Alberta Hansard — 28 April 1999, Afternoon sitting (13:30) (Legislature 24, Session 3)

19990428

Alberta — Debates (Hansard)

April 28, 1999 Alberta Hansard 1309 Legislative Assembly of Alberta Title: Wednesday, April 28, 1999 1:30 p.m. Date: 99/04/28 [The Speaker in the chair] head: Prayers THE SPEAKER: Good afternoon. Let us pray. Though we as legislators of this great province and its people are taken from the common people and selected by You to be architects of our history, give us wisdom and understanding to do Your will in all we do. Amen. Please be seated. Hon. members, today is recognized as a day of mourning for persons killed or injured in the workplace.

As a memorial to this day the flags on the Legislature Building are being flown at half- mast from sunrise until sunset. head: Statement by the Speaker Flag of Nunavut THE SPEAKER: On April 1 the new territory of Nunavut came into being, and the Premier and the L eader of the O fficial Opposition commented in this House on the establishment of the new territory. At that time I noted that when we received the flag of Nunavut, it would join the flags of the other provinces and territories of Canada in our Assembly. I am pleased to advise members today that the flag of Nunavut now flies in this Chamber.

The colours blue and gold symbolize the richness of the land, sea, and sky. The red is a reference to Canada. The inuksuk symbolizes the stone monuments which guide the people on the land and mark sacred and other special places. The star is the niqirtsuitug, the north star and the traditional guide for navigation and more broadly forever remains unchanged as the leadership of the elders in the community. head: Introduction of Visitors THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Creek. MR. ZWOZDESKY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I’m very pleased to again introduce to you and through you to all members of the House a very special guest who is seated in your gallery today. As both you and the hon. Minister of Community Development already know from an earlier meeting, Mr. John David Sterne is the new chief executive officer of the Edmonton Symphony Orchestra and the Winspear Centre, which was recently saluted in this House on the occasion of their winning the Canadian performing arts centre of the year award. Mr. Speaker, in taking over the most progressive music centre in the country, Mr.

Sterne is also taking over the administrative reins of one of Canada’s very best orchestras, our very own ESO, and one which I might add I’ve had the great privilege of conducting on several occasions, including their inaugural performance here at the Legislature rotunda some 10 years ago. Mr. Speaker, I know that you were the first elected official to lend your support to these two outstanding arts organizations, especially to the Winspear Centre, for which we are all grateful.

I would ask that John David Sterne now rise and receive your and our very warm welcome and our very best wishes for added success in his new position here in Edmonton. Welcome. head: Presenting Petitions THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. DR. MASSEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With permission I present a petition from the SOS parents urging the Government to increase funding of children in public and separate schools to a level that covers increased costs due to contract settlements, curriculum changes, technology, and aging schools. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark.

MS LEIBOVICI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too, have a petition on behalf of the SOS group “to urge the Government to increase funding of children in public and separate schools.” Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glengarry. MR. BONNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I beg leave to present a petition on behalf of the SOS group to urge the Government to increase funding of children in public and separate schools to a level that covers increased costs due to contract settlements, curriculum changes, technology, and aging schools. head: Tabling Returns and Reports MR. DAY: Mr.

Speaker, I’m pleased to table today the sale agreement and also the valuation report related to the province’s shares in Payment Systems Corporation. Mr. Speaker, when the opposition asks us for information to be tabled related to commercial agreements, our position always is that we have no problem with that, but sometimes the client has the right to decline. Though we get berated for that, it’s up to the client. In this case we did as usual. I asked if the customer with whom we were involved had any problem with this being tabled. They said no.

Here is the entire agreement showing a $2.5 million gain to the Alberta government through this sale. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Mountain View. MR. HLADY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m tabling five copies of answers to questions that were posed on Monday night by the members for Edmonton-Glenora and Calgary-Buffalo in regard to discussion around Bill 29 in Committee of the Whole. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Labour. MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m tabling today the response to the April 21 question by the Member for Edmonton- Gold Bar. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie.

MS CARLSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today I have three tablings. The first is a letter from Jan Carroll to the Premier urging him to withdraw Bill 15. The second is a public announcement made on November 26, 1992, by this government in Aylmer, Quebec, where they made a statement of commitment to protect endangered spaces. The third one is dated March 11, 1992, which is an announcement by the then minister of environment and current Premier where this government committed to protect 14 percent of Alberta, which is

1310 Alberta Hansard April 28, 1999 greater than the 12 percent guideline adopted by the endangered spaces campaign and nowhere near where they’re at today. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark. MS LEIBOVICI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have one tabling this afternoon. It’s the new personal health information bill that was tabled in the Saskatchewan Legislative Assembly last Friday. In that bill personal health information can only be collected or used with the consent of the patient, a consent that can be revoked at any time. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Manning. MR.

GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m pleased to file with the Legislative Assembly copies of St. Dominic elementary school April 21, 1999, drug abuse resistance education graduation, better known as DARE. MR. MAR: Mr. Speaker, I’m tabling the requisite number of copies of the response to the Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods on the issue of school board deficits, which he raised earlier in this house on 15 April 1999. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. MR. MacDONALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like this afternoon to table five copies of a document that states: “Let us remember those who were killed and renew our common commit- ment to safer workplaces.” It’s also an alert for a candlelight ceremony at city hall in honour of the fourth International Day of Mourning for injured and dead workers. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Bonnyville-Cold Lake. MR. DUCHARME: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me great pleasure to rise today and table with the Legislative Assembly responses to questions posed by hon. members during second reading of Bill 16, the Maintenance Enforcement Amendment Act, 1999. MS BARRETT: It gives me great pleasure, Mr. Speaker, to file five copies today of a letter I wrote just a few minutes ago to the Provincial Treasurer in response to his offer yesterday to consider widening the scope of Bill 35. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Whitecourt-Ste. Anne. MR. TRYNCHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I’m pleased to table five copies of the Effective Representation Consultation material that all Members of the Legislative Assembly are receiving today. This all- party public consultation process is very valuable in that it will communicate in real terms what Albertans believe is important about effective representation to the Electoral Boundaries Commission for its next review. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona. DR. PANNU: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to table five copies of a letter received by me yesterday from a parent in Jasper who has two daughters, one in junior high school and one in elementary school. The parent has worked for eight years on school councils and parent committees for schools. She expresses deep concern about the fact that her older daughter’s junior high school will have to let three teachers go this year in order to cope with the deficit. Her younger daughter’s elementary school has classes which are as large as 29 and 30 students and will also have to lose one or two teachers.

Thank you. head: Introduction of Guests 1:40 THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Bonnyville-Cold Lake. MR. DUCHARME: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It gives me great pleasure to introduce to you and through you to all members of the Legislature 29 students including my nephew Brandon Hallwachs. They attend Ardmore school in the Bonnyville-Cold Lake constitu- ency. They are accompanied by assistant principal Mr. Garry Kissel, teacher Mrs. Pat Doonanco, teacher assistant Mrs. Joyce Dodds, and parent Mrs. Wanda Vestby. I’d ask that they all rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of the Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon.

Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. MR. MacDONALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to introduce to you and through you to all Members of the Legislative Assembly 41 students and six adults from the Hardisty elementary Logos alternate program in my constituency. The group leaders this afternoon are Miss Shelly Juhlin, Mr. Jim Higgs, and Mrs. Sharon Lougheed. The parents accompanying the 41 students are Mrs. Gail Hinton, Mrs. Marilyn Schulz, and Mrs. Theresa Russnak. They’re seated in the public gallery, and I would ask them to please rise and receive the warm and traditional welcome of this Assembly. Thank you.

THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Currie. MRS. BURGENER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It gives me great pleasure to introduce to you and through you to the members of the Assembly two guests who are seated in the members’ gallery. They are here today to listen to the recognition I’m going to do on the proclamation date for family violence legislation. They are Jane Holliday, executive director of the office for the prevention of family violence and chair of our interdepartmental committee team, and Geoff Ho, who has been my key adviser through the Department of Justice on this legislation.

They are both sitting in the members’ gallery. If they would please rise and receive the warm welcome of this Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview. MRS. SLOAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have the distinct pleasure today on behalf of the hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo to introduce to you and through you a group of Calgary seniors who are visiting our Assembly today. In particular we would like to welcome the Westside seniors, who reside in the constituency of Calgary-Buffalo. I would ask them to rise and receive the warm welcome of this Assembly. MR. MAR: Mr.

Speaker, I have the rare privilege to stand and introduce to you some of the guests that are accompanying the members of Westside seniors, and that is 30 guests from my own constituency, the Huntington Pioneers Association of Calgary-Nose

April 28, 1999 Alberta Hansard 1311 Creek. They are accompanied by Mrs. Else DeGroot, who is my constituency assistant and very capable in that role. She also serves in a double role by working with the organization involved with the seniors, I’d ask those seniors to please rise and receive the warm welcome of this Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Creek. MR. ZWOZDESKY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to introduce two special guests, Mr. Laat Bhinder and Mr. Paul Sohi, who were here last night as special guests, and I believe are here again today.

I can’t see if they have arrived yet or not, but if they have, I would ask them to please rise and receive the warm welcome of this House. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, actually I just noticed that a colleague and a friend of mine and a person who participated in Tuxis Parliament many long years ago. He was much more accomplished there than I was, and it’s interesting that I’m here and he’s there. I would ask Gordon Porteous from Camrose to stand and receive the warm welcome of the House. It’s good to see you. head: Ministerial Statements THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Labour.

National Day of Mourning for Injured Workers MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It gives me both pleasure and a sense of appreciation for those in our workplace who are recognizing today the day of mourning, a day when all Albertans can recognize workers who have been hurt or fatally injured on the job. The National Day of Mourning stands as a remembrance for, and a reflection on, those who have been injured or died as a result of workplace injuries. Let us learn from past accidents to prevent ones in the future.

If we neglect to learn from, or recognize the reasons for past accidents, we will not advance or prevent similar accidents from occurring. On June 4, 1994, our eldest son Keith Scott, age 26, was critically injured in a workplace accident south of Taber, Alberta. He passed away 13 hours later in a Calgary hospital. Keith was unique, just as every person is unique; with different personalities, dreams, goals and plans for their lives. Keith was not, and never will be, a statistic! We all make choices in life -- these moments in time -- that can alter the course of our life and our loved ones’ lives forever.

Keith was part of the decisions made that day. However, with no written procedures in place, the door was wide open for anything to happen and Keith paid the ultimate price. He could have said “No.” This word has to be taught to employees in Alberta. They have to have training to understand it’s okay to say no to unsafe conditions. Companies have a responsibility to their employees to provide the safest work environment possible. The employer’s responsibil- ity is to make the procedures and rules clear and to provide the training and equipment for working safely. The employee’s responsibility is in their choices.

But this responsibility is shared. The standards put in place by the Government of Alberta regarding safety affect every person in our province. Safety in the workplace is an issue that knows no boundary, it encompasses all the people who live in Alberta. There can be no compromise wh en it comes to safety in the workplace. Companies must put into place policies and procedures so there will be no question as to the proper way to handle any situation. Management must share in that commitment. A company that is safety conscious cares about its employees, its job ethics and the community it operates in.

Safety training is essential and must be provided at all levels. “Without knowledge our people perish.” Train people to say no, to look at the equipment being used and determine whether it is the right equipment for the job. In order for any employee to work safely, they must be trained. There is a danger of dehumanizing people in our workplace. Everyone in the workplace deserves to be treated with dignity and respect and to expect safe working conditions. Safety has a cost. It will cost up front on equipment and training or it will cost in the end in low morale, low productivity and injuries or loss of life.

People can look at something and say it has l ittle or no value to them, then someone else will step forward and pay a very high price for it. The value is then set by the price that is paid. The value of safety is set by the price paid by Keith, and by others injured or killed in the workplace. The choice of what you do with this valuable high-priced i ssue is yours. The decisions and choices you make have far reaching effects. Mr. Speaker, that statement that I’ve just read was written specifically for this day by a fellow Albertan, Mrs. Marjorie Scott of Taber.

As you heard, Marjorie lost her eldest son, Keith, to a workplace accident. She has spent much of her time since then speaking at work sites to workers and employers about losing a loved one and about preventing the loss of a loved one. I am honoured to be able to stand in the House today and deliver her words. Mr. Speaker, I want to leave the members with one message today: workplace health and safety is not a once a year issue; it’s an every day concern.

Workplace injury and deaths are preventable and unacceptable, and it is only through those that are involved and affected -- employees, employers, families, government -- working together that we can achieve our goal to keep Alberta work sites the safest and healthiest in Canada. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glengarry. MR. BONNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Official Opposition joins with the government in recognizing today, April 28, as a day of mourning for those Albertans killed or injured as a result of workplace injuries.

I know many of my colleagues and many members of this Assembly have experienced the loss of a loved one or a friend who died on the job.

These experiences should reinforce our commit- ment as legislators to make sure that we do all we can to investigate the circumstances of workplace accidents in order to prevent future tragedies from occurring. 1:50 I wish to share with members of the Assembly and all Albertans a few lines from a poem written in memory of a victim of one such workplace tragedy. how could it happen we stare and say we practice safety every day we grieve with the family and do our best to help each other through this test suddenly emerged from unseen forts inspectors chastise and make reports where were they before the day a safety hazard took a life away

1312 Alberta Hansard April 28, 1999 the death of our brother was tragic and wrong but he cared and our memories will be cherished and long with his passing, our brother, left something to do the torch has been passed to me and to you I encourage the government to firmly grasp this torch that has been passed, to make a strong commitment to occupational health and safety by devoting the necessary resources to make all of us proud of this province’s occupational safety record.

Albertans expect nothing less than their government being a leader in Canada and the world when it comes to maintaining safe and healthy working conditions. Together with industry we can make it happen, but it will only happen when all stakeholders recognize that it must be made a priority. Our workers deserve no less, and it would be the best way to honour the memories of those that we are remembering today. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. head: Oral Question Period THE SPEAKER: First Official Opposition main question. The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition. Education Funding MRS. MacBETH: Thanks, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier and his Minister of Education met with the chairs of the Edmonton public and Edmonton separate school boards last evening. One report of the meeting says that money was put on the table by the Premier, and the other report says that there’s none. All parts of the province are very interested in the answer, especially 100,000 students in Calgary along with their parents. My questions are to the Premier. Is there or is there not additional provincial funding available to resolve the crisis this government has created for Calgary public schools with its provincewide underfunding policy? MR.

KLEIN: There are some inaccuracies in the hon. member’s statement, Mr. Speaker. I didn’t meet with the public and Catholic school boards last evening. AN HON. MEMBER: You were at the hockey game. MR. KLEIN: I was at the hockey game. That’s right; I was. Right. As a matter of fact I saw the hon. Member for Edmonton-Meadow- lark at the TransAlta reception, then on to the hockey game. Unfortunately it didn’t turn out the right way. The night before last I met with the boards along with the Minister of Education, Mr. Speaker. It was a very good meeting. AN HON. MEMBER: What did you talk about? MR.

KLEIN: What did we talk about? We talked about the state of education and how we make education better, and, yes, we did talk about funding. We talked about how we participate with the school boards and the teachers to develop plans for sustainable funding. We commended both school boards on their efforts to bring down their deficits and to eliminate their deficits, and, yes, we did have a broad, general discussion on sustainable funding, sustainable funding in terms of sustaining excellence in education. MRS. MacBETH: Thanks, Mr. Speaker.

My apologies for having an error on the date of the meeting with the separate and public trustees. Mr. Speaker, I’m assuming that the answer, then, to the question is that there’s no additional money to be put on the table, so my question is: what is the Premier’s plan, given that in the next three weeks trustees will still be give n no additional resources in the Calgary school situation and t eachers will be more committed, in fact even more committed to preserving the excellence they’ve built in Calgary public schools, if this province’s underfunding policy provincewide is not corrected? MR. KLEIN: Well, Mr.

Speaker, are they thumping their desks in support of singling out Calgary and saying: give more money to Calgary; give more money to Calgary, not to Edmonton, not to all of the other school districts, not to those school districts that are generating surpluses that have managed their finances well; you know, give more money only to Calgary? Is that what they’re saying? Stand up and say: just more money for Calgary. Right. Stand up and say that. DR. TAYLOR: What about Medicine Hat? MR. KLEIN: Yes, what about Medicine Hat? MR. LUND: Rocky Mountain House. MR. KLEIN: Or Rocky Mountain House.

No more money for Rocky Mountain House, no more money for Medicine Hat, no more money for Edmonton, where all these MLAs come from, but only money for Calgary. That’s what they’re saying: only money for Calgary. Well, Mr. Speaker, we talk about equal opportunities for all students throughout the province, and, yes, if there is a problem with a school board, the Minister of Education said that we will work with those school boards to try to determine what those problems are and to help them manage their finances.

I would remind the opposition that we have committed 600 million extra, additional dollars over the next three years, and that applies to all school districts, not just Calgary. I’m surprised, I’m absolutely amazed that this hon. member would stand up and single out and say: give more money to Calgary, no other school district, just Calgary. MRS. MacBETH: Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand up for public education in this province. Mr. Speaker, how crowded and rundown do schools have to get?

How obsolete do textbooks and equipment have to become before this government will stop ignoring Albertans and properly fund children in Alberta’s public and separate schools? MR. KLEIN: Well, Mr. Speaker, I dispute every comment that the hon. member has made. She didn’t ask a question, but in response to her rhetoric, I’ll have the hon. minister reply. MR. MAR: Mr. Speaker, I wouldn’t want hon. members in this Assembly to be led into thinking, if they believe the hon. Leader of the Opposition, that money is not being invested in education at an adequate level.

For example, this year in response to what school boards were saying was a greater need in the area of special needs, we responded this September by increasing special-needs funding by 30 percent. Mr. Speaker, we’ve also looked at the needs of school boards

April 28, 1999 Alberta Hansard 1313 when they talked about English as a Second Language, and we doubled the funding in that area. Where they talked about the need for more aides, we responded with $10 million for the teacher aide program. Student health: in the current budget the hon. leader knows that $26 million is being set aside in that area. Perhaps most importantly the basic instructional grant rate is going up by 3 percent this fall, 2 percent the fall after, and 2 percent the fall after that.

In aggregate the $600 million represents a 19 percent increase over a three-year period, a significant amount of money. Mr. Speaker, with respect to the issue in Calgary raised by the Leader of the Opposition, I wish to supplement by saying this: the real pith and substance of the issue in contract negotiations in Calgary right now is not about money, b ecause even the union in that city says that 10 percent over a three-year period is a generous offer, which would bring an 11-year teacher to roughly $63,000. MRS. SOETAERT: It’s about kids. MR. MAR: Well, I hear the hon. member saying that it’s about kids.

That’s true, but the pupil/teacher ratio, which is what the union is attempting to preserve, is about protecting the union. It has nothing to do with classroom sizes. 2:00 Mr. Speaker, the school board is placing in its offer a protection on classroom sizes: 26 at the elementary level, 28 at the junior high level, and 30 at the senior high level. Protecting classroom sizes is in response to what parents are asking for. Very responsibly, the board is offering that.

Speaker’s Ruling Provoking Debate THE SPEAKER: Hon. members, seven minutes was spent on that last set of questions, and it would appear that there’s some degree of debate going on, which is not really one of the fundamental purposes of question period. So let’s move forward with the second Official Opposition main question. The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition. Education Funding (continued) MRS. MacBETH: Thanks, Mr. Speaker. When advocates for private schools called for more funding, the government responded.

When advocates for public and separate schools, in fact those people demonstrating at McDougall Centre in Calgary and l’école Chinook Park today, cry out for more funding, the government says there’s no more. For the government’s funding period of 1994 to 2001 private school funding adjusted for inflation will increase by over 50 percent, but public education for the same period doesn’t even keep pace with inflation. My questions are to the Premier. Why the double standard: all ears when it comes to private school funding and a deaf ear when it comes to children in public schools? MR.

KLEIN: Well, again I’m sort of curious as to why this hon. member would be asking that question. She was, when she was the Minister of Education, a great protector of private education, Mr. Speaker. There are numerous quotes in Hansard where the hon. member, when she was Minister of Education, stood up for and protected the concept that there should be an alternative and was a great protector of private education, as she was of the public education system as well. So, Mr. Speaker, relative to her questions today, as opposed to her answers of many years ago, I will have the hon. minister reply. MR. MAR: Mr.

Speaker, in the province of Alberta there are many choices with respect to education. One of those choices is with respect to private education. The hon. member knows and the people in this Assembly know that parents are very supportive of choice. We have many different types of choices. They may be charter schools. They may be private sc hools. They may be Catholic schools. They may be public schools. There is an element of choice that people support. The hon.

Leader of the Opposition knows that the increase for private education was the consequence of a number of recommenda- tions, 26 in total, that have come as a result of an extensive consulta- tion with the public headed up by the hon. Member for Calgary- Glenmore. Mr. Speaker, one of the recommendations set out in that report was an increase of the support to private education that would see education for private school students go from 50 percent of the instructional grant rate that is enjoyed by public, charter, and Catholic school students to 60 percent.

That is a difference of 10 percent, going from 50 to 60 percent, staged over a two-year period commencing this year. So as a consequence . . . MRS. MacBETH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Given that the funding framework committee is already in place and the Minister of Education has refused to expand its mandate to look at the inade- quacy of the funding levels provincewide, will the Premier show some leadership, expand the mandate of the committee, and show the same respect for public school supporters as he showed for private school supporters? MR. MAR: Again, Mr.

Speaker, the announcements that we’ve made over the period of the last three years have amounted to roughly $400 million and for the next three years an additional $600 million. I wouldn’t want members of the public or members of this Assembly to be misled into thinking that we are not responding to the concerns of people who talk about the importance of public education, because it is important. Many people have indicated on both sides of this Assembly as well as in the public the importance of our public education system. Mr.

Speaker, a billion dollars being invested and reinvested in education over a six-year period, a 36 percent increase: one cannot look at that and say that there is not a great deal of support for public education in this province. That 36 percent increase over a six-year period is far greater than the rate of inflation and the rate of the growth of the number of students put together. Mr. Speaker, it is not just about the amount of money that you spend. It is also where you spend it. We are focusing those dollars on classrooms and classroom resources, where they will result in the most benefit. MRS. MacBETH: Mr.

Speaker, my final question is to the Premier. What will it take for those students and parents demonstrating at McDougall Centre, at l’école Chinook Park today, at towns and cities all across this province to stop being ignored by this Premier? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. Minister of Education pointed out, we will have invested up to the year 2001 something close to a billion dollars in education. As the minister pointed out, that’s an average of just a little bit over 6 percent per year. That is substan- tial.

I take strong exception to the implied assertion that people are striking and protesting throughout this province. That is not happening. It is not happening. Yes, I understand that there was a protest. There were a number of teachers outside McDougall Centre in Calgary. There is a job action going on. We’re doing our very, very best through the Department of Labour to find the resolution to

1314 Alberta Hansard April 28, 1999 that particular dispute, which is between the Calgary teachers, the public board of education, and their elected board. To suggest that we are ignoring education is absolutely wrong, false, irresponsible, reprehensible, b ecause we have identified education as our number one priority. I reiterate what I said in this Legislative Assembly a few days ago: that our long-term goal relative to education is to achieve excellence, Mr. Speaker, excel- lence. THE SPEAKER: Hon. members, we’ve now been 15 minutes into this question period, and we’ve had two sets of questions.

I have a large list of other members who want to participate. Third Official Opposition main question. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Rutherford. VLT Plebiscites MR. WICKMAN: Mr. Speaker, recently the Premier mused a bout the elimination of the role of the opposition. Now this government appears to be closing the door to plebiscites. Maybe I should be addressing the Premier as chairman. Maybe I’m witnessing democracy by a stopwatch. My question is to the Premier. Does the Premier really endorse this silly motion of the minister of lotteries to eliminate any future VLT petitions? MR. KLEIN: Well, Mr.

Speaker, I would hope that the hon. Member for Edmonton-Rutherford would support the legislation, b ecause basically it includes retroactivity to remove VLTs from those communities that voted to have them removed and also prevents those communities like Rocky Mountain House and Sylvan Lake from reintroducing those machines. Yes, it could be by plebiscite. We’re not saying that it has to be by plebiscite. Or it could . . . [interjection] Mr. Speaker, would you keep your . . . [interjections] I mean, Mr. Speaker, would you please . . . You are very patient, sir. Mr.

Speaker, the hon. member was on a city council, and he knows full well the rules of planning. There’s a number of things within the Municipal Government Act that can be used to trigger a decision, one of which is a plebiscite. There is the process of land use redesignation, which results in a public hearing before a city council. There is the whole issue of applying for a development permit, which is appealable to the development appeal board. What the hon. minister is saying is: let the local process prevail.

That indeed is democracy by duly elected town and city and municipal district and county councils. 2:10 MR. WICKMAN: Mr. Speaker, let me be a little more specific. Will the Premier recognize and act upon future plebiscites that are submitted by municipalities to rid their communities of VLTs? Yes or no? MR. KLEIN: First of all we can’t make that a policy statement right now because the courts have ruled that unless we pass legislation, we can’t make any policies. What the intent of the legislation is, Mr. Speaker, is to let local decisions prevail, local decisions, no matter how those decisions come about.

Let the local policymaking process prevail. MR. WICKMAN: Mr. Speaker, is the Premier saying that his commitment to remove VLTs within seven days upon a su ccessful future plebiscite is now out the window? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, I’m going to have the hon. minister responsible for lotteries supplement, but as we sit here today in this Legislative Assembly, we do not have a policy, according to the courts, that is binding on the Alberta Gaming and Liquor Commis- sion, so we have to get the legislation through. Certainly the intent of the legislation is to let the local policy decision-making process prevail.

I’ll have the hon. minister supplement. MRS. NELSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If the hon. member would read the bill, it clearly identifies in the bill that “the Commis- sion must remove all video lottery terminals from establishments located in the municipalities referre d to in subsection (1).” That direction comes into force upon this piece of legislation passing, because until this piece of legislation passes, we do not have the ability to make policy that the co mmission must follow.

It’s very clear in this bill, and hopefully the hon. member opposite will be supportive of this piece of legislation so that in fact down the road policy directions can be made by government that the commission and the board must follow. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona on behalf of the ND opposition. Employment Standards and Workplace Safety DR. PANNU: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On this National Day of Mourning as Canadians honour the memory of their fellows who have been killed, injured, or diseased on the job, Albertans have every reason to be deeply upset at this government’s poor track record in the area of work-related health and safety. An Alberta worker is injured on the job every seven minutes. This is a govern- ment that during a period of rapid economic expansion has gutted its own Department of Labour and has overseen the Workers’ Compen- sation Board turning itself into a latter-day Scrooge.

To the Premier: how can the government justify cutting by one-half the number of employees in the Department of Labour while the number of workers injured on the job continues to go up? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, first of all I really take exception, again, to all of the assertions put forward by the hon. member. In fact benefits generally to injured workers, those who are truly injured on the work site or at the workplace, have gone up. What has happened with the WCB over the years is that, yes, there has been a shift and a change, and the focus has been on those who are injured in the workplace.

Th e focus has also been on getting those who might abuse the system off WCB rolls and back into the workplace. I’ll have the hon. minister supplement. MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Premier. Mr. Speaker, I would refer the member to page 73 of the business plan, goal 11: “Alberta will have a fair and safe work environment.” In there, in a graph, in terms of injury and disease in 1996 he will see that Alberta has the lowest provincial ranking of person-days lost per 10,000 person-days worked.

What that translates in to is that this province has the number one record in the dominion for injuries that are . . . [inter- jection] We’re the best. We’re the best. That’s what they’re trying to say. I would also have the member look at the number of fatality claims accepted by the WCB: in 1988, 124; 1994, 74; 1995, 93; 1996, 91; 1997, 119; and last year, Mr. Speaker, 105. MS BARRETT: The trend is going back up. DR. PANNU: The trend is certainly going back up, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, how can this government justify ignoring the plight

April 28, 1999 Alberta Hansard 1315 of a growing group of workers who are employed on an ever increasing number of corporate farms but aren’t covered by provincial employment standards and lack workers’ compensation protection? When will farm workers get justice from this govern- ment? My question is to the Premier. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, that question has been asked by the member outside the House as well. There is an employment standards review that goes on that is not addressing this issue per se.

I would point out to the member, though, as he represents a party of workers and a party of people that generally make their living through an hourly wage in a collective agreement, not to be so pessimistic about the people that he works with and that are members of his party. They’re safe workers. They’re smarter workers. They’re better workers than ever before. Have a little confidence that these people are going to deliver the goods, which they are, which is a safer work site than ever before in this province. DR. PANNU: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the Minister of Labour again: how can the minister justify further reductions in personnel in the Department of Labour when the number of employment standard complaints has gone up 34 percent in the last four years and 28 percent last year alone? MR. SMITH: An excellent question, Mr. Speaker. We were at a meeting this morning, and as a matter of fact we found out that employment standards complaints this year are on the rise again. They’re up to about 7,500 from 5,300. So what do we know? We know that in 1993 this province generated $73 billion of activity.

Today this province generates $106 billion, $30 billion more of Alberta goods and services being produced by a workforce that’s over 27,000 people higher than what it was the year before, 57,000 new jobs, a quarter of a million new workers since 1993. Of course you’re going to have more com- plaints. There are more people working here than ever before. What we do know as well is that the productivity of the employ- ment standards department increased last year alone by 17 percent. We’re taking advantage of telephone counseling. We’re taking advantage of closing files faster than ever before.

We’re also responding by saving taxpayer dollars in the area of administering this part of our labour legislation, and we’re working with employ- ees and industries to make sure that we’re preventing this type of activity from increasing at an even greater rate. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Bonnyville-Cold Lake, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. Grazing Leases MR. DUCHARME: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Over the past few days I’ve received more than three dozen calls from rural constitu- ents who attended a meeting in Bonnyville last Friday concerning grazing leases.

According to the feedback I’m getting, the informa- tion presented at this meeting suggests that grazing leaseholders on public lands are going to have their rights and privileges revoked by legislation. To the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Devel- opment: is it true that the government intends to take away the rights associated with these leases on public lands? 2:20 MR. STELMACH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The proposed legisla- tion’s purpose is to strike the right balance between the legitimate interests of all the stakeholders representing public lands; that is, the leaseholders, the oil and gas companies that operate, other mineral extraction, and also the recreational public. The most important is that we are also protecting and representing the owners of the land, the people of Alberta.

Leaseholders will still have the right to sell and assign their leases for whatever the market will bear, and most importantly leaseholders will still have to be compensated by oil companies or anyone wanting to take a portion of the lease out for other purposes. Those leaseholders will be compensated for damages and any other operational concerns on that particular lease.

The regulations, which will be the next step in this process, will include all of the stakeholders, including ranchers, oil and gas companies, and all of the other recreational users, in making regulations that will represent the public lands for many years to come. MR. DUCHARME: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the same minister: does the minister intend to provide information to my constituents regarding these proposed changes? MR. STELMACH: Mr. Speaker, the MLA committee has consulted quite widely, since 1997 actually, on this particular issue, and the process was chaired by the MLA for Drayton Valley-Calmar.

It’s culminated in collating all of the information and drafting the proposed legislation. We’ve also met with the Alberta grazing lease association, with the Alberta Cattle Commission, the Surface Rights Federation, and the Western Stock Growers. Yes, Mr. Speaker, we’ll make every effort possible to get the correct information out to every leaseholder and, most importantly, to all members of the public as well so there’s very clear, concise information with respect to this issue. MR.

DUCHARME: To the same minister: will grazing leaseholders be consulted on the new regulations that will define compensation for damages and operational concerns? MR. STELMACH: Mr. Speaker, absolutely. Our goal here is to include all of the stakeholders in a committee that will be writing those regulations. The intent of course is to pass the legislation, and then the hon.

Member for Drayton Valley-Calmar will be working with a stakeholder committee in identifying concerns, talking about operational concerns, damages, and also talking about those issues of access to public lands and the fines and fees that will be related to that. Protected Ecological Areas MS CARLSON: Mr. Speaker, in March 1992, in the presence of His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh, president of the World Wildlife Fund, the then minister of environment, Ralph Klein, and the late Don Sparrow announced a commitment to protect 14 percent of Alberta’s natural heritage.

In November of that year Alberta signed the statement of commitment to complete Canada’s network of protected areas. The World Wildlife Fund has again given Alberta a failing grade, yet they point out that in other provinces where there is leadership things happen. When will the Premier show that leadership? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, I’m very proud to say that, yes, we made that commitment and that as minister of the environment then we started the process. It was followed through by the hon. Brian Evans and is being followed through as we speak through the hon. Minister of Environmental Protection. Mr.

Speaker, I’m going to have the hon. minister supplement. First of all I don’t give much credence to the WWF, the World Wildlife Fund, as opposed to the World Wrestling Federation. I

1316 Alberta Hansard April 28, 1999 think that our record is absolutely commendable. We’re well on track toward achieving our goal that was committed to in 1992 by the year 2000. I’ll have the hon. minister supplement. MR. LUND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The fact is that there has been great progress made in the program. As a matter of fact, since we announced the process back in 1995, we’ve now increased our protected land by 60 percent. By 60 percent. The fact is that there are currently another 57 sites in the process. Now, I know that the Liberals don’t like to do public consultation. They don’t like it.

They don’t like to have local people making decisions, and that was demonstrated today very clearly by the Member for Edmonton-Rutherford when he was talking about VLT plebiscites. They don’t like local decisions, but we on this side of the House believe very, very strongly in having public consultation. We believe in having the ability for local people to make decisions. Mr. Speaker, yes, the process is long. It’s complicated, but we did make good progress last year. Let me just go through some of the progress. Speaker’s Ruling Anticipation THE SPEAKER: Hon. members, I really love what I do.

My great objective in life, though, is to encourage all members to read the Standing Orders and a few of the other documents that govern the activity of question period. Now, if we’re going to continue with this series of questions, I simply want to remind all members that one of the traditions that has been established in this House which is a very, very good one is that the opposition gets on a Thursday the right to ask the government what it’s planning to do in the following week. The government then provides that information, and an Order Paper is printed. It’s called the Routine.

I’m looking at the Order Paper for today, Wednesday, April 28, and I see that scheduled for debate later today in Committee of the Whole is Bill 15. Now, if these questions here pertain at all in any way, shape, or form to Bill 15, I’m simply going to rule them out. If they don’t, the hon. member has the floor, and she may continue. Protected Ecological Areas (continued) MS CARLSON: Mr. Speaker, why does the minister like the WWF in the years that it gets an A and not in the two consecutive years that it gets an F, which makes a total of three Fs for this province over the past 10 years? MR. KLEIN: Mr.

Speaker, I’m so very happy the hon. member . . . MRS. SLOAN: You just got your notes. MR. KLEIN: No. I just got the copies of our own report card, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to table five copies of Albertans’ environ- mental report card, not the WWF but Albertans’ environmental report card. Ordinary, Average Albertans The real contributors to the Special Places class. Enthusiastically nominated sites and now participate on every local committee. Turns in excellent, practical reports about how to add new Special Places. Recognizes their input just as special as the so-called special interest groups.

They get an A++. Real Conservation Groups These groups are doers, not complainers. They roll up their sleeves, fundraise and work cooperatively with government and industry on specific projects to enhance and improve Alberta’s environment. A partial list of these groups include: Ducks Unlimited, Trout Unlim- ited, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, The Nature Conservancy and The Alberta Conservation Association [amongst others]. Now, they get an A+ for the work they do.

Special Interest Groups These groups often seem most preoccupied with sensationalizing their own narrow view of a problem and with the media attention they can generate. and I would add, through the opposition. Their limited fundraising support from Albertans seems directed at perpetuating their ability to criticize rather than coming up with any constructive solutions on funding environmental projects. So here are the associations that get an F. The Alberta Wilderness Association gets an F.

Refused to join in Special Places class work at all, but still shouts loudly and often from the hallway to tell others how to play. AWA’s often inaccurate comments or accusations get attention, but they don’t make any contribution whatsoever to those doing the real work. So they get an F, Mr. Speaker. 2:30 MS CARLSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will table the comment where he applauded the A they got. Mr.

Speaker, can the Premier answer this question: why is the government not prepared to provide ways to phase out existing dispositions when major industry groups and over 90 percent of Albertans agree that industrial activity is not compatible in protected areas and this government is creating uncertainty for industry and risks international trade repercussions as a result? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know if hogwash is unparliamen- tary, but that is hogwash. We are working with industry.

That’s why the real conservation groups get an A+, because they work with government and industry to find solutions relative to dedicating special places,

whereas organizations like the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society knew the rules before they joined the class, but didn’t like them. Quit last year when the teacher wouldn’t make everyone else do exactly what they wanted instead. So they get an F. And the World Wildlife Fund: More progress could be made if WWF would stop disrupting the class continually, just to hold everyone else up. May also need glasses, seems unable to see the positive in absolutely anything. AN HON. MEMBER: Table it. MR. KLEIN: I have tabled it, Mr. Speaker. They get an F too. And the media.

The Edmonton Journal: This storyteller spins up the strangest tales for anyone who will listen, but seems to get his information from only a few of his favourite classmates. Needs some serious work on perspective and accuracy next term, to avoid having to make more retractions. They get an F. Alberta weekly newspapers: Keep up the good work. Not easily misled by comments of one or two classmates [including the opposition] with their own axe to grind. Checks facts and writes balanced stories without resorting to cheap sensationalism. They get an A. The Edmonton Sun shows continued progress in class.

Writes balanced reports with attention to plain language and brevity. Communicates well with average Albertans. They get an A.

April 28, 1999 Alberta Hansard 1317 THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Egmont, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark. Education Funding (continued) MR. HERARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Recently Mr. Eric Newell, a great Albertan and a man that I have a great deal of respect for, spoke of how education represents the foundation of everything we want and need to achieve excellence both economi- cally and socially for the future. But he also warned that under- funding of education could dim the province’s hope for the future.

So my serious question to the Minister of Education is: is education being underfunded in this province? MR. MAR: Well, Mr. Speaker, I want to say first of all that I agree with the premise that was set out at the outset of the hon. member’s question. I agree that Mr. Newell has much important to say about education and the importance that it has in this province and what it will mean for this province if it is not funded properly. But I wish to say in the strongest terms that education is appropriately funded. Mr.

Speaker, that does not mean that we’re not willing to look at pressure points as they may arise and increase funding to priority areas that can improve our education system when money becomes available. I’ve already stated at some length the billion dollars that will be reinvested and invested in education over the six-year period from 1995 through to the year 2 001. I wish to point out that with respect to that billion dollars our greatest emphasis is on focusing it on classroom instruction. Three out of four dollars that will be spent by this province will be spent in the area of instruction.

I listened very carefully to what Mr. Newell had to say in his comments, Mr. Speaker. I think that he had a number of interesting points that he addressed. Most notably, he did not indicate support for the idea of throwing money at education, but rather his focus was on ensuring that there would be innovative and inventive ways of improving our education system, and I couldn’t agree with him more. Finally, Mr.

Speaker, I just wish to say that programs like the student health initiative, the teachers’ assistance program, the early literacy initiative, English as a Second Language, a boost on areas such as special needs have demonstrated clear examples of the government’s commitment to the type of innovative and inventive ways of improving our education system that Mr. Newell was referring to. MR. HERARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Given that Mr. Newell stated that Alberta’s first . . . Speaker’s Ruling Questions Outside Government Responsibility THE SPEAKER: Hon. member, please. This Mr.

Newell, is he an employee of the government of Alberta? Is he a participant in the administrative competence of the government of Alberta? Is he any different than Mr. Winstone who lives north of Fort Assiniboine? And in a democracy are his views more important or less important? Question period deals with the administrative competence of the government. Let’s have a question on the administrative compe- tence of the government. Education Funding (continued) MR. HERARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the same minister: given that per student funding appears to be remaining close to the bottom among Canadian provinces even though people development was at the top of the priority list at the growth summit, how does Alberta compare to other provinces in per student funding? MR. MAR: Well, Mr.

Speaker, I want to state first of all that our per student funding is not at the bottom among Canadian provinces but rather is fifth among interprovincial comparisons on a per student basis, but I wouldn’t want anybody to be left with the impression that there is somehow a connection between the quality of education and the amount of money that is spent. There is in my thorough review of this area no measurable way of establishing a connection between the amount of money that is spent on education and the quality of the program.

As I’ve said time and time again and I expect to continue to say time and time again, it’s not how much money you spend; it’s where you spend it. I think the most important part, Mr. Speaker, in my response to this is this: that we have middle-of-the-pack spending but top-of-the- pack results. In the most recent r ound of test scores that I’ve seen released related to grade 8 science students where Alberta students participated with students from countries around the world, I wish to point out that Alberta students came out at the top of the pack among Canadian provinces. So, Mr.

Speaker, I simply wish to say that middle-of-the-pack spending and top-of-the-pack results are what we strive for. MR. HERARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My final supplemental to the same minister: given the concerns with respect to the ability of our system to deal with jobs of the future, what are we doing in junior and senior high school cl assrooms to prepare today’s youth for the changing workplace of tomorrow? MR. MAR: Mr. Speaker, I think that this is a very important question, because it’s clear that our intention is to prepare students for the future, not prepare them for the past.

My department supports and encourages school and business partnerships that give opportunities to students to explore different careers in learning about the world of work such as the registered apprenticeship program, Alberta technology preparation, Careers: the Next Generation, the junior achievement entrepreneurial programs, the job safety skills for young workers program, the young scientists conference. Mr.

Speaker, my department has also established a careers transition initiative to work with schools, teachers, businesses, and the community, and this program will help improve career planning and counseling in schools and help link schools to real work situations. It’ll improve work experience programs. It’ll develop employability skills, and it’ll improve recognition of high school learning at postsecondary institutions. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. Workplace Fatalities MR. MacDONALD: Mr.

Speaker, at a Calgary work site last year two workers were electrocuted from 8,000 volts when they contacted a high-voltage overhead power line. These workplace electrocutions occurred because this government does not require Calgary’s electrical system to have a fuse device that shuts off the over 8,000 volts of power after initial contact. My questions are to the Minister of Labour. On this day of mourning for Alberta workers killed on the job, can the minister please explain why a fuse device costing a few hundred dollars is not required to be installed on high-voltage power lines in Calgary? Thank you.

1318 Alberta Hansard April 28, 1999 MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In fact I was at that site the day after the electrocution, and it was . . . [interjection] Did somebody over there say: too late? God, you guys. You know, is there something wrong with you that you would have to say something like that? Two fatalities. 2:40 Mr. Speaker, at that site there were some other issues being dealt with.

The work being done by ENMAX in the city of Calgary and the work done with utility operato rs: they’re meeting the require- ments of the Safety Codes Act in Alberta, and they have systems in place similar to those used all across North America. They take their job very seriously. There was a number of, actually, rehooks of the power supply during the period of that fatality. It was thoroughly investigated. The real issue was the fact that the scaffolding was being moved before being dismantled, and that was what came in contact with the line, causing the fatalities. MR. MacDONALD: Thank you. Mr.

Speaker, the real issue here is the height of the scaffolding. The scaffolding violated your OH and S regulations. Why is your report inadequate and does not address that? MR. SMITH: The member is quite correct in saying that the scaffolding was high enough to come in contact with the line. There were certain tie-offs made. They were attempting to move this scaffolding. Our report is quite consistent in its investigation, and the Department of Labour will stand by that report. MR. MacDONALD: Mr. Speaker, my third question is also to the minister.

Given that we must investigate why accidents occur to prevent them from reoccurring in the future, can the minister explain why there was no formal fatality inquiry into this case and why it is not a standard practice whenever a work site fatality occurs? Alberta workers deserve no less. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I am appreciative of the question on this day of mourning. I know that the member has previously made statements reflective of his desire to make fatality inquiries manda- tory. Never has any of the investigations made by the Department of Labour resulted in the calling of an inquiry board.

As to the details of an inquiry and how they work, they are clearly under the purview of the Minister of Justice, and he may wish to supplement the answer, Mr. Speaker. MR. HAVELOCK: Thank you, Mr. Minister, but at this time I would prefer not to supplement. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: Hon. members, I would strongly encourage those of you who need it to take a 30-second break. We’ll all take one, and then we’ll proceed to Recognitions. Before we proceed to Recognitions, might we receive the consent of the House to revert to the introduction of visitors? HON.

MEMBERS: Agreed. head: Introduction of Guests (reversion) THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for St. Albert. MRS. O’NEILL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s an honour today to introduce to you and through you to members of this Assembly 51 students from École secondaire Sainte Marguerite d’Youville in St. Albert. They are accompanied by John Kimak and by Mme Gidget Bouchard and M. Michel Nault. They are seated in both the public and the members’ galleries. They are here today as part of an organized school day in which they have also visited the law courts and are now attending to the Assembly.

I would ask them to please rise and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Spruce Grove-Sturgeon-St. Albert. MRS. SOETAERT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too, have an introduction today. Within this group is a y oung woman by the name of Farren Hawkes. She represented Spruce Grove-Sturgeon- St. Albert the other week in Mr. Speaker’s Youth Parliament. I know she is up in that gallery, and I would ask Farren to please rise and receive the warm welcome of this Assembly.

Recognitions THE SPEAKER: Hon. members, seven members today have indicated their desire to participate in Recognitions. We’ll proceed first of all with the hon. Member for Calgary-Fort, then the hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. Asian Heritage Month MR. CAO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is with great pride that I rise today to recognize Asian Heritage Month. Through the month of May people in communities around the world and across Canada, including our provincial capital, will be taking

part in this wonderful celebration of Asian art, tradition, and culture. Asian culture covered an extensive period of human history and an expansive part of our planet: thousands of years and almost half our world. Albertan cultural groups with heritage roots tr aced back to the north, south, east, west, and centre of the continent of Asia will be participating in the events that will give all Albertans the opportunity to explore the beauty and the variety of Asian culture as an integral part of the Albertan/Canadian social fabric.

As members of this Assembly we are often invited to attend many of the cultural celebrations that are held throughout Alberta every year. These events allow Albertans to learn more about our world, our neighbours, and the numerous cultures that proudly call Alberta home. I encourage all members of the Assembly to participate with their constituents in Asian Heritage Month and help to recognize Alberta culture. I would like to thank people of various heritages, whose cultural contributions bring richness to our province and to our life. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar.

Workers Killed on the Job in 1998 MR. MacDONALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to recognize this afternoon on behalf of all Members of this Legislative Assembly the 105 workers in this province who lost their lives in workplace accidents in the year 1998. I would like to express once again my condolences on behalf of everyone here to these families in their difficult time. The loss of someone dear is always very difficult. I know these families are blessed with many fond memories, which I trust will help them pass through this sorrowful time.

I’m sure, on behalf of everyone, our prayers are with the families at this time. In closing, I would like to recite a stanza of this poem that was

April 28, 1999 Alberta Hansard 1319 written by an AUPE member to one of his fellow workers who died in a workplace accident. Someone someone died the other day an accident is what they say the boom went up and hit the line the medics came but not in time. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Wetaskiwin-Camrose. Gordon Porteous MR. JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today I would like to congratulate Gordon Porteous, who was introduced earlier, on his recent award of merit from the Alberta Association of Agricultural Societies.

Gordon was a director and president of the association from 1990 to 1991 and finds himself in elite company of award recipients, as the award has only been given out three times since 1989. Gordon was chosen for this award of merit b ecause of his contributions to improving the quality of life not only within his own community but for all of rural Alberta, for his contributions to the betterment of agricultural fairs across Canada, and for helping the Alberta Association of Agricultural Societies develop its goals and objectives to meet the challenge of change.

His successful career includes director of the Canadian association of fairs and exhibi- tions, of which he was president from 1994 to ’95 and general manager of the Camrose regional exhibition from 1985 to 1996. Congratulations, Gordon, on receiving this very special award of merit. Workers Killed on the Job MS BARRETT: I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to recognize the men and women who have died while on the job in Alberta. Our hearts go out to their mothers, fathers, spouses, sons, and daughters.

We must never forget those Albertans who have died doing their jobs, and in remembering them, we need to ensure that employers do their part to maintain safety in the workplace and that they work with their employees to ensure job safety at all times. Profits must never be put ahead of human life. Alberta has a growing workforce. It is critical that workers enter the workplace knowing that employee safety is a priority and not that safe practices are implemented after horrible tragedy has occurred.

As MLAs we should work towards such ends to ensure that every worker in Alberta arrives home safely at the end of their workday. Without taking such action, tributes on this national day of mourning are meaningless. Thank you. 2:50 THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Currie. Proclamation of Family Violence Legislation MRS. BURGENER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The announcement today of the Protection against Family Violence Act proclamation date of June 1 follows lengthy preparation with Alberta’s community services providers, First Nations and Métis communities, and police services.

The lead time for training Police Service members and orientation of Crown prosecutors, probation officers, and victims’ services staff will ensure effective implementation. We have been able to achieve this through our Interdepartmental Committee on Family Violence, which has worked very effectively throughout this process. I would at this time like to acknowledge the support I received from the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Family and Social Services.

I would also like to acknowledge the contribution of the MLA for Calgary-Cross, who is the chairman of the Advisory Committee on the Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Education Fund, which provided dollars to assist with our diverse community issues with the development of our brochure. I would like to acknowledge the initial work of the Law Society and the work of a former colleague in this House, Alice Hanson. I encourage all members of this Assembly to become familiar with this new legislation. Abuse of any kind is not acceptable to Alber- tans. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon.

Member for Edmonton-Manning. Drug Abuse Resistance Education MR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have the greatest pleasure to stand in this Assembly and recognize a very important program at a graduation I attended on April 21, 1999. St. Dominic’s elementary school held their drug abuse resistance education, better known as DARE, graduation. Sixty-eight enthusiastic grade 6 students received a graduate certificate and T-shirt after completing a 17-week classroom setting course.

Uniformed police officers teach this course in a classroom setting to grade 6 students because this is where it has the greatest impact: two very capable Edmonton city police officers, Detective John Glena, a 22-year veteran who has taught two years in this school, and Constable Barb Gamblin, who has taught in R.J. Scott previously. The DARE program started in Los Angeles 15 years ago. It was developed by police officers and teachers. It is taught all over the world in many languages.

The course message reads like this: what drug abuse is; the consequences of using tobacco, alcohol, and drugs; dealing with peer pressure; learning resistance techniques; building self-esteem; learning assertiveness; managing stress without taking drugs; reducing violence; combating media influences on drug use. Mr. Speaker, I think this is a very worthwhile course and very powerful, and I would hope that the whole province would look at taking it on. Clean World Award MR. TANNAS: Mr.

Speaker, I’m pleased today to give recognition to the Alberta Department of Transportation and Utilities in winning the Clean World award. This award, approved by the Governor General of Canada, His Excellency the Hon. Romeo LeBlanc, recognizes the good work of departmental staff and thousands of volunteers across Alberta in their commitment to a cleaner environ- ment through the annual spring cleanup program and the adopt a highway program. Last year approximately 11,500 participants and 429 organizations took

part in the 22nd annual highway cleanup. Mr. Speaker, the adopt a highway program has grown rapidly since its beginning in 1994, and today nearly 3,000 kilometres of primary highways are cared for by some 762 adoptive families, community groups, companies, and nonprofit organizations across the province. Congratulations to the Department of Transportation and Utilities and to all volunteers. Well done.

1320 Alberta Hansard April 28, 1999 THE SPEAKER: Two points of order today. First of all, the hon. Leader of the Official Opposition. Point of Order Allegations against Members MRS. MacBETH: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order under sections 23(

h) and (

i) of the Standing Orders of this Assembly with respect to challenging my motive in regard to private schools. The issue is not support for parents’ choice to send their children to private schools in this province. In fact, it was a choice embodied in the School Act which I was pleased to sponsor in this House in 1988. I’ve never questioned that it was a choice for parents.

What I question is the government’s decision to increase support for private schools in this province from 1994 through to its planning period of 2001 by over 50 percent, during which time public schools received less than inflation, in other words a negative number, over the same period. That was the clarification I wished to make and straighten out the impression that had been left otherwise. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Government House Leader on this point of order. MR. HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I don’t believe I heard anything in the hon. member’s argument which would raise a point of order under the Standing Orders that she raised. It sounded more like she was trying to use the opportunity of a point of order to further explain her position, something which, quite frankly, I think you were trying to point out to us, we had far too much of in question period already in terms of engaging in debate and the length of questions and answers, and the spin that was being put on the

preambles. In fact, the rather excessive

preambles, I would suggest, in question period today really contributed to that process. The fact of the matter is that if we’re going to get into clarifica- tions under points of order, as the Minister of Education pointed out during question period, the increase in the funding to the public school system over that same period of time and through the three- year business plan amounts to 36 percent. There is an appropriate place for debate.

We’ve just come through a month of estimates in terms of how much money is enough and whether the percentage increase is sufficient, whether the public system should be getting more than the private system. The place for that debate is not in points of order nor question period, as I think you were pointing out. I don’t think the hon. member has substantiated a point of order here this afternoon. THE SPEAKER: It strikes the chair that the hon. Leader of the Official Opposition used the Standing Orders to raise in fact a point of clarification, which doesn’t exist. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glenora.

Point of Order Brevity in Question Period MR. SAPERS: Thanks, Mr. Speaker. I rise today and will be quoting from Beauchesne primarily three sections -- 410, 417, and 496, and maybe even 495. It all stems from questions put to the Premier and then his responses. In the context of the excessive use of time in the answers, the lengthy reading from documents, et cetera, I have to place that in a context where I have seen an increasing disrespect for question period in this Assembly and what the purposes of question period are.

This was brought most clearly to mind yesterday when a member of Executive Council admonished a private member for not asking the question that was provided to them to be asked. Then we see the members of the front bench almost having a contest to see who can use the most time in answering a question. You hear them egging each other on, saying, “Just another minute” or “Tell us more” or “Please” and then handing it off to their colleagues on the front bench to supplement.

It’s getting increasingly abusive, and I would direct you first to Beauchesne 410, where we are told in 410(3) that “time is scarce,” and then to 410(7), where it reads, “Brevity both in questions and answers is of great importance.” Then in Beauchesne 417, of course, it says: “Answers to questions should be as brief as possible, deal with the matter raised and should not provoke debate.” Well, there’s a fine art on the front bench of avoiding questions. As you’ve said yourself, Mr. Speaker, that’s why they call it question period and not answer period.

But 417 is pretty clear that the answer should bear at least some resemblance to the questions asked. I will note, sir, that not once today but twice you intervened to try to move things along. It was subsequent to both of those interven- tions that the Premier, in his exchange regarding questions put from my colleague for Edmonton-Ellerslie, went on and on and on and on. When he did so, he quoted from documents. I won’t take up any more time than needed, but I will refer you to Beauchesne 495, where it says:

(1) A Minister is not at liberty to read or quote from a despatch or other state paper not before the House without being prepared to lay it on the Table.

(2) It has been admitted that a document which has been cited ought to be laid upon the Table. Then 496, referring to quotations, talks about how a speech should- n’t be just simply a matter of reading. So, Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate your ruling in this matter and hopefully some guidance so that we can make the best use of question period. 3:00 THE SPEAKER: The hon. Government House Leader. MR. HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To deal with the latter parts first,

section 496 of course is not relevant as no speech was being made. As much as the hon. member might have thought it sounded like one, it was an answer to a question, a detailed answer, no doubt, but not a speech. Therefore, 496 doesn’t apply. Under 495, the question of tabling. The Premier indicated in answering the question that he would be tabling the document and in fact did table the document. So 495 doesn’t apply. With respect to the rules relating to time being scarce and to brevity, in fact, Mr.

Speaker, you drew the House’s attention to the fact that a couple of exchanges during the question period today took a long time. In fact, at noon today I had the honour and privilege of meeting with a committee of members of the House of Commons on foreign affairs and international trade. We discussed a number of things, but before we got into the substantive issues, we talked about the differences between our question periods.

They were lamenting the fact that they didn’t get full and complete answers in the 35 seconds that were afforded to the ministers in the federal House to be able to give a full and complete response to the questions being asked. We in turn lamented that in the 35 seconds that they have for asking a question in this House, the

preambles are sometimes so extensively long and that in fact the

preambles to the question often seem to us to be more important to the opposition than the questions them- selves. The

preambles are used oftentimes to skew the facts or to twist the facts so that they can get in the

preamble something which

April 28, 1999 Alberta Hansard 1321 cannot be appropriately responded to in an answer. Thus it encour- ages the ministers on this side of the House, in getting up to respond to a question, to deal with the skewing of the

preamble, the facts in the

preamble before you can ever get to a succinct response to the question. So, Mr. Speaker, if there’s any ruling to be made in the course of this point of order, if there’s any response to be made to this point of order by yourself, I would suggest it would be, yes, to again admonish both sides of the House that answers should be brief and that questions should be brief, that

preambles should be straight and to the point, and that there should be no

preambles on supplementary questions. There is a point to be made here. I would acknowledge that there’s a point to be made here. It’s a problem that you’ve pointed out consistently, the way we deal with questions and answers in the House. If the members opposite want brief, succinct answers, then I would suggest what they need are brief, succinct questions without long, twisted

preambles. THE SPEAKER: Hon. members, there were some interesting points and some valid points raised by the hon. Member for Edmonton- Glenora and the hon. Government House Leader with respect to this matter. Methinks that every once in a while we have a day such as the one we had today. Now, this is not something to be proud of. I am most certainly not proud of it. I’m not suggesting any hon. member in the House is proud of what happened today.

The fact of the matter is that question period is set aside for an opportunity for some members of the House to basically question other members of the House, those on Executive Council, on matters dealing essentially with those matters which come under the purview of the administrative competence of the government. All the rules, all the rules, all the rules that are there -- and there are actually not that many of them -- that apply to the Oral Question Period are pretty straightforward.

Essentially there are a couple of themes that basically go through it: short, succinct, nonargumentative, nondebat- able, noncontroversial questions that do not seek opinions or information about things that happen outside of the government confines or outside of this particular Assembly. Now, one would think that within that particular kind of defini- tion, wow, one would have a multitude of questions that might apply to a $15 billion a year expenditure budget and issues dealing with nearly 3 million people and the like.

One should also recognize, as well, that the men and women in this particular Assembly are indeed very gifted. They are among the most gifted of the province of Alberta. They had to seek a nomina- tion. They had to seek an election, which means they had to walk on their feet and they had to sell themselves to a public and they had to convince the public that they were worthy of participation in debate, because, after all, everyone elected here has come to debate and represent their constituents.

So needless to say, sometimes when these skills are not particu- larly honed later in the afternoon or outside of the question period or perhaps in the evening, when there are ample opportun ities during the day outside of the question period to hone and develop and continue these skills -- and the chair just would love to see this kind of debate going on at 10 o’clock Wednesday night or 11 o’clock Tuesday night or 4:30 Thursday afternoon. The pl ace for much of this debate is not the question period. The purpose of the question period is to come to the point, ask questions about information, and move on.

I suspect, looking back over my own career, that once or twice I’ve perhaps even violated the opportunity in terms of being argumentative on a question I might have asked and perhaps even violated part of what I’m saying here in some of the questions I may have responded to. But I’m not a good example. So, please, don’t ever use that. You could all be better is what I’m saying. You could all be better, and I’m just asking you all to be better. So the points raised by both the Member for Edmonton-Glenora and the Government House Leader with respect to this matter are very valid ones.

The worst thing that can happen is that we all become very pedantic, very, very restrictive -- this you can do and this you cannot do -- and in essence become very, very sterile with respect to the debate and the enthusiasm that normally is the play that goes on in this particular Assembly. So today is this particular day. It’s April 28. It’s day 38 of this session. I think it’s raining outside and maybe we all feel confined and maybe we all want to go out for a walk. Maybe that’s the reason why we ask the types of questions and we get the kinds of answers.

But if anybody suggests that a poi nted question will not lead to a pointed answer or a pointed an swer may not lead to a pointed supplementary, then they are living in an environment other than the one I see ahead of me. The very nature of this business demands that one would always win with their mind. We have no gunboats in the skies striking people with bullets. Here we will defend ourselves with our mouths and our ability and a great deal of competence.

If we want to become argumentative, I again encourage hon. members to really, truly participate in all the opportunities given for all the debates that are afforded them. You know, with 82 members in the House constantly from 1:30 in the afternoon to 5:30 in the afternoon and then from 8 o’clock in the evening to 11 o’clock in the evening, 82 members in this Assembly and the 83rd person in the chair, wow, what an opportunity. What an opportunity to really let the people of Alberta know what we are all about. Question period seeks information.

That’s the purpose of question period. head: Orders of the Day head: Written Questions THE SPEAKER: The hon. Deputy Government House Leader. MR. RENNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to move that written questions appearing on today’s Order Paper stand and retain their places with the exception of written questions 206 and 210. [Motion carried] Funding Formula for Regional Health Authorities Q206. Mrs. Soetaert moved that the following question be ac- cepted.

Given that on pages 12, 31, and 32 of the Auditor General’s report entitled Examination of the WestView Regional Health Authority dated March 31, 1998, the Auditor General states that different regional health authorities had different assets and liabilities at their inception as well as different costs in delivering services, when will the government implement a funding formula that considers the factors which the Auditor General cited on pages 12, 31 and 32? THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Spruce Grove-Sturgeon-St. Albert. MRS. SOETAERT: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Obviously this is of great concern in my constituency with WestView being so disproportionately underfunded.

1322 Alberta Hansard April 28, 1999 MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, I wish to indicate that we accept Written Question 206. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Spruce Grove-Sturgeon-St. Albert to close the debate. MRS. SOETAERT: Thank you very much. I appreciate the information and look forward to getting it. Thanks. [Motion carried] 3:10 Funding Formulas for Regional Health Authorities Q210. Mrs. Soetaert moved that the following question be ac- cepted.

In the funding formulas for regional health authorities how many data proxies, as opposed to factual data generated by the respective regional health authorities, are being used, and from what data sources are they derived? THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Spruce Grove-Sturgeon-St. Albert. MRS. SOETAERT: Really, this just springs from people’s curiosity about how this is funded, what factual data there is, and what actually is, you might say, made-up data. Thank you. MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, there is really only one part of the formula where this is the case.

However, I will accept the question overall and provide the answer. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Spruce Grove-Sturgeon-St. Albert to close the debate. MRS. SOETAERT: Yes. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the answers from the minister. [Motion carried] head: Motions for Returns THE SPEAKER: The hon. Deputy Government House Leader. MR. RENNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move that motions for returns appearing on today’s Order Paper stand and retain their places with the exception of motions for returns 207, 208, and 209. [Motion carried] Aspen Regional Health Authority M207. Mrs.

Soetaert moved that an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing the number of individuals for whom the Aspen regional health authority No. 11 is financially responsible who are receiving continuing care and who are receiving home care. MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, I accept Motion for a Return 207. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Spruce Grove-Sturgeon-St. Albert to close the debate. MRS. SOETAERT: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I’m becoming the envy of members on this side.

I’m just getting so much information from the minister, and I really appreciate that. [Motion carried] Lakeland Regional Health Authority M208. Mrs. Soetaert moved that an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing copies of letters, memoranda, and written communications in whatever form and however stored from April 1, 1997, to the present between Alberta Health and the present chief administrative officer of the Lakeland regional health authority No. 12 which address in whole and in part the following issues: program reductions, program elimination, staff reductions, and other cost-cutting measures.

THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Spruce Grove-Sturgeon-St. Albert. MRS. SOETAERT: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. With the changes taking place in Lakeland, these are issues of great concern, which I’m hoping we will get responses to. MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, I recommend rejecting Motion for a Return 208. The communications being requested under Motion for a Return 208 must be considered for mandatory and discretionary exceptions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

A request for information of this type should be initiated under the FOIP Act and handled in accordance with the guidelines established under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Spruce Grove-Sturgeon-St. Albert to close the debate. MRS. SOETAERT: Well, my heart’s broken, Mr. Speaker. We were on such a good roll here, and now I’m not going to get that information. However, I appreciate what the minister is saying about requesting it under FOIP.

I also think that when it’s public tax dollars, when there are costs involved, when there’s been a change of administration, when people in Lakeland are worried and concerned, this kind of informa- tion is pertinent so that they understand the situation, so that everyone understands the situation. It would be nice to have it available to show what was in the works -- the program cutting, what was planned -- where the minister had reason to get rid of the board.

Obviously, that kind of information I think people deserve, and I’m disappointed that the minister is not willing to share it. [Motion lost] Regional Health Authorities’ Communications M209. Mrs. Soetaert moved that an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing copies of letters, memoranda, and written communications in whatever form and however stored between Alberta Health and regional health authori- ties defining administration, other direct labour costs, material costs, and capital costs for the purposes of cost accounting. MR. JONSON: Mr.

Speaker, I accept on behalf of the government Motion for a Return 209.

April 28, 1999 Alberta Hansard 1323 THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Spruce Grove-Sturgeon-St. Albert with her heart. MRS. SOETAERT: Well, Mr. Speaker, with all my heart I do thank the minister today for sharing that information with us. I appreciate . . . MR. DUNFORD: You’re so sincere. MRS. SOETAERT: I am very sincere in my appreciation. Thanks to the minister. [Motion carried] head: Public Bills and Orders Other than head: Government Bills and Orders head: Second Reading Bill 206 School (Grade One Entry Age) Amendment Act, 1999 THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Wainwright. MR. FISCHER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is with great pleasure that I rise and bring forward Bill 206, the School (Grade One Entry Age) Amendment Act. At the outset I wish to stress that the intention of this bill is to standardize the age when students enter grade 1, and although which date will always be disputed -- and it is interrelated -- the major thrust is to have each sc hool board have the same entry date for grade 1 students. I would like to start by saying that education -- and I know that we all recognize that in here -- is one of the most important investments this government can make in terms of the future of our province.

Today’s children are the adults, the parents, the workers, the citizens of tomorrow. They are the driving force behind Al- berta’s future prosperity, and while children learn and develop the abilities they will need later in life, they depend almost entirely upon adults to meet their needs and make the decisions on their behalf. Those adults, Mr. Speaker, are us. Our children depend on us to prepare them for the challenges they will face. That means it is our responsibility to ensure our children receive and continue to receive an education of the highest quality.

For this reason we must regularly evaluate our present education system to determine whether or not it is providing our children with a strong foundation to begin their academic careers. As we all know, if a child has a good start, there’s a much greater chance that that child will experience future success. Mr. Speaker, as a parent and a grandparent of 16 young grandchil- dren -- and I must say that any day now it will be 17 -- I have witnessed firsthand different experiences children have depending on the age at which they begin school.

I am very much aware of the sensitive nature of children in their early years and how important it is that children are intellectually ready and socially mature when they begin school. I’m also very much aware that there is a big variation in when they are ready and when they are mature. 3:20 Over the last few years the issue regarding the age at which students are eligible to enter grade 1 in Alberta has been brought to my attention many times.

Parents, grandparents, t eachers, school administrators, board members have expressed serious concerns surrounding the variation in early entrance ages, but one strong theme that has developed is the unfairness and the negative impact on the children. The controversy appears to stem from conflicting views concerning the best age to begin school. School boards want to establish the early entry age with the best interests of the child in mind, but how do they achieve this when they are forced to compete with other school boards for the funding dollars attached to that child?

Today I would like to bring before the House some of the issues that have been expressed to me. It is my hope that the members of this Assembly will give this proposed legislation serious consider- ation after hearing the concerns that are at the forefront of this matter. The objective of Bill 206 is to establish the standard date for children entering grade 1 before they reach the required age of six. The bill proposes to set the early entrance cutoff date at December 31, making the deadline consistent across the province.

The current legislation states that every child who is six years or older on September 1 is to have access to an educational program. This date set for compulsory attendance age would not change with the implementation of Bill 206 as it establishes the mandatory age at which children must attend school. This date of September 1, however, is not the cutoff date at which funding is provided. I suggested December 31 as the date because it is when the majority of the school jurisdictions have set their date.

Although the majority of the students are in Edmonton, Calgary, and Red Deer and they have March 1 as their cutoff date and would be affected by this, there are also jurisdictions which have cutoff dates earlier than December 31, including the Buffalo Trail school division, which is in the Wainwright constituency. So it seems, Mr. Speaker, that the date of December 31 is the most appropriate. This, however, is where the problems arise.

At the present time a specific date for students younger than six is left to the discretion of each individual school board, which leads to competition among the school boards and other administrative concerns, which are not in the best interests of the child. By amending the legislation to include a standard early entrance date of December 31 for all school boards, Bill 206 would alleviate these pressures and allow sc hool boards to focus on education and not on recruiting students for increased funding. We must have policies in place that focus on the children and not on the funding. Mr.

Speaker, if we look at jurisdictions across the province, there’s a broad range of ages for accepting children into grade 1. Some school boards have set the entrance age at six by September 1, while others have settled on six by the following March. This means that in grade 1 in Alberta there may be an age variation of 18 months, over one and a half years. For children in their early years this is a substantial age gap. Allowing students of varying levels of social maturity and readiness to be placed in the same grade results in a significant difference that can actually hinder rather than help early development.

Currently some school boards in Alberta make adjustments in the curriculum to accommodate students who are not able to succeed in the regular curriculum. These jurisdictions have developed special programs that are usually built around a different kind of curriculum or classroom structure. Mr. Speaker, I will give you some examples of Education having to ensure the success of children who are too young for sc hool. There are some jurisdictions that have a proba- tionary program for students who enter school at an earlier age than their peers.

Other school systems offer an extended grade 1 program, in which students are retained until they have mastered the grade 1 curriculum. A third approach to accommodating early entry age students is to make program adjustments in grade 2. Mr. Speaker, these specialized programs are being offered to accommodate students who, if they were a few months older, would not be in need of them. Is this fair to the child who is not ready? Is this fair to the student who is ready and must accept increased class

1324 Alberta Hansard April 28, 1999 sizes and reduced extra programs? The answer is a very clear no to both questions. The legislation before us today would eliminate this inefficiency and in fact could lead to substantial savings to school boards across the province. This already-present age problem in grade 1 leaves Alberta’s teachers feeling frustrated when they’re trying to meet the challenges of wider and wider age ranges. These feelings were clearly outlined in a survey conducted a few years ago in one of our province’s major school jurisdictions.

Over 550 kindergarten to grade 3 t eachers responded to this survey, which assessed t eachers’ opinions on whether entrance age is a major detriment to student performance at the primary level. Only a mere 17 percent of the respondents were pleased with the February 28 cutoff date established by that school division. The results concluded that a strong majority wanted the entrance age to be changed from February 28 to December 31 or earlier. Mr. Speaker, the variation of entrance ages from school board to school board also causes transferability problems for children.

Considering the increased number of families moving to Alberta in recent years, the mobility of Alberta’s population, this variance in cutoff dates has been and continues to be a big problem. School boards, teachers, parents, and most of the students are affected by this problem. It seems obvious that establishing a specific entrance age within our province would ease a family’s ability to move from one region to the other. What do you think goes through a five-and-a-half-year-old child’s mind when they move to a new jurisdiction and are rejected?

What about the child that has grown up in the community and witnesses a newly arrived younger counterpart, who may be his friend, who is allowed to attend school while the child must wait another year? This may not be a big issue to adults, but for a five-and-a-half-year- old child, their feelings and their confidence can be crushed. I want to stress that this problem occurs not only in the Wain- wright constituency, where the military training base is continually bringing new families into the co mmunity, but it exists across the province.

An example of this was recently brought to my attention by a community located on the outskirts of Calgary. This commu- nity has December 31 established as their cutoff date. However, February 28 is the date used in Calgary and other major centres in Alberta. This community fears that their jurisdiction will be bullied into adopting the early entry age deadline of the larger school board in order to accommodate the pressures being put upon them. This would be relenting to jurisdictional competition and jeopardizing their educational philosophy of ensuring that the best interests of the child are met.

As I have mentioned, Mr. Speaker, this school jurisdiction is not alone in their dilemma. Across the province communities are feeling the pressure from population increases and are having to make some difficult decisions. While this province encourages local school board autonomy, many parents, t eachers, sc hool boards, and communities have expressed serious concerns regarding inconsis- tency of early entry age to grade 1.

This situation does not simply encourage local autonomy, but in fact it seems to be fostering a sense of competition where the larger school boards will always be the winner because of the sheer numbers they represent. 3:30 Do we want to support a system which deters the school boards from making decisions based on educational beliefs which benefit the student? Wouldn’t our students be better served by establishing a provincewide entry age? I believe, once again, Mr. Speaker, that the answer is very, very clear to us. The majority of the rural communities support a provincial deadline of December 31.

These schools support a date which considers the advantages to the child in their decision. They believe that older children experience a greater chance of success, and they are willing to sacrifice additional funding in order to maintain their educational beliefs. Mr. Speaker, funding becomes the issue when determining the deadline. Indirectly the cutoff date of February 28 has actually been established by Alberta Education.

Under the regulations stipulated in the 1996 Alberta Education funding manual, funding is provided for students as young as five years and six months of age as of September 1, meaning that in order for a school board to receive funding for a child in the first grade, that child must be six before February 28. Therefore, the funding age, the date on which the money is provided, plays a significant role in determining the date when students typically enter grade 1. The setting of earlier dates also holds true for many jurisdictions across North America.

In fact, most chronological age requirements in North America tend to be moving towards a cutoff date of September 1. By most standards our date of February 28 is a very young entrance age. Mr. Speaker, December 31 is a date considered to be much more acceptable as a deadline. Parents would continue to have the option, based on the readiness of their child, to enter their child into a grade 1 program for the fall or wait until the following year. As it stands now, school boards are making the decisions for the wrong reasons, and parents must conform to that date.

In a provincial comparison, with the exception of Saskatchewan all other provinces have implemented a standard early entrance date. Alberta needs to take an earnest look at the example set by the majority of the provinces in Canada and seriously consider the legislation proposed in Bill 206, which would provide consistency to Albertans. Canada is not alone in realizing that consistency and later entrance are important. In fact, in the United States entrance ages for students have slowly risen over the years.

Now the average cutoff date in the U.S. is December 1, and none of the states currently allow a child with a birth date as late as February 28 to enter school the same year. As well, Mr. Speaker, of the 50 states, 45 have a statewide mandated entrance age for first graders. These facts indicate to me that not only do we need to look at the example set in our own country regarding early entrance age, but we also need to look south of the border. Mr. Speaker, a December 31 cutoff date is also consistent with the age requirement for most children’s extracurricular activities, including community sports teams.

Cutoff dates other than Decem- ber 31 can be disheartening for some children as in many cases they are not able to be in the same activities as their classmates. This inconsistency can really hurt the tender feelings of a young child and have substantial impacts on the confidence and the development of that child. School boards throughout the province have voiced their concern regarding early entry age over the years. In fact, the Alberta School Boards Association, which represents school boards throughout the province, supports a standard cutoff date.

Recently the association asked school boards in Alberta if they would support a standard age across the province. Out of the 60 provincial school boards, 47 responded, and close to 75 percent expressed support for a standard- ized entrance age. Mr. Speaker, my figures on that may be a few weeks old. The rest of the school boards were expected to respond and with quite a positive response. Many of the school boards also favoured December 31.

Further support to them was prompted by Bill 206, and just recently the Alberta School Boards Association adopted as policy the standard- ization of grade 1 entrance, with December 31 as the cutoff date. In addition to the School Boards Association, the Alberta Home and School Councils’ Association also affirmed their support. They passed a resolution urging the government to legislate a standardized grade 1 entrance age across the province and supported December 31 as their cutoff date. They value consistency and wish to decrease

April 28, 1999 Alberta Hansard 1325 confusion for parents and children. They are also encouraged by the possibility of alleviating student transfer problems. So as you can see, Mr. Speaker, here is another important educational stakeholder group among the many who believe strongly in the merits of Bill 206. It is also important to point out that Bill 206 would affect only 6 percent of the students presently enrolled in grade 1, who would be unable to attend school that year. Six percent, or almost 2,700 students out of the 44,000, have their birthdays between December 31 and February 28.

This would allow 2,700 children to spend an extra year of much-needed time with their parents learning nonaca- demic life skills and values such as caring and sharing and love and respect. These children are only five and a half years old, and they need time to develop. [Mr. Fischer’s speaking time expired] I’m just about finished. THE SPEAKER: Hon. member, please. The hon. member would need unanimous consent of the Assembly in order to continue. The hon. Member for Wainwright has requested, through the chair, to seek unanimous consent of the members to permit the hon. Member for Wainwright to continue. MRS.

SOETAERT: Mr. Speaker, a point of clarification. THE SPEAKER: No clarifications. Unanimous consent. All those in favour, please say yes. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes. THE SPEAKER: All those opposed, please say no. SOME HON. MEMBERS: No. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Spruce Grove-Sturgeon-St. Albert. MRS. SOETAERT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m pleased to speak to Bill 206, and I regret not hearing the end. However, had it been his second crack at it, it may have closed debate, and that was the question I had.

Sorry that I’m not quite up on the issues . . . [interjections] Because if you get to speak twice, that could . . . MR. WICKMAN: It’s not the end of the world, guys. 3:40 MRS. SOETAERT: It’s not the end of the world, because I know the member will get to close debate on this. But I am brokenhearted that that had to occur. My heart has been just in this place all afternoon. Mr. Speaker, on Bill 206. I appreciate the member bringing this forward. I have some questions about it that I hope can be ad- dressed.

I realize that certainly in this day and age, with all the mobility of families and job opportunities not only around our province but around our country and the world, the consistency of school-age entrance would be a bonus. So I see some logic and some support for this bill. [Mr. Clegg in the chair] I heard the member say that some school boards had been consulted. He said that most had agreed. I’d like to hear which ones hadn’t and their reasons. He was talking about this change affecting only 6 percent of the kids this year. My concern about that is: should there be a grandfathering clause?

Especially coming from the grandfather. MR. FISCHER: I was going to say that. MRS. SOETAERT: He was getting to that. So with that grandfathering clause, I’m assuming that will address those students who are presently in kindergarten looking forward to going to grade 1 and suddenly will be back in kindergarten again. I don’t think that would do much for their egos and their tender feelings and their attitude towards school. So I look forward to seeing that grandfathering clause that would address those issues. I’m wondering if that member is the grandfather of that caucus.

Do you have the most grandchildren of anyone over there? MR. FISCHER: I think Glen Clegg is starting to get there. MRS. SOETAERT: Oh, the present person in the chair has more than you. Well, I’m not there, and that’s just fine by me right now. MS CARLSON: They’re going to be tied. MRS. SOETAERT: Oh, they’re going to be tied pretty soon. Well, my mother would win, but that’s another story. MS CARLSON: How many has your mother got? MRS. SOETAERT: My mother has 24 grandchildren, but that’s another story. [interjection] No, she only has seven children. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, on this bill.

Different children, of course, have different abilities at different levels as they come into grade 1 certainly, and you’ll even see that in different pockets of our population. No doubt it is related often to the financial income of that family. Not all the time, but certainly a family with greater income than others, where education is valued -- I don’t mean to imply that people who don’t have money don’t value education.

But if we look at the reality of fees, school fees, all the expenses of school right now that are a reality, not everyone has the same opportunity to learn and comes to school with the same skills and levels of ability. So in a way it’s hard to, you might say, lump them all together and expect that on one date they’ll all be at the same level, because that is not the real world. For the administration of this, I respect that it would make it easier, as I see it.

I do, though, wonder -- if the member is looking at this for amendments or if there are regulations -- if a board will be given the opportunity to have an exemption. I know we want it to be consistent. I appreciate and I actually support that it be consistent across the province, but there may be cases where a board will want to make an exception for some reason. Maybe a student truly is a gifted child and more than ready to enter school and there isn’t enough maybe out in the community, et cetera, to keep that young mind stimulated and busy.

Maybe there will be an exception for a student that a school board would like the power to consider. I don’t know if the member has talked to school boards about that, if they have said that that may be a concern. I see that as possibly a concern. For the most part, I generally feel, personally for me, that the longer my child is home with me the better. I enjoy it more. That’s something that’s good for me in my situation with my family. That’s not true for everyone. [interjections] Some people are commenting: my poor children. Is that what you said? They’ve said that too.

As a professional teacher, I’ve often seen young children in a class and older children in a class, because, you know, in any given class you can have a year’s difference in the ages of the children. [interjection] Eighteen months? Right. Okay. So if you’re looking at that, I’ve often thought that you’re going to lose it at one end of the spectrum of education or the other. I’ve often felt that when children enter very young -- now, this is generalizing. This is

1326 Alberta Hansard April 28, 1999 generalizing, and it’s not based on any solid fact. It’s just from what I see as a mother and as a teacher. When children enter very young, they tend to take an extra year at the end of grade 12 before they leave basic K to 12 education. Often those who come in at a little bit of the older scale, a little bit older than the rest, they seem to leave right at the end of grade 12. They don’t come back for an extra year. But that’s not based on any stats. It’s just based on what I think I’ve seen over the years. It’s interesting.

Those students who are a good 18 by the time they graduate, they’re ready to go on and to try other things. Those that are still 17, I think sometimes they need that extra year, maybe not for the courses, maybe for different courses, maybe for upgrad- ing. I think it’s often for the chance to grow up for another year, to have that opportunity to grow up and that. It is a safer environment than being out in that world and going on to different education or into the working world. It would be interesting to have the stats on that; I bet they are available actually.

Do those who are 17 when they graduate take another year of grade 12 as opposed to those who are 18 already? That’d be an interesting stat to look at. MS BLAKEMAN: To look into upgrading. MRS. SOETAERT: They often go back to do upgrading, but I think they’re also going back because they’re still pretty young to be out in that world of work. I of course was one of those older ones when I graduated, one of those few who could drive and legally drink. But of course that’s not for this debate. [interjection] Was it 21 back then? That would have been a long time ago.

No, no, I was one of those at 18, but I was always the designated driver. Mr. Speaker, I want to get back to the entrance age. [interjec- tions] Some of my own colleagues are asking about relevance. I do have a few other things about this. The hon. member mentioned that competition was created by people lobbying for dollars and the earlier they have it. Interesting that this government somehow now doesn’t like competition. I’ve often said that within the public sector, within education, it is not a business. It is not free enterprise.

It is a public service that is provided, one that I wish was more strongly supported by this government. Competition, interest- ingly enough, has been created by this government in several areas. Just look at the present plan, the new program that the Minister of Education brought in where you get more money if you achieve higher marks, higher goals -- you see, it bothers me so much, I can’t remember it -- the performance incentive, that performance- based money going out. The member mentions competition, yet this government has created competition that is certainly unfair in the public sector.

That is an example where I personally have lots of problems with competition. The member thinks competition is bad in this area, and I agree with him. I bet if he really thought of that incentive and that performance thing, he might disagree with that too.

It’s too bad that didn’t have a chance to come to the Assembly to be debated, because I think some people in that caucus forgot some of these issues about competition and where it’s good and where it’s not good. 3:50 As far as competition goes within this bill, I realize that because of open boundaries with school boards now -- and I still have mixed feelings about that one. I do, being a person who represents five different school boards, all in close proximity.

The lobbying for students, the money that gets spent on newspaper ads, radio ads, those kinds of things, to market to get a child into their system -- and I understand why they’re doing it, but every time I see education dollars spent on marketing, it bugs me. To me that’s not where those education dollars should be going. Yet the reality that we’ve put school boards at is that they do have to compete for those students, and they do have to compete for those dollars.

So no wonder this problem of competing for young children and changing the date and changing the date and changing the date across the province has been created, and now it has to be addressed through the Legislature. I’d love to hear the member’s view on that, that competition is bad in this area, yet this government endorses it in all other areas with public education. So I understand now why school boards have done this competing with children coming in at different age levels. It’s a problem they created.

They put that cart before the horse a few years ago when they opened up boundaries and said: you can lobby for all kinds of kids, all kinds of money if you market properly. And that’s what’s happened. I’m torn on that. I support your ability to choose where you want your child to go, but I also know the difficulties it creates, especially if someone lives close to the boundary of another school. It’s one thing if you live in the far corner of Sturgeon. You’re most likely going to send your child to a Sturgeon school. But if you live right on the edge of St. Albert and you have the choice of sending them to St.

Albert, to Spruce Grove, or to Sturgeon, you’ve created an issue where school boards have to compete for that person. Is that good? Well, maybe it puts everybody on their toes, but on the other hand it forces people to spend money on marketing dollars instead of where it should be: in the classroom. You know, the member has the opportunity to have his bill up, and that’s great. I envy that because I’m way down on the list, probably won’t see the light of day certainly this session. If you really were worried about those grandchildren -- I know you love your grandchildren. I’m not questioning that at all.

But for all those young children going into classrooms, wouldn’t it be better to legislate class size? Wouldn’t that be a more powerful private member’s bill and better for your grandchildren? I know that’s not part of this bill. I know it’s not, but I just question: when you get a chance to bring forward a piece of legislation, why wouldn’t you bring forward something that would really have some impact across th is province? But of course that would mean some funding through the government, and I realize that with a private member’s bill it might not be possible.

On the other hand, if some person had the courage to go forward, it would establish a principle if it were supported by the majority of the Legislature. It could go through, and you could go down in history saying: I did that and I’m proud of it. Now, I’m sure you can go down in history by saying: I made sure everybody started grade 1 on December 31. Well, that’s good. But just think what your grandchildren would say about you if you said: I made sure there couldn’t be any more than 18 kids in a grade 1 class; I made sure of that. They’d say: Grandpa, you are our hero. But that didn’t happen.

Mind you, they may still say that because they probably love you, but truly other children across the province would have said that about the hon. member. Now that won’t happen. He could have been the Wayne Gretzky of education, but I think the hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods is that. He is the Wayne Gretzky of education, not the Member for Wainwright. Anyway, a few more things. Oh, I only have a few short minutes left. They might give me unanimous consent to continue though, but I don’t think so. [interjections] My own colleagues won’t.

I do look forward to the replies from the member about the grandfathering clause, and I’m assuming he said that this affects 6,000 children this year. I’m assuming within that grandfathering clause that will be explained, because that is not fair to children right now in early childhood, in kindergarten who -- I certainly don’t want them to be denied the opportunity to go to grade 1 because we’ve got a new piece of legislation in. So I’d really appreciate a full explanation of that grandfathering clause and what it will mean to those children.

April 28, 1999 Alberta Hansard 1327 [Mrs. Gordon in the chair] I appreciate the efforts of this member to get some consistency across Alberta. I think that is probably supported within the province. I’m anxious to see the replies from the school boards. I can appreciate where the member is coming from, and I’m going to listen to all the debate. But right now the way I feel about it, I will probably be supporting Bill 206. Thank you, Madam Speaker. THE ACTING SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Bonnyville-Cold Lake. MR. DUCHARME: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I’m pleased to speak in support of Bill 206, the School (Grade One Entry Age) Amendment Act, 1999, sponsored by the hon. Member for Wain- wright. We have determined that the intent of the proposed legislation is to establish a standard cutoff date for early entry to grade 1 across the province so that every child in Alberta has an equal opportunity to quality education. I believe it is important that we as a province commit to a system of education in which our children are provided with a good start to learning while they are still in their formative years.

A strong foundation in education undoubtedly leads to success in future endeavours and develops the skills needed to be healthy and productive individuals. Currently the age at which students in the province of Alberta are eligible to enter grade 1 differs from one jurisdiction to another. The sponsor of this bill mentioned in his comments that the entrance age varies from six years of age by September 1 to six years of age by February 28. However, the majority of the school boards in Alberta have the cutoff date set at December 31. Madam Speaker, this is also the date p

Document details

Collection	Alberta — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	19990428
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	L24 S3 19990428 1330 01 han.pdf
Language	en
Format	json
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	a59370e471df90d609d42174823fbca8d69f3ee8

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