Page Content
Shelley Svidal, ATA News
As the legislature resumed its spring sitting May 25 following a constituency week, Bill 44, Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Amendment Act, 2009, continued to eclipse most other issues raised in question period until it received third reading June 1. Featured here are highlights of some of the exchanges that took place between May 25 and June 3, when the legislature adjourned until the fall.
May 25—Liberal Leader David Swann asked Premier Ed Stelmach why the government is unwilling to accept the voice of the majority on Bill 44, Human Rights, Citizenship and Multiculturalism Amendment Act, 2009, and protect public education. Stelmach replied that the bill protects parental rights and that the government is committed to families as the foundation of society. Swann asked Stelmach why the government is protecting special interests at the expense of society. Stelmach deferred to Minister of Culture and Community Spirit Lindsay Blackett, who replied that the government would introduce an amendment to the bill the following day to clarify the wording and the government’s intent. Swann asked Stelmach why the government is persisting in its attempt to break down the core role of public education—to impart knowledge, not to reinforce dogma. Stelmach again deferred to Blackett, who replied that the government had listened to the Alberta Teachers’ Association, the Alberta School Boards Association and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.
May 25—Harry Chase (LIB—Calgary-Varsity) asked Minister of Education Dave Hancock whether, if a parent were to pull a child from class, the teacher or the parent would decide how the child would be accommodated. Hancock replied that the situation would be handled the same way it is handled now: the school would provide another option. Chase asked Hancock who would teach the child and where the child would go, given the shortage of teachers and classroom space. Hancock replied that the government does not expect “hordes” of children to be pulled from class. Chase asked Hancock who would teach the remaining children when a teacher is busy contacting a parent to pick up an objecting child during a spontaneous class discussion on religion, evolution or sexual orientation. “[T]his is not about spontaneous discussions. This is about a mandated curriculum,” Hancock replied.
May 26—Swann asked Stelmach whether he would allow a free vote on Section 9 of the bill. Stelmach replied that he does not have to threaten anyone in government caucus. “[T]his is . . . a good piece of legislation, and we will have a free vote,” he said. Swann asked Stelmach why he continues to ignore Albertans’ objections to Section 9. Stelmach replied that he has received much positive feedback on the bill even though some Albertans have issues with the wording. “I believe that all Albertans support that the family unit is basic to our society. Why should we give this up to sort of a nanny state that the Liberals want to see?” he asked
May 28—Swann asked Stelmach why he is reinforcing the stereotype of Albertans as backwards and intolerant by passing Section 9. Stelmach took issue with Swann’s accusations, pointing to the diversity of government caucus. “[I]t
truly reflects Albertans, Alberta’s wishes, their policies as we advance them here in the house,” he said. Swann asked Stelmach why he has chosen political opportunism over what is best for children’s education. Stelmach replied that he firmly supports the decision reached by government caucus. Swann asked Stelmach why he is ignoring Albertans. Stelmach replied that Alberta offers the most choice in education of any province. “I’m very proud of our education system and will . . . defend our education system anywhere,” he said.
May 28—Chase asked Blackett why he is enshrining in the public school system the right to discriminate on the basis of religion, human sexuality and sexual orientation. Blackett wondered why, as a black man who grew up through discrimination, he would support discrimination. Chase asked Hancock why, with the exception of his blog, he has remained silent on the erosion of the secular school system by a faith-based minority. Hancock deferred to Blackett, who replied that members of the diverse government caucus are independent thinkers who respect Albertans’ independent thought. “[W]e should have the courage to be able to believe in what we believe in,” he said. Chase asked Hancock why he is spending $4 million on an Inspiring Education: A Dialogue with Albertans road show when Bill 44 clearly indicates the government’s close-mindedness. Hancock replied that Inspiring Education is not a road show but a dialogue on the future of the education system and that, while Alberta has an excellent education system, it cannot rest on its laurels. Regarding the bill, Hancock asserted that parents have the right on sensitive issues to determine if they are in alignment with what their children are being taught.
May 28—Rachel Notley (NDP—Edmonton-Strathcona) asked Blackett why he has surrendered to the religious right and ignored the wishes of a majority of Albertans by moving ahead with the bill. Blackett accused Notley of negativism. He asserted that parents have beliefs and are responsible for the education and upbringing of their children. Suggesting that the Winnipeg teacher who scrubbed swastikas off a little girl’s arm could face prosecution before a human rights tribunal in Alberta, Notley asked Blackett why the government is pushing a law that could protect the right of anti-Semitic parents to teach their children hatred before protecting teachers’ ability to fight against it. Blackett suggested that Notley read the bill before commenting on it. Accusing her of irrational fear, he indicated that parents will be notified of areas with respect to human sexuality, sexual orientation and religion and will have the choice to opt out. Notley asked Blackett to justify a law that encourages intolerance under the pretence of parental rights. Blackett accused Notley of preaching intolerance because she believes her “narrow-minded view of the world is the way that it should happen. . . . [O]ur government stands firmly behind Bill 44. We stand firmly behind parents. We stand firmly behind family values and our communities that made this province what it is today,” he said.
Also In the News
