April 17, 1980 ALBERTA HANSARD 401 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA Title:Thursday, April 17, 1980 2:30 p.m. [The House met at 2:30 p.m.] PRAYERS [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] head: PRESENTING PETITIONS MR. ZAOZIRNY: Mr.

Speaker, I wish to present to the Assembly the following petitions for private Bills: 1. the petition of Roger Motut, Herve Durocher, Fran­ cis McMahon, Lucien Maynard, Joseph Moreau, Jean-Paul Bugeaud, Jules van Brabant for The La Foundation de l'Association canadienne-francaise de l'Alberta Act; 2. the petition of the city of Edmonton for The Edmon­ ton Research and Development Park Authority Act; 3. the petition of the Alberta Wheat Pool for The Alberta Wheat Pool Amendment Act, 1980; 4. the petition of Edna Barbara Dial for The Keith Dial Adoption Termination Act; 5. the petition of R. W. Chapman, F. G.

Stewart, L. H. LeRiche, R. R. Francis, E. B. McKitrick, H. McE- wen, and D. McPherson for The Alberta Foundation Act; 6. the petition of the Prairie Bible Institute for The Prairie Bible Institute Amendment Act, 1980; 7. the petition of Gladys Marshall for The Warren Dean Boyd Adoption Act; 8. the petition of Sherm Ewing for The Stockmen's Memorial Foundation Act. head: TABLING RETURNS AND REPORTS MR. McCRAE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a response to Motion for a Return No. 106. MR. R. CLARK: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to file with the Clerk, for placement in the Legislature Library, re­ quests from close to 5,000 Albertans supporting the con­ struction of a northern Alberta children's hospital in Edmonton. MR. SPEAKER: The Chair is somewhat relieved to find out that these are not notes for a speech to be made in the Assembly. [laughter] I'm tabling the 1979 annual report of the Legislature Library. head: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I'm particularly delighted today to be able to introduce 76 lively grades 5 and 6 students from the St.

William school in the constituency of Calgary Egmont. They are accompanied by their prin­ cipal Gerry Kresawaty, teachers Mrs. Clare Gillies, Ron Volk, and Craig Carpenter, and a parent, Mrs. Joanne Chipera. I'd ask them to now rise in the members gallery and receive the welcome of the Assembly. MR. HIEBERT: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of Bill Mack, the Member for Edmonton Belmont, I would like to introduce to you and to the members of the House 56 grade 5 students from Kildare school. They are in the public gallery.

Would they rise and accept the warm welcome of the House. head: ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Nurses' Salary Dispute MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct the first question to the Minister of Labour and ask if he would indicate to the Assembly the present state of negotiations between the Alberta nurses and the Alberta Hospital Association. MR. YOUNG: At present, Mr. Speaker, there is ongoing discussion with mediation staff with one of the parties to the dispute. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister. It's the same type of question I've posed for the last three days.

Has the minister at this time become actively involved in face-to-face or eyeball-to- eyeball negotiations with the nurses and the Hospital Association? MR. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, it will come as a great assurance to the hon. Leader of the Opposition that yesterday and today, between the hours of 6 last night and 4:15 this morning, I had several occasions to have eyeball-to-eyeball contact with representatives of both parties. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, then a supplementary question, really flowing from the whole nurses' strike situation, to the Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care.

Could the minister indicate to the Assembly what hospi­ tals in Calgary and what hospitals in Edmonton will have emergency services available to the residents of the province? MR. RUSSELL: I'm going by memory now, Mr. Speak­ er. The provincial hospitals in all cases will be open; that is, the Glenrose and the University of Alberta Hospital in Edmonton, and the Foothills hospital in Calgary. In addition, the Colonel Belcher hospital in Calgary and the Charles Camsell hospital in Edmonton will be providing full services. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister.

What provisions have been made for patients in the hospitals at Fort McMurray, Grande Prai­ rie, Lethbridge, Medicine Hat, and Red Deer? There are no back-up hospitals in those locations. MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, all hospitals affected by the pending strike are successfully completing the neces­ sary winding-down operations and keeping only the ba­ sic, minimum number of patients that for one reason or another cannot be moved from those individual institu­ tions. Staffing arrangements are in place to look after those people who will be kept there.

402 ALBERTA HANSARD April 17, 1980 MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, to the minister. Can the minister assure the Assembly that the emergency wards of the hospitals the minister has mentioned — and I don't hold the minister to those exact names if for some reason one is different from another — can he assure the Assembly that patients from central Alberta, primarily the Red Deer hospital, will have access to the emergency wards at facilities in both Edmonton and Calgary? When I raise the question, Mr.

Speaker, I perhaps should add that until last evening the Red Deer hospital had ex­ pected that some nurses would be available. The board was advised last evening that they will have to rely totally on supervisory staff. MR. RUSSELL: Again, Mr. Speaker, we would expect both the provincial hospitals that are involved — I mean the University of Alberta Hospital and the Foothills hospital in Calgary — to make their emergency ward services available to residents throughout Alberta. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, just one last supplemen­ tary question to the minister.

I ask this question in light of the representation made to me that the University Hospital advised Red Deer this morning that in fact their emergency services would not be available to Red Deer. I would ask if the minister would have that checked and assure the Red Deer hospital that emergency services at the University Hospital would be available to people from the Red Deer hospital. MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, I intend later this after­ noon to have discussions with the administration of both those major provincial hospitals, because I'm aware of the misunderstanding in communications that seems to be out there.

But it should be clear that the emergency wards and services of both those provincial hospitals will be available to Albertans. Hog Marketing MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct the second question to the Minister of Agriculture. After the meeting in Red Deer last evening, is the minister able to announce today any steps he has taken as a result of the representation made to him last evening by some 1,200 or 1,400 hog producers in the province. MR. SCHMIDT: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Leader of the Opposition was at the meeting.

I'll give you the same answer that was given to the group last night: an oppor­ tunity to review with them concerns with regard to hog pricing within the province of Alberta; the assurances on behalf of the government that we would look at the short-term solutions because of the problems that exist; and an opportunity, perhaps after the short solution, to spend some time on the longer solution for the industry in the way of long-term stabilization, whether it be feder­ al or other means of stabilization. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, to the hon. minister. Mr.

Minister, is it possible to give to the Assembly this afternoon any indication of a time line for the short-term solution that the minister has referred to on several occa­ sions here in the Assembly? I ask that question because most of the representation made last night focussed on that question of short-term solution. What kind of time line, Mr. Minister, are producers looking at? MR. SCHMIDT: Mr. Speaker, it's rather difficult to establish a fixed time line. In the meeting, the hon.

Leader of the Opposition would have recognized, of course, that throughout the evening there were perhaps five or six suggestions of ways and means by which the industry could be helped. Of course, sufficient time is required to look into all the aspects of these suggestions that came to us, of financial help or help in other ways — whether it be through interest rates or other suggestions that were made. So it will take some time to come up with solutions following the directions, and to arrive at a solution from all the suggestions that would meet the majority of the demands.

But it will be done, and the review will be completed as soon as possible. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, to the minister. Mr. Minister, one area where there was no question about the representation made last evening was that Alberta Regu­ lation 99/80 should be withdrawn. Is the minister in a position to indicate, following the representation made last evening, that he's prepared to consider that represen­ tation seriously, very seriously? MR. SCHMIDT: Mr.

Speaker, if one were to look close­ ly at the withdrawing or the tabling of Alberta Regula­ tion 99/80, it states that the date changed from April 11 to October 1, and that a review of the original intent of 99/80 would be ongoing over that period of time. In the discussions we had after the meeting last night, it would appear that there's no direct result of that Alberta regula­ tion's staying in place, and it has little or no effect on the operations of the hog marketing board.

October 1 cer­ tainly should give us the time element involved, so that all those involved — producer, packer, and indeed all the other areas, the hog marketing board itself, which is representative on the three areas of the independent re­ view — should come up with a workable situation and suggestion prior to October 1 that's acceptable to all three parties in the new system of marketing. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, to the hon. minister. Mr.

Minister, is it still the position of the Alberta government that the hog marketing board overstepped its jurisdiction in setting both minimum and maximum prices for the tape? I raise that question in light of the point made last evening by the president, Mr. Price, when he read to the group the opinion of the civil lawyers from the Depart­ ment of the Attorney General, which I thought made the point very clearly. Is it still the position of the govern­ ment of Alberta, despite that advice from the Department of the Attorney General, that the hog board overstepped its jurisdiction? MR. SCHMIDT: Mr.

Speaker, if one were to look back at the statements that have been made on behalf of the Department of Agriculture, there has been no question with regard to the hog marketing board overstepping its jurisdiction in the area that the hon. member states — in other words, the withholding of hogs on a basic price. The question of jurisdiction of the hog marketing board was in the physical withholding of hogs from the total market, in keeping hogs on the farms against some of the producers' wishes. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, just one last question to the minister. Mr.

Minister, is it the intention of the minister to keep the present chairman of the agricultural

April 17, 1980 ALBERTA HANSARD 403 marketing council, Mr. Ferries, in the position he had last evening as chairman? MR. SCHMIDT: Mr. Speaker, it was stated that the independent review would have the opportunity to review the total operation of hog marketing, and the operations of the hog marketing council as it affects or could affect the marketing system within the province. If any area of the total system requires some changes, those will certain­ ly be taken into consideration. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, to the minister. Mr. Minister, I take it that Mr.

Ferries will remain in his position at least until the resident hog expert, Mr. Foster, and his committee finish their jurisdiction or study and make recommendations to the minister. MR. SCHMIDT: Mr. Speaker, there would be no imme­ diate changes made pending the results of the review. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. minister for clarification.

During the course of the Foster committee's, assessment, in which hog market­ ing in this province will be totally reviewed, why did the government of Alberta not consider — in view of the minister's statement today that the entire question was really going to be reviewed from square one — the option of dropping the regulation in question totally, so that it's not a prospective gun to the head of one of the partici­ pants in this review, as opposed to just delaying Regula­ tion 99/80 until October 1? MR. SCHMIDT: Mr. Speaker, I fail to see a gun at anyone's head.

The operations of the hog marketing board have not changed. They have the opportunity to market on the same basic terms that existed before. The only responsibility that we all have is to follow and live within the regulations, in which each and every organiza­ tion is involved, set up, and have to follow. I suggest that is one of the responsibilities of the hog marketing board, to stay within the rules of the game established in the original set-up of the hog marketing board itself. I see no reason that there is any hindrance to their operations in any way. MR. NOTLEY: Mr.

Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister, again for clarification. It is with respect to the question of the rules of the game, and the concern of the pork producers that in fact Regulation 99/80 was a change in the rules of the game. While this has been held in abeyance, my question to the minister is: in view of the fact that the entire question is being assessed now in any event, why did the government not simply consider drop­ ping the regulation, as requested by the overwhelming majority of pork producers, instead of just delaying it? MR. SCHMIDT: Mr.

Speaker, without being repetitious, Alberta Regulation 99/80 was brought in to guarantee the orderly system of marketing for that interim period when the independent review was ongoing. After the meetings, the wishes of the producers themselves that Alberta Regulation 99/80 not be instituted, and in the

interpretation of the legal documentation of 99/80 as having exceeded the basic intent, it was never put into operation as of the original date, April 11, was lifted, and now reads October 1. So I see no problem that exists, other than perhaps in the original 99/80 as submitted and the legal documentation that went with it. Its interpreta­ tion was the only one that was in question. MR. KNAAK: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the min­ ister. It's my information that pork output in North America has gone up 40 per cent over the last two years, and that prices probably won't change until that output is reduced.

Has the minister discussed with his colleagues across Canada possible incentives to reduce the farrow- ings of hog farmers? MR: SCHMIDT: Mr. Speaker, in doing a total review of the hog market across Canada and how it affects the producers in this province, because we're involved in a North American market, we find that the statement of production throughout Canada and in many provinces, and indeed in the United States, is higher than it has been in the past. Of course, in those provinces which have various programs of incentive to produce, the production is indeed higher.

As to the change in the immediate future of hog prices in North America, it is indicated by those who study markets that no immediate rise in markets in the very near future can be forecast. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary ques­ tion to the minister for clarification. MR. SPEAKER: Might this be the last supplementary on this topic. MR. R. SPEAKER: Could the minister indicate whether the interim measures he is considering would be put into effect prior to the Foster report being presented to the minister? MR. SCHMIDT: Mr.

Speaker, as was stated at the meeting, I think the short-term program and the short- term problem with the hog industry in the province are not tied in any way, timewise, to either the report or the physical aspects of marketing from the independent re­ view board. Hazardous Chemicals MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct this ques­ tion to the hon. minister in charge of Disaster Services. It concerns the chemical spill last night in the city of Edmonton. Has the government had an opportunity through Disaster Services to do a review of that particu­ lar incident? MR. MOORE: Mr.

Speaker, I'm not aware of what action the Disaster Services Agency may be taking today, after the fact of the particular incident. I could inquire as to what the director of Disaster Services is doing. Bear in mind, that the main responsibility of Alberta Disaster Services is to ensure that municipalities and others are well prepared to respond in the event of an emergency. My understanding in this particular case is that the response was immediate and well handled. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, supplementary question to the minister.

Is the minister in a position to advise the Assembly whether assertions that the city water depart­ ment was not notified about this spill until approximately four hours alter it occurred are in fact correct? Has the department had an opportunity to review that?

404 ALBERTA HANSARD April 17, 1980 MR. MOORE: No, Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether that statement is correct or not. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, supplementary question to the hon. Minister of Transportation. What steps has the government of Alberta considered with respect to the general question of transporting hazardous goods? Will there be any initiatives undertaken on this matter, pend­ ing federal action, as a consequence of yesterday's accident? MR. KROEGER: Mr. Speaker, I haven't had an oppor­ tunity really to go into this.

Going beyond the immediacy of this particular incident, I have had conversation with the federal Minister of Transport regarding getting to­ gether at the earliest possible date to proceed with the Transport of Dangerous Goods [Act] that was embodied in the former Bill C-25. We have followed that up with written requests for action and our position on it, and have been assured there will be movement on it. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, supplementary question to the hon. minister.

In view of the fact that the minister gave essentially the same answer a year ago at this time, is he in a position to give the Assembly any undertaking as to the time frame when we might expect the federal government to bring in legislation with respect to the transportation of hazardous goods? MR. KROEGER: The response I had from the federal Minister of Transport, Mr. Speaker, was that there seemed to be agreement among provinces. There was urgency about this, and he assured me in the conversation he would move as quickly as possible. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, supplementary question to the minister.

Is the minister in a position to inform the Assembly whether "as quickly as possible" is going to be in the- next two or three months, or is it going to be a year? Has there, for example, been a commitment by the federal minister to convene immediately a meeting of provincial ministers so that we can look forward to early legislation? MR. KROEGER: Mr. Speaker, I can't recall the exact wording of the written communication that I have. I'd be glad to get that for the hon. member. But the interest in responding is high, and I would read it that by "as soon as possible" we're looking at the next two to three months.

But that's a guess. MR. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could add to the comments of the hon. Minister of Transportation and say that officials of Alberta Disaster Services have been meeting with federal officials from time to time over the course of perhaps the last two years on this issue. Those meetings speed up and decrease fairly consistently with federal elections, and there was a period of time in which not much was happening.

It's now apparent there will be a meeting of ministers responsible for disaster services from all provinces, probably in early September in the maritimes, where we'll, hopefully, be in a position to conclude some of these matters with the federal govern­ ment at the ministerial level at that time, if not before. But certainly there will be a meeting later this fall. It's the first meeting of its kind that's been held amongst minis­ ters who are responsible for disaster services.

It is to be held, actually, after discussions between myself and the minister from Prince Edward Island, and an invitation is being extended to other ministers. So at that level that event will occur later this year. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, supplementary ques­ tion to the minister responsible for Disaster Services. One of the concerns with regard to the incident in Edmonton was that there wasn't anybody available to identify the materials that fell on the street or the type of effects the materials could have.

I was wondering whether there is some type of training program in Disaster Services so that various individuals within the city limits or within other agencies can be more prepared to identify potential hazards with regard to various dangerous materials we move around the province. MR. MOORE: Certainly, Mr.

Speaker, I described last fall, I think, a very extensive training program that Alber­ ta Disaster Services has implemented for municipal em­ ployees and employees of such firms as the railways which are involved in transportation of chemicals which might be considered dangerous to either humans or the environment. But I wasn't aware there was any problem with identi­ fying this particular chemical. It was 2,4-D, and if the hon. Member for Little Bow or I had been there, we would have known what it was, either by looking at the can or by smell. I should say as well, Mr.

Speaker, that some of the headlines that identify that particular chem­ ical as an extremely dangerous, lethal chemical are over­ stating the facts. There are 55,000 farmers, including many in this Assembly, who have handled 2,4-D for many, many years. While like many other chemicals you shouldn't drink it, and indeed if it's on your hands or clothing it should be washed off, quite frankly it is not as dangerous as some have portrayed it to be. MR. SINDLINGER: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to either the Minister of Transportation or the minister responsible for Alberta Disaster Services.

It's in regard to Bill C-25, the transportation of hazardous goods. Could the hon. minister advise this Assembly whether or not the Alberta government has been monitoring the derailment of liquefied petroleum gas tank cars in the province of Alberta, particularly in downtown Calgary along the main line upon which is situated the Palliser Hotel and Gulf Canada Square? MR. KROEGER: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Transportation has not. MR. MOORE: Mr.

Speaker, if the hon. member would have an opportunity to read the annual report of Alberta Disaster Services, which I filed with the House about a week ago, he would see in that report an indication of very extensive monitoring with regard to any tank car derailments that have caused chemical spills. My under­ standing is that the railways and other people involved in that area do in fact report through some system to Alberta Disaster Services on each occasion that there is a spill. MR. COOKSON: Mr. Speaker, if I could just supple­ ment the question from the Member for Little Bow with regard to identification.

Environment works closely with Disaster Services. Now might be a good opportunity to advise the general public that there is an environmental services number which deals with problems with regard to

April 17, 1980 ALBERTA HANSARD 405 industrial wastes and hazardous or dangerous chemicals. It's 1-800-222-6514, and it should be in all directories in the province. Electric Power Lines MR. MANDEV1LLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the hon. Minister of Agriculture. What response has the minister received from farmers on the recently announced power line relocation plan? MR. SCHMIDT: Mr.

Speaker, over the period of the last two or three years we've had the opportunity to work closely with farm organizations and, indeed, individuals who have found and described various areas of concern with regard to power lines and the detrimental use or the hindrance in irrigation areas.

On a very initial base for this year, we've established an opportunity to wor,k first of all with the individual farmer and with the companies involved on a shared program of the relocation of some of the existing transmission lines of 25 KVA and less, where the movement of those either to a suitable road allowance or off to one side of the actual farm itself would enhance the operation of certain irrigation equipment.

We have had the opportunity to provide $100,000 and up to $300 a pole on the joint sharing of those areas, that we can sort of get the total co-operation between the company, the individual farmer himself, and of course the Department of Agriculture. It's a start in the provision of perhaps a much better and more usable productive parcel of land by the removal of the power line itself to a more suitable location. MR. MANDEVILLE: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In cases where it's not feasible to move the power poles, is there any alternative assistance to farmers? MR.

SCHMIDT: At this time we haven't come up with any alternative change or any direct subsidy to the farmer himself, nor have we entered into an agreement for those transmission lines that exceed the 25 KVA, first of all because the line itself in most cases is much larger and more difficult to move, and of course the cost would be much higher. So the only program at the present time is the one I just described. We're monitoring it and working with farm groups in the area. MR. MANDEVILLE: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.

Has the minister given any consideration to bringing in legislation which would require utility com­ panies to pay a yearly rental to farmers where the lines can't be moved? MR. SCHMIDT: No, Mr. Speaker. Energy Pricing Negotiations MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources. Could the minister indicate the present, status of the oil pricing negotiations between the federal government and Alberta? MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I've had one meeting with the federal Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, but that was not a negotiating meeting.

We concluded that meeting on the basis that we would have further meet­ ings, and when he had had sufficient time to become familiar with his portfolio and the matters in issue he would be in touch with me suggesting a time for a future meeting. I've not yet heard from him. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, to the minister. Would there be any indication from Ottawa or from the minister that by the end of May some of the negotiations could take place or could be finalized? MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I don't believe I could speculate as to when they'll start or when they might be finalized.

I'm sure all members of the Assembly are aware that we have in place an oil pricing agreement that extends to June 30, 1980. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. minister. During the discussion with Mr. Lalonde did he give the government of Alberta the as­ surance that discussions would take place with the pro­ ducing provinces individually or separately? Or was there any suggestion of possibly reverting to the 1974-75 ap­ proach of a general conference on energy pricing? MR. LEITCH: Mr.

Speaker, as a result of my discussions with the federal minister, I would anticipate further dis­ cussions on an energy package or oil pricing to occur between the government of Alberta and the federal gov­ ernment on a bilateral basis. Mine Safety MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a ques­ tion to the Acting Minister responsible for Workers' Health, Safety and Compensation. I notice the minister is not here, so I'll ask the question of the Premier.

Can the Premier — and I wouldn't expect him to have the information today, but certainly by tomorrow — have either the minister or the acting minister assure the Assembly that there are no other mining operations in the province where, one, inspections have not been kept up to date and, secondly, where recommendations from the department are not being lived up to? I raise the question in light of the comments made by certain employees of that department today about only, one person being on staff and that . . . Well, I'll simply leave it there.

Can we get that kind of assurance at a very early date from the government? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, I'm not aware of the nature of the question raised by the hon. Leader of the Opposition. But in the absence of the minister, I'll take that question as notice and hope that he can be in a position to respond to that question tomorrow. Pine Bark Beetle Infestation MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might correct an answer I gave yesterday when I was referring to pine beetle infestations. I had referred to infestations in British Columbia and Manitoba. The reference to, Manitoba was an error; I meant Montana.

406 ALBERTA HANSARD April 17, 1980 ORDERS OF THE DAY MR. SPEAKER: Would the Assembly agree that the hon. Member for Wainwright revert to Introduction of Special Guests? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. head: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS (reversion) MR. STEWART: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's my understanding that we have with us this afternoon a group of 20 grade 12 students from the Dr. Folkins school in Chauvin; accompanied by Mr. Nelson Stone- holder. They have arrived since the session started, so I haven't had the opportunity to meet them.

If they are in the members gallery, I would ask them to rise and receive the welcome of the Assembly. MR. SPEAKER: Possibly I was a bit previous in calling on the hon. member. I'm not aware that those students are as yet in the gallery. Perhaps we could watch, and revert to this item of the routine after they arrive. MR. STEWART: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry, I didn't mean to embarrass the hon. member. MR. HORSMAN: Mr. Speaker, I move that Motion for a Return No. 111 stand and retain its place on the Order Paper. [Motion carried] head: MOTIONS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT MOTIONS 205. Moved by Mr. R.

Clark:

Be it resolved that this Assembly urge the government to introduce legislation to appropriate funds from the Alber­ ta Heritage Savings Trust Fund to build a northern Alberta children's hospital as a lasting tribute to Alberta's first 75 years. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, earlier this afternoon, my colleagues and I filed with the Clerk of the Assembly the representation made on behalf of close to 5,000 Albertans with regard to their support for the construction of a northern Alberta children's hospital in the city of Edmonton.

I want to make my remarks reasonably short, because I recognize that at 4:30 this afternoon this debate may very well conclude, and it would be my hope that a number of members on both sides of the House would have an opportunity to express their views on this project, which my colleagues and I consider a very, very worthy one. Mr. Speaker, many of the people who have been in contact with us on this project have expressed concern for the way the 75th Anniversary projects are being held. I suppose one can talk about $75 million in our 75th year.

But I would suggest to hon. members that one might add another 75; that is, if one looks at the number of young people from Edmonton and the northern part of the province who in the course of a short period time find it necessary to go outside the province for care, — to Vancouver, Winnipeg, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, or the maritimes — we could perhaps add a third 75, and say that the figures may well be 75 or more.

Certainly much of the representation which members will find in the information tabled today makes the point that ja very good case can be made for this project as a lasting memento to our 75th Anniversary. As I have indicated, those who have communicated through us to the Legislature are looking for a northern Alberta children's hospital which they can point to with pride in the future and recall the significance of Alberta's 75th Anniversary. Albertans have a sense of history, Mr. Speaker, a sense of pioneering spirit which, when trans­ lated into action, means preparing the way for the future.

What can more honestly symbolize what this province is all about in this year, the year of the family, than the building of a northern Alberta children's hospital? And what would more honestly symbolize the effort of our great pioneers, whom we are properly honoring in- our 75th year, than the hope and faith in the future which is certainly exemplified by a northern Alberta children's hospital?

And what could more honestly symbolize what has made this province great — that is, a faith and belief in tomorrow — than a children's hospital serving north­ ern Alberta, the Northwest Territories, and certainly northern British Columbia? Mr. Speaker, I want to take one moment and say that some members may want to make the argument that a hospital in Edmonton would not serve Calgary and the southern portion of the province. On this occasion I have chosen not to become involved in what may be a suitable project for southern Alberta as far as the 75th Anniversa­ ry is concerned.

That could be the topic for another debate. But the point I want to make here today is that we're urging the government to allocate in the fall of this year money to commence construction — at the very least, in this our 75th year, to turn the sod for a northern Alberta children's hospital. Mr. Speaker, in the time available this afternoon one can ask oneself, what should one look at as far as the issue is concerned?

Should we look at the economics of a children's hospital — and that's important — economics from two points of view: on the one hand, what are the costs to young people who have to go out of the province as, certainly all members know, many do? That's an economic cost, but it's also a social cost to the children and certainly to the parents. Or I suppose one could say we should look, at the economic cost as far as Alberta is concerned. Can we afford it?

I think most people would say that if British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, and other provinces can afford it, certainly it's within the capacity of Alberta, keeping in mind that there's a hospi­ tal in Calgary which certainly meets at least part of the criteria we're talking about today. Secondly, Mr. Speaker, one could spend considerable time talking about the location of the hospital. It's not my intention this afternoon to become involved in the discussion as to where it should be located: in the city of Edmonton, at St. Albert, or where.

Frankly I believe it should be located in the city of Edmonton, and that's no reflection on Athabasca, St. Albert, or any other area. Mr. Speaker, for a few moments this afternoon I'd like to focus on the need for a children's hospital of this type. I don't plan to spend time talking about some facets of Alberta's 75th Anniversary celebration. I've chosen to leave that out of the discussion so we can really focus on

April 17, 1980 ALBERTA HANSARD 407 the question of need and, hopefully, get agreement from the members of the Assembly to include this kind of project in the Heritage Savings Trust Fund appropria­ tions this fall. I would be less than fair if I gave members of the Assembly the impression that this idea came forward from our office. A large number of concerned Albertans, primarily in Edmonton and northern Alberta, have been involved in this project for a considerable period of time. I commend them for their effort and their community involvement.

What I hope we're doing here this afternoon is lending support to that effort, on both sides of the House, so that at the end of our 75th Anniversary, as we look to the future, we'll look back on that as one of the projects which certainly makes us feel proud as Albertans. Mr. Speaker, the committee, the volunteers who have given so generously of their time, had a study done in September 1979 by Dr. Bain of the Ottawa sick children's hospital. A number of recommendations made by Dr. Bain certainly impressed me.

I'd like to look at some of the recommendations, first of all from the point of view of some deficiencies and shortfalls we have in Edmonton and northern Alberta today. Although there are over 500 pediatric beds scattered in the five hospitals in the greater Edmonton area, if we are to get optimum care for young people in the Edmonton and northern Alberta region, it seems to me that we're going to have to pull that togeth­ er, to have one location where we're going to make our real effort.

Now I'm under no illusion that when one starts to talk about developing a children's hospital in Edmonton, some people in the five hospitals in the Edmonton area that now provide services to children will be less than enthusiastic about the prospects. Recognizing their con­ cerns, I would plead with those people to look above that, to raise their sights somewhat so that we could not look at the direct impact that's going to have on each particular hospital, but look at the good it can possibly do for young people, for northern Alberta, the Northwest Territories, and British Columbia.

I'm not in any way being critical of the medical people we presently have, who give yeoman service at all hospitals, especially the University and the Royal Alexandra. Because patients are in five units, Mr. Speaker, ade­ quate consultation between professional personnel is much more difficult. There is an inadequate number of full-time academic teaching staff to serve even one unit.

If we go the direction of a children's hospital, that we're talking about here today, not only will there be encour­ agement for Albertans of academic excellence to become more actively involved in this area, but it will act as somewhat of a magnet for Albertans who have gone to other provinces and other parts of the continent to come back here. Fourthly, Mr. Speaker, as I understand the situation in Edmonton today, most of the full-time academic staff is located at the University Hospital, while a great deal of the practising doctors are located in other hospitals across the province.

Really what we're saying is that though the academic staff is primarily involved at the University Hospital, that isn't where the bulk of the action is as far as children in the city are concerned. Mr. Speaker, the Glenrose school hospital is an excel­ lent facility that, because of the age of the institution and because of fragmentation, is grossly underutilized for teaching the increasingly important area of pediatrics, handicapping conditions, developmental and chronic care.

I want to make the point that the motion we put forward this afternoon is not in any way meant to downplay the very fine work that's been done at the Glenrose school hospital. I recall, if my memory is accur­ ate, that it was in the middle 1950s when the idea of the Glenrose hospital was first developed and moved along. I say to the people who have been involved — in fact, one of the first people involved was Dr. Jack Bradley, who is now one of the advisers to the Premier on matters of medical concern in the province — that the work done in that hospital over the past 25 years has been excellent.

What we're talking about here today is the next step forward, a step into the last quarter of this first century of the province. It's our view, Mr. Speaker, that critical care for children should be centralized and adequate staff and resources provided. We feel that that can best be done by the building of a hospital here in the city of Edmonton.

Let's pause for a moment or two and ask ourselves: what are some of the optimal children's services that a hospital in the Edmonton area could provide for northern Alberta and, I want to make the point again, for central Alberta if need be, for the Peace River block and British Columbia, and certainly for the Territories. The position I have developed — and I should say that initially I had to be convinced about this; when we first sat down with a number of people and started to talk about this, I was less than enthusiastic about the development of an ad­ ministratively autonomous children's hospital.

I had no difficulty getting very enthusiastic about the idea of a children's hospital, but I had some real difficulties in setting up another hospital board. Some hospital board members are not nearly as enthusiastic about this project as I am. But from talking to people in the medical community, and others, I've come to the conclusion, I believe the proper conclusion, that such a children's hos­ pital should be administratively autonomous; it should have it's own board.

Hopefully that would put the hospi­ tal somewhat out of the potential for, if I could use the term, scrambling between hospitals as to who would end up controlling this. It is my belief, Mr. Speaker, that a children's hospital should be adjacent and quite likely attached to an adult hospital, because it seems to me that there are certainly obvious financial savings and a number of benefits also. From the best figures we've been able to pull together, it seems to me that we should be looking at a hospital of between 200 and 300 beds.

Now I indicated earlier in my remarks today that, as a minimum, likely 75 youngsters from the greater Edmonton region are involved in facili­ ties in other parts of Canada today. If we add to that youngsters from the northern part of the province, cer­ tainly the Northwest Territories, the Peace River block and British Columbia — keep in mind the growth for the future — the range of between 200 and 300 beds seems to meet those requirements as we look a number of years into the future. Mr.

Speaker, it's certainly my view that, as recom­ mended to the group that commissioned the report, the majority of beds should be for the provision of care to gravely ill children with special problems, complex prob­ lems. That's where the main focus should be. But it's also important for the morale of the hospital staff and the hospital itself to care for a fair number of patients with acute illnesses who will recover quickly, rather than all patients in the hospital having difficult, complex, or hopeless situations. I think it's also appropriate, Mr.

Speaker, that there should be in this hospital a strong research and teaching component as it affects young

408 ALBERTA HANSARD April 17, 1980 people. The resources of the Glenrose hospital for multip­ ly handicapped children must be an intricate part of this next step forward. With the development of this facility, it may well be time that we look at a different role as far as the Glenrose facility is concerned. I'd like to make two other points, Mr. Speaker, with regard to keeping in mind what should be in this facility.

I don't pretend by any stretch of the imagination to be a medical expert, but I do look forward to comments from the member from the Hinton-Edson riding, who perhaps has some views to share in this area. But it does seem to me important, Mr. Speaker, in moving ahead with this kind of project that we have some arrangement so that parents who come great distances can stay in or adjacent to the hospital, and that that becomes a part of the initial planning of the facility so attention can be given to the parents of children in this hospital whose homes are some great distance away.

On more than one occasion I have had the opportunity to talk to parents who find them­ selves in a situation where their youngsters go to Toronto or some other hospital on a very regular basis. They have been very persuasive in making the point to me that that's a vital component of a successful hospital and planning for the future. Mr.

Speaker, it seems to me that Edmonton is in a position to develop a first-rate program at a northern Alberta children's hospital, not only from the standpoint of the type of care that can be provided to young pa­ tients, but also a teaching and research centre for not just Alberta or western Canada but all of Canada. Here, it seems to me, we come back to this idea of the 75th Anniversary. Wouldn't it be appropriate that we move on this kind of project during our 75th year. Mr.

Speaker, there is widespread agreement among many professionals involved in this area of medicine that we should move ahead on a project of this nature. As I indicated earlier in my remarks, I'm under no illusion that there is going to be less than enthusiastic support from some hospital boards. Some people in administra­ tion in hospitals, for reasons which are very important to them, will be concerned about what's to happen to the over 500 beds available for children in the city of Edmonton today.

My plea to those people, recognizing their concerns but also recognizing the growth of Edmon­ ton, is that we raise our sights one notch above that and move on this project at a very early date. Mr. Speaker, I want to say to members of the Assem­ bly that I look forward to the debate on the motion which will follow. It's my sincere hope that we can have their support on the motion, which I think would leave a real lasting impact on our 75th Anniversary celebrations. DR. REID: Mr. Speaker, since I was almost invited by the hon.

Leader of the Opposition to get in on this debate, I find it difficult to stay in my seat. In a way, it's a pleasure to rise on Motion 205, because as a doctor, and particularly as a general practitioner, I'm vitally interested in the delivery of health care to people of all ages, from prior to birth right to 95-year-old senior citizens. I think I have some other credentials I can bring to this debate. It happens that in the course of my training I spent a year working in a purely children's hospital of 240 beds which, interestingly enough, fits within the size category discussed by the hon. leader.

During that time in that hospital, I learned a lot about the delivery of pediatric care to a university city. But it also covered the whole of the north of Scotland, the Orkney and Shetland islands, and the northern part of the Western Isles. So we had children brought in by air ambulance — the same type of thing we get in northern Alberta. It's also been a pleasure of mine, for the last eight years, I think — it might be more than that — to serve as the rural general practitioner representative on the steer­ ing committee for the intensive care perinatal units, both obstetric and pediatric.

To put that in layman's language, that's the two nurseries at the University Hospital and the Royal Alexandra Hospital that provide care to the acute­ ly ill newborn or, before the child is born, to the mother of a fetus where we anticipate problems. I would like to mention that it's really been a pleasure to see the development of those two facilities under Dr. David Schiff at the University Hospital and Dr. Neil Finer at the Royal Alexandra. In particular it's been a pleasure to be involved, with Dr.

Charlene Robertson at the Glenrose hospital, in the statistical follow-up of those children, and to show just how worth while that program has been. Not only are we enabling little babies to survive who previously did not survive, but in Dr. Robertson's follow-up it's becoming manifestly evident that we are not just salvaging bodies, we are salvaging normal human beings. These children are doing remarkably well, and are indicative of the capabilities of the pediatric services in northern Alberta. They are indeed as good as anything you will find anywhere else on this continent. Children are not small adults.

That may sound like a dramatic statement, but they are not. They suffer from diseases different from adult diseases, and when they suffer from the same diseases as adults, they respond differently. All one needs to do is think of the juvenile diabetic and what a problem he is to control compared to an adult diabetic. They are very active, growing people. Partly out of their enthusiasms, but partly out of their physiological differences, they get into all kinds of prob­ lems that the adult, hopefully, will stay out of. Mr.

Speaker, earlier in this sitting, I think I made mention of the highly specialized tertiary care facilities that are under development or already exist in this prov­ ince: the Walter C. MacKenzie Health Sciences Centre, presently under construction on the south side; the W.W. Cross Cancer Hospital, the southern cancer hospital, which is under construction; the Alberta children's hospi­ tal; and, to a large extent, the children's pavilion at the Royal Alexandra Hospital. I think the Walter C. Mac­ Kenzie facility alone is currently budgeted in the vicinity of $250 million.

These facilities are to provide a type of care which requires several things. It requires a specific facility with highly specialized X-ray and laboratory facil­ ities. In many instances, it requires specially trained nurses and, quite obviously, certain highly trained special­ ists in the subspecialties involved in tertiary care. In addition to those facilities, we are currently involved in approximately another $1 billion of hospital construc­ tion and projected hospital construction in Alberta.

The total concept is to provide to Albertans a level of medical care and health care — because it's not all medical — which is at least the equal of anything else provided on this continent. It's a declared aim of this government that we should do that, and I'm sure nobody in this Assembly is going to quibble with that aim. The problem we get into, really, is what might be described as "the monument philosophy".

I think I've already mentioned that I happened to come to this coun­ try and this province in 1955 which, as the Leader of the Opposition will remember, was the year of construction of the northern and southern Jubilee auditoria. I would

April 17, 1980 ALBERTA HANSARD 409 like to make amply clear that I am not criticizing the construction of those two auditoria. There was a manifest need for those when they were built, and they've served a very good purpose. My wife and I often drive in from Hinton to the opera or symphony at the northern Jubilee Auditorium. We drive in after the office, and after the performance we drive back to go to work the next morning. So I'm well aware of the problems of distance.

The two auditoria are very much more available to the residents of the two cities than they are to the residents of the less developed, rural areas and the smaller cities. I'm not going to suggest we should build more facilities like that in the smaller centres, because obviously they cannot be supported. But it does indicate something I will bring in later in this address: that you have to carefully balance what service is provided where. Talking about services brings me to the fact that I think we should be discussing programs rather than buildings.

Among programs, there are the intensive care perinatal nurseries I mentioned already; there's the deli­ very of computer-analysed tomography or CAT scans, as they are usually called; there's the provision of certain highly skilled X-ray investigations. But there is also the provision of ordinary primary and secondary level care to children. That care cannot be provided adequately to northern Alberta in one location only. That's manifestly obvious. Primary care can be delivered in any ordinary hospital with the normal facilities that exist in any hospital of 25 or 30 beds and upwards.

Indeed, secondary care can often be delivered in those areas, if there are people with the skills to do it. This city has now reached the stage where to get across the city sometimes takes as long as to travel from one community to another in my constituency, and they are 50 miles apart. So for the provision of primary and secondary pediatric care, one facility in one location of this city would not be adequate. Therefore, of necessity we have to continue providing those levels of care in more than one location within the city.

No one will argue that the provision of tertiary care requires the extra facili­ ties the Leader of the Opposition has described so adequately. I would at this time like to point out that in the new Walter C. MacKenzie Health Sciences complex, there is provision for somewhere under 100 pediatric beds, and those beds will have full access to all the facilities of that new health sciences complex. Other facilities available in the city at the moment are the likes of cardiac catheteriza­ tion. Until relatively recently, two years ago, it was avail­ able only at the University Hospital.

It is now available in the Royal Alexandra Hospital, and is of course available to the children in the pediatric children's pavilion at that hospital. What I'm pointing out, Mr. Speaker, is that at the moment in Edmonton and northern Alberta, we really have a pretty good spectrum of care for children, consid­ ering we are looking at a population of I million people. If you take the whole province, we're looking at 2 million.

The facilities that are on line or under construction or planned at this time, including the new Glenrose hospital, will provide a level of facility and care that very few populations of 2 million can consider, much less enjoy and afford. There have been meetings on several occasions between the northern Alberta Children's Hospital Foundation, the Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care, and the mem­ bers of his department. Indeed, a number of us attended a meeting between the MLAs and the members of the foundation a short time ago, and Dr.

Jones and his confreres were extremely eloquent and very capable at getting their message across to us. But, for their benefit, we also get messages such as the meeting a caucus committee had with the College of Family Practice, who very ably put the other side of the coin I have already discussed: the provision of primary and secondary care, the levels of care much more frequently required than the tertiary care provided by subspecialists. What we really come down to, Mr. Speaker, is that we have to provide multiple levels of care.

We have to provide them where they are needed or where they can most suitably be provided. While I am not in any way being negative to the idea of a separate children's hospi­ tal, I am saying that it is not the time to be trying to put it into the 75th Anniversary celebrations. Hospitals should be built according to need and timing, and a proof of that need. I am not at all convinced at this time in 1980 that the need for a separate children's hospital has been adequately demonstrated, in view of the capabilities we currently have in northern Alberta to deliver pediatric care.

I am mindful of certain other factors that affect the construction of a particular facility for children only. When we take that tertiary level care into that building, it will be much less accessible — admittedly at some incon­ venience to the doctors concerned — than it is at this time in the community hospitals. At the moment we have the Misericordia Hospital providing community level care in the west end. We will have another hospital in the northeast part of the city, and one in the southeast part of the city. Those hospitals of 400 beds will, of necessity, provide secondary level care.

We will require pediatri­ cians to help deliver that secondary level care. If those pediatricians become isolated in their own little enclave in a 300- or 250-bed pediatric hospital, they will, of necessi­ ty, be less available for that secondary care. On the subject of actual facilities, I have seen movies — and other people have seen them — and read books about the special needs of children in the facility. A very good case can be made for separate emergency facilities for children as opposed to adults. A very good case can be made for the different decor and decoration of the building.

A very good case can be made for separating the nurses who deal with children from the nurses who deal with adults, not because of the skills they require, but because of the experience they acquire in handling children and in dealing with them. But surely we do not need to isolate those people in a separate building. It should be possible, in a facility the size of the Royal Alexandra, or the Misericordia, or the University Hospital, to allocate nursing staff or to alloc­ ate rooms and a waiting room in the emergency depart­ ment for children.

Surely, with all the administrators these hospitals have nowadays, they can do that simple process of separating the staff and rooms for children from the staff and rooms for adults. It doesn't mean we have to go off to a separate building. If we need addition­ al radiological machinery, I'm quite sure the minister and his department will provide it, if it is proven to them that it is needed. What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is that surely, with some intelligence, we can, with real forethought and concentration, develop the hospital facilities required for children in northern Alberta.

Whether they require a separate building, I really think has yet to be decided. I would like to listen to the debate and opinions of other

410 ALBERTA HANSARD April 17, 1980 people as to what they think of the subject. Thank you. MR. NOTLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to support the motion we have before us this afternoon. As the hon. Member for Edson pointed out, several weeks ago Members of the Legislative Assembly were given the opportunity of meeting with representatives from the northern Alberta Children's Hospital Foundation. The member has very fairly pointed out that during the course of that evening, representation was made on behalf of a separate children's hospital in the city of Edmonton for northern Alberta.

Of course, prior to that meeting most of the members of the Assembly had been approached, in some cases, I'm sure, by constituents who were particular­ ly concerned about this issue. Most of us were also briefed on the study by Dr. Harry Bain, that the Leader of the Opposition referred to. As a consequence of his reference to that particular submission, Mr. Speaker, I don't intend to go over the points Dr. Bain made, except to say that in reading the study I'm persuaded, notwith­ standing the eloquent efforts of some to argue against a separate children's hospital, that we should move in that direction.

Now should it be a heritage commitment; should it be a 75th Anniversary commitment? Mr. Speaker, I must con­ fess that I am less concerned about how it is done, than that it be done. Whether it is done as a 75th Anniversary commitment — that would be very nice. But frankly, I'm sure most of the people working actively on behalf of the children's hospital foundation would not worry too much under what particular heading we decided to make the commitment, except that it be undertaken as soon as possible.

During the discussions that took place several weeks ago, I was quite impressed to learn that other provinces in Canada have moved in the direction of establishing separate children's hospitals. It's my understanding there is presently one in the city of Halifax. In the city of Montreal there are two separate children's hospitals, one for English-speaking Montrealers and one for French- speaking Montrealers. We have the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, that Dr. Bain, who prepared the study I referred to a moment ago, comes from, and similarly, a hospital in Winnipeg. Mr.

Speaker, just be­ cause other parts of Canada have moved in that direction doesn't necessarily mean we should do so too. But the arguments presented for such a facility lead me to the conclusion that we should proceed. I thought the hon. Member for Edson made a very valid point when he said children are not small adults. Certainly that was the rather forceful presentation mem­ bers of the foundation made to MLAs when we had an opportunity to meet with them. You really can't compare the situation between adults on one hand and children on the other.

The Member for Edson properly pointed out the concerns with respect to emergency services, how frightening emergency services, which many of us might take rather nonchalantly, or at least perhaps in somewhat less intimidated fashion, can be for a child. The member also talked about the decor of rooms and about the experience nurses who continually work with children have and build up, experience which allows them to work with children in a way which reduces the frightening aspect of being in a hospital. Frankly, the arguments the hon.

Member for Edson made lead me to the conclusion that we have to take a very close look at a separate facility. His observation is that it can be done without a separate facility. I would question how effective it will be without a separate facility. Just very briefly referring to Dr. Bain's report, one of the observations that particular gentleman made is that because at the present time patients are dispersed in five units, adequate consultation services are impossible with­ out serious logistic problems. I suppose one can over­ come those problems.

But if they exist — dealing with busy people — surely that is one of the impediments to the best possible service. Dr. Bain also mentioned the inadequate number of full-time academic teaching staff. The Leader of the Opposition made reference to it. Also, I came to the conclusion that although we have over 500 pediatric beds in the five hospitals, there really are no appropriate back-up services available at the present time. Then, of course, he made the observation about emergency facilities, that the hon. Member for Edson alluded to as well. Mr.

Speaker, with those observations in mind, it seems to me that we can look at the construction of this kind of facility. As a member from northern Alberta, I can testify to the concern of many people outside the Edmonton area about having a facility of this nature in northern Alberta. I suppose we can argue decentralization all we like. But no one, including the Member for Edson, is suggesting that we're going to scatter children's hospitals all over the province of Alberta. That just isn't feasible. We have to have a degree of centralization.

I guess the crux of the question we have to address is whether some of the services we all agree on — that Dr. Bain makes note of in his survey, that the Leader of the Opposition mentioned, that the Member for Edson mentioned — can be done appropriately and efficiently on a somewhat scat­ tered basis, in five different institutions in the city of Edmonton now, or whether we can have a generally better system if we centralize it in one children's hospital. Mr. Speaker, the foundation is strongly of the view — and I don't pretend to have any expert knowledge in this field at all.

But the arguments they present for the advantages of centralization, where you have people with specialties, the kind of environment which is conducive for children, staff who are working with children: haying all these facilities and back-up people, if you like, co­ ordinated under one roof — and everybody admits it should be adjacent to one of the hospitals in the city so there can be shared services — would lead, to a better overall standard of service for children in the province of Alberta. Mr. Speaker, I conclude my brief comments on this motion by saying that I strongly support it in principle.

An argument can well be made that it should be con­ structed as a heritage investment. I suppose it's a truism, nevertheless valid, that our children are our best heritage. So the commitment of money from the heritage trust fund for this kind of proposal is not unreasonable. Whether we do it as a way of commemorating our 75th Anniversary — I think it would be an appropriate way, but I don't think anyone who is pushing for this particu­ lar proposal is so hard-and-fast committed to it being the 75th Anniversary that the hon.

Leader of the Opposition or the foundation would worry a great deal if the sod- turning ceremony didn't take place in October this year, but in October of next year. If we got the commitment to proceed, that's the thing that people are concerned about. I conclude my remarks, Mr. Speaker, by saying that the idea has a great deal of merit and I hope that hon. members support the resolution.

April 17, 1980 ALBERTA HANSARD 411 MR. KNAAK: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to be able to participate in this debate, and to make my comments. I think the issues have been identi­ fied.

The issue basically is whether a northern Alberta children's hospital — and from now on I'll call it a northern Alberta child care centre, because that's really the concept the way I understand it — whether concen­ tration of the programs in one building will provide a higher level of health care than programs in different hospitals and, if the conclusion is reached that it does, what priority it should have and when it should go ahead. I'll address my remarks to those two points.

We as Albertans have prided ourselves in setting stand­ ards of excellence which are among the highest in Canada and North America, especially standards of excellence with respect to health care. The issue is whether this standard of excellence is presently achieved in the care of our children. For the purpose of my comments, I'd like to divide the health care service into five categories, just for reference. They'd be: primary care, secondary care, tertiary care, emergency care, and a term I've made up, which I call psychological care.

By the latter I mean an attitude or approach to treatment in a hospital that recognizes the difference between children and adults. As was pointed out before, a child is not a miniature adult, and requires special attention with respect to psychological develop­ ment, along with the physical treatment. I've met with several directors of the northern Alberta Children's Hospital Foundation, and attended the presen­ tation as well.

In my view they have made a convincing case that children's emergency and tertiary care are in need of upgrading, and that the present environment in which children are treated can give rise to serious psycho­ logical consequences. When discussing a northern Alberta children's hospital, I am referring to a child care treatment centre, not merely a tertiary care specialist centre, although that would be a component of such a child care centre.

As well, by speaking in support of a northern Alberta child care centre, I'm not suggesting the closure of pediatric beds in the general hospitals in northern Alberta or in Edmon­ ton. On the contrary, beds should be retained for community primary and secondary care. As I see them, the benefits of a child care centre in northern Alberta would be as follows. It would be staffed by individuals interested in working with children. That in itself has a benefit. It would be, staffed by nurses and other support staff specially trained to treat children.

It should be noted in this regard that some diseases and conditions in children may have different consequences and require different approaches than a similar disease in an adult. The child care centre would attract specialists not now in Alberta and, as a consequence, a team approach can be developed that's not possible now. In addition, specialty services would then be available that are not now available. We would then have an emergency department that is both trained and equipped to deal with children.

Perhaps equally as important as the other four is that such a children's medical centre would be sensitive to the different psychological needs of a child. As well, some broader questions are involved that re­ late to the timing of such a hospital. There are questions about whether matters such as child abuse, emotional problems of children, and drug and alcohol problems of children should be treated in such a hospital. Care of these problems lies beyond the traditional bounds of medicine, and is not now provided in our larger hospitals.

I'm convinced, therefore, that a child care centre for northern Alberta will significantly improve the health care of our children, and I support the concept. However, as government members, we also have to set priorities. The Walter C. Mackenzie facility in Edmonton will cost $250 million and will be one of the finest facilities of its kind in the world. Two general hospitals have been announced by this government to serve the Edmonton area. At present there are over 500 pediatric beds, with an occupancy rate of 60 per cent.

Notwithstanding these facts, I believe a northern Alberta child care centre should receive priority in this government's future consid­ eration of hospital construction. I'm aware that the northern Alberta Children's Hospi­ tal Foundation is now in the process of preparing further information which would indicate the need and the de­ gree of urgency of establishing such an institution. It is not available for the benefit of the members at this time, and I think that very much addresses the question of priority.

I would therefore suggest to this Assembly that we debate this motion again, rather than voting on it today. Probably by the fall we'll have that information, which will help us in addressing this particular question of priority with a greater amount of factual information. I also wish to thank the members of the northern Alberta children's institute for informing me and I'm sure, other members, of the concept of a children's hospital or a child care treatment centre and of the different benefits of having such a centre in Alberta.

In closing, I would like to say again that I think the concept of a building which would be a child care treat­ ment centre has a lot of merit. I support the concept. The, question of priority — in other words, the question is not if we should have one, but when — will be addressed when we get further information from the northern Al­ berta Children's Hospital Foundation. Thank you. MRS. EMBURY: Mr.

Speaker, I'm very pleased to speak today on Motion 205, for a variety of reasons; I guess first and foremost because I'm probably the only one, or one of the few southerners in the province, who are speaking on this motion. Secondly, I would like to speak as a nurse. I'm well acquainted with the facilities of a free-standing children's hospital. Also, I have been per­ sonally involved, through my own family, in utilizing the services of a hospital such as we're talking about today.

I suppose I really should chide the Leader of the Opposition very slightly for being so kind as to consider some special benefits for our northern city of Edmonton. I haven't quite figured out why he has not addressed the matter of Calgary, and what he would see as the priority down there for the 75th Anniversary. Mind you, I'm quite assured that the people of Calgary will come up with their own ideas, [interjection] But I notice that today he has purposely directed his motion just to the northern part of the province.

It's also interesting, unless I am mistaken, that this resolution was not raised by the Leader of the Opposition in the International Year of the Child. That would have been a very appropriate time to do this, but I suspect the northern foundation was probably studying this issue in great detail during that year. I think the foundation should be commended for the amount of work they have obviously put into studying the matter of a children's hospital for Edmonton. I understand they have met several times with MLAs from the northern part of the province and with the Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care.

No doubt they will continue

412 ALBERTA HANSARD April 17, 1980 to study the needs, as they see them, and present those to government. I'm particularly pleased to have the opportunity today to speak on this motion. I'd like to take you very briefly over the history of one of the outstanding children's hospitals in western Canada. Probably most of you who at some time in your lives have visited Calgary have been aware of our hospital down there. I think the present name of the hospital in Calgary is very significant. It is now called the Alberta children's hospital.

Historically, children's hospitals were established be­ cause medical and surgical needs of children were not being met in pediatric facilities which were part of a general hospital. That was the case in Calgary. In 1922, the Alberta division of the Red Cross Society built a 26-bed facility which was called the Junior Red Cross Crippled Children's Hospital. Seven years later in the southwest location a new hospital was built with a capaci­ ty of up to 50 beds. At that time the patient care emphasis was on long-term or chronic conditions, pri­ marily orthopedic cases.

For some of us who may have been around or may have read medical stories of those days, this was also the era of poliomyelitis or infantile paralysis. In 1949, construction started on a 128-bed hospital at the present site. It's an extremely pleasant site in the southwest, almost the central core of Calgary. It's located on the brow of the hill, so there's a commanding view of the downtown area of Calgary. The hospital opened in 1952. Six years later the Red Cross transferred the hospital to the Alberta Children's Hospital Society.

This society was composed of private citizens dedicated to the cause of assisting handicapped children. However, one stipula­ tion of the transfer was that orthopedically handicapped children would still be treated. At this time, emphasis was placed on classroom teaching and other services. Those statements probably sound very simplistic to us today, but for anybody who walked through those very narrow hospital corridors and really understood the amount of supplies and money poured into having teachers come and teach these young children, it was a major step for this hospital.

The hospital did accept children from all parts of Alberta and, amazingly enough, from our neighboring provinces too. As a matter of fact, 30 per cent of total days of care were provided for patients from outside Calgary. During this time, orthopedic cases began to decrease. S, so the services were opened to all medical staff for all pediatric cases up to 16 years of age. In 1972 the hospital was established as a provincial general hospital. If anybody has been to Calgary recently, he will have seen major construction going on at the site. The money has come from the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund.

It's investing an estimated total of $33 million. As the Member for Edmonton Whitemud alluded, today these are not called children's hospitals but come under the name of child health care centre. I would like very briefly to mention some of the points Dr. Bain raises in his report, because I think they exemp­ lify the benefits of a free-standing children's hospital. I think they're important considerations, and I believe the Member for Spirit River-Fairview alluded to some of the advantages.

First of all, it does bring about a concentra­ tion of patients in the pediatric age group in a facility that is one hundred per cent dedicated to the care of children. There is a strong commitment by staff members to promote and protect the welfare of children in the hospi­ tal and in the community. The dedication is toward the prevention of disease. Therefore, there is emphasis on outpatient services, assessment centres, emergency serv­ ices, facilities for diagnosis and management of psycho/ social problems.

Through a personal experience in my own family, I utilized the services of the children's hospital in Calgary. I must admit that when you are taking a child for examina­ tion or treatment, it is most reassuring in a hospital the size of the one in Calgary to have a barrage of orthopedic specialists, six or eight of them sitting together as a team examining the patient and making a diagnosis. As a parent you well appreciate the fact that your child is probably receiving by far the best medical advice possi­ ble.

In a centralized facility it is often easier to recruit staff and the necessary expertise to look after children, with the concentration of adequate numbers of patients and illnesses of all varieties. Many students from the University of Calgary nursing faculty also utilize the services of this pediatric hospital. They find it advantageous from the point of view that there is a cross

section of varying conditions of children. They also have the expert advice of nurses and other staff members who have been in that type of service for many, many years and are indeed extremely dedicated, and of course the expert advice of the specialized medical faculty. The hallmark of a pediatric centre, too, is the pursuit of research and investigation into unsolved problems of medicine and medical care. One of the debates that has been mentioned today is whether a children's hospital should be free-standing or attached to a medical centre or university.

I think one interesting point is that the 150- bed Winnipeg children's hospital became part of a 1,200- bed health science complex. Even though the Winnipeg children's hospital had started from a position of strength in the community and at the bargaining table, its staff now feels that the needs of children have not been dealt with as fairly within the large health science complex. So in many ways I think we are indeed very fortunate to realize that the Alberta children's hospital in Calgary is a free-standing institution.

It also becomes a community resource and a source of pride for the people within the community. It will be the focal point in a community, for the setting of standards of child care. Hospitals such as a children's hospital also become a focal point for volunteers. In fact many of the earlier children's hospitals were established through the efforts of women's volunteer groups. These programs serve a great need not only of the hospital but of individ­ ual volunteers. Generally the boards of trustees of chil­ dren's hospitals also are a very special group of volun­ teers.

The uniqueness is that they become involved in every aspect of hospital life, especially the roles of the hospital in the community and as the voice of children. It is certainly recognized that children's hospitals are unique institutions. When one looks around the world, they provide the best possible care for children. The best training programs are centred in these hospitals, and they provide a sound environment for research. However, having said all that, I would like to point out that I think the hospital in Calgary, that we're so very proud of, does serve the needs of the people of Alberta at this time.

It's not to negate the efforts of the people in Edmonton to look at the needs of this part of the province. Eventually other centres in the province may also feel they need it. I think the question we have to look

April 17, 1980 ALBERTA HANSARD 413 at in our role is: how many of the specialized services can we provide, and where should they be provided? I know that when the medical research foundation Act was passed, there was also, I suppose, talk by many people, many- specialized doctors in Calgary, about setting up various Centres down there: straight orthopedic centres, gerontology centres, and many, many other concerns. I think these are all viable ideas and, hopefully, something we will be moving to in this province.

But I think the questions for us as legislators are: how many of these services can we support in this province, where should they best be located, and who should staff them? As mentioned by previous members of the government, I think today we are dealing with a question of priorities. The $1.25 billion hospital construction program alone, right across this province, certainly indicates there is a strong priority for hospital construction. Also money from the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund is being poured into hospital construction. Special centres, like the Walter C.

MacKenzie Health Sciences Centre in Edmonton, are a priority of our government at this time. One of the other questions I think we have to consider in this discussion is the pros and cons of the free-standing children's hospital. As mentioned by the member for Jasper, there have been presentations by other people, such as the family practitioners, with some concerns about having a specialized hospital built. They feel it would really restrict them, and that the best place for more pediatric beds is still in a general hospital.

So at this time we feel we have to look at the timing of this desire for a hospital, we have to look at the needs of the northern part of the province, and we have to look at the priorities we have set as government. Thank you. MRS. FYFE: Mr. Speaker, I also would like to compli­ ment the members' of the Alberta Children's Hospital Foundation for the work and dedication they have put into this project. The president and at least two of the directors live in my constituency, so they keep me in­ formed as to the events and the work they're doing.

I certainly commend them very sincerely for the extreme amount of work they have accomplished. Relating to Motion 205, that is before us today, I say first that I support the intent of a children's hospital and the services that type of facility would provide. I have some difficulty with the motion itself, but I don't think that is necessarily relevant in this afternoon's debate. There are certainly advantages in a facility that would centralize or specialize treatment that relates to children.

In some of the material the foundation has provided us with, they've set out a great deal of information and, for a lay person like me, set it out very clearly and very understandably. They've set out areas that would benefit, such as surgical equipment designed for the specific needs of infants and children. They've set out arguments in favor of medicines and intensive care facilities.

I think one of the strongest arguments in favor of a facility such as this is the fact that it would centralize and would attract specialties we do not have in the northern Alberta region — and I'm not familiar with whether the Calgary facility has these specialties — such as endocrinology of which, I understand, there is some lack within this region.

Having had the personal experience of going to a large medical centre, the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota, having travelled there first-hand and seen that kind of operation where you do not have any kind of magic or supermedi- cine, but an attitude toward medicine that is very posi­ tive, that includes the patient and includes a very strong dedicated team approach, I think the greatest argument in favor of a children's facility is to encourage a team approach and encourage the specialization within chil­ dren's medicine that we do not have or is not adequate at this point in time.

There are advantages in economy of scale, in trying to centralize the equipment in one facility rather than trying to develop a number of different facilities throughout this region. I think it's always a concern for government, particularly one that provides close to 100 per cent of hospital costs, that we not encourage development of two, three, or four separate specialized areas, but that we work toward the development of one child care facility. One of the arguments put forward by the foundation is that Edmonton is one of the few major cities in Canada that does not have a children's hospital.

Well, I would like to comment on the fact that compared to Ontario, where there has been the oldest children's hospital, and compared to Winnipeg, Alberta has had a smaller popu­ lation, and I don't think we have had the children in need of care to support this type of facility. But as our province grows and the number of children within our province grows, over the last few years the need has become more apparent. I think we can look to this type of a facility in the future. One consideration in planning this type of facility is the existing beds within our active treatment hospitals.

There's one hospital within my constituency, the Stur­ geon hospital. I know the residents of my constituency would not want to give up the majority of their pediatric beds. So in the balance in providing this type of facility, I think we have to examine very carefully the programs we have in place now. I think the member from Edson- Hinton . . . Edson? DR. REID: Edson. MRS. FYFE: He just said a minute ago that everybody gets his constituency mixed up. The Member for Edson commented that it is important that we look at programs or services that are provided, and not just the structure.

At the dinner the foundation had, we discussed this exact topic with one of the pedia­ tricians at our table. He advised us that the structure was not as important as concentrating our programming. So while I know that I support the concept, I think it must be done only after a very thorough analysis of the need within northern Alberta, and particularly within this region. I think it is absolutely essential to understand the need, so that when we're setting our priorities for pediatr­ ic beds, for care of children, it is based on fact.

As the Member for Edmonton Whitemud suggested, further in­ formation will be coming to us in the very near future. To me it is extremely important that we have it, and I would urge the government to acquire as much information and analysis of the existing situation as we can, so that the decision will be based not just on the desirability or the want but on the need. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. DR. C. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure for me to rise to speak on Motion 205.

I was a bit surprised that it took quite this long for this topic to be brought up in the Legislature, seeing that the topic had been around all last year, the International Year of the Child. I was approached on several occasions last year, being involved in day care and going to Interna­

414 ALBERTA HANSARD April 17, 1980 tional Year of the Child meetings about the children's hospital. I feel the society has done a good job in lobbying and presenting its view of the need for a chil­ dren's hospital. Mr. Speaker, I was a little awed by the statement the Leader of the Opposition made, that at the present time we're only providing yeoman service in pediatric care and needs in the city. I think we have some of the best facili­ ties and care here in the city. It's not necessarily the building that provides the care; it's the program. If we have anything to do, we need to adjust that program. Mr.

Speaker, I have several pros and cons to give. I would not like to start on the pros and then not be able to give the cons, or otherwise, so at this time I'd like to beg leave to adjourn debate. MR. SPEAKER: Debate is of course automatically ad­ journed because of the lack of time. head: PUBLIC BILLS AND ORDERS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT BILLS AND ORDERS (Second Reading) Bill 202

An Act to Amend The Builders' Lien Act MR. GOGO: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 202,

An Act to Amend The Builders' Lien Act. Mr. Speaker, in addressing second reading I think it might be important to go over both the motivation for me sponsoring this Bill and the history of The Builders' Lien Act in Alberta, and then speak to the Bill itself. Most of us, Mr. Speaker, as legislators — I say most, not all — have very little legal background.

Quite often, when we get into pieces of legislation, it seems we tend to become wrapped up in the words in the statutes and perhaps lose sight of the objective which, I suggest, is to enable Albertans, those in our jurisdiction anyway, to live better lives with government being minimally involved in their lives. However, with the passage of time and necessi­ ties, I guess, we invoke statutes that have profound impact on peoples' lives. One of those is the Bill we're addressing today. For example, I'll just quote part of the present Act, under

Section 30: Where, in respect of work done on or material fur­ nished for an improvement, (

a) something is improperly done, or (

b) something that should have been done is not done, at the time when the thing should have been done and if at a later date the thing improperly done is put right or the thing not done is done, the doing of the thing at the later date shall not be deemed to be the completion of the work or the furnishing of the last materials . . . and on and on and on. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that notwithstanding our legal friends in the Assembly, most of us would have a little difficulty understanding the wording of that statute.

Is it any wonder that in Alberta, where we have such a tremendous number of small businessmen trying — I suggest, earnestly — to earn a living and sometimes make a profit, when faced with some of the legalities built in the statutes, [they] have difficulty not only understanding them but complying with the terms of them. Inevitably one receives the age-old advice: when there's confusion, hire a lawyer and he will straighten it out. I suggest, Mr.

Speaker, when you do that you invoke two things: one, sometimes an interminable delay, which proves to be costly because the meter is running; and second, when it's dealing with customers, the feelings toward some of those customers turn out to be antagonistic. For members who perhaps haven't read the history of The Builders' Lien Act, I'd like to spend a moment or two on the history as it's evolved in the province of Alberta. It really started in 1960 with The Mechanics' Lien Act.

Back in those days, when we didn't have such a competent Minister of Labour or perhaps the labour Act wasn't as involved in the lives of workers in terms of protective devices as it is today, The Mechanics' Lien Act was primarily intended as a way whereby a man, who by the sweat of his brow had spent time on work projects, was assured of redress and indeed justice in terms of getting his wages. The time period allowed in those days was rather practical. It was 35 days for wages, but much longer for other types of materials under the Act, such as if you were dealing with pipeline companies and other goods.

It obviously drew a fair amount of attention because, in 1970 — after a great deal of initiation by people who were unsatisfied with The Mechanics' Lien Act, I believe — the government of the day called a public inquiry under Judge Buchanan. It dealt with many issues. Perhaps the most important was the one I'm attempting to move today; that is, the time period in which a lien could be lodged or invoked with the regis­ trar, to protect peoples' interests. As a result of that public inquiry, Mr. Speaker, there were major amendments to the Act.

Perhaps the most important or notable one was the change of name to The Builders' Lien Act. One assumed that The Mechanics' Lien Act wasn't very realistic; it was interpreted to mean, I suppose, working on farm machinery, an era which we not only appeared to be coming out of, but indeed did come out of, and we got into the construction industry. Other major changes resulted at that time, Mr. Speak­ er. All those under the previous Builders' Lien Act, The Mechanics' Lien Act as it was known, went into a common 35-day time frame for registering liens or griev­ ances, or whatever they were termed.

In 1972, with major amendments to the Act, there was established — and rightly so — the builders' lien fund. Fifteen per cent of the costs of a project were put in a special fund for the protection of those who would be making liens against that fund. Perhaps a year ago, Mr. Speaker, I was approached by many small businessmen in my community. One was a plumber, another was an air-conditioning firm — a small firm, the sort of thing that Alberta is built on, two partners. It was unfortunate that the project they air- conditioned — why, I don't know — was a liquor store owned by this government.

It wasn't big money; it was $12,000. But, I suggest, it was extremely big money to them. They found out . . . [interjection] Pardon? MR. HYLAND: It's still big money to me. MR. GOGO: Big money to the Member for Cypress, as indeed many farmers would attest here, especially the ones who aren't fortunate enough to go to Hawaii each year. MR. HYLAND: I'm one of them.

April 17, 1980 ALBERTA HANSARD 415 MR. GOGO: Two building supply companies asked me if there was not some way in which legislation could be amended to help them. As a result of their inquiries, Mr. Speaker, I looked at The Builders' Lien Act, particularly

Section 30, which deals with the time period in which a person is legally able to lodge a lien. Now, being from Lethbridge we're not as fortunate as some of those members of the Assembly from Calgary and Edmonton. As we members of the Assembly all know, we only have to mention one city when we deal with things like the Land Titles Office. We know that when one gets one, the other gets the same, and it goes on and on and on. So if I use Edmonton, please understand that Calgary has the same thing; or if I use Calgary, then please understand Edmonton has the same thing. The one exception, I guess is the AGT tower.

But that's only temporary, as I understand. AN HON. MEMBER: I'll write that down so I don't forget it. MR. GOGO: Mr. Speaker, I'll deal primarily with a supply company, because I'm rather familiar with — there are two of them actually. When somebody is build­ ing a home or other type of building, the common prac­ tice is to go to a supply dealer and order supplies. Of course it's customary, if you are, for example, Revelstoke, a large conglomerate, to have the ways and means of checking out the credit worthiness of the person buying.

But small companies like ABC Lumber Company and other small firms don't really have the sophistication of investigating credit worthiness. Or if it's a building boom, such as we had three years ago in my area, the very competitive nature of the business meant they did what­ ever credit check was necessary to establish a line of credit, and then advanced the supplies. Many of us know, and it's applicable in all types of businesses, that the person who is interested in getting something for nothing would, whether through intent or not, sometimes purchase a small order two or three consecutive times and pay for it.

Then would come the whammer, and they'd order $10,000, $20,000, or $30,000 worth of supplies. The normal time period of credit issued in Alberta — again not machine dealers, where they might deal in years — is generally 30 days. The nub of the problem, Mr. Speaker, is that someone will purchase various goods or materials from a supplier, they'll be billed, and 30 days rolls around, plus one or two. Particularly the small businessman gets a little anx­ ious if the bill is greater than $500 or $1,000. Invariably he makes a phone call to the customer; a friendly phone call, because he doesn't want to lose this chap.

And the response is always, well, my cheque is in the mail. So with the respect we have for Her Majesty's service, we wait three, four, five, six days, perhaps longer, and it has not arrived. The warning bells go off, and somehow in the back of our mind our chartered accountant or our bookkeeper or whoever says, gee whiz, we got taken on this a year ago; perhaps we should register a lien. Well, as you know, with the 35-day period that's not possible. As a matter of fact, I suggest that if you live in places other than Calgary and Edmonton and want to do things by mail, you'd better allow a week.

Maybe one of the options to extending this 35-day period to 45 days could be like Manitoba. Manitoba has a system like Alberta has with liquor stores. Wherever we have a population of more than 12, we seem to establish one of those places. I think Manitoba has nine or 10 land titles offices throughout the province. They seem to believe that the purpose of land titles is to serve the people, and it's probably not a bad idea. But as you know, we estab­ lished one and then we had to give another one.

But there are only two in this province, even though there are people who live in places other than Calgary and Edmonton. So, Mr. Speaker, for the small businessman, the sheer mechanics of trying to register that lien are just too difficult. So what's he done? Well, you know, Albertans are not only entrepreneurs but they're somewhat in­ genious and sometimes pretty bright, so the practice has developed that when you send the customer the invoice for the supplies, you send a lien to the Land Titles Office. And people think, well what's wrong with that? Well, what's wrong, Mr.

Speaker, is that where 10 years ago there were 1,200 or 1,500 liens in a year, now in the Edmonton area alone, I understand, there are 75 liens per week. So it's developed into the system whereby they're defensive liens — once bitten, twice shy. These are used with caution. You want to be very careful when you file a lien that you don't tell your customer, because he might get upset. Take a practical example: you are going to build a house, for those who can afford to build a house in 1980, and you make arrangements with a contractor and the deal is set.

Remember, you are the owner and you make a deal with a contractor to build your home. Now, involved in that home might be 10 subtrades and three, four, or five, supply houses, plus the contractor. The contractor, of course, undertakes the responsibility to build your house. He receives the advances of moneys. But for some reason or other, he fails to pay or has good intentions of paying. But because the supply houses have been stung in the past, within a week or so of submitting their invoices to the contractor they lodge a lien at the Land Titles Office.

Two months down the road you occupy your home; you have your housewarming and think it's just marvellous. Unbeknown to you there are 12 or 15 liens against your property. As you know, by legal description, buildings really don't exist; land exists. But you are unaware of all this; you don't know what's going on. However, a week later you're advised that you've just been transferred — depending on your success — to Fort Chip or Calgary, and you immediately list your house to sell. Being as you have a hot market, in a day or two there's an offer to purchase.

Virtually immediately, a so­ licitor discovers on his search that there are 12 or 15 liens against the property. You can't sell the property unless the liens are removed. I suppose that's not difficult. Because if you're in Edmonton, in a day or two the liens are removed, if people are co-operative and wish to do it. But of those liens, one is in Phoenix — he left and moved his company there — another is in Toronto. How do you remove those? Well, not being a legal beagle, I don't know the exact way it's done. But I do know that the owner doesn't sell his home.

The one person who entered into it totally innocent of what could transpire has now become the victim of what some people think is the alternative to this amendment. In other words, they file defensive liens because we as a government haven't seen fit to extend the time period from 35 to 45 days, to accommodate the small business­ man who historically has been bitten by advancing credit. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that it's not a major move to amend this Act. There's some downside risk, and I am sure we're going to hear that from members in a few minutes. There's a little bit of downside risk to the

416 ALBERTA HANSARD April 17, 1980 conglomerates and so on, but not to the small business­ man, and certainly not to the owners. So one would wonder why this is not a government bill; more than one would wonder, because if one of you is wondering, there's another one here wondering. Mr. Speaker, if we look at the people who traditionally deal with this type of thing — one thinks of the Institute of Law Research and Reform, which felt the matter was extremely important, to the extent that they wouldn't even deal with it.

Another group, HUDAC, the Housing and Urban Development Association of Canada, and most house builders in Alberta are members of HUDAC — I would just like to paraphrase the comments they made. They said that not only is it important to address the issue of the 35-day lien period under

Section 30, but indeed it should be extended to 45 days. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that that support is very indicative of the way the majority of builders in Alberta feel. Because to my knowledge HUDAC — I don't know offhand how many members there are, but the meetings I attend and the banquets I have with them indicate a very high member­ ship — endorses it.

Other organizations such as the Alberta Construction Association, which is in the process or has been in the process of submitting 32 or 34 recommendations on The Builders' Lien Act alone — that's surprising, because there are organizations which have said perhaps the buil­ ders' Act should be removed from the statute books because it's not needed any longer. Here we have the representatives of the Alberta Construction Association making 35 recommendations to The Builders' Lien Act. Obviously it's important to somebody. However, Mr.

Speaker, my concern is for that small businessman throughout Alberta, whether he operates as a subtrade or a materials supplier. I think it's fine to be here in the Legislature and make laws of a positive nature that impact on people's lives. I can't think of one that would be more important to the small businessman of Alberta, than for us to show some compassion and amend the legislation so that he may have a fighting chance to stay in business. Mr. Speaker, let me conclude by highlighting. The amendment to the Act is a very, very minor change — from 35 to 45 days.

Other jurisdictions in Canada run as high as 60 days. The maritime provinces, for whatever reason — maybe accounts receivable with fishermen are different than accounts receivable for plumbers in Alber­ ta; I don't know — tend to be 60 days. Other provinces have been in the process of addressing the issue. Very simply, with the normal credit time of 30 days that we have in Alberta which has become historic — I think the 35-day period is just not sufficient to accommodate many of these small businessmen and subtrades. So I ask, Mr.

Speaker, that the members of the Assembly support in principle the amending of this Act from 35 to 45 days. Thank you very much. MR. MAGEE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support Bill 202, presented by the hon. Member for Lethbridge West. I am prompted, in commencing my remarks, originally by concerns from quite a number of Red Deer constituents interested in small business, the supply of building ma­ terials, building contractors, and the subtrades. Not un­ like many of our towns, villages, hamlets, and cities.

Red Deer has expanded very rapidly in the last few years, but away from the two large cities and almost exclusively by relatively small businessmen. These small businessmen, of course, are very vulnerable to situations such as those presented by this particular Act. I would like to remind the members that, as outlined by the Member for Lethbridge West, the very indication that the history of the changes that have been necessary since 1960, all based on the time elements for putting protective liens on, indicates by itself that there has been a great deal of concern through a period of time.

With those few preliminary remarks as to why I feel the need is there, I would like to remind members again that this amendment is very, very important to the well-being of many, many small businessmen. Of course, thousands of employees depend on these small businesses for their livelihood. As much protectiqn as possible should be afforded them and their employers by a government which is dedicated to the free-enterprise system, often­ times, and of late, paying particular attention to the special needs of small business people.

I suggest respect­ fully that this law should be changed to keep it in accord with that philosophy. I think it might useful to go back in history, Mr. Speaker, beyond where we were taken by the Member for Lethbridge West, to remind members or to bring them up to date with the fact that this law has been around for a long, long time. The right to security in the form of a lien against land and improvements was founded in Roman law. Subsequently it developed into civil law, and was incorporated in the Napoleonic code. It was first intro­ duced into North America in Maryland back in 1791.

Subsequently, similar statutes spread throughout the USA, and came to Canada, in Ontario and Manitoba, in 1873. Since then all provinces have followed suit. Mr. Speaker, imagine the number of changes and amendments that have been made in this time span of at least 2,000 years. In fact, each province has made nu­ merous amendments, since it was brought into Canada.

A whole range of dates are applicable to this particular section, across this country, with at least five provinces currently having more than 35 days in which persons may register liens against the contractors or persons for whom those services were rendered. I would like to list those provinces: New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Prince Edward Island, and Saskatchewan. As this Act now stands, Mr. Speaker, a contractor, subcontractor, or supplier of materials has 35 days from the day last worked on the job site to register a lien for non-payment of account.

As hon. members are well aware, the business world generally operates on credit. The standard terms of payment that have been accepted in the construction business are 30 days. This length of time for placing a lien is established either from the date of invoice or the last day of the month worked. This procedure works well in most cases. However, in the case of a person not paying his account by the 30th day, only five days remain for a subcontractor or supplier to secure a lien on this property. If we had a reliable postal service, sir, five days would probably be sufficient.

In the days when this law was last changed, to the 35-day period, we probably did have a reliable postal system. It could be relied on to have lawyers produce a lien, the necessary paperwork, and then be ensured that it would reach the only Land Titles Office, in Edmonton at that time. I understand that there is now an additional Land Titles Office in Calgary. This doesn't leave the small businessman many options, Mr. Speaker. He can, of course, make all his doubtful accounts COD, or he can shorten the time period for payment to 14 days or 21 days to obtain sufficient time to register the liens.

But as indicated by the Member for

April 17, 1980 ALBERTA HANSARD 417 Lethbridge West, this would no doubt reflect very sub­ stantially on his business, particularly because of the rela­ tionship of placing defensive liens because he was trying to change an accepted practice. Where a developer is in the habit of paying a contractor on that 30-day factor, a change is a nuisance to him. Larger accounts, of course, don't have that trouble because they retain accounting people. But visualize a small contractor, working 12 or 14 hours a day in the heat of our summers, trying to get a job completed and finished.

He's out there really trying to expand his busi­ ness. He doesn't have the opportunity to keep track of the fact that from the seventh day he supplied the last work on a job — he has to count down, on his fingers we'll say, probably while he's trying to work, where 30 days would fit into the picture. Sometimes he will have to leave his job to get to a telephone in order to make phone calls to determine whether his cheque is coming to him. These are all disruptive to small business.

I think hon. members can readily see that this would create a great deal of dissension between the developers, the larger contractors, the sub-contractors, and the sup­ pliers, all scrambling to make sure that that account was going to be paid within that 30-day period so they could launch the proceedings to establish a defensive lien. I suggest all this activity also contributes to the details or the paper war that these phone calls would stimulate. In many cases, small businessmen cannot afford the time to take it, so they take a chance on the accounts. They hope the majority of them will be paid.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that a longer period would take away some fears in this regard. Oftentimes, when this single creditor initiates ac­ tion-on a contractor, he stops the flow of money. Because of his lien starting to show up, investigations of this particular developer indicate to other suppliers that they should start to put defensive liens on the property as well. The first thing you know, as the hon. Member for Leth­ bridge West indicated, you could have 10 or 12 of this type of liens. I can cite a situation that's happened to me since I came to this Legislative Assembly.

It evolves around some land that was owned by a department of this government in Red Deer. It happened to be land that had a couple of small lakes on it. It was felt that it should be moved from the jurisdiction of one department to anoth­ er. About a few years ago — I think seven or eight years ago, if I recall — there was a request that a pumping station be located on the corner of this property to pipe water for city purposes. As a result of that activity, I think eight defensive liens were lodged against this gov­ ernment by the contractors, who automatically put a lien against that property.

When I came to have the title searched and make representation to have that property moved to another department so it could have restricted developments put against it, I found I couldn't get the job done. In order to actually operate within the confines of the law of clear title on transfer, this government had to go back to the original people who put those defensive liens on that particular job site before we were able to get the property transferred to the other department. So this happens not only to small accounts but even to big accounts. Mr.

Speaker, some people might argue that another 10 days — it is proposed to move it to 45 days — would interfere with the whole exchange of funds coming for­ ward, and that cash flows would be disrupted. I contend, sir, that this is of small significance when you consider that much needless effort is now expended in checking the security of accounts by larger and smaller companies. Many needless liens, that would otherwise not have to be put on if the 10-day period were there, are now registered, that take further time and effort to discharge before title to a property can be cleared.

The 15 per cent holdback that's referred to and is now prescribed under the present Act, really represents in part the profit or the portion that the subcontractor would pay in the form of income tax. Therefore, this amount of money should not represent any slow-down in funds necessary to carry on the wheels of industry. In my experience in business, federal income tax is not recorded in your bookkeeping system until received.

Holding back that portion would, in effect, harm no Alberta business in cash flow whatsoever if this 15 per cent did represent the amount that would be forwarded to the federal govern­ ment in the subsequent month. So for those who indicate there would be a holdup in the wheels of industry, I cannot buy that. I've referred to the situation at Red Deer, because I'm more knowledgeable about it. It's a situation presented to me by contractors and subcontractors. Some might argue that this could not happen here in the city of Edmonton.

I have information from a very knowledgeable source I can rely on absolutely, a supplier of equipment to rental yards. These rental yards in turn supply many smaller contractors in the city. This person informs me that throughout the building industry at this time, a universal complaint in his attempt to collect from subcontractors and so on is that they are being stultified by the fact that in many cases they missed putting a lien on a property. They missed by a few days because of a mail disruption.

As a consequence, that 15 per cent, and possibly some other amounts of money that always seem to add onto it, then goes into limbo. They have to revert to civil actions to make collections; go through small debts courts, and various other means, in order to get their funds, and they in turn delay payment through the system. So I suggest that in many cases there's a greater interruption in the cash flow as a result of these contractors not being able to get their accounts paid on time simply because they're held up by persons who owe them money.

So I strongly urge hon. members to recognize the need of the small businessman and help take some of the frustration out of our current operations in this explosive industry that we're in from a growth point of view. It's been going on for about three years and will probably go on for a number of years yet. It's a corrective action that I think is very timely. With those remarks, Mr. Speaker, I will conclude. MR. HIEBERT: Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to enter the debate on Private Bill 202, introduced and read for the second time by the Member for Lethbridge West.

It deals, of course, to the proposed amendment to The Builders' Lien Act. The Member for Lethbridge West amplified on the history of The Mechanic's Lien Act, the major changes that have taken place, leading to the present status. He's also traced the problem dealing with the small businessman or supplier. Mr. Speaker, in general the intent of The Builders' Lien Act is to provide a mechanism where persons providing materials, labor, or services have a safeguard to fall back on when things are improperly done or not done. But I suggest, Mr.

Speaker, that it becomes a very tricky affair when you have three or more parties involved, and there are different stakeholders with regard to this amendment in terms of registering the lien in a required amount of

418 ALBERTA HANSARD April 17, 1980 time. You have the owner/developer, the contractor, the subcontractors, the suppliers, and in with that you have the small and large firms. Yet they all have to deal with the same provisions. The proposed amendment is in reference to the time required to register such a lien. I would think the objec­ tive here is to try to find an appropriate balance: on the one hand, to decide at what speed we speed up the flow of funds on the 15 per cent holdback, as opposed to extending the time for registration of a lien whereby it will work to the advantage of the small businessman.

If we take a look at other jurisdictions, Mr. Speaker, there is provision for liens to be registered before and during performance of the contract. It can be registered a pre­ scribed number of days after the completion. I think one of the questions is that clarification is required on the definition of completion or substantial completion. If we look at jurisdictions outside of Alberta, we note that British Columbia has 31 days; Manitoba has 30; Saskatchewan, 37; and Ontario, 37. I suggest that the 35 days appears to be somewhat the norm, if you look at the Alberta situation.

When we look at the issue in terms of the filing period, Mr. Speaker, I suggest it also proves costly to suppliers and contractors because in some cases the owner or the mortgage company, whatever, may withhold the 15 per cent. This 15 per cent is held another 10 days. The situation can also work the other way, where the contractor requires release of this money so that in turn he can pay the suppliers and subcontractors, and the chain reaction can occur another way with the cash flow. We also have to look at some of the large projects. Fifteen per cent of the holdback involves many a big dollar.

With the current rate of interest, sometimes the slim profit margins are eaten up very quickly, especially when it's a very competitive market. So the 10 days do become significant the some other stakeholders, and in some cases it could eventually lead to bankruptcies of some of the firms in the construction industry. I note that the post office has been mentioned, Mr. Speaker, and I would suggest that we not rectify that particular problem through The Builders' Lien Act. Maybe we're just reinforcing the inefficient operation by making accommodations.

If you are running a business, I think you have to recognize that when you're dealing with credit, you should learn the credit rating of the people you are dealing with, the track record of these people. It is always argued that small firms are more responsive. I would suggest that they should be on top of their ac­ counts receivable, and should know their customers. That way, they can be in a position of receiving their moneys from the customers they are dealing with.

I suggest that the move could sometimes militate against the better, more responsible, efficient operators, and could reinforce the non-efficient ones. Hence, I remind members of the Assembly to look at the 35-day limit from a double point of view. If the 35-day limit is a problem for the small businessman, I suggest that maybe the question should be addressed another way, where there could be a differential with regards to the magnitude of the project and the size of the firms we're dealing with.

Possibly we should have some­ thing for the small businessman as opposed to some of the large conglomerates or large contractors. Maybe that is the way the question should be addressed. Since other aspects of The Builders' Lien Act possibly are under re-examination at this time, as suggested by the Member for Lethbridge West, this specific amendment should be incorporated with other changes. MR. BORSTAD: Mr. Speaker, I join the debate this afternoon on Bill 202,

An Act to Amend The Builders' Lien Act, which extends the period for filing a lien from 35 to 45 days. I do this for several reasons. I would like to support it, because I've had conversations with many small contractors in our area since the Member for Lethbridge West brought this Act forward. I would say there are several reasons why the Bill should be supported. Small businessmen, I believe, are the most vulnerable. Usually the credit period, being a 30-day period, most subtrades find that the remaining five days, are simply not enough for them to file that lien.

This becomes even more so in northern Alberta, where we have no Land Titles Office. The former member mentioned the mail service. It still has to go through the mail service, and I've had mail between Edmonton and Grande Prairie that took up to 10 days. That is not a very efficient service, but it's still a fact of life we have to contend with it. In order to protect themselves, many subtrades are now filing protective liens in advance, which I believe may not be necessary if we were to extend this period of time. They do this to protect themselves.

If they protect them­ selves by filing early, sometimes these things aren't re­ moved in the two-day period or in the time period and can cause an inconvenience to the people, and in some cases maybe the innocent are affected. In many cases a company could be paying regularly and on time, then one monthend the payment becomes slow. Because he has been a good customer i