Alberta Hansard — 20 March 1978, Afternoon sitting (14:30) (Legislature 18, Session 4)

19780320

Alberta — Debates (Hansard)

March 20, 1978 ALBERTA HANSARD 287 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA Title: Monday, March 20, 1978 2:30 p.m. [The House met at 2:30 p.m.] PRAYERS [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] head: INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS MR. HYLAND: Mr. Speaker, today I'd like to introduce Mr. Eric Berntson, Member for Souris-Cannington in the Saskatchewan Legislature. I would ask him to rise and receive the welcome of this House. head: PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SELECT COMMITTEES MR. COOKSON: Mr.

Speaker, as chairman it's a pleasure today to table the various select committees: the Standing Committee on the Office of the Auditor General; the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, Standing Orders, and Printing; the Stand ing Committee on The Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund Act; the Standing Committee on Law and Regu lations; the Standing Committee on Private Bills; the Standing Committee on Public Accounts; and the Standing Committee on Public Affairs. Included in the tabling are the chairmen who will represent the various committees. head: INTRODUCTION OF BILLS MR.

FOSTER: In the absence of notice, may I have leave of the Assembly in order that the Provincial Treasurer may introduce a bill? MR. SPEAKER: Does the Assembly agree? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. Bill 23 The Fuel Oil Administration Act MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I request leave to introduce a bill, being The Fuel Oil Administration Act.

The purpose of this bill is to provide the appropriate legis lation to implement the reduction in the fuel oil tax and the increase in the farm fuel transportation al lowance referred to in the budget speech last Friday. [Leave granted; Bill 23 read a first time] Bill 3 The Appropriation (Interim Supply) Act, 1978 MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce Bill No. 3, The Appropriation (Interim Supply) Act, 1978. This being a money bill, His Honour the Honourable the Lieutenant-Governor, having been informed of the contents of this bill, recommends the same to the Assembly.

The purpose of the bill is to provide interim supply. [Leave granted; Bill 3 read a first time] Bill 4 The Alberta Municipal Financing Corporation Amendment Act, 1978 MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I request leave to introduce a bill, being The Alberta Municipal Financing Corpora tion Amendment Act, 1978. The purpose of this bill is to increase the total amount that the corporation may borrow. [Leave granted; Bill 4 read a first time] Bill 237

An Act to Amend The Individual's Rights Protection Act (No. 3) MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce Bill 237,

An Act to Amend the Individual's Rights Protection Act. Bill 237 is based on recommenda tions made in 1976 by the Alberta Human Rights Commission for various changes in the act which would improve the enforcement procedures and expand the area of conciliation by the Human Rights Commission. [Leave granted; Bill 237 read a first time] Bill 205

An Act to Amend The Juvenile Court Act MR. KUSHNER: Mr. Speaker, I request leave to intro duce Bill 205, being

An Act to Amend The Juvenile Court Act. The purpose of this bill is to provide that a person who has suffered personal injury or property damage as a result of an offense by a juvenile shall be advised of the name and address of the juvenile convicted and the sentence imposed on him. [Leave granted; Bill 205 read a first time] Bill 233

An Act to Amend The Credit and Loan Agreements Act MR. MANDEVILLE: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to intro duce Bill 233,

An Act to Amend The Credit and Loan Agreements Act. This bill would require tax dis counters to return at least 90 per cent of a customer's tax rebate. [Leave granted; Bill 233 read a first time] head: TABLING RETURNS AND REPORTS MR. HARLE: Mr. Speaker, I want to file with the Legislature Library the annual report of the superin tendent of insurance and real estate for business

288 ALBERTA HANSARD March 20, 1978 transacted in 1976, and a report of R.J. Hansen Associates Limited respecting a consumer relations information system. MR. YURKO: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to file with the Assembly the annual report of the Alberta Housing Corporation. Secondly, I beg leave to file with the Assembly Vote 4, being the Alberta Housing and Public Works capital construction budget. I might also say that this particular document is being distri buted to each member of the Assembly. DR. HORNER: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to file the annual report of Alberta Transportation. DR. HOHOL: Mr.

Speaker, I should like to table the annual report of the Department of Advanced Educa tion and Manpower, 1976-77. head: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS MR. MINIELY: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to intro duce to you, and through you to the members of this Assembly, 40 students from Alberta Vocational Cen tre in the constituency of Edmonton Centre. They are accompanied by their teacher Marg Belyea. They are seated in the public gallery, Mr. Speaker, and I would ask that they stand and be acknowledged by the Assembly. MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to introduce a group of some 28 students from the Louis St.

Laurent grade 9 class. They are accompanied by their teacher Mrs. Bonar. They're in the members gallery. I would ask them to rise and be recognized by the House. MRS. CHICHAK: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present to you and to the Assembly some 26 students, pri marily from the Pentecostal religious following, who are in attendance at the Covenant [Community] Train ing Centre in my constituency. They are accom panied by their curriculum consultant and teacher, Mr. Stonhouse. They're in the public gallery. I'd like them to rise and be welcomed by the Assembly. MR. ASHTON: Mr.

Speaker, it's my privilege to intro duce a group of students from St. Joan school in my constituency. They are seated in the members gal lery, and I'll ask them to stand and be recognized by the Assembly. head: MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Department of Agriculture MR. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, on Friday, March 17, the Provincial Treasurer announced in his Budget Ad dress an increase in the farm fuel transportation allowance from 8 cents to 12 cents per gallon. This program was introduced on May 1, 1974, to ensure that Alberta farmers would have the lowest farm fuel input costs of any farmers in Canada.

The original allowance of 5 cents per gallon is sufficient today to cover transportation costs from the major refineries to most communities in Alberta. The 3 cent increase to 8 cents per gallon, which occurred in September 1975, is still sufficient to cover average transportation costs from the oil company bulk station to the farmer's yard. This further increase from 8 cents to 12 cents per gallon will apply to purple diesel fuel and purple gasoline, and will result in a direct reduction in the cost of fuels. Mr.

Speaker, diesel fuel and gasoline are among the most significant cash input costs farmers face today. In fact, Alberta farmers annually consume in excess of 225 million gallons of fuel valued at $120 million. This change will thus result in a very sub stantial saving to the agricultural industry. Mr. Speaker, consideration has been given to the manner in which this 12 cent allowance will be provided. The federal government levies a 10 cent per gallon excise tax on gasoline, which is refundable on application by farmers and commercial users.

This system, while having the advantage of selective con trol over the use of such fuel, has a number of disadvantages for our citizens: additional government employees are required for administration, individuals are required to maintain receipts and to submit appli cation for refund, and of course the major disadvan tage is the additional operating capital required by the individual. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, we have opted to have the transportation allowance of 12 cents per gallon deducted at the time of purchase, with no requirement of a rebate application.

Farmers will, of course, still be required to demonstrate their eligibili ty for this allowance. In addition to this saving of 12 cents per gallon on farm fuels, farmers will, of course, benefit from the removal of the 10 cent per gallon tax on gasoline used in their automobiles. Farmers and other rural residents will also be affected by considerable sav ings in property taxes.

Rural municipalities and school boards will see decreased operating costs in road repairs, maintenance, and school bus transpor tation as a result of the removal of the 10 cent tax on gasoline and the 12 cent per gallon tax on clear diesel. Mr. Speaker, we have again asked the federal gov ernment to deduct the federal excise tax at the time of purchase, in order that our farmers may have addi tional operating revenue. On average, Mr. Speaker, Alberta farmers' fuel costs will be more than 13 cents per gallon lower than any other province in Canada.

This additional expenditure of $9 million will as well continue to ensure that Alberta farmers have the lowest farm input costs of any farmers in Canada. head: ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Calgary Civic Workers' Strike MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct the first question to the Premier. It has to do with the civic workers' strike in Calgary and a meeting held with the Premier and the mayor of Calgary on Friday last. Has the Premier become actively involved in the negotiations?

Did the Premier indicate to the chief magistrate of the city of Calgary that in fact the city should stay with the 6 per cent guideline the province has laid out for municipalities?

March 20, 1978 ALBERTA HANSARD 289 MR. LOUGHEED: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not met with the mayor of the city of Calgary. I discussed the matter on the telephone with him and advised him that we feel very strongly about the provincial guide lines of 6 per cent to 7 per cent, but quite obviously it is within the jurisdiction of the city of Calgary what settlement they reach. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the Premier.

In light of the length of time that has now gone on, and certainly some of the very real problems that are being caused for citizens in Cal gary, is it the intention of the Premier to have the Minister of Labour become personally involved in the negotiations in Calgary? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, I'd be happy to refer the question to the hon. Minister of Labour. But I do believe the general view of the citizens of the prov ince on these matters is a recognition of the very important nature of having restraint on the collective bargaining side within the provincial guidelines.

But perhaps in terms of the nature of the question, there should be a response by the Minister of Labour. MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, in effect I assured the House, I believe it was Thursday or Friday last week, that senior staff of the Department of Labour are certainly available and very close to the situation in order to help with any conciliation or mediation that might be required. That is the case at the present time. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister.

The question was: is it the intention of the Minister of Labour to become personally involved in the negotiations in Calgary, given the stage of the negotiations at this time? MR. CRAWFORD: No, it is not, Mr. Speaker. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, just one last supplementa ry question on this issue to the Premier, dealing again with the discussions the Premier had with the mayor of Calgary.

Very specifically, did the Premier indicate to the mayor of Calgary that the city would have the support of the provincial government if in fact the city hung in at the 6 per cent guideline that the province has suggested to municipalities? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, I have great difficulty understanding why the hon. Leader of the Opposition would venture into questions of this nature, but I'm delighted to respond.

At the time the guidelines were announced, we met not just the mayor of Calgary but a number of representatives of the various agencies affected by the guidelines — which involved the urban municipalities, the rural municipalities, the Alberta School Trustees' Association, the health units, and the Hospital Association — with a general view to having their support for what are provincial guidelines. Quite obviously, the effect of going above the 6 per cent to 7 per cent guideline is different in each of these cases.

Quite obviously, the difference with regard to a municipal government such as Cal gary would bear upon the property tax payer within that community. But I think it's important collectively, within this province in the post anti-inflation period of time, that every effort be made by legislators and by those responsible to have restraint in public sector settle ments. We certainly hope [for], and will do our best to support, settlements that come within the provin cial 6 per cent to 7 per cent guideline. It is very important to the future of the province. Wage Increases — Public Sector MR. CLARK: Mr.

Speaker, a further supplementary question to the Premier in light of that answer. Has the Premier had discussions with officials from the urban and rural municipal associations of the prov ince, school boards, and hospital boards regarding the concern of those responsible officials of having diffi culty getting their employees to live with those kinds of guidelines, and the realization by some of those officials that in fact they face pretty massive strikes across this province?

So my question to the govern ment is: what kind of contingency plan or back-up does the government have to help these local officials who, I believe, to date are trying to live with the kind of guidelines the province has outlined? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, I'm just amazed that the Leader of the Opposition takes issue with these provincial guidelines. [interjections] And it's obvious that he does. It is obvious that he does. Mr. Speaker, the position clearly is that we are now not within an umbrella of anti-inflation.

What we have are guidelines we have established, which we will work with in our negotiations in terms of the Provincial Treasurer at the provincial employee level. It is crucial to the economy of this province and to the economy of Canada that we have guidelines in this area and that every effort be made to live with them. The general public of this province, I am convinced, support these guidelines, Mr. Speaker. We recognize they will be difficult to maintain. We've had some very good progress to date in a number of different areas.

Each of the various groups involved with regard to the collective bargaining pro cess will have their difficulty. We would hope they would be settled. But we do not intend to be other than firm in the need to have restraint in public sector settlements in this province, and we would hope the Leader of the Opposition would have some awareness of the necessity to have that restraint in this province today. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate the tou chiness of the Premier.

And the Premier knows very well that he has the support of members on this side of the House as far as the guidelines are concerned, or we wouldn't have followed the example of holding our own salaries to 6 per cent. Mr. Speaker, the question to the Premier is: what kind of contingency plan does this government have to back up local municipalities and officials who have to face the problem on the day to day level? What kind of back-up, what kind of contingency plan does this province have? That's the issue. MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, the naivete of the question is extreme.

When one has a contingency plan publicly declared, one starts with the presump

290 ALBERTA HANSARD March 20, 1978 tion that the basic guidelines are not going to suc ceed. We're confident that overall they will. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, then a supplementary question to the Premier. Is that the only assistance this government is prepared to give municipalities and local officials dealing with their own employees? Is that the only assistance, the only back-up this province is prepared to give them? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, we've made it abun dantly clear. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition and his group have a different approach.

Our position is quite clear: we have guidelines; we've established them. We made a decision not to stay within the federal anti-inflation program or to have our own compulsory provincial requirements. We made the decision to leave it on the basis of guidelines. Each of the various groups will do their best under different circumstances to try to meet those guidelines. But they are guidelines. The various groups involved in municipal government, at the school trustee level, and at the hospitals are well aware of that.

Certainly the support and encouragement we have received from them far exceed what we get from the Leader of the Opposition today. MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary by the hon. Leader of the Opposition, followed by a supplementa ry by the hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview. MR. CLARK: Mr.

Speaker, in the Premier's rather gentle frame of mind this afternoon, would the Pre mier be prepared to give a commitment to the Assembly that his ministers — the Minister of Munic ipal Affairs, the Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care, the Minister of Labour, and the Minister of Education — would be prepared to become actively involved in the negotiations if the negotiations get to that stage, so that they have that kind of help? [inter jections] Is the Premier prepared to give that kind of assurance? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr.

Speaker, I would presume the Leader of the Opposition respects local autonomy and recognizes the ridiculousness of that question. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct this question to either the hon. Premier or the hon. Pro vincial Treasurer, in light of the 6 to 7 per cent guidelines announced several months ago by the government.

My question is: has the government assessed the various forecasts for the costs of living which range all the way from about 6 per cent to 9 per cent, with an average considerably above 6 per cent; and is it the position of the Alberta government that provincial employees and public sector employ ees should, in fact, accept salary and wage increases under the cost of living? MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview implies in his question that the wage increases can and should go hand in hand with cost of living increases.

I'd simply point out to him that that has not been the case, and refer briefly to the wage increases of a few years back: they ran far, far ahead of the increases in the cost of living. It was reasonable that they do so, Mr. Speaker, because at that time the Canadian economy was healthy, func tioning pretty well. But when the Canadian economy is in as serious a position as it now is, the opposite has to be true. So I'd suggest, Mr.

Speaker, to the hon. member that to leave the impression that wage increases must or should keep pace with cost of living increases is just to ignore the economic facts of life in this nation. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question for clarification. Do I take it, in light of the informa tion from The Conference Board in Canada indicating a much higher increase than 6 to 7 per cent this year, that it is the position of the Alberta government that in order to fight inflation public sector employees should accept less than the cost of living? Is that the official position of the Alberta government? MR.

LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I don't know what report of The Conference Board the hon. member is referring to. My memory is that a recent report of The Confer ence Board indicates that during the fiscal period we're talking about inflation is anticipated to be in the 6.5 per cent range. I should also call to the hon. member's attention that if a wage increase which occurs on, say, April 1, 1978, is equivalent to the cost of living increase in the following 12-month period, then in fact wage levels have moved ahead of the cost of living increase; because that's an average over the whole year,

whereas the wage increase would be effective for the whole 12-month period. Gasoline and Propane Prices MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, let me direct the second question to the Provincial Treasurer. It deals with that portion of the speech on Friday night dealing with the removal of the 10 cent tax on gasoline. I commend the Treasurer for following the good advice he received on several occasions previously. Howev er, the question basically is this: what steps has the government taken, or what plans does the govern ment have, to ensure that the 10 cent tax does end up in the hands of consumers? MR. LEITCH: Mr.

Speaker, I think that question would be more appropriately directed to my colleague the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. MR. HARLE: Mr. Speaker, when this government reduced the tax 5 cents some years ago, it was passed on to the consumers. We believe that will occur again this time. Over the next few weeks we will be monitoring the price of gasoline in this prov ince at various locations to see whether or not that happens this time. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister. Mr.

Minister, would you indicate to the Assembly what form that monitoring is taking; and, in fact, will it be present in both urban and rural Alberta? MR. HARLE: Mr. Speaker, I don't want to get into details of how it might be done. However, I can assure the hon. member and Leader of the Opposition that the monitoring will occur throughout Alberta.

March 20, 1978 ALBERTA HANSARD 291 MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, supplementary to the min ister. Will the monitoring system — whatever it is — be in place as of April 1? Can the minister give us that assurance? MR. HARLE: Mr. Speaker, there's already some mon itoring going on. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, that wasn't the question. The question is: will the monitoring procedure to determine whether this 10 cent reduction in gas gets to the Alberta consumer be in place on April 1? MR. HARLE: As I tried to indicate, Mr. Speaker, we've already instituted some monitoring. That will be con tinued, and it's already in place.

MR. NOTLEY: A supplementary question to the hon. minister. Has the minister obtained any surveys or statistics as to the impact of the last 5 cent reduction, as to whether that saving was passed on to consum ers throughout the province, particularly in those areas where there was no market or price competi tion at the gas pump level? MR. HARLE: Mr. Speaker, quite obviously I would have to go back to the various surveys we did at the time of the reduction of the 5 cent gasoline tax. I could look into it and respond on another occasion. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr.

Speaker, a supplementary question on the topic to the Minister of Agriculture. I wonder if the minister could indicate the considera tion that had taken place with regard to propane rela tive to the farm fuel transportation allowance. The minister indicated prior to the budget he was consid ering that. MR. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, the answer is the same as it was last week, and that is that after the deregula tion of the producer price of propane the government will be monitoring the price increases, if any.

Based on that information, we will be considering whether any rebate would be applied to the purchase of propane and, if so, the appropriate mechanism to provide that rebate. DR. PAPROSKI: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary on the same topic, if I may, to the Minister of Transportation. I wonder if the minister would indicate to the House if he has information to indicate the savings to munici palities per se as a result of the removal of the gasoline tax announced in the budget. DR. HORNER: Mr.

Speaker, I can only give an appro ximation, but it's our information that the removal of the gasoline and diesel taxes will allow municipali ties, and indeed my own department, to stabilize the cost of hauling gravel to a very substantial extent. Those savings, of course, will mean more can be done. MR. TAYLOR: A supplementary to the hon. Minister of Agriculture. Has the department made or is it making a study of the relative costs of a farmer who uses gasoline for his farm operations and a farmer who uses propane? MR. MOORE: Mr.

Speaker, no, I'm not aware that any specific studies have been done recently in that regard. However, I would check in our department to see if there is any possibility that that information might be available. MR. SPEAKER: Might this be the last supplementary on this topic. MR. GOGO: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the Minister of Transportation. Would the 10 cent a gal lon reduction in the tax be applicable to the hundreds of thousands of gallons used by the rural areas of Alberta that bus school children? DR. HORNER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the reduction will apply to the school divisions throughout Alberta.

My understanding from my colleague the Minister of Education is that that will amount to something in the neighbourhood of $500,000 additional savings to those school divisions. PWA Operations MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct this ques tion to the hon. Deputy Premier and Minister of Transportation. It concerns the current dispute be tween members of the Canadian Air Line Employees' Association and PWA.

Is the minister able to advise the Assembly whether PWA has made a proposal to contract out the jobs of a number of the company employees who are members of the Canadian Air Line Employees' Association? DR. HORNER: Mr. Speaker, surely that's a manage ment prerogative and not one in which I would be involved. The chairman of the board will and does report to me as to the nature of the situation, but it's surely something the government doesn't get involved in. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a further supplementary question to the hon. Deputy Premier.

Have any dis cussions been held on this matter between the chairman of the board and the responsible minister? DR. HORNER: No, Mr. Speaker, that's a management directive. As outlined in the amount of profit they've made this year, the management of Pacific Western Airlines have done a very admirable job over the past year, and I'd like to leave that particular management in their hands. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a further supplementary question to the hon. Deputy Premier.

Have discus sions taken place between the Deputy Premier and the chairman of the board, or any of the board members of PWA, with respect to the complaints of some of the pilots about the cutback in the Convair crews and the bumping of pilots that I gather is taking place, or many of the pilots fear is taking place, as a consequence of that decision? DR. HORNER: Again, Mr. Speaker, surely the internal management of that air line has to be left to people who are competent in the management of air lines. The same answer applies.

292 ALBERTA HANSARD March 20, 1978 MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, very, specifically to the hon. Deputy Premier: has there been any discussion between the chairman or any members of the board and the minister responsible, pertaining to this ques tion of the bumping of pilots? DR. HORNER: It's a management decision, Mr. Speaker, and there has been no discussion between the chairman of the board and me. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a further supplementary question to the hon. minister.

Has there been any discussion between the chairman or management officials of the board and the Minister of Transporta tion with respect to the use by Panarctic of an Alaska Airlines Hercules and the impact that that decision may have on whether PWA should acquire another Hercules plane? DR. HORNER: Again, that's a management decision, Mr. Speaker. Whether or not they acquire an addi tional Hercules will depend on the activity that they foresee, and I hope are aggressively pursuing, relative to the northern supply situation. My understanding is that that particular Electra is negotiated through Pacific Western.

MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a further supplementary question to the hon. Deputy Premier. In view of the strike vote taken by members of the association, what discussions have taken place between officials of the management and the board of directors and the min ister with respect to contingency plans should the strike occur? DR. HORNER: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think that it would be appropriate again to point out to the hon. gentle man that we are trying very hard to have the air line operate in a completely commercial way. As I've said earlier, they're a very competent board of directors.

I would expect that if a contingency plan is required, they'll have one. Trade Negotiations MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier, in the absence of the Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs. I wonder if the material with regard to the Geneva negotiations, particularly that from the United States, has arrived in Alberta yet. MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, if it has arrived in Alberta it hasn't reached my desk yet. But I'll take the matter as notice; I believe the hon.

Government House Leader and Minister of Federal and Intergov ernmental Affairs will be in his place tomorrow and will be able to respond to the hon. member. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the Premier. Has the government representation on the federal negotiating committee? My understand ing is that personnel from Alberta are monitoring the discussions going on in Geneva. Would the Premier confirm either . . . MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, I can only partially confirm or respond to that question. I believe the Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs is better informed.

There's an overall monitoring, but as you know, we have not been successful in convincing the federal government to have representatives of the provinces as official observers at these negotiations. So we receive the information second hand as the negotiations proceed. I really think I can't say more. I'll take notice of the two questions and have the hon. minister be in a position to respond to the member tomorrow. Home Mortgages MR. MANDEVILLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the hon. Minister of Housing and Public Works.

There has been a recent prediction that there's a substantial increase in mortgage foreclo sures for homeowners. Could the minister indicate whether Alberta home corporation has been foreclos ing on mortgages recently? MR. YURKO: Mr. Speaker, the Alberta Home Mort gage Corporation does have a very small list of people who haven't made payments on their mortgages dur ing the last month or so, but it's very small indeed, and it's a running one that has been with us for some time. But we can detect no increase in this area at this time.

I don't believe we have foreclosed on any mortgages in the last several months. MR. MANDEVILLE: Supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In light of the answer to this question, could the minister indicate whether he has given any con sideration to abolishing the home mortgage fee, which now has built up a fund of over $2 million? MR. YURKO: Mr. Speaker, the mortgage insurance fee charged by the Alberta Home Mortgage Corpora tion is a one-time fee charged at the time the mort gage is approved. It's 1.5 per cent of the total mortgage.

As a result, a fund in this regard is accumulating within the Home Mortgage Corporation, and it's somewhat higher than $2 million at this time. This is intended to cover losses with respect to mortgage arrears or foreclosures. But as I indicated, our loss rate is extremely low, if even existent, at this time. At the appropriate time, the board of directors of the Home Mortgage Corporation will consider wheth er or not it should lower its mortgage fee to the 1 per cent, approximately, charged by NHA. But this is not yet timely, because the fund is not yet considered that large. Winter Games MR. JAMISON: Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to direct a ques tion to the Minister of Recreation, Parks and Wildlife. My question arises from the very successful Winter Games held earlier this month in the city of Medicine Hat, where a number of municipalities were repre sented to look over the games. My question to the minister is: are submissions from municipalities presently arriving on your desk to have the games held in their centre in 1979? If so, how many, and when would the sites of the 1979 games be known?

March 20, 1978 ALBERTA HANSARD 293 MR. ADAIR: Mr. Speaker, the applications or submis sions by the various communities in the province of Alberta will be going to the Alberta Games Council office, not to mine. I believe the deadline is March 31, and my understanding is there are a number. Beef Imports MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the hon. Minister of Agriculture. Is the govern ment of Alberta making or has it made recommenda tions to the federal government regarding some limi tation on the importation of oceanic beef? MR. MOORE: Mr.

Speaker, I believe I made some comments on that matter in question period last week. The answer is yes, for a number of years. Over the last three years at least we've made specific representations in a variety of ways to the govern ment of Canada regarding the limitation of import of offshore beef into Canada. We also made representa tions to the standing Senate committee which was studying that problem. Mr.

Speaker, the results of our efforts and of other efforts by our farm organizations, the Alberta Cattle Commission, Unifarm, and others, was a limitation on the amount of offshore beef which might come into Canada, which was placed, I believe, in December 1976 by way of the federal Export and Import Permits Act. Mr. Speaker, it was our view, based partly on information we received from our farm organizations as well, that the limitations in place in 1978 are sufficient. We don't believe they will have a detri mental effect on prices received by Alberta farmers. Mr.

Speaker, that needs the brief explanation that the competition from offshore beef is largely hamburger trade, which doesn't have a great effect of our fat cattle prices, but in fact does have some considerable effect on our cow prices. For some three years we were in a herd reduction phase when we had no protection from offshore beef. We now have our herds sufficiently reduced that we hope and believe, Mr.

Speaker, that in 1978 we will see only a normal sale of cows, and thus the change from what might have been a very detrimental situa tion, and was in fact over the last three years, to one today where we're reasonably satisfied with the level for 1978. That doesn't suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we still aren't anxious to see a long-term resolution to this problem by way of a meat import law, similar to the United States', that will be triggered automatically and not simply at the whim of the federal government. School Construction — Calgary MR. KUSHNER: Mr.

Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister Without Portfolio responsible for Calgary Affairs. I wonder if the minister will inform this Assembly if he had any discussions with the Calgary Board of Education with reference to constructing a vocational school, either high school or junior high, in east Calgary? MR. McCRAE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I've had representa tions from the Board of Education in Calgary, asking for a meeting with the hon. Minister of Education, me, and some of the MLAs for the area.

I've also had representations on this question from the Member for Calgary McCall, the Member for Calgary Millican, and indeed the Member for Calgary Mountain View. MR. KUSHNER: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, to the minister. Has the minister concluded in any way or formed a date of a meeting to solve that problem? MR. McCRAE: No, Mr. Speaker. We are trying to arrange a mutually agreeable date at this time. Brucellosis MR. COOKSON: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask a ques tion of the Minister of Agriculture.

I wonder if the minister could give the Assembly some brief report on the relative problem in the province of Alberta at the present time with regard to brucellosis, commonly known as Bang's disease, to indicate whether in fact it is under control or perhaps out of control. MR. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, I'd be pleased to do that. I don't believe I have sufficient information to be able to do that briefly today, except to say that I know the number of herds under quarantine in Alberta in January 1978 was in the order of half those under quarantine in January 1977.

The reduction was from something over 60 herds to something over 30 herds. It is our view, based on discussions I've had directly with the head of the animal health branch of the federal Department of Agriculture, that with the pro gress we are making it is possible that during the course of 1978 we could be declared a brucellosis- free area for purposes of export of animals from this province. MR. COOKSON: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Recent information I have indicates that brucellosis may be on the upswing in the province, and I wonder if the minister would undertake to update his infor mation. Mr.

Speaker, to the minister: I presume the federal government continually monitors and advises the province as to the relative problem with regard to brucellosis, and therefore I would think that you would be posted immediately in case of outbreak. MR. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, I can say two things ini tially. The hon. member's information about an increase in the incidence of brucellosis is not correct. In fact, the matter is quite different in that there's been a substantial decrease over the last year.

I can say additionally that the situation with regard to the federal government monitoring and advising the prov ince is a little backwards, in that a lot of monitoring by staff of the Department of Agriculture in this province is going on, and a lot of advice is going to the federal government on how to deal with the problem. That's a result of some of the success we've had. But I'd be pleased to provide an accurate and up-to-date report for the hon. member as soon as possible. MR. COOKSON: Mr.

Speaker, it's not my wish to harass the minister, and he's very able to take care of himself, but I would like to know whether it's stand

294 ALBERTA HANSARD March 20, 1978 ard procedure to dispose of herds that have acquired this particularly serious disease; whether that's standard procedure or whether the procedure may be simply to eradicate by slaughtering — whether there is any relationship between the two. MR. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, the standard procedure with respect to the contracting of brucellosis in a herd does vary to some extent, depending on the level of the disease found in the herd.

For example, if there were only one or two reactors in a very large herd, it might be that the federal health of animals branch would only have those animals isolated and perhaps slaughtered, and then the herd would be tested again at least two times before it could be declared brucellosis-free. In other words, Mr. Speaker, some judgment goes into the matter with respect to wheth er or not an entire herd is slaughtered. It depends on the level of incidence of reactors when the testing occurs. Parolees' Halfway Houses DR. PAPROSKI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wonder if the Solicitor General would indicate to the House whether it's the policy of this government to allow the so-called Seventh Step Society to go into the com munities and in advance indicate that they will be receiving funding from the Solicitor General's De partment if they set up a home for parolees — recog nizing the good work they may be doing. MR. FARRAN: Mr. Speaker, the Seventh Step Society is one of 22 community organizations with which my department does business on a fee-for-service basis. They run halfway houses, and have to have very strict house rules.

If the department feels the discipline in any particular halfway house for parolees is not up to scratch, we cease to use their services. But it would be inaccurate to say that any of these associations applying for development permits in local areas have the support of the Solicitor General's Department. If they succeed in building such a facility and conform to our rules, we are prepared to use them on a fee-for-service basis, just as the federal government does. DR. PAPROSKI: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

I wonder if the minister would indicate to the House whether he is establishing documented guidelines regarding the method of setting up these homes in communities in order that communities will not be upset and, also in those guidelines, indicating the type of parolee who may utilize that type of home. MR. FARRAN: No, Mr. Speaker. I know the case the hon. member is referring to, and I can only draw his attention to the application by the Seventh Step asso ciation to establish a similar facility in Calgary.

I took the attitude that it was entirely an affair between the organization and the local government and that we were not in any way spearheading any application from a provincial level. DR. PAPROSKI: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the minister would indicate whether it's true that homes such as this can be set up in any community anywhere in the province. MR. FARRAN: Mr. Speaker, I just have to reiterate that that is a question of zoning and the reaction of local property owners and, in the ultimate, a decision by the local authority. DR. PAPROSKI: One final supplementary, Mr. Speak er.

Would the minister indicate to the House whether he would give us assurance that he will review the matter, with the objective of establishing clear guide lines so there won't be any misunderstanding be tween the good work they're doing versus the communities? MR. FARRAN: Finally, the only assurance I can give is that I won't interfere, that it's a question between the association and the local authority. Laycraft Inquiry MR. GHITTER: Mr. Speaker, on April 22 the hon.

Attorney General advised this House, in announcing the appointment of the Laycraft Inquiry, that "The ordinary civil or criminal process in these unusual circumstances does not, however, permit the public to be informed." I would inquire of the hon. Attorney General what unusual circumstances he was refer ring to at that time. MR. FOSTER: Mr. Speaker, unless some some coun sel, or indeed commission counsel, can identify any additional witnesses, the Laycraft commission today effectively came to a close; that is to say, with respect to the calling of witnesses. Mr.

Justice Laycraft said this morning that he would hear argument on a number of subjects — and I expect that may take a number of days — following which, of course, a report will be prepared and presented to the Lieu tenant Governor in Council. Once I have received that report, I would be quite prepared to comment on almost any matter raised by any member of the Assembly, publicly or privately, within the limits of certain discretion that I'd have to deal with when I see the report.

I don't think I should now respond on what I meant in a certain press release, et cetera, in setting up the Laycraft Inquiry, but I'd be happy to do so later. MR. GHITTER: Mr. Speaker, I'm aware of the fact that the hon. Attorney General or any minister is not compelled to answer questions in this House. On a point of order, however, if the hon. Attorney General appears before the Laycraft Inquiry as a witness, I would think this Legislature should be abreast of what is occurring, and questions of this nature should be permissible and responded to by the Attorney General. MR. FOSTER: Well, Mr.

Speaker, it wasn't my deci sion to be called before the inquiry. It was the deci sion of the commissioner, a decision which of course I'm happy to comply with, in the sense that I would never dream of not going, even though I may have the legal capacity of not appearing. Having said that, however, I don't think the ques tion period is the time for me to answer questions concerning my examination before the Laycraft Inquiry. I don't want to suggest that this House is a lesser forum than the Laycraft Inquiry; it is a different

March 20, 1978 ALBERTA HANSARD 295 forum. The purposes of the Laycraft Inquiry and the question period are not identical. If there are ques tions in the minds of the members with respect to the Laycraft matter generally, or indeed my conduct or my reasons for doing or not doing things, I'm happy to comment on that. But I don't think now is the time. MR. GHITTER: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the hon. Attorney General if it is then the position of the government that no questions relating to the Laycraft Inquiry will be responded to by the government until the report by Mr.

Justice Laycraft is out? MR. FOSTER: Mr. Speaker, I don't think that is quite accurate. There are some questions with respect to the Laycraft Inquiry that I have answered in the Assembly and outside. So there are some matters touching upon Laycraft that I surely can, will, and have dealt with. But I think the reasons for calling the inquiry, what I thought was important or not important, or the like, are matters which should be reviewed in light of Mr. Justice Laycraft's report when it arrives. ORDERS OF THE DAY MR. CLARK: Mr.

Speaker, I'm rising on a point of order with respect to a letter tabled in this Assembly last Thursday by the hon. Deputy Premier. Mr. Speaker, it's the right of members of this Assembly to present almost any document they wish, where appropriate, to support them in their appropri ate evidence or argument. Accordingly the Deputy Premier, consistent with his rather specious argu ments at that time, introduced a letter which, on the most cursory examination, had some errors in fact, along with other areas I could comment on. Howev er, I should get to the point I want to raise; that is, the letter was unsigned.

I refer you, Mr. Speaker, to Beauchesne's parlia mentary Rules and Forms. Rule 158(3) states: "An unsigned letter should not be read in the House." Letters were both read into the record and tabled as documents in the Assembly. I'm surprised and disappointed, Mr. Speaker, that the Deputy Premier would have used an unsigned document. That is clearly in contravention of the accepted rules of this Assembly.

If such evidence was used as the basis for the government's conten tion that "A great majority of the people in central Alberta appreciate and support the dam at Site 6", to quote the hon. minister himself, then one must ques tion the quality of the government's decision-making process. Doesn't the government have better evi dence to support its decision on the Site 6? SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order, order. MR. CLARK: So, Mr. Speaker, I raise the point of order in order to enhance the quality of debate in the House and to ensure that what is said and tabled in the House is supported by evidence. DR.

HORNER: Well, Mr. Speaker, that's the most nonsensical point of order I've ever heard in 20 years in the Legislature. All he's doing is trying to make an additional argument after he had ample opportunity to make his argument. The letter in question was not only sent to a number of us in this Legislature, but also appeared in a number of the newspapers in central Alberta. I don't see any point of order what soever in the hon. leader's contention. MR. SPEAKER: The narrow point is whether or not the letter was signed. I would assume that that should be obvious from the letter as tabled. I haven't seen it. MR.

CLARK: Mr. Speaker, then is it your intention to check into the matter? Are we now establishing a new form of tabling information in the House, that letters don't have to signed; we can just wheel in information from wherever it may be? Mr. Speaker, if those are the kinds of rules we're now to have in this Assembly, despite what Beauchesne says on the mat ter, then let's have those rules for both sides of the House and not just raise them when members on this side of the House raise the point. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, speaking to the point of order, Beauchesne is Beauchesne, not the Bible.

The hon. member is referring to an annotation in Beau chesne which is simply a statement of a precedent established in another House at another time. He is not making reference to any of the standing orders of this Assembly, let alone to the standing orders of the House of Commons. I read 158(3), which says: "An unsigned letter should not be read in the House". It doesn't say that it must not be read in the House. I would argue, Mr.

Speaker, that as is the case with many other annotations in Beauchesne, if an hon. member should read into the record something that is unsigned, he must simply accept responsibility for the credibility of the arguments contained therein. I don't think this is a legitimate point of order, Mr. Speaker, first of all because of the ambiguity of the annotation; secondly, because it is an annotation with no regard whatsoever for the standing orders of this House. MR. CLARK: Can I ask then, Mr.

Speaker: will you indicate to the members of the Assembly, with regard to the tabling of information in the future, is it now acceptable in this Assembly to virtually table unsigned letters, documents with very, very flimsy background? MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, rising to participate in this point of order, I think the comments the hon. Member for Edmonton Highlands made are very interesting. He's probably quite correct in terms of his assess ment that a member should not read an unsigned letter, but the member must take responsibility for what is contained in that letter. Well, Mr.

Speaker, I think that point probably should be driven home; that the hon. Deputy Premier should have to take respon sibility for the absolute nonsense and misleading gar bage contained in the letter that was read last Thurs day. [interjections] It was a completely outrageous statement, where the farmers west of Innisfail were referred to as a mob. I find that extremely offensive. So, Mr. Speaker, as far as I'm concerned I think the

296 March 20, 1978 Deputy Premier has to take responsibility for that kind of letter. AN HON. MEMBER: Don't lose your composure. DR. HORNER: Mr. Speaker, obviously we've disposed of this matter already, on Thursday last, but I know the hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview can't take a good debate except when he's giving it out. DR. WALKER: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, it's my understanding that the tabling was specifically requested by the hon. Leader of the Opposition. MR. SPEAKER: That really wouldn't assist us, because I believe the tabling was requested after the letter had been read.

I'll certainly look into the mat ter. One of the things of course that we have to keep in mind is that our Standing Orders appear to distin guish between a tabling and a filing. MR. KING: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Leader of the Opposition, in raising his point of order, used the term "specious" with respect to arguments that were made in the House last Thursday afternoon by the hon. Deputy Premier. I would suggest, having the Oxford Dictionary in front of me, that "specious" is an unparliamentary term and should be withdrawn by the hon. member. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. TAYLOR: Mr.

Speaker, on the point of order, I wonder if it's comparable to the filing of information last year by the hon. Leader of the Opposition in connection with the heritage trust fund committee, when he tabled information that was not even brought up with the committee. MR. CLARK: Why didn't you raise it then? [interjections] MR. SPEAKER: Order please. I don't think we're going to further the consideration of the situation by searching in past history for other examples which may or may not have been in order. I'm not aware that the word "specious" is unparliamentary.

I think it's quite in keeping with the rather unsolicited flat tery which has passed back and forth across the floor. [laughter] head: GOVERNMENT MOTIONS 9. Moved by Mr. Leitch:

Be it resolved that this Assembly approve in general the fiscal policies of the government. [Adjourned debate March 17: Mr. Clark] MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, in rising to lead off the debate on the budget brought down last Friday even ing by the Provincial Treasurer, might I say at the outset that it will come as no surprise to members of the Assembly that it's not my intention to spend a great deal of time this afternoon telling the Provincial Treasurer about some of the good things that are in his budget.

If past performance in this House is any indicator, I think the Provincial Treasurer will not be at all short of any backslapping that may be needed as far as the budget speech is concerned. Mr. Speaker, I'm going to address my remarks this afternoon primarily to what I refer to as the overall financial situation as far as the province is concerned, and some alternatives that I think the Treasurer should have looked at. Secondly, I'm going to make some comments with regard to some particular aspects of various departments.

Thirdly, I want to ask the Assembly to consider for a moment or two the idea of Alberta giving some rather unique leadership to the rest of Canada and perhaps to the rest of this continent. The area I want to speak about, and I think it's an important area, is that in this Assembly we repeatedly hear the comment: Alberta is spending more in this area than any other program, be it universities, hospitals, education, civil service, or whatever. Very often in the budget speech itself, the point was made that we're spending more in this or that area than we ever have in the past. Fair ball.

But when we are a province that has in excess of $6 billion in surplus funds between the heritage sav ings trust fund and the accumulated surplus of the province, it seems to me we should give some serious thought to developing some kind of criteria to use to look at the quality of service available to us. That's the third area I want to talk about. Mr. Speaker, members of this Assembly may find it a bit jolting that the first billion-dollar budget in Alber ta was brought down by the hon. Anders Aalborg, the Provincial Treasurer in 1970. The budget expendi tures for that year, though, didn't reach $1 billion.

Alberta and this Legislature had its first true billion- dollar expenditure year in 1970-71. From that stage we have come to a situation this year where we are looking at a budget not too distant from $4 billion, also a surplus which, according to the Provincial Treasurer's own estimates, is in the vicinity of three- quarters of a billion dollars.

When one takes into consideration the fact that the projections in the budget make no provision for increased revenues from oil and gas as a result of a price increase in August and again in January — a nine-month price increase — I think it's fair to say that, given the immediate past, we could be looking at a billion-dollar surplus as far as Alberta is concerned this year. Mr. Speaker, that is in addition to putting over $1 billion into the heritage savings trust fund.

So this year we in this province are in the fortunate, enviable position of putting well in excess of $1 bil lion into the heritage savings trust fund, and are likely to have close to $1 billion in surplus to boot. That is a most enviable situation. Mr. Speaker, the hon. Provincial Treasurer has stated some basic realities of the Alberta economy.

They are: firstly, that we are in an enviable position, receiving enormous revenues from our resources — agreed; secondly, that these revenues will not con tinue forever — agreed; thirdly, that we ought to be careful not to use these revenues in such a way as to increase the fiscal burden on future generations, for instance by launching ill-conceived programs which will lead to large tax loads in the longer term. Mr. Speaker, I believe this is an understandable statement as far as the Treasurer is concerned, and a responsible attitude toward fiscal planning for Alber ta.

However, I would argue that the strategy the 296 ALBERTA HANSARD March 20, 1978

March 20, 1978 ALBERTA HANSARD 297 Provincial Treasurer has outlined doesn't really meet the early criteria of his speech. Frankly, I am alarmed at the 37 per cent increase in capital expenditures. My concern is that this will bring along the very problem which earlier in his speech the Treasurer sought to avoid: excessive commitments to continu ing expenses beyond the construction phase. It's easy to say that such capital expenditure is just an interim measure to coincide with a slack period in private sector construction.

But beyond their con struction these buildings will need maintenance, servicing and, most importantly, I presume they'll need to be filled with public servants whose numbers expand. Certainly the cost of running those opera tions will expand considerably. Mr. Speaker, for a few moments let's consider an alternative to such a plan. One comes to mind which I would suggest to members is an alternative econom ic strategy which moves us away from our overde- pendence upon non-renewable resource revenues and the boom and bust cycle of resource-related construction.

The present government has often paid lip-service to the idea of a more diversified economy in the province. But as far as a real strategy is concerned, the present budget shows nothing to implement that oft-repeated government plan of more diversification in our economy. Even given the pre sent situation, I believe that such accelerated public investment in capital construction is unwise. I sug gest that in the consideration of its budget the gov ernment has isolated itself from the budgets of Alber ta municipalities and the budgets of individual Alberta citizens. Mr.

Speaker, this isolation of vision is illustrated in the remark by the Provincial Treasurer that Albertans have the lowest provincial tax of any province in Canada. That's true. Why shouldn't we have the lowest tax of any people in Canada? But to under stand the meaning and the impact of that, let's place it in the context of Albertans' total cost of living. Then we're reminded of two further truths: first, that our municipalities have the highest per capita debt of any municipalities in Canada, and that urban municipalities have among the highest cost of shelter of any place in Canada.

Whether buying or renting accommodation, the person who's trying to buy the house or the condominium, or who is paying the rent, still has to live with the fact of the highest costs. And rural Albertans are facing the highest agricultural input costs and the lowest share of provincial income in Alberta's agricultural history. Mr. Speaker, when we look at the full truth, the financial state of the province is very uneven. The provincial government is rich, but municipal govern ments and ordinary Alberta people, both rural and urban, face considerable financial difficulties. Mr.

Speaker, I've criticized the strategy of overinv- esting provincial revenues and capital expenditures, as it will compound our financial problems in the future. I propose that some sort of alternative which would alleviate financial difficulties immediately and in the future by relieving some of the debt burden on our municipalities is an approach we should look at. However, before I look at that I would like to deal with this question of surpluses for just a moment.

According to the Treasurer, the accumulated surp luses of the general revenue fund will, on the basis of present estimates, amount to something under $2.2 billion by March '79. That's $2.2 billion in addition to the amount in the heritage savings trust fund. I make the point again that the estimated $698 million sur plus for this year does not take into consideration the revenue the province will receive when the price of oil goes up $1 a barrel in July and $1 a barrel again next January.

The Provincial Treasurer, speculating on the use of these surpluses, cautions against undue expansion on expenditure programs, expresses a decision to retain the present revenue base, and suggests we may need to look at further evolution of the appropria teness of increasing the heritage savings trust fund from 30 per cent of the resource revenue to a larger amount. These surpluses are in addition to our herit age fund, which brings the new fiscal year, when it will be in excess of some $4 billion. Mr.

Speaker, the first of, I think, four suggestions I want to make this afternoon is basically this: I call upon this government to share its resource income with the municipalities. I've done that before, and I know the Minister of Municipal Affairs sometime later on this year, June or July, is going to have a package to present to his colleagues. With the atti tude of the Premier today in question period, about that time we may be discussing that particular pro posal out on the hustings. But, Mr.

Speaker, once again this government has a responsibility to start to share some of its revenues with the municipalities. Very immediately, the Pro vincial Treasurer and this government should take a large portion of the anticipated $2 billion in surp luses, perhaps as high as 50 per cent, and make it available to municipalities so they could retire a por tion of their municipal debt. That would have a very, very beneficial effect upon the situation of municipali ties. It also would have a very beneficial effect upon the taxpayers of this province.

How we can justify sitting in this Assembly with $6 billion between the heritage fund and the accumu lated surpluses and at the very same time have the highest rate of municipal debt of any province in Canada is impossible to conceive, unless one sits in this Assembly and knows the government's attitude toward municipal governments. If this government were to allocate $1 billion of the $2 billion surplus toward retirement of municipal debts, that wouldn't leave this Assembly penniless. We'd still have in excess of $5 billion between the heritage savings trust fund and the accumulated sur pluses.

By applying this money to debt and debts of municipalities, rather than some of the new construc tion programs, the government would reduce rather than increase the financial obligations passed on to Albertans not only for the present but also for the future. That's the first proposal I'd like to make. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to move on now to the capital aspect of the budget. The Provincial Treasurer says in the figures, some 31 per cent increase in the capital projects.

The best figuring we could do in the course of the weekend comes very close to 37 per cent, when we look at the heritage savings trust fund capital portions and the budget. And one has to look at the two of them as a total, as an aggregate; you can't look at them in isolation. As I say, my calcula tions indicate some 37 per cent. But the rationale for this large increase in the capital works program is rather surprising. On page 9

298 ALBERTA HANSARD March 20, 1978 of the budget speech, and I want to read this into the record, the Provincial Treasurer states that 1978 will be a strong year for the private sector. In contrast to the Canadian forecast, in which investment is anticipated to be weak in 1978, investment in Alberta is expected once again to be a major contributor to real economic growth. Despite the completion of the Syncrude project, it would appear a dramatic slowdown in invest ment in 1978 should not occur.

This evaluation is based on the fact that for most of the large petrochemical projects 1978 will be the peak construction year. Further, the value of issued commercial and industrial building permits has risen dramatically in recent months. This impor tant indicator of investment, as well as construc tion activity, implies that what we may be witnessing is a rescheduling of a number of smaller projects which were delayed because of the demands upon the economy of [a larger pro ject] . . . such as Syncrude.

That's on page 9 of the budget which, I think it's fair to summarize, says that despite the fact that Syn crude is winding down, there's going to be a great amount of activity in '78. However, Mr. Speaker, on page 21 of the budget the Provincial Treasurer says: . . . the industry will be hard pressed to maintain existing levels of activity during 1978-79, particu larly in view of the completion of several major construction projects including Syncrude.

Con sistent with our programme priorities, we are proposing a large increase of 30.9% in provincial capital construction and in provincial support to local authorities for capital facilities to offset a probable downturn in the construction industry during the 1978-79 fiscal year. Now I would assume that the Treasurer wrote page 9 on the same day he wrote page [21]. DR. BUCK: That's being progressive and conservative. MR. CLARK: My colleague from Clover Bar makes the comment, that's like being progressive and conserva tive. I think he was progressive on page 9 and very conservative on page 21.

If the real reason for the major increase in the capital portion of the budget is to try to bolster the economy in Alberta between the winding down of Syncrude and the start of the pipeline and other projects, why not say so? Why not be open, above- board, frank, and say so?

Then let's look at these projects on the basis of how many jobs they are going to provide, rather than tell us on page 9 that things are going along very well and there's going to be no downturn, then on page 21 come along and give us this lame explanation and say, it's in light of this, in light of the Syncrude project concluding, that we're going ahead with a 30 per cent increase in capital works projects. From the Provincial Treasurer's own statements, the need for an expanded capital program in '78-79 seems to be in considerable doubt. And I'm being extremely charitable when I say "in considera ble doubt".

Mr. Speaker, just before I talk about the effects of those programs, let me say this: my colleagues and I would have supported this government if it had come to the Assembly and said in the budget, we expect a downturn in '78-79 and, rather than move along with a tremendous capital works program, we're proposing to this Assembly that we dramatically slash personal and corporate income tax in this province. DR. BUCK: That's next year. MR. CLARK: We'd have been quite prepared to sup port that kind of approach, Mr.

Speaker, because that kind of approach would have been putting trust in the private sector, saying to the private sector, look, we want you to take this incentive, this initiative, and reinvest here in Alberta. This would have been and could have been a real shot in the arm to small business in this province. If the Provincial Treasurer had been consistent with what he said on page 5 of the speech: Our objectives are clear . . . to ensure that the operations of the government sector comple ment, rather than detract from, the initiatives of the private sector which maintains our growing and vibrant economy . . .

If the Treasurer had wanted to say, look, we're going to cut corporate income tax to small business in Alberta, we're going to reduce income tax to Alber- tans below, let's say, $10,000, those would have been positive proposals that we on this side of the House could have been very enthused about. But rather than go that route, rather than putting their confidence in the private sector, they've chosen to go ahead with a 37 per cent capital works project which, as we all know very well, has implications down the road.

So some of the questions that have to be asked: how many additional jobs, spread over what period, is this 37 per cent capital works project going to pro duce? What impact will it have on the unemployment picture in Alberta? Can we expect six months from now to find the unemployment picture in Alberta cut down to half? What will be the final cost of these projects? How many civil servants will we be adding? What are the anticipated operating costs? Mr.

Speaker, one of the things we should start to do when a major project comes before this Assembly is look at the project from the standpoint not just of the amount of money needed for that year, but also look at the total capital cost and the anticipated operating cost. That way we'd get a far, far wiser and far broader idea of what really is involved in the discussion. Mr. Speaker, I'm sure the real reason the govern ment has gone ahead with a 37 per cent capital works project this year isn't that the economy is turning down or that it's turning up.

They're prepar ing for an election, whether the election is this year or next. DR. BUCK: You wouldn't accuse them of that. MR. CLARK: That's really what the government is doing. DR. BUCK: Not this government. [interjections] MR. CLARK: To try to hide it and suggest they are doing this only because Syncrude's finishing and the pipeline isn't going just yet is really stretching the credibility of even this present administration.

March 20, 1978 ALBERTA HANSARD 299 Mr. Speaker, before my friends on the government side of the House pat themselves too much on the back with regard to the various tax measures — and there are some good tax measures in the budget, I'll give the government credit there. But when you've got a budget of almost $4 billion — and, at the end of this year, $6 billion — to play with, it should result in some positive moves. I think a fact very few Alber tans recognize is that despite the removal of the gasoline tax, which we support and commend the government for — and they took our advice.

We started to give it in '74. They've been rather slow learners, Mr. Speaker, but they've come along. We give the government credit there. But, Mr. Speaker, with this budget this government, with $6 billion in the heritage savings trust fund and surplus at the end of this year, is going to dig deeper into the pockets of Albertans to the tune of $44.5 million this year, $44.5 million more than last year. So when we talk about tax reduction across the province, and so on, let's not kid ourselves. When you look at the total figures, we're not talking about tax reduction.

At the end of the fiscal year this budget will deal with, if the Treasurer's estimates are accurate, Albertans are going to have paid, in direct tax, $44.5 million more than they paid this year, during a period of time when they have $6 billion in the heritage fund and accumulated surpluses. As I indicated earlier, the proposal my colleagues and I would favor is a reduction to lower income groups as far as personal income tax is concerned. We could start, Mr. Speaker, with all those people who are on or below the poverty line.

While precise figures as to income tax calculations for low-income groups are difficult to get, it's obvious from figures that to extend complete income tax relief to those people with poverty line incomes would have no par ticular impact on provincial finances, and would pro vide additional funds to needy groups, which in turn would provide an economic stimulant through con sumer spending.

Such a tax cut — which is well within the capacity of the province — in addition to helping people in low-income groups would, if extended to Alberta-based business, have a very, very positive effect upon preparing this province for the day our non-renewable resources aren't there. Mr. Speaker, moving on and looking at some par ticular government departments, my remarks in some areas are going to be very short. The brevity of those remarks on some departments should not indicate to the members that, come the estimates, we won't be spending considerable time in those areas.

Tradi tionally the first department that comes up in esti mates is Agriculture, and I'm sure the agricultural estimates will take some time again this year. I know my colleague Mr. Mandeville will be actively involved in those estimates.

Once again when we look at this budget and the impact it has on rural Alberta — and we got the re-announcement today by the minister about the changes in the farm fuel transportation program, and the budget says $164 — I think this government is going to have real difficulty convincing farmers that that $164 is going to enable farmers to come to grips with their farm input costs. I had some difficulty over the weekend convincing my own constituents that that was going to be of much assistance to them. And I should hasten to add, I didn't raise the matter either. MR. COOKSON: You've got to try a little harder. MR.

CLARK: The hon. Member for Lacombe says we should try harder. Yes, we'll try harder to explain to the farmers of the province just what's involved in this budget for them, and what isn't involved in this budget also. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to make a very brief comment with regard to the area of Social Services and Community Health. I think this department typifies the problem we have of simply adding on, and adding on, and adding on.

The government estimates that $170 million will be spent on social assistance for single-parent families, the physically and mentally handicapped, unemployed employables, and other special groups. Yet there's no undertaking to intensi fy measures to enable these groups to obtain mean ingful employment and to leave social assistance. Here again it looks like we're continuing the approach of applying the band-aid and not doing that much as far as the preventive side is concerned.

If you look at the figures and projections from the department, the $170 million pledged for social assistance doesn't look like it will be enough to meet the increased demands. According to the Department of Social Services' quarterly review, between '70-71 and '75-76 the caseload of social assistance increased by 47 per cent, with yearly increases ranging from 7 to 8 per cent. Look at another area of that department's responsi bility. The government has proposed a 14 per cent increase in funding for transient men in the cities of Edmonton and Calgary.

The budget calls for a 14 per cent increase here, 14 per cent on top of what we're doing now — another area where we are simply adding on with no indication of basically trying to come to grips with the problems of more transient people coming to Alberta and what we're going to do about it. The problem isn't going to go away. Yes, we could continue, we could add 14 per cent this year and 16 per cent next year. But this gets into the question of the quality of service. When are we going to have a serious look in that particular area? I want to commend the government for its actions in day care and home care.

After complimenting the government, though, I have some concerns from the standpoint of day care. My concern would basically be that the report of the task force stated that im proved facilities and greater accessibility to day care would require a level of support three times the current preventive social services day care alloca tions. One of my colleagues at the back sits back and says, spend, spend, spend. Mr. Speaker, it's that kind of narrow, inward-looking tunnel vision that causes this government the problem.

It won't spend an extra million or two million dollars here to save some money down the road, but it does go and refurbish Government House South in Calgary for some $4 million. The Minister Without Portfolio responsible for Cal gary Affairs bangs his desk, but the point is that here's a government which isn't prepared to give the kind of commitment in day care that appears to really be needed. Some aspects of their announcement were good, Mr. Speaker, and I told the minister that

300 ALBERTA HANSARD March 20, 1978 in the House. But on the other side we're not going to meet the demands now on the waiting lists, let alone come to grips with some of the problems in the future. Then, Mr. Speaker, and I'm sure an hon. member will say spend, spend again, but in passing I draw the members' attention to the Alberta Liquor Control Board — profits of $121 million this year, yet an amount equal only to 7.4 per cent of this profit is being provided to the Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Commission.

At the same time, expenditures for education and information services related to alcohol ism have been cut back some 2.6 per cent. Now, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to move on to the area of hospitals and health care. This is going to be a very active area during the session, but right now can I simply say this in reply to the throne speech: hospi tals and medicare is the best example of the hypocri sy of the present government. The budget speech claims the spending for hospital construction will be increased by 112 per cent over last year.

But I submit that that comparison, with the freeze situation, has no validity whatsoever. I further submit that had construction begun on many of the proposed projects when the commitments were first made several years ago, at the previous cost of labor and materials, the long-range cost of these projects would be far less than the levels the minister is now talking about. The only thing in the budget speech, as far as hospitals are concerned, is that the freeze is going to come off.

When one looks at the minister's estimates a bit more, though, you'll find there are going to be 30 additional civil servants in that department. That's the first legacy we have as a result of the hon. Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care. MR. R. SPEAKER: The first one we're going to get rid of. MR. CLARK: That's his first major initiative. MR. NOTLEY: That was Jackson Willis' advice. MR. CLARK: That likely was the advice of some people we should have done without, or should never have got involved with initially, let alone still have hanging on. But, Mr.

Speaker, that's the very imme diate legacy hospital boards have. Hospitals had a convention in town last week. It would have been very instructive for members of the government to have sat in that convention and to adopt the attitude of hospital boards across the province as to what's happening in the whole field of health care. Mr. Speaker, there is the 8.5 per cent increase in health care premiums. I say to the Treasurer, what is the government's basic guideline? What's his under lying philosophy as far as the increase of the 8.5 per cent in premiums is concerned?

If the government is saying, we're going to make premiums a certain por tion of the cost of health care, that's one thing. Let's get these positions on the table and debate them. On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, if it's simply a matter of keeping the tax to get the money, we don't need the money at this time. If the government is going to say, look, a certain percentage of the cost of medicare in Alberta is going to come in premiums, then let's spell out the policy and discuss it. And that approach has some merit, if that's really what we're looking at. Mr.

Speaker, with regard to the Department of Education, where you brush aside much of the infor mation in the budget speech, the real bottom line is that there is a 6.5 per cent increase as far as educa tion is concerned during a time when the public and the business community have, I think, been less than impressed about some of the results of our education system. The only initiative really in the speech is a 23 per cent increase as far as departmental support services are concerned.

I say to members without any qualms at all that a 6.5 per cent increase as far as education is concerned is not going to enable school boards across the province to keep up. Now if we don't want school boards to keep up, or if we systematically want them to cut programs, this is the way to do it. You see, this is part of the government's strange attitude: a very rich, powerful, centralized provincial government letting local school boards, in this case, or municipal boards or hospital boards, as I've indi cated earlier, take the flak of the grass roots.

But let's be very clear about it: in voting for this budget — 6.5 per cent increase as far as education is concerned and a 23 per cent increase in departmental support staff — school boards out there are going to have larger classes, they are going to be able to offer fewer programs. If this is what the government wants, then this is basically what they are going to get in this area. But tell the people. Don't leave local school trustees to be the people on the firing line who have to take the flak.

It must be a singularly uninspiring responsibility to be a hospital trustee or school board trustee under this kind of situation. With regard to Advanced Education and Manpower, suffice for me to say this: apparently there is going to be a 50.4 per cent increase as far as capital construc tion is concerned. While that's going on, and with the figures we have right here, we're still going to have our quota as far as agriculture and forestry are concerned at the U of A; we're still going to have our quota of engineers at the U of A.

Any way you cut it, this Legislature has to take some of the responsibility for a quota on young Albertans going into agriculture and forestry, two of our renewable resources. This Legislature has to take the responsibility as far as the quota in the area of engineers is concerned. There is just no getting away from that. Mr. Speaker, I suppose if there's one group, though, in the budget speech that was the most forgotten, it would have to be our native people. These are the individuals who have a longer historical stake in our heritage than any of us, and I see precious little in the budget for them.

There's nothing to assist as far as economic development for our natives is concerned. The only mention of assistance to them is included in the area of housing. As far as housing programs for our native people are concerned, we already know that the rural and native housing program up to now has been border ing on disaster. The minister can go to Falher, or to Faust and McLennan, if he wants to go to two places to start to look. The reference to the rural repair program, providing assistance for Metis families, $90,000: that's a cruel joke.

Two million dollars for the emergency trailer program is another sad com mentary on the government's performance for assis tance to native people. Even the provision of 100 additional trailers this year will only accommodate

March 20, 1978 ALBERTA HANSARD 301 between 60 and 70 per cent of the families already on the waiting list, let alone any more who come along during the year. Mr. Speaker, may I now quote from what I would regard to be an absolutely astonishing qualifier, which appears at the end of the Provincial Treasur er's statement with regard to budgeting on housing. It is a statement obviously designed to absolve the government of all blame if the housing programs don't work.

The Treasurer's statement is: Our ability to complete these programmes depends upon the cooperation of local govern ments and involved organizations to give speedy approval. The provision of funds is not a provin cial commitment to complete. That's absolutely incredible. The government is simply saying that if the housing programs for natives, low-income earners, and senior citizens are successful, we'll take the credit for it; if they fail, we'll blame local governments and local organizations. And that is after what this government has done to the Alberta Native Development Corporation.

That's an incredible statement. In its typical fashion, this government will cut ribbons but won't deal with any of the problems. That's the commitment in the area of native housing. I am pleased the Minister of Housing is in the House. This government's record in the area of native housing is . . . MR. NOTLEY: Pretty weak. MR. CLARK: . . . the worst it's ever been. That is this government's record as far as support to native hous ing is concerned. [interjections] Mr.

Speaker, when we go back and compare the commitments of this government, what they've said and what they've done in that area, that statement bears saying again. It's the worst it's ever been. Mr. Speaker, then there's that area where it talks about a 19 per cent decrease in support to native organizations; yet at the very same time the minis ter's native secretariat is going up by 12 per cent, supplies and services in the minister's area are going to go up some 21 per cent. But grants to native organizations . . . You know, from time to time in this Assembly we hear a great deal about volunteers.

But grants to native organizations will decrease by 31 per cent. That's this government's effort to help in the area of native people. Moving along very quickly, Mr. Speaker, I simply want to make this point with regard to housing: in a number of its housing programs, the government should not be too quick to pat itself on the back. The $1,000 grant to senior citizens is good for those senior citizens for whom $1,000 will enable them to come to grips with a situation in their own homes. But let's not be so callous as to think that deals with all the problems senior citizens have with home accommodations.

It's a step in the right direction. Fair ball. The $90,000 allocated for improvement of Metis housing is really a token effort. Mr. Speaker, we have to look at this whole question of housing more from the standpoint of a co-operative venture between the local municipalities, the people affected, the government, and the industry. We can continue to go around — and I'm amazed: people from the housing industry tell me what they think is wrong; the minister in the House tells me what he thinks is wrong; and the people who are trying to buy homes try to tell us what they think is wrong.

It would be great sometime to get them all in the same room at the same time. DR. BUCK: The minister knows all, though. MR. CLARK: Yes, on occasion the minister has given the impression that he knows all. But I wish the minister would refresh his mind in the area of the resolution brought in in 1975 by our colleague the member from Brooks. He talked about using some of the money this province has to get the main trunk utilities to the edges of developable land. And the minister of the time — there was some indication the House would do that. DR. BUCK: Maybe next year. MR. CLARK: Well, maybe next year.

But next year is getting just one year further along for an awful lot of people who want to acquire their own home. I go back to the hon. Minister of Housing and Public Works and say, dust off the proposal. It has a lot of merit — the idea of lending money to our municipali ties, or doing it yourself if you want the credit for it. But get the main trunk utilities out to the edge of developable land in a number of areas in our major cities, so there is some real competition when it comes to lots. We're not asking you to give the whole heritage savings trust fund away. Lend it at a low interest rate.

Lend it also to Alberta families who want to acquire their first home. And not at 9, 10, and 11 per cent. Get it down so housing can become affordable in this province. In my judgment three things have to be done very quickly. Get the main trunk utilities out to the edge of developable land in a number of areas of our cities, so there is some real competition, and do that in co operation with the municipalities. Secondly, get in terest rates down as far as housing is concerned, so that an important part of the heritage in Alberta does become affordable housing.

It may be greater to have $4 billion in the heritage savings trust fund than $2 billion in surpluses. But we've got the highest rate of participation by women in the work force of any province in Canada. One of the reasons, Mr. Speak er, is that both husband and wife have to work so they can realize at some time down the road the possibility of even being able to dream about owning a home. That's not a very good part of the heritage as I see it. Once again, and I've already mentioned the situa tion as far as municipal affairs are concerned: munic ipalities are the poor cousins in this province.

We have a fantastically rich provincial government, and municipalities that are having really difficult circum stances. I think it's a 9.6 per cent increase this year, according to the Treasurer. But when you look at the figures, it gets much closer to 4 per cent. I'd be remiss if I didn't say officially to the Treasur er, we're pleased the 10 cent tax on gasoline has been removed. DR. BUCK: Atta boy, Merv. Just keep listening to me, buddy; we'll get you re-elected.

302 ALBERTA HANSARD March 20, 1978 MR. CLARK: It took him some time to appreciate the significance of your advice, but it is a concrete indica tion of some progress as far as the hon. Member for Clover Bar is concerned. Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, the budget speech states on page 16, paragraph 5, "The remainder" — i.e. approximately one-fifth of the increase of 12.5 per cent in the operating budget — "is to provide for a number of innovative programmes as well as signifi cant increases in the quality of service in existing programmes".

This statement poses the question: how does the government measure the quality of service in any program, and how does the government determine that real value has been received from dollars expended? It's a matter of opinion — departmental officials, agencies involved, the public. Mr. Speaker, the Treasurer has acknowledged that efficient government today requires that public spend ing be tied to specific social objectives. I agree with that and would go one step further. Such objectives should be spelled out for each program, and the government has moved some distance in that direc tion.

The design of each program should include some measure for evaluation, so this Assembly and the people of Alberta could be advised beforehand just what the government hopes to accomplish. And we could also be advised on an annual basis whether in fact these original objectives have been achieved. Mr. Speaker, we're really talking about the need for some quality of social indicators, some measuring device for the success or lack of success we're having as far as social programs are concerned, so we don't get ourselves into the position the Member for Cal gary Buffalo raised the other day about the university.

It was a valid point. He said, very often we just add dollars and dollars on top of other dollars. Mr. Speaker, now is the time for Alberta to give some leadership to the rest of Canada in taking some imaginative steps to try to come to grips with this question of the quality of service. How do we develop some indicators? How do we establish some kind of mechanism that looks at the matter of society's indicators? Mr. Speaker, in Canada today we have the Econom ic Council of Canada, The Conference Board, the C.D.

Howe Institute, the Fraser Institute, Canada West Foundation: all excellent organizations, and more could be added to the list. These organizations are involved primarily in the area of economic indicators, and I think they provide a real service to government, the business community, and Canadians at large. We may not always agree with what they say, but they are a help in looking at the economic health of the country. Mr.

Speaker, I propose that the government seriously consider a joint venture between the private sector and the government to establish a foundation which would enable us to start to come to grips with the question of quality of care. Are we getting value for money spent? What about the real question of the quality of social indicators? My suggestion is based on a number of discussions I've had with people in the private sector and in the university community. My feeling is that there are those in the private sector who'd be prepared to become involved in this kind of venture.

It would seem to me that in Alberta we might use the experience of the Glenbow-Alberta Institute, where a private family, in this case the Harvie interest in Calgary, put some $5 million into a fund. That was matched by the province putting $5 million in the fund in the 1960s. I think it has been used in a very appropriate manner since. What I'm suggesting, Mr. Speaker, is that between government, industry, and the business community, we could establish a foundation which would address itself to this question of quality of social indicators.

It should be set up in such a manner that once estab lished it could not be interfered with. Logically, the government should have some people on the board of directors, so should the other contributors, so should the public at large. But such an organization, like the Canada West Foundation, the C.D. Howe Institute, and other groups, would have sufficient independ ence that they could call it as they see it as to the kind of progress we're making in social areas in this country. Mr.

Speaker, that's an area where this government, by taking just a very, very small portion of money, heritage fund or otherwise, could set the wheels in motion not only to give some real leadership here in Alberta but to give some real leadership to the rest of Canada, in an area that I think many of our people in this province feel doesn't get the kind of attention it sometimes should. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. McCRAE: Mr. Speaker, I find it a great pleasure to participate in this budget speech today.

I think the budget in this very fortunate province, in this very fortunate country, is something we all can, are, and should be proud of. Mr. Speaker, one wonders, looking at a budget like this, when he contrasts it to the other provinces, where he might begin. I think what I would like to do firstly is congratulate the Provincial Treasurer on his stewardship of our resources during this past term of office, and also, Mr. Speaker, to congratulate the government generally on its management of our economy. Mr. Speaker, the happy state of affairs we see here in Alberta doesn't just happen.

It takes planning, it takes stewardship, on occasion it takes courage. Before I get into the budget speech itself, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make some comments on the remarks of the hon. Leader of the Opposition. First, I find it almost humorous that when we got the throne speech two or three weeks back, he was condemning it as a nothing document, there was absolutely noth ing in it, et cetera, et cetera. After the budget speech of Friday night, he is standing here today lamenting that there may be an election based on that budget. That's how good it is, Mr. Speaker. AN HON. MEMBER: He's frightened.

He's frightened. MR. McCRAE: Mr. Speaker, I'd also like to direct my attention and the hon. leader's attention to a very serious error he made in his remarks. It was in connection with the suggestion for revenue sharing. I would almost have thought he might have been the Provincial Treasurer rather than the Minister of Edu cation in 1971 when this government came to office. I make that comment, Mr. Speaker, because when we came to office in '71, it was stated that there was a surplus of something like $650 million plus. When

March 20, 1978 ALBERTA HANSARD 303 the inventory was done, lo and behold, the cupboard was bare. Now on Friday night the Provincial Treas urer announced that we would have something like a $689 million surplus this year. The Leader of the Opposition, due to some wizardry of calculation, con cluded that we would have something over a $2 bil lion surplus this year. I don't know if he didn't have time to read Hansard over the weekend, or whether he didn't have time to listen to the Budget Address Friday night. It's amazing what you can do with statistics, Mr. Speaker.

I could note that on Friday night 50 per cent of his caucus wasn't here. And you could lament that, saying that if the 50 per cent were here, and at least 25 per cent of those that were away on Friday are now here . . . But had they all been here on Friday night, they might have listened and paid atten tion to the Budget Address and observed on page 29 that in fact the surplus, or the figures that were used to determine the amount of the surplus, included known increases for oil in the foreseeable future. That would include the $1 a barrel in July and the $1 a barrel in January 1, 1979.

So when he talks of revenue sharing with a $2 billion surplus, in fact it's a projected $689 million surplus — a minor calculation error of $1.3 billion plus. Aren't we fortunate we don't have them doing the revenue sharing for us? Mr. Speaker, another one of his comments was to cry out about the proposed capital projects. Well, Mr. Speaker, the simple answer to that one is: capital projects, government projects, are necessary from time to time. The secret is to do it when there is something like a downturn in the economy so you're not overheating it.

It's simply a question of when the projects must go forward, and the time obviously is when the economy has slowed down somewhat. He also made comments about hospitals, hospital care, native housing, and housing in general, and I would like to come back to that, Mr. Speaker. As I said earlier, our happy situation here in Alberta just didn't happen. In 1971 when we first came to office, the Treasury was virtually bare, our level of social program was modest indeed in comparison with other provinces of Canada. So we were faced with a catch-up period. How were we going to catch up? We had to find the resources.

We made some decisions, Mr. Speaker. They were bold decisions. One of the first ones was to insist on a fair return for our depleting natural resources. That meant some spirited discussion, some strong repre sentations and disputes with the federal government and the other provinces. Our Premier and the mem bers of the government all took an active

part in those negotiations, those discussions. In fact that is the reason we have the kind of resources we have here in Alberta at this time. Had we succumbed to the suggestions of the Member for Spirit River-Fairview or his party and gone with an export tax and let the federal government pocket that, rather than insisting that it come back here for the benefit of Alberta and Albertans, both private people and the explorers, we wouldn't have the happy financial situation we have here today. Mr. Speaker, another good decision we made was the ALPEP decision in December 1974.

That was to assist the exploration companies, the producers, in light of the very strong negative position the federal government had taken: the double taxation, and other measures that were imposed against the oil compa nies. We came to the rescue with ALPEP, which extended assistance to those who would do explora tion in this province. That program was a courageous program, Mr. Speaker. It was a program to assist the private sector; not to jump in and have governments do it but to let people in private business, small and large, get in and do it. Now what has been the result of that, Mr. Speaker?

Another munificent return for our provincial Treasury. In the past year we've had discoveries in the West Pembina area. We've had several natural gas discov eries. These projects have extended the reserve pic ture for Canada, they've given us projected additional returns, they have given us new job opportunities. They have also made employment opportunities for people, not only in urban areas but also in the rural areas. So let not those who would criticize the pro gram forget the impact on their rural constituents. Mr.

Speaker, the drilling rig utilization in Alberta is higher now than it has ever been in our history. That is having very positive results, both in discoveries and in terms of eventual reserves and financial resources for our Treasury. Additionally, Mr. Speaker, we made a very courageous decision to support the Syncrude project. At a time when the hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview, who is not here at the present time, was condemning our participation, we made a very courageous and necessary decision to keep that proj ect going.

In terms of advancing technology, in terms of spinoff effect for suppliers, engineering firms, and small business throughout the whole economy, that project had to go ahead. Additionally, of course, the reserves inventory and our balance of payment were necessary components of that. Right now we are discussing the Cold Lake propos al of Imperial Oil, and whether or not it should go ahead. In my viewpoint it should, Mr. Speaker, if we can accommodate their royalty requests, if we can reach a fair division of return on the production that will ensue.

That project is important, again in terms of jobs, technology, future oil supplies, and future energy resources. Mr. Speaker, I've heard the members opposite questioning our ministers, obviously in opposition to the Cold Lake proposal. I've also heard them on the radio, and it makes me wonder where they stand on this. They talk about jobs, new opportunities — if you were against the Cold Lake proposal with its spinoff effect to all Alberta, what are they for? Mr. Speaker DR. BUCK: The Horner technique. MR. McCRAE: . . . the Cold Lake proposal will mean many, many jobs to Albertans.

When you're against it, opposition members, I suggest you come down to the unemployed Firestone workers in Calgary. See if they're against new jobs. I suggest you talk to some of the one million unemployed across Canada and find out if they're against jobs. I suggest you talk to the mothers of graduating students who I suspect might reasonably anticipate employment with manu facturers, suppliers, engineering firms, all those who would make their contribution to the Cold Lake proj ect. I also suggest that they talk to an energy-hungry nation. Over the weekend we saw the president of Imperial

304 ALBERTA HANSARD March 20, 1978 Oil forecasting an oil deficit, increasing oil imports in the 1980s unless we get new reserves. Well, the Cold Lake project is one way of doing that, Mr. Speaker, and I suggest we get on with it. I was at a meeting just a couple of days back, and the question came up: how do you identify or tell one political party from another? And this unbiased, non partisan person from the audience got up and said, I'll give you a suggestion. Imagine a person caught in the current of a stream being swept downstream. What do you do?

If you approach a Progressive Conservative, he will take a rope, first of all affix it to a firm foundation on shore . . . AN HON. MEMBER: Put it around your head. MR. McCRAE: . . . throw out the rope to the individual and give the poor suffering individual an opportunity of coming to his own rescue along with the Conservative. What would the Liberal do? The suggestion by this person was that he would throw the rope out, but forget to anchor it on shore — obviously of no benefit to anyone at all. What would the NDP, the new democrat, do?

He would throw so much rope out, unsecured at the end, that it would light on the unsuspecting person drifting downstream and being so heavy and unsecured both he and the rope would sink. Mr. Speaker, that's exactly what happened to the oil industries in British Columbia, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba at the time they had socialist governments there. The assistance of the governments in those provinces was to overload the royalty burden to the extent that they stifled, stagnated, and killed the industry in those areas. Right now with changes in government the industry is coming back to Manitoba.

It has come back in measurably substantial degree in British Columbia, and of course in Saskatchewan they've somewhat seen the light and are easing the restrictions so the industry is able to become active again. Someone might say, in the little story of how you identify political parties, what happened to Social Credit? Mr. Speaker, there's just no way of telling where they would have been on that or any other issue. Mr. Speaker, if I might refer to some of the very tangible benefits bestowed by the budget.

First of all, let me refer to the elimination of the gasoline and fuel oil tax, a 10 cent reduction to nothing, to zero level. The members opposite would like to take credit for it even though they first applied it, I believe, in 1969. In any event, that's a very happy state of affairs for all Albertans, whether the Sunday driver, the gentleman going to work or his wife going to work, the truck drivers, the municipalities, or the taxi drivers; the municipalities in terms of — and it came out in the question period today — their construction work, their highway work.

It's my understanding that the reduc tion of 10 cents in gasoline and diesel fuel tax may in fact lower their construction costs by almost 5 per cent, a very significant contribution to their treasuries. AN HON. MEMBER: What about the tourists? MR. McCRAE: What about the tourists? Well, Mr. Speaker, that will be a real encouragement to tourists to come to this province, and create jobs, create new opportunities for the young people, the business peo ple, small and large, of Alberta.

The province with no sales tax, the lowest income tax, and now no gasoline tax has to be a Mecca, a haven, for tourists, and that will have a manifest spilloff for all Albertans. To begin with, in terms of natural endowment we are a richly endowed province for the tourists. Couple that with the imaginative programs of this government and we will see many, many tourists here, many, many new job opportuni ties and, of course, more taxes flowing into the Treasury because of that happy circumstance. In terms of the home care program, Mr.

Speaker, we've announced a $3 million contribution to a health and home care program beginning this year which will grow to $14 million by 1981, 1982 — surely something that would have the support of all members of this House, a program that will enable the pioneers of this province, the people who made it all possible along with the Progressive Conservative government, to stay happily in their own homes. What about the budget in terms of senior citizen assistance?

In addition to earlier budgets and pro grams which have benefited them so much, we now have a new program which will raise the minimum education tax refund for senior citizens from $200 to $400. It also raises the renter assistance from $150 to $250. And for the home-owner living in the small er home the minimum refund will be increased from $100 in 1977 to $200 in 1978. Additionally, Mr. Speaker, we have a day care pro gram. I won't go into the details of that. Suffice it to say that it has been worked out between a committee representing a cross

section of Albertans so that there was good consultation, communication, and input. It is a $6 million program this year, and will assist those in need, recognizing the private sector at the same time by allowing the payment to follow the child and not necessarily go to a government- supported institution. In the culture area we have a $2.5 million program of direct support for the performing arts.

If I could just relate to the Calgary experience, I can look at the theatre groups, the philharmonics, all sorts of cultural organizations who are so happy and proud of what this government has done in the past, and will be more proud and more active with new programming for all the citizens of Alberta in the future. I'd like to congratulate the minister for proposing the extension of this very worth-while program to our government. What do we have in the library area? A 500 per cent increase in support for libraries in two years. Can anything surpass that? Mr.

Speaker, in terms of housing we've had about a $700 million program in the past year. Our program in Alberta is the most active by far in Canada. We still have some problems in housing, but that is because of the affluent nature, the active nature, of our economy, because of the thousands of people coming in from other provinces, because of the at tractive situation here in terms of jobs and in terms of opportunity. And that, of course, will force housing prices upward. I think our minister deserves, along with the rest of the government, a real accolade for his program in trying to maintain pricing at a reason

March 20, 1978 ALBERTA HANSARD 305 able level. He's done very, very well indeed. In that area I must say that I have been to a lot of sod turnings for senior citizen projects and also to a number of ribbon cuttings. I expect to be at one in my Foothills riding. It will be the first one in that riding, because it is a young riding. Recognizing the growing need, we will have a sod turning within the next two weeks for a senior citizen complex. Mr. Speaker, other areas of the budget that deserve an accolade are the reduced and eliminated health care premiums for 168,000 Albertans.

If I could come back for a moment to the question of municipal assistance and the reference by the Leader of the Opposition to our poor cousins — I don't like to get mixed up in the numbers game, but if I could just refer to a table which gives an indication of the transfer payments from this government to the mu nicipalities over a period of years. I'll just pick a few areas at random and deal first with the 1971 period, then come to the '77-78 period. In terms of unconditional assistance, the 1971 grant was $38 million; in 1977-78, $60 million.

Transportation grants in 1971, $24.8 million; in 1977-78, $65 million — a tripling in that short time. In the health and welfare area, from $9 million in 1971 to $19 million in 1977-78 — more than a doubling. In the area of recreation — and this is extremely important — from $1.3 million in 1971-72 to $24.5 million in 1977-78. Total conditional grants over that span of five and a half years: from $36 million conditional assistance in 1971 to $150 million in 1977-78. Total transfers to municipalities in 1971 were $74 million, and in 1977-78 they are $210 million — Mr.

Speaker, a threefold increase in just that short period of time. A remarkable achievement, something this government can take extreme pride in. We heard the hon. member opposite criticizing the contribution this government has made to the univer sities. I'd like to compare the university grants here in Alberta with those elsewhere for just a moment. In Alberta this year they're 8.25 per cent. I travelled around the University of Calgary campus yesterday. It has had spectacular growth in just a few years.

There is a crane there now constructing a new build ing, and being a new university, all buildings are comparatively new. The activity on that campus is something we can all be proud of, and I don't think any of us feels they've been deprived at all. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, the Alberta grants this year will be 8.25 per cent. In Manitoba they are 2 per cent, in British Columbia 6 per cent, in Ontario 5 per cent, and in the maritimes a decrease. And here we are with the opposition members decrying the level of support for the universities. Let me refer to the health service premiums. I'll just make one comparison.

In Alberta the cost to a single person — and the Leader of the Opposition was condemning the very modest increase we had in this area — is $91.80. In Ontario it is $264. A family premium in Alberta is $183.60, and in Ontario it is $528. Couple that, Mr. Speaker, with the sales tax and other heavy taxes they have in the other prov inces and look at the very attractive situation we have here in Alberta. We have the Leader of the Opposition crying out for more expenditures. We also hear him in the next breath asking for leadership, some means of measur ing the level of spending. Well, we've had that lead ership.

We had this government announcing in 1976 a restraint program of 11 per cent. That was followed very shortly by the federal initiative calling for an anti-inflation board legislative program. That fol lowed our leadership here, Mr. Speaker. In 1977 we announced a 10 per cent restraint program; again that was leadership. This year we have announced a program, a guideline to the municipalities. We've taken off the per cent of number, but the guidelines and the leadership are still there. But what happens? We have the Leader of the Opposition standing up and crying for leadership.

At the same time, what did we hear over the radio and read in the news all weekend? It was the same person crying out for increased assistance to the municipalities, the universities, the hospitals, the to tal education system, areas that are already the most handsomely and best financed in all of Canada. But the moment there is any pressure, he succumbs to it and leadership is forgotten. He is saying, you've got to give them more and more and more. Well, Mr.

Speaker, I'm sure there will be opportunities to give each of those areas more in due course of time, but surely the restraint program is a method of showing leadership and fiscal responsibility. Surely if there were to be any sharing of additional revenues, it would not be on the type of figures we've heard today from the Leader of the Opposition, where he came up from our projected surplus of $689 million to an imaginary $2 billion plus. Mr.

Speaker, I've never felt prouder since becoming a member of this government than I was Friday night, over the weekend, and expect to be in the weeks ahead in hearing our budget speech which, coupled with the throne speech, I think is a program, a proj ect, a level of service opportunity here in Alberta comparable to none in Canada. Alberta is indeed the envy of all the other provinces, both government and people, and that's reflected by the number of people rolling in here day by day, looking for jobs.

That's why I think a program like the Cold Lake project and perhaps the next oil sands program should go ahead — because we have a responsibility here. We should show leadership, and the leadership and responsibility we will show will reflect itself, fin ally, in additional revenues for our Treasury, which will enable us to carry on further and better programs such as we've been doing because of leadership and management and planning.

Additionally, for the peo ple of Canada it will mean jobs in manufacturing, jobs in the local area, jobs for rural people, farmers who will be able to participate in the activity that takes place in the Cold Lake and other energy develop ments, the West Pembina developments, the drilling developments here, there, and all over the province. Mr. Speaker, I think the budget Friday night was a proud moment for the Progressive Conservative gov ernment in Alberta. It reflects our leadership, our management of the abundant resources that are bestowed on us. I think it's a budget that all members can and will support.

I might finally com ment that I thought the opposition criticism was timid at best, and I can understand that because there was very little there to criticize. MR. PURDY: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure this after noon to make a few remarks on this budget. I can very honestly say that I'm very proud to live in Alber

306 ALBERTA HANSARD March 20, 1978 ta, to be a Canadian and an Albertan. I look at the other documents that have been tabled in the legisla tures in Saskatchewan, Newfoundland, and Ontario. I compare them with this document here, and there is just no comparison between what we have in Alberta and what the other three budgets have in them. I listened with interest this afternoon to some of the remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition. It appears now when he is saying that they are against any capital projects, especially in rural Alberta . . .

I don't know how this is going to go with the people in rural Alberta who at one time may have supported that party. He says there should be no capital ex penditures out there whatsoever. We have increased the capital expenditures 31 per cent in this budget. I did an interesting breakdown over the weekend, not looking at hospitals or housing but the moneys that are going to rural Alberta compared to urban Alberta. The rural sector will get about $460 million in capital works, and the urban areas such as Edmon ton, Calgary, and the other cities will get $372 mil lion.

I think that's a fair indication that the rural part of the province is being treated quite fairly. When he says it's unwise to go into capital proj ects, I just don't know what he means. As we know, the Syncrude project will be winding down, and this is one way to take up the gap right here at this particular time. He also makes some remarks regarding the per capita debt of our municipalities. Over the weekend I read in the Edmonton Journal a remark by the Mayor of Edmonton which I think is irresponsible.

The head line is It's not enough: Purves. '"No matter how much the province increases its grants to the city, it's not enough,' Mayor Cec Purves said Friday night." I think that's an irresponsible statement, when he should have looked at the budget and seen what programs are there for our municipalities. Just to enumerate some of them, Mr.

Speaker: we have $15 million for Edmonton and Calgary for major transportation thoroughfares; the elimination of fuel oil and gasoline taxes, which is a substantial amount of money for the city of Edmonton; unconditional assistance grants for the cities; the natural gas pro tection plan, on which the city of Edmonton made very little representation to the cabinet — this was done through the federation of gas co-ops, a rural- oriented group of people; a municipal debenture in terest rate program of $16 million for municipalities; Capital City Park in the city of Edmonton; policing grants, which are fairly substantial; and unconditional grants up to 12 per cent for growth centres, and I believe Edmonton is in that particular area.

So I don't think the Mayor of Edmonton has that much to oppose in the municipal end of this budget. Today we also heard the Leader of the Opposition decrying there was nothing in there for the farm population. He said this during the throne debate and in the budget debate today. Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to enumerate some of the things that have recently been done for the farm community. Farm fuel allow ance — this is the only province in Canada that has taken a substantial step to look after the concerns of the farm input costs for farmers. Farm lending pro grams . . . DR. BUCK: We own the lousy stuff.

We should. MR. PURDY: Mr. Speaker, if the Member for Clover Bar wants to speak, I will sit down and let him have my place. AN HON. MEMBER: No, don't. [interjections] MR. PURDY: Farm home lending programs. Many capital projects will directly affect the farmers work ing out.

The rural gas programs; the rural gas price protection plan; transportation, a substantial amount of money for new secondary roads — and this will shorten our hauling costs, give us better roads, and get us closer to markets; $18.7 million dollars for production, marketing, and rural development grants for the farm community; assistance to senior farmers — no supplementary requisition on education tax now for them. I've just compared capital costs be tween rural and urban areas, not comparing the housing and hospital moneys, as I said earlier.

The other remark he made was in regard to nothing for the native people. I would refer the hon. Leader of the Opposition to page 263 of Hansard of March 17, and the remarks made by the Minister Without Portfo lio responsible for Native Affairs. I think a substantial amount is being done for the native sector in Alberta. The other thing he commented on this afternoon was the lack of housing in Alberta. As the Edmonton Journal pu

Document details

Collection	Alberta — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	19780320
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	L18 S4 19780320 1430 01 han.pdf
Language	en
Format	json
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	0294e8b366c8251e3e4162cfc6d4e5a9c9d90241

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