition period, there was a case where records were left behind within the abandoned building. We from Alberta Health certainly were in contact with the regional health authority. They took the issue very seriously and followed up with their investigation. I agree that it is of concern that a very short time in months after this we again have this incident in Calgary in a different venue, and once again we’ve been in contact with the authority over this particular incident. So I’m saying, Mr. Speaker, that I do not regard it as a good situation.

I regret certainly that it has happened, and I think the regional health authority has certainly undertaken to track down what went wrong in this last case. MR. DICKSON: Mr. Speaker, my follow-up question would be this to the minister: well, since there had been a report done after the incident last year, which of those recommendations in that report were not implemented before the April incident, and if they weren’t implemented, why not? MR. JONSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, as the questioner has admitted in his initial question, this is a very recent occurrence.

I know that the health authority has taken this very seriously and is following up on the case, but to be very straightforward about it, at this point in time I do not think they have found the perpetrator or the base cause of this particular recent incident. MR. DICKSON: Well, my final que stion, Mr. Speaker, is to the Minister of Labour.

Given the fact that this government chose to take personal health information out from under the FOIP Act because there was a promise that there would be legislated privacy protection and we still haven’t seen it two years after that promise was made, will the Minister of Labour now consider revising the freedom of information act to ensure that that protection exists now and not some years distant? MR. SMITH: Mr.

Speaker, the Minister of Health may want to comment with respect to the health information act, but the member well knows from his participation as a member of your all-party select legislative committee on freedom of information that the report is in. I’ve discussed with him the fact that the amendments to the act will be coming forward next week. I look forward to not only discussion but debate with him. The agenda and the program are very clear. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for West Yellowhead, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview. National Highway Program MR. STRANG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This province has been pressing the federal government for a national highway program for some time. I know that additional funding was put forward to health this year in the federal budget as that was a priority identified by the country’s first ministers. My question is to the Minister of Transpor- tation and Utilities. Can he advise the Assembly what progress if any has been made on getting Ottawa to realize the importance of a national highway program and placing a priority on infrastructure spending in all provinces? MR. PASZKOWSKI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A week ago this past Tuesday we had the opportunity as provincial ministers to meet with the federal Minister of Transport and the federal Finance minister as well as the entire Liberal caucus representing the transportation industry within the federal Liberal caucus. Present also were representatives of the Canadian Construction Association, the Canadian Automobile Association, representatives of labour, representatives of the entire stakeholders of the industry. This was a very positive meeting, certainly the first meeting of this kind that was held that represented the entire stakeholders of the industry.

The indications were that indeed there was unanimous support of the provinces; there was unanimous support of all of the stakeholders that were present at that meeting for a national highways program that would be jointly funded by the provinces as well as the federal government. MR. STRANG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My first supplemental question is to the same minister. What kind of funding arrangement can Alberta expect from the federal government for our part of the national highway system? MR.

PASZKOWSKI: Though there were no firm commitments made, the presentation that I made on behalf of the provinces was that we should develop a national highways program that would be jointly funded by the provinces as well as the federal government on a 50-50 basis. There was fairly lengthy discussion as to whether indeed that particular program should be delivered as an infrastruc- ture program where there was partnership of municipalities, provinces, and federal government or whether it should be as a national highways program separate from the infrastructure program.

Because of the amount of money needed in order to do a project as far as national highways is concerned, it was felt that the two should be kept entirely separate, because indeed the municipalities simply don’t have the resources to take on a major project and don’t have the capabilities to take on the scope of a major project that would indeed allow for a major development as far as the national highways program is concerned. So it was agreed that if there’s going to be an infrastructure program, which has been very success- ful up until now, it should be separate from a national highways program. 2:30 MR.

STRANG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My second supplemental question is also to the Minister of Transportation and Utilities. What is the next step in securing a national highways program? MR. PASZKOWSKI: The presentation that the federal Minister of Transport as well as the federal Minister of Finance made was indeed that there has to be a recognition of the need for this particu- lar program. The recommendation was that there be a communica- tions process put in place that would allow for clear recognition that there is a priority need for this program. Further to this, Mr.

Speaker, I think it’s important to note that my colleague the Minister of Economic Development broached the subject at the economic development ministers’ conference as well, and there was unanimous agreement. They have subsequently made representation to the federal minister that indeed there is an impor- tant criterion that has to be fulfilled here, and that is the importance of the national highways program to the economy of this country, to the social needs of this country, to basically the glue that brings the fabric of this nation together.

It was agreed that by the year 2000- 2001 the effort would be to try and include funding for this type of budgetary item. Confidentiality of Health Records (continued) MRS. SLOAN: Mr. Speaker, the privacy of Albertans’ personal health information is of such importance that I would like to ask the Minister of Health more questions with respect to the incidents of personal and confidential medical records being found blowing in

April 22, 1999 Alberta Hansard 1213 the wind in Calgary. My first question to the minister is: what exactly is the process of investigation for i ncidents where confiden- tial medical records are found in parking lots in this province? MR. JONSON: Mr.

Speaker, the health care system of the province and the many professional and support workers that work within it and professionals who work in support of the overall health care system outside of the boundaries of hospitals and long-term care centres all I think realize the importance of the privacy and sensitiv- ity of certain health information with respect to individuals. In the case that has now been raised twice by questioners across the way, Mr. Speaker, this is a fairly recent incident. Certainly it is a serious matter to have this happen.

The regional health authority is following up with respect to this particular situation. I’m sure that if there is any legal issue involved in terms of deliberate harm endeavoured to be caused to some individual or individuals, that will be taken through the proper legal processes. I think it is very important that the authorities have the opportunity -- and I’m sure they’re taking it seriously -- to investigate what the underlying situation is. MRS. SLOAN: Mr.

Speaker, for the 32 Albertans whose medical records were in the pa rking lot, what disciplinary action has this minister taken in both instances where this has occurred in the last year? MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, if the member across the way has knowledge, has evidence that would help with solving this particular matter, aid in the investigation, I would think that if that is the case, then it is that person’s obligation as a citizen of this province, as a person who has worked within the health care system to bring that evidence forward so that it can be part of the investigation, and the matter can be solved.

MRS. SLOAN: Mr. Speaker, given the repeated incidents of this occurring in the province, not once, not twice, 32 records blowing in the wind, why has this government as recently as last night opposed amendments to protect medical records in Bill 17? MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the pending legislation, as the Minister of Labour has already indicated to the Assembly, there are changes to the freedom of information and protection of privacy legislation being prepared for the consideration of the Assembly.

I think that is a proper venue in which to deal with this, and certainly priority is being given to that. We also have the work that has gone on with respect to the overall health information and protection of privacy legislation being prepared through Alberta Health. Mr. Speaker, the opposition knows full well that amendments are planned and intended to the act, and that is where the government will be addressing these matters.

THE SPEAKER: Hon. members, three hon. members have indicated their desire today to participate in Members’ Statements, and we will call on the first one in a few seconds, but prior to moving in that direction, might we revert briefly to Introduction of Guests? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. head: Introduction of Guests (reversion) THE SPEAKER: Then three introductions today in this order: first of all, the hon. Member for Little Bow, then the hon. Member for Fort McMurray. MR. McFARLAND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There’s no better way to celebrate a birthday when you can’t be at home with your family than to have 52 constituents with you, most of them school students from the Vauxhall elementary school. They managed to bring one more than my birthday today. I am really pleased to introduce to you and through you to all members of the Assembly from the potato capital of Alberta the students from Vauxhall elementary school along with their t eachers. I’m sorry that I can’t spot Mr. Terry Olfert, who has been here seven consecutive years with his class, and their other teacher, Mrs.

Michelle Sawchuk, along with parent helpers Mrs. Linda Hobberstad, Mrs. Sanaa Zahalan, Mr. Terry Dell, Mr. George Friesen, Mr. Harvey Pepneck, Mr. Dennis Johnson, Mr. J ohn Wilk, Mrs. Wanda Kolenosky, and Mrs. Diane Jeffrey. Would they please rise and receive a very warm spring welcome from the Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Fort McMurray. MR. BOUTILIER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to introduce to you and through you to the hon. members of the Assembly 27 students from the Westview public school in my constituency of Fort McMurray, the oil sands capital of the world.

They are accompanied today by Mr. Dionne and Mrs. Fleming and Westview teachers Mr. Dodsworth and Mrs. Rogers. They are seated in the public gallery, and I’d ask them all to rise now and receive the traditional welcome of our Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Transportation and Utilities. MR. PASZKOWSKI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s my pleasure today to introduce three gentlemen from the forestry industry that have come to the Legislature to help the hon. Member for Little Bow celebrate his birthday as well. The hon. member’s birthday is a very momentous occasion in this entire province.

In the meantime I’d like to introduce three distinguished gentlemen from the forestry industry that represent a very, very critical part of our economy. I would ask Allen Ainsworth, Tim Ryan, and Dave Cook to rise and receive the usual cordial warm welcome of this Legislature. THE SPEAKER: Well, hon. members, the hon. Minister of Trans- portation and Utilities might refer to the 51st birthday of the hon. Member for Little Bow as being momentous, but all hon. members should know that very, very shortly, not today but very, very soon, the hon.

Minister of Transportation and Utilities will be celebrating his 65th birthday. Might we now proceed to Members’ Statements. head: Members’ Statements 2:40 THE SPEAKER: We’ll call on, first of all, the hon. Member for Calgary-Lougheed. Hon. Edward R. Wachowich MS GRAHAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is truly a pleasure for me to rise this afternoon in the Legislature to pay tribute to the Hon. Edward R. Wachowich, who retired recently, on January 31, 1999, after serving the province for 10 years as the Chief Judge of the Provincial Court of Alberta. Chief Judge Wachowich is a native Albertan, born at Opal.

He completed his education in Edmonton, graduating from the Univer- sity of Alberta with a law degree in 1954, prior to his admission to the Alberta Bar in 1955. He then practised law in the city of Edmonton with the firm of Kosowan and Wachowich until 1985

1214 Alberta Hansard April 22, 1999 when he was appointed to the Provincial Court bench. He was later elevated, in 1989, with his appointment as Chief Judge of the court. During the term of his leadership of the court, the efficiency and the stature of the Provincial Court of Alberta were notably enhanced. One of the significant accomplishments during his watch was the acceleration of cases through the system to a conclusion in an average time of six months. As well, the qualifications for judges and for justices of the peace became some of the highest in Canada.

He also participated in a new program establishing a branch of the court presided over by traffic court commissioners, which processed tens of thousands of provincial offences in the province and to this day, I think, is still the only program of its kind in Canada. In addition to his duties in governing the administration of the court, Chief Judge Wachowich was called upon by the government to assist in reviewing and resolving some controversial issues over the past few years: the conflict of interest, the Electoral Boundaries Commission, and the judicial selection process.

It’s very hard to summarize a distinguished career like that of the Chief Judge in a short, two-minute member’s statement, but I can say that few if any other Albertans have had as much influence on the judicial system in Alberta as has Chief Judge Wachowich. On behalf of all members of this Assembly I would like to thank him for his dedicated service to Albertans over the past 10 years. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Spruce Grove-Sturgeon-St. Albert. Earth Day MRS. SOETAERT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today is Earth Day, the day when we remember the finite nature of our planet and the need to preserve it for future generations. As caretakers of this planet we must safeguard the biodiversity that exists here now. Environmental diversity is crucial because of the interdepen- dence of living things. Since this interdependence is not fully understood, human beings must be careful to respect and preserve all species in sufficient numbers. This means preserving their habitat as well. Albertans enthusiastically embrace the vision of completing a comprehensive network of Special Places by the year 2000.

Albertans place a high value on unspoiled natural landscapes and the opportunity to be close to nature. The priority of Special Places 2000 should be the protection goal - to include within the network of Special Places, the full range of natural landscapes, environmental diversity and special natural features of Alberta. To the extent that they are compatible with the protection goal, Special Places should achieve the three parallel goals of heritage appreciation, outdoor recreation and tourism.

Some Special Places will be selected specifically b ecause of the role they can play in assuring the survival of special species such as caribou, grizzly bears and some rare and endangered species. That’s what the Alberta Liberal caucus believes and supports, but I have not used my words. I am citing the 1993 report of the Special Places 2000 Advisory Committee. Unfortunately the government has deviated from what Albertans said they wanted. Unfortunately the government has now drafted legislation, Bill 15, the Natural Heritage Act, that will make it even more difficult to get back on course.

There is still time to save species and their ecosystems. It is an indispensable prerequisite for sustainable development. Our failure to do so will not be forgiven by future generations. On Earth Day we remember that time is running out, and I call on the Alberta government to return to the vision that inspired the special places program and to become inspired by what we can still save. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for St. Albert. Canada Book Day MRS. O’NEILL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today I rise to recognize Canada Book Day, which is tomorrow, April 23.

The goal of this day is to promote Canadian authors and Canadian books. This special day was initiated by the Writers’ Development Trust of Canada in 1995 when UNESCO declared World Book Day, which is celebrated around the world. In Alberta we have much to celebrate on this day. If you scan the list of past Governor General aw ard recipients, you will find that Albertans are very well represented. Names of Alberta authors like Rudy Wiebe and Greg Hollingshead are recognized both inside and outside of literary circles around the world today.

Many of these writers’ careers were nurtured through the literary arts programs of the Alberta Foundation for the Arts. The Alberta book publishing industry, also supported by the foundation, should also be recog- nized on this occasion. To celebrate Canada Book Day, libraries across the province are displaying Alberta and Canadian books. Some of Alberta’s bookstores are offering discounts and presenting readings by authors, and local newspapers are devoting space to information on Canadian books, authors, and trends in writing.

Another significant day for Alberta authors and publishers is coming up this weekend on Saturday. The annual Alberta book awards co-ordinated by the Writers’ Guild of Alberta and the Book Publishers Association of Albert a will be recognizing Alberta’s writers and publishers. Mr. Speaker, I encourage all members of this Assembly to take our cue from the Young Alberta Book Society, affectionately called YABS. Their mission is to celebrate excellence in Canadian literature and foster literacy and a love of reading among young people in Alberta.

It is an honour to pay tribute to this great occasion. head: Projected Government Business THE SPEAKER: The hon. Opposition House Leader. MR. DICKSON: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I’d request that the government advise us as to the projected government business for the ensuing week. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Deputy Government House Leader. MR. HAVELOCK: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m looking at Monday, April 26. In the afternoon we’ll be dealing with . . . [interjection] If the Member for Spruce Grove-Sturgeon-St.

Albert would like to know what she’ll be doing next week, I’d appreciate her listening. In the afternoon we’ll be dealing with second reading on bills 26, 30, 31, and 32, and as per the Order Paper. That evening we’ll be in Committee of the Whole dealing with bills 27, 29, and 15. On Tuesday at 4:30 p.m. we’ll be dealing with second reading on bills 34 and 28; that evening, second reading on bills 22, 24, 23, and 25, and as per the Order Paper. Wednesday evening, Mr.

Speaker: third reading on bills 18, 21, 14, and 17, and Committee of the Whole on bills 12, 16, and 15, and as per the Order Paper based on what I assume will be significant progress on Monday and Tuesday.

April 22, 1999 Alberta Hansard 1215 Thursday afternoon we will be giving Royal Assent to bills 8, 9, 10, 11, 33, and 202 and then reverting to as per the Order Paper. Under Government Bills and Orders, second reading on bills 35, 37, and 36, and as per the Order Paper. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo on a point of order. Point of Order Parliamentary Language MR. DICKSON: Mr. Speaker, there was an exchange during question period between my colleague for Edmonton-Gold Bar and the Minister of Labour, and in the course of his res ponse the Minister of Labour referred to him as “that sneaky little member.” The authorities I cite would be Beauchesne 485 and 486, Standing Order 23(

j) in terms of abusive language. The comment was regrettable. Although the word “sneaky” may not appear in Beauchesne or in the list you circulated pre commence- ment of session, the reality is that the words are to be viewed in their context. I think it’s particularly regrettable that the Minister of Labour would use that kind of reference in referring to a member who has distinguished himself, since he joined this Assembly in 1997, with his forthrightness and his candour and the respect that he’s brought to this Assembly. I’d ask you, Mr.

Speaker, to find that in these circumstances the adjective used was in fact demeaning and not appropriate in this Assembly. Thank you. 2:50 THE SPEAKER: The hon. Deputy Government House Leader. MR. HAVELOCK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’ll be brief. As the hon. member indicated, we need to look at the words that were used and at the context really. I can recall very specifically that the hon. Minister of Labour used them in a humorous fashion, I daresay almost as a term of endearment. Besides, the hon.

Opposition House Leader is right: “sneaky” is not referenced in Beauchesne, “little” isn’t referenced in Beauchesne, nor is any combination thereof referenced. It does not constitute unparliamentary language. I don’t believe the hon. minister meant it in a mean-spirited way. He was teasing the hon. member across the way and simply referring to the fact that he was quoting from a public document when he was trying to create the illusion that he had somehow secured some confidential information.

THE SPEAKER: Hon. members, this is one of those unique situations where the two participants in question have not offered an opinion or a view with respect to this matter. When we have spokespersons on behalf of both the hon. Member for Edmonton- Gold Bar and the hon. Minister of Labour -- and that’s certainly appropriate. House leaders may take that task.

One of the things that is very, ve ry clear is that all the rules and the words that have been listed either dealing with the Assembly of the province of Alberta or Beauchesne do not reference the phrase in question: “sneaky.” However, certainly, certainly, certainly we can all rise to a higher level than sometimes we do. Now, one knows that one can say that the hon. Minister of Labour was being facetious and there was an injection of humour. One knows, as well, that the hon.

Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar has certainly proven that he’s very gifted on his feet, that he has an eloquence that provides a certain sense of humour with respect to the whole thing, and we do know that the Minister of Labour is reaching to find new epithets of wisdom that he can throw across the floor from time to time. So considering that, neither of the two participants has offered a point with respect to this. That is certainly their right.

One would suggest, today being Thursday and today being Thursday afternoon, that the two hon. members in question sort of have this synergy between them that is quite unique. They tend to smile at one another. But overall, this House should find great displeasure with phraseology like “sneaky little member.” Certainly this Speaker would not want to see it repeated. head: Motions under Standing Order 40 THE SPEAKER: On a Standing Order 40 petition, the hon. Leader of the Official Opposition. Calgary Teachers’ Strike Mrs. MacBeth:

Be it resolved that this Assembly recognize the urgent need for a broad public debate on the imminent job action at the Calgary board of education resulting from this government’s failure to adequately fund public education in Calgary to cover increased costs due to contract settlements, curriculum changes, technology, and aging schools. MRS. MacBETH: Mr.

Speaker, members will probably note that the words in this motion are those that repeat the words contained in the SOS petitions which we have been tabling in this Assembly, which now contain signatures of well over 10,000 Albertans who are concerned about the state of public education in this province. I realize full well that under Standing Order 40 I must have a case of urgent and pressing necessity.

I doubt that anyone and in fact I challenge anyone in this Assembly to identify anything as pressing and as urgent as the reality that a hundred thousand students in Calgary may be without a classroom to attend on Monday morning. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, of course, our schoolteachers will be in a position to go on a legal strike. As we speak to parents across the city of Calgary, as I have met with parents, and as we today talk, there are parents demonstrating in Calgary, there are people scrambling to make th e necessary contingency plans for those 100,000 students of theirs, who will be adversely affected. Mr.

Speaker, the reason we need a broad public debate urgently on this issue is that this provin ce is like a phantom player in the negotiations in Calgary. They are absent from the negotiation, yet if any party has done what it could do to undermine public education in this province, it is clearly the budget cutting without a plan that this province has engaged in. Mr. Speaker, with respect to the urgency. The Minister of Education mentioned it today.

Our grade 12 students are of course facing extremely important exams for themselves that will be coming over the next couple of months, and it makes it particularly severe for them. While I was very pleased to hear the minister mention that the exams would carry on, the exams are not the only issue. The teaching of those students between now and when the exams occur is obviously a big issue. This afternoon will be the very last opportunity that this Assembly has to head off this looming strike.

One of the more disturbing tones in this House today is the fact that there’s this passivity about accepting that a strike is imminent, yet we have four days between now and when that strike might occur, four days in which members in this Assembly can stand and discuss the issues of public education and the importance of public education. As I noted in my question today: where is the Alberta advantage for these students who are facing the reality of a strike? Where is

1216 Alberta Hansard April 22, 1999 the Alberta advantage for our school boards, which are being funded at $500 less than they were five years ago and are being faced with the reality of having to lay off teachers in the largest classrooms in the province? Where is the Alberta advantage for parents, who have been fund-raising for basic necessities like literacy programs in our schools in Calgary, and where is the Alberta advantage for the teachers, fewer and fewer, as the reality of this government’s cuts and its attempt to undervalue public education and underrate the impact of its cuts comes home? Mr.

Speaker, as I said at the outset, I can think of no more urgent, pressing matter for this Legislative Assembly to deal with than the matter of this looming strike, and I think it’s high time that this Legislature stood unanimously and said: let’s get to resolution in order that we can find the role for this province, an appropriate role, for the future of our students. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: Hon. members, as per the Standing Order 40 might we now have unanimous consent to proceed with the motion as proposed by the hon. Leader of the Official Opposition? Would all those in favour please say aye? SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Aye. THE SPEAKER: Opposed, please say no. SOME HON. MEMBERS: No. THE SPEAKER: The motion is defeated. head: Orders of the Day head: Government Bills and Orders head: Third Reading Bill 33 Appropriation Act, 1999 THE SPEAKER: The hon. Deputy Government House Leader. MR. HAVELOCK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On behalf of the Provincial Treasurer I’d like to move third reading of Bill 33, the Appropriation Act, 1999. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo. MR. DICKSON: Yes. To speak to third reading on Bill 33. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It’s interesting.

A few moments ago we heard I think a powerful presentation from the Leader of the Opposition about a specific issue having to do with education in the city of Calgary. You know, there is probably no more important element of the budget than that dealing with the Department of Education. When I look around this Chamber this afternoon, I see a number of colleagues who also represent Calgary parents and Calgary schoolchildren. In fact, it causes me to think.

If you have 100,000 students in the Calgary board of education system, how many families does that involve in the city of Calgary, how many parents and siblings and so on? 3:00 What we’re talking about is this startling contrast between, on the one hand, the breakdown of support for public education in the city of Calgary, the biggest school district in this province, and at the very same time, a government that proposes, if you will, to dot the “i” and cross the “t” on the 1999-2000 budget, a budget that clearly doesn’t measure up.

The timing of these two things -- dealing at third reading with the Appropriation Act while at the very same time in the city of Calgary we have this looming crisis in public education -- ought to cause every one of us to reflect that maybe, just maybe, hon. members, this appropriation bill doesn’t do the job. Maybe, just maybe, that $600 million, that we’ve heard about ad nauseam, which is being put back in over three years, may not be adequate.

Maybe, just maybe, the fact that the funding going back into education is once again closeted in discrete envelopes takes away the flexibility of the school boards to spend that money the way they have been elected and mandated to spend it: addressing local needs. You know, there are people in Calgary-Fish Creek and Calgary- Glenmore and Calgary-Currie who share some of the concerns that people in Calgary-Buffalo do. Yesterday, you know, I think I got something like 18 calls to my constituency office. My constituency administrator was in Edmonton yesterday. MR. SMITH: She was up here. You introduced her. MR.

DICKSON: Exactly. But we have an answering machine. Modern technology affords the Calgary-Buffalo constituency office an answering machine. Now, Calgary-Varsity may still be using the blackboard and the chalk, but some of us have answering machines. So even when we’re not in the office, constituents have an opportu- nity to register their concerns. I’m saying to myself: if I got 18 phone calls yesterday from parents -- these weren’t from ATA local executive members. These were from parents in Sunalta and Connaught and Scarboro and Lower Mount Royal.

Some of them may have been from Upper Mount Royal in Calgary-Currie; I’m not sure. The point is that these people almost to a man or woman -- I haven’t heard all the calls myself, but what’s been relayed to me is that many of the calls were an identification that the root cause of the problem is inadequate funding from the province of Alberta. [Mrs. Gordon in the chair] If we were to pass Bill 33 at third reading, what in effect we’d be doing is making a declaration that money is not the problem with the Calgary board of education.

So then I started asking myself, because I know that we’ve got a lot of intelligent people in this Chamber -- we’ve got a former Minister of Education, former ATA executive member now in the person of the Minister of Health. I know he continues to be keenly interested. He’s constantly advising his colleague the Minister of Education in terms of the pitfalls and the challenges in that difficult portfolio. I know he knows the truth of the challenge currently facing teachers and administrators. I make my observations, Madam Speaker.

I hold no particular brief for teachers in the city of Calgary, and I hold no particular brief for the Calgary board of education, but I do hold a brief for the parents and the families who are going to be adversely affected if in fact there is a job action on Monday morning. You know, there are grade 12 students who may have to experi- ence what the Minister of Education experienced. It appears to have left some kind of a lasting impression on him, not so lasting that he’s motivated to go to his Treasury Board or Treasury committee and press for additional funding but certainly enough, Madam Speaker. MR.

SMITH: You’d give away the money; wouldn’t you? You’d give it away. Come on now. You’d give it away; wouldn’t you? MR. DICKSON: Madam Speaker, you know, when I hear the

April 22, 1999 Alberta Hansard 1217 friendly interjection from the Minister of Labour, I’m reminded of how many times we’ve heard the Minister of Education -- wisely, less often than the Premier -- ask: how much is enough? The Premier does it on a constant basis. For those of us that had the privilege of attending the health summit, we remember Dr. Tom Noseworthy dealing with that question in the health care area: how much is enough? What Dr. Noseworthy said, and I know that the Tory MLAs who were present will remember this clearly as well, was: tell us what kind of a system you want.

Tell us what kind of an education, or in his case, tell us what kind of a health care system you want. The same question applies here. So when the Premier says that the question is, “How much is enough,” I say, “No, no, Mr. Premier; the real question is: what kind of an education system do we want in this province?” Now, if the government believes, as they appear to on all of the evidence, that what we need is an emasculated public education system with continued additional support for private schools, then, you know, that $600 million over three years may be plenty.

In fact, if we’re going to see a further dismantling of public education and the continued proliferation of private schools, independent schools, maybe we could get by by reducing that $600 million over three years by 20 percent. There are some in this Assembly -- and I count myself proudly among them -- that believe that the answer is not more private schools, not more independent schools, that it’s simply making an investment in the very excellent public education system we have. You know, I think, Madam Speaker, that the difficulty faced in the city of Calgary is a real one.

I remember when the Minister of Education was kind enough to share four hours with us one Friday morning about three weeks ago. Some of us had a chance to put questions to the Minister of Education in the designated subcommit- tee of supply. I specifically remember putting to the minister an analysis that had been done by SPEAK, Support Public Education - Act for Kids. These weren’t economists. These aren’t education economists. They’re not PhD types in the Faculty of Education.

They’re homemakers, workers, professionals in the city of Calgary who had sat down and had taken the minister’s budget a nnounce- ment that promises $600 million and said: well, let’s go through and see how much of that is going to go to teachers’ pensions and how much is going to go to independent schools and how much of it is going to go for other kinds of services and then how much is going into the classroom. Madam Speaker, I apologize. I didn’t think to bring with me that SPEAK analysis, but my best recollection is that these very inter- ested parents went through, did the analysis.

They started off with the amount that the minister said was going to be available for classrooms, and they discounted it by a number of different vari- ables. What they came up with was, I believe -- and I know the Member for Calgary-Bow probably has the number right at her fingertips. I think it was something in the order of $50 million. I think something in that order wa s in effect what they suggested might be net new money.

I asked the Minister of Education on that day whether he had seen the analysis, whether he would be kind enough to review the analysis, and if he disagreed with that analysis, would he please tell me. Well, I wasn’t able to stay to the very end of that designated supply subcommittee meeting, but I heard some of the minister’s responses. I read the Hansard transcripts from that committee meeting. What was interesting to me was that I did not hear or see the minister take serious issue with the analysis done by the SPEAK group.

There’s a notion in law, which the Minister of Education is well aware of, called estoppel. It says that if one represents or holds out a set of circumstances, you can’t at a later point, after people have acted on those representations, in this case acquiescence to their prejudice . . . 3:10 MR. MAR: You also cannot foist something. This is foisting. MR. DICKSON: This is, admittedly, a bit of an adaptation of the equitable principle. But it seemed to me that the minister had the opportunity, if he disagreed with what the SPEAK group had done in terms of analysis, to tell me that the analysis was all wet.

He chose not to do that. Now, he may have had some other reasons, Madam Speaker, for not doing it. He may have been courteous and kind. He may have thought it not a suitably rigorous analysis. He may have thought it was inaccurate. He may have wanted to be kind to the volunteers that prepared it. I don’t know what his motivation was, and I don’t think in this Chamber we should cast into question the motivation of members. We have to take the words that were spoken at the time.

What I came away with was that these parents with SPEAK, these people with the school councils in the city of Calgary, did a pretty darn effective job of determining how few new net dollars were coming into the Calgary system. After you discount for the huge population growth we’ve seen and discount for other things, what you find in fact is that there isn’ t nearly the moneys going into the Calgary system that had been promised. I wonder, Madam Speaker. I need some advice from colleagues in the House. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Sit down. MR. DICKSON: No, Madam Speaker. I need some substantive advice.

I was looking for new advice. I hear that all the time. I thought we might hear something specific. I’m going back to Calgary in a few minutes. I’m going to be meeting with school councils, and I wanted to give colleagues on the other side of the House an opportunity to give me some advice that I can share, on a serious note, with school councils and parents who are absolutely concerned with what may happen Monday morning. I thought I might have got some good advice in question period. I sat and I listened to every one of those questions and, discouraging- ly, to every one of the responses. You know something?

I’m no wiser now than before the commencement of question period. We had an opportunity for a Standing Order 40 debate, and I thought that that might have provided the opportunity for members in the government caucus to give me some advice I could share with school councils. That opportunity was foreclosed as well. Madam Speaker, I guess I’m going to have to go back and talk to those school councils and share with them the good information I’ve received from my colleague the Education critic.

I’m going to have to be able to report that we tried this afternoon to have a debate in this Assembly on an urgent basis about school funding and that there was not unanimous consent. In fact, most of the Calgary MLAs that I noticed voted against it. I’m going to have to go back and reluctantly report that the government caucus is being bamboozled by the promises of the $600 million and that people have not been listening to school councils, that they have not been listening to school parents. That’s just a really regretful circumstance. DR. WEST: Point of order. THE ACTING SPEAKER: The hon. minister.

1218 Alberta Hansard April 22, 1999 Point of Order Relevance DR. WEST: I’d like your understanding for the Assembly on relevancy, on where the member is going here. He’s debating the Standing Order 40 that was defeated in this Assembly and working it into the Appropriation Act. That’s not right, Madam Speaker. THE ACTING SPEAKER: Hon. member, go ahead on the point of order. MR. DICKSON: It’s good advice from the Minister of Energy. I certainly had not intended that, and if it sounded in any way like I was trying to reopen that question on the Standing Order 40, that had not been my intention at all.

I simply reflected and made an observation on a fact and something that happened here a moment ago which is part of the history of the Assembly. Those are my comments on the point of order. THE ACTING SPEAKER: Well, the point of order I think is well taken. The chair actually did get out the appropriate bill here, and it is the Appropriation Act, 1999, Bill 33. Basically, appropriation acts deal with dollars and cents, and there is an allocation in here for Education.

I would ask if we can try through the remainder of the debate on this bill in this reading to stick to the relevancy issue, to deal with the dollar amounts in this Appropriation Act. Debate Continued MR. DICKSON: Madam Speaker, it’s clear I have been spectacu- larly unsuccessful yet again in trying to make the linkage between what’s happening in schools in the Calgary public system and what’s happening with Bill 33.

So I’m going to yield the floor to members who may be more persuasive, who may be able to marshal stronger arguments to be able to cause this government monolith to hesitate and to reconsider about an issue that probably means more to the future of this province, more to the economic future, more to the social future of this province than any other issue that we deal with in the course of our time in this Assembly. Thank you very much. THE ACTING SPEAKER: The hon. Deputy Government House Leader. MR. RENNER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would like to move that we adjourn debate on Bill 33.

THE ACTING SPEAKER: Having heard the motion by the hon. Deputy Government House Leader, does the Assembly agree with the motion? SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. THE ACTING SPEAKER: Opposed? SOME HON. MEMBERS: No. THE ACTING SPEAKER: It’s carried. head: Private Bills head: Third Reading Bill Pr. 1 National Bond Insurance Corporation Act THE ACTING SPEAKER: The hon. Member for St. Albert. MRS. O’NEILL: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move third reading of Bill Pr. 1, the National Bond Insurance Corporation Act. THE ACTING SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton- Glenora. MR. SAPERS: Thanks, Madam Speaker.

I want to raise a couple of general concerns at this stage of the bill. It’s destined to pass in this Assembly at some point. You know, there has been a theme that’s been identified by the Official Opposition over the years as these insurance bills have come forward through Private Bills Committee, and that theme has to do with this government’s propensity to create opportun ities for the erosion of our public health care system through creating new markets for private insurance.

While I cannot put myself into the mind of the proponents of the particular private bill that’s before the Assembly today, certainly I’ve had the experience of listening and reacting to the provincial governme nt. I think that some of these enterprises that are in the insurance industry are doing what I would expect them to do, and that is to seek out potential new markets and prepare themselves for commercial opportunities that may arise.

I’m just increasingly concerned and frustrated that as these bills make their way to the Assembly and eventually through the Assembly, we are not paying enough attention to the larger trend and the one that’s been put into place by a government that has demon- strated time and time and time again that it really would much rather prepare a road map to the privatization of health care than throw up any meaningful barriers. Of course, we’ve seen that evidence in so many ways, including this government’s rather tortured explanations for what has become the now infamous Bill 37.

So, Madam Speaker, the difficulty I have is not necessarily on the merits of this private petition but really is on how it relates to what I see as a long- standing government commitment to perhaps corporate friends that they will open the doors to increased privatization in our health care system. 3:20 Now, the other factor that reinforces that concern in my mind is the public bill that’s before us ri ght now, and that is Bill 25, the Insurance Act, which would elim inate the role of the Standing Committee on Private Bills in te rms of vetting Insurance Act initiatives.

The combination of the two: this government’s push towards privatization and the elimination of this mandatory review by a standing committee of the Legislature, one of the few standing committees of the Legislature that actually meets and works, unlike the Standing Committee on Law and Regulations. This government every day creates a new record in terms of being the jurisdiction with the longest lapse between the last time that committee met and any potential time in the future that it might, if this government ever allows that committee to be convened to review the regulations that flow from legislation.

Parenthetically I’ll add, Madam Speaker, that had this government taken the advice of the official Liberal opposition and called that committee to convene, we may have been able to save them from some considerable expense and embarrassment by reviewing some of the regulations which led to the creation of some 800 either new or increased user fees.

Of course, with all of these new and increased user fees, we’re now in the position where we’ve got the Premier and the Treasurer arguing with one another over whether these fees should stay or go, which ones are taxes, which ones aren’t taxes, how they have been arrived at. In fact, Madam Speaker, intere stingly the Premier said just yesterday that he didn’t really know. He could just assume that the

April 22, 1999 Alberta Hansard 1219 fees would be fair, but he didn’t really know. Of course, I would have thought that the government would have made it their business to do a cost analysis before they forced Albertans to pay these fees, but that apparently wasn’t the case. Referring those kinds of regulations to the committee might have prevented the government from this particular embarrassment and this spat that the Treasurer and the Premier are having right now. To the main point on the private bill.

As I was saying, the government has now made it clear that they have a certain amount of contempt for the standing committee, because they are removing or would hope to remove part of its mandate and responsibility through the passage of Bill 25. As I said at the outset, it’s apparent to me that this private bill has wound its way through the Chamber and will eventually receive majority support. But it does speak to these broader issues, and I don’t believe enough attention has been paid to them by all members of this Assembly. THE ACTING SPEAKER: The hon. Member for St.

Albert to close debate? [Motion carried; Bill Pr. 1 read a third time] Bill Pr. 3 Consumers Insurance Company Act THE ACTING SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary- Lougheed. MS GRAHAM: Yes. Thank you, Madam Speaker. On behalf of the Member for Edmonton-Centre I now would like to move third reading of Bill Pr. 3, Consumers Insurance Company Act. [Motion carried; Bill Pr. 3 read a third time] head: Government Bills and Orders head: Second Reading Bill 24 Traffic Safety Act [Adjourned debate April 12: Mr. Yankowsky] THE ACTING SPEAKER: The hon. leader of the ND opposition. MS BARRETT: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I’ll just make a few comments about this bill. While I support the contents of it, I must say and need to put on the record my objection to some things that are absent in this bill. First of all, I listened to the minister making his observations and justifications about why the bill doesn’t make it illegal to ride in the back of trucks, but I don’t accept those arguments, period. In fact, I would like to observe that when I see dogs in the back of trucks, I get very upset. I mean, if a collision occurs, whoever, whether it’s a human being or a four-legged creature, can be hurtled like a projectile into traffic.

Upon any kind of incident or collision, even just being pushed around inside the back of the truck, let alone into traffic, could cause serious damage to the person or the four-legged creature. I realize that on farms one needs to make exemptions, but I say: let the local authorities decide if on occasion a person riding in the back of the truck is considered necessary or just foolishness. If it’s foolishness, then subject the person to an offence and a fine. The other observation I have is with respect to the use of helmets when riding a bicycle.

I have long been an advocate of a province- wide endorsement of this procedure via legislation. I have in front of me a document from an organization called Safe Kids. I take it that it’s a letter jointly sponsored by the Stollery Children’s Health Centre in Edmonton and the Alberta Children’s hospital in Calgary. I’ll give a quote, and I’ll hand this over to Hansard as well, because I’ll be done with the issue by then. They point out in the letter: Bicycle helmet legislation also saves costs to the health care budget. In Canada (1995-96) the economic costs resulting from pedal cycle injury was $195,756,237.00.

In Alberta, the lifetime care costs for one severe bicycle related brain injury are $2.5 million or more. It seems contradictory, at a time when our province has struggled with the burden of health care costs, that we have yet to enact legislation that will reduce costs over the long term. Safe Kids - Children’s Safety survey demonstrates that 77% of Alberta’s parents support bicycle helmet legislation. Boy, can you ever tell when I’m not reading from my own notes. I just don’t relate to other people’s syntax.

They go on to make the argument that we should do everything we can “to increase helmet use and decrease bicycling related head injury.” I know that the minister said: well, it’s up to the municipali- ties. But I’ll tell you what’s happened so far in Edmonton. Madam Speaker, I canvassed a number of city councillors. You know what? They’re scared of it. They all say: oh, yeah, I personally support creating a bylaw to enforce the use of wearing a helmet when riding a bicycle.

But they think that it’s going to turn into a political nightmare like the perennial debate on city council about whether or not we should have a cat bylaw. Okay? I for one would support a cat bylaw. I would put my political life on the line for one. But I would also put my political life on the line for a requirement to wear a helmet when riding a bicycle. To me this is common sense, and I fear that no municipality will undertake to create and enforce municipal bylaws to require citizens to do the safe thing.

I suggest to you that when you’ve got those nice small helmets on in comparison to those enormous globes that motorcyclists have to wear, I think the case is made pretty obvious. I live in the river valley, have done so for, oh, 18 years at least. Shortly after I moved into my place on 93rd Street -- and that’s quite a bit away, a bout one and a half, two blocks off the walking/cycling path -- this woman came to my door in a panic. She said: help, help, my husband has fallen off his bicycle, and his head is bleeding. I said: “Of course I’ll help. Let’s call 911.” So I called 911.

In the meantime, you know, while I’m on the phone, she’s saying: we need to get some cloths or towels over to him. I said: yeah, okay; let’s go. So on the way over I had time to ask her why it was that she came all the way to my place, for heaven’s sake. She told me that she’d stopped on Cameron, that she’d stopped on 100th, that she’d stopped on 94th, and she couldn’t find anybody at home. So she had come a clear two blocks to find a human being that would actually open the door for her to help her and her husband out.

Well, I got over to the location where her husband had fallen and looked at this guy, and I was quite horrified. He was bleeding very profusely, my dear. I know nothing about health care, and all we could do was kind of fake it until the ambulance got there, which they did within a matter of another couple of minutes. 3:30 Every Sunday I take a really long walk through the river valley. In the area where I go, if you go halfway along on the route that I take every Sunday, you would be half an hour’s walk away from an ambulance.

If you fell in one of those long stretches, I have often wondered how an ambulance would get there anyway. So I will conclude with that anecdote. I realize one never goes from the specific to the general, as a matter of logic, and I’m not attempting to do that. It’s just that I pe rsonally had this experience, and it drummed home to me -- and that’s close to 10 years ago -- the need for persons on bicycles to be wearing helmets.

1220 Alberta Hansard April 22, 1999 Actually I do have one more thought, Madam Speaker, and that is that if in a year after this bill passes we don’t have municipalities enacting bylaws to enforce the use of wearing helmets while on bicycles, I hope the hon. minister would agree to revisit this bill and incorporate it into provincial legislation. Thank you. THE ACTING SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Calder. MR. WHITE: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak on Bill 24, the Traffic Safety Act. In fact, first of all, there’ll be some compliments due here.

This minister has gone way out of his way to include citizens of Alberta in the writing of this bill, in the drafting of this bill and has in fact done a good job. They are putting four acts together, which in and of itself is an admirable end in that it makes the enforcement of any traffic safety much easier. All concerned, both the enforcer and the general public, now have one piece of legislation to which to refer, have one set of rules to follow, and therefore are able to understand it.

It’s also a pleasure to know that this particular minister has afforded the opposition the opportunity to debate in private some of these items and to understand from where the department is coming and how the drafts were put together and how this bill ended up as it is. I understand that two members of this caucus and a staffer spent some time reviewing the bill with the minister and his staff and easing this particular bill through the Legislature without a great deal of rancour.

Some of us were in this Assembly last evening and understood how legislation is brought forward without letting the opposition know what is contained therein. It makes it very difficult for the opposition to argue either for or against. This particular minister did the right thing and brought the citizenry, the public agencies that enforce these acts, as well as the opposition and the public all along together to understand what this act is about and how it shall be enforced. There is room, of course, and always is room for debate for some items contained in the legislation.

This member has some different views as to the legislation as it’s put forward here. In particular, I’ll pick up on the member that is in fact the leader of the ND opposition and her opposition to not having the riding in pickup trucks included in a piece of legislation. I believe, as most believe, that seat belts in fact are a very good thing, and the enforcement of that has saved a great deal of lives in this province, saved a great deal of personal injury and injury to families as a whole.

Now, I don’t understand how we cannot think of the rancour that went on in this Chamber in earlier years in bringing that piece of legislation to the House and having it passed, with some great deal of difficulty as I understand. Instantly it was accepted, as a general rule. There are still a number of people, including my father-in-law, who still think that the right way to wear a seat belt is to hook it over their arm so that the police officer can see that there’s something there.

He doesn’t believe in the act at all, but it’s difficult to convince someone over 80 that he has gotten to that state by making as many errors as I think he has made. So I have not made a great dent in his life insofar as changing him to believe the rules. Nonetheless, he’s just one of very few. Most of us accept the fact that seat belts save lives, and they save a great deal of money also in the repair of those bodies that are thrown about inside and out of cars.

Now, how can we justify that with enabling people to ride in the backs of half-tons, which is in the same platform as a great deal of our automobiles, vans, and the like? We force people sitting inside a cabin, in a chair, to wear a seat belt, yet you’re allowed to ride around in the back of a half-ton. I have a comment from one member that spends a lot of her time on a horse, that doesn’t have a seat belt, that she wants to get rid of seat belts. Well, perhaps that is her opinion, but it is generally accepted in this society that seat belts are a reasonable precaution against injury.

Likewise, some would argue -- and some would say rightly so -- that riding a motorcycle requires a helmet. By law it requires a helmet. Well, you’re no further open to the elements and free to fly in the air off the back of a motorcycle than you are out in the back of a half-ton. As a matter of fact, in the back of a half-ton you have absolutely no control. You can’t see or feel what is about to transpire. You’re probably much more endangered, and it is not herein contained. Now, I’ve heard the minister before, and I know that he’s listened to both sides of the argument.

Quite frankly, I don’t know where he personally stands on the matter, but he’s a representative of the government and must take that position. He has said that it will be put into regulations. Well, if it’s good enough for a regulation, then certainly it’s good enough to debate in the form of

an act and to put into the act. As I said earlier, one of the important parts of this act is that it has done away with four acts, putting them all together so that one can read the regulations in the province of Alberta and understand what is expected in the way of being lawful. But I don’t see it here. Now, I haven’t heard the minister or in fact members of the government bench explain why it is not, explain the rationale why it’s not contained here.

Quite frankly, I’d like to hear that before third reading comes about on this bill. 3:40 Likewise, there’s another area that concerns me somewhat: the administrative suspensions that are included in this act. It does seem to me that one of the concerns I have with the immediate administra- tive suspension on the spot is that guilt is proven right on the spot. Now, I don’t have any difficulty with a temporary, overnight suspension, which currently is the law of the land. Refusing to blow into a breathalyzer does not constitute guilt unto itself.

In fact, there are a number of cases, I’m told, where there is a valid reason for not blowing in the little machine, and under this act we would think that is guilt. I’ve spoken to a number of police officers on the enforcement of this act, and having spent some time on the Police Commission, I understand that there are two schools of thought here. The one that seems to have won out, judging by the application of this act, is that police officers are trained to discern guilt and therefore can dispense it.

Well, the last time I looked, a six-month course in policing does not really qualify one to administer the law as this act does, and certainly it shall be challenged in the courts. I suppose we shall have to wait and see how the courts do in fact interpret the enforceability of this act versus an individual’s personal rights to life and liberty. MR. PASZKOWSKI: It’s already been challenged six times. MR. WHITE: Oh, I’m informed that it’s been challenged six times. In other provinces I presume. And the similar wording has actually been enforced? MR. PASZKOWSKI: Yeah. In every case it’s been upheld. MR.

WHITE: Well, it’s been upheld in every case, the minister informs me. So that would say to me that it has been drafted well, which is good, but whether it in fact is an imposition we want to place on our . . . THE ACTING SPEAKER: The hon. minister.

April 22, 1999 Alberta Hansard 1221 Point of Order Questioning a Member DR. WEST: Would the member entertain a question in debate? MR. WHITE: I have a bit of a problem when the member opposite wants to ask me questions when that man has yet to answer one single question I have ever put to him. I have difficulty with that. Madam Speaker, in speaking on the point of order further, today I had to provide him after the fact with the information from his department on his web site to answer the question that I asked, and he didn’t answer it still. So I don’t know. What part of question and answer is the man missing?

I fail to understand. THE ACTING SPEAKER: The chair would take that as a no, hon. member. MR. WHITE: Very perceptive, Madam Speaker. You’re just really quick. [interjection] It’s a “maybe” for another day, I’m informed by a member on this side. Debate Continued MR. WHITE: There’s another area that is open for debate here that is not contained in this act and that perhaps should be. However, these remarks come from an urban member and not a rural member of the province. I would like to think bicycle helmets are debated much more fully in this House.

Whether you’re riding in the country or you’re doing some backcountry riding on one of the modern bicycles with suspensions, you’ll see that those that ride on a regular basis always do wear a helmet. I mean, it’s a matter of course. They understand. They’ve come off their bicycles enough times to know that not only does the head come down a little faster than it should, but getting an arm out to stop it doesn’t always save a damaged skull. Now, I would think that as the advent of seat belts has been brought along, it was slow in coming.

It took a long time to convince a great deal of people that it was a reasonable thing to do to protect themselves and to protect society. Well, I would have thought that the introduction of helmets, at least for those that are under 18, to enforce that while they grow up -- yes, you might not for the first few years be able to fully enforce the act. In fact, it would be darn difficult to enforce it. But over time children would come to know that when riding a bicycle, part of a bicycle’s equipment is in fact a helmet.

It would progress, and by the time we’re well into the next century, those children coming up and becoming adults would in fact feel naked on a bicycle without a helmet. I know that a good friend of mine rides probably 5,000 kilometres a year, and he can’t get close to a bicycle without one of three helmets that he has, depending on the weather conditions, because he cannot feel right about riding without one. He has survived many a crash, and at least two of them were serious enough that he thinks he could have sustained damage to his skull had he not been wearing one.

Now, I don’t ride a bicycle that much myself anymore, but I’m getting to the point now where a helmet even for me is becoming a standard piece of apparel. When I grew up, of course, we didn’t know what a helmet was, although we did know what an injury was, having sustained a number of them myself. The remainder of the act and the depth which the minister has gone through and analyzed various parts of it is quite impressive, and I’m quite impressed with the initiation of the discussion of graduated licences.

As a father of two driving-aged teenagers, one 16 and one 17, I’m painfully aware of the lack of experience. Now, how one graduates a licence, whether it be on the basis of allowing drivers to have a graduated testing of a licence . . . DR. WEST: We were thinking more of your age group. MR. WHITE: Madam Speaker, it seems to me that there is probably a lot of room in this Legislature for one member or another to rise in their place and to enter debate.

I would think that one that has so much to say so often might put it all together, may be able to put it all together and be able to say it in seven to 10 minutes perhaps or maybe even expand to a full 20. But it doesn’t seem to be the case. It seems to be that these interjections from points west are coming in all the time. Oh, sorry; we’re actually facing east. Unfortunately it’s so. MR. SAPERS: But then you wouldn’t get the pun. MR. WHITE: That’s right. It would be a totally punless statement had it been made the other way around. Madam Speaker, I’m doing the best one can to speak to the bill here.

The member that so rudely interrupted me while I was speaking might have known that I was complimenting the minister on putting forward this part of the bill at least for discussion, if he can’t get it put into law as yet or if he thinks there are other ways of doing it. There certainly was a great deal of discussion around high schools, my son’s high school in particular, and it was not all negative.

They in fact are responsible e nough to know that they don’t have all the sk ills to operate a motor vehicle totally and completely unfettered the day that they turn 16 and can pass an examination that is in two parts. One is a simple driving test, and the other is 20 questions on the rules of the road. Any one of them that can get past grade 9 can spend two hours studying and pass that part of an examination. That gives you an operator’s licence, but it doesn’t give you licence to go out and put people’s lives in danger and your own in particular, and the students know that.

They’re quite aware that driving is a dangerous activity and that it does take a certain amount of experience to attain a level where you in fact are competent. Now, the difficulty is -- and the minister knows it well -- that an urban-born teenager and one that is born and lives on a farm are totally different. A young fellow that becomes 13 on a farm knows how to get the half-ton from the barn to the front of the house and moves equipment and vehicles around all of the time and becomes quite competent at driving at a very, very early age.

So in fact that person at 16 could be a very, very competent driver and, depending on personality traits, be equal to a driver much, much more experi- enced in years on the road than certainly that person would be. 3:50 The act is going to have to be quite specific as to the driving rules, that a full, unfettered operator’s licence is given to a new driver on the basis of competence. That would be doing graduated testing, but of course that would cost a lot of money, which this government doesn’t want to part with, or it’s simply put down as a matter of years that a person has been on this Earth.

I would like to think we could be a little more creative than that, but this act doesn’t seem to provide for that, although it certainly has opened the debate for some further consideration of graduated licensing. Briefly in closing, Madam Speaker, I’m happy to support this bill, although with reservations in those three areas that I have outlined, and I shall take my place and wait for further debate. Thank you, Madam Speaker. THE ACTING SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glenora.

1222 Alberta Hansard April 22, 1999 MR. SAPERS: Thanks very much, Madam Speaker. I’ve certainly enjoyed listening to the debate so far on Bill 24 and wanted to make a few comments myself and thank the minister for his usual gentlemanly co-operation with the oppos ition as he’s bringing forward legislation. There are a few comments and concerns that I have, and I’ll try to keep my comments brief. Administrative licence suspension is very controversial, and I must admit that I am still listening very closely to input I am r eceiving from my constituents on this matter.

I’ve made it a habit over the last few weeks to put into conversation this whole notion of administrative suspension. On the one hand, I don’t think we can ever do enough when it comes to enforcing the law about drinking and driving. I don’t think we can ever too often repeat the need to educate people about the dangers and then put our money where our mouth is and make sure that we’re doing every- thing we can to stop the carnage that comes from the deadly combination of alcohol and motor vehicles.

That being said, the police are being put in a very difficult position, and I’m not sure it’s one that they’ve asked for or one that they’re in some respects adequate to assume. That’s got nothing to do with the professionalism of our police forces and our police personnel in this province, and it has nothing to do with their ability to make quality judgments under difficult circumstances, but it has everything to do with the role they play within the overall context of the criminal justice system. The police are not there to be agents of political will, and the police are not there to be judge and jury.

The police are there to investigate crime and to enforce the law and then to provide to other players in the system the evidence needed to proceed with charges, to proceed with prosecution, and if the facts warrant it to proceed to a conviction and then ultimately a sentence or a consequence. I really am of two minds on this issue and need to hear more from not just the constituents of Edmonton-Glenora, but I am hopeful that we are going to be receiving some i nput from all members of this Assembly on what they’re hearing in their hometowns as well.

This is a significant, significant move that has everything to do with safety, with perceptions of safety, with the police, with the percep- tion of the role and the powers of the police. It has to do with our rights guaranteed under the Charter. It has to do with the separation of the various components of our political and justice systems, and I don’t think we should enter into this change lightly or easily. I have less concerns about graduated licensing. In fact I think it’s a pretty good idea.

Now, I say this having had a discussion briefly with my children, who are rapidly approaching the age where they will be getting their learners’ licences, and they didn’t think it was such a great idea. They said, “Well, dad, did you have these restrictions when you were learning how to drive?” I said, “Well, no, but I was a very responsible kid.” They said, “Well, dad, do you think that we’re not responsible kids?” I said: “No. Your mother is doing a wonderful job. I think you are responsible kids, but it’s a different time. There’ll be more pressure on you than I had.

I lived in a kinder, simpler, gentler time.” They said, “Well, dad, but didn’t you used to drag race?” I said, “Well, yeah, I did, but I was only on a course, only when we went out to the drag strip.” They said, “But, dad, what about that whole album you had of all of those pictures?” I said, “Well, yeah, but those -- go talk to your mother.” The fact is that for a long time we’ve been struggling with ways, legal and fair ways, to help ease young people into safe driving and safe driving habits.

I know from my own experience and in dealing with the young people in my community and particularly with my own children that, all joking aside, it is a different time. I think it may be a very responsible act, as I say, to ease young people into the responsibility that comes with having a driver’s licence and being in command and control of all that horsepower and all that metal. I also have some comments that I’d like to make about the question of bicycle helmets. My same very responsible children, Madam Speaker, that I was just speaking of, will not let me on my bicycle without wearing a helmet.

When I had my first two-wheeler, we didn’t have helmets. Nobody had a helmet, and the suggestion or the thought of a helmet never even came to mind. Maybe it should have, but it didn’t, yet there has been absolutely a social change. MR. SEVERTSON: That’s what happened to you, Howard. MR. SAPERS: Yeah. The Member for Innisfail-Sylvan Lake says, “That’s what happened to you.” Well, member, it’s true. I did fall off my bike onto my head more than once, but of course we had a health care system that I could count on in those days.

We still have a health care system that’s populated by exceptional men and women doing everything they can in difficult circumstances. Madam Speaker, the fact is that there has been a social change. Much as there has been social change about the mixture of alcohol and driving, there’s been a social change about the use of bicycle helmets. My kids have helmets. They will not ride their bikes without them, and their mother and I don’t have to remind them.

It’s as natural to them as putting on their shoes before they go outside to get on their bikes, just like they won’t sit in the car and drive around without being in their seat belts. Some of those education programs I guess have worked, and the peer pressure, the social pressure is having an impact. 4:00 With all

Document details

Collection	Alberta — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	19990422
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	L24 S3 19990422 1330 01 han.pdf
Language	en
Format	json
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	997f7ec97d71189574ba48cbf15eb915177daa92

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