April 20, 1999 Alberta Hansard 1105 Legislative Assembly of Alberta Title: Tuesday, April 20, 1999 1:30 p.m. Date: 99/04/20 [The Speaker in the chair] head: Prayers THE SPEAKER: Good afternoon. Let us pray. O Lord, grant us a daily awareness of the precious gift of life which you have given us. As Members of this Legislative Assembly we dedicate our lives anew to the service of our province and our country. Amen. Please be seated. head: Introduction of Visitors THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Intergovernmental and Aboriginal Affairs. MR. HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I’m pleased today to introduce to you and through you to members of the Assembly the Metis Nation of Alberta Association provincial council, members of which are seated today in your gallery. Earlier today the hon.

Premier Klein and I had the honour and the privilege of signing on behalf of Alberta a new Alberta/Metis Nation of Alberta Association framework agreement, which provides for our ongoing partnership and relationship with the Metis Nation of Alberta and our work with the Metis Nation of Alberta in helping to ensure that Metis citizens of Alberta have all the opportunities and can take advantage of all the opportunities possible. It’s a very, very important day for both the Metis Nation Association and for the province of Alberta.

I’m pleased to introduce to you and through you to members of the Assembly the provincial president, Audrey Poitras, and the members of the council: the provincial vice-president, Ken Bourque; zone 1 president, Gary Bourque; zone 1 vice-president, Wilfred Boucher; zone 2 president, Francis Dumais; zone 2 vice-president, Henry Desjarlais; zone 3 president, Ephram Bouvier; zone 3 vice- president, Marlene Lanz; zone 4 president, Brian Fayant; zone 4 vice-president, Cecil Bellrose; zone 5 president, Wayne Cunning- ham; zone 5 vice-president, Trevor Gladue; zone 6 president, Robert Campbell; and zone 6 vice-president, Jim Whiteford.

I’d ask them all to rise and receive the traditional warm welcome of the House. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Highwood. MR. TANNAS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m pleased to introduce to you and through you to all Members of the Legislative Assembly a distinguished Canadian soldier. Major General Bob LaRose joined the Canadian army in 1945 and subsequently served in operations in Korea and later in Germany.

He held a number of important staff appointments including commandant of the Combat Arms School by 1970, commander of the Canadian contingents in the United Nations emergency force in the Middle East, and the United Nations disengagement observer force in the Golan Heights during 1975 and ’76, and chief of land doctrine and operations at National Defence headquarters in 1978. Since his retirement from the regular army that year, he has been a highly effective and very active spokesman on a wide range of defence issues.

Appointed the colonel commandant, Royal Cana- dian Armoured Corps in October of 1996, General LaRose is in Alberta visiting the three regiment s of the armoured corps in this province: Lord Strathcona’s Horse, a regular regiment based in Edmonton, who incidentally will be celebrating their 100th anniver- sary later this year, and two re serve regiments, the King’s Own Calgary Regiment and the South Alberta Light Horse, the senior reserve regiment in Alberta based in Medicine Hat and Edmonton. The latter regiment is commanded by our Sergeant-at-Arms, Lieutenant Colonel Brian Hodgson. Mr.

Speaker, General LaRose is standing in your gallery, and I’d ask the hon. members to give him the warm traditional welcome of this Assembly. head: Presenting Petitions THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Fish Creek. MRS. FORSYTH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m putting a petition in urging the Government to increase funding of children in public and separate schools to a level that covers increased costs due to contract settlements, curriculum changes, technology, and aging schools. Nineteen people from Calgary-Fish Creek. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview. MRS. SLOAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I also have a petition today from the SOS. The petition is calling upon the Legislative Assembly to urge the Government to increase funding of children in public and separate schools to a level that covers increased costs due to contract settlements, curriculum changes, technology, and aging schools. There are 230 signatures from Edmonton and the surrounding area. This brings our total as of April 20 to 8,338 signatures. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark. MS LEIBOVICI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too, have a petition to submit on behalf of the SOS group.

It has 112 names from Edmon- ton on this one. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Lethbridge-East. DR. NICOL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too, would like to submit a petition from the SOS group. These are signed by people from Lethbridge, Coaldale, Fort Macleod, Medicine Hat, Picture Butte, Stand Off, Spring Coulee, and Cardston, and they request the Government to increase funding of children in public and separate schools to a level that covers increased costs due to contract settlements, curriculum changes, technology, and aging schools. head: Notices of Motions THE SPEAKER: The hon.

Deputy Government House Leader. MR. RENNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Pursuant to Standing Order 34(2)(

a) I’m giving notice that tomorrow I will move that written questions appearing on the Order Paper stand and retain their places with the exception of wr itten questi ons 197, 198, 199, and 204. I’m also giving notice that tomorrow I will move that motions for returns appearing on the Order Paper stand and retain their places with the exception of motions for returns 142, 143, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 157, 158, 163, 1 65, 168, 169, 180, 181, 182, 184, 185, 186, 194, 195, 200, 201, 202, 203, and 204.

1106 Alberta Hansard April 20, 1999 Mr. Speaker, I anticipate that with the co-operation of the opposition to the same extent as we had last week, we should be able to finally reach the end of this list tomorrow afternoon. head: Tabling Returns and Reports THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General. MR. HAVELOCK: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m pleased to table this afternoon five copies of my letter to the Hon. Anne McLellan, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, dated April 12, 1999, regarding amendments to the Criminal Code with respect to home invasions.

THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Public Works, Supply and Services. MR. WOLOSHYN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s my pleasure to table five copies of the 1998 annual report of the Alberta Association of Architects in accordance with

chapter A-44.1,

section 6(4) of the Architects Act. Additional copies are available in my office upon request. MRS. McCLELLAN: Mr. Speaker, I’m pleased to table with the Assembly today responses to questions raised during reporting of main estimates on Tuesday, April 13. MS BARRETT: Two tablings, Mr. Speaker: first, five copies of a release from the Calgary public school t eachers local 38 complete with graphs that show that while the number of teachers in their district is decreasing, the number of student enrollments is increas- ing, and additional supportive documentation from the Calgary board of education entitled

Summary of Official Enrolments for Provincial Grants. It’s a scan of the current year and the previous nine years. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. MS CARLSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today I’m pleased to table a report by Dr. Jerome Nriagu, the professor and director, environmental health services program, department of environmental and industrial health, School of Public Health at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor.

The report is entitled Arsenic in Ground- water in the Cold Lake Area, and he comes to the conclusion that some people may prove to be susceptible to the arsenic in the Cold Lake area because of the high quantities in the water. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Spruce Grove-Sturgeon-St. Albert. MRS. SOETAERT: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to table five copies of an ad placed in the Spruce Grove Examiner by the Capital health authority that says “Change in Community Physical Therapy Coverage for Out-of-Region Resi- dents,” indicating that services are only available on a self-pay basis. 1:40 THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. MS BLAKEMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I have two tablings today. The first is a copy of a letter from the Premier in response to one received from Equal=Alberta. This is the Premier’s letter to Equal=Alberta in which unfortunately he says that his

schedule does not allow time to meet the group as they had re- quested. The appropriate number of copies of that. Also, the appropriate number of copies of Focus magazine, which is produced by the Strathcona Place Senior Citizen Centre, an excellent little magazine full of all kinds of tips on activ ities for seniors. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Family and Social Services. DR. OBERG: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to table five copies of a document called Connecting Voices Creating Choices, put out by the Prostitution Awareness and Action Founda- tion.

It deals with Bill 1, and I’d suggest to all members that they should read it. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. MR. MacDONALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have two tablings this afternoon. The first is an information booklet from Maurice- Lavallee high school and elementary school, and the second is the national award-winning newspaper from that school. I had the privilege of visiting there two weeks ago. I table this on behalf of all members. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark. MS LEIBOVICI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have two tablings this afternoon as well.

The first is from a constituent of mine, Mr. Tymchuk, to the Minister of Health expressing his concern about the deteriorating state of health care in this province. The second is from the teachers at St. Francis Xavier high school in my constituency wherein they oppose Bill 20 and the removal of the Board of Reference. Thank you. head: Introduction of Guests THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Redwater. MR. BRODA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my pleasure today to introduce to you and through you to the members of this Assembly 39 bright young students from my hometown of Redwater accompa- nied by their teachers, Mrs. Kathleen Baker and Mrs. Diane Grainger, also parent helpers Mrs. Carol Regula, Mrs. Theresa Breitzke, Mrs. Julie Hrywkiw, and Mr. Chris Murphy. They’re seated in the members’ gallery. I would ask them to please rise and receive the warm welcome of this Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Fort McMurray. MR. BOUTILIER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It’s my privilege and honour today to introduce to you and members of the Assembly a very special lady from the city of Fort McMurray. Mrs. Olive Woodward is a very active member of the community in represent- ing senior citizens. She is a golden citizen herself, in fact close to nine decades, and Mrs. W oodward was the template for Fort McMurray’s slogan: we have the energy. In fact she has recently with other seniors participated with others in a Harley-Davidson motorcycle ride. She is seated in the public gallery, and she is indeed an inspiration to all Albertans. I ask us to give her a warm welcome.

THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Intergovernmental and Aboriginal Affairs. MR. HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s my pleasure today to rise to introduce to you and through you to members of the

April 20, 1999 Alberta Hansard 1107 Assembly a very special lady, a lady who gave the invocation at our signing ceremony this morning, El der Delia Grey from I think the constituency of St. Albert. She gave the invocation in English, French, and Cree, which epitomizes what the Metis culture is all about in Alberta. I’d like her and the other elders who are with her and other representatives of the Metis Nation of Alberta who are with us in the members’ gallery to rise and receive the warm welcome of the House. THE SPEAKER: The hon. minister of science, research, and information technology. DR.

TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m pleased to introduce to you and through you to the House three residents of Medicine Hat. We don’t often get residents up here from Medicine Hat because of the distance to travel, so I’m pleased that they’re here. I’ll urge all members to be on their best behaviour today. They are Don, Lorna, and Travis Campbell from Medicine Hat. I’d ask them to rise and receive the warm welcome of the House, and when that’s done I have another introduction. The second introduction I’d like to make, Mr. Speaker, is my second oldest daughter and her husband, David and Lisa Litke.

They’re just preparing to go off to Papua, New Guinea, to work with tribes that have no written language. They’re going to be translating or transcribing, working with a group that transcribes, from the oral language into the written language. They will be leaving in August with a two year old and a one-month-old baby. They are just in their final preparations, getting ready to go. I’d ask them to rise and receive the warm welcome of the House. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Family and Social Services. DR. OBERG: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Today I rise to introduce to you and through you a group of students from Rose- mary school. I’m here to introduce 11 grade 7 students from Rosemary accompanied by teacher David Blumell and parent Kristie Hall. This is the third group from my constituency in the last eight days, which is absolutely unpr ecedented, and I’d like them to rise and receive the warm welcome of the Legislature. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Clover Bar-Fort Saskatche- wan. MR. LOUGHEED: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to introduce to you and to the members of the Assembly a young man from Ardrossan elementary school and a member of the 153rd Ardrossan scout troop. His name is Andrew Wahlstrom. He’s here job shadowing the Minister of Municipal Affairs. He’s accompanied by his father, Cliff. I’d ask that they rise and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Leduc. MR. KLAPSTEIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m delighted to introduce to you and through you to the members of the Assembly 48 grade 10 students from John Maland high school in Devon. They are accompanied by teacher Mrs. C.

Fraser and gr oup leaders Anji Fraser-Gordon and Sherry Smith. I’d ask that the Assembly extend to them a warm greeting. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. MS BLAKEMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I’m very pleased to introduce to you and through you to members of the Assembly a very special person and talented artist who’s joining us in the public gallery today. Rhona McAdam is a published poet. She has four books that were published, all by prairie publishers: Life in Glass, Creating the Country, and Old Habits, and with Hour of the Pearl was the winner of the 1987 Alberta poetry award.

She’s a longtime friend now visiting us from London, England. I would ask her to please rise and accept the warm and traditional welcome of the House. head: Ministerial Statements THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Intergovernmental and Aboriginal Affairs. Metis Nation Framework Agreement MR. HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I referenced in my introductions this afternoon of our visitors in your gallery and Elder Grey and members of the Metis Nation in the public gallery, Premier Klein and I signed a new Alberta/Metis Nation of Alberta Associa- tion framework agreement on behalf of the Alberta government this morning. The Metis Nation of Alberta Association president, Ms Audrey Poitras, and the six zone regional council presidents signed the agreement on behalf of the MNAA.

This agreement is the fifth such agreement signed since 1987 and continues the commitment of both parties to work in partnership with the mutual goal of enhancing the conditions of Metis people in Alberta. With each successive agreement we have attempted to ensure that our relationship remains dynamic, positive, and appropriate for the times. We are pleased that the previous framework agreements between the MNAA and the Alberta government have enhanced the relationship between us and have provided opportunities for information sharing, joint planning and action, and for a variety of projects and initiatives.

The agreement we signed today has a focus on sector-specific projects and initiatives with positive and measurable outcomes and results for Metis people in Alberta. This agreement’s orientation toward outcomes and results is ab solutely critical to our future success as partners. Under the agreement we look forward to strengthened working relationships between provincial departments and the MNAA.

This is where the action will be, on sector-specific initiatives that are meaningful to Metis people. 1:50 As Minister of Intergovernmental and Aboriginal Affairs I am honoured today to be part of the historical links between the Metis Nation of Alberta Association and the government of Alberta. Our mutual efforts for the Metis people of Alberta continue to be carried out in the spirit of shared trust, shared responsibility, and shared action. In the spirit of mutual sharing, the Alberta government looks forward to continuing our work together to implement the new framework agreement. Thank you.

THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Norwood. MS OLSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too, would like to take this opportunity and congratulate the Metis Nation of Alberta Associa- tion and the six regional presidents on the signing of the framework agreement. The Metis Nation of Alberta represents over 20,000 Metis people in Alberta, and the signing of the agreement has significant impact on the representation they will receive from the elected president, Audrey Poitras, and their six councillors.

1108 Alberta Hansard April 20, 1999 The negotiations that were undertaken by the government and the Metis Nation clearly represent the needs of both groups. The measurable outcomes and the sector-specific projects and initiatives will satisfy the government’s needs. The ability of the Metis Nation of Alberta to offer Metis-specific programs and services will fulfill the needs of the Metis community. I’ve had the opportunity to work with Audrey Poitras.

Audrey is the first woman president of the Metis Nation of Alberta, and I know that her dedication to the process has helped to ensure a successful relationship with the government. As a member of the Metis Nation I look forward to this type of leadership in the years to come. head: Oral Question Period THE SPEAKER: First Official Opposition main question. The hon. Deputy Leader of the Official Opposition. User Fees DR. NICOL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In October of 1998 the Supreme Court ruled that any user fee which does not have a direct relationship to the cost of providing a particular service is a tax and must be approved by the Legislative Assembly. Between 1992-93 and this year the government brought in nearly 800 new or increased user fees, including 400 of these user fees through regulation. This does not have approval of the Legislature. My question is to the Premier. Will the Premier tell Albertans how much of the $285 million in revenue received from these 800 new and increased user fees is a tax on Albertans? MR. KLEIN: Mr.

Speaker, in the context of the court ruling I would suggest that none of them are a tax. They are simply to cover the cost of providing the services. We expect to introduce legislation soon to freeze the fees pending a review of all the fees in this province, and I can assure the hon. member that like taxes, the only way fees are going is down. DR. NICOL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My first supplemental will be to the Provincial Treasurer. When will the Treasurer release the 276 pages of user fee analysis conducted by his department so Albertans can find out how many of these new 800 fees are taxes? MR. DAY: Mr.

Speaker, what we’re planning on doing is far more actually in excess of what the opposition are even requesting. What we’d like to do is take this opportunity that’s been given through this court case in Ontario not to look at just a few fees which might in fact be in question in terms of bringing in more dollars significantly than they could or should, but in fact we want to publish and let all Albertans see all of the fees, all in one place.

Every fee that we have is public, and people can go and find out what that fee is and what it’s for, but we’d like to actually table in the Legislature all the fees, everything that we have in this province. We’d like to take a period of time, no more than a year, and review everything, and I’d look forward to opposition input on this. Then we do a review and see: are some of those fees . . . [interjections] If we were to assess a fee for the number of times the member over there chirps in, we could probably significantly pay down more of the debt than we had even anticipated. Mr.

Speaker, what we want to do is let all Albertans – we want to include the opposition in this exercise – look at all of our fees, and those in fact, if there are any, that are deemed to be bringing in more revenue than the cost – it’s at that point the courts say that then we have to decide whether to actually declare that in statute. And that’s what we plan to do. As the Premier said, part of the exercise will also be to see how many of the fees that we have in place we can lower. It’s an exciting exercise. I th ink we’re the only province that’s doing it this comprehensively. DR. NICOL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The government is proposing to bring in an additional $101 million in taxes through user fees over the next three years. Will the Premier commit that not one of these new or increased taxes will be implemented without being debated and approved by this Legislative Assembly? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, all those fees or most of them anyway are subject to orders in council. But clearly the legislation that is now on notice, Bill 35, will probably come in next week sometime.

Basically it says that we will fr eeze everything pending a full and comprehensive review of all – what is it: about 800? – fees for service in the province. We’ll have an opportunity at that time to assess whether those fees are commensurate with the services provided or whether in fact they should be lower. Mr. Speaker, when the hon. Provincial Treasurer suggested that there’s an opportunity for input from the opposition Liberals, I think he meant that in all good spirit. I look forward to constructive input. Now, that would be a concept, to get constructive input from the Liberal Party.

If they will commit to do that, they would be more than welcome to participate in the process. THE SPEAKER: Second Official Opposition main question. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glenora. West Edmonton Mall Refinancing MR. SAPERS: Thanks, Mr. Speaker. The government’s attempt at micromanaging the containment of the West Edmonton Mall refinancing scandal continues to unravel despite their best efforts. Now, new information not contained in the Auditor General’s report continues to leak out bit by bit.

For example, we now learn that the Premier received letters on West Edmonton Mall as early as February 9, 1993, and r eceived a document on October 19, 1993, just days before his now infamous memo putting the former deputy Premier in charge of government relations with West Edmonton Mall. My questions are to the Premier. How does the Premier explain the fact that the February 1993 letters and the October 1993 document on the refinancing of West Edmonton Mall are not even mentioned in the Auditor General’s report? MR. KLEIN: Mr.

Speaker, all I can say is that all of the information requested of me by the Auditor General was turned over to the Auditor General. This goes back – what? – six years now. Every- thing that the Auditor General required was handed over to him. How the Auditor General chose to use that information was entirely up to him. I didn’t conduct the investigation; he did. MR. SAPERS: Thanks, Mr. Speaker.

Well, then, given that the Premier continues to say that he’s turned over all the information about his role in the West Edmonton Mall financing, will the Premier tell Albertans today what was discussed in those February 1993 letters and the October 1993 documents that were sent to his office? What was in the letters? MR. KLEIN: I have no idea, Mr. Speaker. I would have to go back and review the whole file. If this hon. member can tell me what was discussed – you know, as I said before in this House, I have a hard enough time remembering what was discussed yesterday, never mind

April 20, 1999 Alberta Hansard 1109 six years ago, because there are so many issues that come before me. I’m required to deal with maybe 15, 20 issues a day, and he’s asking me to remember and recall in every single detail some discussion relative to some letter that took place, you know, six years ago. I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, that there’s one letter I do remember, and again my memory had to be refreshed. It was a letter from the hon. Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark urging the government to get involved with West Edmonton Mall to protect it. 2:00 MR. SAPERS: Given, Mr.

Speaker, that as far as I’m aware it’s the only half billion dollar mall bailout that the government was involved with, I thought it might have been top of mind for the Premier. Will the Premier confirm that the October 19, 1993, document was in fact the final step in the appointment of the then former deputy Premier as the minister in charge of West Edmonton Mall? Wasn’t that the content of that memo? MR. KLEIN: Well, he’s not even using a fishing rod now. He’s using a net, trying to capture everything, Mr. Speaker. I’d have to go back and, you know, review the file.

All I can do really at this point is reiterate what the Auditor General said in his report, and I think this is fundamental to the w hole issue, and that is that there was no inappropriate political involvement in that deal. THE SPEAKER: Third Official Opposition main question. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glenora. MR. SAPERS: Thanks, Mr. Speaker. According to the statutory declaration of the former Alberta Treasury Branch acting superinten- dent – and by the way, it’s the only one that’s been made public; the Premier still refuses to release his.

The acting superintendent was instructed, according to his affidavit, by the government in Novem- ber of 1993 to use the ATB to finance West Edmonton Mall. Now, we learned that there is a December 3, 1993, letter and a memo of the same date hidden away behind some closed door or drawer or basement vault in the Premier’s office. Mr. Premier, will you confirm that the December 1993 memo and letter were the marching orders from the government to the acting superintendent to use the ATB to finance West Edmonton Mall as was discussed in your November 30, 1993, meeting? MR. KLEIN: Mr.

Speaker, again he’s asking me to go back six years. Without having any documentation before me, to recount in detail every aspect of every document is absolutely impossible. Again I would reiterate that the Auditor General’s report was quite clear. There was no inappropriate political involvement in the West Edmonton Mall deal. Mr. Speaker, the hon. member – I don’t know if I can use the word – misleads the House by suggesting that the former acting superintendent of the Treasury Branch filed a statutory declaration. He leads one to believe that that statutory declaration was given to the Auditor General.

To my knowledge there was no statutory declaration filed by the former acting superintendent before the Auditor General. There might have been one and there probably was one filed with the courts. There are numerous court actions revolving around this particular situation, and the hon. member well knows this. MR. SAPERS: Mr. Premier, it’s time we all got to the bottom of this micromanaged scandal. Will you tell Albertans once and for all what was discussed in the December 3, 1993, letter and memo? I assume you’ve been briefed. MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, he makes the wrong assumption. You know, send over the letter.

I mean, just shoot it across, make it like an airplane. I don’t know what he’s referring to, and no, I haven’t been briefed on something that happened on December 3, 1993. That was a long, long time ago. You know, I might have been. Nor do we have research staff assigned to do nothing but spend taxpay- ers’ money to delve into old letters that might have some meaning or might not have some meaning. You know, as far as I’m concerned, Mr.

Speaker, all the informa- tion that was required of the Auditor General – and I think that this is important – was turned over to him in the course of his examina- tion of this particular situation. Again, I say: he found that there was no inappropriate involvement by any politician. MR. SAPERS: It’s called freedom of information, Mr. Premier, and maybe it’s about time you turned the information over to Albertans. Will you release the 167 pages of documents that are in your office that are currently being hidden from Albertans regarding the government’s involvement in the West Edmonton Mall refinancing? MR.

KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, that is a very, very dangerous assertion, and I don’t think it’s truthful. I don’t think it’s truthful. Obviously he’s been successful in getting some information. He has a docu- ment that I know absolutely nothing about. Maybe if I had a chance to read it, it might refresh my memory. But to suggest that there are all these documents squirreled away or hidden away someplace in my office is simply not true. That is a very dangerous statement to make. If this hon. member knows where these documents might be or even has a hint as to where they might be, Mr.

Speaker, I would challenge him to go outside this House and make that statement and say publicly to members of the media that I am deliberately squirrel- ing away and hiding maliciously documents that ought to have been turned over to the Auditor Genera l. That statement is absolutely false, and it’s irresponsible of this member to make such a statement. Education System MS BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, according to . . . [interjections] THE SPEAKER: Hon. leader of the ND opposition, you have the floor. MS BARRETT: Thank you. According to statistics that I filed earlier today, Mr.

Speaker, it’s clear that the Calgary board of education has seen a reduction of more that 2 percent in the number of teaching staff in their sc hools while they saw an enrollment increase last year alone of 5.5 percent. Meanwhile, the Edmonton public school board is facing a similar crisis and as of last night is now looking at additional layoffs. So much for the government saying that the cuts have stopped. The fact is that the repercussions are continuing.

I’d like to ask the Premier why it is that he’s inflaming the situation by talking about back-to-work legislation for the Calgary teachers when it’s his government’s policies that created the mess in the Calgary area in the first place. MR. KLEIN: Well, Mr. Speaker, first of all I have to dispute the assertion that we created the mess. We hardly created a mess by allocating something close to a billion dollars over six years to education in this province, an average increase of 6 percent per year. That’s hardly creating or contributing to what the hon. member refers to as a mess.

As a matter of fact that should go a long way to really enhance and to accommodate education in this province.

1110 Alberta Hansard April 20, 1999 Relative to her assertion that there will be back-to-work legisla- tion, Mr. Speaker, I was asked the question yesterday: would the government order the teachers back to work? My answer at that time was that I don’t know at this particular time. We would have to assess as a government whether there’s irreparable damage being done. I said that the question was totally hypothetical at this particular time because the teachers, although they have the right to take a strike vote, have not done so yet. They have rejected the offer.

There are lots of steps that can be taken: mediation, certainly further negotiations. Everything is hypothetical at this particular time. MS BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, why is it that the government won’t just simply cover the costs of the deficits that these school boards have been forced to accumulate by years of underfunding by the government? Why is it that the government won’t just pay those deficits off? Is it because it would be an admission that it’s this government’s fault in the first place? MR. KLEIN: It has been pointed out time and time again that some school boards indeed have surpluses.

Some school boards in fact have deficits but are dealing with those deficits. I’m going to . . . [interjection] Mr. Speaker, would you please tell that member over there to keep her mouth shut? I mean, it is so distracting really. You know, I can understand it if she wants to yip and yap while her own party is asking questions, but at least have some courtesy to let me answer the question from another party. 2:10 THE SPEAKER: Perhaps, hon. Premier, you might help the chair by identifying the hon. member in question. MR. KLEIN: Mr.

Speaker, I can only identify her by voice, and I’ve heard it so many times that I’m sure it’s the hon. Member for Spruce Grove-Sturgeon-St. Albert. MS BARRETT: Well, Mr. Speaker, while the government finally agreed last week that it won’t proceed with scrapping the Board of Reference, I’d like to ask the Premier why the government won’t amend the government’s current legislation so that it doesn’t become a crime for teachers to advocate peaceful disobedience to unjust laws like back-to-work legislation that the Premier mused about yester- day. MR. KLEIN: Mr.

Speaker, again, I am not suggesting there will be back-to-work legislation. I was answering a hypothetical question, and I said that we would have to assess the situation if and when it happened. That’s something that the hon. Minister of Labour will have to keep his eye on and discuss with Executive Council. Mr. Speaker, getting back to the second question, which I really didn’t have an opportunity to answer. It dealt with deficits. The question was: why don’t we just pay off the deficits?

I started to say that some school districts have indeed surpluses, but I wanted to point out how one school district is dealing with a deficit. The Edmonton public schools are predicting a $15.5 million deficit for this fiscal year, but there are plans in place to balance the books by 2001-2002. So the board’s budget for next year actually shows a surplus of $5.4 million, which will be used to start bringing deficits down. This is long-term planning, and we commend the Edmonton public school board for doing that kind of planning, for undertaking that kind of process. As I indicated before, the hon.

Minister of Education and officials in his department would be more than happy to work with school boards to bring in deficit elimination plans. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for St. Albert, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. Employment Programs MRS. O’NEILL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Even with Alberta’s low unemployment rate there are people who need help in this province in getting work. I’m concerned a bout the reports that the govern- ment is eliminating job placement and other career services targeted at people who need specialized help.

To the Minister of Advanced Education and Career Development: does the minister support specialized career services? MR. DUNFORD: Well, Mr. Speaker, yes, we do, but I want to point out to the members and to the people of Alberta that most of the people that we deal with can come through our mainstream program- ming. However, there are some groups – and I would mention perhaps youth, disabled people, aboriginals, and of course abused women – where oftentimes they have many barriers toward employ- ment. So in those particular areas we still carry on what we would call targeted funding. MRS.

O’NEILL: My first supplemental: if Advanced Education and Career Development does support specialized career services, why is the department not renewing its contract with Options for Women? MR. DUNFORD: Well, Mr. Speaker, in this particular case Options for Women had a contract with the federal government, and then when the labour market development fund switched over to the province, we of course extended all of those particular agreements until whatever their end date was.

In this particular case, then, when contracts came to an end, we really looked at two things: one, did we want that sort of program to continue, and secondly, if we did, on what basis? So we put into place a c ouple of rules. The first one, which I think is very important and all members here in the Legisla- tive Assembly would support, is that we went to a compe titive bid process. I think that’s only fair, and I think it’s the only way to be accountable.

As far as the Options for Women program, then, that they had been delivering, it was really for people with very few barriers, and it was felt that these people could use our mainstream programming. Options for Women is perfectly entitled to submit bids for any of our other targeted programs such as skills for work. MRS. O’NEILL: My second supplemental, Mr. Speaker, is: what types of career development programs, then, does the department support? MR. DUNFORD: Mr. Speaker, we actually have quite a number of programs, but again I want to inform all members that we start with an individual assessment.

I mean, in this province we’re just not interested in putting seats in seats. There are people out there that have needs, and we want to assess those right from the beginning. Then we find of course in those needs that sometimes it’s merely a matter of providing information, but certainly with others there are workshops that are required, job pl acement services. Of course maybe most important of all we have a very successful academic upgrading program and job training as well. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary-West.

April 20, 1999 Alberta Hansard 1111 Education Funding DR. MASSEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A high school student from Nanton writes: Our Social Studies textbooks are only two editions out of date, while our most current torn maps give an excellent portrayal of the world in the mid-cold war era. He continues: The gym floor is deteriorating, as is much of the equipment, but that’s really alright; only one person has seriously hurt himself in there this year. This while the Premier continues the myth that children in public schools are adequately funded. My questions are to the Premier.

If schools are adequately funded, why are students at J.T. Foster school in Nanton being forced to use dated, inaccurate texts and maps and an unsafe gymnasium and equipment? MR. KLEIN: Well, Mr. Speaker, I’m not familiar with the specific situation relative to the school at Nanton. I will discuss this, however, with the MLA for Highwood, in which the town of Nanton exists. I think that he will probably tell me a different story. DR. MASSEY: Mr. Speaker, this is to the Premier.

If schools are adequately funded, why are students at Grand Trunk high school in Evansburg attending a school with no art, no music, limited options, a split physics 20/30 class, and a library that is closed for half of every school day? MR. KLEIN: I don’t know, Mr. Speaker. Why are hundreds and hundreds of schools not complaining about anything in this prov- ince? You know, I visited sc hools where there are no complaints whatsoever. Now, Evansburg, again, I will discuss with the hon. Member for Whitecourt-Ste. Anne, I believe it is, and we’ll look into that particular situation.

It is the responsibility of the MLA to . . . [interjection] Well, Mr. Speaker, again I’m hearing this chitchatter, and what I’m hearing from across the way is that it isn’t the responsibility of the MLA. Well, what are these MLAs doing out and about and checking out schools if it’s not their res ponsibility? It certainly is the responsibility of the MLA for Whitecourt-Ste. Anne, as it is the responsibility of the MLA for Highwood to take these matters under consideration and report to the Minister of Education and myself if necessary. DR. MASSEY: Thank you. I hope those MLAs will have the resources.

If schools are adequately funded, why are people in Coaldale pleading for the poor floor and roof structures and fire-charred beams at R.I. Baker school to be replaced? 2:20 MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the hon. member that safety concerns are really the priority issues that are addressed under our capital funding program. The hon. Member for Little Bow will take this matter under advisement, as he, I’m sure, took the matter relative to the Vulcan school under advisement. Whether we have the resources? Of course we have the resources.

We have tremendous human resources in this caucus, because in this caucus there are a number of concerned people, all concerned about matters that affect their constituencies, notwithstanding the fact that it appears to be the duty and the responsibility of the Liberal Party to go out and about the province and create mischief wherever they possibly can. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-West, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Rutherford. Summer Temporary Employment Program MS KRYCZKA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. People in my constitu- ency are concerned about youth unemployment.

My question is for the minister of advanced education. Can the minister tell the Legislature how the government is addressing the needs of young Albertans who need work experience? MR. DUNFORD: Mr. Speaker, we have a number of programs where we bring youth into the workforce. Some of them apply just to the private sector, but one I would mention today does in fact apply to the public sector, and it’s called the summer temporary employment program, lovingly referred to as STEP. I would just want to inform the members of the House that this summer we’ll be putting $9.75 million into this program.

We’ll be creating about 5,000 positions for young people through summer employment. I just want to remind everyone once again that these are nonprofit organizations such as the postsecondary institutions, municipalities, and of course all of those nonprofit agencies that do so much good work in our communities. MS KRYCZKA: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, to the same minister: given that the minimum wage has just increased to $5.65 an hour, why does STEP provide only $4.50 per hour? MR. DUNFORD: Mr.

Speaker, what we’re trying to do with the STEP program, of course, is provide work experience, so the way the program is set up is to provide that job for the student. We do expect the employer to top up those particular earnings. I might mention – and it’s probably something that needs to be discussed at some point in time – that if we were to move our particular contribu- tion up to the minimum wage, we would probably be reducing the opportunity for young people in the workforce this summer by as many as 500 students. So we in the department have made the decision.

We accept the responsibility to continue funding this year at $4.50 an hour. MS KRYCZKA: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, I understand that some organizations didn’t receive any STEP assistance or received assistance that was less than their request. Why did this happen? MR. DUNFORD: Well, Mr. Speaker . . . SOME HON. MEMBERS: Why? Why? MR. DUNFORD: They ask me why, Mr. Speaker. This is a case I believe where success does sometimes bring its own problems. We had a huge number of requests this year.

We had established, by the way, a deadline of February 26, and of course I’m now receiving requests from various organizations to help out because they didn’t get their requests in on time. Basically we have a situation where we have a pool of money. We try to distribute it as best we can, but when the money’s gone, we’re gone. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Rutherford, followed by the hon. Member for Red Deer-South. VLT Plebiscites MR. WICKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The residents of Wood Buffalo have waited nearly 24 months – 24 months – for the Premier to fulfill his seven-day commitment to remove VLTs upon receipt of the successful plebiscite. My questions are to the Premier. Does the Premier not see this as a wee bit of a broken promise?

1112 Alberta Hansard April 20, 1999 MR. KLEIN: No, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member knows very well that this matter has been the subject of litigation, and we have said that until that litigation is settled, we would not remove the ma- chines. Certainly the validity of all plebiscites was challenged. The courts ruled against the governme nt and their ability to establish policy that must be followed by the gaming commission. Mr. Speaker, we plan to introduce legislation to fix that problem and take appropriate action to abide by the results of the plebiscites in those municipalities that voted to remove VLTs. MR.

WICKMAN: Secondly, Mr. Speaker, again to the Premier: when precisely does the Premier intend to bring that legislation forward to this Assembly? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, it is going through leg. review as we speak. We wanted to make sure that we had good legal opinions relative to this piece of legislation so that it wouldn’t be challenged in the future. So to answer the question, I would suspect either late this week or early next week. MR. WICKMAN: Mr. Speaker, my final question, again to the Premier: how does the Premier intend to deal with the question of retroactivity? MR. KLEIN: Mr.

Speaker, I already indicated that we want to bring in legislation that will reflect the wishes of the people as those wishes were expressed through a plebiscite. So that will address the issue of retroactivity. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Red Deer-South, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. Direct Billing of Patients MR. DOERKSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This past weekend I had the opportunity to meet with some local physicians from the Red Deer area.

One of the issues that they raised with me was a concern about their being able to retain their ab ility to directly bill patients even though the service being provided is covered by Alberta’s publicly funded health system. In particular, they were concerned about their ability to directly bill Albertans who had been removed from coverage under the Alberta health care insurance plan because they had not paid their premiums.

My first question to the Minister of Health: could the minister advise whether physicians will continue to be able to directly collect fees for services provided to individuals who have decided to not pay their health care premiums? MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, I think the very important factor to note here is that no individual in this province registered with the Alberta health care insurance plan is denied service because they have not paid their premiums or not kept their accounts up to date. They are not denied service. That’s very important.

The other thing is that if indivi duals incur an expense vis-a-vis receiving a service from a physician in this province, the physician is promptly reimbursed. So any contention from a physician that it is necessary to collect directly from an individual because they are not up to date on their Alberta health care premiums account is not correct. MR. DOERKSEN: Mr. Speaker, my second question is also to the Minister of Health.

Would the minister be prepared to consider an exemption to any prohibition of direct billing of patients by doctors so that physicians could carry out this direct billing in situations where the validity of an individual’s health care number is in question? MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, I think it’s very important to point out that our current electronic billing system in this province was established with the needs and the desires or goals of physicians in mind. That is, they wanted to be paid promptly; they wanted their cash flow in terms of their overall office operations and so on to be steady and predictable.

Certainly over the last number of years Alberta Health has responded. There have been some millions of dollars invested in an electronic billing system. We are actually somewhat proud of the system in that there’s a very rapid turnaround in terms of payments to physicians. That is something that I think the vast, vast majority of physicians very much appreciate. 2:30 Now, with respect to those very rare cases quite frankly, Mr.

Speaker, where a person does not present a valid Alberta health care number, as part of that overall system we have set up a 24-hour phone line so that a physician or more likely and of course more appropri- ately their support staff can phone Alberta Health and verify whether or not this person is registered w ith the system. In the majority of cases it’s a matter of having lost a card or something like that. So that health care registration is verified, and they’re paid. MR. DOERKSEN: Mr. Speaker, my final question is also to the Minister of Health.

Will the minister consider allowing direct billing by physicians in situations where the patient has agreed to such billing? MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, I think it’s really, really important to note that we have as the government of Alberta, as the Department of Health responded to a very important, at least indicated to us as very important, desire on the part of physicians in this province, and that is to be paid promptly, to be paid fully, to be paid in an efficient manner.

We’ve converted our whole system at, as I said, a consider- able cost and considerable rearrangement of staff and so forth to that system, which has been a goal of physicians and a goal of ourselves. Now, what the member is saying is that we should still be able to maintain a system which would allow for direct paper and pencil billing so to speak, Mr. Speaker, and that’s not what we’re tooled up to do today. Quite frankly it’s our position that we’ve set this system up for the benefit of physicians, and people should be using it. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre, followed by the hon.

Member for Bonnyville-Cold Lake. Plavix MS BLAKEMAN: Thanks, Mr. Speaker. New drug therapies which produce better results and have fewer side effects have been approved for use by Health Canada. Individuals with employer prescription drug plans receive coverage of these products while seniors on the Alberta government’s plan do not. Plavix, a new drug for the treatment of heart disease, is one such drug. My questions are to the Minister of Health. Why isn’t this government covering Plavix for Alberta seniors? MR. JONSON: Mr.

Speaker, we do have an expert committee that reviews the various new pharmaceutical products that come on the market and after that review recommend coverage or recommend inclusion in our overall drug coverage plan in this province, which I think compares quite favourably to any others in this particular

April 20, 1999 Alberta Hansard 1113 country. I will candidly admit that I’m not aware of the nature or properties of Plavix, but certainly I would follow-up on that. I do think it’s important to emphasize that we have a very comprehensive number of pharmaceutical pr oducts that we cover. We are continually reviewing those products in terms of their effectiveness and coverage that is needed in the province, and I don’t think we can be expected to keep up with what private firms may or may not cover. We could probably go through – I’m just suggesting it may be possible, Mr.

Speaker – the list of the insurance company that the hon. member is referring to and find that there is a whole host of drugs that are on our list but aren’t on theirs. So I put it in that context. MS BLAKEMAN: My next question’s also to the Minister of Health. What does this government have to say to seniors who cannot afford Plavix and are forced to rely on less effective drugs? MR. JONSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member by her words evidently feels that she can judge the effectiveness of a particular pharmaceutical.

I’m not going to make that particular judgment because I’m not fam iliar with the scientific knowledge that sur- rounds it. But I can assure all hon. members that with respect to this particular drug I will see that it ’s brought to the attention of our officials and our committee, and we’ll look at it if for some reason we haven’t done so already. I have a feeling that it’s probably a situation in which it is in the review stage right now. MS BLAKEMAN: Okay. That’s fine. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Bonnyville-Cold Lake, followed by the hon. Member for Spruce Grove-Sturgeon-St. Albert.

Automobile Industry MR. DUCHARME: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. When consumers venture into the automotive industry, they sometimes are faced with a variety of issues like unpaid liens, lost deposits, misrepresenta- tions, consignment fraud, and unlicensed businesses. The question is directed to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Could the minister please explain how the Alberta Motor Vehicle Industry Council is going to promote a fair marketplace that will benefit both consumers and businesses? MS EVANS: Mr.

Speaker, throughout the last two years we’ve done extensive consultation with stakeholders who truly believe that the industry with self-managed and professional assistance from members of the automotive industry themselves is most knowledge- able about the ways and means by which any type of inappropriate behaviour by the businesses hurts the integrity of the industry. It is our belief, Mr. Speaker, that this council as established will enable better consumer relations with members of the industry, taking accountability for the manner in which the services are delivered.

Working closely to make sure that both the training and the licensure and all of those needed and necessary business attributes are provided equivalently by all the members, they will, in effect, follow a framework similar to that of Credit Counseling Services Limited, the Real Estate Council, who have worked to in fact clean up certain sectors of our business enterprise in Alberta to the advantage of all Albertans. MR. DUCHARME: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My second question to the same minister: by having the industry members police themselves, isn’t that just like the fox guarding the henhouse? MS EVANS: Mr.

Speaker, in fact sometimes there’s a perception that the consumer and the business itself have entirely different interests, and this is not so. In f act the ethics and the integrity of a business are better and are enhanced and improved when the businesses themselves get along well with their consumers. With the consultation we did on the Fair Trading Act, a significant number of members of that industry were involved. They are fully familiar with the issues, the regulations that we will be proclaiming in September.

To ensure that industry members are kept up with acceptable standards, they will be regularly communicating, and we will periodically be checking to make sure they’re complying with every aspect of the agreement. MR. DUCHARME: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the same minister. Some small automotive businesses are concerned that the council and the fees associated with it will put them out of business. Is this council going to drive the small guys out of business? MS EVANS: No, Mr. Speaker. In fact, consultations with all licensed businesses regardless of size indicates support for these measures.

We believe that all businesses are impacted by unlicenced businesses, that in fact there is a value that goes along with having achieved a licence. The fees that will be paid – and they are rather nominal considering the work that council will be doing – will in fact assist in cleaning up any of those areas of the industry that currently are untoward. Physiotherapy MRS. SOETAERT: Mr. Speaker, this government’s health system is discriminating against people living outside the Capital region who attempt to access physiotherapy treatments at a Capital region facility.

If you live on one side of the boundary, you’ll be denied funded service, but if your neighbour lives just inside the boundary, he or she will get service. The principle of equal access and seamless boundaries is being trampled yet again b ecause of poor administration, lack of leadership and co-ordination by the Depart- ment of Health. My questions are to the Minister of Health. What broke down in the system that some Albertans have choice of access but others do not? Who’s to blame? 2:40 MR. JONSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, I’d like to respond directly to the hon. member’s question. I listened to it very carefully.

She indicated that if you lived on the west side of the boundary, you got service there, and if you lived on the east side of the boundary, you got service there. That seems to me to be logical. So what’s the problem? MRS. SOETAERT: I’ll make it a little clearer. Is it the govern- ment’s policy to allow some Albertans access to physiotherapy services but to deny others access depending on where they live? That’s what’s happening. People cannot access Capital physiother- apy without paying for services that are normally funded. MR. JONSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, again I listened very carefully.

The hon. member indicated that people were being denied access to physiotherapy services depending on where they live. Now, I’ll get back to the first question, and that is: if they live on the west side of the boundary, they can get physiotherapy services there, and if they live on the east side, they can get physiotherapy services there. I think what you’re referring to is the whole issue of the level of eligibility or what people are covered for. The point is that every resident in this province can get the physiotherapy services that are available to them in their region.

1114 Alberta Hansard April 20, 1999 MRS. SOETAERT: My final question, Mr. Speaker. Given that you cannot go to the physiotherapist of your choice, that you are excluded from crossing boundaries unless you’re willing to pay, I want to know: what’s next? We’ve lost long-term care accessibility. We’ve lost physiotherapy accessibility. What’s next? Emergency, acute care? That’s what’s happening. MR. JONSON: Mr.

Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that in terms of essential physiotherapy services which are offered as a result of, let’s say, the follow-up recovery services necessary from an operation, those are available with the Capital health authority if they’ve had their surgery in the Ca pital health region or if it’s an injury situation. I’m sure a ll other regional health authorities endeavour to provide that service as well. I think really what we’re talking about here, Mr.

Speaker, is a recent policy change made by the Capital health authority where they have continued to provide physiotherapy services for those essential follow-up conditions and needs for care, but they’re not providing the full extension, if you want to call it that, of publicly funded physiotherapy services to people from outside the region. head: Members’ Statements THE SPEAKER: In 30 seconds, hon. members, we’ll call on three members today to participate in Members’ Statements. We’ll go with the hon. Member for Wetaskiwin-Camrose, the hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands, and the hon.

Member for Calgary-Fish Creek. Snow Goose Festival MR. JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise on behalf of the hon. Member for Vegreville-Viking to recognize the seventh annual Beaverhill Lake Snow Goose Festival, which is being celebrated April 24 and 25 in Tofield, Alberta. If there’s any doubt that spring is here, a trip this weekend to Beaverhill Lake, located 70 kilometres east of Edmonton, will put those questions to rest. Spring migration is in full swing, and the birds are back by the thousands.

Recognized as one of the best places on the continent to see migrating birds, visitors will experience the grand wonder of nature as scores of snow geese, Canada geese, various shorebirds, cranes, and swans return to Beaverhill La ke after heading south for the winter. An exceptional site of critical habitat for a wide variety of species, an estimated 40,000 to 70,000 ducks have been recorded there. In addition, the bird observatory has registered the passage of a number of other species of birds during the migration period each year.

A total of 126 species of land birds, including 74 neotropical migrants, have utilized this area on an annual basis. To secure the health and viability of this habitat, the Canadian Nature Federation and the Beaverhill Lake stakeholders’ committee began to develop a conservation plan in 1996 to deal with the potential threats to the site.

The stakeholders’ committee, composed of various naturalist organizations, Environmental Protection, Alberta Agriculture, Alberta Tourism, the John Janzen Nature Centre, Ducks Unlimited, the Canadian wildlife centre, the county of Beaver, the town of Tofield, and local landowners have amassed a wealth of invaluable knowledge and expertise concerning Beaver- hill Lake and its natural resources. In fact, the site was officially dedicated as a globally important bird area on April 26, 1997, and serves as a model of conservation throughout the world.

So bring your binoculars and a good pair of rubber boots this weekend to Tofield for the seventh annual Beaverhill Lake Snow Goose Festival. Come enjoy the wonders of our natural environ- ment. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Highlands. Women’s Issues MS BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Women’s issues in the province of Alberta have steadily slipped lower and lower on the list of government priorities and now have become barely visible.

Abolishing the Alberta Advisory Council on Women’s Issues in 1996 and lumping the funding for women’s shelters into the chil- dren’s services programs are clear indications that the government is ignoring the challenges that women face. Moreover, there are scores of studies produced by experts that clearly show that the five years of funding cuts disadvantaged women much more than men. Those budget cuts were not gender neutral.

For example, the job losses in the public sector were in fields dominated by women, and today women are having to dedicate more time and unpaid labour to caring for ill family members because of the gap left by a decimated health care sector. Women in Alberta are asking rightfully who is benefiting most from the economic upturns, considering that the Treasurer is bending over backwards to give tax breaks to those earning enough income to be subject to the high-income surtax.

Meanwhile, Alberta’s nurses, a profession dominated by women, are going to have to fight desperately for their economic rewards from this government. Just two days ago came the most sorrowful expression of this government’s insensitivity on this matter. Options for Women, an organization that has been enormously successful at finding work for women, is now in danger of closing because the government refuses to fund employment programs that cater solely to women.

Options for Women has always met or exceeded its contract requirements, and there is no reason to believe that there is any potential for problems in the future. The agency has extensive knowledge of the issues and challenges that women face in the labour market. Their track record is excellent. Notwithstanding the exchange that occurred earlier today in question period, I urge the government to reconsider this and the minister to fund Options for Women for the work that it does on behalf of women in Alberta. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Fish Creek. Organ and Tissue Donor Awareness Week MRS.

FORSYTH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Recycling has become a very prevalent aspect of our lives. Communities, families, and individuals are all getting involved in recycling programs. Well, let’s take recycling one step forward and look at recycling ourselves. This week is National Organ and Tissue Donor Awareness Week, and I would like to remind the Assembly of the importance of signing your health card. There is a critical demand for organ donation across this country, and it is a sad fact that the supply of organs never meets the demand.

This country, this great country of Canada, has one of the lowest donation rates of all developed countries in the world. Organ donation is something everyone should take seriously. You may think that you will never fall sick and need a donation, or more likely you may think a tragedy will never befall you or your family, but accidents do happen, and the reality is that people unfortunately die. We all have the ability to do something about this issue. Often possible organ donors are never able to contribute to the lives of others because they are not prepared for the event.

Organ trans- plants present a sad paradox. In most instances, for someone to receive an organ donation, someone else must die.

April 20, 1999 Alberta Hansard 1115 2:50 Mr. Speaker, organ donation week gives us the opportunity to discuss with our families our wishes on becoming an organ donor. I have committed myself as an organ donor since 1976 and brought forward a private member’s bill, that passed last year in this Assembly. I’m now chairing the organ donor implementation committee. Alberta has now taken the lead on this important initiative. I encourage all members of the Assembly to pull out their health cards and sign themselves up as organ donors. The gift of life is the most important gift you’ll ever make.

Don’t take your organs to heaven; heaven knows we need them down here. THE SPEAKER: Notice was given during the question period by the hon. Government House Leader that he wanted to rise on a point of order. Point of Order Allegations against a Member MR. HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Earlier today in question period there was an exchange which in my view offended rules 23(h), (i), and (

j) of our Standing Orders as well as Beauchesne 491 and 409(5). Standing Order 23(

h) refers to making “allegations against another member,” 23(

i) refers to imputing “false or un- avowed motives to another member,” and 23(

j) refers to using “abusive or insulting language of a nature likely to create disorder.” I would submit that the exchange in the question from the hon. Member for Edmonton-Glenora did all three. The hon. member referred to a question relating to a letter I believe dated December 3 or December 13 – I forget the exact date – and in the context of that discussion referred to hiding documents; where are the documents “hidden” in your office, those types of references.

I would ask that yo u rule that those references to “hidden” documents, to hiding documents, and to where are the documents hidden be ruled unparliamentary and that the member be asked to withdraw them. They’re clearly suggesting that the Premier is hiding something. The words themselves say that.

The Premier has been very forth- right in answering questions and saying that everything has been turned over to the Auditor Genera l, that the Auditor General has made a decision based on the evidence before him with respect to this issue, that the question of what documents should be released and when is a matter that’s more appropriately determined by the Auditor General rather than by the Premier. In fact, there has been no hiding of documents, but irrespective of that, Mr.

Speaker, the allegation that there’s been a hiding of documents, the allegation that documents are hidden in the office, in my submission, is unparliamentary. I’d move on to 409, Mr. Speaker, which says: A brief question seeking information about an important matter of some urgency which falls within the administrative . . .

(5) The matter ought to be of some urgency. There must be some present value in seeking the information during the Question Period rather than through the Order Paper or through correspon- dence with the Minister or the department. Well, in fact, Mr. Speaker, if you’ll refer to the Order Paper, you’ll find under Motion for a Return 168 a motion which asks for precisely the same information.

In fact, it says: “that an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing copies of letters” – I’ll leave out a piece – “between the former deputy Premier and the Premier for the period October 29, 1993, to November 1, 1994.” I would suggest that the documents that the member is referring to would probably fall within that motion for a return.

If they don’t fall within that motion for a return, they certainly could fall within one of the other 11 motions for returns that are on the Order Paper with respect to this matter, and if they’re not within those 11, they certainly could be the subject of a motion for a return. It’s not a question of urgency. The matter under discussion, clearly, by the date of the letter he’s talking about, was in December of 1993. It’s not a matter for question period at all and certainly not a matter which should be the subject of “abusive or insulting language of a nature likely to create disorder,” under 23(j). Thank you.

THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glenora on this point of order. MR. SAPERS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I certainly understand the government’s sensitivity about this issue, and I wish there were ways that we could pursue this without the Premier inviting members to step outside and that sort of thing. The facts are quite plain. I’ll try to deal with them in the order that I heard the Government House Leader try to justify his point of order. Number one, the language used is nowhere in Beauchesne, in my reading.

In fact, I think if you check the Blues, you’ll see that there was a reference to the phrase: documents that are “hidden from Albertans” in the Premier’s office. In fact, Mr. Speaker, those documents are hidden away. I’m assuming they’re in safekeeping because they are the subject of exclusions under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. I’m hoping that they’re, you know, hidden away in a safe place and that they haven’t in fact been destroyed. They’re not available for my review, they’re not available for your review, and they’re not available for the review of any Albertan.

I think that that is pretty close to a dictionary definition of being hidden away or secreted away or just suppressed. So that’s on the first point. The second point. If you do want to talk about the kind of language and bringing the House into disrepute and using language that would offend both Beauchesne and Standing Orders, I think we could in fact look at the Premier’s own words when he used either the words or derivatives of the words: falsehoods, irresponsible, misleading. All of those words are in Beauchesne and listed as unparliamentary.

Now, as I said, I understand the Premier’s sensitivity in not wanting to d eal with these questions, and I understand that he wants everyone to assume that the Auditor General’s report has ended this matter when in fact it hasn’t. That incomplete report just poses more questions. Now, Mr. Speaker, I did not rise to challenge the Premier on his abuses of language and his violations of what has been considered unparliamentary before, because it wouldn’t serve any particular purpose.

Clearly I was very careful to make sure that the language that I chose did not offend either your strictures or those that are imposed on us by Beauchesne and Standing Orders. Finally, I will deal with the rather interesting argument from the Government House Leader that because there’s a motion for a return that may or may not deal with these matters, therefore it’s not appropriate for question period. Number one, those matters are not on the Order Paper for debate today.

Number two, it is an urgent matter because we still don’t have the whole truth and nothing but the truth about what happened in regard to the refinancing of West Edmonton Mall, and it is on my mind and on the mind I think of other Albertans. Number three, the government has made it clear on every occasion that a question regarding their involvement with West Edmonton Mall – this government has rejected providing the information. They have rejected every written question and motion

1116 Alberta Hansard April 20, 1999 for a return, and the Deputy Government House Leader indicated to me that in fact these others were destined for rejection as well. So I can have no expectation that the information will be forthcoming. The fact is that just because there may or may not be – and the Government House Leader wasn’t even clear whether there was – a motion for a return that would cover some of the same information is really not relevant to today’s question in question period. So, Mr.

Speaker, as I said, I understand the reason why the Government House Leader may have been prompted to rise to his feet on this, but I submit that there was no violation of Standing Orders or of Beauchesne or of other parliamentary principles as they have been established in this Chamber. THE SPEAKER: Hon. members, there’s certainly a lot of guidance given to hon. members in terms of what is written in Beauchesne and what is not written in Beauchesne, and the House itself makes its own rules, which are of primacy importance.

Although we are talking about phrases such as hidden or hiding, that sort of phraseol- ogy is not ruled out in Beauchesne in terms of being unparliamen- tary. It’s also very true that what may be in one context today may not necessarily be in the same c ontext tomorrow, and in fact they may from time to time be ruled out one way or the other. The exact words that were used were: Will you release the 167 pages of documents that are in your office, that are currently being hidden from Albertans . . . Those are, essentially, words from the electronic Blues.

To repeat, the words “hidden” or “hiding” were not viewed as unparliamentary in the past. In looking at the words, there’s no suggestion directly that it’s the Premier that is hiding anything at all from the people of Alberta.

There is some suggestion, as we indicated yesterday, in terms of some of these statements and some of these questions, that when one looks at the black and white, the hard copy of words, they somehow do not have the same kind of intent as when they are expressed in an environment that sometimes may be charged and perhaps from day to day charged even a little more than another day. 3:00 Strong statements will never be viewed unparliamentary, I would suspect, by any Speaker anywhere in the types of jurisdictions that follow this type of government. I think perhaps it would be a stretch to suggest that the hon.

Member for Edmonton-Glenora is actually accusing the Premier of hiding anything. Words have their own meaning unto themselves in the blankness of a document. When you take it out in two hours or three hours or four hours from now, when you read it tomorrow, somehow the meaning will not have the same impact that it may have had a few minutes ago in this particu- lar question period. Before we move to Orders of the Day, might we revert briefly to Introduction of Guests? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. head: Introduction of Guests (reversion) THE SPEAKER: I’d ask the hon. Member for St. Albert to present certain guests. MRS.

O’NEILL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It gives me pleasure this afternoon to introduce 15 residents of New Zealand, who are in the members’ gallery this afternoon. They are traveling by train from Victoria to Halifax, across our wonderful country. I would like to welcome them to the Legislature of Alberta and introduce them to you and through you to members of this Assembly by asking them to rise and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. THE SPEAKER: Would it be appropriate for the Speaker to supplement the comments made by the hon. member? HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

THE SPEAKER: Well, to our very good friends from New Zealand, I had the pleasure of being in your country just last fall and traveled north to south. Would you convey our good wishes from this Legislative Assembly back to the good people who work in your national Assembly in Wellington, in particular to the Hon. Doug Kidd. Your Speaker of your national Assembly is a personal friend of mine. All the best as you enjoy Canada.

It’s not quite as beautiful as New Zealand, but we’re very friendly. head: Orders of the Day head: Public Bills and Orders Other than head: Government Bills and Orders head: Second Reading Bill 205 School (Early Childhood Services) Amendment Act, 1999 [Debate adjourned April 13: Mrs. O’Neill speaking] THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for St. Albert. MRS. O’NEILL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I was saying previously, I support the initiative that my colleague for Calgary- East has taken with the introduction of this bill.

I understand the intent: to continue to build Alberta’s education system to be the best that it can be for the province’s children. The bill we are debating today pertains to early childhood services. These services are a wonderful part of a student’s journey through our formal education system. They are the blocks with which children can build their path to the future. The age of a child when he or she enters an ECS program is the stage at which they are very impressionable. It is the point where they are developing numerous social and functional skill sets and attitudes.

Programs such as kindergarten, while certainly preparing a child for entry into a fuller and more formal education, serve an even greater role in the life of that child. I believe that there is true merit in the existence of early childhood services, or, as I grew up to know and affectionately call it, kindergarten. I feel that the benefits of the child who attends kindergarten are numerous.

While the communication and social skills acquired through such services do well to prepare a child for entering grade 1, they also help ease children into the transition from being at home or in day care to being in a school atmosphere. For a child entering the formal education system, there are all kinds of fears: the fear of encountering new people, of leaving home or day care, and simply the fear of procedures that differ from their daily routine.

To be able to introduce them into an environm ent that sets the stage for the learning process upon which they will embark is an experience that is invaluable to them and their families. Essentially, early childhood services are the silent teacher, as a child is learning without realizing they are being taught. They learn through having fun, through playing games, through listening to stories, through singing and painting. Each child that leaves an ECS

April 20, 1999 Alberta Hansard 1117 program should be well equipped to head into the broader world of formal education that lies before them. I should also say, Mr. Speaker, that programs such as kindergar- ten, day care, and community activities also serve to bring together not only children but entire families who come from different backgrounds and experiences. It is a learning experience for children and parents alike. I’m sure that most of us who are parents had the realization that a child entering school is not the only one that must adjust. We as parents also face some adjustments. Mr.

Speaker, I would like to reiterate what the sponsor of this bill said in his opening remarks. The intent of Bill 205 is to legislate something that is already the policy of this government and does not stray from our commitment to the education of the children of this province. I believe the education of our children is a partnership. It is a partnership established among our communities, our educators, our schools, our parents, and most importantly, our children. This is an important relationship that is willingly committed to improv- ing, promoting, and delivering continuous learning across this province.

Early childhood services are an integral part of this process. The legislation that is before us would ensure that all children have the opportunity to benefit from the services provided by kindergarten as part of the early childhood services program. As it has been explained, kindergarten is currently a program provided in all school jurisdictions by either the public school system, the private school system, or a private, nonprofit ECS program, but regardless of the institution delivering these programs, there are certain government regulations that must be met.

They must operate with certified and certificated teachers. Local school boards, school councils, and schools are responsible for making decisions that will serve students best. This allows for decisions to be made according to their individual needs and the needs of the individual students, taking into account their age, the subject matter, and the community environment in which they live. Schools have been given considerable flexibility on decision-making in order to respond effectively and efficiently to the needs of students and the wishes of the parents. Mr.

Speaker, while I firmly believe that this proposed legislation allows for the school to maintain a degree of flexibility within the program, it is ultimately the responsibility of the school boards to examine early learning in their schools. Alberta Education supports choice in education to ensure student and community needs are met. The current system allows parents and students to have the opportu- nity to choose schools and programs in the public education system within standards and policies set by the provincial government.

Parents have a wide range of options to choose from within the public education system: public schools, separate schools, Franco- phone schools, charter schools, as well as alternative programs offered by school boards and home education. The establishment of kindergarten in Alberta has a long history. With a great deal of work it was determined that the best system would be one that allows for parental choice and flexibility. This is important as it enables parents to be involved in the early education of their child or children.

In keeping with the flexibility of ECS programs, for those who prefer to prepare their child at home or may not have the availability of transportation, many rural schools offer two-full-days-a-week programs for children in kindergarten to accommodate parents in such situations. An example of what is working in one area of the province is from the Buffalo area of the Wainwright constituency. Parents take their child one day a week to a kindergarten program, and on alternating days they meet with parents and their children in similar educational situations.

This system was developed due to the distance between some of the homes and the school. I am encouraged that there was enough co-operation to have been able to reach a workable solution.

This example very clearly demonstrates that the current system allows parents to ensure that the needs of their children are met and the incredible dedication of ECS programming to accommodate the children, not to mention the willingness of parents to work with the system. 3:10 Bill 205 would continue to allow this flexibility and would continue to encourage parents, schools, and the community to work together in educating their children. Encouraging education during the early years sets the stage for children to get into the spirit of learning.

Early childhood education is important for stimulating motivation in children, which will help develop children’s self- esteem and positive feelings towards learning. I would say again that ECS is a wonderful part of the journey through a formal education system in this province that is one of the best Canada has to offer. None of this invaluable experience is taken away with the amendments proposed in Bill 205. So I would conclude by saying that I believe in Alberta’s early childhood services programs, especially the value and the success they have demonstrated.

A member of this Assembly has brought before us a piece of legislation that feeds into the strength of our education system and ultimately into the education of our children, who are the future of this province. I would encourage members of this Assembly to look long and hard at the strength of this bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Spruce Grove-Sturgeon-St. Albert. MRS. SOETAERT: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I’m very pleased that the hon. Member for Calgary-East has brought this forward. My, how times have changed.

I think it’s very important that this become legislation, because we have seen in the history of this province that on a whim this government can cut kindergarten hours, ECS hours, in half just like that. So I think this is a very important bill. I think it’s very im portant to legislate this. If we truly believe in education and if we truly believe in children, then I’d like to see this in legislation, that early childhood services are available for every child prior to entering grade 1.

I remember that when this present government cut it in half, there were petitions, children in the galleries, parents – it took thousands of people to say to this government: “Wake up. This is an essential service. This is important if you really want to value education. If you put your money where your mouth is, then put it with educa- tion.” Interestingly enough, finally after a year or two they decided: well, let’s put some more money back into early childhood services. Lo and behold, three years later we need money in a literacy program. Well, go figure.

Those kids who probably didn’t have the money to access full kindergarten are now the same children that we’re paying for with the literacy program. Catch the irony of that one. Just catch the irony of that. So I am glad that there’s a private member’s bill up here. Obviously that member realizes that you can’t trust this government. One minute: oh, ECS is important. The next minute: it’s not important; who needs full-time hours? I remember, during that time when kindergarten was cut in half, meeting Dr.

Myer Horowitz, and he was telling me that 20 or so years prior to these cuts he’d had to lobby every single MLA and try to teach them the value of early childhood services. He said: “You know what, Colleen? Here I am again, 20 years later, fighting the same fight with a bunch of people who don’t understand the value of education.” I think he met with

1118 Alberta Hansard April 20, 1999 several MLAs who are still in here today. You know, it’s sad that he had to relobby, if there is such a word, that the vision that he provided 20 years prior had been mucked up by a government where the bottom dollar – it didn’t matter if it was children being hurt or not. So he had to lobby once again a government that wasn’t listening or caring about children in early childhood. I am very pleased that this bill has come forward. I’m going to support it. In fact, I’d like to even see an amendment that increases it to 475 hours. I really would. That would be really half-time.

You know what? Within this, it is a person’s option still to put their child in early childhood services, in ECS. It’s still their option. It’s available, and it’s still the parents’ option. But it is legislated because – who knows? – next year there may be a different priority. This government may want to pay down the debt so quickly that they’re going to take away funding totally for kindergarten. So this is just trying to legislate it so that it will commit this government to valuing early childhood. I certainly do, and I know that if we don’t take care of our children early on, we will pay for it later on.

I know there are several people who want to speak to this. I think it is very near and dear to quite a few members. I think I have briefly stated that I will support it, that I don’t trust this government enough to just hope that they’ll provide for it. I want it legislated. I want it properly funded. I look forward to, I hope, a majority of members supporting this piece of legislation. Thank you. MR. DOERKSEN: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think my comments might be somewhat different than the points made thus far on Bill 205.

The principle of this bill really takes us into the debate about mandatory kindergarten, and that debate engages us in a primarily philosophical question. The School Act in its

preamble actually sets the stage for this philosophical question. I’m going to read to you the first two clauses of the

preamble to the School Act.

Whereas the best educational in terests of the student are the paramount considerations in the exercise of any authority under this Act; and

Whereas parents have a right and a responsibility to make decisions respecting the education of their children. In the first instance, the state asserts its interest in the education of students. This is further affirmed in

section 3, where individuals “6 years of age or older” are “entitled to have access . . . to an education program.”

Section 8 is even stronger in that it states that an individual who “is eligible to be enrolled,” meeting certain age requirements, “shall attend school.” The word used is not “may,” which is permissive in its meaning. The word used is “shall,” which is prescriptive, even dogmatic in its meaning. [Mrs.

Laing in the chair] I do not know the complete history of the education act, but I suspect that there was significant debate when the government of that day moved from a requirement to have education available and accessible for students to prescriptive legislation that not only required availability and accessibility but made attendance manda- tory. The bottom line is that th e state exerted its authority by deciding it had a compelling interest in the education of children.

Madam Speaker, the evolution of public opinion since that time is such that such intervention by the state in education is mostly accepted by Albertans, who rarely spend any time even thinking about the philosophical question. The recognition of the importance of education and, in particular, learning to learn is universally accepted. Who would debate its importance? Who would want to deny this child an education? But there is a tension between the notion of state control in the education of children and the rights and responsibilities of parents and their desires for their own children.

The School Act in its second statement in the

preamble, which I read earlier, gives at least recognition to this idea. It is at this point of tension that philosophical lines in the sand are often drawn with respect to mandatory kindergarten. While this bill does not make that final step, it does, I argue, move us in that direction. That kindergarten is important to Albertans is not in doubt. That mandatory kindergarten extends the tentacles of state intrusion into the lives and personal affairs of families is also not in doubt, at least not in my mind.

It is not ground that parents should easily give up. 3:20 As a matter of prudence, those who philosophically support mandatory kindergarten need to ask themselves a very important question, and that question is: at what point do you or will you draw the line? Surely if kindergarten is mandatory, why not preschool or prekindergarten? These are ideas which carry a certain amount of currency and even have been discussed already in this debate. Therefore, when it comes time for you to cast your aye or cast your nay on this bill, please understand that you are voting on an idea.

If you are in favour of government intervention – and some would say intrusion – please vote in favour. On the other hand, if you are in favour of retaining parental autonomy and that very important check on government control and expansion, please vote with me in defeating this bill. Further, Madam Speaker, I would like to add that for those who have spoken in favour of this bill and have now realized the strength of my arguments and the importance of the ideas in front of them, it is no shame to them to change their mind. In fact, it would be to their credit. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

THE ACTING SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton- Strathcona. DR. PANNU: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to speak to support the principle of the bill, which is to include kindergarten or early childhood education programs within the School Act. I think that’s a very desirable, long-awaited action that’s being proposed by way of this act, so I support that principle of inclusion of the early childhood services program into the School Act. I have, however, some concerns here. Let me just make my observations here very quickly; time is short. My primary concerns are the following. The bill, in amending

section 24, amends only sub (1) of

section 24 and leaves sub (2) untouched. In sub (2) the existing legislation says that a person or board that provides an early childhood services program may charge fees in respect of the program from the parent of a child referred to in [sections above]. The fact that this bill seeks to include an early childhood services program into our public school system which is available without any requirement of having to pay fees – I think the retention of fees to be charged for early childhood service programs is inconsistent with the spirit and the letter of the School Act.

So I would certainly seek to make some amendments to see if this inconsistency can be removed. Secondly, Madam Speaker, the proposed changes in sub (1) of

section 24 allows that an early childhood services program under subsection (1.1) may be provided by a board or a person approved by the Minister. Similarly, in the next subsection it is stated that a board or, with the approval of the Minister, a person may also provide an early childhood services program to

April 20, 1999 Alberta Hansard 1119 (

a) a child before the child’s kindergarten year if the parent of the child agrees. The point that I have some serious concerns about is the enabling authority the minister is being provided here by way of this subsec- tion for this program to be offered by a person authorized by the minister. I presume that person could include private, for-profit establishments, institutions, groups, individuals who may be interested in providing this service. Clearly, again, this would be a step towards privatization of our public school system, and I would certainly be opposed to this.

I would like the member or the Minister of Education to speak to this concern of mine. [Mrs. Gordon in the chair] The second implication of authorizing a person other than the board to offer an early childhood services program is that it could be offered by persons who do not necessarily have the educational qualifications required at this point by every school board in the hiring of teaching pers onnel.

So in addition to providing an opportunity for privatization of these services, these amendments will also lead to deregulation of the certification requirements that people who teach children in their early years will need. That’s a second very serious flaw, I think, in the bill, and I certainly will be opposed to that particular amendment on those grounds. The third concern that I have has to do with the reduction of the number of hours; 400 hours are stated as the minimum. The tendency in legislation, when you state a number like this, is to use that as a ceiling rather than as a minimum.

Presently, I think, the provision in the kindergarten area allows for 475 hours of instruc- tion. Here we have 400 hours, and that, again, to me is a step backwards and will need to be changed. I’ll see if I can move some amendments to the bill to correct that flaw. The last point that I want to make. I’m not sure, and I would like the member who has sponsored the bill, in whose name the bill has come to the House, to perhaps clarify this. This is sub (1.5), another amendment.

Where the Minister is satisfied that it is not feasible for a board to ensure that all children in their kindergarten year have access to an early childhood services program, the Minister may authorize the board or a person to provide alternative programs. I have some questions about what is meant by “alternative pro- grams,” and I’m seeking more information on this. I hope the hon. member will be able to provide answers to that question.

Altogether, Madam Speaker, while I am supportive of the principle of inclusion of early childhood services programs into the act so that they become a regular part of what we expect our school boards to offer, I have some serious concerns having to do with the charging of fees – I think they’re fundamentally inconsistent with the provision of free education and universal education to all children in this province – and the minister’s ability to permit both private providers, who may provide their service for profit, and the deregulation of the certification and educational requirements that could be introduced as a result of this bill.

My main concerns have to do with this deregulation, privatization, and the reduction of the number of hours available for early childhood services. THE ACTING SPEAKER: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona, but the time limit for consideration of this particular item has concluded. head: Motions Other than Government Motions 3:30 Police Staffing Level 508. Ms Olsen moved:

Be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly urge the govern- ment to establish a benchmark of one police officer for every 525 Albertans. [Debate adjourned April 13: Mr. Dickson speaking] THE ACTING SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Redwater. MR. BRODA: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am pleased to have the opportunity this afternoon to join debate on Motion 508, sponsored by the Member for Edmonton-Norwood. Although this motion appears to be well intentioned, I find myself in a disagree- ment with what this motion proposes, and I am therefore unable to lend it my support.

I would like to begin by addressing some of the comments the Member for Edmonton-Norwood has made relative to this motion. First of all, when she referenced some statistics from an Environics poll done for Alberta Justice, she conveniently omitted some important results from that poll. She noted that “51 percent of respondents stated that crime in their community was a very serious or somewhat serious problem.” What the hon. member conveniently neglected to mention is that about 80 percent of the respondents in that same poll were very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with the level of policing in Alberta.

Madam Speaker, 80 percent support for a level of policing is certainly not a loud cry from Albertans for hundreds more police officers to be hired.

Secondly, Madam Speaker, the Member for Edmonton-Norwood indicated that 80 percent of respondents stated that “providing more police officers would be effective in reducing the level of crime.” While this may be true in terms of reducing crime, the polls also showed that 86 percent thought that tougher sentencing would be effective, that 90 percent thought increased crime prevention would be effective, and that 73 percent pointed out that increased rehabili- tation programs would be effective.

Only 45 percent of respondents thought that passing more legislation would be an effective way of reducing crime, but we must believe that if this motion were to pass, the sponsor would expect legislation to be passed to implement this benchmark. Madam Speaker, I understand that prostitution has been a problem in the constituency of Edmonton-Norwood and that the hon. member has done some good work to tackle this problem. However, I must point out a quote from the hon. member on this topic in reference to cracking down on pimps, johns, and prostitutes.

She is quoted in the Edmonton Sun as saying that you don’t need more police to do it. Obviously the hon. member understands that there are other ways, usually better ways, to combat crime than simply hiring more police officers. Why, then, does she thin k we need more police to tackle Alberta’s overall crime rate, which, by the way, has been declining for some time now? It’s really a mystery. I would also like to briefly touch on one other comment from the Member for Edmonton-Norwood.

In her speech she remarked that a lot of people use the police to population ratio, including people “who are considering investing in Alberta.” Madam Speaker, I must say that if the police to population ratio is truly an important consideration for potential investors, then we’d better leave the ratio right where it is, because right now people are investing in Alberta and are moving to Alberta in massive numbers. They are doing so with extreme confidence in Alberta’s economic and social condi- tions.

In fact, the most effective and most reliable way to reduce the crime rate is to reduce the unemployment rate, especially among teens. Alberta has had the lowest or close to the lowest unemploy- ment rate in Canada for several years now, and Alberta’s low unemployment rate continues to this day, even with massive immigration to Alberta in recent years. Madam Speaker, I think it is obvious that the safety of Alberta

1120 Alberta Hansard April 20, 1999 communities and the effectiveness of the justice system are high priorities for this government and for Albertans generally. This was certainly apparent during the discussion at and leading up to the justice summit at the end of January. The summit represented an opportunity for Albertans to offer input about all aspects of Alberta’s justice system. Just in case the Member for Edmonton- Norwood missed the justice summit and has not seen any of the encouraging results and recommendations that came from it, I’ll take this opportunity to highlight some of them.

First of all, survey results fr om the Angus Reid poll, not the Environics poll alluded to earlier, show that 90 percent of Albertans have confidence in the RCMP and that a whopping 94 percent of Albertans have confidence in their local police. Madam Speaker, this is the highest level of confidence for all of Canada. To me this result indicates that Albertans are very pleased with the levels and the quality of policing in this province. They are not calling for hundreds more police officers.

These survey results show that Alberta’s excellent police forces are doing a tremendous job, with sufficient staffing levels and resources. Although these things must be reviewed from time to time, the recommendation of Motion 508 clearly is not and should not be an immediate priority. There was much more encouraging news from the justice summit. Levels of confidence in more specific areas of the justice system, such as protecting the public from offenders, catching lawbreakers, and promoting crime prevention, also increased from 1997.

Clearly, Madam Speaker, in the areas of policing and justice, this govern- ment is giving Albertans the confidence and protection that they need and deserve. If we look at the specific justice summit recommendations on policing, there were no loud outcries for more police officers. Instead, most of the recommendations suggested that the government continue to promote successful community-based projects and crime prevention programs. These are the types of services that make the most difference in Alberta’s communities. Crime prevention and enforcement involve much more than just hiring more police officers.

Community-based services are what Albertans are asking for, and they are the services that fit the needs of Albertans. Over the past few years we have seen the tremendous success of neighbourhood police offices. These allow the police force to become more involved in communities, more active in communities, and more visible in communities. The benefits of these local stations are immense. Furthermore, there are more programs, such as Crime Stoppers, Rural Crime Watch, and Neighbourhood Watch, that are great assets to our policemen and policewomen and for Albertans.

Furthermore, Madam Speaker, Motion 508 urges the government to do something that is clearly not within its exclusive jurisdiction. In Edmonton and Calgary policing is funded from unconditional municipal grants, and it is up to the municipal force to determine the appropriate number of police officers. As for rural policing, RCMP affairs are not simply a matter of provincial authority and jurisdic- tion but also of local and federal. Without heavy-handed legislation, the provincial government is not even in a position to properly implement what Motion 508 proposes.

Quite frankly, the motion put forward by the member opposite is an overly simplistic approach to justice and policing in Alberta. By focusing purely on the ratio of police officers to the general population, Motion 508 fails to take into account many of the important economic, social, and geographic diversities of our province.

Madam Speaker, not all communities have the same need for policing services, and to impose a uniform standard for police to population ratio would probably be a waste of taxpayers’ dollars, and it would negatively affect the number of police officers available in areas that require a higher percentage of police officers in the population. On the one hand, Motion 508 would impose an artificial cap on the number of police officers in a region or a municipality and fails to take into account the actual needs of the local commu- nity.

On the other hand, resources may be spread too thin across the province to provide the extra manpower in those particular areas that require it. 3:40 Madam Speaker, most regions and centres in this province function extremely well and remain very safe communities. The Minister of Justice has already noted – but I think it’s worth repeating – that St. Albert has only one police officer for every 1,267 residents. That’s certainly a far cry from the ratio of one officer for every 520 residents suggested by the member opposite. Yet St.

Albert is a very safe, secure, and beautiful community which experiences very little crime. MR. SHARIFF: Because Mary represents it. MR. BRODA: That’s right. This municipality does not need to increase the number of police officers it currently has by close to 150 percent. On the other side of the equation, a uniform ratio such as Motion 508 suggests might have the effect of lowering the availability of law enforcement officers in certain communities. High Prairie, for example, currently has a police to population ratio of 485. The crime rates per officer is around 131.

If the ratio were to be altered to 525, High Prairie would lose police officers. It makes sense that resources be directed where they can be of most service. There is no point in setting up an arbitrary system of uniformity which results in inefficiencies. We must target our resources to make sure that policing is adequate in communities that have a greater need instead of increasing them in municipalities like St. Albert, which are doing well with their current resources and staffing levels.

This approach will provide us with the type of equality that really matters here: safety for all Albertans regardless of the community in which they live. It also makes sense, Madam Speaker, to allow for a greater ratio of law enforcement officers in larger geographic areas with sparse populations. Densely populated areas do not need the same number of police officers per capita as more sparsely populated rural areas. This is due to the sheer number of kilometres which are covered by officers in rural areas compared to those within cities and towns.

The police to population ratio does not n ecessarily have to be the same in Calgary as it is in Cardston. Again, it is clear that a uniform provincial benchmark is inappropriate for Alberta’s needs. Alberta’s police to population ratio compares well with that of other Canadian provinces, especially when we account for the differences in crime rates across the country. We must assume that the intenti on of this motion is to address crime.

Alberta’s overall crime rate, defined as the total police- reported crimes under the Criminal Code, actually indicates, excluding traffic crime, that it is about equal to the Canadian average. But it’s far below the rates of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, B.C., and the two territories. The crime rate is declining. This is something Albertans are extremely proud of, and we should be proud of this fact. Do we really need to hire hundreds more police officers to fight a falling crime rate? I don’t think so. Let’s look at the crime rates in some specific crimes.

First of all, Alberta’s homicide rate is less than the Canadian average and almost half of what we see in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and B.C. In 1996 homicide rates declined in only two provinces, New Brunswick and

April 20, 1999 Alberta Hansard 1121 Alberta. In that same year Alberta was one of only five provinces whose homicide rate was lower than the average of the previous 10 years. These are very encouraging results, and they show that Alberta is doing very good things when it comes to preventing violent crimes. When it comes to property crimes, again Alberta is doing a tremendous job of prevention. The rates in Alberta for motor vehicle thefts and break-ins are both below the Canadian average and about half the rates in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and B.C.

These rates have remained fairly stable in Alberta in recent years. However, this stability comes at a time when virtually every other province has witnessed an increase in the rates of motor vehicle thefts and break and enters. Agai n, it is difficult to see why the Member for Edmonton-Norwood is calling for more police officers to fight declining rates of crime. Madam Speaker, there’s also a serious financial component to this motion.

The across-the-board increase that would be required to implement this motion would result in a severe increase in cost to Alberta taxpayers, with very little visible return on their investment. It would cost an estimated $105 million per year to increase the police to population ratio to the figures proposed in Motion 508, but there is certainly no guarantee that this would have any meaningful effect on Alberta’s actual crime rates. There is no conclusive evidence that the number of police officers in a jurisdiction has any real effect on the number of actual crimes committed.

The factors which affect the crime rate are numerous. It will serve no purpose, Madam Speaker, to ignore other factors and focus exclusively on the number of police officers in a community. The law enforcement officers in Alberta have always done and continue to do an excellent job ensuring safety and justice for Albertans. Alberta is well known for its strong communities, and Albertans take pride in that reputation. There are many, many good things being done at the community level in Alberta to prevent crime, things that don’t necessarily require additional police officers.

In looking at the statistics on this subject, it is apparent that some of them may be misleading if not considered closely, Madam Speaker. The numbers certainly do show that the police to popula- tion ratio has been increasing, but there are a number of important reasons for this. In addition to the financial restrictions on staffing which many police organizations have felt as the population increases, the change in the ratio has also been affected by two other significant factors. First, many administrative tasks that police officers once had to attend to have now been passed to civilians.

This has had an effect of freeing officers’ time for direct policing responsibilities. It has also created job opportunities for Albertans, something which this government does very well. As employment and the population increase, the figures of the past several years clearly show this. Second, the police to population ratio has been affected by urbanization. Madam Speaker, tens of thousands of people are moving to Alberta every year to experience the Alberta advantage.

Although many of them are fleeing an oppressive regime in the people’s republic of British Columbia, many more are coming from all over Canada and from around the world. The majority of these new Albertans are becoming residents of Alberta’s major urban centres. This has added to an already strong urbanization trend, causing a decrease in the number of officers required per capita. The wording of Motion 508 doesn’t mention or even consider the other factors which have an impact on crime rates.

For example, both violent and property-related crimes have been shown to increase in areas which have experienced economic growth. Well, Madam Speaker, we all know about the healthy economic growth that has been occurring in Alberta year in and year out since 1993. Although members opposite would never admit it publicly, Alberta’s economic growth has been possible thanks to this government’s sound economic policies. Madam Speaker, for that reason I will not be supporting the motion and encourage everyone else not to support it. THE ACTING SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton- Manning. 3:50 MR.

GIBBONS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I hope the bureaucrat listening in the background is enjoying that speech. I really believe that’s where it came from just to kill this motion really quickly timewise. Madam Speaker, I’m pleased to stand to speak to this Motion 508, and just so the member opposite can hear me, I’m in favour of it. The main emphasis of this motion is that every Member of this Legislative Assembly has fielded questions about crime in our constituencies.

Does anyone ever get down to the understanding that where we’re sitting in policing is just another area of the down- loading from this government over the last few years? For the bureaucrat up there listening, I hope they’re understanding that too. Funding for police services has fallen dramatically over the last several years. In the case of municipal police forces, the provincial cuts exceed those of health and education. In 1998 there was an average of one officer for every 552 Canadians. In Alberta there was an officer for approximately every 574.

This motion will take us to the average level of policing in the other prairie provinces. If, as the Member for Redwater stated, the Alberta average compares with other provinces, why in Manitoba is there an officer for every 512 residents and in Saskatchewan an officer for every 540? We also need to consider the cost of crime on society. When the costs of the victim, the costs of a shattered life, policing and private security, court and legal costs, and correction costs are considered, the Fraser Institute concludes that these total costs may be as great as the total public expenditure for public schools.

Some profess that can be re-engineered to eliminate activities that do not provide value. This is particularly difficult for a field like policing, where new activities do not reap rewards. A police car on the street is a deterrent. I do agree with the Member for Redwater opposite when he talks about community-based policing. I was at a meeting three weeks ago in a junior high school in my constituency, Steele Heights. We had the Edmonton Police Commission and the chief of police and his officers come in, and this was a major issue that everybody brought into concern. They wanted it to stay in place.

But at the same time it came around to a money basis and is it going to be a fundable item? Yes. I believe it should be. An officer that is a beat cop on the Fort Road in my constituency is a very well- respected man. He can be looked at in the face instead of from the shoulders down, which happens in most cases when police are involved. We also talk about a question yesterday in the House from the Member for Calgary-Fish Creek around home invasions, and today we sit and listen to the hon.

Minister of Justice from Alberta tabling a letter that he sent off to the federal Minister of Justice around this and the importance of how terrible home invasions are. I totally believe him. Like the Member for Calgary-Fish Creek I would not want to be in the situation where I open up my door to have somebody force their way in. Policing is about people and responding to their needs and fears. I hope the bureaucrat heard me. Thank you.

1122 Alberta Hansard April 20, 1999 THE ACTING SPEAKER: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Member for Edmonton-Manning, but under Standing Order 8(4) I must put all questions to conclude debate on the motion under consideration as proposed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Norwood. [Motion lost] THE CLERK: Motions Other than Government Motions. Motion 509, Mr. Marz. THE ACTING SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Olds-Didsbury- Three Hills. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Glenora? Point of Order Items Previously Decided MR. SAPERS: Yeah. I just would like a ruling, Madam Speaker, on Motion 509. My query is this.

Previously the Assembly dealt with Motion 506, which deals with substantially the same area, and my recollection is that Motion 506 in fact passed. Motion 506 called for the development of an accountability framework, which I understand is the substance of Motion 509, no doubt a worthwhile idea, but I just would like a ruling. I’m referring to Beauchesne and to our own Standing Orders and of course to Erskine May, where there are several references to the fact that basically the Assembly shouldn’t be dealing with the same matter for debate twice, and I would appreciate your guidance.

THE ACTING SPEAKER: First off, hon. member, I do know that Parliamentary Counsel reviewed this. It does go before them. Prior to it coming forward in the Legislature, they will definitely make some decision as to that particular item. I would have to go back and take a look at the various motions. If the Assembly can bear with me a moment, I will have a discussion with the table. Hon. Member for Edmonton-Glenora and the Assembly, I will stand by what I said. Parliamentary Counsel does go through these prior to them being introduced in the Legislative Assembly.

As well, the Speaker’s office reviews them, so I believe it is in keeping that we move forward. We have dealt with one motion that – actually, if you read them, you could say that there are similarities or you could say that there are differences. I think it depends totally on how you want to interpret it. Something like this is left up to Parliamentary Counsel to make the call on in the very beginnings of motions and bills. So we will carry on with the hon. Member for Olds-Didsbury- Three Hills. Health Care Accountability 509. Mr. Marz moved:

Be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly urge the govern- ment to establish effective accountability measures within the health care system through mechanisms at the point of health service access involving both the consumer and provider. MR. MARZ: Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is indeed my pleasure to rise today. This motion urge s the government to review the possibilities of implementing new and innovative mechanisms to increase consumer and provider accountability within the health care system at the point of service access in order to ensure best spending practices. The