April 7, 2003 Alberta Hansard 835 Legislative Assembly of Alberta Title: Monday, April 7, 2003 8:00 p.m. Date: 2003/04/07 [The Deputy Speaker in the chair] The Deputy Speaker: Please be seated. head : Motions Other than Gover nment Motions Water Supply Standards 505. Dr. Nicol moved:

Be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly urge the govern- ment to create an organization si milar to the C lean Ai r Strategic Alliance fo r Alberta’s water supply to ensure that Alberta’s water supply is maintained at the highest standards possible. [Debate adjourned March 24: Mrs. O’Neill speaking] The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for St. Albert. Mrs. O’Neill: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I had begun last time, I was speaking about Alberta being able to manage its water supply thanks to a rela tively abundant supply of clea n water that me ets Albertans’ needs and our desire to maintain a healthy aquatic environment, but Alberta is facing a number of pressures on its water resources. As our population levels have surged in the past decade, this province has seen rapid industrial, agricultural, and municipal growth. This has increased the pressures on existing water supplies, thereby potentially affecting the quality of surface water an d certainly of groundwater.

As i ncreased demands are plac ed on our wa ter resour ces, the quality of that product becomes more relevant. As we monitor this situation more closely, we are learning more about natural pathogens in surface water that are difficult to treat by municipal water treatment facili ties. T hese patho gens hav e the abili ty and the potential t o cause w aterborne i llnesses such as thos e seen in Walkerton or North Battleford in recent times. As the h uman p opulation in A lberta inc reases, the uses of industrial water also increase.

Understanding an d monitoring the quality of surf ace water is v ery important, and in or der to do t his effectively, monitoring and testing methods need to focus on three categories of ch aracteristics: ch emical, phys ical, and biologic al. Surface water quality varies naturally throughout Alberta. Quality is based on differences in local conditions such as climate an d geology, and water quality is also affected by human activities. There are three major factors that affect water quality, all of which are subject to human influence.

First of all, of course, the water quality; number tw o, th e point sources ; and numbe r three, the nonpoint sources. Each of these factors represents an opportunity for water quality management, and water quality is ultimately the government of Albe rta’s respo nsibility. Thus we ta ke this v ery seriously. There is a growing demand for water in Alberta and a decreasing supply. There i s also incr easing uncertainty about t he ability to predict water suppl y and of c ourse its demand. Officials ca n estimate demand lev els to a degree, but with uncertain weather patterns supply is more difficult to predict.

Alberta has a significant amount of groundw ater, yet the re is a l ack of knowledg e and understanding of its groundwater resources. So certai n basins in some areas of the province are nearing the limits of water allocation, particularly during dry periods when less water is flowing into the rivers and streams. Alberta must continue to honour its commitments to Saskatche- wan and Montana with regard to the amount of water that will flow into each jurisdiction. One can certainly appreciate that because of this charact eristic wa ter quality and quantity must be caref ully tracked and monitored in this p rovince.

As many of my southern rural colleagues can attest, some economic opportunities are being lost in this area because of lack of sufficient water. With the water for life initiative that this government has introduced, Mr. Speaker, we strive to meet these demands with feasible solutions. The point that is being rais ed here is that the hon. member’s motion is a step forward in the process of improving our valuable environment, and this governmen t is already undertaking such an initiative. Mr.

Speak er, I am so very, very pleased to see that the hon. member of the Liberal opposition party is finally beginning to realize the merits of a Progressive Conservative way of thinking, and I’m happy to see that a Liberal has begun to articulate these perspec- tives on a clean air strategy that has already taken flight under the leadership of the Department of Environment, Clean Air Strategic Alliance. It is for these reasons, Mr. Speaker, that I am in favour of Motion 505. Thank you. The Deputy Speaker: There are only two minutes remaining. The hon. Member for Lac La Biche-St.

Paul in the two minutes that we have left. Mr. Danyluk: Good evening, Mr. Spea ker. I’m glad to hav e the opportunity to say a couple of brief words about Motion 505. It’s not very often that we find ourselves in such ag reement with the Official Opposition about how well a government initiative works. For that reason, I’d like to give my support to the hon. Member for Lethbridge-East for the motion.

I guess I would lik e to say that I think that when we do meet as gove rnment for an i nitiative, it is very, ve ry po sitive, a nd again I would like to compli ment the member opposite for his efforts and for our conjunction. Thank you. The Deputy Speaker: In the time remaining, the hon. Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition. Dr. Nicol: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s a real pleasure for me to rise tonight and to thank all of those who spoke on this motion.

It’s really important that we bring it forward and make sure that this kind of an approach reflects the k ind of s pirit that was in the water strategy that the minister made public in the debate period for this motion. The inte resting par t of th is, M r. Sp eaker, is tha t I beg an my professional career doing water policy analysis in the United States, and some of the work we did was with some of the major commis- sions and congre ssional ag encies in the Unite d Sta tes from the National Water Commission, the National Science Foundation, the Environmental Protection Agency.

This kept me busy down there for about eight or nine years looking at what would happen to water, water quality, the issues of water availability, interbasin transfers, all of these kinds of things with economic models and spatial models of looking at water across the United States. At one time I was running the largest computer simulation model outside of the U.S. military. So, you know, these a re some of the things that reflect on the commitment that water and water management really have played in the focus that I’ve taken in a lot of my career.

I’m not saying that now to indicate that just because this is a motion that I’m bringing forward here, that’s going to be the end of my career by any means, but this is kind of the background that I can put to talking about how

836 Alberta Hansard April 7, 2003 important it is that we as a prov ince really make a commitment to water, water quality, and all of the issues that the minister had in that strategy. I’ve had a chance in the intervening week to go through a lot of it. I c an’t say that I’ve read every word of it, but I’ve gone through a significant amount of it, and this is the kind of thing that we need to start.

We need to make that kind of a commitment to the water resources of this province and make sure that in the end there’s strong public input but also a strong monitoring system in place, and this motion would in effect put in place a monitoring system that reflects what the minister has put into the structure of that water strategy.

I guess it just kind of shows that in southern Alberta we’ve lived with water and water management issues for a long time, and when you get to thinking about them, there’s one kind of solution that you need, and it comes out when you start tryin g to pu t together these ki nds of strategies. So it’s the idea that in effect what we’re going to have through this process is a strong comm itment t hat wat er is im portant to our province and that we need to make sure that water plays a role in the future, helps our province reach into the future.

We w ant to make sure that each one of us when we pick up a glass of water can say: this is q uality. It’s saf e. The g overnment has in plac e all the appropriate monitoring systems that will allow for Albertans to feel confident about that w ater system.

You know, living just on the edge of Feedlot Alley, the idea of water, the impact on water, the relationship between economic growth in an area and water quality is kind of like everyday coffee shop talk in our area, and this is one of the things that people are always say ing, that there is a balance, there is a way to make sure that water is a resource that we value, that we prote ct, but that it c an be used a s a ma jor component in growth and the direction of our province. 8:10 You know, Mr.

Speaker, I think that I want to just commend the minister on his water strategy initiative that w as put onto the w eb site. I thin k it fit s very well with the intent tha t I had wi th this motion, and I think that if we let this w ork t hrough the process outlined by the m inister, we’ll have a really great oppor tunity for water and water protection in our province. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. [Motion Other than Government Motion 505 carried unanimously] Provincial Education Savings Plan 506. Mr. Herard moved on behalf of Ms Graham:

Be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly urge the govern- ment to explore new means of helping students finance their postsecondary educatio n inclu ding the establish ment of a provincial education s avings pl an to supplement Canada’s registered education savings plan. Mr. Herard: Mr. Speaker, it’s my pleasure to rise today to introduce Motion 506 on behalf of the Me mber for Calg ary-Lougheed. I’m quite honoured that the hon. Member for Calgary -Lougheed has asked me to begin debate on this motion, because she knows that I have more than a passing interest in this issue.

Motion 506 urges the government “to ex plore new means of helping students finance their postsecondary education.” M r. Speaker, one of the reasons that the Member for Calgary-Lougheed has brought this motion forward is because many families around the province are fi nding it incr easingly diffic ult to provide for th eir children’s postsecondary education. Thi s is happe ning at a t ime when postsecondary education is becoming increasingly important in this day and age if Alberta wants to continue to prosper.

I think it’s common knowledge that over 70 percent of all jobs in Canada require some form of postsecondary education. Today’s economy is fueled by knowledge, and we m ust find ways to ensure that all Albertans can afford to m aximize their potential and to maximize that knowledge. Over the past 10 years the total cost of postsecondary education, like most other things, has been going up. When I refer to the cost of postsecondary education, I’m not strictly referring to tuition fees. There is far more inv olved in the cost of e ducation than t uition alone.

We often hear statements that refer to Alberta as having some of the most affordable tuition rates in Canada. This may be true, but what abou t all the other costs ? Do we really have af fordable postsecondary education when all costs are considered? The total cost of educating students includes other amounts such as university fees, fees like m aterial and services fees, athletics a nd recreation fees, administration fees , and student uni on fees, which in a nd of themselves may also include a number of other fees.

Students must buy textbooks, calculators, and other supplies, but of course it does not end there because for many students who do not live where they choose to attend, ther e’s still room and board to dis burse plus additional expenses such as transportation, personal allowance, and household expenses. For man y fa milies that all a dds up to a significant financial burden and is among the reasons why m any students throughout the province are having difficulties funding their educational needs or, what is perhaps more serious, are discouraged from attending at all.

Now, granted, students can apply for student loans, but t hey may not receive the amount of sup port they really need. We need to f ind new w ays to encourage families to fund t heir children’s postsecondary education, and, Mr. Speaker, that’s what Motion 506 is about. It simply asks the government to explore new ways of helping stude nts and their fam ilies f und postseconda ry studies. Having said that, is it solely government’s responsibility to fund postsecondary education, or is there a shared responsibility on the part of families to save for their children’s education?

Govern- ment already funds around 70 percent of the cost of postsecondary education, and in my view that’s a significant contribution, but I believe what we must do is find new ways to encourage families to save for part of the postsecondary education costs of their children. One of the possibilities that I’ve been working on for some time is ways to encourage a provincewide culture of family savings for their children’s postsecondary education. One way may be for the government to institute a savings grant similar to Canada’s registered education savings plan grant.

The Canada education savings grant was established by the federal government, and it works by having government pay a 20 percent g rant on the first $2,000 of annual contribution made to eligible registered savings plans. My research shows that fewer than 20 percent of Alberta students have an RESP. Just think what could be done if all of our children had RESPs. Studies show that 80 percent of children who do have RESPs go on to postsecondary training. This is significantly higher than our current experience with the number of grade 12 graduates that go on to postsecondary.

As I understand it, we’re at about 50 percent eventual participation right now of our grade 12 graduates in postsecondary. So this is something that is worth looking at. The government of Alberta could institute a program similar to the one at the f ederal le vel. W e could contri bute to RESPs o f a prospective student in an amount that would encourage families to match it and star t a savi ngs plan v ery e arly i n the life of their children. This would clearly establish that postsecondary funding is a joint responsibility and would encourage a culture of saving within our families.

April 7, 2003 Alberta Hansard 837 Another area tha t government should ex plore is re vamping the student loan system. Is the current system doing the job? Are the parental income thr esholds appropr iate in al l cases? What a bout support for part-time students, Mr. Speaker? What about additional costs of rural students or urban students that must move to a different location to pursue their education? These are all questions that must be considered if we want to have the best support for postsecondary education for all students regardless of where they live.

Alberta’s future economy and quality of life depend on it. I look forward to the debate, and I urge all hon. members to vote in favour of Motion 506 today. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for St. Albert. Mrs. O’Neill: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It is a pleasure for me to rise in the Assembly this evening and join the discussion and the debate on Motion 506.

This motion urges the government, as the previ ous speak er has indic ated, to explore ne w me ans of helping students finance their postsecondary education, and I believe it goes w ithout saying that w e all beli eve that postseconda ry education in whichever form and shape it takes for each individual is indeed valuable not only to that individual but to the community at large and certainly to the strength of both the workforce and the thought force of all Albertans.

So I stand in support of the motion because I feel that this exploration would offer valuable insight, and it is a very important initiative at this time. I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the insight that the Member for Calgary-Lougheed has contained in her work on this motion. It raises some important issue s that nee d to be ad - dressed regarding student financing fo r postsecondary schooling, training, education. 8:20 This motion, in addition to explori ng new measures, would also examine the establishment of a provincial registered ed ucation savings plan.

Many of us have had the experience and fortunately been given the direction so that when our children were small we did invest in an ed ucation savings plan sim ply because we knew the money could be use d, but I th ink th ere are other means and other multiple ways in which parents can of course look to the future on behalf of their own children. So now more than ever education is extremely important. We all know that. It’ s importan t if w e want t o compete in our global knowledge-based s ociety. Howev er, postse condary students ar e faced with increasing costs of tuition and educational materials.

We know that. We know that the institutions, as we dialogue with both the students and the staff, realize that it costs more to educate more these days. I believe w e must revi sit our polici es surrounding financial assista nce progra ms f or those w ho are pursuing postsecondary education because the benchmark for a basic educa- tion has indeed risen and risen in the last 25 years. Alberta does ha ve a comprehensive portfolio of flexible student finance programs. We know that, and ava ilable assistance ranges from bursaries and scholarships to both student loans and grants.

But I feel that it is important to continually search for new and better methods and p rograms to ass ist th ose wa nting to attend a postsecondary institution. I also believe that it is our responsibility as legislators to cre ate an env ironment that enables individuals to plan and to provide for their own immediate families and their own futures, for that matter. One possible measure the government could include in its study is provincial student loans for part-time students. We are in a society where many people learn on a part-time basis. They don’t just learn partly; they learn wholly.

But often it takes a longer ti me, and it’s well integrated into their work site, the workforce, and their family lives. When student loans were first implemented in Alberta, they were done so in an effort to help low-income students deserving of entry into a postsecondary program to pay the associated costs of doing so.

But it has bec ome apparent that th e costs to attend post secondary institutions have risen in conjunction with and to reflect an institu- tion’s operating cost, and we know that as we see the fluctuation in the percentages that both the gov ernment, t he private grants a nd assistance, and individual tuition contribute to the cost of educating students in our postsecondary institutions.

So it’s no t only lower income families that are expe riencing di fficulties fundi ng the education of their children but many middle-income families as well, and indeed we cannot forget that many individuals themselves need that extra assistance even though they are the main contributors to the financing of their own postsecondary education.

So as the sy stem s tands, part- time s tudents canno t apply for provincial student assistance, and therefore the government, I think, should research the provision of extending the student assistance and changing the rules for provincial student loans b ecause citizens of this province deserve at least the opportunity – and I stress that – to pursue the career of their choice and to contribute and benefit from the Alberta advantage.

Another possible provision that is highlighted in the motion is the establishment of a registered education savings plan program, which would allow s avings to grow ta x free until the stude nt is ready to attend a postsecondary institution full-time. The Alberta government could provide a grant to RE SPs to help futur e students s ave for postsecondary education, and this savings plan is favourable because the income accumulated on the contributions of the grant, as well as the grant itse lf, does not become taxable until the student uses the RESP to fund their education.

Usu ally at that tim e, if a ttending school full-time, they have little income to claim and therefore would pay little or no tax on the RESP income. Mr. Spe aker, fin ancial assi stance for u niversity, c ollege, or a technical school ed ucation is a m eans of contributing t o our economy as well as a way to help in dividual Albertans improve themselves, improve their communities, contribute to the knowledge- based economy that I believe we’re moving into more rapidly than we sometimes admit, and this, in turn, improves our province as a whole.

This initiative is about assisting young Albertans to get the education they ne ed in order to compete in a glob al, knowledge- based economy dominated by technology, by advanced skills, and by superior thinking s kills. I say s uperior; I mean in that sense advanced and quite sophisticated.

It is in Albe rta’s best interest to have a n educated popul ace, a populace that is flexible enough to adapt to the challenges that they face in the workforce and in everyday life, because a strong knowl- edge base provides individuals with the skills to be innovators and entrepreneurs, and furthermore a well-trained workforce is important to the Alberta economy and significantly contributes to our produc- tivity and capacity while developing innovative products.

As a province we should do all we can to develop successful methods to help finance the education of those individuals who are committed to pursuing lifelong learning and who need that hand up and that assistance that will enable them to live a decent life, at the same time pursuing their education formally. So, Mr. Speaker, I feel that an exploration of new measures and an examination of a possible registered education savings plan gran t could alleviate some of th e pressures that posts econdary students experience today.

So I would like to again lend my support for this motion because the measures that are possible and t hat I’ve men-

838 Alberta Hansard April 7, 2003 tioned could increa se finance accessibility for stude nts hopi ng t o attend postsecondary education. For this reason, whenever we give hope to someone and whenever we enhance the environment within their realm of possibility, when we can tell young people that there is a po ssibility that they c an achieve what t hey want in order f or them to be better citizens, I truly believe this is a good motion and I support it. Thank you. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. Dr. Massey: Thank you, Mr. Speak er.

I’m pleased to have the opportunity to make a f ew com ments a bout Motion 506 and to certainly support the mover and the intent of the motion. I think it’s something that’s long overdue. It’s a piece of the problem that we in the opposition have tried to address with a motion. I believe it’s a motion that’s coming up, and I think it’s an important motion.

One of the things that I think has really concerned us has been the perspective that has been taken on postsecondary education by the government, and that notion I think has b een expre ssed by the Minister of Learning in the House a number of time s, by other members of the government too, the notion that because only a small percentage of students go on to postse condary education and that those students are the primary benefactors of that education, they, in fact, should bear the burden of paying for it.

He points out, I think on a number of occasions – and I may have the wrong examples – that taxi drivers and people who are less educated, bricklayers and other people, end up paying taxes t hat support students in these institutions. What he omits in the argument, of course, is that those same taxi driv ers and post al work ers and al l of us in f act are benefactors of having a well -educated citizenry, pa rticularly the kinds of specialists that are developed at our colleges, universities, and technical institutes.

The v ery highways and bridges we drive across, the expectations we have when we go to hospitals, the kind of care that we place our children in when we put them in our public school systems: those are all places where a ll of us, regardless of your occupation, benefit from having students pursue a postsecond- ary education and become the specialists that allow those services to be delivered to ourselves and for our families. 8:30 So, as I said, I was alarmed at the perspective, and if nothing else I hope that maybe Motion 506 will cause the government to at least revisit that perspective and their view of students.

There are a number of things such a review could look at, in particular the place of grants. I think that most would admit that the Americans have a far, far more generous grant sy stem to en courage s tudents to participate in postsecondary education in that country than we have here. In fact, I recently read an

article that indicated that a student south of the borde r with fairly good grades, average grades could expect to rely on the grant system to pay most of the cost of a four- year program at one of the public institutions there and certainly at the college level. So I hope that part of the review that is undertaken as part of Mo tion 506 looks very seriously at grants and the grant system.

I think the indications that such a review is needed are all around us, the most recent being the introduction of differential fees, I think a backward step in our prov ince, first at the University of Alberta and then at the University of Calgary, where we’re going to see in some faculties astr onomical increases in the kinds of tuition that students are going to have to pay. With it, ther e’s going to be the obligation for stude nts to find w ays to pay for them a nd ways to finance them. So this motion, I think, in light of that development is timely.

I think the fact that we’re running food banks on our campuses is something that we should be ashamed of. That we have students that have to rely on that kind of a service is an indicator of the kind of financial position that students in this province find themselves in, a position that I think is really unnecessary. There are a number of ideas that I hope, as I said, would be looked at with the motion should it be successful.

One of the things tha t we’ve looked at in the opposition and have been promoting is the whole notion of contingency repayment plans so that students could repay their loans based on the kinds of occu pations that the y are employed in on graduation. So someone who’s in an occupation that doesn’t pay quite as well would have their loan payments adjusted to reflect that inc ome as compared to someone who may have a higher earning job and be able to pay back a loan more rapidly.

I think there’s an opportunity here to review our commitment that was made by Canada in 1976 at the United Nations where we along with a number of other countries agreed that we w ould move free education up a year at a time as finances permitted. So we w ould move to the fir st year of colle ge being tuition fre e, to the se cond, third, and fourth until you g ot to the point w here a st udent in the province could obtain a degree tuition free, much as they now secure their high school programs. I think what it did was cause all of us to reflect on what e xactly we do to s tudents.

W hat is the m agic between grade 12 an d the first year o f c ollege or uni versity or technical school? Why all of a sudden in grade 12 are you supported by the public tax system for that education, and when you turn a year older, that support is withdrawn and you’re faced with some pretty terrific burdens when you look, as I say, at tuition and particularly at the new differential fees? So I think that for a nu mber of reasons it’s a good motion. It ’s timely. I look forward to the motion passing and being acted upon. Thanks, Mr. Speaker. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Fort. Mr.

Cao: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I rise this evening to participate in the discussion, debate on Motion 506, exploring new means for helping students finance postsecondary education. I have a convictio n i n the huma n resource developm ent of A lbertans because I believe that our Alberta economic strength and quality of living depend on higher education. Investment in education brings multiple returns.

A lso, as the chair of the Committee on Lifelong Learning I have a deep interest in the subject matter, and I want to acknowledge the need to he lp Albert ans to retur n and c ontinue learning as their career changes. We can see all of this as a sound economic development policy for Alberta, and I have the feeling that the hon. Minister of Econ omic Development and the Minis ter of Human Resources and Employment agree with me on this point. [Mr. Lougheed in the chair] Motion 506 would allow the government to look at new ways of helping students fund their education. Tuition costs are increasing every year .

Students a re encou ntering an overa ll rise in c osts associated with att ending postse condary education, inc luding increases in rent, food, labs, books, other supplies. Both the federal and Alberta governments do provide financial support to those attending postsecondary education on a full-time basis. However, the incre ase in costs to stu dents call s for n ew m easures to be explored and exam ined. New provisions f or helping st udents finance their education equate to more students being able to afford postsecondary education.

The Alberta government is dedicated to ensuring that posts econdary education re mains a ccessible and

April 7, 2003 Alberta Hansard 839 affordable to all Albertans. It is clear that this motion is consistent with the government’s commitment. Mr. Speaker, Alberta Learning, under the leadership of the hon. Minister of Learning, continues to ensure that our excellent educa- tion system is sustainable and remains so to m eet the current a nd future needs of students. T he government provides financial aid where cost may be a barrier for postsecondary education. The total provincial and federal assistance to Alberta students is forecasted to be approximately $470 million.

The government provides funds to students through a v ariety of schola rships, gra nts, bursari es, and loans. Postsecondary students who receive Alberta student loans are also eligible for loan relief in their first year and after their final year of study. T hese benefits ar e applied only against Alberta student loan funds. The mentioned programs show the government’s commitment to supporting and assis ting students with cos ts assoc iated w ith postsecondary education.

Howev er, it is alw ays im portant to continue to search for new measures and provisions which may lead to innovative approaches to student assistance. It is in the public interest for all Alberta residents to have r easonable a ccess t o postsecondary education and training. Studen ts sh ould not be denied the opportunity to attend post secondary institutions due to their lack of financial means. However, we need to find a balance of student assistance programs that are affordable for the government and for the students.

Motion 506 allows the government to explore possible new alternatives. 8:40 It is important that we do not underestimate the opportunity we have to better the lives of those Albertans who have strived to better themselves. We have the ability to provide educational opportunity to individuals who might think they do not have the chance to get a specific type of education an d tra ining. Mr.

Speaker, if there is a way that we can mak e it easier fo r Alberta students to access financial assistance and att ain the educ ation they desire, we wi ll benefit as a province by equipping these individuals to contribute to our vibrant e conomy. T his motion doe s not outline a ny fir m measures but rather i s flexible to study the entire issue and i s not held within a boundary with only one provision. Motion 506 is able to examine a variety of different ways to assist students with funding for their postsecondary education. Mr.

Speaker, Motion 506 hopes to explore new measures to help students finance thei r postseco ndary educat ion. Thi s initiat ive would allow a possible provincial registered education savings plan, for example, to ass ist students in financing their education. New funding alternatives could possibly help more Albertans to pursue a specific c areer and those who may hav e otherwise abandoned postsecondary schooling and training. I want to commend the MLA for Calgary-Lougheed for bringing this issue forward.

I support thi s initiativ e and urge all my col- leagues to vo te in fa vour of Moti on 506 and the ex ploration of possible new means to help students finance their advanced studies. Thank you. The Acting Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo. Mr. Cenaiko: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I’m pleased to join the debate on Motion 506 and add what I believe are construc- tive and effective ways to help students afford their postsecondary education. The escalating costs related to goi ng to school a re not going to slow down.

Tuition will continue to rise, but so will other expenses such as rent, utilities, textbooks, an d f ood. As A lberta continues to grow, the cost of living will continue to rise. There are ways to protect students and encourage others to pursue postsecond- ary education. Some peo ple may shy away from pursuing h igher learning because they feel that they can’t afford the expense. It is true that school i sn’t cheap, but it’s also a fact that postsecondary education leads to bigger and better opportunities for graduates. Mr.

Speaker, many of the options and ideas provided during this debate include modifications to Alberta’s student loan system, but I believe that Motion 506 provides an opportunity for this Assembly to look at ways to reduce expenses for students rather than injecting more money into the student loan system. There are many ways to help st udents af ford unive rsity besides more funding for stude nt loans. First of all, Mr. Speaker, I think it would be a good idea for this government to explore the viability of encouraging and sponsoring registered education savings plans.

RESPs have become enormously popular for a number of reasons. The federal government’s Canada education savings grant matches RESP contributions up t o $2,000 per year. An Hon. Member: How much? Mr. Cenaiko: Two thousand dollars per year. As we all know, postsecondary education has become increasingly expensive. Acco rding to Statistics Canada university tuition fees have increased 126 percent in the last 10 years. Mr. Speaker, based on the projected cost of postsecondary education, RESPs may be the best idea to help fund postsecondary education in the long run but do little to help students right now.

However, I have a few ideas that will help students who are already in school or who are planning to attend in the futur e. S ome of thes e options incl ude reducing the amount for student housing, looking at more campus-style housing, and finding ways to slow down the escalating prices of textbooks. I have le arned that t here’s a need to cre ate opportunitie s to develop more secondary suites in Alberta. These secondary suites do not have to be derelict housing, as some critics would suggest.

I believe that the Alberta government should encourage municipalities to create more R2 zoning, which would allow more secondary suites. These suites could substantially reduce the amount of money needed for housing. For students not living at home, living expenses can easily exceed $6,000 over an eight-month school year. I know of several students who take a class and try to sell their textbooks back to the bookstore to cover some of the expenses of future purchases, but a problem arises when a professor chooses to use the most recent version of the same book.

This becomes a major ex pense for students, w ho are basically forced to pay top dollar for an identical book. I believe that utilizing Supernet would reduce the need for stude nts to buy new versions of the sa me book, and I, Mr. Spe aker, pe rsonally went through this sam e issue s ome 25 y ears ag o at the Univ ersity of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon. Rather th an increa sing the m inimum wage , Mr. Speak er, the government could provide an earned income tax credit.

I understand that it is not this government’s policy to provide an abundance of tax credits because Albertans already enjoy a low-rate broad-based system, but this tax credit would benefit students who work part-time while attending school. Under this system, used a great deal in the United States, the government would reverse-tax low-income earners attending school. The earned income tax credit is a refundable tax credit for low-income earners. The United States federal government designed this system to help offset the burden of social security taxes and provide an incentive to work.

This Assembly should consider a similar program for students working part-time who earn less than $10,000 a year. This system would reward those students with the

840 Alberta Hansard April 7, 2003 time management skills to work a few hours a week while going to school. Rewarding work m ay al so encourage students to be less dependent on the student loan system. The American program also allows employees with children t o receive an advance on their credits through their paycheques. The employee and employer fill out a form that allows the employer to pay part of the credit throughout the year. Again, Mr. Speaker, this program could be adopted for postsecondary students struggling to make ends meet.

Earned tax credits would reward students working part-time and offer incentive for students to gain employment. Most importantly, the program would keep more money in the pockets of students, money that would not have to be paid back to the govern- ment. They could e arn $7 an hour but then g et topped of f on the employer’s payroll. Mr.

Speaker, I believe and I realize that the ideas proposed are not the conventiona l solutions f or po stsecondary students, but these policies would send a message that students are val ued, t hese policies would also show the students that their concerns are heard and are being addressed by the Alberta government, and finally these alternative methods for alleviating the financial barriers for pursuing higher learning would encourage more Albertans to go to school. These ideas should at least be explored as asked in Motion 506. Lowering expenses is the same as giving more money to students.

These strategies may save students a nd taxpayers in the long run. Motion 506 is a ste p in the right direction and is a motion that we must all support. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The Acting Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. Ms Carlson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have some concerns with this particular motion as we see it before us. I don’t think that it necessarily addresses the real problems. I think it’s skirting around at the symptoms once again. [interjection] I know that that’s not a view shared by all o f my colleagues, but I reall y have to put my concerns on the record.

Just because he’s the Learning critic and a professor who wr ites tex tbooks, doesn’t mean he’s always r ight about everything. 8:50 Here are my concerns. My concerns now are in terms of tuition fees and getting kids into postsecondary education, which really is our goal: to get as many kids in as want to go. First of all, access to student loans is a huge problem. I know that the minister has told us repeatedly that most appeals are won and that the criteria these days is for a combined family income of $50,000 as a ceiling for people to be able to a pply, but it really is n’t enough in some families.

Because of whatever kinds of cir cumstances kids can’t access the loans. They still want to stay at home, which we should be encour- aging if we’re family oriented, and they can’t get the money. So it doesn’t matter how much the tuition is if they can’t access money for it right now. Sure we can set up another kind of plan for savings, for contributions, but that is not the circumstance of every family.

In many families there isn’t the extra $50, $100, $75, $25 a month to put into plans, and there is a system right now that works quite well. [The Deputy Speaker in the chair] I think we have to start addressing the real systemic problems in the system in terms of kids being able to access education, and I’m not convinced that this moti on is the ri ght way to go. I t hink we need to put in a program where everyone who wants a student loan can access it.

They may put a lim it, then, on what the remission amounts are b ased on c ombined family income, but if the f amily doesn’t feel that they can afford the tuition fee, then let the student access the money in some fashion so that we can get as many kids that want to go into the sy stem. That is, I think, our pr imary responsibility as parliamentarians, and I’d like to see us do that, not put in another level of plans that kids have to learn about and apply to before they can get there. It isn’t about making it harder to get educated.

It’s about making it easier to get educated, and I haven’t heard any convincing arguments so far to say that that w ill be the case with this particular motion. So I think, Mr. Speaker, that I will not be supporting it. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Lac La Biche-St. Paul. Mr. Danyluk: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It is my pleasure to rise and join the debate on Motion 506 this evening. The motion is one that must be seriously considered by this government.

I think that this motion shows this Assembly that many of us in government have to realize that posts econdary education is an important issue that must be addressed. It seems that over the past couple of years the majority of focus has been on the kindergarten through grade 12 system and not on the postsecondary system. T his has caused much unres t in the postsecondary student population. Students have demonstrated , asking for their fair share of the funding pie. Well, Mr. Speaker, I believe they get their fair share of the funding pie; however, only on paper.

I fee l that we as a gov ernment give the postseconda ry education system plenty of money to use, but I don’t feel that it is used to its ful l advanta ge. Tha t is why Motio n 506 should be supported. It gives us an opportunity to sit back and look at where we are spending the taxpayers’ money. As the motion urges the government to explore bet ter ways of helping students finance their postsecondary education, I believe the best way of helping students is to take a look at w here we are spending these resources.

I am sure that this government could find innovative wa ys an d investig ate diff erent w ays of allocating its resources to students. I do not wa nt to increa se funding, but I do believe that throwing money at problems doesn’t solve anything. It would be more prudent for us to review our policies to ensure that we are doing all we can with what we allocate. We keep hearing of these stories, that they are not as bad as we are told; they are exaggerated. Mr.

Speaker, if things were as positive in the postsecondary system, why are we hearing of increasing cases of students not having enough money for food and shelter? Why are there so many students who say that they have to go to the food bank so t hat the y can e at? The counterarg ument tha t the storie s are exaggerated is absolutely ridiculous. There are students at universi- ties and colleges th at are s truggling, and I feel th at it i s time we looked at or ex plored new ways of helping out because there ar e challenges.

For example, I heard a story of a young man who atte nded a university in southern A lberta. T his young man pre pared for his third year by working in a lumber yard during the four-month break and saved for the upcoming univer sity year. His parents ha d too high an income for him to get a loan. He didn’t have the grades for scholarships and he wasn’t poor enough for grants or bursaries, so he had to make sure he saved enough for two semesters. After the summer he had made what he felt was enough to get him by.

His savings totaled a similar amo unt as the y ear before, and since that ye ar’s income covered expenses, he fe lt his thir d yea r would be tight, but he could get through. However, when he arrived at univ ersity he qu ickly d iscovered that he migh t run into some difficulties as there were some significant price increases. First of

April 7, 2003 Alberta Hansard 841 all, the price of the textbooks went up dramat ically as many of his classes required the newest editions of the texts, an d t herefore buying used books was not an option as it had been in the past. As well, there were increases in fees that pushed up the amount that he had to pay before he got into his first class. The student was taking five classes per se mester, and the a mount he pa id was qui te a bit higher than the year before.

He did have a sma ll job with the students’ union as an elected member, so that brought in a little bit of money, but he could not work at another job because he was a full-time stu dent and his c lasses required nig ht dedication. So working was not an option. As his year started, the young m an quickly realized that he was going to run out of money. With about a month left before the end of the school year his early realization became reality, a nd he was broke with one month to go.

This came as a bit of a shock as he had lived no differently than in the previous year except that the costs had increased around him out of control, and subsequently he ran out of money. Now, thi s young man happened to b e from an upper middle-class family, and his parents helped him, and inevitably he got through his univ ersity year . Howe ver, this problem is not uncommon, and the ending is rarely as positive. Young people who don’t have their parents to fall back on can find themse lves in a stressf ul situation at t he same time a s they should be studying for their final s.

The cost of pos tsecondary education seems to in crease every year, and it is v ery difficult for students to save enough money to get through an entire year. This is why we need Motion 506. We need to find new and i nnovative ways to help these kinds of students get through at least four years of education. I urge all members to vote in favour of Motion 506. [interjection] Just as I was getting to the good part. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Deputy Speaker: The time limit for consideration of this item of business on this day has now concluded. 9:00head : Government Motions Amendments to Standing Orders 17. Mr.

Zwozdesky moved on behalf of Mr. Hancock:

Be it resolved that the Standing Orders o f the As sembly be amended as follows.

(1) Standing Order 7(1) i s amended by adding “Tablings to the Clerk” after “Tabling Returns and Reports.”

(2) Standing Order 37.1(2) is amended by stri king out “Tabling Returns and Reports” and substituting “Tablings to the Clerk.”

(3) Standing Order 58(5) is amended by striking out “imme- diately after Orders of the Day are called” and substituting “not later than 3:10 p.m. provided that Orders of the Day have already been called.”

(4) This motion comes into force April 7, 2003. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Deputy Government House Leader. Mr. Zwozdesky: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. These changes are the result of muc h consultation with the oppos ition parties and the government. The main change represents an improvement – some would call it a fix or a repair – to a long-standing procedural matter regarding Committee of Supply when it occurs in the afternoons. Mr.

Speaker, in closing I would ask for the support of all members in the Assembly regarding this motion, and I would like to thank the opposition parties for having helped draft some of the amendments and improvements as enunciate d by m e jus t earlier this evening. With that having been said, I do look forward to the recognition and support for this important motion that does bring in some significant improvements. Thank you. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. Ms Carlson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Since the ch ange we s ee there was our excellent idea, we will of course support it. [Government Motion 17 carried] head : Government Bills and Orders head: Third Reading Bill 22 Child and Family Services Authorities Amendment Act, 2003 The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo. Mr. Cenaiko: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I rise to speak to third reading of Bill 22, the Child and Family Services Authorities Amendment Act, 2003, on behalf of the hon. Minister of Children’s Services. As previ ously me ntioned in the House, the propo sed amendment to this bill is ve ry str aightforward.

It remov es the stipulation of a maximum number of members that may sit on a child and fam ily se rvices authorities board. This change a ids in the amalgamation of the child and family services authorities from 18 to 10 that is being implemented. The amendment is good news because it allows for the flexibility to me et governance needs and ensures adequate community representation on the boards. I want to comment brie fly on some of the points ra ised during discussion in Comm ittee of the Whole. The chil d and fam ily services authorities were originally fo rmed based on extensive consultation with Albertan s.

More than 3,000 A lbertans from 65 communities were consulted. A consensus from the consultations was that the system of services for children had to change to include decision-making that addressed issues of local children and families. Such a service delivery system was created and exists today. This foundation will not change through amendments in Bill 22. Mr. Speaker, local presentation will be enhanced because some of the 10 new regions will represent larger, more diverse geographical regions, and therefore boards will benefit from expanded member- ship.

If a particula r region is large in size and needs m ore board members to sufficiently meet the governance model in that child and family services authority, then that would be permitted. The hon. Minister of Children’s Services traveled the province, Mr. Speaker, consulting w ith Albertans late in 2002 and ear ly in 2003 about the issues surrounding CFSA amalgamation. Stake- holders were assured that boundary changes are not only a chance to improve the governance structure but will further entrench commu- nity involvement in service delivery for children and families.

For example, family and community support services will play more of a vital and formal role with the new CFSA boards, and we will build on existing comm unity par tnerships f or eff ective local deci sion- making. A concern w as ra ised in Com mittee of the W hole about the aboriginal pillar relating to child and family services authorities. Mr. Speaker, Children’s Services remains committed to the aboriginal pillar through its regional governance structure, and in addition to aboriginal board members each of the CFSA boards will have one aboriginal co-chair.

Reference was also made to a question surrounding administrative

842 Alberta Hansard April 7, 2003 efficiencies when dealing with large regions. Mr. Speaker, having 10 regions is not going to be more costly. We will be utilizing the built-in infrastructure already estab lished through the smaller regions. Our visi on is for the se boards to be boards of inf luence. They will be more proactive in buildin g community networks. It will be the job of the boards to serve all outlying areas and to create stronger community networks that will provide input into policies, strategic directions, and services for children, youth, and families. Mr.

Speaker, I am pleased to move third rea ding of Bill 22 because I know that it will allow the flexibility to determine the size of a board based on the specific needs of individual regions. Thank you. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. Dr. Massey: Yes. Thanks, Mr. Speaker. Just a comment or two at third reading. I was pleased to hear the me mber on behalf of the minister ta lk abou t the ma keup of the boards and the boards including aboriginal representatives. It’s something in the informa- tion that we haven’t had.

I go back to the forum First Circle: Uniting for Children that was held in 1999, and one of the recommendations at that forum was that there be at least three youth re presentatives appointed to each of the then 18 regional child and family authorities and that this also be done to school boards a nd youth justice committees. It’s a question I had n’t asked at Committee of the Whole in terms of the makeup of t he boa rds, and I w ould be interested if the minister has an outline of the kinds of groups that must be included on each of the boards.

I think i t would be in the interests of all of us to have that shared with the Assembly. I hope that that might be done at a later date. With that, I think I’ll conclude, and we’ll be supporting Bill 22. Thank you. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Mem ber for C algary-Buffalo to close debate. Mr. Cenaiko: Mr. Speaker, I’d like to close debate on Bill 22. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo has moved on behalf of the hon. Ministe r of Children’s Services third reading of Bill 22, Child and Family Services Authorities Amend- ment Act, 2003. Does the Assembly agree to the motion for third reading?

Hon. Members: Agreed. The Deputy Speaker: Opposed? The motion is carried. head : Government Bills and Orders head: Second Reading Bill 23 Family Support for Children with Disabilities Act [Adjourned debate March 10: Dr. Massey] The De puty Sp eaker: The hon. Mem ber for R ed Deer- North, followed by Edmonton-Ellerslie. Mrs. Jablonski: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m pleased to speak to second reading of Bill 23, the F amily Support f or Children w ith Disabilities Act. I outlined the bill during our debate on se cond reading on March 10. I’d like to briefly go through some . . .

Speaker’s Ruling Closing Debate The Deputy Speak er: I’ll h ave to c heck w ith the table , hon. member. My record shows that Red Deer-North has already spoken once to this bill at second reading, so the second one is not permissi- ble. It was the hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods that adjourned it. Mrs. Jablonski: I’ll close the debate. The Deputy Speaker: I think so. Yes, that would close debate. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. Ms Carlson: Thank you, Mr . Speaker. Be fore t he next e lection everyone in here will figure out what the rules are. It’s going to be just fine.

Debate Continued Ms Carlson: I’m happy to have an opportunity to speak in second reading to Bill 23, the Family Support for Children with Disabilities Act. It’s a bill that we’ve had an opportunity to send out to a few stakeholders and g et some of their comments back. What this bill does is crea te a sta nd-alone ac t to provi de servi ces that were previously delivered under a sp ecific

section of the Child Welfare Act. We’ve raised a few concerns. We’ve had a few stakeholders who say t hat there a ren’t too ma ny issues, an d we’ve had so me others who say that there are a lot. But, in essence, what it comes down to is that i t seems like, a s usual w ith government bills, the devil’s going to be in the det ails, and t he issues that we’ll see as it rolls out will be within the regulations themselves. 9:10 We do h ave some very specific concerns that w ere brought up with regard to therapeutic services that are outlined in this particular act.

The concerns that were raised were that there was no place in the act that actually instructed the director “to seek out either assessments or treatments which rely on evidence-based research.” This is a professional in the field who gave us these comments, and I think that they are actually quite interesting and should be taken into consideration by the minister, and we hope t hat wh en we get into committee, she will get back to us on her

interpretation of this particular concern that’s being brought forward. This person talks about an analogy to medicine is that it is demanded of the medical profession to practice within specific diagnostic an d treatment guidelin es developed on the basis of evidence-based research. N o such demand is placed upon most non-medical therapy services provided to children with disabilities, even when such research is available [in such areas as] the provi- sion of Ea rly Intensive Behavioral Interve ntion . . . programs for children with autism. So that’s a problem.

If we have an ability to go to evidence-based research, then clearly it seems to me that that’s where we should go, but it isn’t required as it stands right now. So they’re not instructed to seek out and use “evidence-based treatments when they exist,” and “no such demand is placed on the service providers.” What happens t hen is yo u may get less than optimal outcomes, which is not wha t we w ant when w e’re talking about k ids, and certainly not what we’ve heard the minister ever talk about in this House.

So what happens is that when they don’t have those kinds of guidelines to work with, then the outc ome is a lack of instruction. It means that those people who are rolling out the rules, the direc- tors, aren’t responsible for even knowing if the treatments exist and

April 7, 2003 Alberta Hansard 843 what they would entail. So what this person is saying is that a great deal more structure is required in this particular area. They go on to talk about: The reason for pointing out this issue is that a lack of instruction to directors ensure s that, at best, d evelopments in the delivery of services to children w ith disa bilities will be fragmented and not always moving in a positive direction.

So these days when w e see cu tbacks, f inancial c onstraints i n programs, and we want to essentially get the best bang for the buck, that’s not going to happen if you don’t have really good plans laid out for how these kids are handled within this system. He goes on again to give another medical comparison, and he talks about how “health would not be anywhere as good as it currently is if the m edical establishment followed such wide open policies as suggested in this legislation.” I think that is a very good comparison.

There are very structured protocols in medicine, and he’s saying that there is no reason why there couldn’t be very structured protocols in this particular service to children with disabilities. So if the minister could tell us what the plan is there. So that is exactly the issue that comes up in terms of the problem being with the regulations. We need to know with some certainty up front that there’s a large framework built within the system so that as events unfold, there is a structured format or protocol to follow with decision trees helping to determine what the next stage of therapy can be.

It is possible in this particular field because there is enough documented evidence to do this. He is concerned that this doesn’t show up anywhere in this particular bill and that there are enough experts in the field to be able to deter mine treatments and options. Often what will happen is that directors will turn for information to whom they think is an expert, and it may not be as comprehensive or the best possible option. So this is, I think, something that needs to be talked about.

There’s also, then, the issue that comes up in terms of regional autonomy and questions of who you go to there and who decides what the next stage of the protocol is. That’s a problem when we see what’s happened in this particular case, where there’ s a l ot of regionalization happening and there isn’t a comprehensive kind of framework from which decisions are being made. Some regions will have better access to resources and expert advice than others. There needs to be more structure within the bill. I don’t think it’s enough to leave it to the re gulations.

So if w e can get the m inister to comment about this when we get into committee, I think it would be very helpful if she can give us some idea. W e’ve seen other bills where the regulations have been posted on the web site for people to take a look at and review, and it would be very helpful, I think, if we could see some of that happen with this particular bill. There’s always a bit of concern and apprehension when we change legislation that deals with children.

We want to know that it isn’t an experiment, that there are good, substantial reasons for proceeding in the fashion that we are, par ticularly when we talk a bout fam ily support for childr en with dis abilities, where there are often ot her kinds of ext enuating circumstances in the fam ily situation which means sometimes that the families themselves don’t have access to enough resources to do the research themselves.

They have to rely often on the system for guidance, and we need to ensur e that that guidance is provided in the most comprehensive fas hion; that is, provided by experts, that there are protocols that will be followed which will ensure tha t the needs of the c hildren com e first and foremost, that we’re not looking at experimentation, that we’re not looking at cost-cutting measures, that we’re looking at providing the best possible service for these youngsters.

So with those concerns I’ll wait a nd see in committee what the minister has to say about this particular bill – or perhaps the Member for Red D eer-North can a ddress som e of them in her clos ing comments today – and make sure that w e’re moving forward with caution in this particular area. I think those are all of the comments I have at this time, and I’ll wait to see what other people have to say on this bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Deputy Speaker: Any comments or questions?

I wonder if we might have unanimous consent to briefly revert to Bill 22. [Unanimous consent granted] head : Government Bills and Orders head: Third Reading Bill 22 Child and Family Services Authorities Amendment Act, 2003 (continued) The Deputy Speaker: When we were finishing off Bill 22, the vote went in favour of third reading of Bill 22, and we have one more step to go.

The Clerk: Bill 22, Child and Family Services Authorities Amend- ment Act, 2003, is now read a third time. head : Government Bills and Orders head: Second Reading Bill 23 Family Support for Children with Disabilities Act (continued) The Deputy Speaker: Okay. Are you ready to close debate, hon. Member for Red Deer-North? Mrs. Jablonski: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m very happy to be able to close deba te this even ing o n Bill 23 , the Fam ily Support for Children with Disabilities Act. First of all, I’d like to briefly go throu gh some of the issues that were raised duri ng the disc ussion in sec ond reading.

The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods asked for information about the consultation process with communities. This leg islation has been developed through extensive consultation with and participation by parents of children with disabilities, community stakeholders, advocates, health prof essionals, and serv ice providers.

The Chil- dren’s Services ministry will continue to work closely with parents and comm unity par tners in the impl ementation of t his new a nd innovative program for disabled children and their families. 9:20 There was a concern that the bill medicalizes disabilities and that doctors are in charge of the medical diagnosis on which the determi- nation of a disa bility is bas ed. The pr oposed legislation does not adopt a medical model of disability. On the contrary, the provision of therapeutic services for a child will be based on an assessment of the child’s ability to function in normal daily living.

This approach is very clearly articulated in the bill. The provision of family support services will be based on an initial determination that the child does indeed have a disability as that term is broadly defined in the legislation. However, there is no require- ment that confirmation of the child’s disabling condition or impair- ment be made by a physician. We clearly heard from stakeholders

844 Alberta Hansard April 7, 2003 that confirmation of the ch ild’s disabling cond ition sho uld come from a medi cal profe ssional qual ified to m ake that particular diagnosis and that there should be flexibility in terms of the nature and level of detail of the diagnosis. The legislation provides for this flexibility. An issue was also raised regarding the definition of disabilities. The definition of disability in the legislation is broad and is intended simply to identify those children and families the l egislation is intended to serve. The definition applies only in the context of this legislation.

It does not have the effect of redefining disability as set out in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There has been a n asserti on that the a ct mak es provis ion fo r income testing, which is alleged to be a departure from the original philosophy of the handicapped children ’s services program. This legislation recognizes and va lues the a bility and responsibili ty of parents to care for and support their children. Stakeholders indicated to us very clearly that th ey do not want a financial assistance program.

They want and need a prog ram that supports them in fulfilling their responsibility as paren ts and meeting the extraordi- nary needs of their disabled children. This legislation will provide that support. The legislat ion does not provide for income testing. Rather, it will ensure that necessary supports are provided to families based on the particular extraordinary needs of that family and their ability to meet those needs. Expectations regarding parental cost sharing will be reflected in reg ulations developed in cons ultation with parents and other stakeholders.

These expectations will take into account a parent’s financial abilities and will ensure that cost sharing does not result in financial hardship to families or preven t access to necessary services. In regard to the issue of the separation of family support services and therapeutic ser vices w e heard f rom sta keholders that family support services and therapeutic services are very distinctive kinds of servic es and that this distinc tion should be re flected in the provisions of this bill.

Family support ser vices a re based on the families’ needs and will support families in meeting the needs o f their disabled children. The intent is to preserve and strengthen the family’s capacity to promote their child’ s healthy growth a nd development. Therapeutic services are focused on the needs of the disabled child. The nature an d level of service will be based on a functional assessment of the child. Mr. Speaker, as I have said, we have cons ulted extensively with stakeholders about th is legislati on.

Th e Alberta Associ ation for Community Living has called this proposed legislation an historic moment in our country and has in fact commended the hon. Minister of Children’s Services for her con tinuing commitment to in volve families in the implementation of this legislation. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I’m ver y please d to move second reading of Bill 23. [Motion carried; Bill 23 read a second time] Bill 24 Child Welfare Amendment Act, 2003 [Adjourned debate March 10: Mr. Cenaiko] The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo. Mr. Cenaiko: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I’m pleased to rise an d speak to second reading of Bill 24, the Child Welfare Amendment Act, 2003. During o ur discussion on March 10 re garding second reading, I outlined the b ackground of the re view process for Al- berta’s Child Welfare Act and some of t he changes being recom- mended in this bill.

Recommendations for legislative changes have placed greater emphasis on and ac countability for the s afety and well-being of childre n; perma nent placem ents for children; the involvement of chi ldren and fam ilies in de cision-making; the importance of respe cting all cultures, ethnic back grounds, an d religions; and th e import ance of supporting y outh who are in transition to adulthood. Bill 24 will amend Alberta’s child welfare legislation to improve the lives of children, youth, and families, Mr. Speaker.

It will also strengthen the ability of the Children’s Services ministry to support Alberta’s children. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move second reading of Bill 24, the Child Welfare Amendment Act, 2003. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. Dr. Massey: Thank you, M r. Sp eaker. I’m pleased to ha ve the opportunity to make some comments at second reading of Bill 24. I apprec iated the ove rview that the Me mber for Calga ry-Buffalo provided the last time the bill was before the Assembly.

The speaker at that time made a nu mber of points about the legislation, and it prompted me to g o back to the review that that member had been responsible for condu cting for th e government an d the ki nds of principles that we re outlined in that revi ew. Be cause w e’re in second reading and it’s our opportunity to examine the principles on which the legislation is based, I think it’s appropriate that we look at those princi ples and then, as we proc eed to Com mittee of the Whole, make some jud gments as to whether the principles as enunciated really are carried out in the details of the legislation.

So I’d like to just visit some of those principles. One of the very first recommendations has to do with the primary consideration of any legislation, that if there’s going to be legislation amended or redeveloped, the focus had to be primarily on the impact of those changes on children and on their families and that it had to promote the best interests and the well-being of children. I think it’s a principle that we can all agree upon, and it’s one that I’m not sure is consistently carried out in the legislation.

As I said, there’ll be an opportunity when we move to committee to look at s ome specific instances where I believe that that may not be the case, but certainly it is a princ iple that’s found in sim ilar kinds of legi slation. It’ s consistent with the kinds of things that were part of the Children’s Forum, and the recommendations of the Children’s Forum were very much in the spirit that any changes, any action that the government undertook had to promote the best interests, the protection, and the well-being of childre n.

So it wa s the fir st principle that w as recommended by the review, and it’s a principle that we’re going to be very vigilant in making sure the legislation actually reflects. The second principle is one that I believe, in looking at some of the submissions, there was some disagreement about.

The second principle that was recommended from the review was that “parents are responsible and accounta ble for prov iding their children w ith adequate care and supervision and ensuring their safety, protection, and well-being” and are “responsible for seeking support.” There is a “but” applied to that princ iple as it was recommended, and that “but” was that it “should be clear that the best interests and safety of the child must take precedence over parental and community rights when children are in need of protection.” So it seems to me that with this principle as it was recommended from the committee, there has been some discussion whether that obligation of those parents should take precedence over the best interests and the safety of children. 9:30 It says in the principle that that is the case, but by including the phrase and trying to put that burden on child ren, there has been

April 7, 2003 Alberta Hansard 845 concern expressed that the children’s best interests are going to be forfeited in some cases to trying to hold parents responsible for what we would hope they would take on as their responsibilities for their own youngsters, but we k now from experience that tha t’s not the case. So the princi ple that wa s enunciate d is one that, again, is reflected in the leg islation, and it’s the whole role of parents a nd their responsibili ty that I think we have some questions a bout in terms of the details of the bill.

The third principle that the le gislation is base d on is that the legislation should be cle ar that any decisions t hat are made about children an d family have to take into account their cultural, their spiritual, their religious, and the ir social heritage. It goes on as a principle to expand upon that, indicating that they have to maintain ties with extended families and community members where possible. And that – I go back to the Children ’s Forum – was a huge, hu ge issue in that par ticular fo rum in 1999, a nd that of c ourse is w ith respect to aboriginal children.

We’ve seen the kinds of difficulties in the province trying to work with those principles and the very sad things that have happened to children as a result of trying to adhere too rigidly to that principle. We can all agree that that’s the way it should be, but I think that at some point it has to be tempered with reality. We have to make sure that children are not sacrificed to a principle that insists that they be kept attached to a particular cultural or religious or social heritage.

Agai n, it’s a pri nciple that is I think one we can agree upon, but I think it is also a principle that is being developed and has to be very, very carefully applied in practice . The principle talks specifically about aborig inal child ren, and as I indicated before, there have been some great difficulties in this area. The department has had to take some radical action when the department was trying to make sure that this principle was being respected with respect to the treatment of some aboriginal children in the province.

The next rec ommendation that c ame from the r eport had to do with increased accountabil ity, and it indicated that “the rights of children, youth and f amilies should be cl early identifie d in t he legislation to increase accountability and ensure children’s needs are being met.” It says, “As well, children should be clearly informed of their rights.” This is something that the Children’s Advocate has mentioned time after time in reports and has been, I guess, somewhat disappoi nted that it has n’t been the case.

H e had exa mples, for instance, of children not even knowing that there was a case plan for them and their f uture, and of ten children wer e kept in t he dark in terms of their relationship to the government and what was available to them. It was quite acute when it came to youngsters as they reached the age of 18. I think that one of the good things, one of the changes the department has ma de is that t hat abrupt cut off at 18 that wa s the practice in the past has been amended, and that is for many youth no longer the case.

There’s an effort to recognize that just because they reach the chronolog ical age of 18, the ir needs c ontinue and that many of them still need support as they try to make their way. So I think it’s a good principle and it’s one that’s long overdue, and there are some specifics in the legislation that we’ll be looking to amend, I think, in this area.

A further principle, I think the fifth, was that “services to children and families be pro vided in a manner that is supportive, least disruptive to the child and prevents the need for further interventions under the Act.” Again, an important principle, you’d think one that would have been paramount in previous legislation and certainly one that would be a cted upon in try ing to support y oungsters, but we know that that’s not been the case.

Examples of multiple placements of youngsters, the kind of instability as a result of the way that they have been handled have really resulted in some unfortunate things happening to children that were in government care. So I think the principle of it being least disruptive to the child is an important one, and again I think it’s consistent with the first principle, where that focus is on children and their needs. The next principle is one that is concerned with permanency, and this again is related to the previous principle, something that’s going to be least disruptive.

The whole business of permanency is making sure that youngsters are not bounced from home to home and never do end up having the kind of stable life that we would hope for all children. This principle indicates that all children deserve “a safe, stable home” nurtured by a healthy family and that that is best done when they are in a permanent placement and that those placements are supported as a result of legislation. It ’s an area that I thi nk is going to be difficult for the government; just because we pass the legislation, it’s going to take a lot of hard work to make it a reality in the province.

It’s unfortunate, but the kinds of placements that are needed are not always available. The kind of climate that one would hope is created for youngsters to be placed in permanent situations has still to be created.

Once the legislation comes into being, it’s going to need a tr emendous amount of work, and it’s going to be interesting to see the kinds of specific programs and actions that the government will take to make sure that this principle that is behind the legislation is actually honoured in practice. 9:40 The last r ecommendation that came from the re view was that under the current act “Albertans report any instances where there are probable grounds to believe a child may be in need of protection,” and this “should be reinforced and strengthened in the new legisla- tion.” This is an important principle.

There are a number of reasons why a child may be in need of protection – physical and emotional neglect, abuse of one kind or a nother – and if they don’t have a guardian, we have to ensure that they’re protected. It’s again a most difficult area for the community to deal with, but I think we have to ensure that children are protected in terms of what happens to them emotionally and physically.

It’s an area that’s fraught with all kinds of difficulties, and it’s going to be, again, a really difficult area for the government to create the climate where we can assure ourselves that for the most part, as far as humanly possible, if children are in need of protection, that protection actually is there for them and that there’s a process in place that will ensure that they’ll get the help and be relieved of any kind of duress they may be under. Those principles, Mr. Speak er, a s I indicate d, came from the review.

I think they’re principles that for the most part m ost of us can agree on with a couple of exceptions. As I said, we have taken those principles as they were laid out in the review, and we have put those principles against the elements of the act, the am endments before us, and tried to measure the changes in the act before us with respect to these principles. We’ve been looking for consistency, and we think that for the most part they are consistent, but there are some notable exceptions, and we’ll take the opportunity to look at the m when we move to Committee of the Whole. I think with those comments, Mr.

Speaker, I’ll conclude. Thank you. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. Ms Carlso n: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m happy to have an opportunity to speak to Bill 24, the Child Welfare Amendment Act, 2003. This is a pret ty ex tensive bill. It’s l ooking at s ome fairly extensive changes in legisl ation, and it’s a bill tha t has cer tainly generated a lot of interest by a lot of people. I think it requires some very significant debate, and I’ll be quite interested in hearing what

846 Alberta Hansard April 7, 2003 government members have to say about this piece of legislation, the recommendations that come forward, their thoughts on it in terms of the overriding principles, which is what I’ll primarily speak about today because of course second reading is speaking in principle to the bill.

We’ve had lots of feedback from people on this in ter ms of the adoptions and so on, and I ’ll be tabling t he information I’ve got when we get to committee and talking about some of those issues, but tonight I would like to spend most of my time, I think, referring to a submi ssion that w e ha ve from the Alberta Civil L iberties Research Centre. They did a very comprehensive review of this bill and had some strong re commendations that they wanted t o bring forward, and they primarily focus around the UN convention on the rights of the child.

This is a convention that we have tried for many, many years to get the Alberta government to endorse and support, and what we’ve seen were some backhanded attempts. “We support it, but . . .” happened over the course of the years but not an outright endorsement.

So I’d like to just review that for a moment, because since the last time the UN conv ention on the ri ghts of the child was intensively debated in this Le gislature, we’ve had an election, and there are a number of new members that support the government’s position who should really know the param eters of the discussion t hat they are making the decision on.

I would hope that by doing that, we would see them change their stance an d unilaterally endorse this conven- tion, because it d oes establish very minimum standards for c ivil, political, economic , social, a nd cultural ri ghts of c hildren, n ot maximum standards but minimum standards. When we h ave a minister who likes to talk so much about her commitment to children and when we hear that echoed by people in this Legislature, then it seems to me tha t the ver y least we c ould be doing is endorsing minimum standards.

So the convention on the rights of the child requires countries to undertake all appropria te legis lative, a dministrative, and other measures necessary to implement its provisions. Canada became a signatory in 1990 and played a key role in the development of this. The convention on the rights of the child has 41 articles, the majority of which dea l w ith t he protecti on of childre n.

They talk about protecting children from all forms of abuse and negle ct perpetrated by those responsible for t heir care and t o institute pre vention and sup port programs as well as processes for identification, reporting, referral, investigation and treatment of incidences of child maltreatment . . . appropriate measu res to promote the physical and psy chological recovery and social reintegration . . . [and] children’s basic right to survival and d evelopment, t he rig ht to be long to fam ilies and community, and civil and political rights.

So it promotes the concept that the child is an active subject of rights but also the importance of parents and family, which we think is all very good and w hich is covered in princ iple in many ways in this particular bill, some of which I agree with in how the bill has gone forward and some of which I don’t.

In terms o f th eir particular review of t his bill, they ha ve some concerns, and one of those is the office of the Children’s Advocate, that it “may be e liminated because o f the be lief tha t there is no longer a need for a formal, centralized advocacy office under the new regionalization system of children’s services.” The Civil Liberties Research Centre st rongly di sagrees with tha t, and we strongly disagree with that as well.

It reall y is an ill-founded belief. “The provision of serv ice to chil dren thro ugh . . . se rvice de livery authorities could [very] easily result in children falling through the cracks.” In fact, we have seen examples of that in the whole 10 years that I’ve been here, and we want to m inimize that as much a s possible. Certainly, children in care need t he Office of the Chi ldren’s Advocate now more than ever. It is important to note that the existing program has been ve ry successful and has served as a model for advoc acy programs in other jurisdictions.

So we would very much like to see that continue, as would the Civil Liberties Resear ch Centre. If that could be tal ked about a nd discussed in committee, we would appreciate that. The children’s ri ghts cha rter a lso t alks ab out c hildren’s views being heard.

The Office of the Children’s Advocate provides children with a n effective complaints procedure regarding the services they receive and access to appro priate advice and ind ependent advocacy, as required by both provisions. 9:50 The recommendation from the Alberta Civil Liberties Rese arch Centre is that the Office of th e Children’s Advocate be ma intained i n the n ew legislation and that the Office’s mandate be ex tended to incl ude children who have applied for but been denied protective services, children maki ng reports of abuse or neglect to child welfare authorities, as well as those who are particularly vulnerable – such as those children subject to the Protection of Children Involved in Prostitution Act.

So that is a strong recommendation that they come out with. They also talk about the best interests of the child being strength- ened. Another recommendation they have is that

section 2 of the act be strengthened. “It should be made clear in the new Act that the best interests o f chil dren should be t he overarching consideration when making decisions a bout their we lfare a nd protection,” something our caucus also supports. They have a third recommendation here, and that is entitled Views of the Child. They recommend that “a high priority be given in the new legislation to respecting the views of children.” You don’t see that actually enacted in this legislation. We may hear that that’s the intent. We’d like to see it in writing. We don’t want to see it happen in regulations.

It needs to be enshrined in legislation in term s of three overriding priorities for this act. They then go on to talk about specific issues they have, and they provide a discuss ion of the c oncerns they have w ith the c urrent legislation which they believe should be addressed in this new piece that we se e before us. One of thos e is the qua lifications of chil d welfare workers. If you go to the charter – that’s the convention on the rights of children – and you go to

article 3(3), it calls on countries to ensure that institutions, services and facilities responsible for the care and protection of children conform with standards established by competent authoritie s, particularly with respect to healt h and safet y and the numbe r, suita bility and supervision of staff. So this is something signed onto by Canada that should happen.

They talk ther e specif ically in the reg ulations abo ut persons qualified to be appointed as child we lfare w orkers if they’r e employed by the department of social services at the time that the act came int o f orce or w ho are reg istered s ocial w orkers a nd hold appropriate education or are deemed by the minister to be qualified to do the job base d on academ ic qualif ications a nd experie nce. These workers, as we know very well, are the backbone of the child welfare system, and they perform the vast majority of the duties and responsibilities and really need to be highly qualified to do their job.

So when the minister gets broad discretion with respect to appoint- ments, the gener al regula tion provides for the w atering dow n of qualifications and st andards. As a caucus we se e that as a maj or concern, and the Civil Liberties Research Centre also do es. Their recommendation is that high min imum sta ndards f or qu alifications for c hild we lfare

April 7, 2003 Alberta Hansard 847 workers be established under the new legislation and that these be applicable across the province. This is particularly important under the current regionalization process, in order to ensure high quality service provision across the province. In additio n, I would like to add that we see this as an increasing concern with the amount of contracting out there is. There have to be very strict guidelines and there has to be strict protocol in terms of qualifications, because otherwise there just aren’t enough checks and balances in the system.

If you don’t have effective monitoring in place, which we have seen time and again does not happen with this particular government, then we’re going to run i nto problems with the kids. One of the ways to circumvent those problems is to ensure that those workers who are the frontline workers have a high minimum standard of qualific ations. So w e’d like to see the minister’s comments on that. That would be very good.

In terms of their discussion on the rights of children in care, the Civil Liberties Research Centre talks about: Although current legislation recognizes and respect s children’s rights in a number of different ways, we believe that what is lacking is a clear and distin ct statement of the right s children in care are entitled to. They would like to see this statement provide an interpretive guide for tho se ma king dec isions under t he legis lation.

The rights statements included in the new act should mirror those provided in the charter under the United Nations convention for the rights of the child, and those would include such things as key rights for children, which are • Freedom of thought, conscience and religion • Freedom of expression • Freedom of association • Right to privacy • Right of access to high quality heal th care serv ices an d treat- ment • Right to a standard of liv ing adequate for the child’s physical, spiritual, mental, moral and social development • Right to an education • Right to be protected from all forms of violence • Right of children who are Aboriginal o r who ar e members of ethnic, rel igious or li nguistic minori ties to enjoy the ir ow n culture, to profess and practice their own religion or to use their own language in community with other members of their group.

The recommendation that com es forward from the Albe rta Civi l Liberties Research Centre is that these rights be incorporated into the new l egislation. T his could b e done by referring to the [United Nations conve ntion on the rig hts of the child] in the body of the legislation or ap pending it to the le gisla- tion. So what I hear is t hat it isn’ t enough to sa y that t hat’s the intent. They want to see it written right into the legislation. Another concern the y have is in term s of the r ecognition of evolving capacities of children.

They talk about how the current legislation enables children to participa te in the child welfare process at diff erent ages . Under sections 8 and 9 o f the Act . . . child welfare authorities may enter into support and custody agreements with children 16 years of age or older who are in need of protective services and living independently. Throughout

Part 3, as well as other parts of the Act, childre n 12 years of age or older acquire certain rights to participate in proceedings and be consulted with regard to m atters which aff ect them. S ection 3 0(4) . . . specifies that children 12 years of age or older who are the subject of temporary guardianship orders c an apply to cour t for an or der prescribing access to the child’s guardian or other individual s. Mr.

Speaker, the convention on the rights of the child recognizes and respects the capacity of children w ho possess sufficient understanding to make de cisions and parti cipate in the child welfare process. The current legislation certainly acknowl- edges this principle. However, in establishing a rigid age limit, the Act precl udes th e p articipation of young er chil dren at risk w ho possess sufficient understanding of the matters in issue.

So the Alberta Civil Liberties Research Centre recommends that the use of benchmark ages for participation in the new legislation be qualified to allow younger child ren w ho posse ss suff icient understanding of the ir circumstances to fu lly particip ate in de ci- sions affecting their care. The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glengarry. Mr. Bonner: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It is inde ed a pleasure to rise this evening and speak to Bill 24, the Child Welfare Amendment Act, 2003. I would also like to thank the hon.

Member for Calgar y-Buffalo f or the trem endous am ount of work that obviously went into consultation with many, many people through- out the province and certainly for providing the report Strengthening Families, Children and Youth: Report and Recommendations from the Child Welfare Act Review, 2002. It certainly indicates the great concern that all of us in this As sembly have f or children in this province, particularly those children, the most vulnerable members of our society, who for whatever reasons have had the need for some type of intervention in their living standards.

As we have seen from the bill, it is a very, very extensive bill, as it should be. It’s certainly a bill that we do have to get right the first time becau se we are dealing with children and in many cases children who are in their formative years, and I think it is essential that we get it right.

We certainly don’t want a situation that we had here a few years ago where we put forward the notion that 200 hours of kindergarten would be adequate for children per year, and very quickly we learned the errors of those ways. 10:00 In look ing at the re port Stren gthening F amilies, Children and Youth, one of the thing s that I’d l ike to focus on to night in my discussion is the statements under Our Vision and Values. These are outlined in that rev iew, and these are the pr inciples tha t we ar e looking for in this legislation. We’re looking for the details that will support these visions and values.

Certainly, one principle and belief that has helped shape thes e recom mendations is that “the best interests and well -being of ch ildren come firs t. E very c hild in Alberta deserves a saf e, stable home w here they are nurture d by healthy families.” It is something that we want for all children and is certainly something that all children deserve. In a province that is so blessed as we ar e with the resources that we have, then it is a situation where no child should go without.

I think that, as well, when we are looking at the principles that were in the report and the principles that we see in the legislation, Mr. Speaker, we all realize that children are best served in “loving, stable, nurturing and sustainable relationships” and that the se are absolutely paramount in the development of any child, and in order to have that stability, children need some type of per manence in a situation. I look at this particular bill, and certainly many, many of the recommendations and principle s that are enshrined in this bill point to permanence in those situations.

In looking ov er the bill, one area I ’d like to fo cus on with my comments tonight is w hat is in the way of adoption here in the province and the r ules for a doption here in t he province . I’m looking in the bill, pa rticularly

section 63, w hich will al low for a private process for adoptions. This here has caused me a great deal of concern, and also it has caused many others in this province a great deal of concern. In reviewing the report that I referred to

848 Alberta Hansard April 7, 2003 previously, I look at recommendation 7.2, which states: Paramount consideration should be given to the best interests of a child in any a doption. This should be reflected in the legisla tion and could include: • the child’s views and wishes if they can be expressed; • the benefits to the child of stability, cultural and family ties; • the effects of delays in decision-making; • the mental, emotional and physical needs of the child and stage of development; and • the importance of a positive re lationship w ith a pare nt and family. These are very, very good recommendations.

It goes on to say, “In the case of an Aboriginal child, the uniqueness of culture, heritage, spirituality and traditions must be respected.” Of course, that is a further addition to recommendation 7.2 which I think is extremely important. Where the difficulty arises in this particular bill – and I’ve pointed out

section 63 – is that there seems to be a huge problem here in that we have w hat is sta ted in recom mendation 7.2 and we loo k at recommendation 7.5, which states: All private-direct adoptions should be allowed to proceed through the relative/step-parent placement p rocess without involving a licensed agency or requiring a home assessment, unless requested by the birth parent or the courts. The current legislation requires that a licensed agency process private-direct adoptions, including the pro vision of a home assessment to the co urt. Th is process is cos tly and i ntrusive and may delay permanency planning.

Safeguards would be built into private-direct, relative and step- parent adoptions by requiri ng people seeking to adopt to file information on any pr evious i nvolvement i n child protecti on or criminal activity with the app lication to adop t. The courts could request a home study if it was fe lt that o ne was warranted by the circumstances. So in rec ommendation 7.2 , where we are maki ng many, man y different rules or recommendations as to how we can best ensure the placement of a chi ld, we f lip-flop and go alm ost to the ent ire opposite in recommendation 7.5.

So where we have had some very, very stringent controls in all other types of adoptions that we allow in this province, we certainly in this particular case don’t have these stringent guidelines . So one of t he pr oblems that we ha ve with recommendation 7.5 is that it is almost a do-it-yourself process when it comes to adoption.

Now, I had a meeting with a constituent roughly a month ago, and with that meeting this fellow had just celebrated the first anniversary of his adoption of a child, and he had gone to the point of telling me what type of a process it was that he and his wife had to go through in order to adopt this tw o-year-old boy, a nd it was extrem ely stringent and it wa s thorough. A t the po int wher e it wa s not determined yet whether the person was g oing to recommend that they be allowed to adopt this child, the process was so intrusive that he and his w ife were almos t ready to pull out of t heir request to adopt.

When this was all done, what the worker and what they went through was quite the opposite. When she finally indicated that they could adopt this child, everyone broke down and cried. The worker informed them that this was certainly part of the process and part of what she had to do in order that that child was going to be going into a loving env ironment, a safe environment, an environment that would nurture this child and help it develop as all of us would hope.

So in that particular case I could fully agree with recommendation 7.2, yet in 7.5 we hav e a situa tion where we could ha ve a y oung parent who puts her child up for adoption – and it can be arranged through the family – and there’s absolutely no screening as to what type of a home this child is going to. We don’t have any background on the adoptive parents. Usually this would be a friend of the family or perhaps a distant relative or a relative, and we are putting children into an environment where we don’t know that they’re going to be safe.

Those are some of my major concerns so far that I have seen with Bill 24, and I think that it is something that we certainly have to look much more closely at in Committee of the Whole. So, Mr. Speaker, at this p articular time I would li ke to take my seat and listen to other members speak on this very important bill. Thank you. 10:10 [Motion carried; Bill 24 read a second time] Bill 12 Financial Sector Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 [Adjourned debate March 11: Mr. Magnus] The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. Ms Carlson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Bill 12, the Financial Sector Statutes Amendment Act, 2003, has not been in our possession for very long. We are waiting for more stakeholder participation to be delivered to us. So with that an d given the hour, I would like to adjourn debate at this time. [Motion carried] The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Deputy Government House Leader. Mr. Zw ozdesky: Thank y ou, Mr. Speak er. Some very good progress tonight, as always on Mondays. With that, I would move that we now call it adjournment time until tomorrow at 1:30 p.m. [Motion carried; at 10:13 p.m. the Assembly adjourned to Tuesday at 1:30 p.m.]