Alberta Hansard — 15 November 2000, Afternoon sitting (13:30) (Legislature 24, Session 4)

20001115

Alberta — Debates (Hansard)

November 15, 2000 Alberta Hansard 1875 Legislative Assembly of Alberta Title: Wednesday, November 15, 2000 1:30 p.m. Date: 00/11/15 [The Speaker in the chair] head: Prayers THE SPEAKER: Good afternoon. Let us pray. O Lord, guide us so that we may use the privilege given us as elected Members of the Legislative Assembly. Give us the strength to labour diligently and the courage to think and to speak with clarity and conviction and without prejudice or pride. Amen. Colleagues, as many of you know, our colleague from Edmonton- Castle Downs, hon. member Pamela Paul, has been absent from the House.

You’ll be glad to know that she has recovered from her eye surgery this past week and is now at home recuperating. I’m sure all of you will join with me in wishing her well in her recovery. You might also want to congratulate the hon. Member for Livingstone-Macleod, who is now a proud new grandfather, and it would be quite appropriate to do the normal thing. [applause] Please be seated. head: Presenting Petitions THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. MS BLAKEMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I’d like to present a petition from citizens concerned with mature and aging women’s health, particularly osteoporosis. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. MS CARLSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to present a petition today. It is signed by 370 students, the students for environmental and social action, who were responding to the concerns in Kananaskis Country, students who are now very happy with the government’s decision in that regard. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Buffalo. MR. DICKSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This afternoon I’m pleased to introduce a petition signed by 311 Albertans from Edmonton, Calgary, Spruce Grove, Legal, Fort Saskatchewan, Blairmore, and Sherwood Park. They are petitioning the Assembly “to urge the government of Alberta to stop promoting private health care and undermining public health care.” Thank you very much. head: Reading and Receiving Petitions THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. MS BLAKEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would ask that the petition I presented yesterday on mature women’s health and osteoporosis now be read and received.

THE CLERK: We, the undersigned residents of Alberta, petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the Alberta Government to take an enlightened preventative approach and add the newer and more effective medications and therapies to the Alberta Drug List to ensure the health of an aging society. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. MR. MacDONALD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I request that the petition I presented on the promotion of private health care by this government be now read and received. Thank you.

THE CLERK: We the undersigned citizens of Alberta petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the government to stop promoting private health care and undermining public health care. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. MS CARLSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would request that the petition I presented on Thursday, May 25 requesting the government to maintain Kananaskis in a natural state now be read and received. THE CLERK: We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Alberta to urge the Government of Alberta: 1.

To immediately disallow any further development of the Spray Valley of Kananaskis Country, including those proposals currently under consideration; 2. To maintain Kananaskis Country in a natural state that provides high quality wildlife habitat and nature-based recreational activities; 3. To create a Wildland Provincial Park which protects the whole of the undeveloped parts of the Kananaskis and Spray Valleys. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Spruce Grove-Sturgeon-St. Albert. MRS. SOETAERT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d ask that the petition I tabled last spring regarding private health care be read and received.

THE CLERK: We the undersigned citizens of Alberta petition the Legislative Assembly to urge the government of Alberta to stop promoting private health care and undermining public health care. head: Tabling Returns and Reports THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Economic Development. MR. HAVELOCK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to table with the House today five copies of the Alberta Economic Develop- ment Authority’s Positioning Alberta for Continuing Success Activity Report 1999-2000. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Human Resources and Employment. MR. DUNFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I’m pleased to table with the Assembly three reports today: the year 2000 annual report of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Alberta, the 1999 annual report of the Workers’ Compensation Board of Alberta, and the 1999 annual report for the Appeals Commission for Alberta’s Workers’ Compensation. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Justice and Attorney General. MR. HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This afternoon I have the honour of tabling the Alberta Justice annual report 1999-2000,

1876 Alberta Hansard November 15, 2000 the Alberta Law Enforcement Review Board’s 1999 annual report for information purposes, and the annual reports of the Alberta Law Foundation and the Law Society of Alberta. As our annual report shows, Alberta Justice is responding to the concerns of Albertans raised at the 1999 justice summit, which I might say was the brainchild of my predecessor and my col- league . . . MR. HAVELOCK: Jon Havelock. MR. HANCOCK: Well, I can’t use that name; can I? And I don’t know where you’re from. In 1999-2000 we enhanced community partnerships, increased the role of the victims.

We’ve clarified accountability, increased funding for crime prevention initiatives, and I’m glad to report that our efforts appear to be paying off. Crime rates continue to fall in Alberta. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Clover Bar-Fort Saskatche- wan. MR. LOUGHEED: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m pleased to table five copies of the annual report on the Premier’s Council on the Status of Persons with Disabilities. This report outlines the work for the past year as the council has moved to develop an Alberta disability strategy. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition. MRS. MacBETH: Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. I rise to table a letter that I have today sent to the Premier in reference to his statements in this Legislature yesterday, when he said, “This leader of the Liberal opposition was the person who licensed the very first private MRI clinic in this province.” In the letter I state: This statement is a lie. During my term as Minister of Health, I did not license, nor approve, nor in any way encourage private MRI clinics. In addition, it is the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Alberta that would license a private MRI clinic, not the Government of Alberta nor the Minister of Health.

I resigned as Minister of Health . . . THE SPEAKER: Hon. leader, thank you very much. This is Tabling Returns and Reports. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. MS BLAKEMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to table five copies of letters from eight dedicated board members from the Youth Dance Unlimited company urging the government to have more “support for the Arts in Alberta recognizing the lasting social, educational and economic benefits to the community,” five copies of eight letters. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark. MS LEIBOVICI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a large number of questionnaires that I’d like to table. They outline the concerns that victims of brain injury have in this province. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Rutherford. MR. WICKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a number of letters that are specifically directed for the benefit of the hon. minister of health and the associate minister dealing with concerns and shortcomings expressed by Alberta victims of brain injury and outlining difficulties with medical coverage, home care, employ- ment, recreation, income, and so on and so forth. THE SPEAKER: The hon.

Member for Edmonton-Riverview. MRS. SLOAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m pleased today to table a number of items, the first being an agenda from the External Advisory Board of the Graduate Students’ Association of the University of Alberta. I have been privileged to attend this session, and I have, accompanying that agenda, enclosed two postcards which the undergraduates and the graduate students are providing and hoping people will send to the government. The postcards state, “Tuition in Alberta has risen over 208% . . .” THE SPEAKER: Please, hon. member, let’s get on with the tablings. 1:40 MRS.

SLOAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So I will table those with the Assembly. I also have today five copies of a Discussion Paper on the Attributes of a National Framework for Injury Prevention and Control. This was shared in October at a national conference on injury prevention that was held in Kananaskis. Accompanying that, Mr. Speaker, I’m also pleased to table today five copies of the annual report of the Alberta Centre for Injury Control & Research, an outstanding centre which is doing vital work and deserves additional support from government. Thank you. MR. DICKSON: Mr.

Speaker, I have but one tabling, and this is Canada’s Annual Survey of Emergency Food Programs prepared for the Canadian Association of Food Banks, October 2000. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Ellerslie. MS CARLSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have three tablings this afternoon. The first is from the Bragg Creek Environmental Coalition, who are requesting a “moratorium on all resource developments in Kananaskis Country until a watershed assessment” is conducted and its recommendations are implemented.

The second is a letter from Paul and Jean Greig, who are also concerned about Kananaskis Country. The third is the third quarter results as reported by Bovar where they tell us how they lost $1 million and their subsequent plans to return this plant to the government of Alberta and the people. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Calder. MR. WHITE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have two tablings today, the first of which is a letter from Mr. Roy Kramar.

He’s a constitu- ent of mine, and he is asking that the Capital health authority reimburse him some $1,500 for three MRIs that were required for his neck, his back, and his head in March of this year, sir. The second tabling, so that the government does not miss some of the important items and misinterpret a number of the statements of the market surveillance administrator, is a report filed by him to the Power Pool of Alberta on prices in the summer of 2000, sir. The five copies are herein contained. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods.

November 15, 2000 Alberta Hansard 1877 DR. MASSEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With permission I would file five copies of What Students Have Said, excerpts from the 25,000 postcards delivered to the Minister of Learning earlier today by student representatives of institutions across the province asking that tuition be limited to 2 percent. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Spruce Grove-Sturgeon-St. Albert. MRS. SOETAERT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have two tablings today. One is a letter from St. Albert Protestant schools expressing their concerns over boundary changes. The other issue is from St.

Albert Protestant schools as well, expressing their concerns that unless there is stable and consistent funding for the DARE program, it will no longer be available to as many students as have been fortunate enough to get this program offered to them so far. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. MR. MacDONALD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I have two tablings this afternoon. Both of them are documents which I have received through freedom of information. They are relating to the treated pine shake. The first one is entitled Shake Treat Protocol.

It is recommendations for pressure preservative treatment. The second document, Mr. Speaker, is Treated Pine Shake Inspection Report from the manufacturers, Skyline, Majestic, Shakemaster, and Cowley. This is not a very good record, I’m afraid, to announce to all members of the Assembly. Thank you. head: Introduction of Guests THE SPEAKER: The hon. Deputy Speaker. MR. TANNAS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have two introductions today. First, I’m delighted to introduce to you and through you to members of this Assembly Miss Clair Sparrius of East London, South Africa.

Clair is an exchange student with the Rotary Club of High River. She is seated in your gallery, Mr. Speaker, and I’d ask her now to rise and receive the warm, traditional welcome of the Assembly. And the second introduction, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to introduce to you and through you to members of the Assembly councillors from the MD of Willow Creek: Councillor Brian Dahl from the constituency of Highwood and councillors Dave Claypool and Kelly Donahue from the constituency of Livingstone-Macleod.

They are seated in the members’ gallery, and I would now ask them to rise and receive the warm, traditional welcome of this Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Human Resources and Employment. MR. DUNFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to intro- duce to you and through you today to the members of the Assembly Manuella Peel from Onoway, Alberta. Mrs. Peel is the mother of Dwight Peel, a young man who was killed in a workplace incident on June 27, 1998, just two days after his 17th birthday. I met with Mrs.

Peel earlier today to discuss how we can educate employers and young people on the importance of ongoing safety in the workplace. We must educate and protect our y oung and inexperi- enced workers. With Mrs. Peel today is her sister Mary Anne Munn from Calahoo. I would ask Mrs. Peel and her sister to rise and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. 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 two classes from James Mowat elementary school in Fort Saskatchewan.

They’re accompanied by teachers Ted Fellows and George Sebest and also parents Mrs. Cunningham, Mrs. Prochinsky, Mrs. Lequire, Mr. Arnott, Mrs. DeBruyn, Mrs. Regush and by Mr. Fluker, the bus driver. If they’d please rise and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Spruce Grove-Sturgeon-St. Albert. MRS. SOETAERT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to introduce to you and through you to members of the Assembly a great group of students from Archbishop MacDonald high school in Edmonton. There are 57 visitors here. They are with their teachers, Mrs. Jane Warren and Mrs.

Phyllis Schumacher, and I would ask them to please rise and receive the warm welcome of this Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Lac La Biche-St. Paul. MR. LANGEVIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is my pleasure to introduce to you and through you to all members of the Assembly three very special ladies from the Lac La Biche- St. Paul constitu- ency. We have Mrs. Helen Broadbent and Mrs. Judy Thompson. They are here today because their husbands are c ouncillors for Lakeland county, and they are at the AAMD and C convention in Edmonton. They are accompanied today by my wife, Juliette.

I would like to ask all the ladies to stand and be recognized by the Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Little Bow. MR. McFARLAND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s indeed a pleasure today to introduce to you and through you to members of the Assembly 13 special guests from Vulcan county. We’ve got five guests in the members’ gallery and eight in the public gallery, and I would ask if they would rise as I introduce them.

In the members’ gallery are the administrator, Robert Strauss, Councillor Ian Donovan, Councillor Grant Lahd, Councillor Merle Wyatt, who’s also one of the newest councillors elected, and the public works supervisor, Nick Zubach. In our public gallery are Reeve Wayne Davey, another new councillor, Charlene Shearer, Glenn Logan, Councillor Darryl McDonald, Councillor Doug McIntyre, and Councillor Rod Ruark. Along with them are two spouses, Brenda McIntyre and Mr. Wayne Shearer. I’m pleased to introduce them to the Assembly. Please give them a warm welcome. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Riverview. MRS.

SLOAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Later this afternoon we will be joined by 41 guests from Our Lady of Victories school here in the City of Edmonton. I had the pleasure last week of visiting with these 35 students. They are accompanied today in this Assembly by their teachers, Mr. Dave King and Mrs. Margaret Petruk, as well as parents Sandy Fitzgerald, Shelley Hunt, and Caren Pierzchajlo. I would ask that all members provide these students with a warm welcome this afternoon. Thank you.

1878 Alberta Hansard November 15, 2000 1:50 MR. DOERKSEN: Mr. Speaker, I have two long-term residents of Red Deer to introduce to you and members of the Assembly today. The first is Shirley Alford, who is a former principal of Mount View elementary school as well as an educator at Red Deer College. The second person I’d like to introduce is Burns Peacock. This is actually his first visit to the Legislature, but he is one of six brothers to the Minister of International and Intergovernmental Relations. I would ask them to rise and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon.

Member for Edmonton-Calder. MR. WHITE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to introduce to you and through you to the Members of the Legislative Assembly 21 students and two teachers that will be joining us shortly I suspect. They are from McArthur elementary school, and they were brought today to the Assembly for a tour and a photograph by their teachers and group leaders, Ms Sas and Mr. Jerry Bernard. I hope that the Assembly will welcome them warmly when they do arrive. Thank you, sir. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Redwater. MR. BRODA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It’s my pleasure to introduce to you and through you to the members of this Assembly one individual very important to me, my daughter Susan. She’s a nurse officer on a Norwegian cruise ship, and she works in the Caribbean and is leaving in the next couple of weeks to go back there again. She is seated in the members’ gallery, and I would ask her to please rise and receive the warm welcome of this Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. DR. MASSEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It’s my privilege to introduce to you and through you to all members of the Assembly three Edmonton members of the Alberta College and Technical Institute Students’ Executive Council, the Alberta Graduate Council, the Council of Alberta University Students. They are Leslie Church, chair of the Council of Alberta University Students; Naomi Agard, vice-president external of the University of Alberta Students’ Union; and Brad Wuetherick, executive vice-president of the Graduate Students’ Association at the University of Alberta.

They are here today representing over 100,000 students in the province and delivered earlier in the day 25,000 postcards to the Minister of Learning asking that tuition be limited to a 2 percent increase in the coming year. With your permission I would ask them to rise and to receive the traditional warm welcome of the Assembly. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Deputy Chairman of Committees. MRS. GORDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to introduce some guests from the Lacombe-Stettler constituency.

With us today are 10 hard-working members of the Eagles youth council, a self- advocacy group mandated under the auspices of the Lacombe Action Group for the Handicapped. With them are helpers Ms Shara Hargreaves, Mrs. Sharon Dilworth, Mrs. Lynne Kilpatrick, and Ms Marisa Jackson. I had the opportunity recently to attend one of their council meetings and was most impressed. I would ask that they rise in the members’ gallery and receive the warm, traditional welcome of the Assembly. head: Oral Question Period THE SPEAKER: First main question. The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition.

Electric Utilities Deregulation MRS. MacBETH: Thanks, Mr. Speaker. Utilicorp Networks Canada has just applied to the Energy and Utilities Board for a 31.6 percent increase in the delivery charge for its residential customers in southern Alberta for 2001, this on top of an earlier increase that was pulled back. Enmax and EPCOR have already increased their electricity rates for residential customers this year. It’s now clear to everyone except this government that the Klein energy policy, or the KEP, the made-in-Klein Alberta price for electricity, is hitting consumers and businesses hard in the pocketbook.

My questions are to the Premier. Why does the Premier continue to misinform Albertans when he says that electricity rates will be going down in 2001 under the Klein electricity policy when clearly prices are going up for consumers, whether they be residential, industrial, or commercial? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, as I explained yesterday, this is a situation that is not peculiar to Alberta. Electricity prices are increasing, indeed, worldwide.

The good thing is that because of our prudent fiscal management and because of the electricity pool, we are able to reduce every household electricity bill by $20 starting January 1. So this increase to which the leader of the Liberal opposition alludes would result in about a $10 a month increase. That is a cash increase on the average household bill. With the $20 rebate the consumer is still about $10 ahead. If the hon. leader of the Liberal opposition requires further clarification relative to this very generous rebate, I will have him expand. MRS. MacBETH: Mr.

Speaker, will the Premier confirm that the increase in electricity rates for southern Alberta residential consum- ers in 2001 will in fact eat up and consume more than his paltry onetime credit on their utility bills? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know what the hon. leader of the Liberal opposition construes to be paltry, but $840 on average to the average householder in Alberta is not paltry. It’s not paltry to me: $840.

Maybe she’s in a different income bracket than many of us, and maybe it’s paltry to her, but to most Albertans $840 on average is not a paltry sum and will go a long way – a long way – to alleviating the rising costs of electricity. MRS. MacBETH: Mr. Speaker, will the Premier then stand up in this Legislature and guarantee residential customers served by Utilicorp that electricity prices will not go up by 15 percent in 2001 because of the Klein electricity policy? MR. KLEIN: Mr.

Speaker, nothing in life is guaranteed, and what I would like to point out is that these electricity rate increases have occurred under a totally regulated environment, a totally regulated environment. We are not yet in deregulation. Quite simply, when that power comes onstream – we know that there are two cogen plants about to come on stream, one at Joffre and the other at Suncor. There are proposals now to bring more coal generation power onstream, about 1,400 megawatts of new power plus addi- tional transmission capacity. Mr.

Speaker, first of all, as I pointed out, it’s a situation that is not peculiar to Alberta, and secondly, this is a manifestation of the

November 15, 2000 Alberta Hansard 1879 tremendous economic growth that we are experiencing in this province. It’s estimated that there are something like $50 billion – $50 billion – worth of new projects onstream. There are people moving to this province in droves, as the hon. Provincial Treasurer pointed out. They don’t bring their roads and their hospitals and other facilities with them. We have to accommodate this growth, and rising electricity costs are one of the consequences of meeting the demands of growth. It’s that simple. THE SPEAKER: Second main question. The Leader of the Official Opposition. MRS.

MacBETH: Mr. Speaker, about two hours ago the state of California declared a crisis in their state. This state also had done deregulation, and they’re now paying as much as $200 per megawatt hour off the grid to supply the residents and businesses of the state of California. Yesterday the Premier claimed and has repeated here today that deregulation of electricity had not occurred and that Albertans are apparently still living in some regulated environment under the Klein energy policy.

This Premier and his government are so desperate to avoid taking responsibility for skyrocketing electric- ity bills that they are now trying to deny the impact of their own legislation. My question, Mr. Speaker, is to the Premier. THE SPEAKER: There’s a bit of

preamble in there. We’re coming to the question? Please, finish the question. 2:00 MRS. MacBETH: Thanks, Mr. Speaker. Is the Premier telling Albertans that his government has deliberately allowed the price of electricity to increase by 700 percent at the wholesale level in four years under his government-regulated environment? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, this is a function of the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board relative to the regulation and approval of rate increases. The leader of the Liberal opposition knows that as well as anyone else.

This government, the Executive Council, or the caucus of this government, does not set power rates, and she knows that. To stand up there and try to imply that this government sets power rates is false. It is absolutely false. It is untrue, and the leader of the Liberal opposition should stand up and apologize for making a false statement. Relative to the situation in California as it compares to Alberta, I’ll have the hon. Minister of Resource Development respond. But I would like to point out before I ask him to respond, Mr. Speaker – and I’ll use the case of my own condominium here in Edmonton.

My last power bill, I think, with the rate increase was a bout $26. Now, as of January 1, with a $20 rebate, I’ll be paying $6 a month. That is not a lot to pay for power. Because of prudent fiscal management we were able to do that. Now, if she thinks there’s something wrong with that, stand up and say so. I’ll have the hon. minister supplement. THE SPEAKER: Actually, hon. Minister of Resource Development, events in California are not within the administrative competence of the Minister of Resource Development. Supplementary. MRS. MacBETH: Well, Mr. Speaker, the Premier is apparently contradicting himself.

Can he tell this Assembly what are we in right now, a regulated or deregulated or re-regulated market? MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely astounded by the lack of knowledge displayed by the leader of the Liberal opposition. You know, the whole program of deregulation has been ongoing now – for what? – three, four, five years, and it’s been stated time and time and time again that a deregulated environment for those who want to be deregulated takes place January 1, the year 2001. For those who want to remain in a regulated environment, they have the option of doing so, I believe, for five years.

I’ll have the hon. minister supplement. MR. CARDINAL: Thank you very much. I think that what we need to clarify, Mr. Speaker, is that over a million residential homes and residential farms have the option to stay under the regulated system for five years. In addition to that, over 124,000 customers who are commercial, industrial, and municipal and who use less than 250,000 kilowatt hours of electricity also have an option to stay up to three years. So the system is working well. MRS. MacBETH: Mr.

Speaker, given that electricity rates have gone up under regulation and are going up under deregulation, will the Premier admit that the Klein energy policy means higher electricity rates for consumers? MR. KLEIN: Well, Mr.

Speaker, I’m so very flattered that she would allude to this policy as the Klein energy policy, because when people get their electricity bills, when the households throughout this province get their electricity bills as of January 1 and they see a $20 reduction – as I said, in my own case relative to my condominium here, when my bill goes from $26 down to $6, I would be very, very happy to say: this is all the result of the Klein energy policy. THE SPEAKER: Third Official Opposition main question. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. Seniors’ Benefits MS BLAKEMAN: Thank you. Mr.

Speaker, many condominium owners are senior citizens, and under the r ecently proclaimed condominium act thousands of owners are making extra payments on top of their condominium fees to meet the condo reserve requirements. On top of that, they’re being hit with huge increases in their electricity and natural gas bills. My first questions are to the Minister of Resource Development. Given that unlike the govern- ment seniors like to plan ahead, exactly how are they to pay their bills when the electricity rebate program ends 13 months from now? MR. CARDINAL: Mr.

Speaker, what I’ve indicated is that we will continue monitoring the situation and make adjustments accordingly. I don’t want to predict today what will happen a year from now. I don’t think that is a wise move. Electricity rates could come down, or they may go up some. In order to make a wise decision when we’re spending taxpayers’ dollars, it has to be done properly. You can be guaranteed that this ministry will continue monitoring the situation and making adjustments accordingly. In relation to seniors, Mr. Speaker, there are programs right now under Community Development that can address these issues.

They’re under the special-needs assistance program. The appropri- ate minister may want to make additional comments. THE SPEAKER: Well, actually we’re going to recognize the hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre, but, you know, it’s almost impossi- ble for anybody to look down 13 months. Beauchesne 428 covers these things and a whole series of exemptions. Please proceed with your supplemental.

1880 Alberta Hansard November 15, 2000 MS BLAKEMAN: Thank you. To this same Minister of Resource Development: will a high-rise condominium that is not individually metered be treated as a high-rise apartment and receive the commer- cial rebate? MR. CARDINAL: Mr. Speaker, the rebate will be received. In addition to that, the department staff are also working with a group to ensure that individuals who need the rebate will get it, so we’ll continue working on that. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. MS BLAKEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My final question was to be to the Minister of Community Development. Perhaps I could address it instead to the Premier. Could the Premier answer this? In helping seniors cope with these rising utility rates, will this govern- ment now eliminate health care insurance premiums for seniors and index the Alberta seniors’ cash benefit to the inflation rate to help them pay these utility bills, as suggested by the minister? MR. KLEIN: Mr.

Speaker, relative to health care premiums as those premiums relate to seniors, I would point out that the threshold at which seniors are required to pay health care premiums is fairly high indeed. In other words, this government’s policy was to assess health care premiums on those seniors who could afford to pay. I would remind the hon. member that most seniors in this province are below that threshold, pay very little in health care premiums, and many, I would venture to say most, pay no premiums whatsoever.

THE SPEAKER: The hon. deputy leader of the third party. [ap- plause] Electric Utilities Deregulation (continued) MR. MASON: Thank you very much, but I hope you’re not going to thump on that side when I’m done. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Premier claimed that the recent dramatic increases in power rates were taking place due to a regulated system. Until April of this year I was a shareholder representative in one of the three largest power companies in Alberta, and I saw firsthand how the uncertainty created over the last five years by this government interfered with decisions to invest in new power generation.

My question is to the Premier. Has the government done any research at all into the effects of their misguided deregulation scheme on electricity rates, supply, or reliability? 2:10 MR. KLEIN: Well, Mr. Speaker, I must say that I’m disappointed. I’m disappointed that the hon. member doesn’t know the amount of time and effort that has gone into this.

As confirmed by the Liberal opposition, indeed this has been going on now for five years, tremendous consultation with the energy industry, including the corporation to which the hon. member belonged – and I believe that was EPCOR – tremendous consultation with EPCOR, with Trans- Alta, with ATCO, with numerous companies that were interested in cogeneration, with wind power generators, with cities like Medicine Hat that also use gas to generate electricity, with the stakeholder groups, a tremendous amount of research.

Five years’ worth of research has gone into the program to deregulate the energy industry in this province. MR. MASON: Mr. Speaker, the Premier did not answer the question, which was: has the government done any research at all into their plan? He simply said that they’ve taken five years. Well, if they’d taken 10 years, the lights would be out all over the province. MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, the lights are on. Again, I have to repeat that, yes, there are rising electricity costs. Those costs would have risen in a deregulated or a regulated environment.

As I pointed out earlier, this is a manifestation of tremendous economic growth unparalleled in this country. I would remind the hon. member that the corporation to which he belonged, EPCOR, was one of the strongest proponents of deregula- tion. MR. MASON: Mr. Speaker, the Premier has also claimed that electricity prices are rising all over the world, but in our two neighbouring provinces, British Columbia and Saskatchewan, prices are frozen and will remain frozen next year, as well. So why did the Premier then claim . . . [interjections] I’m sort of accustomed to being allowed to ask questions with some silence.

Am I not entitled to that here, Mr. Speaker? Speaker’s Ruling Oral Question Period Rules THE SPEAKER: Hon. member, not only have you been recognized; you are most certainly entitled to raise a question. But I would like to remind the hon. member that he cannot initiate debate without proper notice of motion. This is called the question period. Please proceed. Electric Utilities Deregulation (continued) MR. MASON: Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. Why, then, doesn’t the Premier admit that in adjacent provinces, who are making a killing selling power to us now, there are stable and low electricity prices?

It’s called the NDP advantage. MR. KLEIN: Mr. Speaker, there is no NDP advantage; I’ll tell you that. Here’s the CIBC report which says that they lay much of the blame for B.C.’s economic performance on the feet of the province’s New Democratic government, which instituted economic policies that often stand in contrast to those of Alberta. This report by the CIBC says that it’s unlikely now that B.C., with a population of 1 million people more than Alberta, w ill ever, ever surpass Alberta again as long as an NDP government is in power. Mr.

Speaker, power in British Columbia I understand – I stand to be corrected – was doubled, then frozen. The B.C. government has nothing to do with power in B.C. The simple fact is that they have water, tonnes and tonnes of water that flows and flushes down the west slope and is able to generate cheap power, unlike a landlocked Alberta, which is dependent upon primarily coal and to some degree natural gas and to some degree wind. Very little power in this province is generated by water. The same is true for Manitoba.

I’m going to talk about one other ND province that is facing the same situation as Alberta, and indeed the rates are going higher and higher and higher and higher in NDP Saskatchewan. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Red Deer-North. [applause] Postsecondary Tuition Fees MRS. JABLONSKI: Mr. Speaker, many of Alberta’s postsecondary

November 15, 2000 Alberta Hansard 1881 students are facing rising tuition costs. My questions are for the Minister of Learning. Given the ongoing concerns raised by students, will the Minister of Learning consider a freeze on tuition? THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Learning. DR. OBERG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That is an excellent question.

Over the past two to three months I’ve been talking with ACTISEC, I’ve been talking with CAUS, I’ve been talking with the Graduate Students’ Association as well as the chairmen of the boards of governors of the universities and colleges to come up with a consensus on the tuition fee issue. Tuition fees have been projected to increase. That is directly related to the amount of dollars that we give to the univers ities.

I feel that the best way to approach this issue is to work with the universities, with the colleges and allow them, by giving them more money for their budgets, to decrease the amount of tuition fees. Mr. Speaker, in some universitie s and some colleges in this province the tuition increase has been zero percent. I don’t want to change that. The other point that I will make, Mr. Speaker, is that in a newspaper

article last week there was announced a potential 5.7 percent increase at the University of Alberta. That is unacceptable. I have talked to the University of Alberta officials at this time, and we will come up with an agreement on this. MRS. JABLONSKI: Mr. Speaker, what is the minister’s response to students who say that Alberta students now pay more than the national average? DR. OBERG: Another excellent question. If I may, I’ll refer to a document called the Scholarship Consultants of North America, which is a nonprofit organization. On the 25th of July it put out the Guide to University Costs in Canada. Mr.

Speaker, if you’ll give me a little bit of time I’ll talk about the three things that it says. First of all, they’re absolutely right on the tuition and fees. What it states is that in Alberta we are third highest in the country when it comes to tuition and fees. Mr. Speaker, to say tuition alone is not indicative of what is actually paid. The other interesting point is that when you add in tuition and fees, room and board, and books and supplies, or the total cost of a student going to university, all of a sudden we’re down to fifth in provincial average. The University of Alberta is 21st out of 42 universities.

The University of Calgary is 22nd. The University of Lethbridge is 23rd out of 42 universities in Canada. Mr. Speaker, as you can see, we do have the third highest provincial average, but again I say that tuition is but one aspect, one element of student debt, and we are working very actively to decrease student debt. MRS. JABLONSKI: Mr. Speaker, what is the minister doing to ensure that all students have access to postsecondary education? 2:20 DR. OBERG: Well, Mr. Speaker, you know, I could go on on this topic for the next half an hour, but I know you wouldn’t want to do that. First of all, Mr.

Speaker, when it comes to infrastructure, the hon. Minister of Infrastructure just put in $210 m illion to expand the physical access for students in Alberta. The access fund provides for an extra 1,200 students per year each year on the student loan side in this budget. In this budget this year we increased the student loans by 22 percent. We will increase them by 50 percent over the next three years. Those are huge increases. Access is the thing that is most important when it comes to university, because we want our students going to university, and as a government we follow through on that promise.

Child Welfare MRS. SLOAN: Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the Minister of Children’s Services. Does the mini ster believe that the principles enunciated in the Victims of Crime Act,

section 2, that “victims should be treated with courtesy and compassion and with respect for their dignity and privacy,” applies to proceedings involving child welfare? MS EVANS: Mr. Speaker, that is not a piece of legislation that I’m familiar with, but I can say that we believe that in every case dealing with children and child welfare, we treat them with dignity and respect, and we similarly treat their families with dignity and respect. MRS. SLOAN: Mr.

Speaker, can the minister defend the departmen- tal stance that forces victims of abuse to testify in public proceedings even when such testimony is harmful to the victim’s well-being? MS EVANS: Mr. Speaker, it is our obligation to protect victims. We do that through the Child Welfare Act. We do our utmost to protect victims of any type of abuse.

In terms of presenting their case in court, there are times when the child will have an opportunity to challenge the fact that the child welfare director may not have illustrated cause – I give you the example of the illustration with PCHIP – should they choose to represent themselves. MRS. SLOAN: Can the minister confirm how many statements of claim have been filed citing that the department of child welfare and the government of Alberta have failed to act on allegations of child abuse? MS EVANS: Mr.

Speaker, if such record exists – and I am very confident that we can determine what information is available – I will table that in the House forthwith. I do not have that information with me today. Persons with Developmental Disabilities MRS. GORDON: Mr. Speaker, last year the Associate Minister of Health and Wellness undertook a comprehensive review of the programs and services available in Alberta for persons with developmental disabilities.

This review was prompted by parents and family members, by PDD recipients, and by community agencies who are very concerned about issues related to funding, mandate, eligibility criteria, wage compensation, and numerous other issues. Recently I had the privilege of attending a well-run meeting of the Eagles council, a self-advo cacy group made up of PDD recipients. My questions are to the Associate Minister of Health and Wellness. Mr. Minister, what specifications have been taken in response to the many concerns that were expressed regarding the provision of services for PDD recipients?

THE SPEAKER: The Associate Minister of Health and Wellness. MR. ZWOZDESKY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, there are a number of initiatives that have occurred as a result of the extensive and very comprehensive provincewide review that I was pleased to undertake last year. For example, with respect to stabilizing the funding base, I’m very pleased to tell everyone that we have

1882 Alberta Hansard November 15, 2000 increased funding to this area of PDD from $283 million a year ago to over $321 million this year. Secondly, in September of this year I was very pleased to announce the Alberta brain injury initiative, which includes a provincewide consultation and a forum. That, by the way, is guided by a group of community-based coalition action members who will develop a policy framework for us very shortly. They’ll bring that forward in the form of a concrete action plan very early in the new year, and we will enact what we can to assist adults with an acquired brain injury from there.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would add that perhaps the most signifi- cant thing in relation to one specific recommendation on workforce retention and wages is that on October 30 of this year I was very pleased to announce an increase of $24 million, which will go to the frontline workers that are employed by community agencies in this province. That is going to tremendously help.

That will help to stabilize the workforce that is en gaged in providing services and programs for persons with developmental disabilities, and I sincerely hope it will also attract new people into that profession, because it’s very important. The end recipients of PDD programs will be the primary beneficiaries along with their families. MRS. GORDON: How will you ensure that the recently announced wage increases for community agencies will indeed r each the frontline caregivers as you intended? MR. ZWOZDESKY: Mr. Speaker, that’s a very, very good question.

Let me just explain that each jurisdiction has a legal contract or some type of grant with conditions or some form of other legal agreement which allows funding to flow from our PDD boards to the community agencies who are the actual employers of the PDD workers. In order to ensure that those PDD funds flow to the intended frontline workers, we do have a monitoring process that is in accordance with those legal agreements through which we track those particular types of expenditures.

For example, the PDD program requires and then it also reviews audited financial statements from each of these community con- tracted agencies. We also have under the individual funding arrangements the ability for PDD boards to perform audits on salary records with respect to local service providers. So we feel confident that by following these procedures, these mechanisms, those particular increases will reach the frontline workers as intended. I just want to stress that thos e frontline workers are not govern- ment employees. They are employees of the contracted agencies.

We have a good spirit of co-operation in working with them in that regard. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Lacombe-Stettler. MRS. GORDON: Thank you. When I attended the Eagles meeting, the general membership indicated that transportation is an issue. Thus, Mr. Minister, will your department and our government consider undertaking a comprehensive review of all transportation requirements needed by PDD recipients? THE SPEAKER: Hon. minister. MR. ZWOZDESKY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As we all know, accessing adequate and appropriate transportation is obviously a very important issue to our PDD recipients and to all members of the disability community, particularly so for those who live in areas where public transportation may not be as readily accessible and available as elsewhere. However, when someone specifically needs transportation to access a PDD-f unded service or to access some form of employment support or whatever it is they wish to access, transportation costs can be covered through our PDD funding support program.

Our PDD community boards at the very moment, in fact, are working with local authorities on transportation issues such as have been identified. I would just quickly add, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier’s Council on the Status of Persons with Di sabilities is also reviewing this matter. In fact, they’re reviewing it as we speak.

The results of that review, which is being carried out on a very comprehensive study basis, of personal supports will be available as an interim report within a few weeks, and I’ll be very happy to bring it back and share it with the member and with her guests who are here from the Lacombe-Stettler area. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary-Egmont. Postsecondary Tuition Fees (continued) DR. MASSEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Nine thousand dollars in private debt, $3,000 in government student loans, two jobs in the summer, two years in university: this is a quote from one of the postcards that was delivered to the Minister of Learning earlier today, and my questions are to that minister. Why in an era of billion dollar surpluses does the government continue to pursue a tuition cap policy that leaves students debt ridden? THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Learning. DR. OBERG: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I believe that in my reply to the previous question I was asked, I outlined the issue as to where we stand in Canada. Mr.

Speaker, quite frankly this government believes that we in Alberta have a responsib ility to ourselves for our postsecondary education as well. Presently the taxpayer foots the bill for roughly 75 percent of the actual costs of going to university. Seventy-five percent is a lot of dollars. As I stated earlier, we are ranked third in the country when it comes to tuition fees, but our universities are ranked 21, 22, and 23 out of 42 universities in the country when it comes to actual costs. 2:30 Mr. Speaker, we’ve increased the student loan programs by 22 percent this year.

We’ve increased it by 50 percent over the last three years. That is a tremendous amount of dollars that are going to those kids that really need the help. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. DR. MASSEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the same minister. Why does the government continue to offload debt onto Alberta students? That’s what this is. DR. OBERG: Mr. Speaker, we do not offload debt. As a matter of fact, the amount of debt has gone down significantly within the last year. The average debt for any student last year was $12,500. It has decreased to $11,500.

When there are people out there who cannot afford to go to university, we help them significantly. Under our student loan program, Mr. Speaker, a person can benefit from over $40,000 in student loans and only pay back $20,000 for a four-year program. That $20,000 is the Canadian government’s student loan, which has

November 15, 2000 Alberta Hansard 1883 no remission program. That’s their Liberal cousins that do not give any remission. We’re the ones who give remission to students. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Mill Woods. DR. MASSEY: Thank you Mr. Speaker. Given that the student loan program accounts for only a portion – only a portion – of many students’ indebtedness, when will the government and this minister stop promoting the myth that the remission program adequately caps student debt? It’s a myth. DR. OBERG: Mr.

Speaker, again, I will quote from the study by the nonprofit organization that looks at actual costs. In Alberta at the University of Alberta it’s $10,196 per year. That includes tuition and fees, room and board, and books and supplies. Our student loan program provides more than $10,000 per year for these students. Again, I say the obvious. We give remission in Alberta. The Canadian federal government gives no remission on their student loans. When someone takes out $40,000 in student loans, $20,000 of it is remitted from the province of Alberta, not the federal Liberal government. THE SPEAKER: The hon.

Member for Calgary-Egmont, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. Workers’ Compensation Review MR. HERARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions are to the hon. Minister of Human Resources and Employment. Now, I understand that the minister has received the final reports from two separate WCB review committees. Would the minister share when he plans on releasing these reports to the participants and to the general public? THE SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Human Resources and Employment. MR. DUNFORD: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, in fact, in the interest of trying to ensure that injured workers were dealt with in a fair and expeditious manner, I did set up two committees to report on WCB claims. The first one, chaired by the Member for Red Deer-South, was what we called the MLA/WCB service review committee. What we wanted there was to have a look at the actual service that was being provided by the workers’ compensation organization. The second one, of course, was to look at the Appeals Commis- sion as it related to the Workers’ Compensation Board. You might remember that this was chaired by a retired judge, Samuel Friedman.

I have received both of those reports. We’re currently reviewing the recommendations, and on Monday next, November 20, we’ll be releasing both reports in their entirety. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Egmont. MR. HERARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My first supplemental to the same minister: would the mini ster outline the process that he plans to use for approval and implementation of the significant policy and legislative changes that are being recommended in those reports? MR. DUNFORD: What we’ll do, Mr.

Speaker, upon the release of the reports, first of all, is to ensure that as many people in Alberta that want to avail themselves of the report will have an opportunity to do that. While I’m not going to go into a full consultation process, because I think that has been done with the two committees, certainly as the minister responsible for the legislation, I’ll then accept feedback on those reports. I’d anticipate providing until the end of this year or early into next year to hear that type of feedback. MR.

HERARD: My last question to the same minister: since all hon. members on both sides of the House continue to hear from injured workers with serious problems with respect to their dealings with the WCB, when can these workers expect to hear something encourag- ing, something positive, some good news with respect to these reports? MR. DUNFORD: Well, I think that’ll happen in a couple of ways, Mr. Speaker. First of all, with the public release of the reports there’ll be some encouragement on the part of all Albertans but particularly injured workers in terms of the recommendations that have been forthcoming.

Of course, certainly I’m available, then, to hear their particular comments on that. Then as we move forward, while I don’t have any direct res ponsibility in terms of the day-to- day operation as the act currently stands, if there are recommenda- tions that are to be accepted that lead to legislative or regulatory change, of course we will use the processes of this government and this House to deal with that. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary-Fort. Labour Market Development Program MR. MacDONALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Auditor General in his 1999-2000 report on the Alberta Department of Human Resources and Employment revealed that a pilot audit of 10 percent of educational institutions that provide basic education, upgrading, postsecondary, and apprenticeship instruction under the skills development program showed significant overpayments by the department. I received, through freedom of information a list of these contracts. My questions this afternoon are for the Minister of Human Resources and Employment. Can the minister tell this House how much of that money went to the Red Deer Chamber of Commerce? MR.

DUNFORD: Well, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member, indeed, is correct in the sense that the Auditor General did make comments on the labour market development program, especially as it led to skills development programs. We have undertaken an audit internally based on that particular advice we received from the Auditor General.

Then there was a request from the hon. member under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and when we calculated what it would take to comply with that particular request, then I think in a spir it of willingness to examine the situation, we offered an opportunity for the member to receive the list of contracts that we had had and to make a choice of those that he wanted to look into. This is the first notice I’ve had since that agreement was made with the hon. member that there are any particular cases that he wishes to examine further.

He’s now put the Red Deer Chamber of Commerce on the map, so we’ll have to look at that. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. MR. MacDONALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Also to the Minister

1884 Alberta Hansard November 15, 2000 of Human Resources and Employment: can the minister tell this House exactly how much money was given to the Red Deer Chamber of Commerce and what programs it was spent on? This is money from your department. Are you telling the House you have no control over your department? MR. DUNFORD: So here we have the hon. member playing the political game. He asks us for some information, and we supply that information to him.

It was my understanding under the agreement that he would provide us with a list of contracts that he wanted to see, and we would in fact supply those contracts, and I stand here today still committed to that particular agreement. What we find now is that the hon. member has decided that – there is a list of I think over a thousand contracts that were provided to him, and now there is one which he wishes to have further examined. I want to make the commitment to the hon. member.

We, of course, will in fact examine that contract, but we also provided him the opportunity to name 225 contracts, so I would expect to hear of the other 224 whenever you find it convenient. If you wish to use question period to do it, that’ll be just fine with me. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. 2:40 MR. MacDONALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Also to the hon. Minister of Human Resources and Employment: considering that this list was compiled on August 10 of this year, why won’t you release this information this afternoon for everyone in the Assem- bly? MR.

DUNFORD: That was not part of the request, Mr. Speaker. I find it very interesting that the hon. member would be taking this tack. We, of course, believe that the . . . Hon. member, I’m talking to you. I’m trying to answer your question. MR. MacDONALD: And I’m listening. MR. DUNFORD: That’s good. THE SPEAKER: Actually, we all talk through the Speaker. MR. DUNFORD: Sorry. The information that we have provided to the hon. member is considered by me to be public information. We believed that the hon. member was acting either on his own behalf or perhaps even on behalf of the Liberal caucus.

It doesn’t make any difference to us. We believed that he was serious and was concerned about what he was doing. We find out today that maybe there were other motives afoot, and that’s fine. We understand him to be a politician, and we are starting to understand just what kind of politician he really is. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Fort, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Manning. Irrigation Canal Drowning in Calgary MR. CAO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Recently there was a tragic accident when two very young Albertans drowned in the irrigation canal in Calgary.

On behalf of the Legislature I visited the family and expressed our condolences. My question today is to the hon. Minister of Environment. Can the minister provide insight into this tragic situation? MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, there are no easy answers when a tragic event such as this occurs. However, staff of Alberta Environ- ment have done a thorough review of the situation and the circum- stances as near as can be determined up to this incident occurring.

As the people in Calgary of course are aware and others might be apprised, the western irrigation canal runs through several kilo- metres of eastern and southern Calgary. It is a canal which is there to facilitate drainage and water supply in Calgary. It’s paralleled by a riding path for bicycles or for walking, and also on one side is one of the mainline railways. There is a fence, but the fence has many openings in it for intersections and so forth, so there was the opportunity for access by two young people.

Unfortunately, they may have entered through one of those natural openings or through a hole that seemed to have been cut in the fence on one side. Overall, Mr. Speaker, the department is investigating this thoroughly. We do take it seriously and are doing everything we can to make recommendations to prevent such an event occurring in the future. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-Fort. MR. CAO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My first supplementary question is also to the same mi nister. What action is Alberta Environment taking to avoid such tragedies occurring in the future? MR. JONSON: Mr.

Speaker, as I indicated, there has been an overall investigation of the situation, which involved looking at the physical characteristics of the area including the canal, the fence, the access to the canal that is available there. Alberta Environment will, after completing its consultation and contacts with the city of Calgary and with others directly affected, be coming forward with a report and recommendations. It’s my understanding that that report is now in draft form and will be double-checked with the people who have provided information and so forth and will be considered for release in the near future.

MR. CAO: My second supplementary is also to the minister. The minister said that there’s an audit report in the near future. When would we expect that then? MR. JONSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, it’s my informa- tion that a draft report will be available shortly. I expect that it will be available next week, and we will review that particular report. I with my officials will look at it and examine it as to whether we feel that there should be further follow-up, whether there are questions that possibly could be answered that haven’t been answered.

Once that review has taken place, following that, there will certainly be an announcement of the results of the report. head: Reading and Receiving Petitions THE SPEAKER: Hon. members, I’ve noticed that today there’ll be four hon. members participating in Recognitions, and we will proceed to this particular part of the Routine 30 seconds from now. Hon. members, before calling on the hon. Member for Edmonton- Centre to participate in Recogn itions, let me just provide some recognitions as well in terms of kudos to a number of members here today who participated in Oral Question Period.

The documents and the books we have of course are filled with all the rules that we have and the guides that we have, but I would like to point out by way of kudo today the exchange between the hon. Member for Edmonton- Riverview and the hon. Minister of Children’s Services. All the rules were followed. Three questions and three responses were given in two minutes. To the hon. Member for Calgary-Egmont and the hon. Minister of

November 15, 2000 Alberta Hansard 1885 Human Resources and Employment, all the rules were followed. Three questions and three responses were provided in four minutes. At that particular pace we would have almost a doubling of the number of questions and answers that we have in the Assembly. So there is some good reading that people might want to look at tonight and tomorrow. The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. Osteoporosis MS BLAKEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to take this opportunity to recognize November as Osteoporosis Month.

Osteoporosis is a degenerative disease that affects more than 200,000 Alberta taxpayers, 150,000 of which are women. In fact, few people are aware that more women die from osteoporotic fractures than from breast and all other gynecological cancers combined. As the percentage of our population which are seniors increases in this province, osteoporosis is going to become more and more relevant as a public health concern. Osteoporosis is not a normal part of aging. It is a preventable disease. Identifying those people most at risk is actually relatively simple if the proper measures are in place.

While the majority of money spent on osteoporosis is dedicated to short- and long-term treatment, prevention is really th e cornerstone to managing this disease. 2:50 As Osteoporosis Month proceeds, this is an opportunity for us to educate ourselves and others about this serious disease and to reassess how we address its prevention and treatment. I’d also like to take this opportunity to recognize the mature women’s health network at the Grey Nuns hospital and in particular Dr. Patricia Bayne and Shelly Haugen for continuing to raise awareness and for helping to keep me on top of this issue. Thank you.

THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-West. Vanderwell Heritage Place MS KRYCZKA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Seniors Advisory Council for Alberta held their most creative Senior Citizens’ Week event contest for 2000, and as chair of the council I’m very pleased to announce to this House today that the winner is the Vanderwell Heritage Place lodge in Slave Lake. Slave Lake held not just one creative event but a whole week’s worth.

The event was nonstop: a stew and bannock supper cooked by the Native Counseling Services of Alberta; a hotdog and ice cream lunch with a local grade 4 class; local celebrities coming daily to serve lunch at the lodge, including the Slave Lake mayor, staff sergeant, and local officials; students competing for lunch with the seniors by drawing pictures, writing letters, or making handicrafts; and the kids’ dance studio transporting seniors by van to a studio recital and home again. Since then celebrities have joined the seniors in a rockathon to raise funds for a handicraft supplies cabinet at the lodge.

Slave Lake, you are truly a winning community through apprecia- tion of your seniors. Congratulations. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar. Capilano Elementary School MR. MacDONALD: Thank you, Mr . Speaker. This afternoon I would like to recognize Capilano elementary school, Earth school 2000. Capilano achieved Earth school status in 1996, the first Edmonton public school to do so. It meant that the school, staff, parents, and community completed 1,000 environmental projects. This was a remarkable accomplishment for a very small school, less than 150 students.

Capilano school has now su ccessfully become an Earth 2000 school. Everyone undertook projects: individual students, small groups, classrooms, and staff members. The alpha students, as part of their life skills program, gathered recycling boxes around the school and sorted materials. Within the community families challenged other families to meet or beat their total number of recycling activities. One family even had a birthday party at which children created space costumes from recycled materials. By October 13 the school had more than met its goal.

Capilano is only the third school in Canada to have accomplished this double Earth feat. A globe is symbolic, Mr. Speaker, of double Earth school status. The students of Capilano school challenge all Alberta students to join them in their concern and care for the environment. Thank you. THE SPEAKER: The hon. leader of the third party. Health Care Privatization DR. PANNU: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to recognize November 15, 2000, as the day of action initiated by the Council of Canadians over the threat of privatization and commercialization of our health care system in Canada.

Their aim is to focus on the gradual privatization of our Canadian health care system, which is happening across the country. Large numbers of Canadians will kick off this day of action with rallies in Victoria, Calgary, Toronto, Montreal, and four other cities across the country. Last night the Edmonton

chapter of the Council of Canadians held a public forum on Canada’s health care system, which was attended by well over 250 concerned Albertans. I congratulate the council and its chapters for their dedicated work in keeping Albertans and Canadians involved in and informed about this most crucial issue. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. THE SPEAKER: Hon. members, we have provision on Wednesdays for up to seven recognitions. We’ve had four, and I’m now going to call on the hon. Member for Spruce Grove-Sturgeon-St. Albert. Spruce Grove Saints Soccer Team MRS. SOETAERT: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Little has been written about a so ccer team from Spruce Grove, the i ndoor soccer U-13 boys, the Saints, and they dominated last year’s indoor soccer season. They were coached by Rob Dean, Dave Howard, and managed by Boris Iwashkiw. This team remained undefeated with an outstanding record of 14 wins and one tie. They won the Edmonton Minor Soccer Association gold medal for the ’99-2000 indoor season, and at the end of the outdoor season in 1999 the same team won the gold medal in the top division of EMSA, and they won the gold at the Belvedere tournament and the gold at the Vermilion tournament.

On that team are Trevor Dean, Dave Fenske, Jeff Kaiser, Jeremy Iwashkiw, Kyle Pagnucco, Aaron Peddie, Steve Toporowsky, Craig Lerner, Tyler Van Brabant, Steven Nachtigal, Daniel Howard, Myles Van Kuelen, Jason Oulton, Alex Hawkins, Trevor Plumb, and Matthew Astle. They are a wonderful team that Spruce Grove is

1886 Alberta Hansard November 15, 2000 very, very proud of, and they won the gold, the provincial champi- onship, this past season. Thank you very much. head: Statement by the Speaker November Events THE SPEAKER: Hon. members, Recognitions is an important aspect of our Routine. Periodically, however, my office does receive contact from individual groups in the province who say: gee, a number of recognitions were given to a number of groups, but ours was unfortunately forgotten.

So I just want to advise all members that November is CPR Month, Crohn’s and Colitis Awareness Month, Diabetes Awareness Month, Family Violence Prevention Month, National Community Safety and Crime Prevention Month, Osteoporosis Month, Pancreatic Cancer Awareness Month, Christ- mas Chocolate Campaign Month, Bone China Tea month on behalf of the Osteoporosis Society of Canada, the Luge for Liver activity in Calgary, United Way Fund Raising Campaign, Christmas Seal Campaign, March of Dimes Campaign, Girl Guides Mint Cookie Weeks, Adoption Week from November 12 to 19, National Addic- tions Awareness Week from November 12 to 18, the National Marfan Awareness Week from November 12 to 18, the International Day for Tolerance on November 16, and the Christmas Kettles Appeal begins on November 17 and goes through to December 24. head: Orders of the Day head: Written Questions THE SPEAKER: The hon.

Deputy Government House Leader. MR. HAVELOCK: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Proper notice having been given yesterday, it is certainly my pleasure to move that written questions appearing on today’s Order Paper stand and retain their places with the exception of Written Question 22. [Motion carried] Community Mental Health Grants Q22. Ms Blakeman moved that the following question be ac- cepted. What were the application process and the criteria used for determining successful applicants for the community mental health grants for the 1997-1998 fiscal year? MR. MAR: Mr. Speaker, I accept Written Question 22.

THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre to close the debate. MS BLAKEMAN: Thank you very much. I’m very pleased to hear that from the Minister of Health and Wellness. This has been an issue of some concern to a constituent of mine, who even had the Member for Edmonton-Meadowlark write to the previous minister on his behalf looking for clarification and then came to me. He is looking for the community mental health grants that were distributed in the ’97-98 fiscal year over and above the usual operating grants given out to community and nonprofit groups.

I’m delighted to hear that in fact the minister will be providing me with that information. I will then be able to pass it on to my constituent. One more step in Alberta towards open and accountable government and sharing of information. [Written Question 22 carried] head: Motions for Returns THE SPEAKER: The hon. Deputy Government House Leader. MR. HAVELOCK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Proper notice having been given yesterday, it is my pleasure once again to move that motions for returns appearing on today’s Order Paper stand and retain their places. [Motion carried] head: Public Bills and Orders Other than Government Bills and Orders head: Second Reading Bill 209 Employment Standards (Parental Leave) Amendment Act, 2000 [Debate adjourned May 23: Ms Blakeman speaking] THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton-Centre. MS BLAKEMAN: Thanks very much. I’ve waited a long time to be able to debate this bill.

I think I was able to do my first two minutes about six months ago, so I’d like to complete the last 18 of them at this point. 3:00 Bill 209 is proposed by the Member for Calgary-Fort. On the face of it, I really like what’s being proposed here in that our current situation of leave is narrowly focused, restricted to maternal leave, and the longest possible leave, unpaid of course, that is sanctioned under the employment standards act here in Alberta is 18 weeks.

The member is proposing that any references to maternal leave be widened and the terminology changed to that of paternal leave and that a possible total of 27 weeks could be taken by either parent but not simultaneously, one parent at a time. I appreciate that this is a private member’s bill. It’s not a government bill, so perhaps this is an idea that’s being sort of tried out or run up the flag pole to see if anybody salutes. I hope that if that is the case, the government will follow through on that. If not, my compliments to the member for forging ahead with what he believes is a good idea.

Now, there are wider implications in this bill. Every action has a consequence to it, and I don’t think that we can look at this bill in isolation of all of the other programs, benefits, remedies, and in some cases drawbacks to what’s available to people. What struck me when I looked at this bill is that it’s a very middle-class b ill. I would venture to say that it will be mostly the middle class that could possibly take advantage of it.

I don’t know if that’s what the member intended, but I wish there were ways of having those that would benefit from this program captured in this net, that the net could be cast wider. Essentially what the bill is dealin g with is job security. The 18 weeks that’s current or the 27 weeks that’s being proposed under this bill is about whether your job will be held open for you, when you can return to your job. There’s no payment that’s coming along with this. I’ve already had some people contact me about this.

I’ve received some e-mails on it, and a lot of people don’t understand that that’s what is being proposed here. The only payment that is possible at this point with either maternal or paternal benefits comes through the EI program, so the 27 weeks that are being proposed here – some people have also talked about the federal government expanding their similar program to 52 weeks – that’s about job

November 15, 2000 Alberta Hansard 1887 security. That means you can take that time unpaid, and when you come back at the end of that period of time, the same job should be there or a job that’s very similar to it. Therefore, it’s mostly the middle class that would be able to benefit from this program because they’re the only ones that are going to be likely to have earned enough money to have enough savings in the bank to tide them over this period.

When you look at who is qualifying for EI benefits in this day and age, I’m afraid I’m not smiling happily at the current federal government, because the changes in the EI program . . . [interjection] Well, I’m so glad that the member agrees with me that we should have better parental leave programs, and I’m looking forward to his input on this debate. The point is that it is members of that middle class that would be most likely to be able to access the current EI program in that the program is now based on the number of hours that have been worked over a specific period of time.

What we have is an increasing participation in the workforce by women but also by men, which is part-time people working several part-time jobs. Well, their EI benefits and eligibility are much lower as a result of that and more and more people working on contract which has no EI benefits attached to it whatsoever. I mean, if you’re a real high flyer that’s able to command a very large contract fee, good on you.

But I hope the individual would have incorporated into that fee things like holiday pay and in this instance some money tucked away for parental leave, because they’re not going to be able to access any funding through the current EI program. This program as proposed by the Member for Calgary-Fort, while obviously intended to be open to everyone – I don’t know how many will actually be able to enjoy it, if the bill indeed passes, simply because they can’t afford to. I look at this again, and I say that you can’t look at this issue in isolation.

I know that the government has a tendency to sort of behave or develop policies as though children were somehow hatched, that they don’t come from families. Well, you have poor children, and they come from poor families. You have to look at these things in context.

If this government was really interested in supporting fam ilies with children, I have a couple of suggestions to make, and maybe there’s a way that the member can tie this into his bill or work along with it as ancillary programs, but I don’t know that the bill is going to be as useful as it could have been without the context that I’m about to describe. For example, there’s been a long period of lobbying for midwifery services. Women don’t really have any choice in how they have their baby in this day and age.

Parental leave aside, whether it’s paid or unpaid or how long it is, right now they don’t even have a choice about how they are going to birth their child. So there’s an issue that the government can be working on. I’ve been lobbying the government for over 10 years now. This is not a difficult thing to do, and it certainly does give families more choice and makes a number of people much, much more secure in that choice. Child care. A number of years ago the government cut direct subsidies to the child care centres themselves.

The subsidies are only directly available to the parents, which, as we know – it’s been brought up in this Assembly before – has really reduced the flexibility of these child care centres. They’re supposed to be available to cater to 40 children in one day. Well, they’ve got to keep the staff on, and the staff have to be trained, et cetera, et cetera. But they might only get 10 kids showing up.

They don’t have any kind of subsidy that is covering all of those children that they are going to have to cater to in a whole year, so it’s on their dime, and frankly they’re nonprofit societies, most of them, and can’t afford that dime. We have a reduced number of spaces for child care that are available in Alberta because the nonprofit societies simply can’t afford to keep their doors open or keep them open at the level they were before.

Midwifery, child care: two issues that this government could work on if we’re really interested in the context of parents spending time with their children and making sure that their children have a quality experience. Let’s look at schools. When parents are deciding whether or not they’re going to have children, they’re going to take all of this into their decision-making, and they should. I’m sure that most parents are really conscientious about that. Are there going to be schools available for their children?

Will there be schools available in the vicinity, or are they going to be living in one of these areas where the ground is there, the empty space is there, but: no, gosh, sorry, you’re supposed to have a school; yeah, yeah, we thought it would be built 20 years ago, but it’s just not on the list. So your child will be in university by the time they actually build the school a block away from your house. I mean, that’s a consideration here if you are going to talk about children and families in Alberta. So is there even access to a school? Are you going to put the kids on a bus?

Maybe the parent has to consider taking the time to drive the child to school. That’s also a consideration as to whether they are going to have children. How many children are they going to have, and what quality of life are we talking about here? Is the school system going to be funded adequately, or is that child going to be sitting in a classroom with 35 other kids? It’s a consideration for a parent, and I’m sure that a conscientious parent is considering choices like that. Let’s assume that we got this child all the way through school in some kind of quality education. Now we’re looking at university tuition.

Already today we’ve had representatives from colleges and institutes of tec hnology and univers ities here. I mean, can these parents afford to support their child or to put money aside or to cosign the loans, frankly? So when we’re looking at a bill that starts out by talking about parental leave, all of this has to be in context. You can’t make these decisions and I don’t think parents do make these decisions in isolation. I don’t think somebody jumps up one morning and goes: “Hee-haw, the government of Alberta has extended the parental leave to 18 weeks. That’s it, boy; we’re going to fire up here.

Let’s have a kid because of that one.” 3:10 I think most people are going: “Hmm, is it the right time of my life? Am I in good health to do this? What sorts of resources are available to my family to carry this through? Can I afford the time off work? Is there a possibility of putting enough money aside in our working lives for this kind of education?” So all of these things have to be taken into context. A more difficult side to look at for this government when we’re looking at the issue of children in families is the 60 percent increase in children in custody.

That’s a really stunning, horrible figure for all of us legislators in this Asse mbly to be working with. I’m sure that those parents, when they had those kids, when they contem- plated whether that leave would be useful to them or not, didn’t contemplate being so poor that they’d have to put their children in care, in the care and custody of the government. I’m not saying that I don’t appreciate what the hon. Member for Calgary-Fort has brought here. I do. But I think you have to look at it along with a number of other issues. As I said, I think parents today, prospective parents, do have to look at it.

I mean, if we want to be economical about it, they essentially have to do a risk assess- ment. Can they afford this and all of the other things that are going to add up to that? I’ve talked about some of the bills that they know they’re going to have to face. I have to say that I am startled when I look around at people I

1888 Alberta Hansard November 15, 2000 know who don’t have children and who I thought would have had children, who I expected to become parents. You know, without prying, but you do, you say: so you decided never to have kids. One couple flat out said to me: “Well, Laurie, you know that we’re Alliance/Reform supporters and that we’re very comfortable with the current government. We believe there shouldn’t be any maternity benefits at all, that you should pay the whole shot yourself. That’s what we believe. We like you, Laurie. You’re still our friend, but we’re not going to vote for you.” Okay. Fine.

They’re still my friends. They looked at all of these costs, and they decided not to have children. I hope that’s isolated. I really hope that’s isolated, but I don’t think it is anymore. I think more and more people are doing that risk assessment and going: uh-uh, it’s not adding up here. It’s particularly not adding up in Alberta. I would like to support this bill. I do like the idea that parental leave is extending what’s available now, that it does allow fathers to be more involved in the early y ears of their children’s or their adoptive children’s lives. I think that’s really important.

You know, I’ve campaigned for women’s rights and equal rights for a long, long time, and part of that package is encouraging men to get more involved in their children’s lives. I think this is a really concrete way to do that, and it is showing leadership. There is an expectation or a hope that indeed fathers would be taking advantage of having a parental leave program, so I really like that. I think the additional time that’s being proposed is also helpful, but I would urge the member to work in conjunction with members of his own government and perhaps look at talking, as well, with the federal government.

In this day and age for a one-income family it’s very, very difficult to get along. I think you have to have a number of other things in place. It’s not e nough to just say: “Great. You know, you can take more time off, and your job will still be there.” I think there are lots of other things that are coming into play in this day and age. When I talk about the one-earner family, this is partly what’s got me a little confused about the mover of this motion.

When we were discussing Motion 506, which was put forward by my colleague the Member for Edmonton-Gold Bar, that was a motion that was to value in a very concrete way the value of a stay-at-home parent in a one-income earner household. I’ve looked at the Hansard, and in fact the hon. member that’s proposing this bill spoke against that motion. So I don’t quite understand what the deal here is. Yes, giving unpaid leave or extended unpaid leave to one group of people is good, but we don’t want to value the stay-at-home. I don’t understand what’s being said by that.

Do we want them to just stay home for 18 weeks, then get back into the workforce? In speaking against and, I’m assuming, voting against Edmonton-Gold Bar’s Motion 506, there was no support for those families that choose or are financially able to have one income earner and the other parent staying at home. To vote against what was being proposed in that motion and then to come forward with this bill is, I’ll admit, giving me two messages, so I’m not sure exactly what this all stands for and what the support of the government is for all of this. Those are the comments that I wanted to bring forward in this debate.

I just want to quickly reference some of the e-mails and mail that I’ve received on this issue, and in particular they’re pointing out the same inconsistency that I just pointed out. It doesn’t seem clear on what kind of parents they’re willing to support and for how long, again raising the concerns about the very low welfare rates causing parents to have to put their children into care with the government and what that really says about a commitment to children.

This one person in particular was most annoyed with having the 52 weeks of unpaid leave put forward by the federal government and was looking to see what the provincial government was proposing. I look forward to the continued debate and the responses to my questions from the mover of the bill, and I wish him all the best with this bill. I think it deserves some support, but it also deserves more action from the government. Thank you very much. THE SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary-West, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton-Rutherford. MS KRYCZKA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I’m very proud to rise today and to speak in favour of private member’s Bill 209. As a parent myself and now a grandparent many times over I believe it is critical that this government does everything in its power to help families and improve the well-being of children in this province. Bill 209, proposed by my colleague from Calgary-Fort, represents a small but important step toward improving the lives of many of Alberta’s children. Since we’ve all been away for a while, I’ll begin by refreshing the memories of my fellow members as to what Bill 209 would entail.

This legislation would amend the Employment Standards Code to allow for a maximum of 27 weeks of parental leave, which could be taken by one parent or divided between both parents as they see fit. The intent of the bill is to permit new parents to spend as much time as possible with their child in th e all-important first few months of the newborn’s life. The bill also amalgamates current provisions for maternity leave and adoption leave, giving adoptive parents the same opportunity to form a lasting bond with their new child. Mr.

Speaker, I support Bill 209 b ecause I firmly believe that allowing a parent or both parents to spend just a little more time with their new children can have a significant impact on the future of the child. In fact, it is one of the more important factors in ensuring that children grow up to be caring, responsible, and well-adjusted adults. 3:20 Longer periods of parental leave are in line with this government’s other intervention programs that encourage mothers to spend more time with their newborns.

Furthermore, there is currently an extensive volume of scientific evidence that suggests that children who have more direct contact with parents in their early months and years turn out to be better adjusted and healthier adults. As a result, Mr. Speaker, parental advocacy groups across North America have been very active in promoting early childhood involvement by both parents, particularly since dual-income households have become the norm in our society.

In other words, the commonly accepted belief that children whose parents take an active role in their early development are more socially adjusted is supported both by scientific evidence and by experts in the field of child development. Even further arguments have been made regarding the need for fathers to be as active in early parenting as mothers are. Some studies have demonstrated a direct relationship between children’s behaviour and the amount of time and support provided by not just mothers but fathers as well.

This bill would address that factor by allowing the parents themselves to determine which of them would take the leave and when, rather than restricting them to a few short weeks of maternity leave. In fact, Mr. Speaker, there are volumes of social science research that address the issue of early childhood development and the effect of a young child’s environment on how that child will function in society as he or she grows up. I won’t bore my colleagues by enumerating them all in detail, but I will point out that the findings of these studies are consistent and unequivocal.

They indicate that the quality of a child’s psychologi cal, emotional, and intellectual development is significantly better when care is received from a

November 15, 2000 Alberta Hansard 1889 parent as opposed to a paid caregiver or other relative. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the president of the Canadian Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, Dr. Elliott Barker, has argued very persuasively that nothing is more important in the world today than the nurturing that children receive in the first three years of life, for it is in these earliest years th at the capacity for trust, empathy, and affection originates. However, if the emotional needs of the child are not met during these years, permanent emotional damage can occur. Mr.

Speaker, it seems obvious from the evidence that extending parental leave is a desirable option for this province. The question then becomes: will the cost of this program be passed on to small employers? The answer is: of course not. This legislation will involve no added cost to employers in the province of Alberta. The only sacrifice employers will face is that they will be required to hold an employee’s position for an additional period of time.

In some cases this could be up to nine weeks more than the 18 weeks currently granted by the Alberta labour code, or it could be less if both parents choose to split the 27 weeks unpaid leave that would be allowed, assuming they have different employers. However, I must emphasize that this is not paid leave. The 27 weeks proposed in Bill 209 simply refer to the amount of time an employer must hold a position open for an employee on leave. Any payment an employee receives will be from the federal government employee insurance program, not the employer.

This is a program that Albertans already pay into, a program that every other jurisdic- tion in this country allows their parents to take advantage of for at least 25 weeks. In other words, Mr. Speaker, by making use of this federal program, Albertans will simply be reclaiming what is their own. I should also mention here that other jurisdictions in Canada permit much more generous leave time for parents. This legislation merely aims to bring Alberta in line with the national average.

New Brunswick, the Northwest Territo ries, and the Yukon all offer 17 weeks of maternity leave which must be scheduled prior to the expected date of delivery. These jurisdictions also provide a subsequent 12 weeks of parental or adoptive leave, a potential total of 29 weeks’ leave. This is leave which may be used by either parent as long as both parents ar e not away from work at the same time. The province of Ontario offers 17 weeks of maternity leave and 18 weeks of parental or adoptive leave, while Quebec has the most generous leave of all jurisdictions.

They offer 18 weeks of mater- nity leave and up to 52 weeks of parental leave. In fact, Quebec was the first province to introduce maternity and parental leave provi- sions into its employment standards act. Moreover, that province was instrumental in pressuring the federal government to extend EI coverage to parental leave beyond the current 27 weeks. As of January 1, 2001, Mr. Speaker, the federal government will provide EI coverage for maternity and parental leave for a period of 50 weeks.

British Columbia and Nova Scotia have already an- nounced that they will extend their leave provisions to one year as well. Mr. Speaker, it should by now be evident that the leave provisions offered elsewhere in Canada provide greater support for families than the provisions offered in this province. In Alberta employees who have been with the same employer for at least a period of one year receive only 18 weeks of maternity leave. Currently adoptive parents receive just eight weeks of leave. Clearly, Alberta is being left behind, and we must act soon to give our families the support they need and deserve.

I’m sorry to say, Mr. Speaker, that this support is perhaps more forthcoming even in other countries. A recent report published by Save the Children concluded that rich countries may not be the best at taking care of their mothers and, in turn, their children. The report ranked Canada ninth in the world when it came to the well- being of children. I looked into this and found that many of the countries that outranked Canada have longer leaves for new parents. Actually, many of these were European countries. In Europe women generally receive a well-paid leave.

In Norway, for example, mothers can take 42 weeks parental leave at full wage or 52 weeks at 80 percent. [Mrs. Gordon in the chair] What Bill 209 proposes is not so drastic a measure. Rather, it strikes a wise balance between the needs of children and families and the economic realities faced by Alberta employers. Madam Speaker, private member’s Bill 209 is not even recommending that we extend parental leave to one full year. In my view and that of many employers, such a move would be excessive in our economic climate.

This bill is proposing that we extend leave for parents to bring it in line with the national average, and it is asking that we do take meaningful action to enhance the welfare of our children. Furthermore, Madam Speaker, this amendment to the Employ- ment Standards Code would amalgamate current provisions for maternity leave and adoption leave; that is, it would provide adoptive parents with the same amount of parental leave as a biological parent.

This is certa inly a positive initiative that would reinforce the notion that the rights and responsibilities of adoptive parents are equal to those of biological parents. For these reasons I would urge my colleagues to support Bill 209. It offers us a rare opportunity to make a significant difference in the lives of Alberta children, and we should not pass it up. Thank you, Madam Speaker. THE ACTING SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton- Rutherford. MR. WICKMAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. This government, when it comes to family values, likes to talk the talk, but they don’t always walk the walk.

Bill 209 is a step in the right direction when we look at family values and we look at those components of quality of life that lead towards family values. When we look at Bill 209 and we look at the current legislation, the Employment Standards Act and the 18 weeks of maternal leave that is allowed, the exten- sion to 27 weeks is certainly a step in the right direction. It falls short, of course, of the federal legislation. The extension to 27 weeks is a benefit, and of course the application to parents who adopt is particularly good.

Society has changed during my lifetime dramatically, and attitudes have changed. We talk about the old school, and we talk about the way it was. It is changing, and it will continue to change. That change is, generally speaking, good because it does recognize that life is a whole lot more complicated and becomes more complicated and more stressful as time goes on. There used to be a time when you went to school and got a grade 12 education. You went out and got a job as a mechanic’s helper, whatever. But there’s a whole new emphasis on lifestyle.

There’s a whole new emphasis on recognition of family values, of doing what is best for one’s child or children. 3:30 The member from what I call the triple S riding likes to hear some of my stories about my younger days, and I’m going to talk just a bit about the way it used to be – what? – 35 years ago. I recall when my son was born. My son – she’s not even listening. MRS. SOETAERT: I am.

1890 Alberta Hansard November 15, 2000 MR. WICKMAN: I’m telling a story that will interest you. Now, it involves my son when he was born about 35 years ago; you know, my son the architect. Back in those days, when Silvia was pregnant and in the morning had her labour pains, I was a milkman working for the Northern Alberta Dairy Pool. She had her labour pains. We got up. I drove her to the hospital, dropped her off. I didn’t even walk her in. I dropped her off, and I went on to work. I finished my milk route that day. Afterwards I went to the Grand Hotel, bought a round of beer, and passed out cigars.

That’s the way it was back then. You know, it may sound shocking to newer parents here, but that was par for the course. If I wanted to go into the delivery room, of course, they wouldn’t have allowed it. Now, I compare that to 10 years ago. Some of you may remember me sitting here so anxious. I had this communication network set up when my daughter-in-law was in the University hospital and we were in anticipation of my first grandchild, who turned out to be a very sweet granddaughter, Ceira. Now, when I got the message to get outside there and make a quick call, I called my son.

He said: Dad, you get down here in 20 minutes; otherwise it will be too late. We got down there. Of course, he was in the delivery room. MRS. SOETAERT: You weren’t though. MR. WICKMAN: No, I wasn’t. I got there a bit too late. The other grandparents were there. My wife was there. There were brothers-in-law there. It was like family there. It was a really, really happy occasion, and that is the reality of today. I imagine we’re going to see further changes. Now, my next story involves 1971. This w ill brighten the heart of the Member for Edmonton-Highlands.

I worked for the students’ union at the University of Alberta, hired by David Leadbeater. We were not part of the academic staff or the nonacademic staff. We were a group of about 40 employees. One of the first things we did was formed a union. We unionized the student union staff, and we were allowed to do it. We became a local of CUPE, and we joined the Edmonton and District Labour Council. Now, in our very first contract that we negotiated with the students’ union management and executive – and this is almost 30 years ago – we got paternal leave.

That’s almost unheard of, and we rejoiced, thinking that other unions would follow and this would become par for the course. It didn’t happen, because we had the advantage of dealing with a very, very enlightened employer and being students, who tend to be a bit more idealistic and at times a bit more, maybe, realistic to the changing times. So there are examples that we can look back to where there is some recognition that there have to be changes. Now, we look at what is happening federally.

We have changes in the employment standards ther e that allow for I believe it’s an additional six months of leave shared by both spouses or both parents, 27 weeks apiece. Of course, that’s without pay. We look at the current EI Act that allows up to six months with pay, and as far as I can recall – and I stand to be corrected here – that only applies to the mother. I don’t believe that the father has that option of staying at home and the mother continuing to work, whatever the case may be, or going back to work or them sharing it. I don’t believe it applies to parents who adopt, but again I could be wrong.

Many, many years ago I remember seeing a movie with Michael Keaton; was it? It was called Mr. Mom. Some of you may have seen that movie. It was considered a comedy, but it was a concept that has become more and more par for the course in today’s society. That is where the father stayed at home and the mother went to work. Of course, in the movie the father is mocked, because they refer to him as Mr. Mom. He goes shopping with the other moms, and he goes to the park with the other moms. He’s the only one. He’s the only father who stays at home. Now it has changed.

There is recognition that the father wants the same role in raising a child – not in the birth of a baby, of course, but in raising a child – being there in the early days as the mother in many, many instances. In many instances now the father will be the one that will stay home and raise that child as the mother goes to further her career. In fact, my wife has a cousin in Germany that has gone to the extreme that he has not only stayed at home as the caregiver for that child, but he has taken her name.

Now, I know that is very, very unusual, and I know that many of the female members of the House here will probably applaud that particular move. Ten years from now we may see many, many husbands doing the same thing when they get married: taking the spouse’s name. Apparently in Germany they’re not allowed to put the two names together, so you have to pick one or the other. What it does is demonstrate that attitudes have changed. Attitudes have changed in most countries around the world.

Attitudes have changed such that we recognize there is a much greater role for fathers in raising their children than we saw in the past. We have to take the appropriate courses of action to ensure that there is recognition. Of course, Bill 209 is a step in the right direction. We see some positive direction in that recognition of the family values that this government likes to talk about so much. When I think back to my early days – and we all have pleasant memories of our children and grandchildren. The Member for Livingstone-Macleod, if I remember right, became a grandfather for the first time.

What a thrill, eh? Wouldn’t you like to be there right now with that grandchild? Exactly. That’s one of the reasons that some of us sort of see that there’s life after politics, because we have the opportunity to spend time with those grandchildren. So the role of a parent, the role of a father, the role of a mother becomes very, very important, and the role of a grandparent becomes equally important. I’m not sure if this government has ever fully addressed an issue that is indirectly related, and that’s the rights of the grandparent. Have we ever dealt with that one, the rights of the grandparent?

In other words, if something were to happen that my son and daughter-in-law were to separate for whatever reason – let’s say it was bitter – could I be denied further access to my grandchildren, who love me dearly? I thought we did deal with a bill. MRS. SOETAERT: No. You can go to court. MR. WICKMAN: We can go to court. Okay. Well, that’s very, very positive too. When we talk in terms of family values, when we talk in terms of a family model, we talk in terms of course of the mother, the father, the grandmothers, the grandfathers, and it’s all one big unit.

We have to respect that it’s one large component that consists of a number of subcomponents. It’s very, very important that all members of that particular family have the opportunity to participate in those experiences that are so joyful. I imagine I could sit down with my departing member the Provincial Treasurer. I imagine I could sit down with the Provincial Treasurer, and we may have some differences on this in terms of family values. Nevertheless, I am glad that there is some recogni- tion on that side of the House of the importance of this particular bill.

It has come from a member of the government side, and that to me is an indication that we may se e a vast majority of this House support Bill 209 at this particular stage so it can advance and can be given royal assent and we actually see it proclaimed. 3:40 So I do congratulate the member for bringing the bill forward. If

November 15, 2000 Alberta Hansard 1891 it was my particular bill, I probably would have gone a bit further even, but I recognize that you sometimes have to take baby steps. Sometimes you can’t achieve everything overnight, so being a realist, I think the member realizes that possibly even he would like to have seen an expanded bill. But sometimes you try and sell too much, and you end up with nothing. Sometimes it’s better to take a little bit here, and in a year from now you take a little bit more. Then eventually you achieve your own goals.

Now, there may be one or two others that might want to speak on this bill. I know we’re down to ju st a few minutes, so just in case there’s any last-minute thought – and I know the Member for Calgary-Buffalo can never resist the opportunity to stand up there and speak – I will give up the floor. THE ACTING SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Red Deer-North. MRS. JABLONSKI: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m very glad to have this opportunity to participate in the debate surrounding Bill 209, the employment standards amendment act.

Many people may not be aware that Alberta currently allows the lowest amount of sanctioned maternity and parental leave time of any jurisdiction in the whole country. For this reason I believe it is long past time to revisit our current maternity leave provisions. In fact, our current maternity leave provisions were established in the old Employment Standards Code of 1976, almost 25 years ago. Though many of us have benefited from these provisions and they have served a very useful purpose, much time has passed and many things have changed, including our knowledge about the best child care and nurturing.

In light of the knowledge that good parental care is so critical in the first months and years of a child’s life, I strongly support the principle of Bill 209. Just to clarify, Madam Speaker, that principle is that the true beneficiaries of this legislation and of parental leave will be the children of Alberta. How will they derive that benefit? By being around the most important people in their lives, their mom or dad, for as much time as possible in the very critical early stages of life. It is true that parents will also derive some benefit from having access to 27 weeks of leave.

However, parents who take maternity or paternal leave are performing a valuable contribution to Alberta and helping to raise happy, well-adjusted Albertans for the future. Turning from the future to the past for a moment, I know that many of us here in the Assembly had the benefit of being raised, at least in the early years, by one parent who stayed at home. I also know that many of us in this Assembly may believe that is the best way to raise a child.

Now, we may not be authorities in the field of child care, but many of us are parents and grandparents with a lot of subjective evidence on which to base the conclusion that a child raised with the love and care of its parents has a great start in life. In this case, Madam Speaker, it is a conclusion that the child care experts agree with. Those who preceded me in this debate have cited studies and statistics that demonstrate there is considerable truth to this hypothesis.

One might be tempted to ask, though, why we need legislation to create something called parental leave rather than just extending maternity leave. Well, parental advocacy gr oups across North America have been very active in promoting early childhood involvement by both parents, particularly since dual-income households are increasingly the norm. In fact, Madam Speaker, seven out of 10 families in this country are dual-income families. Arguments have been made regarding the need for fathers to be as active in early parenting as mothers. Among others, Dr.

Paul Amatos of the University of Nebraska has demonstrated a direct relationship between children’s behaviour and the amount of time and support provided by not just mothers but fathers as well. Now, it seems only sensible that as a government we should leave it up to these families to sort out their own hectic schedules and determine on their own which parent will take leave and for how long. Bill 209 allows parents this freedom of choice, another reason I support it. However, Madam Speaker, despite supporting Bill 209 and its basic intent, I must also note one potential problem with the legislation.

THE ACTING SPEAKER: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Member for Red Deer-North, but unfortunately under Standing Order 8(5)(a), which provides for up to five minutes for the sponsor of a private member’s public bill to close debate, I would now invite the hon. Member for Calgary-Fort to close debate on Bill 209. MR. CAO: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Let me begin by saying that I’m very grateful to all of my colleagues who have contributed to the debate on my private member’s bill and the many Albertans who called and sent e-mail to indicate their support.

I was pleased to see a number of members of this House rise in support of the Employment Standards (Parental Leave) Amendment Act. I have also taken note of the concerns raised by some of my other col- leagues. Despite these minor concerns, I still believe that Bill 209 is a positive initiative that could make a profound difference in the early development of young Albertans. In fact, Madam Speaker, that was my perspective in designing this bill. I approached the situation not from the point of view of the mother or the father or the employer.

I considered the issue from the perspective of a newborn, of a recently a dopted child. From the perspective of that child the very best thing possible is without a doubt to spend as much time as possible with a loving and nurturing parent. Bill 209 does several things in order to achieve this highly desirable goal. First, it raises the permitted amount of unpaid leave from 18 weeks to 27 weeks, bringing it in line with the national average.

Secondly, Bill 209 amalgamates maternity leave and parental leave, thus allowing parents the freedom to determine which one of them will stay home with the child and for how long. Thirdly, Bill 209 extends this new parental leave provision to adoptive parents as well, giving them the same rights as other new mothers and fathers. Madam Speaker, I think the potential benefits of Bill 209 are clear. As we have heard in this House, study after study shows that the early relationship between parent and child is one of the most critical factors in determining th e future health and happiness and success of a child.

Now, Madam Speaker, there are just a couple of additional points I would like to emphasize as we conclude the debate on Bill 209. I know that some of my colleagues have expressed concern about the effect that this legislation will have on businesses in Alberta. However, given the recent extension of the federal employment insurance benefit to cover parental leave for the entire year, Bill 209 is unlikely to cause Alberta busin esses to incur any significant additional cost.

It may cause some temporary reduction in staff availability, but with 1.5 m illion Albertans in the workforce and only 37,000 births per year the impact is likely to be quite minimal. It is even possible that productivity could improve as employees return to work energized and refocused after 27 weeks rather than tired and distracted after just 18 weeks. So, Madam Speaker, since my bill’s impact on Alberta’s tremen- dous prosperity is likely to be minimal and the potential impact on the future of our children is so great, I would urge all my colleagues to support the bill.

If there remains any minor or technical problems

1892 Alberta Hansard November 15, 2000 with the legislation, they can surely be worked out at the future stages of this legislative process, but the principle behind the bill is unquestionably sound. In conclusion, Madam Speaker, this bill represents a momentous opportunity to make a real difference in the lives of Alberta children and families. We cannot afford to pass up this chance. Please think and feel for the Alberta infants when you vote on this bill. Thank you, Madam Speaker. [The voice vote indicated that the motion carried] [Several members rose calling for a division.

The division bell was rung at 3:49 p.m.] [Ten minutes having elapsed, the Assembly divided] [Mrs. Gordon in the chair] For the motion: Amery Gibbons Marz Blakeman Haley Mason Bonner Hancock McClellan Broda Hlady Pannu Cao Jablonski Smith Cardinal Jacques Soetaert Coutts Johnson Strang Dickson Jonson Tarchuk Doerksen Kryczka Thurber Evans Laing Trynchy Forsyth Leibovici Wickman Fritz 4:00 Against the motion: Friedel McFarland Renner Magnus Totals: For – 34 Against – 4 [Motion carried; Bill 209 read a second time] Bill 210 Traffic Safety Amendment Act, 2000 THE ACTING SPEAKER: The hon.

Member for Calgary-Fish Creek. MRS. FORSYTH: Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is my pleasure to rise and present my private member’s bill, Bill 210, Traffic Safety Amendment Act, to the Assembly today. Madam Speaker, I’d like to dedicate Bill 210 to Ben and Darlene Keuben, Susan and Gordon Smith, Jean and Doug Powell in loving memory of their children Amber and Brandy Keuben, Amber’s boyfriend Craig Powell, and Brandy’s friend Stephanie Smith. It’s over four years since the tragic day that these young people lost their lives.

In an instant on June 23, 1996, near Morley, Alberta, the lives of three families were shattered. Four y oung people returning home to Calgary, return ing to their families following a weekend camping trip, were killed instantly in a head-on collision. The lives of these four young people were ended by a convicted impaired driver. He was drunk, and these young people paid the ultimate price. If I may, Madam Speaker, I would like again to read to the members of the Assembly an excerpt from the letter written to me shortly after by the parents of two of these girls.

Two of these young people were our daughters – Amber who was 20 and Brandy who was 15. The other two were very close friends of our girls. Not only did we lose our family that day, but our life as we’ve known it has changed forever. As parents you work and dream for a future for your children. Our dreams also died. We are left mad. We are left angry. We are left frustrated. Most of the time we are numb, and most of the time we are sick. How do you walk away and rebuild your life? We are now at a point where we need to see some changes made.

How many more innocent people have to die before we realize that the impaired drinking laws are not working? Madam Speaker, the alleged drunk driver in this case was charged with four counts of criminal negligence, one count of criminal negligence causing injury, and four counts of impaired driving causing death. This man did not even possess a valid driver’s licence. By the time the preliminary hearings were concluded and a court date was set for the accused, a year and a half had passed since that tragic day. This extended period of time was extremely difficult on the family.

How do these three families pick up the pieces of their shattered lives following such a tragic event? Furthermore, outrage and disgust followed the sentencing, which was a five-year jail term for killing four young people. The driver will be eligible for parole in 20 months. To this family and many other Albertans, murder is murder, whether it’s by a gun or by a car. Madam Speaker, Alberta has the fifth highest rate of people charged with impaired driving of all the jurisdictions in Canada and almost two times as many as Ontario and British Columbia.

In 1998 one out of five drivers involved in fatal collisi ons had consumed alcohol. As the involvement of alcohol increased, so did the severity of the accidents. In 1998 there were 17, 345 casualty collisions in Alberta. In 1,586 of them, or 9.1 percent, the drivers had either been drinking or judged to have been impaired. In the same year 22.6 percent of fatal collisions involved drivers that had been drinking or impaired.

Across Canada among fatally injured drivers who had alcohol in their blood system, 62 percent of the fatalities had a BAC over 150 milligrams, 22 percent of fatalities had a BAC of 81 to 150 milligrams, 16 percent of fatalities had a BAC of 1 to 80 milligrams. Madam Speaker, although Criminal Code impaired driving convictions can give rise to significant consequences, an accused person routinely faces the possibility of additional sanctions.

Most of the provinces and territories have instituted administrative penalties or controls to mandate action against the suspected and convicted impaired drivers, some of which may be effective immediately and independently of any Criminal Code conviction. It is clear that more can be done to address this problem and stop unnecessarily placing the lives of Albertans at risk. If this were Utopia, the federal government would have invoked a zero tolerance in the Criminal Code long ago. In Canada every eight hours someone is killed by an impaired driver. Statistics like this have prompted me to take action.

This Assembly cannot change the Criminal Code. It is out of our jurisdiction. What we can do is write our own traffic laws in the interest of public safety. This is what my bill does. It prevents drivers who blow over .05 BAC to the legal limit from driving for 24 hours. It is very simple. It is a reasonable request, and it is the right thing to do. Clearly we must continue to educate and raise awareness to put an end to these tragedies, to save the lives of these people.

In fact, this legislation is driven by the trag ic death of my constituents in my constituency and across the province due to impaired motorists. We should be moving to make it harder for drunk drivers to offend and

November 15, 2000 Alberta Hansard 1893 to get drivers whose judgment is impaired by alcohol off the road. This is what my bill intends to do. Most provinces have legislated brief periods of licence suspension for persons whose BAC is over 50 milligrams of alcohol but less than the criminal legal limit of 80 milligrams. The purpose of such action is to allow the police to suspend drivers at the roadside for up to 24 hours in the hope of preventing an impaired driving offence, to give them one more mechanism for prevention.

Madam Speaker, many studies and interest groups have expressed the view that despite the fact that a BAC of .08 percent is the legal point of criminal impairment, a driver is actually impaired at much lower levels. For example, the Alberta Alcohol and Drug Abuse Commission, AADAC, notes that even with a BAC below .08 percent, thoughts, judgment,

Document details

Collection	Alberta — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20001115
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	L24 S4 20001115 1330 01 han.pdf
Language	en
Format	json
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	df80d19203942f5f3b09ff2639550db0f91a0df4

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