Alberta Hansard — 22 February 1994, Afternoon sitting (13:30) (Legislature 23, Session 2)

19940222

Alberta — Debates (Hansard)

February 22, 1994 Alberta Hansard 159 Legislative Assembly of Alberta Title: Tuesday, February 22, 1994 1:30 p.m. Date: 94/02/22 [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] Prayers MR. SPEAKER: Let us pray. As Canadians and as Albertans we give thanks for the precious gifts of freedom and peace which we enjoy. As Members of this Legislative Assembly we rededicate ourselves to the valued traditions of parliamentary democracy as a means of serving our province and our country. Amen. head: Presenting Petitions MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-North West. MR. BRUSEKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'd like to table a petition to the Legislative Assembly signed by 105 parents of the students at Monsignor Doyle school in my constituency. These were collected at a family dance on February 11. They're asking the government not to implement the educational system restruc ture plan. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-East. MR. AMERY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to present a petition signed by 60 constituents of Calgary-East. These constituents are concerned about the restructuring of the education system.

I must add that I'm not doing that to please the Liberals or side with them; I am doing that consistent with the open and responsive policy of this government. I have also forwarded a copy of this petition to the hon. Minister of Education. Thank you. head: Reading and Receiving Petitions MR. ZWOZDESKY: Mr.

Speaker, last week on February 14 I presented this Assembly with two petitions: one from the Hazeldean elementary school parents in Avonmore and another one signed by over a thousand individuals from the larger area of Edmonton-Avonmore requesting that this government do some thing in relation to the cuts to education. Could I request that those two petitions be read now? CLERK: We, the undersigned, feel that education is essential to the future of all Albertans, and petition the Assembly to urge the government to reconsider its proposed cuts to education.

As education is essential to the future of all Albertans we, the undersigned, wish to petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the government to reconsider its proposed cuts to education. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo. MR. DICKSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I had introduced a petition on February 14 that also expressed the concern of a number of Calgarians with respect to the restructuring of the education system, and I ask now that that petition be read and received, sir.

CLERK: We, the undersigned residents of Alberta petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the Government of Alberta not to implement the plan to restructure the educational system in Alberta, as proposed by the Minister of Education. We also request the Assembly to urge the Government of Alberta to ensure that every Albertan will have the opportunity for input and involvement in future plans to restructure the educational system in Alberta. head: Notices of Motions MRS. BLACK: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 38(1)(

a) I am giving notice that tomorrow I will be moving that written questions do stand and retain their places on the Order Paper and that motions for returns stand and retain their places except for Motion 165. head: Tabling Returns and Reports MR. KOWALSKI: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to

section 52 of the Legislative Assembly Act I am pleased to table with the Assembly today the 1992-93 annual report of the Department of Economic Development and Tourism. MRS. ABDURAHMAN: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave of you to table on behalf of the constituency of Clover Bar-Fort Saskatchewan a document named Education: Foundation for the Future, restructur ing proposal for our education system. This is on behalf of constituents, a nonpartisan document. Thank you. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Environmental Protection. MR. EVANS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I'm pleased to table four copies of the 1992 annual report for the department of the environment. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. MR. HENRY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to table four copies of a document. It's a notice of a public rally to be held this Thursday at 4 o'clock on the Legislature steps. It's entitled: Save Our Students! Let's show Ralph Klein we do care. I understand the Premier will be invited to this one as well. Thank you. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands- Beverly. MS HANSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm pleased to table 161 letters from residents all over Alberta who are opposed to the decision to transfer family and community services funding to Municipal Affairs. head: Introduction of Guests MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Stony Plain. MR. WOLOSHYN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am very hon oured and pleased to introduce 32 students from Muir Lake community school. That's a school that in the previous Legisla ture I shared with the hon. Deputy Premier. To give you an idea of the kind of parental support they have in that school, they are accompanied by seven parents: Mrs. Monroe, Mrs. McCormick, Mrs.

Juleff, Mrs. Olson, Mrs. Franck, Mrs. Book, Mrs. Hilden, and their teacher Mrs. Debbie Rutland. I'd ask them all to rise and receive the warm welcome of the House.

160 Alberta Hansard February 22, 1994 MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. MR. PASZKOWSKI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to introduce to you and through you to the Members of the Legislat ive Assembly Wendy Williams, the 4-H Premier's award winner for 1993. Wendy lives in Gibbons and during her nine years of involvement in the Alberta 4-H program has received numerous awards at the club, district regional, and provincial levels.

The Premier's award is Alberta's highest 4-H honour given annually to a 4-H member in recognition of outstanding achievement, com munication and leadership skills, and contributions to the commun ity. Wendy will serve as the ambassador for the 4-H program for a year. Today Wendy is accompanied by her parents, Joe and Cindy, her sister Virginia, her brothers Wayne and Gordie, her grandmothers Anne Allison and Helen Williams, and her aunt Deb Goldring. Wendy and her family are seated in the members' gallery, and I would like to ask them to stand and please receive the usual warm recognition of this House. MR.

SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. MRS. HEWES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm privileged today to introduce to you and through you to members of the Assembly a group of 13 visitors from Capilano Mall's 55-plus group. This is a very lively group of people. They participate regularly in activities and discussions, and they certainly keep in touch with current affairs and give me very good advice. They're seated in the public gallery. I'd like to ask them to rise so that the House may give them a warm welcome. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Norwood. MR. BENIUK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to introduce to you and through you 17 visitors from NAIT, which is located in my riding. They are members of the environmental law class, and they are seated in the members' gallery. They are accompanied by their instructor Dr. Forrest Tittle. I would ask that they rise and receive the warm welcome of the House. MRS. ABDURAHMAN: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure and pride to introduce to you and through you to the Assembly four members of my constituency, four of seven people who have worked and volunteered their time to develop the paper that was tabled today.

I'd ask Karen Sliwkanich, Tom Taylor, Alexander Doyle, and David Doyle to stand and receive the warm welcome of the Legislative Assembly. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Dunvegan. MR. CLEGG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's a pleasure and a privilege today for me to introduce to you and through you Dennis and Ida May McLarty. Dennis is a board member of improvement district 21, and he is here this week to attend the RIDAA conven tion. I ask those folks to rise and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. 1:40 head: Oral Question Period Child Welfare MR. DECORE: Mr.

Speaker, the Premier and the minister responsible for social services were warned by the Children's Advocate and in fact warned by our caucus that more children would suffer as long as dollars were more important than protect ing children. One more child has died, this time a two and a half year old in Calgary. Had it not been for the persistence of a reporter, the child's death in September would have remained a secret. Mr. Premier, I'd like you to explain to Albertans why government officials did not remove the child from the child's home when it was discovered that the child had been scalded on his backside.

MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, just to speak a bit to the

preamble, of course we have as our very, very best interests the welfare of children. Indeed, an investigation into this very tragic and unfortunate incident is under way, and I would ask the hon. Minister of Family and Social Services to elaborate. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Family and Social Services. MR. CARDINAL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It is a very unfortunate incident, and we'll do everything we can to prevent issues of this nature happening in the future.

We will continue monitoring this process very closely, and hopefully we can put processes in place that will prevent incidents of this nature happening. As you're aware, just recently we appointed the commissioner to review the whole child welfare issue, and within 18 months we'll come out with a complete plan on how we may reshape the child welfare issue in the future. I'd just like to tell Albertans that we are sincere when we're dealing with child welfare issues. We're very sincere when we're dealing with children's issues, Mr. Speaker.

In fact, in the next three years of my budget child welfare will be close to $500 million. MR. DECORE: Mr. Premier, an investigation isn't good enough. Diligence would have prevented this death. I'd like the minister to tell us why government officials, why people from his department weren't checking up on the child after the four-month supervision period that the court ordered had finished. Why wasn't that being done? MR. CARDINAL: Mr. Speaker, from the reports I received from my department, the staff did everything they could in order to deal with this.

As you're aware, one of the biggest concerns this government had and people interested in how this government operated in relation to child welfare was the caseload that child welfare workers had. We've reduced the caseload by 27,500 cases in the past nine months. We haven't reduced any staff component in that area. So we've made sure that the staff out there can handle issues of this nature in the future. MR. DECORE: Mr. Speaker, it's unbelievable that the minister would stand in this Assembly and tell Albertans that his depart ment did everything, that his staff did everything they could. Explain, Mr.

Minister, why when just four days before the child's death a day care worker phones your office in Calgary and tells and reports about severe bruising to the child something wasn't done then? MR. CARDINAL: Mr. Speaker, I do have to defend my staff. They do a good job, as best they can within their abilities. Once the investigation is completed and it's determined as to what happened in the incident, then I will be able to make a further comment on it. MR. DECORE: Mr. Speaker, that's not good enough. Maybe the minister didn't hear my question. My question. Four days before

February 22, 1994 Alberta Hansard 161 the child died your offices learned about it. Why didn't they move in? Why didn't they do something? MR. CARDINAL: Again, Mr. Speaker, I have to defend my staff. They do whatever they can within their ability to deal with issues of this nature. Like I say, once the investigation is completed and it is determined as to what happened in the incident, then I will be able to respond to it further. MR. DECORE: Mr. Speaker, this today is a cover-up, and I want to know why this is being covered up by the minister and his department. Why the cover-up on this matter, Mr. Minister? MR.

CARDINAL: Mr. Speaker, there is no cover-up in this particular incident. Like I indicated before, there is an investiga tion continuing on this. When that investigation is finalized and it is determined as to what happened, then I will make comments further on it. MR. DECORE: Mr. Speaker, a little boy has his backside scalded. A little boy has severe bruising. A little boy has to get court supervision. Mr. Minister, what does it take in terms of abuse before you do move in and you do something? MR. CARDINAL: Mr.

Speaker, in this particular case for the third time I'll say to this House: when the investigation is completed and it is determined what happened, at that time I will make a comment on it. In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to advise Albertans again that we do care as a government. We are spending in the next three years close to $500 million on children's services alone. I think this government cares. It's unfortunate that incidents of this nature happen. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands- Beverly. Family and Community Support Services MS HANSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It seems fitting that just before the Family Day weekend this government announced that they intended to kill one of the few programs that actually helps and supports families. Make no mistake, transferring the funds for family and community support services will mark the beginning of the end for this highly respected and needed program. My question is to the Premier. This is one of the few programs that actually works, Mr. Premier. Why are you letting this happen? MR. KLEIN: The program, Mr. Speaker, will be as strong and as viable as ever.

As a matter of fact, the municipalities will even have more choices relative to FCSS. The program will in no way jeopardize our contributions from the Canada assistance plan. It will give the municipalities a tremendous amount of flexibility, even more flexibility than they have right now to determine the needs in their own communities. The funds will flow in a much more expeditious manner. We will be able to cut down on our administrative costs, and everyone should be happy.

MS HANSON: What does the Premier intend to do if a commun ity shuts down its shelters and stops delivering Meals on Wheels because it's spent all its money on pot holes? MR. KLEIN: Well, I think any elected body who wants to do like most politicians want to do – and that's to get re-elected – will certainly define those things that are important in one's community and make sure that those services and those community needs are delivered in an appropriate manner. Here's a caucus on one side . . . [interjections] 1:50 MR. SPEAKER: Final supplemental. MS HANSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This question is directed at the Minister of Family and Social Services. Why are you so silent, Mr. Minister? Just six months ago you sent a letter stating that FCSS is particularly effective because it works in partnership with communities and responds directly to community needs, and now that the entire program is threatened, you suddenly clam up. MR. CARDINAL: Mr. Speaker, nothing has changed in how priorities have been set in the past with FCSS. The 200 munici palities out there that have agreements to deliver FCSS have always set priorities on programs; they've always set priorities on budgets.

As a former municipal councillor it's an insult when someone says that municipalities are not capable of setting priorities. I have a press release here, February 9, 1994, by the Liberal opposition saying that municipalities and communities out there will use FCSS dollars for roads and sewers. That is an outright insult to the 300 municipalities out there. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Varsity. Education Restructuring MR. SMITH: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There's some contention that suggests the labour component of education, the Alberta Teachers' Association, was not involved in consultation leading up to decisions being made on directions for education. Would the minister advise on the consultation opportunities for the ATA, the Alberta Teachers' Association, that have taken place leading up to the development of an education business plan? MR. JONSON: Mr.

Speaker, certainly the Alberta Teachers' Association as a very important stakeholder in education in the province is involved in a whole host of activities, and certainly they were included in the steps, in consultation leading up to the development of our business plan. In the fiscal realities confer ences of the fall of '92 representatives of the ATA were invited to all of those regional meetings. Secondly, with respect to the roundtables they were involved in the planning process. They were guaranteed a certain number of places at those roundtables.

Plus many other teachers were involved in those consultations as well. They have made their own formal presentation with respect to the directions for education. Plus there have been many submissions, many briefs sent in from ATA locals all across the province. MR. N. TAYLOR: Ask him if they mentioned charter schools. MR. SMITH: I didn't get that, Mr. Speaker. If he'd repeat it. MR. N. TAYLOR: Ask him about charter schools. MR. SPEAKER: Would the hon. Member for Redwater please keep his mouth in the appropriate position for his position in the House at the present time.

162 Alberta Hansard February 22, 1994 MR. SMITH: In what areas of education is the Alberta Teachers' Association recognized as an important stakeholder by the department in the development of education policy? MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, the Alberta Teachers' Association has long been recognized by this government as an important stakeholder in education. Particularly when it comes to the development of curricular materials, when it comes to looking for advice, as I said, on overall directions for education, the ATA has always been very much involved.

There is a long list of specific involvement of the association itself and an even longer list of opportunities of individual teachers to be involved in our overall development of policy and consultation process. The members across the way do not seem to recognize this, and I'd be quite prepared to table with the Assembly a list of those steps and those examples of involvement. MR. SPEAKER: Final supplemental. MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister advise us who will be involved in advising the minister on the implemen tation of directions on educational restructuring? MR.

JONSON: Certainly given the directions that have been set regarding the restructuring of education in the province, there is work to be done on a number of aspects of the implementation of that plan. Last Thursday we launched a consultation process, a series of meetings with respect to the whole area of amalgamation and regionalization, and Alberta School Boards Association and Alberta Teachers' Association representatives were there. There's work to be done with respect to the roles of stakeholders within the system, and I can assure you, Mr.

Speaker, and the Assembly that there's a role for the ATA in many of these implementation activities. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Lethbridge-East. Family and Community Support Services (continued) DR. NICOL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Community leaders in rural Alberta have been left in an uncertain situation with the news that they were about to lose the one vehicle that allows them to respond quickly to social problems. In the future, services such as Meals on Wheels, women's shelters, and after school care will have to compete with road paving and sewer upgrades in order to survive in rural communities.

My question is to the Premier. We both know there is tremendous opposition to this change in funding. Who in rural Alberta told you this change was needed? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, especially in rural Alberta the people said to us – and this by the way is reflected in the mandate that we were given on June 15: "Lookit; we can look after ourselves. We are capable of making decisions. We want less not more government. We want the government to streamline administra tion.

We want the government to get rid of red tape and cumber some regulations." That's what the people in rural Alberta told us: to give them less but better government. DR. NICOL: Mr. Speaker, it's the responsibility of government to look after the disadvantaged. My question is to the Premier. How can you allow the creation of a patchwork FCSS system where those in need of services will have to shop around from district to district in order to get the support they require? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, what this tells me is that the hon. member has no faith, no confidence whatsoever in local govern ment.

This government has all the confidence in the world in local government, especially those in the rural areas. MR. CARDINAL: I think it's only fair for Albertans to know that when we're talking about FCSS, a $36.6 million budget for '93-94, that's only one of many programs that this government provides, Mr. Speaker.

My department alone in the next three years will spend over $4 billion in various forms of programs, and I'll just give you an example of some of the programs that are close to your home here: the inner city alone on contracted agencies will receive – now that's in addition to FCSS funding – $2.2 million in service delivery contracts; child welfare will receive $57 million for the inner city; $42.5 million for persons with disabilities; $500 million of my budget. . . MR. SPEAKER: Order. Final supplemental. 2:00 DR. NICOL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again to the Premier: considering the tremendous opposition that's mounting to this program, will the Premier stop this decision from going ahead and save the program that helps so many people? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, as I've pointed out, the program will go ahead. The fundamental principles of this program are exactly in accordance with what the people of Alberta have told us they want us to do, and that is to streamline administration, reduce the cost of administering these programs, and leave more of the local decision-making in the hands of the people who are best able to make those decisions. MR.

SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Egmont. Catholic School System MR. HERARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I've attended several school meetings in Calgary-Egmont in both separate and public school systems, and I've observed that certain interest groups and, sadly, certain politicians from that side of the House appear to be engaging in fear mongering with respect to education in Alberta. In fact, the Leader of the Opposition in his reply to the throne speech talked about Catholics under siege. Would the hon.

Minister of Education dispel this irresponsible behaviour and provide Catholic school supporters in this province with the facts with respect to his restructuring plans? MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, yes, it is unfortunate that there's been a considerable amount of misinformation and, I think, incitement going on.

First of all, I think it should always be kept in mind that the record of the government for many years, going back to the beginning of the government two decades ago, has always been one of being very fair and recognizing the constitu tional situation, the constitutional rights with respect to separate schools in this province. I think that if we were to examine the record of various changes in legislation that have been made over those years, that has certainly proven correct. With respect to the recently announced initiatives, Mr.

Speaker, nothing in those initiatives prejudices in any way the existence of the separate Catholic school system in this province. The system of funding, as one example, which is designed to be fair and equitable and has certainly been something that Catholic school

February 22, 1994 Alberta Hansard 163 boards across this province have asked for, is just one illustration of what I am saying. MR. HERARD: My first supplemental to the minister: will Catholic school boards still be able to satisfy their right to safeguard the values that they consider important in the selection of Catholic school superintendents? MR. JONSON: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Certainly the separate Catholic school systems, the school boards of this province can be assured that superintendent candidates who are Catholics, who can maintain the ethical and spiritual values and nature of the Catholic school system will be hired, will be selected. MR. SPEAKER: Final supplemental. MR. HERARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. How will school boards exercise their right to fire school superintendents for just cause under this proposed plan? MR. JONSON: Mr.

Speaker, in the steps that we have outlined with respect to the appointment of superintendents, we have also outlined the steps that are involved with respect to the hon. member's question. First of all, anyone appointed as a superin tendent would be on a probationary period. Secondly, with respect to the possible removal of a superintendent, the role of the school board in making a recommendation in that regard is certainly recognized. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Manning. Social Assistance MR. SEKULIC: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

No consultation, no roundtables to hear concerns, and no concerns for Albertans living in poverty: this is the program reform process in Family and Social Services. Albertans on fixed low incomes are losing their ability to provide the basic necessities for themselves and their families. My questions are to the Minister of Family and Social Services. Who advised the minister that poor Albertans could do with less food, less for clothing, and less for shelter? MR. CARDINAL: Mr.

Speaker, as I have indicated to this House before, I've been working personally along with departmental staff for close to 10 years on proposed changes in the welfare system and how it's delivered. The plan we've put forward is to redirect dollars. In the past nine months you can see that we've done that. We've reduced the caseload by 27,500. Eight thousand of those students are presently attending different forms of training programs, and that is exactly what this whole process was designed to do.

While we've done that in the last eight months, we've had the opportunity to redirect close to $100 million into the high-needs area of the department. I believe that's what Albertans out there want. I believe that's what the clients want. The clients do not want handouts. They want meaningful training and meaningful jobs wherever possible. MR. SEKULIC: Since the reductions on October 31 there's been no increase, no redirecting of funds, Mr. Minister.

When will the minister follow through on his promise to redirect moneys saved from the welfare cuts to make sure that Albertans on assistance receive and have enough for basic necessities such as food, clothing, and shelter? MR. CARDINAL: From talking to the clients out there, they want more dollars for jobs and training programs. That's exactly what the welfare reforms have allowed us to do. This year alone we've transferred $64 million to various forms of training programs which are employing and training thousands of welfare clients that would not have had the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, without the reforms.

I believe the healthiest way to assist people is to get them a job, a training program and for them to be independent and self-sufficient, not more handouts through welfare. MR. SEKULIC: Mr. Minister, landlords did not reduce their rents. Clients had to take it out of their food budgets. Will kindergarten user fees for social allowance recipients be covered by your department, or will parents have to take this as well out of their food budgets? MR. CARDINAL: Mr. Speaker, any new issue of that nature that comes forward this minister is willing to review on an individual basis. There is a process out there.

If a person is declined for assistance, they can appeal the process. After the appeal they can reapply, and when they do reapply, this minister will personally assist the individuals if that's what they want. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Education wishes to augment the answer. MR. JONSON: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to just supple ment the hon. minister's answer by indicating that in the initiatives being undertaken by Alberta Education will be, as I've referred to previously in this Assembly, an education opportunity grant, which is particularly targeted at the high-needs students of the inner cities of this province, of Edmonton and Calgary. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Vegreville-Viking. Social Services Office Closure MR. STELMACH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question today is to the Minister of Family and Social Services.

The Department of Family and Social Services has certainly seen a dramatic drop in caseload over the past 10 months. Has this drop in caseload resulted in any office closures? MR. CARDINAL: Mr. Speaker, part of the plan is to always make sure that the dollars that are in my budget go to the client as much as possible. There will be some streamlining taking place. An example of this: at the end of January the Smoky Lake suboffice was closed, and a once a month visiting office will be reopened in the health unit at a much cheaper cost.

The residents from that area will also have a 1-800 number to receive assistance as required. 2:10 MR. STELMACH: Mr. Speaker, could the minister advise this House as to what business criteria were followed in closing the office, meaning the staffing and caseload mix? MR. CARDINAL: Basically, Mr. Speaker, as we streamline the department and reduce the caseloads and redirect the dollars to more productive purposes such as employment and training, we have to look also at the workload standards for our workers. In this particular case, we had three permanent workers and one part- time person.

We're down to 91 files in that office. Therefore, the

164 Alberta Hansard February 22, 1994 caseload did not allow us to continue with all the positions in that office. MR. SPEAKER: Final supplemental. MR. STELMACH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister advise this House as to what will happen to the three former staff at the Smoky Lake office? MR. CARDINAL: Mr. Speaker, as I've indicated to this Assem bly, because of the issue of high caseloads for our workers, even though we've reduced the caseload by over 27,000, we haven't laid off any staff.

In this particular case, what we've done is reallocated the three individuals to three other permanent positions, and one individual has left the department. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Fort McMurray. Family and Community Support Services (continued) MR. GERMAIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Last week the Premier deflected legitimate questions of concerns to Albertans by referring to them as fear mongering questions. Well, it does appear that Albertans are afraid, and now local government appears to be afraid of how the FCSS grants will be handled in the future. My questions today are to the Premier.

When the mayor of Calgary refers to this process as being fundamentally wrong, is he simply fear mongering? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, when the mayor of Calgary under stands completely what the program is all about, I don't think he'll be concerned at all. I indicated to the mayor in a meeting on Friday that part of this is fundamentally to streamline the adminis tration of the services, and they will still be able to provide funds for FCSS services.

We will not lose the flow-through benefits of the Canada assistance grants, and they will be able to participate as a municipality, as they have participated in the past. What's the problem? MR. GERMAIN: I was happy that the Premier didn't want to ask the mayor of Calgary a question. I wonder: when the mayor of Strathmore refers to this as an indirect way to cut FCSS grants, is he fear mongering? Speaker's Ruling Seeking Opinions MR. SPEAKER: Order please.

The Chair overlooked the request for an opinion from the Premier on the first question, but the hon. member shouldn't go through a series of questions on what the Premier's opinions are on things. Family and Community Support Services (continued) MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, you're absolutely right. I had the opportunity of speaking directly with the mayor of Calgary on Friday, so I thought it was quite appropriate to answer the hon. member's question.

As to the mayor of Strathmore, I have not spoken with the mayor of Strathmore on this particular issue, nor have I spoken to any mayor about those leaders of municipalities fear mongering. I have only talked about the Liberals fear mongering and spreading doom and gloom and misery. MR. SPEAKER: Final supplemental. MR. GERMAIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I apologize for the error in framing my last question. To the Premier: if this government is truly bent on preserving FCSS projects in the communities as being worth while, why don't they simply guarantee the funding for that head of funding? MR. KLEIN: Well, Mr.

Speaker, I would certainly ask the hon. Member for Fort McMurray to be patient and to see what is contained in the budget. I think that he will be reasonably satisfied – I say reasonably satisfied because he will never be totally satisfied – that communities who want to provide services under the family and community support services program will be able to do that and will be even in a better position to set their own priorities. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. minister wishes to augment. MR. CARDINAL: I'd just like to briefly supplement that, Mr.

Speaker, as a former municipal councillor, two different councils, sat on two different FCSS boards. As far as I know, the priorities of programs were always set by municipalities at the local level along with community organizations. The budgets were always set by the municipalities and the community organizations. The province has never set the budgets, and the municipalities are capable to do that job. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Currie. Tobacco Taxes MRS. BURGENER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My constituents are concerned about the growing incidence of smoking, particularly amongst our young people.

They're also very upset with the confusing actions that are coming out of the federal government as well as the actions of Quebec, New Brunswick, and Ontario. My first question is to the Minister of Health. Would the minister advise this Assembly what actions Canada health ministers are taking to put a stop to more young Albertans taking up cancer sticks? MRS. McCLELLAN: Mr. Speaker, provincial and territorial ministers of health with the exception of Quebec and New Brunswick did release a communique from their meetings on February 9.

We were very, very disturbed with the federal government's decision to lower taxes. As studies indicate clearly, there is a direct correlation between increase in consumption and price, particularly with young people, and that concerns us greatly. I'd be happy to file with the Legislature the communique that I spoke from. We're very concerned about this impact, and we've asked the federal Minister of Health to direct the dollars that she has available for education to community programs in our province. We feel that our communities are in a better position to spend those dollars efficiently.

We're also going to proceed with other initiatives that we think might assist in counteracting these very negative effects on youthful smokers. There is legislation in effect federally to increase the age for sales of cigarettes to young people to 18. I would expect a request from the federal government for assistance in enforcement of that to come to our province. I think it was a serious concern to all ministers of health across Canada when the decision was made to reduce taxes on cigarettes. MR. SPEAKER: Supplemental question.

February 22, 1994 Alberta Hansard 165 MRS. BURGENER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My second question is to the Provincial Treasurer. Why have four govern ments including Ottawa dropped their taxes when the lower cigarette prices would entice young people to take up and keep smoking? MR. DINNING: Well, Mr. Speaker, from the information I have from the federal government and from those three governments, the facts are that they have said that they want to take away the financial incentive for illegally moving cigarettes and other tobacco in and out of their jurisdictions. While we are concerned – and the hon.

Minister of Health has outlined our concern – about young people taking up smoking and even some people continuing to smoke, there has not been a history in this province of tobacco smuggling. There hasn't been a history of significant tobacco smuggling until the Liberal government in Ottawa went to work on this problem, and here we have four western provinces very concerned about the domino effect across the rest of this country. The federal Liberal government, having induced Quebec, New Brunswick, and Ontario into dropping their taxes, is now causing the potential domino effect across the country.

Now, that's a typical approach to Liberal politics. 2:20 MR. SPEAKER: Final supplemental. MRS. BURGENER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Could the Provincial Treasurer outline what steps this government is taking to deal with this issue considering that they remain opposed to dropping taxes? MR. DINNING: Well, Mr. Speaker, what the four western finance ministers indicated publicly yesterday after Ontario was the next one to fall – the four western finance ministers and the two territorial leaders rejected a reduction in provincial tobacco taxes at this time.

Instead, what we're trying to do is implement a co ordinated strategy across the six western jurisdictions. Our focus is going to be on enforcement, on increasing investigations and audit activity, on increasing co-operation among provincial officials, Revenue Canada as well as the RCMP and local municipal police forces. We're looking at stiffer fines and penalties for the possession and sale of illegal tobacco, and legislation is going to be looked at to require tobacco manufac turers to mark tobacco products that are sold in provinces not already marking tobacco. Mr.

Speaker, the one concern we have is that here we have the federal government in Ottawa levying different rates of taxation on different Canadians, depending upon where they live. I think that sets a very, very unfortunate, the wrong kind of precedent in a country of 10 provinces and two territories where all Canadians are equal. My concern is that the Liberal government in Ottawa is taking this kind of approach, and it's not fair to Canadians. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-West. Utility Tax Rebate MR. DALLA-LONGA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In 1990 this Tory government, one of the last Tory governments, imposed a tax grab on Albertans by eliminating the provincial income tax utility rebate. This tax has added 6 percent to the utility bills of Albertans, and now the federal government has no incentive to keep their rebate, which is therefore going to cost Albertans $200 million a year. My question is to the Deputy Premier. What steps is the minister for the Alberta advantage prepared to take to eliminate his government's 6 percent tax grab? MR. KOWALSKI: Mr.

Speaker, it was not too long ago in fact that Alberta took the first major initiative with respect to this: creating a Tax Reform Commission. This Tax Reform Commis sion has in recent days made public its report. I would really look forward to having a debate in this Assembly with respect to all of the submissions made by the Tax Reform Commission.

I would sincerely hope that my Liberal colleague would in fact make sure that he does the right thing and calls his buddies in Ottawa in the next few minutes to make sure that they do not invoke more economic warfare in the hearts and minds of the people of this country. MR. DALLA-LONGA: How can the Deputy Premier talk about maintaining the Alberta advantage when he voted in favour of this 6 percent tax grab on Albertans in July of 1990? MR. KOWALSKI: Mr. Speaker, there are many advantages of living in the province of Alberta.

For the hon. member to say that in July of 1990 – I can't even recall if the Assembly was sitting in July of 1990, nor the subject member at hand. Clearly, Alberta does have a major advantage. Now, it may very well be true that within the next few minutes from now many of the advantages that the citizens of this province have may in fact be diminished. [interjections] We would sincerely hope, in fact, that the taxes borne . . . [interjections] MR. SPEAKER: It seems like some members do not want to hear some comments. The hon. minister. MR.

KOWALSKI: At this very time in fact a new federal budget is coming down, and I was going to conclude by saying that I would sincerely hope the penalties imposed upon Albertans as citizens of Canada and in fact the penalties imposed on all Canadians by this new Liberal government will not be so severe, Mr. Speaker, that in essence they will continue to tax away the Alberta advantage. All Albertans know that this government is totally opposed to the GST. We took the federal government to court on it. Now it's time for the Liberals to maintain their election promise and eliminate the GST. MR.

DALLA-LONGA: My final question is to the Minister of Energy. How can the minister hope to have any credibility with Ottawa in preserving the federal rebate when she and six other cabinet ministers also voted in favour of imposing this tax grab on Alberta's energy industry? MR. N. TAYLOR: A woman with a past. MRS. BLACK: It's kind of like the pot calling the kettle black in here. I remember back in April of 1991, Mr. Speaker, when the hon. Member for Redwater yelled across this House to bring back a national energy program.

Since becoming the Minister of Energy on December 15, 1992, under two governments federally I have made the position quite clear that Alberta is unique in that Alberta is one of the few places in North America that has a combination of publicly and privately owned utility companies and that certainly any changes to the tax regulations from the federal government that would hurt that industry would not be very acceptable to Albertans.

166 Alberta Hansard February 22, 1994 Further to that, I would ask . . . [interjections] Obviously, Mr. Speaker, they don't want the answer, but I will give the answer in any event, because I think it's important for all Albertans to realize this government's position. We have gone and made our position very clear to the former Conservative minister of energy, mines and resources as well as to the current minister of energy, mines and resources and asked that they consider the continuation of this tax concession that would flow through mainly to Albertans. Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I find it amazing that the hon.

Member for Calgary-West would stand up here today and announce something that he thinks will be in the federal budget before that budget comes out. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Little Bow. Barley Marketing MR. McFARLAND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. An issue that's been on the back burner of the federal government for the past couple of months is that of the continental barley market. During the short six weeks that it was in place during the middle of last year, it moved over half a million tonnes at a superior price that was contracted by producers.

I would like the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development to please give this House an updated report on the status of the continental barley market. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. MR. PASZKOWSKI: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It's certainly an issue of great importance to the agricultural commun ity. As a matter of fact, last week I had the opportunity of participating at the barley growers' convention, where the issue was really stressed as to the importance to the barley growers within this province as well as all of western Canada.

As the hon. member rightfully pointed out, during that short period of six weeks there was somewhere between a half million and a million tonnes of barley moved into the United States at a premium of up to 70 cents a bushel. So it's very, very significant. It's an issue that the barley growers themselves are pursuing very vigorously, but they've also obtained a lot of help from other groups, other grain growers within part of western Canada. It's an issue that they don't plan on allowing to lie dormant.

So it's something that's very meaningful, and we as a provincial govern ment will be working hand in hand with the barley growers to try and open that additional market opportunity to allow the barley growers to have diversified market opportunities. 2:30 MR. SPEAKER: Supplemental question. MR. McFARLAND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister please tell me and constituents who have raised this issue what steps you are taking towards restoration of the continental barley market? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. minister. MR. PASZKOWSKI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Certainly these are exciting times, because these are times of opportunity. We're living in rapidly changing times, and what we are going to have to do and what we're going to be pressing the federal government with is to restructure the opportunity for the grain producers to be able to access the additional markets that are out there. Perhaps this is the time to be looking at the Wheat Board, because with the advent of GATT, with the advent of NAFTA indeed the Wheat Board is going to have to become more transparent.

Perhaps this is a time to be urging the Wheat Board to develop a process whereby they have one process for offshore and another process for onshore marketing. Indeed, we are going to play a very active role in trying to establish additional markets for the barley growers in this province. MR. McFARLAND: Mr. Speaker, until such time as this continental barley market issue is finally resolved, would the minister please tell the producers prior to the spring seeding plans what other options are available to market their grain in lieu of a continental barley market? MR.

PASZKOWSKI: Indeed, we have not given up on the continental barley market. It is our intention to meet with the federal minister and urge him to reinstitute the opportunities that the continental barley market allowed our barley producers in the province. There are other areas as well that allow for opportunity in barley marketing. I refer to the new malt plant established in Alix, which indeed is going to be taking almost double the volumes of malting barley that we were producing in the past. There are areas such as the hull-less barley opportunities that our research department has developed.

We had to allow for a whole new area of market growth and market development. There are such things as the starch plant, which the barley growers are promoting at this time, which will allow for additional barley marketing opportunities. So we're quite active in the whole area of trying to allow the barley growers additional advantage in this province. MR. SPEAKER: The time for question period has expired. head: Members' Statements MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo. Community Schools MR. DICKSON: Mr.

Speaker, on November 9 of 1993 I had the opportunity along with my colleague from Edmonton-Meadowlark to make a private member's statement about the future and the role of the community school. I regret that my colleague and I were not more persuasive on November 9. In the Speech from the Throne the government has said, and I quote, that it will continue to eliminate waste and duplication, and it will continue to find new ways of providing essential services at a cost that Albertans can afford. Well, Mr.

Speaker, it doesn't matter how hard we look or how far we look in this province; we could not find a better model for providing co-ordinated essential services than the community school. We've got 66 of these excellent models in this province. The government talked about a "brighter future." Well, Mr. Speaker, I don't see a brighter future for those Alberta children now attending a community school. Numerous studies have demonstrated that it's not a question of spending more money in the classroom. It's not a question of more principals or assistant principals.

What does enhance the educational experience for children is involving their parents, their families, and the whole community. That's the one way we know we will give our children absolutely the best educational experience possible.

February 22, 1994 Alberta Hansard 167 We're taking that away when we dismantle the 66 community schools. So far all we have is a vague promise that there may be some money for inner-city children. Well, I think the government should reconsider. I urge them to consider supporting these 66 community schools. More importantly, I urge them to consider taking that model that works so well. Whether it's the Nicholas Sheran school in Lethbridge, whether it's the Ashmont school near St. Paul, or the school in Nanton: take that model. We can add onto it. Don't eliminate the one model that works. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Currie. Boy Scouts and Girl Guides MRS. BURGENER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. For millions of Boy Scouts and Girl Guides around the world today commemor ates the birthday of Robert Baden-Powell. I would like to take this opportunity to bring this to your attention and to recognize the scouting and guiding movement in Canada. The scouts and guides work with young people, as you know, to become resourceful and responsible citizens.

Robert Baden- Powell, then lieutenant general in the British army, started the Boy Scout movement in 1907 after holding a camp for about 20 boys just off the coast of southern England. Scouting came to Canada the following year and was granted a royal charter throughout the Commonwealth by King George V. Girl Guides was founded in 1909, and its first Canadian troop was formed in 1910 under the patronage of Lady Baden-Powell. Today, as you know, there are many millions of scouts and guides from nearly every country around the globe.

In Canada there are close to 500,000 members, and they are involved in all levels of the scouting and guiding movement. More importantly, they are supported by thousands and thousands of volunteers and dedicated leaders. Many local groups, communities, churches, service clubs, and professional associations also use this opportunity to work with young people, serving as role models in a forum that they uniquely call their own. I might also add that to show that the movement does progress, it has now gone co-ed throughout most of our country.

In addition to a lot of the outdoor activities and helping young people with some of the survival skills and planning and career areas that they wish to work on, the scouting and guiding move ment continues to promote tolerance and understanding, which is the basis and the root of the strength of our province. There are many opportunities, of course, for just plain fun. As you know, in Canada we have hosted a number of the world jamborees, most recently in 1983 when the scout association hosted the 15th annual world jamboree in Kananaskis. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Spruce Grove-Sturgeon-St. Albert.

Family and Community Support Services MRS. SOETAERT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thought it was appropriate today to share something with this Assembly because we were talking about FCSS grants. Last night I got a phone call at my home from a very distressed teenager who had once again been beaten by her father. Because she's a friend of my daughter, she phoned my home. I phoned the emergency crisis line, and I got some very capable help there. That woman calmed me down and phoned the girl and calmed her down. Then she contacted the RCMP.

The RCMP went to that home, talked to the family, and took the daughter to the RCMP station, at which point I was phoned and made a trip to the station and picked her up. So she is safe for the time being. Because of things like that I'm worried about these grants not going to the right place. This family needs counseling; that comes from FCSS grants. That family can be made whole again with help. That's what I would like to see, and that's why I'm concerned about where these grants are going. If we are to accept this new model that the minister is proposing, then all the onus will be put on the family.

Where would that girl have gone? Who would have helped her? This situation is classic. She would have had to stay in the same situation before anything would have been done. Clearly it is time to rethink this dangerous and insensitive proposal. Point of Order Seeking Opinions MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The hon. Member for Calgary- North West has a point of order. MR. BRUSEKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. During question period the Member for Calgary-Currie asked the Treasurer why other governments would make changes to their tax regime.

I bring your attention to Beauchesne 410(10), which says: The subject matter of questions must be within the collective responsibility of the Government or the individual responsibilities of Ministers. As far as I know, the Provincial Treasurer's responsibilities don't go beyond the borders of Alberta. He has difficulty enough there, it seems. Further, 409(3) says, "The question ought to seek information and . . . cannot seek an opinion," which also went beyond the bounds of that particular question. I'm not sure what it is about that particular chair, Mr.

Speaker, but when the Treasurer rose, he went on at length, and I would draw the Chair's attention to 410(7) that says, "Brevity both in questions and answers is of great importance." So I would ask that you advise the government members to make sure their questions are in fact of an appropriate nature to be asked in this House. MR. SPEAKER: I know the hon. Deputy Government House Leader wishes to participate, but the Chair did intervene earlier in question period about questions from the opposition side asking for an opinion.

The Chair really does believe that perhaps the Chair erred in not noticing the import of the hon. Member for Calgary- Currie's question in this regard. The Chair will try to do better. 2:40 Orders of the Day head: Public Bills and Orders Other than Government Bills and Orders Second Reading Bill 202 Alberta Task Force on Education Act [Adjourned debate February 16: Dr. Massey] MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. DR. MASSEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I spent a few minutes last day outlining the possibilities, some of the kinds of work that I think the task force might undertake, and that included some social forecasts and the need to work with Albertans to establish goals.

168 Alberta Hansard February 22, 1994 I think there are three additional areas that such a task force might explore, and that is to look at the organization of the education system in the province, to look at the authority of local boards, to look at the erosion of autonomy of the universities in this province. So I think there are a number of organizational issues that a task force could bring into perspective for us.

I think they also need to look at the support services that are available for students, the personnel that we have in our class rooms and laboratories, to look at certification requirements and how they might be improved, to look at the kind of facilities and facility planning that needs to be undertaken so that we don't have the situation we have in Medicine Hat with the college and its deteriorating physical plant, so that we don't have the University of Alberta residences and the problems we're having there with the structures not being safe in some cases.

I think they have to look at the learning resources that are available to students. Then finally I think they have to address very seriously the problem of finance. How should our education system be financed? What is the role of local ratepayers in the K to 12 system? What is the role at the postsecondary system of tuition? What is the government's responsibility in securing the kinds of resources that are needed if we're to have the kind of education system that all Albertans can agree upon?

The province of New Brunswick just recently had such a commission, and they reported in 1992 in a document called Schools for a New Century: Report of the Commission on Excellence in Education. They had as their goal fostering excellence in education, training, and human resource development through a broad consultative process. Mr. Speaker, it's my hope that that's what this Bill would provide for all Albertans, and I urge all members to support the Bill. Thank you very much. [Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair] MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Calgary-Currie. MRS. BURGENER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me a great deal of pleasure to use this opportunity to speak about educational reform. I do regret that the hon. Leader of the Opposition is not here to hear my comments. Speaker's Ruling Referring to the Absence of a Member MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, we're not allowed, by custom, courtesy, and rules, to refer to the absence or indeed the departing, in case someone is in the act of doing so, from the Chamber. MRS. BURGENER: My apologies, Mr. Speaker. Thank you. Debate Continued MRS. BURGENER: This Bill gives me a great deal of concern.

The reason it does so is because it tells me why our educational system is in such great need of reform, because the implication of instituting a task force to review education implies, in my opinion, that the full set of solutions and the issues and the problems with respect to education in this province can possibly be handled and dealt with within the scope of a task force. In my opinion, what has arrived in Alberta is the information age. It has arrived in our schools and in the communities, and I regret that it is not understood fully in the opposition.

The information age by its very nature means that information is simultaneously heard and understood and comprehended. One of the reasons we have such a great interest in education is because these issues are on the table, shared by many, many Albertans. They go way beyond the scope of a 14-member task force. In the past the task force would have the responsibility and the opportun ity to develop public awareness, to go and seek local solutions, to define the issues in order to assist government in coming to some appropriate conclusions about legislation and about the develop ment of social policy.

We've seen examples of that in the past in the bilingualism and biculturalism task forces that were in place and just recently in the Francophone governance task forces that were initiated by the government where in order to fully recognize the responsibility of government, social policy required an information component. Honoured colleagues, I would suggest to you that in the realm of education that era has long passed. The concern for reform in education is on the national agenda. It has gone beyond a local concern or a concern even confined within one party.

The concern for educational reform is also economically driven. That is not to say that business drives the agenda of education but that the stakeholders go beyond the teachers, the students, the classroom, and the parents. We have a concern in our country of being competitive in a world market, and we need the input of business as we reflect on reforms in education. Education also has hit a cultural nerve. We have a very diverse community across Canada. Our immigration policies have allowed that to develop, so we have to look at the educational reform within a cultural context as well.

Education reform is socially driven. We have communities where children have the opportunity to use and utilize some of the most scientific and best developed technologies. We have other communities where that is not available. We can't allow those social inequities to continue to occur. So, in my sense, to limit our ability to develop and capture this national interest in educa tion by striking a task force would do a disservice to our students. Let's look at the past briefly, within a decade, about what issues have come forward for discussion.

I had the opportunity to attend a conference in Washington, D.C., when I was a trustee with the Calgary Catholic school board when they were in preparation for their decade-long review of education. That process identified everything from Head Start programs to local community solutions to business partnerships to restructuring in technology. Ladies and gentlemen, that was five years ago that that started. We also had a situation in the United States where President Bush recognized the role of parochial schools for having been able to achieve goals and standards outside the public school process.

The striking recognition in that system was the input and the support of parents in the community for education. Ladies and gentlemen, that was over five years ago.

More recently, in Canada, about three years ago the Conference Board of Canada held a major seminar in the city of Calgary where they looked at some of the significant weaknesses in our education system, not to drive the agenda, not to usurp the roles and responsibilities of school boards or teachers but to simply tell us in plain language: these are the skills and these are the talents that we need in the future employees of this country, and we are committed to take on a responsibility in identifying that problem and supporting it through business.

We've also seen a number of discussions nationally and internationally on the role of employer training and the lifelong responsibilities of education. We know that Canada lags far behind a number of countries in recognizing the responsibility and the role of employers to maintain an educated and trained work force. In addition, we have the concerns of the European models

February 22, 1994 Alberta Hansard 169 and the southeast Asian models of education. We can be critical of classroom sizes and standards; we talk about suicide rates: there are a number of issues that come from looking at those models. The fact of the matter is that we have standards and goals and those are now part of the provincial expectations of education. These are the kinds of issues that our parents want to see, and I daresay these are the kind of concerns that a number of students strive for.

I have a great deal of regret in my heart to think that we would go back and sit out 18 months instead of recognizing an opportunity to seize on a number of the significant areas wherein we are wanting to act and the parents and the students themselves have told us to act. 2:50 Quite recently the Prime Minister recognized a number of Alberta teachers for excellence in science and technology and math. When we have that kind of expertise recognized nationally, I do believe that we are on the right track in coming to terms with what the strengths of our system are.

I believe that the school boards, the ATA have worked very hard to focus on the strengths of our teachers. The fact that these awards both provincially and nationally are now being recognized for the high excellence standards that they set is an important element. In addition, we have thousands of students who access through our Rutherford scholarship and a variety of other scholarships, oh, hundreds of thousands of dollars. They are awards for their hard efforts. These are not students who are always the most excep tional, the most gifted, who come from the most financially advantaged families.

This is a way of recognizing that within our student body right now is a crying need for addressing the educational reforms that are before us. We have received a lot of criticism from parents and from teachers on the two, I'd say, driving pieces of literature right now in the public domain, both School's Out and Failing Grades. What I find significant about that is that these are people who observe the school system both from without, in the case of Andrew Nikiforuk, and from within, as a parent, a taxpayer, through Dr. Freedman, trying to come to terms with the weaknesses in our system.

We also have phenomenally the strength of technology, an area, quite frankly, that we have yet to even come to terms with. We have yet to determine through school boards and through the government what kind of resources we are going to put in place to deal with it. I had the opportunity to listen to Dr. Tomorrow, Frank Ogden, when he spoke about schools for the 21st century.

He talked about computers and satellites in a way that is not even yet within our kind of ability to grasp simply because we don't have the resources nor do we have the forward thinking as educators and as parents, but I daresay our children do.

One of the significant models he talked about that I believe we have to recognize is that parents and students are not going to sit back and wait for school boards and governments to determine what they'll learn and how they'll learn it, because technology will allow them to access these programs through satellite delivered to their homes, that through public scrutiny can be tested, and while I know there's a major concern for the socialization process of education, quite frankly, as we get more and more competitive, we have to find ways to allow students to access technology and utilize it.

The longer we sit back and fear it or study it rather than embrace it and commit to it, the more we are doing a disservice to our students. We cannot possibly educate our children without a serious look at technology. We have to look at the change in the configuration of our physical school plants. We have to bring them up to speed with the ways that students learn. We have to talk about the technol ogy in the libraries. We have to look at the fact that they have modems; they access research at the university, nationally, and internationally.

The longer we sit and think these issues have to be dealt with, I suspect that we'll see and continue to see growing discontent with some of our students and our parents. We've talked about the linkage between education and advanced education. Quite often that is a subject of debate: whether we should amalgamate those two departments or make appropriate linkages. I think we have to go beyond just a question of education and embrace the fact that not just educational institutions have a handle on how to educate. The fear of privatization, quite frankly, is something that has to be put to rest.

We have models in Calgary right now, through the Columbia Institute, for example, where it is true that students do pay a private fee, a higher fee for certain courses than they would if they were taking them in the public domain. I will tell you that they finish those courses sooner. The impact of that on students is phenomenal, particularly if they are raising a family on their own, doing upgrading, trying to compete for the job market. The sooner and the more efficient ly they can get through the school system the better.

We still work in this model of school being September to June, and in fact we resist any support for year-round schooling because we're afraid of it. In some of the studies that came out of the advanced education roundtables, quite frankly one of the most startling figures had to do with the fact that the majority of students in some of our postsecondary institutions, in fact the vast majority of some of them, are not full-time students. They are not there from September to June; they are there on a part-time basis upgrading, finishing a degree.

In other words, they have found a way to address their educational responsibilities and personal goals within their social context of a job, a family, a work initiative, and we as yet maintain this fixed structure that everyone goes to school in September and finishes in May. We have got to be prepared to reform education to recognize just who is attending these institutions and what limitations they may have with respect to attending class on an ongoing basis. I am quite excited by the fact that we have already identified and recognized seven areas of reform which have to be taken back to the community.

This has come out of the roundtables; this has come out of the 20,000-plus submissions. I know there's a lot of concern about where those messages and reports have gone. Quite frankly, between the Alberta School Boards Association, the ATA, the municipalities, and the thousands and thousands of concerned parents and communities the key areas that need assistance are the amalgamation and regionalization of school boards. We have also to look at roles, and those include school councils, schools, school boards, and superintendents.

That whole issue of governance is strong because people would like to have an understanding of where their input is, what their responsibilities are. They cannot be predetermined for them, but the concern for it and the need to have a voice is clearly on the table. I do not believe we have to sit back for 18 months and try to figure out just how important that is. We have been told. The fiscal framework – the issue of revenue, the cost of funding education – is a major concern.

It has been identified by this government that we will be working toward deficit elimination by 1997, and that forms part of our fiscal framework. We have a problem with equity. We have a problem with school jurisdictions which are struggling with a limited ability to raise the revenues and resources that will allow them to give their students the same opportunities that we demand as a government. If we are going to hold our students accountable to meet standards, we have to give them those opportunities. So the fiscal framework and

170 Alberta Hansard February 22, 1994 revenue issue is a significant one. It's been raised around the province. Again, it is already on the table. We don't have to go back and investigate how serious the problem is. We have a question of accountability. Every time you mention testing, you get one side of the coin talking about the curriculum, teaching to the test. On the other side you have the disadvantaged student. What about the student who is an overachiever?

We have to find a way to bring our students to a provincial standard that we as the government can stand back and applaud, that we can turn and say to our students, "We have given you the best that we can, and you are free to go forward." Currently in this country of ours if you want to apply to the military, for instance, and you finish your high school, they are able to track from what province you come, where you would place in their admittance structure because of the significant variations in standards across this country.

My personal feeling on this issue: quite frankly, it is a tragic situation that nationally we have yet to define an education structure and process for our students that allows in this age of mobility and transfer a student from one province to move to the next without being educationally disadvantaged. That whole issue of accountability I think is going to be a key area.

I don't believe we can turn around and say to our students, "You shall be successful," that we are going to reward school districts because "You will graduate students who are successful," but we ourselves as a province and as a nation have yet to determine what that accountability will be. That's on the table; we don't need to go back and think about it for 18 more months. 3:00 The issue of business involvement is a highly sensitive one.

There are two sides to the argument every time you raise it: business shouldn't be driving the decisions of the government with respect to education, but on the other hand you have teaching methods and teaching programs and curriculum that no longer meet the goals and aspirations of the economic community that our young people want to find meaningful employment in. It would be remiss of us to shut them out. They're taking a leadership role; in fact, I believe they're writing cheques at this point. So they are our main players, and I think it's critical that we recognize this, not fight it, but partner with it.

A number of school jurisdictions have already embraced this. A number of local high schools and individual school communities are way ahead – way ahead – of any task force on this issue. To sit on the fence and discuss it for 18 months would be a tragedy, in my mind, because it leaves business in a situation where that has not been dealt with, and again it disadvantages students. A sixth area, which is key to the resolution of our education reforms, is the role of the teacher.

I regret, fundamentally, that we have to deal with teaching often in the context of union and don't have the opportunity to talk about the strengths of the classroom teacher, the aspirations they have for each one of their students, the commitment that they give, and the support they have from their own individual parents and communities. We have to find a way to support the teaching profession. We have to look at it in preparation, in competencies. We have to look at the Teaching Profession Act. We have to look at the departments of education, how they teach, what they teach.

We see a variation within this province of students who are in the education faculties. In Lethbridge you do some practicum in just about your first year. In other institutions you do it in your third or fourth year, which may be too late to find out that it isn't exactly what you thought it would be or that the pressures of the classroom aren't exactly what you want or can handle. By then you're so far into the commitment to your own educational goals that it's difficult to switch.

We have to work around a significantly strong union that has had a goal and a responsibility over the past 20 years but, in talking to a number of teachers, has changed. We need a vehicle to have that conversation. I guess the final area in which I think we'll see some changes that is on the table at this point is legislation. There is an element that is coming through with the business plan process – in my personal opinion it has been lost on the community – and that is the streamlining of legislation.

We have talked about health care reform, and we know that layers and layers and layers of legisla tion have built up in order to provide health care. We are looking at streamlining it to meet the need of the patient in the community. The same situation exists in education. We have legislation which prohibits, prevents, negates, enables. There's a whole slew of pieces of legislation which impact directly on the ability of students to access the best and of parents to choose and of teachers to follow their students and bring initiatives forward.

We have a series of governance regulations with respect to our school councils, which were identified when they redid the School Act in 1988 and which a number of school boards have gone forward and acted on, but it is not provincewide. My concern is that we seriously look at legislation and what the roles and responsibilities are in that regard. I am excited about education reform. I am not excited about an 18-month task force. I am glad that this government is on record as moving forward now in education restructuring. Thank you. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Edmonton-Centre. MR. HENRY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I've been reflecting on the comments from the Member for Calgary-Currie. One thing I did want to point out to her is that the task force that's being proposed in this piece of legislation – and I assume she's read it – is allowed up to 18 months to review and to report. Last I checked, up to 18 months was not. . . [interjection] She's read it she's told me. I understand she's been hearing bells, and I hope those are from the bench behind her and not in her own head. The task force can report within 18 months.

I might point out that the government has alluded to the fact that several MLA task forces are going to go across this province to solicit more input, that may or may not be listened to, from the people of Alberta. I might suggest to the hon. member that the key difference between what the Minister of Education has indicated will be happening and this piece of legislation is the composition of the task forces. Rather than government MLAs, who have already made their decisions on education, listening to or hearing from Albertans, it will be a group of independent individuals who will report to the Legisla ture.

Mr. Speaker, there are many issues in education. I would like to touch on a few of those issues, but I wanted to outline really clearly why I believe it's important for us to take a deep breath and to talk with Albertans and receive input from Albertans and discuss the future of our education system. The government and the hon. Member for Calgary-Currie are correct.

There have been a number of little studies, there have been a number of little pilots, there have been a number of little discussions about this aspect of education and that aspect of education and a conference on the information age, but nowhere has anybody actually sat down and looked at what it is we want our education system to be for the next generation. Consequently, what we've ended up with is a lot of tinkering with our system, a lot of messing about with our system, and frankly a lot of disco-ordinated if I can use that term,

February 22, 1994 Alberta Hansard 171 changing of our system, which has actually not articulated any sort of vision with regard to what our education system will be like. Frankly, when I received the first draft copy of this piece of legislation, I thought that perhaps after the last year the govern ment might come out with a paper or with some sort of statement that would define its education system or where it believes Albertans want the education system to go.

I thought, as the Minister of Education has often said, that after two years of fiscal realities conferences or meetings where, by invitation only, school officials could come and hear about what the former Minister of Education and current Treasurer thought the fiscal realities were; then after Meeting the Challenge, which was released by the government in September of last year and discussed four major issues, those being defining a basic education, funding education in Alberta, measuring results in education, and changing the delivery of education; then after two roundtables, at which – and I'll give the minister some credit here – there was fairly broad representation from around the various stakeholder groups that, I point out to the Member for Calgary-Currie, not only included the traditional stakeholders in education but also included members of the business community and members of labour in Alberta; after somewhere over 27,000 copies of this booklet were delivered across Alberta; and after, I understand, almost 20,000 responded to the ministry; then after many public meetings sponsored by various interest groups, because the government wasn't willing to have any more meetings, whether it be the Alberta Teachers' Association, the Calgary Catholic school board, parent council associations, associations serving children with special needs: after all of these groups had their input, I thought that the government might be willing to sit down and actually talk about some of the issues and, perhaps from the input that's been given, outline its vision.

Well, I sat on the edge of my seat while His Honour the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor read the throne speech. [interjection] On the edge of my seat, hon. Member for Redwater. I thought we were going to be seeing a vision of education for the future. I scramble to open to the

section on education, and what do I see? I see the government's going to bring in amendments to the School Act to establish full provincial funding, addressing the equity question – that's one issue – to reduce the number of school boards, to streamline administration, to bring in charter schools, and to provide education in accordance with constitutional guarantees; period. There was no discussion of some of the major issues. All of the items in the throne speech that have been articulated by this government are procedural or organizational in nature.

None of these attack some of the very basic issues that are facing our education system today. 3:10 Some of the issues include, Mr. Speaker, the dropout rate. We have an alarmingly high dropout rate in our province. I wish I could stand here and tell you that it's 13 percent, as some studies have suggested, 16 percent, 23 percent, 30 percent, as high as 34 percent. The reality is that we don't know and the government doesn't know. We have anecdotal evidence that tells us that we have a high dropout rate.

We see a lot of young people applying for jobs who have not finished high school, who are ending up on social assistance or ending up on UIC because they don't have the job skills to retain or to get jobs, but this government has never addressed the issue of determining how many people in our education system actually complete. We don't know. The studies are varied, anywhere from 12 percent to 13 percent up to the one- third rate, because we don't track whether a student who drops out of one institution registers in another or drops out for six months and re-registers. We don't know.

We do know that we have a dropout rate that is high; we don't know exactly how high. The government has not laid out any plans to look at how we track that, to look at what we can do about that. Regardless of whether you think the number is 12 percent or 13 percent or whether you think the number is over 30 percent, depending on which study you read, we have not talked about what we do about that. We do know that the current high school education is not appropriate for some young people.

We have not seen this government talk about providing alternatives to those young people, whether that be credit courses toward apprenticeships in grades 10 and 11, whether that be alternative forms of education that perhaps are not necessarily just academically geared for the high school student. Basically, the issue has been ignored. The issue of technology that the hon. Member for Calgary- Currie raises, a very important issue.

I know the hon. member is well aware of the issue and well informed, as she's raised it in this House several times as well as in the financial planning committee of the government, but still we see no action by the government that says that we need to look at this, that we need to look at how this is going to be impacted over the next number of years. Perhaps the government is going to reduce the number of school boards or streamline administration and run our whole system by computers.

I don't know, but we're certainly not seeing any sort of vision from the government with regard to the use of technol ogy in our school system. I did want to relate to the members, Mr. Speaker, some innovative methods of technology that are being used in our school systems, especially in the far north – some distance learning opportunities, some sharing of information, sharing of library, sharing of teachers – that are allowing some smaller schools in Fort Vermilion and the Peace River country to retain their small schools in the small communities and not forcing their students to move to larger centres.

In the government's document Meeting the Challenge the government talked about charter schools and contract schools. We've had very little public discussion about charter schools and about contract schools and, frankly, about the concept of magnet schools, that's somewhat related. There is a lot of fear, a lot of anxiety in Alberta right now about charter schools because the government's going ahead with that, and part of that is created because nobody can quite define exactly how these schools will operate. The Minister of Education gives us hints once in a while, but we've not seen draft legislation.

We've not seen draft regulations or a draft contract with these charter schools. Depend ing on how the charter schools operate, it either could be, at one extreme, the death of the public education system as we know it, or at the other extreme it could be the tool that we need to provide innovation within our public education system. We don't know what it's going to be because we don't know how it's going to operate.

I've encouraged the Minister of Education and I continue to encourage the minister to lay out similar to what the Premier did in his previous incarnation when he was the Minister of Environmental Protection. He laid out the Environmental Protec tion and Enhancement Act and the draft regulations and had a broad, public discussion in this province that didn't take forever, that actually produced

an Act that got unanimous support from the Members of this Legislative Assembly. If we could see the same kind of thing with regard to the charter schools legislation, we could have some public discussion. Again, a task force on the future of education would allow that kind of public discussion to happen, would allow for interim reports, where you would see different models of charter schools, because depending on where

172 Alberta Hansard February 22, 1994 you look in the States where charter schools have been operating will determine different kinds of models. Mr. Speaker, nothing in the throne speech, nothing in any of the changes the government has made addresses the real issue facing schools today: schools being asked to do more and more and more noneducational duties that historically have been provided by communities or other kinds of social agencies. This is a major block.

We have students who are in the school system who are not adequately receiving other kinds of services, whether it be health, child welfare, or other human services. In addition, we have teachers being asked to act as counselors, being asked to act as watchdogs. In Red Deer this past weekend I had one school principal come to me and say that he was terribly upset at the fact that he now had to act as a watchdog to determine whether a single parent, a young woman in his school, was going to get her social assistance cheque – right or wrong. Frankly, I said: "Well, what do you expect the minister to do?

You want the young woman to continue in school, to be responsible, to be attending. Surely to goodness, the school has to have a role in that." I don't blame the minister of child welfare for that move, but the point is that that school is now being asked to take on an additional responsibility. The Bernd Walter report, which was ignored by this govern ment, suggested that the school be the place where all the services to children be provided. There are pros and cons to that argument, Mr. Speaker.

There's some discussion, but this government has not had a public discussion about whether the school in fact, number one, should be the place where all services to children are delivered and, number two, how that should be structured in terms of whose responsibility in the school and which funding. That issue has been totally ignored.

Yet whether you go to the school in Spirit River or the school in downtown Edmonton, in my riding, you'll find that one of the major pressing issues is the use of the school and all of the services that are going to children: who's providing those services, who has the responsibility, and who has the responsibility for funding those services. We have generally a dismal record in co-ordinating services to children in this province. One of the vehicles that has worked is the community schools. We see that program axed without any consultation. I didn't see anywhere in all the consultation that that should be axed.

The minister has sponsored one weekend forum, or one two-day forum, on violence in our schools. It's a very pressing issue, and I know some members on the other side of the House as well as on this side are concerned about that issue. I wish I had the easy answer. I wish I knew how to fix that one, because I would stand up here, and I'm sure everybody would agree that that's exactly what we need to do. The reality is that the level of violence in our schools, regardless of how you define that, is increasing. Some of the issues certainly in my riding have been racially affected.

There have been suggestions that discrimination or conflict between races are issues. Other times it's been suggested to me that it's a lack of parental authority, a lack of the school being able to move in when violence starts. The issue is that we have a real problem with growing violence in the schools, and we need to address it. It's not just a school issue; it's a societal issue.

I'm not suggesting that we're going to cure all of the world's evils, but certainly it is an issue we need to address. [interjection] There's been absolutely no suggestion certainly from the Minister of Municipal Affairs, whom I hear in the background, as to how we can constructively address that issue. Mr. Speaker, I think that we need to let all Albertans, whether they be from education, from the police forces, from the communities, from academia, and from other sectors as well, talk with us in terms of: how do we address that issue? Again it's not an easy one.

I don't expect the government to have all the answers. I'd like to state for the record here that there have been a few incidences of violence in the schools that have hit the newspapers since this legislative session has opened. I believe that there are things that we can do. I don't believe that those acts of violence are the Minister of Education's responsibility. I don't think he has committed or incited these, and for that reason I've refrained from standing in this House during question period and trying to accuse the Minister of Education of not doing his job in that regard. It's a complex problem.

It's not just the Minister of Education's responsibility. It's the responsibility of a lot of people in our society, and we have to work jointly to help solve that. By having a task force on education, we can bring some of those people together and help address that problem. 3:20 We have a big problem of accessibility in this province. We had 10,000 students last year who qualified for programs in postsecondary education who did not gain acceptance because there was not enough room for them. In addition, we have grade 12 returnees coming back for their fourth year.

We often hear about this young fellow or young woman going back to play sports for another year or to be in the drama league for another year. I want to credit the association responsible for high school athletics for addressing that problem and limiting to three years the number of years a student can participate in intervarsity sports. The reality is that a lot of those students are going back because there are no places for them in postsecondary institutions.

I believe that we need to have a task force on education to look at these broad issues so that we can co-ordinate, so that we can determine where we need to have more spots in our postsecondary institutions. That may well mean moving resources from A to B; it doesn't necessarily mean all new expenditures. The government keeps talking about lifelong learning. I know the Minister of Health, when she reads Hansard, will know that the further education councils and the advanced education department in this province have had some general discussions about that.

She will also know and I'm sure she will agree that this is an evolving discussion that we need to have not just this year, not just 10 years ago. We need to look into the 21st century and determine exactly how as a province we're going to respond to the demand for lifelong learning. Not only are we going to have to look at the major issues that affect education today but the major education issues for the future. Mr. Speaker, I urge all members to support this very important initiative by the Leader of the Official Opposition.

It is a way for us to look at the future of education rather than sitting behind closed doors determining what shall happen and then sponsoring quasi task forces of government MLAs to do damage control and out there to sell the program. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Innisfail-Sylvan Lake. MR. SEVERTSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak to Bill 202 today. Bill 202 is a duplication of the consultations already carried out by the Department of Education.

We have had roundtables throughout '92 and '93, roundtables that have included members of many groups dedicated to the education of our youth of this province, groups such as the ATA, the Alberta School Boards Association, Alberta School Business Officials association, the College of Alberta School Superintendents, community organizations, parental groups, the business commun-

February 22, 1994 Alberta Hansard 173 ity, labour organizations, school trustees. The list goes on. This government has consulted with hundreds of people through two provincial roundtables and eight regional discussions. As my colleagues outlined before, 31,000 Albertans responded through 1,700 written submissions to the roundtable workbook. The Department of Education continues to receive submissions, and the consultation process continues. This government continues to consult with Albertans with regard to the direction that education will take in the future.

After looking through the report tabled by the minister last Tuesday, Meeting the Challenge, I see to have recognized a few recommendations. The opposition says that we have not consulted Albertans in creating our plan for restructuring education. This report prepared through submissions made by Albertans proved that in fact we have talked with and are still listening to Albertans. The Minister of Education continues to meet with school boards and the ATA and other groups interested in education. This government has only decreased education funding by 12.4 percent, less than any other department.

The report shows that Albertans recognized the need to make education more cost-efficient. However, the people of this province and this government realized that a 20 percent reduction could have put a great strain on education. The report showed that the people support the provi sions of early childhood services. However, they were concerned that the cost to deliver could be reduced, and I believe it's been addressed in the announcement that the minister made on January 18 of this year.

Albertans agreed with this government that taxation is not the answer to our fiscal problems, as members of the opposition have been heard to say. Taxation will not be used to control spending problems. This government has acted to try to eliminate the problem of fiscal equity in this province. The people of Alberta have told this government that fiscal equity is a major concern that must be dealt with. Mr. Speaker, over the last five years I have met with a number of groups and individuals concerned with equity financing of our school system.

Every group is a little bit different, but every group didn't address the problem totally. Presently in this province we could have an equalized assessment of a property owner of $100,000. The school portion of his taxes in one part of the province could be $1,800; in another jurisdic tion, as low as $300. That is not fair. It's not fair to the young people of this province, because in many cases the property owner that is paying the high rate is the very school that spends the least dollars per student, and they can't afford to tax any more. The minister's announcement on January 18 addressed that problem.

Now we'll have full equity for all students across the province, no matter where they live. The people of Alberta wanted more input in education at the community level. This government has acted to ensure that parents, teachers, students, community organizations, businesses, and industry will have an input in programs and delivery of services in the education system. Finally, the people of Alberta expressed concerns regarding the duplication of services in the province. To try to reduce this problem, this government will be reducing the number of school boards in the province.

By consolidating services we hope to reduce overlap and duplication. Administration can also be reduced by amalgamating school boards. The separate school boards of this province continue to be an asset to the education system. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Member for Innisfail-Sylvan Lake, but the time limit for consider ation of this item of business has now concluded. 3:30 head: Motions Other than Government Motions Workers' Compensation Board 502. Moved by Mr. Beniuk:

Be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly urge the government to improve the Workers' Compensation Board and Workers' Compensation Act by the following initiat ives: (1) seeking the creation of an all-party standing commit tee of the Legislative Assembly on the WCB with the following responsibilities: (

a) to make appointments to all major positions at the WCB including the president, chief execu tive officer, chair and the board of the WCB, and chair and the board of the Appeals Com mission, said appointments to be selected from a short list submitted by the Public Service Commission following a public search process, and no appointments to be for longer than three years, and (

b) to review and set future WCB guidelines and ensure the WCB is fully accountable to the Legislature; and (2) reviewing and where necessary amending the Work ers' Compensation Act to (

a) require the WCB to accept the opinion of an independent three-member medical panel as final in cases where previous medical opinions differed greatly, (

b) improve the current system of claims adjudica tion by including claims precedent, and (

c) require copies of all medical reports be pro vided to claimants with a plain language assess ment of their claim and the WCB's reasons for its decision in each case. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Edmonton-Norwood. MR. BENIUK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to speak on Motion 502 dealing with the Workers' Compensation Board. The WCB is one of the largest financial entities in our province, with invested assets of $2 billion. The board arbitrarily determines its own annual income of approximately half a billion dollars and has the authority to collect those funds from employers.

The board membership consists of 11 members: the chair, the president and chief executive officer, and nine other board members, three of each appointed to represent the interests of employers, employees, and the general public. Administrative authority is in the hands of the president and chief executive officer, who is granted a great deal of discretionary power over WCB's operations and policies. Accountability towards and input from workers, employers, and the general public was the original rationale for having on the board an equal number of representatives from each of these groups.

The WCB was originally established as a form of a social contract between employers and employees with the government facilitating the process. In exchange for workers who were injured at work not suing their employers, the employers agreed to pay into a special fund to cover wages lost and rehabilitation costs of the injured workers. Based on the flood of WCB complaints being received from both rural and urban areas, the WCB is failing in its original mandate. Eighty percent of calls received in some constituency offices are complaints on the WCB.

The interests of injured workers, employers, and the general public are not being

174 Alberta Hansard February 22, 1994 adequately served. Both injured workers and their employers are frustrated and disillusioned in their dealings with the WCB. For the WCB to properly fulfill its mandate, it must be held accountable to and by its stakeholders: the injured workers, the employers, and all Albertans. The WCB Act does not refer to any shareholders. The Act does not state who owns the WCB.

Is the WCB a Crown corporation, or is the WCB an entity owned by and operated for the benefit of its stakeholders – the employers who pay yearly insurance fees to the WCB and the injured workers who are to be compensated for loss of income and rehabilitation costs incurred due to injury in the workplace – with the govern ment acting as a facilitator?

If the WCB is an entity owned by and operated for the benefit of its stakeholders with the govern ment acting as the facilitator, what mechanism is in place that allows, enables the stakeholders to hold the WCB, especially the president and chief executive officer, accountable to the stake holders? At present, Mr. Speaker, there is no mechanism. Compounding the problem is the decision of the contemporary minister responsible for the WCB to distance himself from the operations at the WCB. A great void exists, a black hole. Both injured workers and employers are disillusioned with the WCB.

It must be stressed that the WCB Act grants the board carte blanche powers to arbitrarily set at its sole pleasure fees to be paid by employers without being bound to tax in a uniform or fair manner the employers of any industry class or subclass. The WCB Act grants the board absolute authority to self- regulate and self-determine its yearly income, to charge employers any fees it decides to charge. The board is not even required to justify the fees assessed to employers, not even in our law courts.

The board is a law unto itself taxing employers and collecting whatever fees it has self-determined, and the employers are legally bound to pay. Failure to pay may result in the employer's business operations being closed. How many employers, how many companies have been driven into bankruptcy by the WCB? Any employer who questions, who challenges the fees assessed is restricted by legislation to appeal within the WCB system, first to the Claims Services Review Committee and then to the more autonomous Appeals Commis sion. No appeals are permitted outside the WCB system; for example, to the law courts. Mr.

Speaker, to whom is the WCB accountable and through what mechanism? Certainly not to its stakeholders. Lack of accountability to stakeholders, to injured workers and their employers discredits the WCB and warps the WCB's focus of operations. Motion 502 will make the WCB more accountable to injured workers and their employers through the Legislature. Mr. Speaker, many of the injured workers that the WCB was established to compensate are very unhappy, disillusioned, bitter about their treatment by the WCB. The board fails to listen, is not accountable to them.

One major difficulty is the manner and method with which the WCB deals with claims filed by injured workers. The Act gives the WCB too much flexibility of action in deciding cases, leading to contradictions, confusion, and frustration. The board can arbitrarily dispense or refuse to dispense compensation to workers who are injured, resulting in long, drawn-out appeals, denial, or perceived denial of fairness and natural justice. The Workers Compensation Board prides itself in not being bound by precedent, by its own previous decisions.

The board claims to look at each injured worker's case independently, in isolation, totally removed from its previous decisions in other similar cases. Each case stands on its own in isolation. Mr. Speaker, this is the antithesis, the opposite, of how our law courts operate, of how your rulings, your decisions are assisted in being made in this House. Beauchesne provides examples, precedents, of how other similar questions, issues were resolved, dealt with by other Speakers. Judges do not operate in isolation from previous rulings.

They embrace previous decisions, precedents, to assist them to be consistent and equitable. WCB decisions on injured worker claims at all levels, from the caseworker to the Claims Services Review Committee to the Appeals Commission level, operate in isolation from previously decided similar injury claims. Without the use of precedent, the established use of fair and equitable guidelines, natural justice is denied or perceived to be denied to the injured worker. This leads to injured workers feeling betrayed by the WCB system.

Injured workers focus their thoughts and energies on proving that their injuries should be compensated by seeking evermore medical reports, by commenc ing appeals within the WCB system, and by phoning their MLAs for help. Mr. Speaker, there is no justice in a system wherein two workers with similar injuries receive compensation packages that are poles apart, one getting the royal treatment and the other the boot. Rejection of precedent concept is a rejection of natural justice, real or perceived.

We as legislators have a responsibility to the injured workers, their employers, all Albertans to correct this situation. Mr. Speaker, the WCB Act is a poorly crafted, outdated Act that constantly refers throughout to what the WCB may do and not what the WCB must do for injured workers. The term "may" makes the board's responsibility to injured workers optional, at the sole discretion of the board. The WCB Act implies that the board is not mandated, required, to help injured workers, but it may help injured workers if it so decides at its sole discretion. This is not acceptable.

Employers pay insurance fees to the WCB so their workers, when injured, will be looked after and not maybe looked after by the board. For example, I refer to

section 83(1) of the WCB Act, which deals with vocational rehabilitation. The Act reads that "the Board shall take whatever measures it considers necessary to assist a worker injured." What the board considers necessary could be totally different than what is required to rehabilitate the injured worker to enable the injured worker to return to the workplace. I remind this House of the classes, which cost the WCB $3,700 each, that injured workers took at the unlicensed Jack Bredin Community Institute. The WCB considered those classes as necessary. The injured workers objected to the waste of money. Mr.

Speaker, no wonder the injured workers and their employers are disillusioned with the operations of the board. 3:40 The problem begins with the wording of the poorly crafted, outdated, ancient WCB Act itself. The board is not accountable to anyone: not to the injured workers, not to the employers, not even to the contemporary minister responsible for the WCB, who has distanced himself from the operations of the board. Mr. Speaker, there has to be a mechanism in place to hold the WCB accountable to its stakeholders.

By now all members of the House are aware of the provisions and the recommendations of the Horowitz report. Decisions of acceptance or rejection of an injured worker's claim are influenced and determined by medical reports submitted by doctors. The WCB has failed to accept and implement the Horowitz report recommendation that an independent three-member medical panel make the final decision in cases where previous medical opinions differed greatly. At present when medical reports are submitted by doctors, including specialists, that differ in their opinions, the WCB

February 22, 1994 Alberta Hansard 175 arbitrarily selects the medical opinion that it prefers, usually the medical report submitted by its own doctor. The result is that injured workers do not accept the WCB's rejection of their injury claim. Appeals are filed. Additional medical opinions are obtained which the WCB appears to ignore to the detriment of the injured worker. Natural justice appears to be denied.

Long, drawn-out appeals; demonstrations outside the WCB offices; negative publicity towards the board; case files remaining open for years; anger, emotional stress and frustration on the part of injured workers and their families and probably emotional stress and frustration by WCB employees follows along with appeals for help by injured workers to their MLAs. If the board simply imple mented this Horowitz report recommendation, an independent three-member medical panel would come to a final decision on the injury claim assuring a fair and equitable settlement both to the injured worker and the board. Mr.

Speaker, it would certainly help the claims process if injured workers received the required copies of medical reports and if WCB decisions under injury claims were written in plain language, as recommended by the Horowitz report, number 34, and rejected by the board. The establishment of an all-party standing committee of the Legislature on the WCB would provide a mechanism by which the WCB would be held accountable to the employers and injured workers, with the government acting as the facilitator.

All MLAs – urban and rural, from both sides of the House – receive calls for help from their constituents regarding difficulties with the WCB. The establishment of an all-party standing committee of the Legislature will make the WCB more accountable to the Legislature and will enable MLAs to offer suggestions, influence the establishment of future guidelines, helping in the positive future evolution of the WCB to ensure that the WCB properly fulfills its mandate and is accountable to injured workers, employers, all Albertans through the Legislature.

The appointment of individuals from a shortlist submitted and screened by the Public Service Commissioner following a public search process will ensure that the best candidates are appointed to the chair and the board of the WCB, including president and chief executive officer, and to the chair and the board of the Appeals Commission, enhancing credibility, accountability, and legitimacy. The contemporary minister responsible for the WCB has received letters, as have members on this side of the House. Point of Order Questioning a Member DR. WEST: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon.

Minister of Municipal Affairs, you're rising on a point of order? DR. WEST: Yes. I wonder if the member would entertain a question in debate. MR. BENIUK: Mr. Speaker, my time is running out, and I would like to finish my . . . MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is the answer yes or no? MR. BENIUK: No, absolutely. Debate Continued MR. BENIUK: The contemporary minister responsible for the WCB has received letters, as have members on this side of the House, from employees of the Appeals Commission, and he is fully aware of the seriousness of the problems at the Appeals Commission.

An all-party standing committee of the Legislature appointed from a shortlist submitted and screened by the Public Service Commissioner would go a great distance to preventing such problems from further arising. Please remember that we are dealing with an entity possessing invested assets of $2 billion, an annual income of approximately half a billion dollars, and an unfunded liability of approximately half a billion dollars. WCB decisions impact on all Albertans.

As Stan Udaskin of the Financial Executives Institute Canada stated in Saturday's Edmonton Journal, I quote: "When you see [an] organization that is half-a-billion dollars in the hole, you have to say, well, what are you [going to do] about it?" The passage of Motion 502 will send a positive message for change, for sound management, for improved credibility, for accountability: accountability towards the employers that fund the WCB, towards the injured workers that the WCB was originally established to help, towards all Albertans through the Legislature. I ask all members to support Motion 502. MR.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Cypress-Medicine Hat. DR. L. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 1 rise today to speak against Motion 502 sponsored by the member for Edmonton- Northwoods. He spoke of a black hole, and I'm afraid that is where the member's logic appears to originate from. Point of Order Incorrect Reference to a Constituency MR. BENIUK: A point of order. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: A point of order, Edmonton-Norwood. MR. BENIUK: I just want to bring to your attention that there is no member here from Edmonton-Northwoods. It's Edmonton- Norwood. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: All right. Edmonton-Norwood. Hon.

Member for Cypress-Medicine Hat, please continue. DR. L. TAYLOR: I'm sorry; I didn't catch that point of order. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Member for Cypress-Medicine Hat, please continue. Debate Continued DR. L. TAYLOR: Thank you Mr. Speaker. I fail to see how this motion would make the Workers' Compensation Board more efficient or more effective. Actually, I fear that the motion would cause the WCB to become a rather ineffective board: a board that could become subject to interference by the government, subject to interference by this Legislature. The Workers' Compensation Board was created by

an Act in 1918. The board operates along five founding principles. One, that employers would pay the costs of job-related injuries in exchange for protection against lawsuits by the injured worker; two, that participation would be compulsory for most industries to promote collective liability; that the WCB would have exclusive jurisdiction; finally, that the Appeals Commission would be independent of the WCB adjudication and that the WCB's administration and adjudication functions would remain indepen dent from government. I think, Mr.

Speaker, that's a very important principle, the independence from government, and I become concerned when I hear the direction of Motion 502. This motion is typical of a party and a group that believes in central

176 Alberta Hansard February 22, 1994 control, that government will tell the individual everything of an individual's life. 3:50 The motion has three main principles to deal with: the creation of a standing committee of the Legislature to make appointments to the board, to review and set the WCB's future operating policies, and to amend the Workers' Compensation Act to make the WCB more accountable to external medical doctors. The motion, if passed, would put the appointment of board members into the hands of a standing committee of this Legislature.

If the government wished, it could use this appointment process to manipulate the WCB into becoming a tool for the government. That goes against the principle of the WCB. [interjections] MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order. DR. L. TAYLOR: Thank you. [interjections] Please, Mr. Speaker, please. Could we have some order here? I believe we should allow appointments to be recommended by a committee independent of the government or the Legislature to ensure that workers' and employers' concerns are represented in the best way possible.

Developing policy that is representative of all workers and employees is the role of the WCB's board of directors. Certainly changes need to be made, but this is not the direction. In fact, for a direction I would refer the members opposite to Bill 210, brought forward by the Member for Lethbridge-West. If members want to read a good comment and a good direction for the WCB, I would recommend that they read this and vote for it when it comes forward.

The hon. member opposite suggests that appointments to major positions within the WCB be appointed by a standing committee of the Legislature based on a shortlist recommended by the Public Service Commissioner. That's a fair idea given that all boards and agencies use the Public Service Commission and the commissioner to implement board appointments, and I should point out that this is an initiative implemented by this government. I am pleased to see the member's support for our government policy. However, the WCB already has in place an internal appointment review panel, and this works well.

As well, this panel was in fact a recommendation of the Auditor General that was acted upon. I don't see the rationale behind dismantling the appointment review committee and replacing it with a mechanism that would be no more effective and in fact would be more open to interfer ence. It's simply a good attempt at public relations, and that is what is so typical of the members opposite: consumption for public relations. One of the reasons that the board operates well is that by statute it must represent a broad range of Alberta employers and employees.

In fact, three directors must represent employers and three must represent the interests of the workers. So the workers are well represented. In addition, three directors are appointed to be representative of the interests of all Albertans. I would suggest to the member opposite that we should be working together to ensure that the best possible cross

section of Albertans is represented by the board of directors, not worrying about the mechanism as to how they are put on the board. The second way the Member for Edmonton-Norwood would like to gain control of the WCB is by allowing his standing committee to review and set future WCB guidelines. He wants to ensure that the WCB is fully accountable to the Legislature. Again the member is trying to use the Legislature to try and control an independent arm's-length corporation. [Mr.

Herard in the Chair] I believe we should leave policy formulation to the Workers' Compensation Board where it belongs, with the board members: board members who are independent of this government, board members who are aware of the day-to-day operations of the WCB. These people are the experts, Mr. Speaker or Mr. Deputy Speaker or Mr. Deputy Deputy Speaker. They are following the day-to-day operations of their corporation. They are aware of the trends that are developing. They are in the know much more so than the Legislature would be.

As a Legislature we are elected representa tives who fight for the best results for our constituents. By allowing us to control the policies of the WCB, we are put into conflict. I am more comfortable allowing the WCB to carry out its functions independent of government. We have too much government interference in the lives of business and boards already. If my constituents have concerns that need to be raised with the WCB, I will do so, and I can assure you I will make strong representation. That is my role. But MLAs should not be in the position to change WCB policies because of political pressure.

The final aspect of this motion, Mr. Speaker, is to allow the standing committee to review and recommend the Workers' Compensation Act. I would suggest to the member opposite that if he wishes to change the Workers' Compensation Act, he should sponsor a private member's Bill outlining his amendments. Once again, we have a perfect example from this side, Bill 210, exactly what the private members should be intelligent enough to do on the other side. Private members' hour has become a positive initiative.

We have seen one Bill pass into law, and looking through the other Bills that are coming up, I can certainly see a number of others that I hope will pass into law as well. Mr. Speaker, I would encourage every member to vote against 502. The WCB does not receive any funding out of the general revenue fund, so I don't see why we as a Legislature should try and take control of it. Thank you very much. MR. ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Memb

Document details

Collection	Alberta — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	19940222
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	L23 S2 19940222 1330 01 han.pdf
Language	en
Format	json
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	afa28b2cfd83de8662f0910f67252f0ce016b2ac

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