Alberta Hansard — 25 November 2003, Evening sitting (20:00) (Legislature 25, Session 3)

20031125

Alberta — Debates (Hansard)

November 25, 2003 Alberta Hansard 1863 Legislative Assembly of Alberta Title: Tuesday, November 25, 2003 8:00 p.m. Date: 2003/11/25 head : Government Bills and Orders head: Committee of the Whole [Mr. Tannas in the chair] The Chair: I’d like to call the Committee of the Whole to order. I wonder if the committee a s its first item w ould agree to a brief introduction of guests. [Unanimous consent granted] head : Introduction of G uests The Chair: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Rutherford. Mr. McClelland: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

To you and through you to col leagues it’s my pleasure to reintroduce Sarah Monkman, who is in the Speaker’s gallery. As members will know, Sarah Monkman is a former page here and was of great assistance to us for two years, 2000-200 2. Sarah is now a st udent at G rant MacEwan. She’s in a two-year general studies program leading to a career in nursing. S o, Sarah, w ould you ris e, and we would be delighted to give you the traditional welcome. Bill 44 Personal Information Protection Act The Chair: The hon. Minister of Government Services. Mr. Coutts: Thank you, Mr. Chai rman.

I’m pleased to ris e this evening in Committee of the Whole to discuss Bill 44, the proposed Personal Information Protection Act. Just a few general comments before bringing in some amendments. I want to s peak about the content of the bill, and I want to talk briefly about the importance of the bill. The Personal Information Protection Act will help protect Albertan’s personal information by establishing clear, concise, an d commonsense rules for the private sector when collecting, using, and disclosing personal information.

If Alberta does not enact the Personal Information Protection Act, the federa l pr ivate-sector privacy act w ill govern personal information in A lberta’s private sector on J anuary 1, 2004. The Personal Information Protection Act will address Alberta’s private- sector needs better than the federal act. Our legislation is drafted to make it easier for small businesses to follow. For these reasons the government of Alberta strongly supports the proposed Personal Information Protection Act, and we urge the opposition to join with us in supporting this bill.

I’ll turn my comments to th e content of the b ill for just a few moments before the amendments. A s the members know, Bill 44 had first reading in the spring 2003 session, but it was held over until the fall se ssion to allow time f or addition al stak eholder input. Stakeholder input has led to a number of proposed House amendments to Bill 44 and a few consequential amendments to other government statutes to ensure their consistency with Bill 44. So, Mr.

Chairman, with your permission I propose to address the House amendments and the consequential amendments this evening as we go through committee, through the substance of the bill, and I am pleased to introduce these amendments to Bill 44, which I wish to move as a package and have voted on as a single vote.

Section 1 of the bill sets out a number of

definitions including the terms “business contact information,” “investigation,” “personal information,” and “organization.” We are making a few House amendments to the definition section. First, the term “credit reporting organization” is being de fined to clarify the provision in the act that uses this term. Secondly, the defi nition for the term “ investigation” is be ing simplified but not substantially changed. Third, the term “organization” is being clarified to address how the act deals with contractors and agents of an org anization. The reference t o contractor s and age nts is being moved f rom the definition of the term “organization” to

section 5, the provision of the act that deals with compliance. This amendment is housekeeping in nature and will make it clearer that organizations are responsible for their contractors’ and agents’ compliance with the act but that contractors and agents must still comply with the act. Finally, the definition of “personal information” is being modified. Currently personal inf ormation i s define d to exclude busine ss contact information. On the advice of our drafter the exclusion of business contact information is being removed from the definition

section to the

section that deals with all of the other exclusions from the act, which is

section 4. This amendment is hou sekeeping only and will not change how the act addresses business contact information. Business contact information will still be excluded from the act whe n it is used for the purpos es of c ontacting individuals in their capacity as an employ ee or an official of an organization. When it comes to the reasonable standards in

section 2, the bill sets the standard for compliance with the act, and that standard is the reasonableness sta ndard. This standard is important because it ensures that the act is flexible for sm all and medium-sized businesses. If businesses act reasonably, they have no problem with complying with the act.

Section 3 establishes the purpose of the act, and the purpose is to govern an organization’s “collection, use and disclosure of personal information” in a manner that balances the pri vacy rights of individuals with the ne ed of org anizations to collect, use, and disclose personal information for reasonable business purposes. Under Application in

section 4 it establishes what is not governed by the act. The act does not gover n matters such as the collection, use, or disclosure of personal information for personal or domestic purposes, artistic or literary purposes, or journalistic purposes. The act also does not govern personal information that is collected by the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. We are making a few House amendments to

section 4. First, as mentioned earlier, we are moving the exclusion of business contact information from the definition

section to

section 4. Secondly, at the request of Health and Wellness the exclusion for health information in

section 4(3)(

e) is b eing am ended. This amendment will exclude from Bill 44 all health information “where that information is collected, used, or disclosed by an organization for health care purposes.” The third House amendment to

section 4 will exclude from the act personal information in records de posited in ar chival institutions prior to the coming into force of the act where public acces s to the records has been unrestricted. The fourth and fifth House amendments to

section 4 will exclude political parties, constituency associations, and candidates for public office from Bill 44. The personal inf ormation held b y political parties and constituency associations is already protected under the Election Act, which includes serious penalties for misuse of t his information.

Section 5 indicates compliance with the act, that “an organization is responsible for personal information . . . in its custody or under its

Alberta Hansard November 25, 20031864 control.” As mentioned earlier, we are making a House amendment to

section 5 to clarify that or ganizations are re sponsible f or their contractors’ and agents’ compliance with the act but that contractors and agents must still comply with the act. When it co mes to policies a nd practice s under sec tion 6, this establishes that organizations must develop and follow reasonable policies a nd practice s to me et their obli gations unde r the act. Organizations must also make information about their policies and practices available upon request. Where it comes to consent under

section 7,

section 7 states that unless the ac t allo ws otherwise, an orga nization m ust obtain the consent of an i ndividual when t he organization collects, uses, or discloses the individual’s personal information. Under Form of Consent in

section 8 it provides that consent can be given orally or in writing or it can be implied when an individual volunteers his or her personal information to the organ ization. Organizations can also give individuals the choice to opt out of the organization’s collection, use, or disclosure of the personal information.

Section 9, where we loo k at with drawing of co nsent, all ows individuals to withdraw or vary their consent as long as there are no legal obligations and they’re not affected. Consent obt ained b y deception: sec tion 10 state s that conse nt obtained by deceit is not valid. Limitations on collection in

section 11 requires organizations to “collect personal information only for purposes that are reasonable.” Limitation on sources for collection:

section 12 states that organizations can collect an individual’s personal information from someone other than that individual if the act allows this information to be collected without consent. When it comes to

section 13, requiring notification for collection, organizations are to notif y an individual of the purpose for which their personal inf ormation i s being col lected and the na me o f someone in the orga nization who can answ er questions about the collection. However, this requiremen t does no t apply if the individual voluntarily provides his or her personal information. 8:10 Collection without cons ent:

section 14 describe s the situa tions where consent is not needed for the collection of someone’s personal information. These situations inc lude wher e the colle ction i s authorized or required by law, the collection is for a legal proceeding or investigation, or where the information is publicly available. We are proposing three House amendments to

section 14. Two of them are housekeeping in nature . One cla rifies the intent of the opening paragraphs of

section 14, and the other clarifies the meaning of

section 14(g). The third House amendment to

section 14 adds to the act another situation where consent is not needed for collection of personal inf ormation. The additi onal situati on is wher e the collection of information is from a public body that is required or authorized by legislation to disclose the information.

Section 15 allows an organization to colle ct personal employee information without consent in certain ci rcumstances. W e are proposing two House amendm ents to sec tion 15. The first amendment will require organizations to provide notice to employees prior to the collection of their personal employee information unless the information can be otherwise collected without consent under the act. The second House amendment to

section 15 is the deletion of a requirement for organizations to destroy the personal information of potential e mployees if these indi viduals are not hire d after a recruitment process. The act’s general provisions regarding record retention address this issue sufficiently. Under

section 16 a limitation of uses requires organizations to use personal informat ion only f or purposes tha t are re asonable, a nd

section 17 describes the situations where consent is not needed for the use of someone’s personal information. This provision mirrors

section 14, which de als wit h collection of pe rsonal inf ormation without consent, and the situations where consent is not needed for the use of someone’s personal information include where the use is authorized or required by law, the use is for a legal proceeding or an investigation, or where the information is publicly available. We are proposing two House amendments to

section 17. These amendments mirror t wo of the House am endments proposed for

section 14. One of the amendments is housekeeping in nature, and it simply clarifies the intent of the opening paragraph of

section 17. The House amendment to

section 17 adds to the act a situation where consent is not neede d for the us e of pers onal inform ation. The additional sit uation i s where the in formation is coll ected from a public body that is required or authorized by legislation to disclose the information.

Section 18 allows for an org anization to use personal employee information without consent in certain circumstances. This

section mirrors

section 15, which deals with collection of personal employee information without consent. One House amendment is proposed for

section 18, and it mirrors one of the amendments proposed to

section 15. The amendment will require organizations to provide notice to employees prior to the use of personal employee information unless the information can be otherwise used without consent under the act. Limitations on disclosure :

section 19 a llows org anizations to disclose personal inf ormation onl y f or purposes w hich are reasonable.

Section 20 describes the situations where consent is not needed for the disclosure of someone’s personal information, and this s ection mirrors sections 14 and 17, which deal with the collection and use of person al inf ormation w ithout consent. The sit uations whe re consent is not neede d for the di sclosure of s omeone’s personal information include where the disclosure is authorized or required by law, w here th e disclosur e is for legal pr oceedings or investigations, or where the information is publicly available. There are four House amendments proposed for

section 20. Two of the amendments mirror amendments proposed for

section 14. The first amendment is housekeeping in nature, and it simply clarifies the intent of the opening paragraph of

section 20. The second House amendm ent to sec tion 20 adds to t he act another situation where consent is not needed for disclosu re o f personal inform ation. The additional s ituation i s where the disclosure of infor mation is to a public body that is re quired or authorized by legislation to collect the information. The third House a mendment to

section 20 clarif ies the posi tion that allows disclosure without consent for the prevention of fraud. The amendment has been requested by Alberta Revenue to ensure that regulation of the securities industry can continue its presence under the act. It clarifies that this provision also allows disclosure without consent for the prevention of market manipulation and unfair trading practices in the securities industry. The final House a mendment t o

section 20 is housekee ping in nature and clarifies that disclo sure without consent unde r

section 20(

n) can only be carried out by a credit reporting organization.

Section 21 allows for an organization to disclose perso nal employee inform ation withou t consent in certain circumstances. This

section mirrors sections 15 and 18, which deal with collection and use of pe rsonal employee information without c onsent. One House amendment is proposed for

section 21, and this amendment mirrors one of the amendments proposed for sections 15 and 18. It will require organizations to provide notice to employees prior to the disclosure of their personal information unless the information can otherwise be disclosed without consent under the act.

November 25, 2003 Alberta Hansard 1865

Section 22, w hen i t comes to bu siness tra nsactions, allo ws organizations to collect , use, and dis close pers onal inform ation without consent to another organization where the one organization is selling its busi ness to another orga nization. T here is one amendment proposed for

section 22 that is housekeeping in nature, and the amendment will ensure that there is no conflict between this

section and any other

section in the act. Sections 23 an d 24, access to p ersonal information, define two terms.

Section 24 sets out the process an individual needs to follow to obtain access to his or her own personal information held by an organization, and it’s important to note that the act only allows an individual to request his or her own information. The act does not allow people to request information about other individuals or about the organization itself.

Section 24 de scribes the situations where organizations either may or must refuse access requests. We are proposing two House amendments to

section 24. The first amendment will ensure that i ndividuals can only request access to their own person al information con tained in a recor d. An organization will not be required to provide access to personal information disclosed in oral conversations. The second amendment clarifies that an organization does not have to provide access when access would reveal the i dentity of an individual who provided an opinion about the indi vidual if the opinion was provided in confidence.

Section 25 gives individuals the right to request an organization to correct their personal information that is held by that organization, and

section 26 establishes how individuals make requests for access to their personal information.

Section 27 requires organizations to make r easonable efforts to help applicants with access requests, and

section 28 gives businesses 45 days to respond to an applicant’s request for access unless th e time period is extended under another

section of the act.

Section 29 requires organ izations to advise applicants whether access will be granted or why not. If an access request is granted,

section 30 allows organizations to either provide the applicant with access to the records or copies of that record.

Section 31 allows organiza tions to tak e an ext ra 30 day s to respond to an access request or, with the permission of the Privacy Commissioner, longer if the req uest would inter fere w ith the operation of the organization.

Section 32 give s o rganizations the rig ht to charg e applicant s reasonable fees for access requests.

Section 33 states that organizations must make reasonable efforts to ensure that personal information they collect, use, or disclose is accurate and complete.

Section 34 requires organizations to m ake reas onable sec urity arrangements to protect personal information in its custody or under its control, and

section 35 allows organizations to ret ain personal information as long as is reasonable for legal or business purposes. The role of the commissioner in

section 36 sets out general powers of the Inform ation and Priva cy Commissioner, and these powers include conducting investigations if complaints are received, holding inquiries into potential breaches of the act, and informing the public about the act.

Section 37 giv es the commi ssioner the power to allow an organization to disrega rd an acc ess reque st if th e r equest w ould unreasonably interfere with the organization’s operations or because the request is frivolous.

Section 38 describe s the com missioner’s powe rs when t he commissioner is conducting an investigation or holding an inquiry, and we are proposing one House amendment to sec tion 38. The House amendment would a llow the c ommissioner to pub lish any findings or decisions in a complete or abridged form. 8:20 Sections 39, 40, and 41 place limits on the use and disclosure of statements or information provided to the commissioner during an investigation or inquiry, a nd sections 42 and 44 are general provisions relating to the operations of the commissioner’s office.

Sections 45 and 47 allow how individuals initiate a complaint with the comm issioner o r a sk the commissioner to review an organization’s decision, act, or failure to act.

Section 48 establishes who the commissioner must notify when he receives a complaint about an organization or a request for a review into the conduct of that organization.

Section 49 gives the com missioner the power to media te complaints or any matter under review. Sections 50 and 51 set out the procedures for a c ommissioner’s inquiry. Se ctions 52 to 54 address what the commissioner can order at the conclusion of any inquiry and how long organizations have to comply with an order of the commissioner.

Section 55 applies to professional regulatory organizations such as the Law Society of Alberta or the governing body of engineers.

Section 55 allows professional organizations to develop and follow a personal information code instead of the act as long as the code is consistent with the act. [Mr. Coutts’ speaking time expired] The Chair: I wonder if we might get unanimous consent to allow the minister to finish his comments so that we might get this on the table. [Unanimous consent granted] The Chair: The hon. minister. Mr. Coutts: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for the indulgence of the House. I have three and a half more, and I’ll keep reading at the same speed and get it done. It is important to get this on the record. We are proposing two House amendments to

section 55. The first amendment ensures that t he commissioner has the power to apply provisions of the a ct wher e a persona l inform ation code is inconsistent with the act or sil ent on the m atter. T he second amendment clarifies how a professional regulatory organization can obtain the minister’s approval to have a personal information code stand in place of the act. In terms of nonprofit organizations

section 56 establishes that the act only appli es to nonprof it organizations when they collect personal information in the course of a commercial activity.

Section 57 states that the organizations are protected from legal action if they act in good faith when disclosi ng or failing to disclose personal information under the act.

Section 58, protection of employees, provides that organizations cannot take negative employment action against an employee if the employee in good fa ith informs the com missioner that the organization has contravened the act. When it comes to offences and penalties,

section 59 sets out all of the offences and p enalties under t he act. U nder damages for the breach of the act,

section 60 gives an individual the right to see k compensation in court if the commissioner has found that an organization has breached the act.

Section 61 sets out who can ac t on b ehalf of an individual in exercising an individual’s right under the ac t, and s ection 62 contains the authority for cabinet to make regulations under the act. Regulations on unforese en matt ers, whi ch a ppear i n

section 63,

Alberta Hansard November 25, 20031866 allow cabinet to amend the act through regulation, and a Ho use amendment deletes this section.

Section 64 requires a legislative review of the act to start within three years of the act coming into force, and

section 65 states that the act is to come into force January 1, 2004. Included with this are the consequential amen dments, Mr. Chairman. The Persona l I nformation Protection Act makes a number of consequential amendments to other government statutes. The consequential amendments will ensure that the collection, use, and disclosure of persona l information through t hese statutes will occur within the spirit and intent of Bill 44. In addition, a couple of the consequential amendments will permit disclosure of personal information for proper corporate governance matters.

The list of statutes being consequentially amended is as follows: Cemetery Compan ies Ac t, Charitabl e Fund-raisi ng Act, Co- operatives Act, Cr edit Union Act, Fina ncial Consum ers Ac t, Insurance Act, L oan and Trus t Corporatio ns Act, Re ligious Societies’ Land Act, Securities Act, Societies Act, an d the Vital Statistics Act. Thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Chairman, and I now move that we adjourn debate on Bill 44 in committee. [Motion to adjourn debate carried] Bill 43 Post-secondary Learning Act The Chair: We have an amendment, which at the moment is known as amendment A1. The hon.

Government House Leader. Mr. Hancock: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Pursuant to Sta nding Order 32(2.1) I would request unanimous consent of the House that when division bells are called during consideration of amendments of this bill, the time of those division bells be reduced to one minute. I believe we have the consent of the opposition. [Unanimous consent granted] The Chair: Hon. Minister of Learning, go ahead. Dr. Ob erg: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. To cont inue debate? The Chair: The first item that I must deal with is how we’re going to divide this thing, so if you’re speaking to that, please go ahead.

Dr. Oberg: Mr. Chairm an, follo wing c onsultation w ith the opposition, it has been agreed that the amendments currently on the floor and tabled by myse lf be spli t up in the f ollowing w ay to accommodate specific discussion, voting, and subamendments. First of all, t he main amendment we pr opose wil l still remain amendment A1.

Section L, or tuition fees, in the amendments will be broken out to become A2.

Section Q, which is regulations, will be broken out to be come A3.

Section S, which is labour , will be broken out to become A4.

Section U, arbitration, will be broken out to become A5.

Section Z, audits, will be broken out to become A6. Finally, Mr. Chairman,

Section II, business plans, will be broken out to become A7. Thank you. The Chair: The opposition concurs with this split? Agreed? Okay. We’re ready to go, then, on amendment A1 unde r the outlined scheme, which means, then, that we’re dealing with a whole bunch of things: A to K, M to P, R, T, V to Y, AA to HH, and JJ to PP. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods on amendment A1. Dr. Massey: I’m sorry, Mr. Chai rman. Wa s A1 se ction 62? [interjection] The rest of the amendments? Okay.

So in just talk ing, then, g enerally to the rest , let me start by thanking the minister for agreeing to pull out those portions of the amendments that we would like to focus on – we appreciate that; it makes it easier for us to deal with the number of amendments that are before us – and also for agreeing to the one-minute bells, because if there should be standing votes, that w ill, I think, expedite the business of the House. I think there are some general comments to be left with the number of amendments that are left. 8:30 Mr.

Chairman, the process that the government used where they introduced the bill in the spring session and then consulted with groups over the summer and fall has many strengths, but it does have some downsides, and one is the number of amendments that you end up trying to deal with. I’ve got my bill tabbed, and it’s a purple sea of tabs trying to keep track of all the information.

Nevertheless, it was a process that the government undertook, and I think that having met some of the interest groups, it has allowed the interest groups to have their input, not always got the reaction that they wanted, but at least they had the opportunity to make and suggest some changes.

The minister e arlier in t he day t abled letters of su pport from a number of the institutions across the province, and we’ve had calls and contact from a n umber of the adminis trators a nd people in charge of those institutions in support of Bill 43, as we have with a number of the e mployee associations, not tha t they’re universally happy, but they feel that the changes and the work that they did on Bill 43 has been recognized, and at this point they’re for the most part satisfied with the provisions of the bill.

Ther e are a couple of sections that they aren’t and that we’d like to raise, and that’s why we’ve asked for those sections to be par celed out for further deliberation this evening. So with those sort of preface remarks, Mr. Chairman, I think that if you look at the amendments in total, one of the concerns – and I think we’ve mentioned this before – that we’ve had with the bill is the c entralizing of pow er in Edm onton. It see ms that this is consistent with a number o f pieces of legislation that ha ve had a similar impact in funneling decision-making into Edmonton.

I know that there are good reasons for that, but I also know that it’s done at a price. One of the concerns that it raises for us, particularly with Bill 43, is the treatment of all of the postsecondary schools in the province as one group. One of the great strengths, of course, of the Alberta system has been t he uniqueness of the post secondary learning institutions in the provinc e.

You on ly have to trav el to Key ano College, SAIT, the Unive rsity of Calgar y, or th e Univers ity of Alberta, and you realize how unique each of those institutions is and the special kind of niche that they have developed for the kinds of courses and programs that they offer students. The fear of the kind of centralizing that’s gone on in the bill and goes on and is reflected further in these amendments and also the Campus Alberta initiatives are going to have a negative impact on that uniqueness. I think it’s going to be, maybe in retrospect, something that we’ll regret down the road.

I can understand, you know, Campus Alberta and the need to try to develop a seamless system across the province where pieces are interchangeable, but I also a m w orried about the qual ity of the offerings that would be made under such an arrangement. As I said,

November 25, 2003 Alberta Hansard 1867 I worry about the uniqueness of institutions b eing l ost in this one huge massive sy stem with pieces that are s upposedly interchangeable, and it would be, I suspect, the future to see whether or not those fears are realized. There are a number of good things that I personally support. I like the notion of studen ts being able to access degrees and programs close to their own homes. I realize, given the vast geography of this province, that by not offering programs locally, we rule out further education and the pursui t of parti cular int erests by a number of Albertans.

I referred to the quality. I think that sometimes we overstate the quality fear in terms of institutions. If you look south of the border and even with our own province, institutions become known for their reputation. When people attend a community college, I think they judge the credential that they receive from that college and value it every bit as much as the credential that someone earns from one of our major universities. So I think the institutions have a reputation and are know n for the w ork th at t hey do, a nd again I think sometimes the quality fears are overblown.

The sections i n the am endments that have been p roposed with respect to Campus Alberta I think are a move in the right direction and do focus on quality. So with those general comm ents about Bi ll 43, I think I ’ll conclude my comments, Mr. Chairman. The Chair: The hon. Member for Edm onton-Strathcona on amendment A1. Dr. Pannu: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m pleased to rise and speak to the proposed package of amendments with the exception of those six that will be dealt with separ ately.

I also do w ant to acknowledge the mini ster’s attempt t o make a decisi on on th ese amendments in a way that will I think help us deal more effectively with the bill and the amendments to it before us. So I am pleased that we have come to this agreement. On the amendment A1, to distingui sh it from the oth ers, I have some concerns that I expressed during debate in the second reading of the bil l. Th e pr imary concerns that I have sti ll remain. The excessive centralization and over co-ordination of the system I think lead to one key concern that I have about the bill.

The bill is being a sort of omnibus bill which tries to incorporate under one piece of legislation a ve ry di verse group of postsecondary institutions, starting with hig hly research-based and - driven univ ersities to a university that deals primarily with distance learning and another university in Lethbridge which prides itself on focusing very much on pr oviding quality undergradua te degre es, althoug h not exclusively undergraduate programs, to technical institutes to public colleges and many other colleges which, in addition to providing a large number of educational experiences, are on the borde rline of high school and postsecondary, are focused on skill development and are directly related to work or labour markets. 8:40 All of these institutions draw attention to a great diversity, and any piece of legislation that tries to, of course, deal with this d iversity under one piece of legislation is likely to run into some difficulties.

To make the notion of Campus Alberta a seamless system I think is a far too ambitious ideal although it’s desirable that within the, say, university-based related pr ograms or courses the tra nsferability issues should be dealt with in a way that facilitates students’ attempts to get posts econdary education, l eading th em to c omplete their university credentials or degrees by moving from one institution to the other without much difficulty.

So some s tandardization, some ha rmonization is, indee d, important and desirable, and on that I think there’s no difference of opinion, but the notion of Campus Alberta to me is based on perhaps an assumption which I find difficult to validate or find valid, that all these institutions can be sort of blended within the system in a way that makes it seamless. It is neither possible nor I think desirable. One of the great characteristics of the postsecondary system is and should be ability to innovate, ability to be fle xible, abil ity t o experiment both within institutions and bet ween and am ong institutions.

This kind of flexibility, this kind of ability to compete with each othe r in pursuing i n ways that are novel and f resh and nonroutine academic activity, acade mic work, I think is a highl y desirable quality of a vibr ant, productiv e, creative postsecondary system. The Campus Alberta notion I think would make great sense if we were to assum e that the only rea son for being a post secondary system is to fe ed into the e conomic g rowth or de velopment initiatives and needs of the province.

Clearly, an educational system, a postsecondary system, w hich includes universities, colleges, technical institutes, and other types of colleges, to define its purpose entirely and exclusively in terms of the relevance of their work to economic growth or economic development is really to start going down a path which in the not too distant future is likely to prove to be not only futile but very, very harmful to the future development – so cial, political, e conomic – of our ve ry dive rse and dy namic province and provincial community.

Universities particularly exist not only within the boundaries of a province; they have a sort of international and national context. The conditions that the y’re calle d upon to mee t, the im position of requirements on them in terms of the dev elopment of co urses, programs, and varie ty in the resear ch eff orts and o thers must therefore be not so restrictive as to make it difficult for them to see themselves as part of thi s nation al and in ternational networ k o f scholarly and academic activity I call the international ac ademic marketplace.

We have in C anada, f or exa mple, a national A ssociation of Universities and Colleges, AUCC, which in a sense is an accrediting body. Most of the postsecondary institutions, degree-granting colleges and univer sities, aspir e to get t he seal of approval w ith respect to their work from this national academic association called the AUCC.

Necessarily, then, the notion of Campus Alber ta must re main accommodative to th is n ational body and its sta ndards, its accreditation requirements, its ex pectations, and the desire on t he part of its member institutions and those institutions which aspire to become members of it to be able to freely participate in the mandate of this organi zation called AUCC a nd to be able t o keep the ir membership, retain it if they already have it, or to be able to meet the requirements of this body to become members and, therefore, enjoy the accreditation of this body.

The requirements in the bill therefore, I think, must be considered in light of any possible conflicts between the requirements that may be outlined by way of legislation here and the requirements for accreditation that may be deemed necessary by the AUCC. At this point I simply want to raise this point.

I think we nee d closer scrutiny of the provisions of the bi ll to see whether there is potential for difficulties that might arise in the way the provisions of this bill interact with those req uirements and expectations that the AUCC sets out f or i ts mem bership of ins titutions and f or the accreditation process that it uses and the accreditation requirements that it uses. One other point I would like to make by way of general comments on amendm ent A1 is the need f or a respe ct o f autonomy of

Alberta Hansard November 25, 20031868 institutions. The histor ical ex perience of acade mic systems, the history of aca demic i nstitutions tha t are the envy of t he world, clearly draws attention to the fundamental necessity, fundamental need for these institutions to enjoy as great an autonomy in defining their purpo se, definin g t heir g oals, defining their missions as possible.

Again, I thi nk the notion of Campus Alberta in a se nse, in my view, will ta ke aw ay f rom that autonomy that is seen to be so necessary and that historically has proved to have such a critical role in allowing these institutions to beco me w orld leader s in the academic world and the academic community. So the principle of autonomy would seem to be something that may be compromised if the notion of Campus Alberta as broadly defined here and outlined here in the bill is taken to its logical conclusion.

So uniqueness a nd diversity of institutions within a system and autonomy of eac h leadin g institution w ithin the sy stem a re important. The notion of Ca mpus Alberta and the desire to create sort of a seamless system may run counter to these two principles to some extent. At least that’s my concern. The third point that I made has to do with the national context in which the whole question of accreditation of courses, programs, and institutions has to be a ddressed.

It can’t be se en as pri marily a provincial matter as it seems to me is assumed in Bill 43, specifically the portion of it that we now refer to as amendment A1. With those remarks, Mr. Chairman, I’ll conclude my preliminary remarks and move on to the other members. 8:50 The Chair: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie on A1. Ms Carlso n: Thank yo u, Mr. Chair man. I’m happ y to add my comments and concer ns on this

part icular bill , Bill 43, the Post- secondary Learning Act, specifically to the amendments that we have labeled A1. I always think it’s better if the government does a l ittle m ore consultation up front and i rons out the problems in proposed legislation before it hits the floor of the Assembly. It’s much easier for us to deal w ith, it’s ea sier to ge t buy-in f rom people in the community if they can be part of the drafting of the legislation, and I think generally speaking it’s beneficial for everyone concerned.

When tha t doesn’t happe n and when t he gover nment look s to change legislation that is comprehensive such as we saw when they first brought Bill 43 in in the late spring, then there are bound to be extensive amendments. The good news is that if there are extensive amendments, the gove rnment ha s listene d to a t leas t what s ome people have said. The bad news is that we end up seei ng them in this Legislature at a very l ate date without a great d eal of t ime to consult stakeholders and review the bills.

Generally speaking, the government likes to bring them in in one big honking package like we’ve seen this t ime, and that isn’t very con ducive to thorou gh review and examination, Mr. Chairman. Fortunately, the gove rnment a greed to pul l some of the m ore contentious issu es out of this particular package for individual debate, and we have before us now amendment A1, which, in fact, covers many, many sections of this particular bill.

W hile some of them I don’t have a depth of knowledge on to com ment, there are some concerns that I do have about some of these amendments in A1 that I would lik e to put on the r ecord and in some inst ances some things that I like. For instance, in

section A, when we talk about the applied degree being able to be granted by public colleges or technical institutes on the completion of the appropriate course work, for the most

part I am in real agreement with this. It is nice in a province like Alberta that we can try to make education accessible to people. Allowing some of these other organizations to provide degrees certainly increases the possibilities for people in more remote areas of Alberta to get an education. It isn’t always that they can’t afford to come to the city to take their education, but they don’t always choose to do so, Mr. Chairman, for lifestyle considerations.

It seems to me, par ticularly when I talk to young w omen across this province, that they’re apprehensive about pulling up stakes at home and moving to a lar ge city and finding accommodation and fitting into that kind of a v enue. Generally speaking, in those first transition year s out of hig h school they want to g o for m ore education in a place that’s closer to home, and this certainly gives them that potential. As they become a little more comfortable, then they can make the choice w hether or not to move to a larger area where there ar e univers ities. T here’s another upside t o that.

Generally speaking, the public colleges or technical institutes have much smaller class sizes, and most students would agree that that’s a real benefit in their first year. As they make the transition to more self-directed s tudy, it’s helpful to them to not be in very large classes. The downside of having these kinds of applied degrees, as I see it, is that you lose the research ability that the larger institutes have. So you have to wonder what kind of impact that has in the long term on the students and on the i nstitute’s ability to be leaders in whatever the particular field is that they’re o ffering.

Without research it’s really tough for learning institutes to grow and to build and to thi nk outside of t he box and dev elop new i deas and technology, which has been a hallmark of Alberta institutes. I think we have to be cognizant that this could present an issue and that over time it mig ht be a proble m in this province.

With that c aution, I hope that the minister plans to monitor this in some fashion, and I hope that all of the directly affected institutes will be reporting back to the minister on how they see that impacting their ability to provide education to the students and to still be leaders in a variety of fields. There’s usually quite a la rge differential in price for t uition in colleges and other institutes as compared to universities, and a large component of that is often tie d to re search doll ars.

So if people don’t understand the necessity or the importance of res earch and they base their dec isions on where they’re attending solely on the basis of a cost, th en I thin k t hat we could ha ve some long-ter m problems in that regard. However, given the long waiting lists that we currently have for the universi ties and th e high level o f marks that students have to at tain in order to be admitted in the first instance – perhap s I’m overly concer ned abou t this – I t hink a cautionary flag should go up.

I think that it is something that should be watched not just for the next year or two but, more importantly, watched and monitored for the next 10 to 15 years because I think that’s when we’re going to see that the impact is really over the long term rather than over the short term. The next part of the amendment that I want to talk about in A1 is

section G, and that’s a

section that talks about the changes for the institutes and colleg es to “es tablish a pr ocess for the rev iew and approval o f proposed progra ms of study to be submitte d to the Minister.” I don’t act ually ha ve an op inion on this one, Mr. Chairman, because I’m not sure what the minister does when he gets all of the that information in. Is he trying to co-ordinate a standard level of programming, or are you just archiving the information? I really don’t know what you do with it, and I wouldn’t mind if you would answer that question for me.

The next conc ern I have is secti on P, tha t talk s about the borrowing abilities that are being given to the institutes. I have a problem with educational institutes having access to being able to borrow money whether it’ s general over drafts or for m ore

November 25, 2003 Alberta Hansard 1869 comprehensive changes to the institute like infrastructure changes. I know tha t many of the f inancial ins titutes would completely disagree with me on this one, but I think that it is the responsibility of government to make sure not onl y that the institutes have their money on t ime, when the y need it, bu t that there is a long- term planning function in pl ace so tha t retrof its and ex pansions and upgrades and regular significant maintenance and repairs are done and are done in a capital manner in accordance with funding from the government. What we see in

section P are several areas of changes with regard to borrowing abilities. The first one, in 73(1), talks about A board may borrow from any bank or treasury branch or from any other person any sum of money required to meet the expenses of the public post-secondary institution until the time the revenues for the current year are available. This is an out for the institutions to be able to meet their expenses if the government doesn’t have the money forthcoming in a reasonable time period.

I would expect the financial institutions to be handling the other moneys t hey hav e avail able to them in a wa y that i s consistent with those moneys beco ming available at the time they need them. 9:00 It seems to me that this is particularly addressing the government’s timing issues around money.

That’s been a pet peeve of mine in this Legislature since I w as first here, and that is tha t the gove rnment often doesn’t have its budgets ready for approval by the end of the fiscal year, and by the time those approvals are giv en, people are somewhat int o th eir fisc al ye ar and do have real proble ms w ith shortfalls of cash. It isn’t just educational institutions. It’s everyone who rece ives mone y from the gove rnment, be it sma ll nonprofit organizations or otherwise.

So there’s an extra administration burden placed on these financial institutions, including a cost of borrowing for the interest charges. What they need to do is then have staff in place to do the planning. If the mone y doesn’t come in by here , where do we go f or th e money? How are we going to negotiate the interest rates? How are we going to pay it back? What happens if we take a short-term loan and the money still isn’t available? What if there’s some last-minute change in the dollars available? Higher is not a problem, but lower certainly is a problem. So it crea tes unnece ssary stress on organizations.

I believe that it should be a requirement of governments to have their budgets in to Legislatures by February when the fiscal year is March 31 and fully de bated by March 15 so t hat moneys can be disbursed in a time that works with the year that the government uses for their fiscal time period. It just seems to be good common sense, and anything less than that creates a lot of unnecess ary paperwork and concern for the people receiving the moneys.

Section 73(3) talks about: Subject to the approv al of the Minis ter, a board m ay fo r the purposes of the public pos t-secondary instituti on, as de fined i n

section 73.1, borrow by way of temporary loans from any bank or treasury branch or from any other person any sums of money on any terms the board determines, by way of an overdraft or line of credit or by the pledging as security for t he tem porary loans of notes , bonds, debentures or other securities of the board pending the sale of them, or instead of selling them, or in any other manner the board determines. Once again, I just think this is an unnecessary clause to have. Proper timing for institutions is doable and should be the way that business is conducted.

It isn’t like I don’t know what I’m talking about here, because that is my background. Prior to being in politics, I did a lot of work with organizations to ensure that the timing of their money received coincided with the time that they needed it. It isn’t that tough to do. A little planning and you can be there. Then they g o on to talk a bout debenture bor rowing in

section 73.1(1), and this talks about borrowing sums of money from time to time and issuing notes, bonds, debentures or other securities. It then goes on to list a number of the conditions, which really result in no conditions. It seems to be pretty easy to access them. Debenture funding usually occurs for large kinds of infrastructure concerns or developments or buildings.

This specifically speaks to a move away from the government being a base fund er for educational institutions and, I think, paves the way for P3s and other kinds of expa nsion oppo rtunities for these inst itutions that, I’m pretty sure, 20 years hence we’re going to be concerned about and say: this was a very bad idea. I don’t think that debenture borrowing is the way that we should b e looking at for our educational institutions to be financing their expansions or maj or renovations.

So I really don’t like that one and would have like to have seen that as a stand-alone amendment that came up for debate that we could show to a few people prior to having this debate this evening. Other than that, it seem s like the rest of the amendments in this package of A1 a re not of a ny really grave concern to me . I l ook forward to debating the more contentious amendments that are on the floor for a little later this evening. So with that, Mr.

Chairman, I will take my place and listen to the rest of the debate on this particular amendment. [Motion on amendment A1 carried] The Chair: We now move to amendment A2, which i s

section L. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. Dr. Massey: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You almost need a program to follow what we’re doing this evening. Amendment A2 is that portion of those amendments that refer to

section 62, and

section 62 is the part of the bill – I guess it’s been the most contentious part of the bill – that sets the tuition ra tes in our postsecondary institutions or sets out the laws that have to govern it. One of the things that was done in the early ’90s was the placing in the act of a tuition ca p of 30 p ercent. I remember talking to students at the time and asking them w hy they had agree d to 3 0 percent. Their r esponse was that they had no choice , that the minister of the day told them that he wasn’t willing to talk to them unless they were willing to accept a 30 percent cap.

Now, whether that’s true or not, that’s how the history of the 30 percent cap was related to me. But the 30 percent cap represented a change in public policy in our p rovince, a change that would see students and their parents and fam ilies bea ring a gr eater port ion of postse condary school costs. It’s had a significant effect on students and, I think, a number of unintended consequences. The cap has allowed tuition rates to rise.

I know the minister is fond of pointing to the ranking of tuitions that various institutions in the province enjoy, but it would seem to me that of all the provinces in the dominion, ours is the one that could pro vide leadership in having the very lowest of tuitions. No other province is as blessed as we are. I think no other province is in the position to recognize the huge, huge benefits of having a well-educated population and has the resources to do something about it.

We constantly hear the notion of education being treat ed as a n investment, and t hat analogy still bothers me, th e notion t hat we view everything we do within the context of a business model, but I think there are some sound economic arguments for having the best educated population that we possible can and particularly the best postsecondary programs and graduates that we possibly can.

Alberta Hansard November 25, 20031870 9:10 Nevertheless, the 30 percent cap has been in place. A number of institutions will never come anywhere close to that c ap. I suspect that Keyano College, a number of places, will never be close to the 30 percent, but there are a number of others – and the minister has mentioned the University of Lethbridge – that are approaching the cap. What this provision do es is really nullify the effect of having a 30 percent c ap, because if the y reach the cap, then some other provisions kick in which allow them to ex ceed the 30 per cent ca p that’s in place.

They are allow ed to increase the tuition in the following year to match the “Consumer Price Index plus 2%, which must not result in a decrease or be greater than 5%.” So there ar e provisions for tuition i n this portion, a nd thi s amendment opens the door for institutions to far exceed 30 percent, and if the institutions took advantage of it year after year, we could see where the tuition could represent a significant portion, well past 30 percent, of the operating cost of the institution.

In fact, there was, I think, a sobering communiqué from one of our technical colleges today that they’re going to be over a three-year period looking at a 26 percent plus increase in tuition. I suspect that should this become enacted, that’s going to be m ore the pr actice t han not, and we ’re going to see some rather large t uition increases that will affect the kinds of students that attend our institutions and will affect the kinds of programs that students choose when they’re thinking of pursuing a postsecondary educat ion.

There’s already some evidence that stu dents from middle-income f amilies are becom ing underrepresented in postsecondary populations. So it’s with that in m ind, Mr. Chairm an, that I w ould like to propose an amendment to w hat we are calling amendment A2, t o

section L. The Chair: Hon. member, a subamendment? Dr. Massey: Yes. A subamendment to

section L. The Chair: The subamendment will be known a s SA1, w hich is amending amendment A2. A subamendment to A2. So SA1 amends amendment A2. Did you want to go ahead? Dr. Massey: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The amendment before us reflects, I think, some of the current thinking of student leaders in the province with respect t o what they would like to s ee in a tui tion policy, but I take full responsibility for it b ecause there are so me pieces that are not of their doing. What it would do first would be to strike out

section L and then to substitute th e following. I think it’s fairly clear what we ha ve in mind. First of all, “tuition fees at public post-secondary institutions shall not be incre ased beyond 2003-2004 levels until” – and then these are the provisions; so, actually, there’s a tuition freeze – “the Minister establis hes an indepe ndent panel to conduct a comprehensive review of Alberta’s post-secondary institutions.” So, first of all, we’d like an independent panel to look at our postsecondary schools, and we’ve mentioned this a number of times during the session, Mr. Chairman.

I think it’s becoming imperative that the province look down the road in terms of where we are going 10, 15, 20 years from now with respect to funding our postsecondary institutions. I th ink there’s a need to try to make s ure that those institutions are going to be, firstly, adequately funded so they can do the job that they ’re mandated to do and, secondly, that it be affordable for students and, third, that there be some predictability with respect to funding. Mr.

Chairman, in funding Alberta’s postsecondary institutions, the problems that we face are similar to the problems faced in all t he provinces, and to my knowledge no province has taken the lead. I don’t think this can be done sole ly by the provinc e, because the federal government has a role in this, but I think the re has to be a real attempt to sit down and hammer out a long-term plan that would bring some stabili ty to the fund ing of pos tsecondary schools and help take the pres sure off i nstitutes continually having to turn to students to make up oper ating cos ts.

So the f irst part of our amendment is to have an independent panel rev iew the postsecondary i nstitutions, a nd this is cons istent w ith what t he Learning Commission has asked for. Secondly, the panel’s report would be forwarded to the minister, who would share copi es with the memb ers of t he Assembly a nd make the report public. So th e minister would make public those recommendations that ref er

part icularly to tuit ion, and “upon completion of the report prepared under subsection (1), . . . tuition fees must be set in accordance with the regulations.” The third one would really place the 30 percent cap and make it a real cap, that t hey should not exceed 30 per cent of ne t operating expenditures. If the r eview is undertak en and does i ts job, then I would think that the yearly battle we have over tuition m ight no longer be with us. Then, fourthly, “This

section does not apply in respect of students in apprenticeships programs under the Apprenticeship and Industry Training Act.” So, briefly, that’s our subamendment with respect to

section L of the government’s amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 9:20 The Chair: The hon. Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition on subamendment SA1. Dr. Nicol: Yes, on subamendment SA1, Mr. Chairman. I’d just like to talk ab out the importance that w e place on having an absolute built into tuition fees.

I know that the whole system of what is fair and what is equitable in terms of institutions starts to come up when we start to talk about a cap, or a limit, being put on tuition fees as a percentage of an inst itution’s operati ng grant, but we also have to look at the long-term effect that this has on students. You know, the way the original amendment is being applied in the sense of having a cap with exceptions leads to what creates some discussion about: is the exception appropriate?

In effect, we end up in a situation like we heard about t oday, where S AIT is tal king about a pplying for exceptions to bring in their tuition on a regular basis at levels above what the base level would allow but being subject to that exception. I know the minister has pointed out the fact that the University of Lethbridge in my home community supports this kind of an idea, but it’s more a reflection of the fact that t he funding f ormulas don’t reflect the diff erence betw een institut ions rather than that a ll institutions should be treated the same, with one set of regulations.

When we look at it from the point of view of what is the r elevant cost of educating a student and who gets the benefits, if we used the 30 percent as the approximate ratio between the public good and the individual good of the student, then we should be making that kind of a relationship exist for all students. But when we come along and say at some point in time that an institution, whether it be a technical institute or a college or a university, can apply for exemptions, then we’re saying that they ’re going to be trea ted differently based on their circumstances.

What we should be doing is making sure that the funding formula we use to measure operating expenses is unique and equal across all those institutions s o that that r elationsh ip between the public and private funding of a student’s education is consistent no matter which institution you go to and no matter which program you’re in.

November 25, 2003 Alberta Hansard 1871 A situation ca me up tod ay in a discussion I was ha ving with a couple of individuals about funding for education. We were talking about capital funding as well. Some of the institutions now are in effect using their operating grants to fund capital projects. What’s happening is that they’re leasing space, and they’re building this into their operating grants, especially if they ’re getting research grants that have that option built into them where they can expand space.

Well, that jacks up the operating grant of the institution so that they can subsequently jack up tuition by 30 percent of that capital cost as well. This in effect varies, then, by institution, whether an institution needs to expand c apital assets through the operating g rants or whether they expand their capital assets through a capital grant that doesn’t get included in their operating grant. So what we in effe ct have is a real discrepancy being cre ated between the ma nagement of inst itutions.

W e’re encouragi ng institutions now to start managing to increase their operating grants so that they can increase tuition and further increase their revenues by having higher tuition to carry on their programs. This reflects on the fact that we don’t have the right funding formulas. I guess that as we start to look at who gets the benefit out of an education, yes, the individuals do, but w e also do g et this ki nd of benef it at a societal level f rom having individua ls with qua lity and a bundant levels of educa tion and a la rge percentage of our popula tion with postsecondary education.

We don’t want to be in a posi tion where we’re creating discrepancies. By giving exc eption to the rules under regul ation, we’re in effect making political decisions about the relative shared costs of an ind ividual’s education and the institutio n that that individual may end up taking that from. We should take the politics of ministerial decision-making out of whether or not a student goes to this institution or tak es that program at an insti tution.

That , in effect, is what the current amendments would end up doing by giving institutions the right to apply for exemptions to the 30 percent level of tuition as a percentage of their operating grant. Mr. Chairman, I don’t want to spend a lot of time on it, but I just want to make sure that we get a chance to look at it. I t’s better to change the formula and the way we measure operating revenues and operating expenditures than to try to create political situations where who ca n make t he best argument or who can’t make the best argument gets the option to change their tuition fees.

That, in effect, makes tuition p olicy political instead of a policy based on what is appropriate, fair, and equitable for all students in this province. So I would encourage everybody to support this subamendment because this basically says: let’s make sure that all students relative to the operating costs of their institution are treated fairly. So I hope everybody supports it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Chair: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. Ms Carlson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I, too, a m very much in support of the suba mendment present ed by the Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods and am very m uch opposed t o the government’s amendment as we see it in A2. It’s a very important issue that we talk about in terms of tuition fees. There are all kinds of outstanding issues that need to be resolved about how they are determined and whether or not institutions have started at the same place, that there’s a level playing field out there. It is clear, I think, that there isn’t when you take a look at the government amendment talking about different rules for different organizations.

I very much support the establishment of an independent panel to conduct a comprehensive review of institutions and then that that report and recommendations are forwarded to the minister and then, hopefully, acted on with regard to tuition fees, because what we have right now is a situation where many students are just scared off by the costs and that there doesn’t seem to be any continuity from year to year.

When they’re planning their education and if they’re lucky enough to have parents who are helping to finance that proces s, it would be nice to know in a three- or four- or five-year bundle what kinds of expenses they’re truly looking at and be able to incorporate that into the process. I know that there are lots of institutions and lots of faculties who don’t support tuition caps, who would like to make the changes, and certainly we have this discussion at home quite often. I understand the argument that to be globally competitive, you have to pay higher priced salaries to attract some professors.

I understand that argument, and I want Alberta’s institutes to be globally competitive. I want people to be paid fair and rea sonable salaries, but I don’t think you do that on the backs of students. I just don’t think that’s right. I fundamentally believe that in Alberta we should be committed to providing accessible and affordable educat ion, particula rly postsecondary education, f or anybody who wa nts it . If w e really think that lifelong learning means from cradle to grave, then we have to facilitate that process.

One of the best ways we can do that, one of the best e conomic drivers we can have for our ec onomy, is to provide free or as close to free postsecondary education as we can. There are lots of countries who have done this and who have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that that is the economic driver that you’re looking for. 9:30 I do not believe that fiddling around with caps or l ifting caps or increasing the percentage that students pay for tuition facilitates that process in any way, and it does not attract the best possible students to our institutions to do that. They need some certainty in their lives.

There are other ways to be able to fund institutions, and I think that this subamendment brought in by the Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods certainly ad dresses those issues and star ts us on a pa th to finding a resolution that is long term in nature and that is sustainable for this province and for the students of this province for a long time to come. So I very much support this subamendment, and I very much do not support the government’s tuition fees amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Chair : The hon. Mem ber for Edm onton-Glengarry on subamendment SA1. Mr. Bonner: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It is a pleasure to rise this evening and speak to Bill 43, subamendment SA1, as proposed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. Certainly it is a needed amendment to Bill 43, and it is a required amendment at this particular time because it occurs at a tim e in our postse condary institutions when tuition fees are rapidly becoming out of reach for many of our students. Certainly, while the students do benefit from education at a postsecondary institution, the benefits to us as a society are great. As well, Mr.

Chairman, we do have to put on a permanent cap that isn’t flexible, and that is exactly what this particular amendment will do. Under

section 62(1) tuition fees at . . . post-secondary institutions shall not be increased beyond 2003-2004 levels until (

a) the Minister establishes an independent panel to conduct a comprehensive review of Al berta’s post secondary institutions, and

Alberta Hansard November 25, 20031872 (

b) the panel’s report on recommendations are forwarded to the Minister who s hall immediately furnish copi es of it to all members of the Legislative Assembly and to the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly and in so d oing t he report sh all be made public. Of cou rse, thi s is e ssential be cause th is i s, ce rtainly, one of t he recommendations that will ad dress the c oncerns of the student leaders at many of these institutions. We all know today tha t students do e ncounter many hardships, particularly those that don’t have the luxury of living at home while attending a postsecondary institution.

As well, not only is t uition one of the major hurdles that they face, but they face the increased costs of transportation, food, shelter, and textbooks. When I see the price that my daughters have had to pay for textbooks, in excess of $l00, these costs certainly provide a big burden. So with this amendment, when we cap the tuition fees, this has gone a long way to make education very affordable for students and certainly will give them some certainty when they are trying to plan their careers.

It is one of those situations where we do have today students who have an average debt of somewhere in the vicinity of $25,000 when they graduate. We do n’t want to see tha t escalate because we all realize the benefits that we get from a well-educated populace. Now, then, as well, one of the reasons that I support this particular amendment is that these fees will be set. They will not be allowed to increase.

The a mendments that were put forth earlier indicated that those institutions that r each their 30 percent c ap will t hen be allowed to increase their tuition fees to the consumer price index plus 2 to 5 percent. So it is wi th thos e few comm ents, Mr. Cha irman, t hat I wil l certainly support the passing of this particular subamendment, SA1, and I would urge all members of the Assembly to also support this worthy amendment. Thank you. The Chair: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona. Dr. Pannu: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’d like to briefly speak to subamendment SA1, that’s being deba ted before the House.

The amendment, first of all, spea ks to the f act that t he ame ndments proposed by the minister under amendment A2 do not satisfy either the students or, certainly, this member with respect to the issue of the capping of the tuition fees. What the amendment A2 does, in fact, is to allow institutions which have reached a 30 percent ceiling to go beyond that, and institutions that haven’t yet reached there have been given the legislative undertaking that once they reach that point, then they’ll be able to go beyond it as well.

So changes that the minister has made other than putting the magnitude of the increase beyond 30 percent in legislation – and that magnitude is defined as consumer price index plus 2 pe rcent or 5 percent, whichever is greater. That guarantees, as a matter of fact, that the minimum increase beyond the 30 perce nt level maximum guaranteed to institutions would be up to 5 percent. To me that doesn’t at all address the concerns that students have expressed over the last six or seven months that this bill has been available publicly and for public debate and scrutiny. Mr.

Chairman, the current level of tuition fees is so onerous for so many stud ents and t heir fami lies no w that m any stude nts from middle-class families, families whose income lev els are such that students coming from those families cannot even qualify for student loans, are beginning to make decisions not to go to post secondary institutions because in the abse nce of the ir ability to avail of the student loans, they simply cannot see themselves funding their way through postsecondary institutions.

So already, even in institutions where the tuition fees are below the 30 percent ceiling, many young men and women in Alberta wanting to go to those universities and institutions are saying: “No. I can’t afford it. It’s not for me.” The issue of affordability is already a major issue even though the 30 percent ceiling has not been reached by many of these institutions in the provi nce. Stud ents are in fact beginni ng t o st ay away. They’re beginnin g to dec ide not to go t o college or univers ity because of the high cost of going there.

Tuition fees are one port ion of those costs which, certainly, is subject to some control by way of publi c poli cy. That’s where, I guess, the government’s tuition fee policy becomes so critical ly important for students. They know that this is subject to influence by public policy . This par ticular a mendment A2 and the subamendment to it, proposed by the hon. Member for Edmonton- Mill Woods, speaks to that conditi on, that af fordability and accessibility are a lready at stak e.

Affo rdability i s a lready being denied by the c urrent lev els of tui tion fees that prev ail at the institutions which haven’t yet reached 30 percent. 9:40 In spite of the fact that that is the case, this amendment proposed by the minister fails to acknowledge that problem of unaffordability and access ibility a nd, in fac t, prescri bes c ontinuing, unending increases in tuition fees year after year even beyond the time when the 30 percent l imit is reached.

Clearly , I think tha t amendment proposed b y the mi nister as A2 is una cceptable and hence t he subamendment SA1 by the Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. The amen dment pr oposed by t he Membe r for Edm onton-Mill Woods in the first part, at least, calls for a tuition fee freeze up to a certain time, until such time as an i ndependent panel con ducts an investigation. I’m not e ntirely satisfied with t he second pa rt, but certainly to the ext ent that the amendment speaks to the nee d to freeze tuition fee levels at the current level, I’m supportive of this amendment. Mr.

Chairman, there i s urgent ne ed for this Assembly to spe ak strongly and clearly in favour of making postsecondary education accessible and affordable, affordable for all families and young men and wome n coming from all parts of Albe rta. Mere ly gra nting institutions the power s to grant degrees in pl aces which a re now colleges is not enough.

We m ust control the cost for all stude nts regardless of where they live in thi s province so tha t the y are not deterred and discouraged from their plans an d aspi rations to enter postsecondary institutions and get a diploma or a degree depending upon their ability to earn it, not depending on their ability to pay for it. So I am with some reservations supportive of the amendment that the Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods has put before the House. Thank you.

The Chair: Before actually voting on the question, in case there is a division, a reminder to all the members of the Assembly: it’s one minute betwee n the bells a s agree d to earlie r thi s e vening, so altogether it’s about two minutes and 30 se conds. Judge yourself accordingly. [The voice v ote indicated that the m otion on subamendment SA1 lost] [Several members rose calling for a division. The division bell was rung at 9:45 p.m.] [One minute having elapsed, the committee divided]

November 25, 2003 Alberta Hansard 1873 [Mr. Tannas in the chair] For the motion: Bonner Massey Pannu Carlson Nicol Against the motion: Cao Horner Nelson Cardinal Jablonski Oberg Cenaiko Jonson Ouellette Danyluk Kryczka Rathgeber DeLong Lord Renner Ducharme Lukaszuk Snelgrove Evans Lund Stelmach Forsyth Marz Strang Friedel Masyk Tarchuk Griffiths McClelland VanderBurg Hancock McFarland Vandermeer Herard Totals: For – 5 Against – 34 [Motion on subamendment SA1 lost] 9:50 The Chair: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona. Dr. Pannu: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to make a subamendment to amendment A2. That is the

section dealing with tuition fees in the proposed amendment by the minister. The Chair: Hon. member, would you provide the table with copies, and hopefully you’ll have the original. Dr. Pannu: Indeed, yes, Mr. Chairman. The Chair: And the rest of the copies for other members. Go ahead, hon. member. Dr. Pannu: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I move su bamendment SA2 to amendment A2 to Bill 43, the Post-secondary Learning Act. I move that it be a mended by stri king out se ction L and substituting the following.

Section 62 is struck out, and the following is substituted. 62(1) Subject to subs ection (2), th e boar d of a pub lic pos t- secondary instituti on other than the B anff Ce ntre s hall s et the tuition fees of the public post-secondary institution in accordance with the regulations.

(2) The boar d shall not se t tuition fees in ex cess of 2003-200 4 levels. So that’s the amendment, Mr. Chairman. It’s very straightforward. It’s clear in its intent. I t seeks to rad ically amend amendment A2 and calls on making changes with legislation to freeze tuition fees at the 2003-2004 academic year level. The just ification a nd th e reaso ns for this amendment a re very clear. As I’ve said already, a very large number of postsecondary students in this province are victims of the financial hardship that skyrocketing tuition fees that have tripled over the l ast three years have caused for them.

Not only is it the case with students coming from modest-income families or low-income families; it’s becoming a problem f or middle-income families an d students com ing from them. The budgets of all families, including middle-class families, are stretc hed to the lim it, and there’s no more room for parents to further subsidize the postsecondary education costs of their children. So it’s nece ssary that thi s bill must take c ognizance of this situation and take appropriate actions, and the action required, Mr.

Chairman, as I say, is to begin by freezing the tuition fees at the level at which they are during the current academic year, and then in the following years this Legislature should consider, in fact, a reduction in those tuition fees rather than allowing them to increase endlessly year after year as proposed in amendment A2 by the minister. So I ask all members for their support for subamendment SA2 to amendment A2. Thank you. The Chair: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods on SA2. Dr. Massey: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The subamendment as put forward by the Me mber for Edmonton-St rathcona, I think, ag ain underscores the importance of the provisions in this bill with respect to tuition, and I regret that we’re having to deal with it this way, but the whole business of tuition as seen from a student and a parent’s perspective has been dealt with, I think, very unsatisfactorily. What we would have here, again, would be a freeze for the 2003- 2004 levels. I would hope, again – and it was the proposal that we made in other forums – that if there is a freeze put in place, there is an attempt to rationalize the tuition policy.

I think this would be a good intermediate step, but I think that we need much more. We’ve seen what freezes have done i n other provinc es. When they were lifted, there has been a rapid increase, and I don’t think that that’s sound planning either. I think the s tudent p roposal that the re be an inde pendent committee look at tuition fees makes sense, but we need more than that. We need to rationalize the f inancing of postseconda ry institutions in the province. We need, as I think I’ve indicated on a number of occasions, a long-term plan.

I don’t think the kind of ad hoc budgeting tha t’s done with respect to tuition and f inancing of our ins titutions is vi able any l onger, and we de sperately need to rationalize what’s being done. I think that if the notion of having students pay more of the freight with respect to their postsecondary education were put to the vote in the province, it would f ail. I think that there’s widespread public support for making sure that postsecondar y educ ation is as affordable and accessible as possible for students, and I don’t think the provisions in the bill as amended by the government do that.

So I support the subamendment that we have before us and hope that it will receive the sanction of the Assembly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [The voice v ote indicated that t he motion on subamendment SA2 lost] [Several members rose calling for a division. The division bell was rung at 9:59 p.m.] [One minute having elapsed, the committee divided] [Mr. Tannas in the chair] For the motion: Bonner Massey Pannu Carlson Against the motion: Abbott Horner Nelson Cao Jablonski Oberg Cardinal Kryczka Ouellette Cenaiko Lord Rathgeber Danyluk Lukaszuk Renner

Alberta Hansard November 25, 20031874 DeLong Lund Snelgrove Ducharme Magnus Stelmach Evans Marz Strang Forsyth Masyk Tarchuk Friedel McClelland VanderBurg Griffiths McFarland Vandermeer Hancock Totals: For – 4 Against – 34 [Motion on subamendment SA2 lost] The Chair: We’re ready to vote now on amendment A2,

section L, as moved by the hon. Minister of Learning. [The voice vote indicated that the motion on amendment A2 carried] [Several members rose calling for a division. The division bell was rung at 10:05 p.m.] [One minute having elapsed, the committee divided] [Mr.

Tannas in the chair] For the motion: Abbott Herard McFarland Cao Horner Nelson Cardinal Jablonski Oberg Cenaiko Jonson Ouellette Danyluk Kryczka Renner DeLong Lord Snelgrove Ducharme Lukaszuk Stelmach Evans Lund Strang Forsyth Magnus Tarchuk Friedel Marz VanderBurg Griffiths Masyk Vandermeer Hancock McClelland Against the motion: Bonner Massey Pannu Carlson Totals: For – 35 Against – 4 [Motion on amendment A2 carried] The Chair: We now proceed to the next item, which is amendment A3, which is

section Q. Are there an y comments? T he hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. 10:10 Dr. Massey: I’m on my feet so that I don’t miss an opportunity, Mr. Chairman.

Section Q, the amendment as proposed by the government, would amend

section 7 8(1)(a). If y ou go b ack to the original bi ll, 78(1) talks about the accountability of boards and, in particular , th e business plans. The government’s proposal says: Each year a bo ard must prepare and appro ve a business pl an that includes (

a) the bu dget and othe r info rmation requir ed unde r the regulations, and (

b) any other information required by the Minister. This amendment Q as proposed by the government would strike out “and o ther inform ation require d under the re gulations.” On the whole

section and p articularly that

section that says, “A ny other information required by the minister,” and then subsection (2), “The business plan approved under subsection (1) must be s ubmitted to the Minister on or before the date specified by the Minister,” we’ve had some discussion with the minister about the requirement on the submission of business plans, and there has been reference to two other statutes and their bearing on the preparation and s ubmission and approval of business plans by the ministry. This is particularly troubling with respect to the independence of universities.

Other inst itutions, I think , are di fferent f rom universities with respect to the role that universities are expected to play with respect to criticism. Universities are expected to be open forums, and t hey’re expecte d to provide s ocial cri ticism of our institutions. Often t hat involves criticism of gove rnments, and it seems to me it places universities in a possibly very difficult position should they take issue with the government of the day and then have to depend upon that sam e gover nment f or the approv al of the ir business plans. So that is the root of the difficulty with this section, Mr.

Chairman. I think we’ve seen examples in this House of members upset with reports that have been produced by institutes. I remember a report that was produc ed by an institute th at exa mined the role of government cuts on women and children in the provinc e and how that report was met with outrage that was expressed in this House and a suggestion that something should be done with respect to the institute that had com missioned and issued t he report.

So I think that there are examples of when the government has been displeased, to say t he least, with c riticism com ing from institutes and from university quarters, and the worry is that they’re going to lose some of their independence.

Though it’s been practice for universities to submit those business plans, we think that this is the opportu nity to see that practice discontinued and to ensure that unive rsities a re the indepe ndent institutions that I thi nk un iversities, at le ast un iversities wi th international reputatio ns, h ave bec ome know n for: thei r independence and the in dependence of the th inkers that work in those institutions. We think that anything that would harm that is something to be avoided. So I would like to propose an amendment, Mr. Chai rman, that would strike

section 78 out of Bill 43. I have copies of that. The Chair: This is subamendment SA3. Do you have the original? Dr. Massey: Yes, I do. The Chair: That’s needed for the official records. Has the minister got one? Dr. Oberg: Yes, I have. The Chair : The h on. Member for Edm onton-Mill Woods on subamendment SA3. Dr. Massey: Thank you, Mr. Chairman . I’m sorry if some of the members are upset that we’re spending so much time on this bill, but this is a huge bill . Bill 43 is an important bill, and it’s the first opportunity that the opposition has had to make suggestions and to try to effect some change.

So I know t hat the evening is long for some of the members, but as I indicated, this is an important piece of legislation. It’s worthy of our exam ination, particularly when we’re faced with the number of amendments that the government has put forward.

November 25, 2003 Alberta Hansard 1875 The subamendment I’ve put for ward is straigh tforward. I’ve spoken to it already. We’re asking that

section 78, that would have the minister approving the plans and in fact controlling some of the information that is submitted by in particular universities but in this case all boards, just be removed from the original bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Chair: The hon. Minister of Learning. Dr. Oberg: Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Very, very quickly, if we were to vote for subsection 78, it would not change the universities’ need to put in business plans as that is under the G overnment Accountability Act.

The reason it is included in this act is that the Government Accountability Act does not apply to the Banff Centre, and we are currently ensuring that the Banff Centre, being a public institution, puts forward its business plans to the ministry as well. Thank you. The Chair: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona. Dr. Pannu: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise to speak to amendment A3 and the subamendment proposed to it.

The amendment that is made in A3 doesn’t go far enough to ensure that the minister and the government, that is the state, do no t through this legi slation give themselves the right f or in terference i n the independe nce and autonomy of postsecondary institutions, particularly the university. 10:20 In my opening remarks earlier this evening on Bill 43 and its study during committee I drew attention to certain principles that should guide any legislation and policy affecting postsecondary education institutions and particularly universities, and one of those principles was the principle of autonomy. Mr.

Chairman, it’s of absolute and critical importanc e that the independence of univer sities be maintained. A heal thy, dem ocratic, ope n s ociety in fact must guarantee for its ow n openness, in defence of its ow n democratic institutions and processes and values, that we guarantee t o institutions such as universities the full freedom that will allow the researchers, the writers, the speakers, the faculty, and the academy as a whole to be able to speak free ly and without r estraint about matters of public good, common good, public policy.

So the amendment proposed here, A3, retains within it the powers for the mini ster to se ek any other infor mation than would be necessary just for financial accountability. I think that challenges the fundamental principles of a democratic and open society in which the universit ies play a very key role in encour aging de bate, in presenting dissenting views, in present ing fearless but t houghtful criticism of people and groups in authority and in power.

The state is one of the most powerful institutions in our modern society, and therefore it must not reserv e for its elf the right to dem and and receive any information of the universities that its represe ntatives might require. [Mr. Herard in the chair] Information with res pect to fi nancial accountability: yes, that certainly is part of the business plans, and tha t is a re asonable requirement giv en that public f unds, taxpay ers’ money, is being spent on that.

But taxpayers also expect as democratic citizens their institutions such as universities to have the full freedom to express themselves on matters that the members of universities – academics, students, admini strators – think ar e critic al to the pre servation, protection, and enhancement of public interest and common good.

Since this amendment A3 in my judgment strikes at the very root of what the universit y is a bout – free speech, f ree thought, expression of dissent, and undeterred criticism of powers that be – I th ink that the subame ndment propos ed by the Membe r fo r Edmonton-Mill Woods doe s go a l ong way in remov ing what I consider to be a very, very flawed part of Bill 43 in its amended form.

So I speak in favour of the suba mendment as propo sed by the Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. [Motion on subamendment SA3 lost] [The voice vote indicated that the motion on amendment A3 carried] [Several members rose calling for a division. The division bell was rung at 10:27 p.m.] [One minute having elapsed, the committee divided] [Mr.

Tannas in the chair] For the motion: Abbott Herard McFarland Cao Horner Nelson Cenaiko Jablonski Oberg Danyluk Jonson Ouellette DeLong Kryczka Renner Ducharme Lord Snelgrove Evans Lund Stelmach Forsyth Magnus Strang Friedel Marz VanderBurg Griffiths Masyk Vandermeer Hancock McClelland Against the motion: Bonner Massey Pannu Carlson Totals: For – 32 Against – 4 [Motion on amendment A3 carried] 10:30 The Chair : We now have f or our cons ideration in committee amendment A4, which is to the part that’s

section S. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. Dr. Massey: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The amendment for

section 88 strikes out the

section that is in the bill and substitutes a

section entitled Compulsory binding arbitration, and 88(1) says: Where a dispute that arises during the negotiation of an agreement under

section 87 cannot be resolved by the board and the academic staff association of (

a) a public college, (

b) a technical institute, or (

c) a public po st-secondary instituti on established after the coming into force of this Act, the board or the academic staff association shall refer the dispute to compulsory binding arbitration.

(2) Wher e a dispu te that a rises during the n egotiation of an agreement under

section 96 cannot be resolved by the board and the graduate students associ ation of a uni versity, t he boar d or the graduate students association shall refer the dispute to compulsory binding arbitration.

Alberta Hansard November 25, 20031876 So these are the two sections of this particular part of the bill that have caused some consternation. I believe, if my history is correct, and I think it is, there has not been a strike by academic staff in any of our institutio ns in the hist ory of the province. Now, as I say, I stand to be corrected. I think that in the past associations have voluntarily given up this right, have made provision in the contract that would disallow strikes and would prev ent job acti on.

So the stri ke provisions are be ing struck from this bill, and they’re being repl aced w ith binding arbitration. I think, given the practice and the history of negotiations in the province, that it’s an unnecessary restriction. I think it’s a solution that is being proposed b efore there’s a problem. It’s unnecessary. I think it’s inflammatory. I think that trying to prevent and to solve problems before they arise in this case is maybe well-intentioned but I thin k in the e nd does a disservice with resp ect to em ployees.

I think the provisions a re, as I said, unnecessary, and I think i t’s unfortunate that t hey’re here, Mr. Chairman, a nd I would urg e mem bers of t he Asse mbly to vote against it. Thank you. The Chair: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona. Dr. Pannu : Thank y ou, Mr. Chairm an. I rise to speak to the subamendment to amendment A4. Am endment A4 represents a very, very minor re treat from the pos ition that w as taken by th e minister, who is the sponsor of the act, in the original motion where, of course, strikes and lockouts are prohibited.

The language itself is very hostile to some very fundamental democratic rights in the area of employ er/employee r elationships. The Alberta labour code, although it’s not the model to be followed in the rest of the country, does include the right to strike as a legitimate democratic civil right. So the provisions in the original draft wer e i n that sense quite odious, odious to democratic principles and democratic values.

The retreat from that is a g ood sign, but the re treat seems to be merely symbolic because in effect the substitution of the prohibition of strikes w ith compulsory binding arbit ration and tha t being the only avenue available to employees and employers amounts to the same thing. It still takes away the right to strike, and, Mr. Chairman, removal of the ri ght to strike a s provided f or in this leg islation is unnecessary in the sense that the incidence of such decisions or such actions has been rare indeed.

The 40-some years that I have spent either directly in postsecondary institutions or being around them tell me that it’s a very, very, very rare occurrence. But democratic rights must be respected regardless of w hether they’re exercised or not. If democratic rights are respected only if those who have thes e right s give the undertak ing that the y wi ll exercise them, then there’s no point in having such rights.

So even if it w ere t he case that strik es had bee n used in the pa st more frequently than perhaps once – one occasion has been brought to my attention – that’s no reason to be apologetic about the demand about the expectation that this right must be respected, must be retained in legislation for employees of universities. The compulsory arbitration is no substitute for the right to strike. It doesn’t in any way diminish the severity and the real intent of this legislation, which is to extinguish this fundamental and democratic right of employees. For that rea son alone, I’m opposed to amendment A4.

I don’t think it does anything at all to show respect for that fundamental right to strike that in a democratic society is a common thing. It’s not something that’s an exceptional right that somehow needs to be rolled back now because its existence and its exercise have done some irrep arable damage to the postse condary system in this province. They’ve no such evidence. It has not been exercised. Even if it is exercised, there is no reason to take it away.

It seems to me that the attempt in this bill to take away this right from university employees, university faculty, students is an other step towards taking t his right a way from all categories of public service employees, and that is simply not something that should be acceptable in our province and to this Legislature. I have expressed, I think, my strong opposition to the provisions of amendment A4, and the only way that we can improve this bill with respect to this particular issue is by simply striking out

section 88 altogether from the bill. So I speak in favour of the amendment proposed by the Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 10:40 The Chair: Hon. member, I’m sorry. You kind of lost me. Right now I don’t have an amendment on the floor from Edmonton-Mill Woods. Dr. Pannu: Mr. Chairman, I stand corrected. I’m ahead of myself. I think you’re right. I apologize for the error. The Chair: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. Ms Carlson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I t hink it’s safe to s ay, though, he doesn’t like what the government’s doing, and neither do I.

When you take a look at this particular amendment, where they bring in compulsory binding arbitration, you have to ask yourself the question: why would they bring this particular am endment in? It seems to me that when we look at amending legislation, there should be a good reason for doing it, something substantive. It corrects an existing problem, or it changes current legislation to fall in line with practices that have changed or something of that nature.

When we take a look at this, when you take a look at staff that haven’t gone on strike – I also don’t remember an instance of that ever happening in this province – you have to wonder why the government would think they had to br ing in a hea vy f oot and put in plac e compuls ory binding arbitration when there’s never been an existing problem. Does the government have information that we don’t have? Are they expecting some ongoing problems, or are they just pursuing a political philosophy?

If they’re just pursuing a political philosophy, which is to stop people from organizing or having a r ight to have some say in how they are employed and how they are compensated for that employment, then I have a real problem with these kinds of amendments. We don’t want to see unnec essary amendments and le gislation coming forward in this Assembly. It’s a waste of everybody’s time, and it often brings in legislation that is punitive in nature and does not help the process of us getting the b usiness done of educating students and having world-class education facilities in this province.

So I am completely opposed to this particular amendment, and I am very surprised that the government would have brought it in at this time. The Chair: The hon. Minister of Learning. Dr. Oberg: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Very quickly and very briefly in response to the hon. members who have just spoken, last year Mount Roya l College was w ithin about f our hours of a strike and/or lo ckout which would hav e lost approx imately 3,000 students their one semester and their one year. The Chair: Any further debate?

November 25, 2003 Alberta Hansard 1877 [Motion on amendment A4 carried] The Chair: Our next amendment for consideration this evening is amendment A5, which is it em U in the package, amending

section 92. Any comm ents with respect to this amendment? T he hon . Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. Dr. Massey: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m pleased to make some comments about the A5 amendment. This is the

section with respect to model dispute settlements, Mr. Chairman. Briefly, the amendment as proposed by the government is that if an agreement concluded or renewed under

section 87(1) does not contain provisions respecting the matters set out in

section 87(3)(b), (4)(

e) and ( g), (5 )(

d) a nd (

e) or (7) , as the case m ay be , the agreement is deemed to contain the provisio ns se t out in the regulations in respect of which the agreement is silent. If you go back to the original bill, I think you have to reference it in 92(1): If an agreement between the boa rd and the aca demic staff association of a university does not contain the provisions required under . . . 87(3 )(b), the ag reement is dee med to contain those provisions set out in the regulations in respect of which is silent. Sorry, Mr. Chairman, but you have to find your way between the different provisions of the act.

The provision that they’re referring to is: An agreement between the board and the academic staff association of a university shall, with respect to the employment of academic staff members, contain provisions respecting at least the following matters: (

a) establishment of sal ary rate and wage rate s chedules for the purpose of setting the salaries or wages payable; (

b) procedures respecting the settlement of differences between the

partie s aris ing from the interpretati on, applicat ion or operation of the agreement. So it’s saying that those provisions with respect to wages must be included. It’s part and parcel of the writ ing of ag reements in the negotiations that go on between the board and the associations that we’re concerned about and the di ctating of thos e prov isions in legislation. I think that that briefly is what the amendment is about, and our concern, as I indicated, is that the provisions of agreements are being dictated by the act and not being left to the two parties involved to work out and determine.

The Chair: I wanted to just ask a question for clarification so that the chair m ight und erstand. In

section 9 2 in t he amendment A5 there isn’t a number subsequent to 92, so is this amending subsection (1), (2), or (3) of this section? Dr. Oberg: Three. The Chair: Okay. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. Ms Carlso n: Thank y ou, Mr. Ch airman. I see t hat si nce my colleague from Edmonton-Mill Woods sta rted d ebating this particular amendment, we’ve been j oined by m ore people in the gallery, and if it sounds confusing to you up there, it’s confusing to us too. 10:50 We have a big bill. We have a huge package of amendments.

We have huge sec tions that this act r efers to that are being dele ted or somewhat deleted or sl ightly c hanged. While we’ve had these amendments for a f ew days to look at them, there hasn’t been an opportunity to take them out en masse to stakeholder groups, and we are getting feedback coming back t o us in bits a nd dribs, and the government does not sta nd up and defe nd their positions on these particular amendments. So it’s very slow going tonight.

At least the government consented to break part of this big amendment package out so that we could deal with some of the more contentious issues as they come forward. This one, amendment A5, the model dispute settlement provisions, is quite con tentious, Mr. Chairman. It take s away the ri ght for people to negotiate their livelihood, and that’s a real problem as far as I can see it.

There is nothing good about what they’ve eliminated from the act, and with the model dispute settlement provisions that they’ve put in place , once again how academic staff can negotiate their contracts is going to be decided by a political mandate rather than equal partners coming to the table and being able to negotiate an agreem ent that i s compa tible for everyone concerne d. So I certainly find this to be an offensive amendm ent and will be quite pleased to vote against it. Dr. Pannu: Mr. Chairman, this

section of the bill and a mendment A5 reflects once aga in a sort o f authori tarian str eak t hat run s throughout this bill, and that’s why I find it unsettling that we are rushing through this at this speed. It’s a bill which has provisions which are highl y conse quential f or every one work ing a t postsecondary institutions, an d the re’s no real debate on the floor with respect to the possible consequences of these provisions.

This particular amendment really does nothing to reassure me that the minister and the government are not trying by way of this bill to centralize more and more authority and power in their own hands at the expense of the rights of both employers and employees at each of the postsecondary institutions to have the opportunity to engage in me aningful negotiations and determ ine what is going t o be contained in the agreements that they negotiate and what’s not to be contained in there.

T hat should be a matte r for open and free negotiation between employers and employees and not a matter that should be determined or decided in the end by user regulations, by the minister, or by the government. So it’s yet another, I think, instance of the authoritarian nature of this whole bill and how it s trikes at the very root of w hat values should inform our postsec ondary institutions, not only in specif ic instances but in ge neral.

The very culture of postseconda ry institutions must be such, and the legislation should encourage the development of c ulture so that it is such that it encourages democratic values, strengthens democ ratic va lues, res pects democratic princi ples a nd the democratic way of doing things, making decisions, interacting with each other in business matters that pervade every aspect of t he in stitutions.

A fter al l, these a re institutions which are the sites where our future leaders are growing up, are learning and growing as persons, as citizens as w ell as scholars and experts, and to infuse these institutions with a sort of authoritarian set of v alues as embodied in this act is highl y disturbing and unsettling for me. So I’m opposed to this particular section. In the original bill it’s

section 92, and its amended form as expressed by A5 still falls far short of what I expect the Ministry of Learning to be wanting to do in order to strengthen democratic values and democratic decision- making in postseconda ry insti tutions. So I’m opposed to this amendment, Mr. Chairman, for that reason. The Chair: The hon. Minister of Learning. Dr. Oberg: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. No offence to the previous speakers, but quite s imply what this amendment states is that if certain factors are not included, if they are not negotiated

Alberta Hansard November 25, 20031878 within the contract, then they will be deemed negotiated as per the regulations. I’ll give y ou an exam ple. Num ber 5(

e) s tates, “Procedures for determining rights re lating to c opyrights and patent matters involving discoveries made in the cours e of employment.” Quite simply, Mr. Chairman, if these are not ironed out in their contract, there can be a considerable amount of difficulties for the professor who has made an invention, for example. So all we’re saying is that if they are not in the contract, they will be deemed to be in the contract by virtue of regulation. This in no way stops the two parties from being able to negotiate what is in the contract. [Motion on amendment A5 carried] The Chai r: Our next it em f or considera tion is am endment A 6, which is item Z on page 13, dealing with

section 97. Comments? The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. Dr. Massey: Thank you, Mr. Chairm an. This pa rticular section,

section 97, has been of great interest to students because it directly affects the operation of their organizations.

Section 97 and the five subsections of the bill as circulated last May have been struck, and in their pl ace is t his ame ndment Z. Under section (1) each student orga nization of a public post-secon dary instituti on shall provide audited financial statements annually to the board of the public post-second ary institution a nd shall m ake the audi ted financial statem ents ava ilable to studen ts of th e p ublic pos t- secondary institution on request.

(2) Where an i nvestigator ap pointed under s ection 99 finds irregularities in the management of the financial affairs of a student organization, the Minister may and it goes on to say, (

a) suspend or terminate the term of office of one or more members of the council . . . (

b) appoint an administrator to exercise the powers and perform the duties of the council until a new council is elected, and (

c) take any other action that the Minister considers appropriate to remedy the irregularity. And then

(3) An administrator appointed under s ubsection (2)(

b) shall be paid the remuneration and expenses determined by the Minister out of the funds of the student organization. So for stude nts it’s a hard prov ision to swal low, and it strikes, I think, at the vi ew that’s built into this bill of stude nts and student organizations. Mr. Chairman, the overwhelming majority of students attending postsecondary institutions are adults. They’re 18-plus. They form student organizations. They’re duly elected by the student body, and I think they’ve always viewed themselves as fairly independent, that they are really in charge of their own affairs.

The history of student organizations in the province – there have been literally thousands of student councils over the yea rs, and they’ve conducted t heir affairs as we would ex pect an adul t organiza tion to conduct it s affairs in the interest of its membership. 11:00 So I think it’s with that kind of background, that sort of context, that students find the provisions of the bill and the way they’re being treated somewhat offensive. These particular provisions with respect to audits are troubling f or students.

Again, it s eems to be a paternalistic approach to student organizations by the government, that students f eel is unw arranted. They find these provisions unacceptable, Mr. Chairman. I would lik e to now m ove a suba mendment that I t hink wo uld better reflect how students would see the whole business of audits handled. The Chair: This will be called SA4. You’ve given me the original? Dr. Massey: Yes. The Chair : Good show . The hon. Me mber for Edmonton-Mi ll Woods. Dr. Massey: Thank you. The amendment would simplify

section 97 and provide that each student organizat ion of a public post -secondary institut ion shall make publicly available audited financial statements when a simple majority o f st udents w ho are membe rs of the stud ent organization have indicat ed in a plebiscit e that the organization should prepare an audited financial statement. I think the intent is rather clear, Mr. Chairman. The organizations are required to adhere to a number of regulations and procedures. They have in ternal me chanisms for dealing with their financial affairs.

They have public obligations with respect to those financial affairs, and the notion of an outside investigator being appointed and all the provisions of the subamendment I think t hey f eel are unnecessary given the kinds of obligations that they already have. My colleague will speak briefly about the c osts involved under

section 97 with respect to audits. The proposal in the amendmen t would simply relieve the student organizations of those costs, yet there would be a provision that should students want audited statements made publ ic and distributed publ icly, t hat could be handled, and the mechanism is suggested in the subamendment. So with those comments, Mr. Chairman, I’ll conclude. The Chair: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. Ms Carlso n: Thank y ou, Mr. Chairm an. I do not like the government amendment brought in, A6, but I certainly do support the subamendment that was brought forward by the students to our caucus.

Once again I ask : what’s the purpose of having put this original amendment in place? Have there been consistent problems with the kinds of financial statements that hav e been prov ided by these organizations? What happens is t hat all org anizations provide som e form of financial statement. Most of them are at least review engagement reports where accountants have looked at them, have compiled the figures, and have some verification of the information provided to them. If these organizations are required to go to audited statements for each finan cial year , then they are looking at substantial cost increases.

A review engagement report can be compiled, depending on the size of the organization, for anywhere from $700 to $1,500. I’ve never seen an audited financial statement for even a very small organization that came in with a price tag of less than $5,000. So where are the s tudents supposed to get this kind of money? They’re students. They don’t have money in the first place by the time they end up p aying out money for their tuition a nd for their living accommodations and for their student loans an d for their books and for the ir abi lity to eat once in a while.

Then if they belong to a student organization, look at the fees that are going to have to be charged to be able to provide this service, which I don’t see as being a necessary service. Now, this amendment the way the government has brought it in is a way to force students to di sband and to m inimize those students who can afford to join or ganizations. S o we bring a class tiering system into student org anizations, whic h I think is completely

November 25, 2003 Alberta Hansard 1879 against any philosophy that we should be supporting at the education level. Definitely for the financial constraints but also definitely for the real ceiling this puts on students’ rights to be ab le to org anize and to form associations, this has got t o be one of the worst amendments we’ve seen. The benefit of having student orga nizations is immense.

T he ability for them to participate in educational processes, in democratic processes, their rights to free speech and to bring contentious issues to the public f or discussion and for de bate is of importance, as all generations have recogn ized a nd all ti mes in histo ry have recognized. This is the fountain of new ideas. This is where we get the out-of-the-box solutions, and this is wh at propel s us to nex t- generation innovations.

If we start to put a lid on these organizations, we are r eally stifling their independenc e and their creativity and their ability to fully participate in the same way that all of us had an opportunity to participate when we were students. So I’m going to support this subamendment and vote against the government amendment. The Chair: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona. Dr. Pannu : Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Am endment af ter amendment con tinues to disa ppoint those of us who hav e a ver y different vision of postsecondary institutions and the kinds o f procedures and rules and values by which those institutions and their members should live and act. Th is audit re quirement and the minister’s attem pt to give to himse lf the pow er to dism iss duly democratically elected student bodies and send investigators to do the job for them carry a message which is very unhealthy when you combine it with other sections of the bill. 11:10 I must, Mr .

Chairm an, with your pe rmission apologize to the House for not being able to find my wa y through the procedural maze. I had an am endment t o

section 93 of the bill on st udent affairs. I wanted to amend that

section to again remove some of the limitations set around the ability of a student organization to define the purposes of the organization independently of what the purposes of the institution’s members may be. Both the provisions of

section 93, which obliges student bodies to conduct their affairs consistent with the pu rposes o f the public postsecondary institution, and the provisions of this

section 97 as amended by amendment A6 in my view take away from these duly elected bodies and student bodies in general the right to exercise their liberties and freedoms, which are the rights of all of us as citizens and as adults and as members of a democratic community. So I stand opposed to amendment A6 and would like to support the subamendment introduced by the Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [The voice v ote indicated that the motion on subamendment SA4 lost] [Several members rose calling for a division.

The division bell was rung at 11:14 p.m.] [One minute having elapsed, the committee divided] [Mr. Tannas in the chair] For the motion: Bonner Massey Pannu Carlson Against the motion: Abbott Horner McFarland Cao Jablonski Nelson Cardinal Jonson Oberg Cenaiko Kryczka Ouellette Danyluk Lord Rathgeber DeLong Lukaszuk Renner Ducharme Lund Snelgrove Forsyth Magnus Stelmach Friedel Marz Strang Griffiths Masyk VanderBurg Hancock McClelland Vandermeer Totals: For – 4 Against – 33 [Motion on subamendment SA4 lost] The Chair: Our next item, then, for consideration is amendment A6 as moved by the hon. Minister of Learning.

All those in support of amendment A6, please say aye. [The voice vote indicated that the motion on amendment A6 carried] [Several members rose calling for a division. The division bell was rung at 11:18 p.m.] [One minute having elapsed, the committee divided] [Mr.

Tannas in the chair] For the motion: Abbott Horner McFarland Cao Jablonski Nelson Cardinal Jonson Oberg Cenaiko Kryczka Ouellette Danyluk Lord Rathgeber DeLong Lukaszuk Renner Ducharme Lund Snelgrove Forsyth Magnus Stelmach Friedel Marz Strang Griffiths Masyk VanderBurg Hancock McClelland Vandermeer 11:20 Against the motion: Bonner Massey Pannu Carlson Totals: For – 33 Against – 4 [Motion on amendment A6 carried] The Ch air: We next have for our consideration this even ing amendment A7 as moved by the hon. Minister of Learning. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. Dr. Massey: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

These are the provisions in the amendments with respect to the Lieutenant Governor in Council regulations. The original bill has an extensive list of powers that are given to the cabinet, to the Lieutenant Governor in Council, and the amendments as proposed in

section II are just as extensive. One of the questions i t raises is one that was raised in a previous piece of legislation that we examined earlier today, the privacy legislation,

Alberta Hansard November 25, 20031880 where the fede ral Privac y Com missioner made some c omments about regulations. To paraphrase what the commissioner said, it was that regulations should be made with respect to minor housekeeping items with respect to that legislation. That certainly stands in contrast to what is being authorized here. It says: The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations (

a) defining, for t he purpo ses o f this A ct and the regulations, any word or expre ssion used but n ot defined in this Act; (

b) respecting tuition fees, for all boards other than the board of Banff Centre, including regulations (

i) respecting the publication of information . . . (

c) respecting the application of

section 62 to students. So with those sections on tuition th ey c an make regulations and effect its application. (

d) listing pension plans . . . Almost every aspect of the legislation is detailed or possibly affected by the regulations that are laid out in

section 124 of the act. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that this goes too f ar, that the kind of regulatory authority being given to the cabinet is really, really being overdone. I wonder, if the legislation is as good as we would hope it would be after the government has presented it and consulted with groups across the summer and fall period, why there would be need to delegate to the Lieutenant Governor in Council the powers that we see listed under this

section of the act. I think it’s unfortunate. I think it also contributes to the feeling that somehow or other the act hasn’t been car efully enough thought through in pla ces to stand alone and not require ad ditional modification and c hanges by the cabinet. We’ve ra ised the w hole business of reg ulations in pre vious debates, Mr. Chairman. I think we’ve made some small progress. The Ministe r of Justice was good enough to post the provisional – I think it’s provisional – or draf t set of regulations with respect to legislation that was going to be put forward.

I think that that was a step forward, because as we all know, the devil is in the detail of the regulations. But I think the whole business of leaving to regulations so much of the authority for what happens has been sort of a slippery slope that we’ve gone down in the province, and I think this is an example of whe re we shouldn’t be goi ng with r espect to the regulating ability of the cabinet. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Ms Carlson: Mr. Chairman, I too speak against this particular amendment.

It ’s my be lief that this gov ernment would be quit e happy if it could say that Bill 43 were c hanging post secondary education and that all the detail will be in the regulations and we’ll figure it out later, because that’s what we’ve seen time after time in this Legislature with bills that they’ve brought forward. They like to spend the least amount of time in here. They do not like to defend their policies. They like to bring in legislation that is very loosely put together, that does not hav e a lot of

definitions or defining moments in it, and everything is pushed off to the side to regulations, where they can do them behind closed doors and where they don’t give anybody, public or opposit ion or anyone , the op portunity to review and have some input in them. As the Minister of Justice knows, this isn’t a comm on practice. Other jurisdictions post their r egulations well in advance of the legislation being deba ted. He’s tried to do that with som e of his legislation

Document details

Collection	Alberta — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20031125
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	L25 S3 20031125 2000 01 han.pdf
Language	en
Format	json
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	a77efe8d34c2c9d5bd67f87b8df9def1911d53ea

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