Alberta Hansard — 6 May 1976, Afternoon sitting (14:30) (Legislature 18, Session 2)

19760506

Alberta — Debates (Hansard)

May 6, 1976 ALBERTA HANSARD 1111 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA Title: Thursday, May 6, 1976 2:30 p.m. [The House met at 2:30 p.m.] PRAYERS [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] head: PRESENTING PETITIONS MR. KUSHNER: Mr. Speaker, I beg to present to this Legislature this petition with 1,000 signatures of concerned Albertans. Albertans to this Legislature. The Foothills Hospital in dismissing Dr. George Abouna without charging him with incompe tence has denied the transplant patients the surgeon of their choice. We request the Gov ernment of Alberta reinstate Dr.

Abouna imme diately in the Foothills Hospital. head: PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SELECT COMMITTEES MR. HORSMAN: Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Private Bills Committee, I hereby report that Standing Order 77 concerning the publication of notice of application in The Alberta Gazette and newspapers has been complied with in respect to the following petitions: Of Northwestern Utilities Limited for

an act respecting a certain agreement between the City of Edmonton and Northern Alberta Natural Gas Development Company Limited, and dated the 16th day of November 1915; Of the Mennonite Mutual Relief Insurance Company Limited for

an act to amend The Mennonite Mutual Relief Insurance Company Act; Of the Certified General Accountants Associa tion of Alberta for

an act to incorporate the Certified General Accountants Association of Alberta. The petition of the Alberta Real Estate Association for

an act to incorporate the Real Estate Association has been referred to the Private Bills Committee for consideration pursuant to Standing Order 81(2). head: INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'm delighted today to have the opportunity of introducing some 31 students from St. Thomas More Separate School in Fairview. They've come some 350 miles to visit the city of Edmonton, and they are taking the afternoon to tour the Legislature building. They are accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Jim Olson, and they're seated in the public gallery.

I would ask them to stand and be recognized by the members of the House. MR. ADAIR: Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure also to introduce some students from the great north coun try, and particularly from the constituency of Peace River: 31 students from the Grade 7 class of the Rosary School in the town of Manning, accompanied by their teachers: Sylvia Pynglo, Wendell Derringer, and Lucy Vant Erve; along with parents: Enid Simpson, Katherine Yasinski, Peter Dechant, and Ed Jaeger. I would ask that they stand and be recog nized by this Assembly. DR. McCRIMMON: Mr.

Speaker, it is my privilege today to introduce to you, and through you to the members of this Assembly, 30 Grade 9 students from St. Augustine School in Ponoka, accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Norman Thackeray. They are seated in the public gallery. I would ask that they stand now and receive the recognition of the House. DR. PAPROSKI: Mr. Speaker, I'm delighted to intro duce to you, and through you to members of the Assembly, some 30 bright young students from Westmount Junior High School located in the con stituency of Edmonton Kingsway, accompanied, of course, by a bright young teacher, Mrs. H. Rogers.

I congratulate them for taking an interest in the legisla tive process and democracy in action, and welcome them to the Assembly. I would ask them to rise and be recognized. They are located in the members gallery. MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I have great pleasure in introducing to you, and through you to hon. members of the Legislature, Mr. and Mrs. Tom Taylor of Calgary, and Mrs. Taylor's mother, Mrs. Walter Frey of Josephburg. I would ask these visitors to stand and be recognized. head: TABLING RETURNS AND REPORTS DR. HORNER: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to table the response to Motion for a Return 159. MR. GETTY: Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to file copies of three research reports: first, the reconnaissance field survey for potential forest nursery sites northeast of Edmonton; secondly, Recommended Procedures for Forest Regeneration Surveys in Alberta; and thirdly, Current Range Management on Forest Lands in Alberta. MISS HUNLEY: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the answer to Motion for a Return 167. MR. LEITCH: Mr.

Speaker, I wish to file copies of loan agreements between Canada-Cities Service Ltd., Cities Service Company and the Government of Alberta, together with the debentures attached to the loan agreements, both of which relate to the lending of $100 million by the Government of Alberta with respect to the Syncrude project. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to file similar agreements and debentures between Gulf Oil Canada Limited and Her Majesty in Right of the Province of Alberta. The loan agreements have been executed by Gulf Oil Canada Limited. The debenture to which they refer has not, but will be executed within the

1112 ALBERTA HANSARD May 6, 1976 next while, Mr. Speaker. When it is, I will file the executed copies of the debentures for information of members of the Assembly. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to file two letters to me from A. E. Ames & Co., both dated April 23, 1976. One relates to the Gulf Oil debenture, and the other relates to the Canada-Cities Service debenture. These letters arise because we retained A. E. Ames & Co. as our advisors in connection with the negotiation of the loan agreements and the debentures. The essence of the letters is that the debentures are consistent with normal commercial practice.

For the assistance of members of the Assembly, I would also like to call their attention to two or three of the principal terms of the debenture. The first is the interest rate. With respect to the Gulf Oil debenture, that is 8.125 per cent. With respect to the Canada-Cities Service debenture, it is 8.375 per cent. In addition, Mr. Speaker, the interest that accrues during the construction period will be cancelled in the event that there is an exercise of the conversion privilege which the provincial government has under the terms of the debenture. The conversion privilege I just referred to, Mr.

Speaker, begins roughly at the time of production [at] the plant and extends for a period of five years. This is very important both as to the length of time and the fact that it can be converted without penalty any time during that five years. MR. SPEAKER: In view of the explanation of the hon. minister having been somewhat in the nature of a ministerial announcement, it might be appropriate to afford the Leader of the Opposition an opportunity to comment at this time, if he wishes. MR. CLARK: Mr.

Speaker, in light of the complica tions and the long time it's taken the government to come to some agreement, I think we'll take the opportunity to respond tomorrow or later in the session. head: ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Sexsmith Rapeseed Plant MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct the first question to the Minister of Agriculture. What is the status of the application to the ADC by the rapeseed plant at Sexsmith for financial assistance in the form of operating money? MR. MOORE: Mr.

Speaker, that matter has been considered by the board of directors of the Agricultur al Development Corporation and is now before the cabinet. Freight Rates — Rapeseed MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, could I ask a supplementa ry question of the minister? Is it the intention of the government to arrive at a conclusion on the ADC recommendations prior to some, if I can use the term "straightening out" of the freight rate issue that your colleague is working on? MR. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, I'm afraid I could not give a time frame.

It's only been within the last week that the Executive Council has had an opportunity to consider the recommendations of the Ag. Develop ment Corporation in that regard. I'm not aware, and I don't believe the Minister of Transportation is either, when the whole subject of freight rates with respect to oil and meal will be resolved. So I simply can't answer that at this time. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, then a supplementary question to the Minister of Transportation.

In light of the most recent utterances by the federal Minister of Transport, is the minister in a position to shed any light on where negotiations now stand between the three prairie provinces and the feds on this issue — not only the Sexsmith plant but also the Lloydminster situation? DR. HORNER: Mr. Speaker, I might respond in this way: I'm sure the hon. leader is aware of the communique relative to this matter that was issued in Medicine Hat.

We have had a response from the federal Minister of Transport that he has made public, as I understand, in the form of a telex to the premiers asking for a response to his considerations. We have had initial meetings, indeed today, with the crushers in this province. We will be following that up with consultation with the ministers and the industry in both Saskatchewan and Manitoba to ascertain the various steps we intend to take in the next very short while. I might say that we're disappointed that the costing information which was promised to us arrived the day before the federal order in council was passed.

That's not very useful consultation on behalf of the federal government. I think Mr. Lang should be aware that not only are we a little bit upset with the timing, but in fact the costing information we have received has not been very good. We intend to go back to the CTC in a very definite way, with the co-operation of the industry, to get some firm facts relative to costing. We would hope also that Mr. Lang might make available to the industry the railways' costing infor mation.

If it is in the public interest, he can do so not only under the public information act passed relative to costs, but in fact according to the Railway Act. My suggestion, Mr. Speaker, is that this whole matter is very much in the public interest at the moment. We'll be asking Mr. Lang to use his power to allow the industry to have a look at some of the railway costing data, as well as the provinces. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, a follow-up supplementary question to the minister.

Is it the intention of the Government of Alberta to make public the costing information that the province of Alberta got from the feds, albeit one day before the federal order in council went through? DR. HORNER: The difficulty we have in that matter, Mr. Speaker, as the hon. leader may be aware, is that the federal legislation relative to costing informa tion is based on the provincial governments keeping it confidential. That's why we are going the other route. We suggest to him that in the public interest he can order the information to be made public or

May 6, 1976 ALBERTA HANSARD 1113 made available at least to the industry itself. But the federal legislation as it now stands has that confiden tiality factor in it. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, then I'd like to ask a question of the Minister of Agriculture or the Minister of Transportation. Have the ministers been involved in discussions with the Alberta Wheat Pool and its principals concerning the future of the plant in the Edmonton vicinity? I might pose a second question. In light of the action of the federal government, is that organization now giving some thought to locating that plant in central Canada? DR.

HORNER: Mr. Speaker, we have had discussions with the Alberta Wheat Pool and its principals. Indeed, they were part of the discussions we had today. We consider them part of the crushing indus try in Alberta. I think all should be aware that the crux of the matter has to come back to the anomaly of the rates between finished and raw product. The promise we had from Mr. Marchand in February 1975 was the basis on which the Alberta Food Products plant was going to go ahead. They have spent a substantial amount of money in planning and have some equipment on order.

They are in a holding pattern, hopefully waiting for all of us — and by us I mean government and industry — to try to resolve the matter. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the Minister of Transportation. Earlier during question period the minister indicated that the Alber ta government was developing a contingency plan, if he wasn't successful in shedding some light upon Mr. Lang. My question to the minister is: have the elements of that contingency plan been discussed with the Alberta Wheat Pool and the rapeseed plant in Lloyd minster? We'll leave it there. DR. HORNER: Mr.

Speaker, can I put it this way: both my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, and I have spent considerable time today in discussions with the four major crushers in Alberta relative to the problem. Part of those discussions is an effort to explore alternatives and contingency plans relative to the crushing industry in Alberta. Hospital Operations MR. CLARK: Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to direct my second question to one of the representatives on the Alberta Hospital Visitors Committee, the Member for Calgary Mountain View, and ask if he has received represen tation regarding the bed situation at the Foothills Hospital in Calgary, in his capacity as a member of the Visitors Committee. MR. KUSHNER: Mr. Speaker, I'd refer this to the Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care. MR. MINIELY: Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure whether the hon. leader is referring to a representation to the Hospital Visitors Committee.

In subsequent indica tion of the situation to my office, I have received nothing from the Hospital Visitors Committee regard ing the Foothills Hospital. However, I think the Foothills Hospital has made public announcements as to what it is doing. Those have been reported to the citizens of Calgary and southern Alberta. That's about all I can say on the matter at the present time. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should rephrase the question. My question to the hon. member is: has the hon.

Member for Calgary Mountain View received representation regarding the deteriorating situation of the closure of beds in the Foothills Hospital at Calgary, in his role as a member of the Hospital Visitors Committee? MR. MINIELY: Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure the question is relevant to the role of the hon. Member for Calgary Mountain View as a member of the Hospital Visitors Committee, which acts in an advisory capacity to the Ministry of Hospitals and Medical Care. If the hon. leader has a question relative to the situation at the Foothills Hospital, I'd be quite happy to answer accurately. MR. CLARK: Mr.

Speaker, a supplementary question then to one of the members on the Hospital Visitors Committee, the Member for Edmonton Norwood. In her capacity on the Visitors Committee, will the hon. member be monitoring the quality of care at ASH/Deerhome at Red Deer in the course of the next year? MRS. CHICHAK: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to refer this question to the minister, because as a member of the committee which acts in an advisory capacity . . . MR. SPEAKER: The member isn't required to give any reasons for such a request. MRS. CHICHAK: Mr.

Speaker, I would just refer the matter to the minister because, as advisor to the minister, he would have any current information that ought to be relayed to him. MR. MINIELY: Mr. Speaker, again the Hospital Visi tors Committee is an advisory committee to the ministry of Hospitals and Medical Care. They regular ly visit hospitals and a variety of institutions in Alberta and report their overall view. The annual report is tabled before members of the Assembly. I tabled that during the course of the current sitting.

The individual reports sometimes involve personali ty conflicts, such as were experienced in Stony Plain. In my view this is not the kind of information that would be tabled in the Legislature. In order not to harm innocent Albertans in certain situations that exist in institutions, that would be from the Hospital Visitors Committee to me as the Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care. The annual report is tabled before the Assembly for the information of all members. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the minister. Has the minister given a directive to the hon.

Member for Calgary Mountain View to review the situation at the Foothills Hospital? As a member of the Hospital Visitors Committee, is the recommen dation of the petition presented to the House an

1114 ALBERTA HANSARD May 6, 1976 official view? Is that the advice that has been given to the minister? MR. MINIELY: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that the hon. Member for Calgary Mountain View needs no encouragement, either with his role as a member of the Hospital Visitors Committee, or as an MLA. He keeps me very informed of his views with respect to the situation in the Foothills Hospital. In fact I can assure you all the MLAs on the government side are talking to me constantly about this situation. Land Banking DR. PAPROSKI: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Housing and Public Works.

It is stated in the editorial in the Journal today that the minister warned the city of Edmonton against rising lot prices in land banked in Mill Woods. It also indicated that more affordable homes for more people is a challenge. Does the minister have information to indicate that the government in fact is following this policy direction? MR. YURKO: Mr.

Speaker, I also read the editorial and I was a little surprised at it, since in the letter I sent to the mayor I referred to the fact that the Alberta Housing Corporation was presently, at this time, negotiating with the city to bring on additional lots in Mill Woods, and undertaking virtually all, or all, the front-end financing. We were looking at the possibility of bringing about 1,000 to 1,300 additional lots on stream this year. That negotiation would be considerably jeopardized by the city establishing a policy of generating a considerable amount of profit per lot marketed in Mill Woods.

Syncrude Debentures DR. McCRIMMON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the hon. Provincial Treasurer. In light of the announcement the hon. minister made a few moments ago, why is there the difference between 8.125 and 8.375 as far as the Gulf and Cities Service debentures are concerned? MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, borrowings of the size we're dealing with in these debentures are normally made in the money markets of the world such as New York or London. Those markets have an established credit-rating system. The higher one's credit rating, the lower the interest rate one pays to borrow funds.

In this particular case and in that rating system, Gulf has a somewhat higher credit rating than does Cities Service and would ordinarily be able to borrow funds at .5 per cent or so cheaper than could Cities Service. That was carried over into our dealings with those two companies in accordance with our commitment in Winnipeg to lend sums in accordance with usual commercial practice. DR. McCRIMMON: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the hon. minister.

In light of the fact that the current interest rate is considerably higher than 8.125 or 8.375, what is the reason for the differential between 8.125 and 8.375 and the going interest rate, which I understand runs at 10, 11 per cent? MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, again, in accordance with usual commercial practice, the interest rate paid by a borrower is always appreciably lower when we're dealing with a convertible rate; that is, where the lender has the right to convert the debt to an equity ownership, which is the case with each of these debentures.

The difference between normal debt borrowing and debt borrowing where there is a conversion rate is about 2 to 3 per cent, and that is about the difference in this particular case. In fact, I think the difference here is somewhat closer to 2 per cent than it is to 3 per cent. Research Council MR. MANDEVILLE: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the hon. Member for Edmonton Jasper Place, who is a member of the Research Council. Could the member indicate whether the Research Council has equity in any companies in Alberta? MR. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, I'm a member of the Research Council, not the chairman.

I'd refer the question to the chairman of the Research Council, the hon. Minister of Business Development and Tourism. MR. DOWLING: Mr. Speaker, in my brief term of office as the chairman, my understanding is that they do have equity positions in some companies. I don't recall the name, but they have joint ownership with the research council of Ontario in a project. There are others. I can't be any more specific than that. They do hold equity interest in some. MR. MANDEVILLE: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.

Is the Research Council presently conduct ing, or does it plan to conduct, feasibility studies on coal gasification? MR. DOWLING: Mr. Speaker, yes they are. As a matter of fact, through the Department of Energy and Natural Resources money could be set aside this year so a pilot project could be under way through the Research Council as well. At the University of Alberta site they are in the process now of building a unit in a lab to determine what they can do with in situ mining operations. I would invite all members to visit that plant, have a look at what they are doing, and see what they plan for the future.

Fingerprinting Treasury Employees MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct my question to the hon. Provincial Treasurer. Can he confirm there is now widespread fingerprinting of Department of Treasury employees? MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I don't have any informa tion in that respect. If the hon. member has some information he would like to give me, I would be pleased to check it out.

May 6, 1976 ALBERTA HANSARD 1115 Coal Policy MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the hon. Minister of Energy. Has any consideration been given to mining the eastern slopes by deep-seam mining only? MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, I would have to say that I'm sure consideration is being given to all types of known techniques for mining coal deposits in Alberta. But to respond specifically to the hon. member, I would prefer to do some personal research on it and reply to him. Land Banking (continued) MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Housing.

A few moments ago the minis ter referred to a letter he had sent to the mayor of Edmonton. Has the minister received a response to that letter at this time? MR. YURKO: Mr. Speaker, since the letter went to the mayor I have had two telephone conversations with him. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the minister. Would the minister confirm his position to maintain the lots in Mill Woods at a lower cost, rather than at the $9,600 plus cost? If so, what steps does the minister foresee to accomplish this goal? Was it part of the discussions with the mayor? MR. YURKO: Mr.

Speaker, in terms of transferring public land owned by either the Alberta Housing Corporation or the government to a developer, whether in Fort McMurray or any other town or in fact the city of Edmonton, the general policy the Alberta Housing Corporation attempts to follow is to transfer the land at cost, that's amortizing all the costs associated with the purchase of that land and the cost of on-site and off-site development. It's not always easy to calculate the entire range of costs that are reflected in the price of a lot.

But this is the . . . [not recorded] and when the lot is transferred to an individual, the individual can in fact be screened for a number of reasons. Nevertheless, when the land is transferred to a builder for specula tive building, there are procedures which can deviate slightly from cost. There are instances where in fact this strict policy — as indicated, to transfer land to individuals — has been deviated from with respect to builders. Of course, the situation in Edmonton with the lots in Mill Woods is that the list of potential home owners with the city of Edmonton is large, over 2,000.

So all the existing lots that will be put on the market this year by the city of Edmonton, approxi mately 800, will be allocated directly to individuals. This is the area of concern to both the Housing Corporation and me, that a policy would be establish ed unilaterally by the city to generate considerable profit on the basis of this land banked by the provin cial government. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the minister.

In the letter there is an indication that with regard to the leasing of land and moneys available — and I'm not sure if there is legislation available to look after this, relative to funding. Are funds for leased land available under the Alberta home mortgage corporation? I understand that is a problem. MR. YURKO: Mr. Speaker, there are instances when mortgage money is indeed provided for the accom modation structure which is rented or leased, if you wish. In areas such as mobile-home parks, this is in fact done.

Generally, for the normal type of subdivi sion with a normal type of house construction, finan cial institutions will not change their regulations in terms of lending mortgage money [for] a house on leased land. They insist that the owner of the house own the land, and lend money on a package basis rather than on a broken basis. This is generally the policy the Alberta Housing Corporation has been following. As of now, it may or may not be the policy of the Alberta home mortgage corporation, which has not come into being as yet. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a final supplementa ry to the minister.

In your letter you indicate tenancy would be from a period of one year, and you're allotting . . . MR. SPEAKER: Would the hon. member please use the ordinary parliamentary form in referring to members. MR. R. SPEAKER: I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker. My apology. Is the minister considering legislation requiring this tenancy for a minimum period of one year in the houses and lots in provincial land banks? MR. YURKO: Mr. Speaker, I think the actual matter was quoted out of context.

I believe I indicated in the letter that if there was difficulty with speculation, a number of different methods could be used in screen ing the applicant to satisfy and minimize the degree of speculation. I indicated that such things as income, building within a certain limit of time, and one-year residency could be used as conditions imposed on the sale until, for example, a mortgage can be finalized. Nevertheless, this matter is now under discussion within the Alberta Housing Corpora tion and the policy division of the Department of Housing and Public Works.

Whether legislation is needed for such a require ment is questionable at this time. The general opinion of officials is that it can certainly be done by regulations tied to the first mortgage, if nothing else, and that exceptions could always be made. When an individual had to sell because he was transferred or in fact moved from one area to another, the minister or some other official could make that exception as appropriate.

The intent of any such regulation or guideline would be for minimizing speculation with respect to the entire government policy of supplying housing and minimum-cost lots to the low- and middle-income people in our society. Riverdale MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the hon. Minister of Housing and Public Works. I wonder if he

1116 ALBERTA HANSARD May 6, 1976 could advise whether concern about the possibility of flooding in the Riverdale community precludes the Alberta Housing Corporation from providing mortgage money for homes in Riverdale. MR. YURKO: Mr. Speaker, as I remember the situa tion, and perhaps it might need some verification, the flooding frequency in the Edmonton flats — it might be verified by the Minister of the Environment — but the figures I remember from when I was in Environ ment were that the flooding frequency was once in 50 years. This may have been reduced somewhat by the construction of the Bighorn Dam.

Such a flooding frequency is comparable to other areas in Alberta such as areas of Calgary, Bowness, Fort McMurray, and others. It is not necessarily a high frequency. Analysing the situation in the Alberta Housing Corporation, the decision was made that the river flats area would not be considered any different from any other part of Alberta with respect to first mortgages on housing, as we considered the risks to be comparable to other areas where we were provid ing mortgage money. MR. KING: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Aside from mortgage funds available through existing pro grams, would the minister be prepared to consider experimental financial support for the Sundance Housing Co-operative Ltd. in Riverdale in order that some units could be reserved for senior citizens' housing and accommodation to facilitate an age and income mix? MR. YURKO: Well, Mr. Speaker, I could certainly take under advisement the suggestion the member has made. However, it would probably be appropriate to indicate that there are two types of co-operatives. There is the construction and ongoing management co-operative.

Then there is the construction co- operative that builds houses, if you wish, for five or 10 people and then dissolves. In the Alberta Housing Corporation, we have been addressing our minds to the construction co-operatives and are treating them as we would treat any individual. In other words, we are treating them individually and as a group of individuals, and providing mortgage money and front- end financing to them as individuals. The resolution passed recently by the board of directors of Alberta Housing Corporation permits in most cases front-end financing of a lot if it is sold at cost.

It permits front-end financing of up to 95 per cent of the cost of that lot. A prospective member of a construction co-op has to have only 5 per cent of the cost of the lot to finance the lot. He then has to carry that 5 per cent equity through the total con struction period of the house. In this regard, it has made it much simpler for individuals in co-ops to build houses on their own. MR. KING: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister be prepared to consider the Riverdale community for program support to encourage preser vation and/or redevelopment of Riverdale as a resi dential community? MR.

YURKO: Well, Mr. Speaker, that's quite a complex question. I would suggest that redevelop ment of the area is certainly a matter for the city of Edmonton. It could indeed be considered as a neighborhood improvement program area. From my point of view, I can't really see why it hasn't been considered. Perhaps it has been considered by the city. If the city considered it seriously, I'm sure we would give it serious consideration. Olympic Lottery MR. GOGO: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the hon. Attorney General. Perhaps a short explanation is in order.

The other day, the Minister of National Health and Welfare presented a $2 million cheque to Edmonton, [part] of a $9 million pledge for the operation of the Commonwealth Games. He indicat ed the balance could perhaps be raised either by running a lottery or by extending the Olympic lottery of Canada in Alberta. As the authority for the sale of Olympic tickets ends on August 31 this year, my question to the hon. Attorney General is: has application been made to extend the Olympic lottery in Alberta after that date? MR. SCHMID: Mr.

Speaker, the way the present federal statute reads, the provinces have to give consent for the running of the Olympic lotteries in the respective provinces. The order in council states very specifically that the last lottery be run in the last part of August for the benefit of the Olympic Games in Montreal. MR. GOGO: A supplementary to the Minister of Government Services also responsible for Culture, Mr. Speaker. It concerns the Olympic lottery. I wonder if the minister would advise the House, or me, how much the 5 per cent of the gross proceeds of Olympic sales in Alberta amounted to in 1975. MR.

SPEAKER: Possibly the hon. member could put that question on the Order Paper. Public Trustee MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct this question to the hon. Attorney General. It concerns the Public Trustee's office. Mr. Speaker, my question is: can the Attorney General advise the Assembly what the policy is right now with respect to land sales being handled by the Public Trustee, as far as public opening of bids is concerned? MR. FOSTER: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. mem ber could be somewhat more specific. I assume you're talking about land sales that take place in estates handled by the Public Trustee.

MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, with the leave of the House, perhaps I could explain. The problem was brought to my attention by a constituent. The ques tion relates to the Public Trustee handling estates where bids are presented. Normally the approach has been to have open tendering, if you like. The bids have been opened in public. It is my understanding that has been changed. I would ask the minister why we've moved from opening of bids, if you like, to a closed situation.

May 6, 1976 ALBERTA HANSARD 1117 MR. FOSTER: Mr. Speaker, I'm not personally famil iar with the procedure to which the member referred, but I'd be happy to check and advise what the former practice was, what the current practice is, and if there's a difference, the reasons for it. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, one supplementary ques tion for clarification. Is there no overall public policy then with respect to this matter? MR. FOSTER: Mr. Speaker . . . [not recorded] understand we're talking about the sale of property owned by an estate, not the sale of property owned by the Crown.

I can envisage circumstances where the persons responsible for the estate may feel they want to offer land for sale by way of tender and indicate they don't intend to accept any offers unless they're satisfactory — so no offer will necessarily be accepted — or that they'll deal with it in some particular way. Mr. Speaker, I say to the House I'm not aware of all the various ways, if there are various ways, in which the Public Trustee disposes of estate property. I'd be happy to check. But I want to underline that this is not Crown property. This is private property. Oil Sands Research MR. CLARK: Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to direct my question to the Minister of Energy and ask if the Oil Sands Technology and Research Authority has made its decisions with regard to those research projects which it will be funding. I ask the question because of the statements made by Dr. Bowman, I believe, during the estimates when I think he said six weeks. MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, in my discussions with Dr. Bowman he indicated he has reduced the list of some 21 applicants to what is now referred to as a "short list"; in other words, those the Authority feels merit funding.

However, that presentation has been made on a preliminary basis to the Energy Committee of cabinet. There are some additional considerations to be looked at. Then Dr. Bowman will be making a further recommendation to a cabinet committee and to cabinet, at which time I believe the Authority will make a public announcement. I think the timing of these various moves would allow the Authority to make its final decisions sometime during June. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister.

Is the minister in a position to indicate whether there's been any finalization of the portion of the initial $100 million that will be allo cated this first time around? MR. GETTY: As indicated in committee study of the department's estimates, the Authority has set aside roughly $75 million of the $100 million for the initial in situ field studies. However, the applications don't necessarily fit the dollars that neatly. Therefore, some adjustments may be necessary. When there are, we have to deal with the financial implications.

That is part of the assessment that will be going on with the Authority and with cabinet committees. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, one last supplementary question to the minister. Referring once again to the subcommittee estimates on that occasion, I believe Dr. Bowman indicated that within six weeks a deci sion would have been made on whether the Authority would recommend a study of the question of a nuclear explosion. My question to the minister really is: is the nuclear explosion prospect still on the short list? MR. GETTY: To the best of my knowledge, it's not. However, Mr. Speaker, on the nuclear proposal, Dr.

Bowman explained at that committee meeting that it was really a proposal to study the environmental effects of nuclear explosions where they have occurred in other places, not actually to have a nuclear explosion in the Alberta oil sands. The only reason I'm hesitant about saying that it has disposed of the present nuclear proposal is that I'm not sure whether the Authority has informed the applicant yet of its final decision. Milk Market Quota MR. MANDEVILLE: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the hon. Minister of Agriculture.

Has the minister given consideration to placing a price ceiling on fluid milk quota that can be traded between dairy producers? MR. MOORE: No, Mr. Speaker. That matter hasn't been under consideration, although I have discussed with the Dairy Control Board whether there is a method that can be used to control the price of industrial milk quota. Hon. members would under stand that industrial milk quota has not recently been sold, but will now be available for transfer and sale.

I do know, however, that the Dairy Control Board provides a free advertising service to dairy producers who want to dispose of fluid milk or industrial milk quota. They recently implemented a practice of not advertising quota for sale when the asking price was in excess of $16. That action was taken, Mr. Speaker, because quota prices have been rising rapid ly in other parts of Canada. It's our understanding that in British Columbia some are selling for as high as $70 per hundred.

The Dairy Control Board felt that a free service which was being offered should not be extended to those individuals who, in their opinion, were asking excessively high prices for quota. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary ques tion to the hon. minister. Does the Dairy Control Board have any specific mechanism for monitoring the price of quotas? MR. MOORE: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The Dairy Control Board has to approve the sale and transfer of every quota sold. So in fact, by compiling their figures, they would know from time to time what the average price of fluid milk quotas is.

As well, when industrial milk transfers become common, they will know whether industrial milk quota prices are moving up or down, and to what extent. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a further supplementary question for clarification. I took it from the hon. minister's answer that the Dairy Control Board is now

1118 ALBERTA HANSARD May 6, 1976 considering possible methods by which they can restrain too substantial increases in industrial milk quotas. Two questions in one, Mr. Speaker. First of all, is the minister in a position to advise the House when we may expect a policy on this matter? Are there going to be any general guidelines as to limits? Obviously, we don't want to go as high as B.C. MR. MOORE: Mr.

Speaker, I've asked members of the Dairy Control Board to consider the matter of the effects of very high industrial milk quotas and what, if anything, might be done by the board to ensure those quota prices don't get out of hand. I don't expect any resolution on that matter, or any suggestions as to what might be done, until probably June, or maybe the early part of July. I asked them to look at it.

Certainly one of the things they are now doing, which is refusing to provide a free advertising service for quota over a certain level, is one small way in which you can assist in ensuring the prices don't get too high. I would expect, Mr. Speaker, that we will run into some great difficulty in trying to determine a method of legally and formally imposing an upper limit on quotas. Inmate Employment MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the hon. Solicitor General.

Are prisoners or inmates or guests, whatever you want to call them, in our correctional institutions who work outside for wages charged room and board? MR. FARRAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker. To amplify what I explained to the hon. Member for Drumheller about two weeks ago, if they are working out and are housed by the institution, whether they're out on day parole or temporary absence for employment pur poses, under the regulations they're charged $4 a day or $20 for a five-day week. They also pay any travel expenses to and from their place of employment. They reimburse the institution for any special clothing expense.

Some of their pay may be directed by the director to their dependent, and the balance is held in trust, just as it is for all other inmates, the interest accruing to the inmates' benefit fund and the capital being paid at the time of their release. Drinking Age MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Member for Lac La Biche-McMurray, who is on AADAC. At present Saskatchewan is considering increasing the drinking age. Ontario also has a report of a similar nature. Has the member or AADAC made any recommendations to government with regard to this matter? MR. TESOLIN: Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to thank the member for the question. I thought I was going to be left out. But I would like to refer it to the Minister of Social Services and Community Health. MISS HUNLEY: No, Mr. Speaker, they have not. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, to the minister. As a matter of interest, is the minister or anyone in the department monitoring or considering such a change? MISS HUNLEY: No, Mr. Speaker, we're not. Dunvegan Historical Site MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct this question to the hon. minister of culture. It concerns the Dunvegan historical site.

I wonder if the minister could advise the Assembly of the reasons for the crating of the artifacts at the Dunvegan historical site. MR. SCHMID: Mr. Speaker, I take the hon. member's question as notice and will inquire into the circumstances regarding the crating. ORDERS OF THE DAY MR. YURKO: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could have the unanimous leave of the House to revert to tabling of reports. HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. head: TABLING RETURNS AND REPORTS (reversion) MR. YURKO: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to file with the Assembly the study report on the Gaetz Lakes area in Red Deer. MR. MINIELY: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to file one as well, the answer to Motion for a Return No. 102. MR. SPEAKER: May the hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview revert to Introduction of Visitors? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. head: INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS (reversion) MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I certainly welcome the opportunity to introduce the Hon. Ned Shillington and his assistant, Mr. Ashton Blackman. Mr. Shil lington is the Minister of Co-operation and Co- operative Development in the province of Saskatche wan. Both gentlemen are seated in your gallery.

I would ask them to stand and be recognized and welcomed by the members of the House. head: WRITTEN QUESTIONS 183. Mr. Clark asked the government the following question:

(1) Did any government department, board, or agency recommend or support Canadian Cane Equipment Ltd.'s application for a loan guaran tee from the Alberta Export Agency; and if so, which government department, board, or agency?

May 6, 1976 ALBERTA HANSARD 1119

(2) Did any representative of the Alberta Export Agency attend the meeting of the board of directors of Canadian Cane Equipment Ltd. in Antigua in 1974; and if so, what is the name and relationship of this person to the Alberta Export Agency?

(3) Who was the first financial administrator for the Alberta Export Agency?

(4) Was any representative of the Department of Agriculture or the Alberta Export Agency a member of the board of directors of Canadian Cane Equipment Ltd. at the time that that company went into receivership in 1974; and if so, what is the name of that person?

(5) Does the Alberta Export Agency now have on its staff any ex-employee of Canadian Cane Equip ment Ltd.; and if so, what is the name of this person and his position with the Alberta Export Agency? Was this person ever an employee of the Department of Agriculture? MR. SPEAKER: The question has been accepted by the hon. minister. head: MOTIONS FOR RETURNS MR. FOSTER: Mr. Speaker, I move that the following motions for returns stand and retain their places on the Order Paper: 175, 190, and 191. [Motion carried] 181. Mr.

Clark proposed the following motion to the Assembly: That an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing: The total number and aggregate amount of all loans made by any government department, Crown corpo ration, or government agency which have been guaranteed by a different government department, Crown corporation, or government agency in each of the fiscal years 1974-1975 and 1975-1976. [Motion carried] 185. Mr.

Clark proposed the following motion to the Assembly: That an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing: The details of a loan guarantee agreement made by the Alberta Export Agency to Canadian Cane Equip ment Ltd. in 1973, including: (1) the date of application for the guarantee, (2) the amount requested to be guaranteed, (3) the amount of the guarantee, (4) the amounts and dates of all advances of the loan guarantee, (5) the security given for the guarantee and its assessed value, (6) the date when the guarantee agreement was signed. [Motion carried] 186. Mr.

Clark proposed the following motion to the Assembly: That an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing: The terms of each employment contract and each contract for consulting services entered into be tween the Alberta Export Agency and any person, firm, or corporation during the periods

(1) May 15, 1973, to March 31, 1974,

(2) April 1, 1974, to March 31, 1975,

(3) April 1, 1975, to March 31, 1976. [Motion carried] 187. Mr. Notley proposed the following motion to the Assembly: That an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing: A list which gives, for each program and sub program in the 1976-77 estimates, the estimated total payments under object of expenditure code No. 730, Grants to Businesses, with comparative fore cast data for 1975-76. [Motion carried] 188. Mr.

Notley proposed the following motion to the Assembly: That an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing: A list which gives, for each program and sub program in the 1976-77 estimates, the estimated total payments under object of expenditure code No. 430, Professional, Technical and Labor Services, with comparative forecast data for 1975-76. [Motion carried] 189. Dr.

Buck proposed the following motion to the Assembly: That an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing: (1) the total amount of money expended on the remodelling, renovating, and refurnishing of the Fort Saskatchewan Correctional Institution for the periods April 1, 1974, to March 31, 1975, and April 1, 1975, to March 31, 1976; (2) the total amount of money expended on the remodelling, renovating, and refurnishing of the female

section of the Fort Saskatchewan Correc tional Institution for the periods April 1, 1974, to March 31, 1975, and April 1, 1975, to March 31, 1976; (3) the names of the contractors who submitted tenders to undertake the remodelling, renovat ing, and refurnishing referred to in (1) and (2) and the amounts of the tenders; (4) the names of the contractors who performed the remodelling, renovating, and refurnishing referred to in (1) and (2); (5) the total amount of money paid to each contrac tor referred to in (4) and the specific service for which each sum of money was paid. [Motion carried] 192. Mr.

Taylor proposed the following motion to the Assembly: That an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing: The number of persons on March 31, 1976,

1120 ALBERTA HANSARD May 6, 1976 (

a) detained while awaiting court hearing, (

b) serving a sentence, (

c) employed as staff in each of the following institutions:

(1) Belmont Rehabilitation Centre,

(2) Calgary Correctional Institution,

(3) Fort Saskatchewan Correctional Institution,

(4) Lethbridge Correctional Institution,

(5) Peace River Correctional Institution,

(6) Nordegg Forestry Camp. [Motion carried] head: MOTIONS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT MOTIONS 1. Mr. R. Speaker proposed the following motion to the Assembly:

Be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly urge the government to increase its support of co-ordinated home care programs as an alternative to institutional health care. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to make very clear the definition of the word "support" and our intent in using that word. I'm sure that in reviewing the resolution the first thing that comes to the minds of a number of members is that we on this side of the House want to expand the budget, that we want to increase the spending, and that we're not being particularly responsible in that area. Mr.

Speaker, I want to clear that up at this point in time, so that no one in the Assembly has to waste time arguing that point of view. That is not our intent. So if you have those notes at your disposal, dispose of them at the present time. I'd like to define the word "support" in two ways. First of all, we wish to define "support" as a shift in priorities, so that money in lower priority areas, in our viewpoint, could be funnelled into this area of community-level programs, of home care programs. What are some examples?

In our assessment we look at such programs as ACCESS, Government House — something like $1 million — the Export Agency, the Bureau of Public Affairs. We think a large sum of money could be raised in those areas and placed into areas such as home care, where many individuals in Alberta would certainly benefit to a greater degree. That's the first definition of support. What is the second one? The second definition of the word "support" is as follows: we feel that the government in their policy statement should be wil ling to place their position with regard to home care before the public.

At the present time we are just not sure what that policy statement is. The Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care indicated earlier that he believes — and there really isn't any evidence — that home care programs reduce the costs of institutional care. We haven't seen anything beyond that. We don't know which direction the government wants to go. I think that is the kind of support we are looking for at the present time. The government should be willing to say, we don't support the program or, we do support it and we're going to do something about it. Mr. Speaker, those are the two

definitions of "support" that I would like to use as the frame of reference for my remarks this afternoon. Let's look at the first definition: shift of priority. From preliminary information and examination, and from my past experience, we feel that shifting from institutional care to community care is less expensive to the taxpayer looking at it at face value. We feel this point of view should certainly be pursued.

We look back to 1974-75, for example, and home care costs were just over $4; nursing home beds were $18 a day; auxiliary hospital beds in the area of $35 per day; active treatment hospital beds — I think the figure raised in the Assembly the other evening was over $100 a day. Mr. Speaker, we can see that community-level care or home care is certainly a lot less expensive on that basis. When we examine the budget, we find that some thing like $611,000 is spent on home care through preventive social services.

That involves such pro grams as Meals on Wheels, outpatient services, home repairs, physiotherapists, nutrition consultants, handymen, and I'm sure there are other variations. At the same time, through the Minister of Housing and Public Works — and certainly this program has a lot of merit — we spend something like $30 million to do physical repair on the homes of senior citizens. That's good. A lot of the senior citizens are certainly receptive to the program and are very happy it is happening.

But it does say something about our priorities when we examine the house of the individ ual relative to his physical and mental care. Some senior citizens do need personal contact with other persons. That $611,000 isn't even good interest on the money we spend on the homes of the senior citizens. We ask, just where is the priority in that kind of spending? Aren't there lower priority items some where else in the budget where we can increase that amount of money to reach out and help people in their homes for their physical and mental care? I think that should be a consideration of government.

The other point I would like to make is in regard to priority shifts within the hospitals themselves. We've discussed this with the Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care. Boards have shifted priorities. They've examined certain areas and said, here's an area where we can reduce the number of active beds in our hospitals. But one of the other things they are also saying is that when we reduce the bed opportu nity in the hospitals, there should be somebody in the community who takes up the slack and is able to give care at the home level.

But really our budget or allocation to the local hospital boards doesn't indicate that type of thing. The global budget to the hospital doesn't say, what type of work are you doing with the community? How do you help home care or community-level care? It doesn't really say that type of thing, nor does it give that type of incentive to local hospital boards. I think it's an area that has to be examined. Mr. Speaker, that is why we felt it was very important to place this resolution on the Order Paper at this time. The second point I made was with regard to putting forth a policy by government.

Other people besides me are concerned about this. First of all I would like to quote from the 1975 report of the Edmonton home care program, which was presented to the govern ment. On page 16 of that report we read their point

May 6, 1976 ALBERTA HANSARD 1121 of view: Future developments with the Edmonton Home Care Program and Coordinated Home Care throughout the Province will be uncertain until the Alberta Government determines a poli cy position with regards to the role of coor dinated home care in our health care and social service delivery system. Mr. Speaker, these people are active in the field, have had some very basic experience with home care, and understand it. They recognize that government really hasn't got a policy in this area, has not developed it. They may be doing research, but I'm not aware of it.

Nor is a group such as this aware of that particular research. Mr. Speaker, they see there is need for direction at this point in time. I also quote the intent of the government from the Speech from the Throne earlier this year. The government stated its support for this kind of pro gram, but we don't see any elaboration or sophistica tion of the proposal regarding home care. I'd like to quote fro a

summary of the throne speech.

It says: The Throne Speech stated that "To have a life of independence and dignity, our older Albertans deserve greater financial security and appropri ate health care and housing." More specifically, the government said a senior citizens' commu nity service program would be established through the department of health and social development (social services and community health) and that: "It will provide financial support to communities to aid them in piloting and setting up home support services such as 'meals on wheels' and home repair services to help older people maintain an independent life." Now the government has indicated a program to look after the repair services of the homes.

But I'm not sure there is a significant increase in finance for Meals on Wheels or other home care programs. The intent seems to be there, but it is not clear in the area we are discussing at the present time. There are certainly other persons who support a home care program. I would like to quote from one or two articles I have. This is an

article from the Calgary Albertan of January 23, 1976: The board of the Red Deer General Hospital has voiced strong disapproval of a provincial gov ernment decision to limit the home care pro gram to an 11 per cent budget increase. They go on to speak about their support of that type of program. We can also read, on page 14 of the Edmonton home care report, of their support for this particular type of program. I would like to quote from that report: The Home Care Program continues to be a focal point of coordination for a number of community home services.

Inquiries from the public are frequent and there appears to be a growing understanding of the nature and scope of the Program. The willingness of many agencies, institutions, and helping professions to cooper ate and participate is an indication of the inter est in and support of our Program. Physicians, social workers, community agencies, and indi viduals on the Program have expressed satisfac tion with the services and appreciation of being able to keep many individuals and families together in the home. Certainly I think that last

part is very, very significant. Another supportive piece of information for this type of policy was in the brief presented to the hon. Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care by the gradu ate class of nurses from the University of Alberta. I'd like to quote from page 2 of their brief presented to the minister on April 20: The quality of health care is questionable when beds, budgets and staff are cut.

Of particular concern is that community based services, which we as baccalaureate graduates are par ticularly qualified to enter, are not being expanded to cover existing health needs as well as those arising out of institutional cut-backs. The recent task force on continuing education recommended that the future mode of delivering services be restructured through increased fisc al and manpower resources to provide more adequate health promotion, health main tenance, and disease prevention and rehabilita tive services. These types of community based, comprehensive care services are not being insti tuted.

As a result, the new baccalaureate nursing graduates, available manpower, are not being used optimally. Mr. Speaker, in summarizing my remarks and in support of this brief, I'd like to say we really haven't had a clear position from government on this matter. We feel that not only members of the Legislature but certainly the hospital boards and the community-level workers need this kind of direction from government at the present time; not only direction, but certainly we need to have the government recognize that there needs to be a reassessment of the priorities in government with regard to this matter.

I can only conclude this way, Mr. Speaker: one, home care programs are very relevant to community involvement. Secondly, they are a root which can bring about growth and an increase in volunteerism. The other day in the Assembly I questioned the Minister Without Portfolio responsible for Calgary with regard to volunteerism. Maybe his answer was not thought through — I'm just not sure — but his indication was that government was expanding in these areas to erode the area in which volunteers were working. I said in my comment that that was a very unfortunate answer. I hope that isn't the intent of government.

One way they can renew faith at the community level is to loo at home care programs and involve more volunteers. Thirdly, home care programs can keep independent people independent, certainly in the homes we are rehabilitating at the present time. From the very limited amount of information I have at the present time, I feel that with the right type of implementation home care programs can save us money in the health field. Fifth, home care programs can stop tying up a number of beds in active treatment hospitals.

I think I read in one of the visiting committee's reports that there were people in institutional care units who could be placed in the community if they had someone to relate to them once a day or twice a week to administer food or drugs, or just some type of emotional care. Sixth, I think it is most important — I'm very supportive of the concept of home care — that home care will certainly put health care back in the

1122 ALBERTA HANSARD May 6, 1976 community. Thank you. MR. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure to enter the debate on the provision of home care. Mr. Speaker, I should like to commence with some history of what's happened in home care in the Edmonton area. As I am sure all hon. members are aware, that was a well-publicized concern in the latter part of 1975 and early 1976. Mr. Speaker, that publicity was unfortunate in that it seemed to suggest that government was unaware, unfeeling toward home care, and that there would be severe cutbacks in home care. Just for the record, Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to point out that the budget for the Edmonton home care program in 1974 was $232,475. Mr. Speaker, in 1975 that budget was increased to $435,000. That's a fairly substantial increase by any stretch of the imagination. In 1976, it is my understanding that the budget will be increased by the maximum guideline for increases in government services. Mr. Speaker, in effect there has been a very substantial increase in the provision of home care in the Edmonton area over the past two years.

That achievement will be maintained during the fiscal year 1976-77, provided of course that the program operates with inflationary increases no greater than those permitted under the overall provincial guidelines. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to note, too, that when the hon. Member for Little Bow was speaking he seemed to have overlooked one facet of the concern before us. That is, home care as we know it in the programs we're discussing today is really the provision of a combination of services in the home of the client, including such things as nursing, home help, Meals on Wheels, physiotherapy, and homemaking.

We're talking about those services which are provided in combination, and not individual services which have been provided for a number of years and which will be provided during this period. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to refer to another matter arising from the remarks of the hon. Member for Little Bow. That is, he appears to have acquired wisdom in relation to the home care program relative ly late in life.

Inasmuch as the hon. member had some responsibility for that portfolio when some of the — with hindsight I grant — overconstruction of active treatment hospital beds occurred in the prov ince, there is some lateness in his acquisition of wisdom on the matter. Mr. Speaker, with respect to the government policy in this matter, I'd like to use the same document the hon. Member for Little Bow was quoting from and which presumably he acquired as recently as I did, which is today, and refer to the same page from which he quoted, page 16.

Instead of quoting from paragraph one under the heading "Developments for 1976", I'll quote from paragraph three. The first sentence of that paragraph says: In discussion with government officials it was confirmed that they were very supportive of the Edmonton Home Care Program and recognized the advantages of the model which combines such a variety of health and support social services. Mr. Speaker, whatever other construction or impres sion the hon. member could portray in his comments, surely he could not convey the approach that the government is not aware. The government is sympa thetic to the program.

The Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care has made several statements on the importance of the home care program and his attitude toward it as an area that deserves attention and study as an alternative to institutionalized health services. Mr. Speaker, among the challenges which home care programs present to us are several which I'd like to identify.

The first challenge — I have analysed the problem, and I might say that I inquired rather carefully into the Edmonton situation some months back, and while I was on the Alberta Hospital Services Commission also inquired into the provision of hospital day care, which was initiated I believe in '72, I think it was in Edmonton. There are some substantial advantages to that program, which I would consider to be an alternative in some respects to the home care program, depending upon the needs of the client.

But to the first disadvantage, and the one which I think the government is encountering at the moment: as was outlined in debate in this House this week, we have in place a substantial system of institutionalized health care facilities. What is per haps more binding, because of the location of those facilities we have patterns of delivery of health services based upon those hospital facilities — pat terns of service delivery with which physicians are familiar, with an established bureaucracy, delivery mechanism, administration, and funding mechanism. Mr.

Speaker, I don't think I need to elaborate much more to indicate how difficult it is going to be to shift funds from one type of delivery system to a different type. I'm sure the hon. Member for Little Bow, since he helped to put part of that institutionalized frame work into place, will concede that there are bound to be some problems in that switch of resources. So I see that as our major concern. I have to say I saw that as a foremost concern when I was inquiring into the Edmonton home care situation some months back.

It's all very well for individuals, if they're supportive of something, to say that the home care program is going to cut back on costs because it is more efficient and less costly to provide services to a patient at home; we thereby can close down a hospital bed. The more likely alternative is that the active treat ment hospital bed will be filled by someone else. What we're really doing is substantially improving the quality of hospital or medical care. That's the best light in which it can be placed.

If in fact, as is sometimes suggested, we are having services generated by some of the participants in the provi sional services, whether it be doctors, nurses, physio therapists, good friends, or whoever it is, there's even a question as to whether the quality of service is being improved that much. With respect to one of the comments the hon.

Member for Little Bow read into the record a few moments ago, I would strongly recommend to him that he consider if that request does not come from the point of view of a self-interest group more interested in employment than in quality of care at the time that letter was written. I appreciate their problems, and I think we all do, but let's not use them for purposes for which they may not have been intended.

May 6, 1976 ALBERTA HANSARD 1123 Mr. Speaker, I've outlined what I consider the major problem with home care. Let me identify a couple of others, though. One is in relation to the nature of volunteer activity, and the individual serv ices being provided. We have quite a system of volunteer activity, especially in the social services area and to some extent in the homemaking area, either from relatives or friends who assist persons when they are in need, when they are unwell, when it is known that they are unable to do for themselves some of the things that they would like to be assisted with. Mr.

Speaker, I see a great possibility that by very rapidly increasing the commitment to home care as proposed in the program, we are likely to wind up paying for some of these services now provided by volunteers. There's nothing wrong, of course, with paying for services, provided everyone recognizes that it's going to take more tax dollars. Surely it is going to take more tax dollars when we start to try to replace friends and neighbors and volunteer groups.

I understand the Society for the Retired and the Semi-Retired in the Edmonton area, according to the report which I have just received of the Edmonton home care program, is in fact providing some services by coming in and socializing and conversing with persons who are indisposed and unable to get about. [Dr. McCrimmon in the Chair] The other service, if you will, or advantage which has been built up over a long period of our history, and which we are gradually losing because of the changing nature of our society, is the responsibility which family members accept for other family members. I can advise, Mr.

Speaker, that in my own case I live so far from my parents and my grand parents that I'm very fortunate indeed if I can visit them more than once a year. I suppose I should consider myself fortunate to be able to visit them once a year. In the event that there were things that I could do — in fact I have grandparents I would assist if I were closer. There's just no question about it. These forms of assistance formerly provided by family members are not so readily available now.

But some are available now, and however well-meaning we are in our provision of these services, if we start provid ing a full-blown mechanism with a bureaucracy which sets about identifying a need and then trying to meet it and has the budget to meet it, we're going to find that we generate a much more rapid change in this direction than necessary. Mr. Speaker, I would have to express concern that, in the development of the home care program, we move too quickly and remove responsibility and opportunity from volunteers and family members. I think it would be unfortunate if we were to do that. Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to relate a few of the advantages which I see with home care, quite apart from the financial ones. There should be — on paper, there are — advantages to society from a dollars and cents point of view, if we can provide care at home as opposed to an institution. But there are other advantages. It was particularly through a conversation I had with a constituent who benefited during 1975 from the Edmonton home care program that I want to draw some of these to the attention of the House.

First of all, the lady advised me she found it much more relaxing to be able to leave the hospital and go home earlier than she would have been able to without some kind of assistance. She found she was back in familiar surroundings. She was not wakened at the time when the routine of the hospital says all patients must be wakened, prepared for feeding, and washed. So she could adjust more quickly to her normal routine. Secondly, she found she was able to have visits from family members more easily.

Instead of rushing home from work, grabbing a bite, and rushing down to the hospital for a few hours, her husband was able to come home and they were able to spend the evening together. This she found very beneficial. Thirdly, her neighbors with whom she often had coffee in the morning and sometimes tea in the afternoon were able to drop in quite handily. It was much more convenient for them to stop by and see her. And it was, of course, less costly for them.

She felt the combination of these kinds of things had such an advantage to her psychologically and emotionally that it probably was a contributory factor to the progress she was making. In short, when we add up the emotional advantage, the psychological advantage, we probably arrive at some actual advan tage in terms of the physical recovery and the speed of that recovery. So I'd have to say, Mr.

Speaker, on the basis of the observations that lady gave me, and which would seem to follow from an analysis of an individual who could be in a happy and relaxed home atmosphere as opposed to an institution, there are advantages we should try to take advantage of as the system evolves. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to leave with members of the Assembly a couple of the questions which I put to the administration of the Edmonton home care program, because I think they need to be considered. One of the questions relates to where the program ends. How do we define home care? Who is eligible, and who is ineligible?

As I understand it, a broad definition of home care would include such things as a program directed toward medically or socially oriented health services in the homes of the patients. Now, I think "medical ly" is reasonably easy to define, although the longer I'm about government the more difficult it seems to become. But "socially" is vastly more difficult. What is a social need? Is it the perspective of an outsider — not part of the family — who looks at this individual situation and says, aha, there's a social need? It's part of our home care program objective to meet that need. We will now meet that need.

I therefore assign a nutritionist and a homemaker for one day — this kind of staffing. I don't want to sound ridiculous, Mr. Speaker, but given programs which can double in one year as the Edmonton program virtually did between 1974-75 and 1975-76, it's quite possible — and I would suspect highly probable when bureaucracies grow that quickly and services expand that rapidly — there will be a broader and quicker acceptance of questionable responsibility and service than would otherwise be the case. So, Mr. Speaker, it's a question of how particularly we define the limits of so-called home care.

What are the guidelines the administrators are going to use? In a letter to the Edmonton home care staff, I put the question. They responded with a difficult ques

1124 ALBERTA HANSARD May 6, 1976 tion for them, but, I suspect, still an easier question than I have posed here today. They said, well, if we assume that one of the objectives is the need to delay institutionalization of patients, another objective is to shorten the stay in institutions, and a third is early discharge, we have to make a decision between just these three kinds of objectives within the program even as it relates to hospital care. How do we do that? Which is more important: to delay somebody's entry, to get somebody out faster? How do you arrive at that decision?

If the administrator was somewhat in a quandary about that, I am sure he's in an even greater quandary when confronted with some of the social needs which will be identified in a home care situation. Mr. Speaker, my second last observation on the home care field is that for us as legislators it carries with it many of the same problems and questions which consideration of the preventive social services program does. Just how rapidly should that program expand? What are the limits on that program? Mr.

Speaker, in my mind there are a good many questions which could be asked about the preventive social services program. Probably, if we analyse it carefully, the home care program is a portion of the preventive social services program, as well as replacing or having the potential to replace some of the institu tionalized health services we have. If we're going to look at it, I suggest we look at it in the total context.

If hon. members are having remarks made by constituents about the preventive social services program — whether it seems ridicu lous that this is being done under that program and yet this other priority, to use the expression of the hon. Member for Little Bow, isn't being done — we can expect the same kind of problem and the same kind of decision to have to be made with respect to home care. My last comment, Mr. Speaker, is that I suspect the costs of home care are not likely to be stable. They may be less than other institutional health care services.

But it's my understanding that home care in Calgary in 1974 cost about $8 per day per client, and in 1975 was in the order of $10.50 per day, which is a fairly hefty increase in cost. I haven't analysed the Edmonton situation. The report has just arrived, and I haven't had a chance to do that same kind of work on it. As I read this report and the other, there is a substantial difference in the per diem cost. It would take considerable analysis to determine why there is a difference in cost.

But I suggest that we have a potential for a fairly substantial cost, and while there are many benefits to it and I would like to see us advance the home care field, I think we have to do it knowing full well that somehow we are going to have to extract some savings out of the institutional care service field. When we can make that transfer, I think we're definitely on the right track. I close by inviting hon. members to advance suggestions to the hon. ministers on how that might be achieved. I advanced the same suggestion to the administrators of the Edmonton home care program.

Unfortunately, they weren't able to find any quick answers for me. Perhaps the hon. members of the Legislature can. DR. WALKER: Mr. Speaker, in responding to the resolution by the hon. Member for Little Bow for extended co-ordinated home care programs as an alternative to institutional health care, I would like to point out to hon. members that it is extremely unlikely that such a program will be an alternative, as suggested by the Member for Little Bow, but rather an addition to our already overindulged health care system. The hon. member suggests a shift in the priority as a means of support.

Often, you know, when govern ments shift their priorities or shift anything, including the civil servants, they stumble around in the middle of things, and it usually ends up costing more money. That's what I think this would do. We already have local health services and preven tative social services at the provincial, regional, and community levels, and we have numerous voluntary agencies and community volunteers doing an excel lent job in the home care field, with a minimum of financial aid from government.

Where do we admit to ourselves that people can do things for charity just as well as governments can do things for money? Are we going to set up another great bureaucracy which may spend an estimated $6 or $7 million a year, compared to the present cost of assistance to supportive organizations of just under $1 million per year? Home care services include nursing, home help, Meals on Wheels, physiotherapy, homemaking, et cetera, which at present are co-ordinated on a voluntary and independent basis in the community. In my mind, they're well worthy of considerable encouragement, both morally and financially.

But let us not start another extended care program to add to the already grossly extravagant health bill of over $.75 [billion] in this province. Home care is not a substitute for general hospitals, auxiliary hospitals, nursing homes, or ambulatory care, but it can be part of one or all of these levels, especially, I might say, from the acute hospital area. I can see good reason behind sending nurses from a general hospital out to homes to help a convalescent patient at home.

The Royal Commission on Health Services, 1964, stated that health care programs can now be said to have successfully passed beyond the experimental stage.

The Task Force on cost of Health Services, 1970, stated that: To effect cost savings, public provision be made for levels of community care alternate to the acute hospital; that a patient be cared for at the level which is suited to his condition and which is most economic; that the alternatives to acute care provide an effective means of reducing or limiting the number of acute beds required; that expansion of home care programs and the provision of home care programs be recognized as a responsibility of the public health agency and co-ordination of services including hospital liaison as a responsibility of the co-ordinated health program staff; that home care programs be community based, so that all residents of the area be served, not just those discharged from hospitals, so that the broadest possible range of services and agencies may be co-ordinated within the community.

Again in 1974, the New Perspective on Health of

May 6, 1976 ALBERTA HANSARD 1125 Canadians recommends the support of home visits and other programs for helping chronically ill and aged people to stay in their communities, the con tinued extension of the role of nurses and nurse practitioners in the care of the mentally ill and the chronically ill, the provision of home care, the con tinued promotion of establishment of community health facilities that are physically and professionally integrated. They're all beautiful motherhood statements, all to the delight of the administrators and civil servants in our province.

It all costs one heck of a lot of money, and that's to a province that already has the highest per capita health and social welfare costs in North America. At least under the present system most of the financing goes to the folks who need it and very little goes to the administration in communities. We have Edmonton, Wetaskiwin, Ponoka, Didsbury, Taber, Coaldale, Red Deer, and so on. Are we going to expand this so we can employ yet another few hundred social workers and other do- gooders to take over the duties of immediate family relatives and voluntary organizations, as mentioned by the hon.

Member for Edmonton Jasper Place? Are we going to go back to the days when we delivered babies in homes? You walked into a house, with blood meeting you at the bottom of the stairs. You had nothing to control it with, and the patient died. Is this what we're going to go back to? We had home care. That was all we had 50 or 100 years ago. Now we want to bring it back in as a great innovation of this day and age. Yet I say, we give help where help is needed. But surely somewhere along the line of more and more social services by government we have to stop somewhere and say no.

You can do this for yourself or for your family, no matter how young or old you are. Macaulay once said: Nothing is so galling to a people, not broken in from the birth, as a paternal or, in other words, a meddling government, a government which tells them what to read and say and eat and drink and wear. We don't need a meddling government to add yet another so-called service to the already extensive services supplied by those who are still ready and able to work hard enough to pay the increased taxes to support such a scheme. The hon. Member for Edmonton Jasper Place mentioned generating a need.

I have to agree that I think we are generating a need. We supply a service, then we say to people, come and use it. I have not heard of any people in my constituency who are suffering from the lack of co-ordinated home care projects. But I have heard from lots of my constituents who are suffering from rapidly escalat ing taxation to a point where they start to say, why work any harder, the government only takes it from you anyway. Somewhere this escalation of taxation for the payment of more and more social services has to stop.

Whilst the objectives and philosophy of the proponents of these grandiose ideas are most laud able in that they feel they may delay, prevent, or shorten periods of institutional care and hasten the rehabilitation of a convalescent patient, the history of countries such as Great Britain does not bear out these hypotheses. Indeed, in the case of the United Kingdom, bankruptcy over such grandiose care pat terns looms very dark and foreboding over not only the providers but also the recipients of ill-conceived ideas, with the resultant elimination of a good standard of living for everybody in Britain.

When I look at the organizations already involved in this area, such as local health boards, preventative social services, et cetera, I'm not always too im pressed with their administrative and business ability. I feel they could easily extend their duties to home care for the aged, handicapped, and mentally ill without overtaxing their present staff with extra work. I would be opposed to the hiring of more nurses, more social workers, more administrators to provide yet another social program which would be auxiliary to and, I believe, would in no way replace present services.

I feel most of the financing would go to staff. Let me give you some idea of what staff might be required to run a regional home care program. We'd need a home care co-ordinator, probably a public health nurse, and a medical adviser, probably on a part-time basis. We'd need one or more social workers. They assess, consult, assist, and make all sorts of suggestions to patients. I really wonder what good they do sometimes. Several office staff — you've got to have office staff and secretarial staff who could just spend their time typing out letters that should probably never have been composed in the first place.

They compile a bunch of records on patients who are far too overrecorded in the first place. All these people then would have to be housed, of course, in yet another great office com plex, another big monument to bureaucracy which would cost a lot more money. Let's put money where it belongs: in the hands of the aged, the physically handicapped, the mentally incapacitated, or their relatives, so that they can look after their friends or themselves; not into the hands of a bunch more civil servants to swell the ranks of our already overburdened system. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. BOGLE: Mr.

Speaker, it's a privilege to join in this important debate today. In my opening remarks I would like to comment on the hon. Member for Little Bow, who in his opening remarks stated that he was looking for a shift in direction rather than an addition to an already large budget. I concur in what he said. One thing I would like to point out to him, though, is that I believe when 75 independent thinkers in this Assembly look at all of the departments, agencies, commissions, and other branches of government and organizations that government helps to finance, we find a wide variety of priorities on an individual basis.

Therefore, it's very difficult to come up with a consensus. It is also interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. Members for Macleod and Little Bow represent constituencies bordering mine. Because of that, we have a number of things in common, one of them being the Barons-Eureka health unit and social serv ice and preventive social service. I'm a bit surprised that neither one of the members from the two adjoining constituencies has mentioned some of the fine work being done by this agency at the present time. I believe it's an example of a combination or blending of the two points of view that have been

1126 ALBERTA HANSARD May 6, 1976 expressed. On the one hand it's not a complete giveaway program. It's not something government is forcing on people. On the other hand, it is not a monstrous bureaucracy and a conglomeration of civil servants. Rather, Mr. Speaker, it is a determined effort by the nine municipalities that lie within the Barons-Eureka health and social service unit, a determined effort to provide the kind of services the people within the areas require. In the area of home care, I'm extremely pleased to report from a letter that I received from the director of the program, Mr. John Boon.

It was dated March 10, 1976. In it he states: "We have built up a home help program which is second to none in any rural area of the province, and in fact takes second place only to the city of Edmonton." To elaborate, Mr. Speaker, 120 clients within the Barons-Eureka area are assisted by the homemaker program. They come from all parts of the unit. Coaldale has 35 clients, the county of Lethbridge, nine, the town of Picture Butte has 14; the town of Vauxhall has 19; the town of Taber, 34; and the municipal district of Taber, 9. In short, Mr. Speaker, by assisting these 120 clients it is Mr.

Boon's estimate that approximately 180 people are able to stay in their own homes. The kind of help provided isn't grandiose by any standards. It is very basic. They provide assistance for home cleaning, cooking, and helping with applica tion forms. An example is an elderly lady I visited recently who lives in the town of Taber. She does not have the use of one arm. She is a widow. Her children are far away. If it were not for the assist ance of this program or a volunteer group, she would be forced to move into a senior citizens' home or in with other people.

But through the help of people through the Barons-Eureka unit, she is able to have assistance in taking off her storm windows in the spring, washing her walls and ceiling, and other such duties. Mr. Speaker, the kind of assistance this province makes available to its citizens is very important and must be continued. There's always room for im provement, but let's not forget that if we take the initiative away from people, if we start to do for people the things they should be doing for them selves, we will create a type of society I don't believe most of us in this Assembly want.

I think that we as members have an obligation to our constituents, an obligation to represent them and bring their mes sages forward to this Assembly. In my closing remarks I'd like to suggest to my two hon. colleagues that they spend a bit more time looking at what we have in our own area and talk to people like John Boon and Mr. Steve Slemko, who is the chairman of the board, to find out some of the very positive and progressive things that are taking place. Mr. Speaker, as the hour has drawn by, I beg leave to adjourn debate. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Having heard the motion by the hon. member, are you agreed? HON.

MEMBERS: Agreed. head: PUBLIC BILLS AND ORDERS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT ORDERS (Second Reading) Bill 213 The Right to Information Act MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, in rising to move second reading of Bill 213, I wish at the outset to point out that The Right to Information Act I have presented to the House this afternoon is modelled on legislation pioneered in the House of Commons by the hon. Member for Peace River, Mr. Ged Baldwin, who for a number of years was Tory house leader in the Parliament of Canada. Mr.

Speaker, I'm going to talk a little more about the moves in other parts of Canada, because there is a lot of interest in the whole concept of a right to public information act, not only in Parliament at this stage but in other provincial legislatures as well. At the outset, may I begin by making one observa tion so that the debate is put in the proper context. I don't believe that it is proper in discussing this bill to confuse the right to public information with the right to privacy. I've listened to some people who oppose

an act such as this, who claim that a right to public information act would in some measure invade the right to privacy. No, Mr. Speaker, that would not be the case. If one reads Bill 213 carefully, it will clearly point out that information of a private nature is not considered. Let me illustrate to show what I mean. It would seem to me that the individual welfare record of a client is not something which is a public issue or should be made public. That Mrs. Jones in such- and-such a town received $235 in assistance from the department last year is not relevant public information.

On the other hand, what is relevant public information is if the government compiled a report, perhaps by Humans on Welfare, that recom mended public policy, that would be an example of relevant public information. As citizens of the prov ince, we would have a right of access to that type of information. So I think it's very important, Mr. Speaker, that we not go off on tangents in dealing with this bill and confuse privacy with public information. [There is] no effort at all here or anywhere else in Canada to interfere with the important right to privacy.

It is a question of the right of individuals in a free society to obtain access to information used to develop public policy. That, Mr. Speaker, is the crux of Mr. Bald win's long — and I might say pioneering — struggle in this particular cause. Mr. Speaker, let me then move on to the second question we have to ask ourselves. Is there a right to public information? Pretty clearly, we've seen in the United States recently that there is a right to public information.

Even private documents of the president of the United States, the tapes of his confidential discussions, were held by the Supreme Court to be of a nature — obviously because of the Watergate trial, but related clearly to that matter — that they should be made public. More important, it seems to me when one looks at the Watergate issue and at the Pentagon papers question, it is clear that public policy has been shaped in the United States by policy-makers who have made

May 6, 1976 ALBERTA HANSARD 1127 decisions behind closed doors. Had that information been made public, had the people had access to the facts, it could well have been that the total course of American public life would have changed. That cer tainly would have been true with respect to the Vietnam war. Mr. Speaker, I suppose the question as to whether there is a right to public information resolves on how we define democracy. If we see democracy as essentially a plebiscite every four years when the voters render a general verdict on whether they like the way government is running things, that's fine.

That's the MacPherson concept of plebiscitarian democracy. But if we see democracy as an ongoing arena where political debate takes place, where issues are evaluated in an ongoing fashion, or where the public is encouraged — indeed, has an obligation — to participate in the process; if we see democracy in a participatory sense, then there is a right to information.

It's not possible to make intelligent public decisions — whether they deal with the federal government, the Ontario government, the Government of Alberta, or for that matter city councils or municipal councils — unless there is access to relevant public information. Mr. Speaker, I know a number of concerns are raised about whether a right to public information act would interfere with confidential information pro vided by public officials to their respective cabinet ministers. I would just point out that if members wish to review Bill 213, they will see in

Section 3(

f) that matters of that nature are excluded from the purview of this act. Having said that, I would also point out that while the argument can be made that a senior civil servant is not going to be frank with his minister if the information is made public, I also think it's important to put on the record the experience in Sweden, where almost everything is open to public scrutiny.

The experience in some of these jurisdictions, where you have what have been classified as "sunshine laws", is that rather than restricting frankness, the fact that information may be made public and that the civil servant is not only writing for the minister but is perhaps writing for more people probably makes that report even more frank than would otherwise be the case. In any event, Mr. Speaker, that is not contained in this bill. That would have to be an extension of the bill, because under (

f) the normal interdepartmental correspondence we recognize in this House is excluded. Mr. Speaker, I want to deal with another question which comes to mind when one debates Bill 213. How strong are the mechanisms now for securing public information? The obvious counter of those who don't agree with a right to information act is that we already have sufficient safeguards. In this House, members can ask questions, members can submit motions for returns. The only problem is that in our parliamentary system a motion for return is accepted at the will of the majority.

If a government wants to use its legislative or parliamentary majority to deny the passage of a motion for return, so be it. If a government is setting out to do this, it really makes stonewalling much more possible than would be the case in other jurisdictions. One can recall the famous phrase of Lord Mel bourne, a very distinguished Prime Minister of Great Britain. His comment about the legislative or parlia mentary majority was simply this: if we don't hang together, we'll hang separately. Mr. Speaker, all too often that is true when you have legislative majori ties.

Simply that we have the right to obtain informa tion through a motion for a return doesn't necessarily mean that motion for a return is going to be passed. If the government want to deny the information, they can use their legislative majority to deny it. What are some of the other mechanisms for securing public information?

In some countries, par ticularly in the United States and Great Britain, there is a very strong tradition of investigative reporting among the media. [There's] no question that one of the major reasons the whole Watergate story unra velled was the work of the Washington Post and the New York Times. Similarly, Great Britain has an equally strong tradition of investigative reporting. Mr. Speaker, there are some excellent investiga tive reporters in Canada.

But I think it is also a fair comment to say that the media as a whole do not have the same reputation for investigative reporting as they do in the United States or Great Britain. So the protection we would have as a result of media with that kind of inclination doesn't really exist to the same extent in Canada as it does in other parts of the world. Mr. Speaker, the question as I see it is relevant information. Let me say that there is certainly no shortage of information. We are snowed under with volumes of information. But the issue is relevant information on which public policy is based.

We've had some examples in Alberta; for example, the Loram report on the Syncrude deal. Members of this Legislature have already voted considerable sums of money to the Syncrude venture. Yesterday, virtually without discussion, we authorized a guarantee of substantial loans to subsidiary companies of the Alberta Energy Company. But, Mr. Speaker, no member of this House is really in a position to make an intelligent assessment of whether that investment or guarantee we passed yesterday makes sense unless we have access to the Loram report. The Loram report is the report that assessed the construction costs.

Now we had a

summary of that report tabled in the Legislature. But the summaries of Mr. Nixon's tapes were not necessarily as informative as the tapes themselves. So a

summary of a report, however well-meaning it may be, does not in fact place before the members of this House the kind of information we need to determine whether Syncrude is a good or bad ven ture. I raise that as an issue that has been discussed in this House before. As a matter of fact, we debated it for some time a year ago when I introduced a motion for a return which was voted down by the government. But here is a decision of over $1 billion where crucial information was not made available. On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, we find vast numbers of government press releases. This is true of any government.

It was true of the NDP govern ment in B.C. when they were in office, the Social Credit government now, the Liberal government in Ottawa, or what have you — vast amounts of material are made available. The issue is not the kind of information we get from the Alberta Communications

1128 ALBERTA HANSARD May 6, 1976 Network, but whether the citizenry has the right of public access to relevant information. To ask the right questions, Mr. Speaker, one often needs to have a basic amount of information to indeed put before the cabinet or the ministry the kind of question that should be asked in order to engender proper public debate. Mr. Speaker, I want to deal with this question of the government's attitudes generally toward a right to information act.

I think I would have to be fair and say that all governments, quite apart from their polit ical complexion, have an excessive tendency to secrecy. That just happens to be the nature of the political animal. The same arguments I could raise here about certain examples of information which were not made public could equally be made in Saskatchewan, or against the federal government, the Social Credit government in British Columbia, or the Conservative government in Ontario. The fact of the matter is that if we allow them, ministries are going to prefer to work behind closed doors.

Howev er, it seems to me our responsibility as legislators, as backbenchers on the government side and as opposi tion members, is to be ready to safeguard the public's right to information. That being the case, Mr. Speaker, let's take a look at what is happening on this matter elsewhere in Canada. As I have already mentioned, Mr. Baldwin has been promoting this type of legislation for a number of years. I've met with him several times on this issue.

I might say that he has encouraged me to pursue it, feeling that this kind of legislation would be a good tonic for his colleagues on the provincial level in Alberta. I certainly agree with him. He has made a lot of progress federally, and members are aware of the fact that there is a Commons-Senate committee on freedom of information. It now appears as though Ottawa is moving towards legislation in this impor tant area. Mr. Speaker, let me make it clear that the major credit for this kind of pace-setting legislation belongs to the hon. Member for Peace River. [Mr.

Speaker in the Chair] In other parts of the country we have similar legislation being introduced. Don MacDonald, the former leader of the New Democratic Party of Ontario, has introduced a freedom of information act in that province. But to point out that this matter crosses party lines, Mr. Speaker, in the province of Manitoba, which is equally in need of a freedom of public information act, Mr. Lloyd Axworthy, a Liberal member of the Manitoba Legislature has introduced Bill 41, The Manitoba Freedom of Information Act, which is patterned to a large extent on Mr. Baldwin's proposed legislation in Ottawa.

In general conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would urge the members of the House to give positive considera tion to moving on this important issue. I suppose if we come back to the basic issue, it depends to a large extent on our concept of the functioning of the modern, democratic government. I mentioned this before, but I want to close on it.

If our concept is that government is a large corporation and the cabinet the board of directors, and that every four years we have a plebiscite to determine whether we'll have the board of directors retained or not, then of course a right to information act is an infringement on that sort of governmental concept.

On the other hand, if one takes as the starting point the whole philosophy of parliamentary government and the entire concept of the give and take of politics, that political decisions are not made every four years but every day of every year — it seems to me that is really where it's at in terms of our system of government — then this kind of legislation is relevant and necessary. Mr. Speaker, my final remark is simply this: in 1971 the Tory party won a lot of support throughout this province on the theme of open government. That's what all hon. members were saying in 1971, and they were right.

They were right, no question about that. In 1976, Mr. Baldwin is saying, open government in Ottawa. And Mr. Baldwin is right. No question about that. Mr. Speaker, in 1976 I am saying, open govern ment in Alberta. And regardless of the grins on some of the faces of the Tory members, I'm right. No doubt about that either. [interjections] MR. KUSHNER: Mr. Speaker, the people have the right to government information. It's their tax money. I basically agree with the hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview. I'm sure there is going to be a day when that bill is going to come to reality.

From time to time, while I served on city council and on the Calgary board of education, getting information was my problem. It is a very complex problem of giving information and establishing procedures. I have no hesitation in saying that civic govern ments, as I see them, are wrongly structured to properly function, or function better than they do today. We have no problem getting information if we know where to go to get the information. As an MLA in this Legislature I still am not too sure of the procedures in certain areas. I am sure I am not the only one.

I'm sure that every MLA here thought it his job and responsibility, when he got elected, to try to communicate and represent the people who elected him, to do everything within his power to cut red tape to make the communication flow more available. Mr. Speaker, from the practical point of view it is not easy to say what should be public information and what shouldn't be, what is premature and what isn't. In my opinion, it's a very complex problem. I know that a lot of study and review in this area will have to be done.

I sincerely believe that bill will come to reality, that we will see this bill in this House, and no doubt possibly even processed by this government. I hope it will. In time it will give it a chance. It is hard to determine and find a proper balance. I know all of us to some degree have a secrecy about ourselves, about our families, about our government — even in this government. It is sometimes pretty hard, what you should give and what you shouldn't.

If privileged information is given — and I have seen that information given in civic government, I haven't had much experience in this government — I know that basically the same applies, that it jeopardizes a process of establishing proper policies. Keeping that in mind, I myself would accept the general concept of this bill. But again I would say it is premature, that it needs some serious study. I even

May 6, 1976 ALBERTA HANSARD 1129 hope that someday in the future a committee will be struck just to give some serious consideration and further examination in this important area of giving information and better communication. The people will have better information, or information that will be available from the government to the people. I think it is the job of the government to do that. MR. ASHTON: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview is having a little fun with us today. MR. NOTLEY: Not really. MR. ASHTON: And I'm glad, because he doesn't have too many occasions for joy. AN HON.

MEMBER: Especially during election time. MR. ASHTON: We can see it reflected in his general attitude of negativism and gloom and doom. Howev er, I should give credit to him. He did say one positive thing — and I will always remember that — when he told us the other day that he agreed we have an educational system in this province we can be proud of. MR. NOTLEY: Does that relate to this bill? MR. ASHTON: I suppose the hon. member is proba bly wondering what the government members are going to do. Here we have a bill that was . . . MR. CLARK: Sounds like they do too, you know. AN HON. MEMBER: Still wondering. MR.

ASHTON: . . . almost identical to the bill introduced in the House of Commons a short time ago by the hon. Member of Parliament for Peace River. Of course, that hon. member belongs to the same political party as some of the members of this House. I don't think there's any question that there's no member of the federal House of Commons who is held in higher esteem than the hon. Member of Parliament for Peace River. I should suggest that I'm not embarrassed to state my opinions on the topic, and that they do not coincide with [those of] the hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview or the hon. federal member.

Howev er, I would like to congratulate the member who introduced the bill for raising the topic. It's an important topic, and it's something we should be talking about. Although many of us would quite readily state and support the position that the parlia mentary system we enjoy from our English heritage is unquestionably the most effective system operating in the world today, there is no question we must keep searching to see if there are in fact ways we should be improving that system. I don't doubt that there are ways of improving the system. But the way pre sented to us today is not one of those ways.

I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, the way he presented it to us today is a backward step rather than a forward step. I wish to make three points in support of that position. We're looking at the Legislature in Alberta. There's no question that although we share certain basic common ground with the federal House, there are also many differences. Some of the members would probably say amen to that.

If one reads Hansard from the House of Commons, not only the debates referred to earlier on the bill before the federal House but also the general debates on motions for return — although as I recall they call them something different — the questions, and so on, there's no question [of] the frustration of opposition members in getting information. There's no question that this House has a good record in providing information.

I would suggest that I reject any attempt by the hon. member who introduced the bill to sully the reputation of this Legislature by attempting to bring in comparisons with Watergate and the U.S. system. I think that's beneath him, and I don't accept that at all. It's a red herring. We should disregard what he said on that point. I suppose one tactic, you might call it, of members when they're dealing with non-public bills is to go through them and point out all the technical deficien cies.

Of course, we have a problem here because this bill is almost identical to the federal bill, so there are no technical deficiencies. AN HON. MEMBER: A point of order on that one. AN HON. MEMBER: We made some changes. MR. ASHTON: In introducing it in the Alberta Legisla ture, the hon. member had to make some minor changes to adapt it to the Alberta system. Unfortu nately he goofed on those minor changes. An example is in

Section 2, which says, "Any person who resides in Alberta". Does he mean somebody who came to the Edmonton Plaza Hotel for the night, or is there some other definition? It's an obvious oversight. We could go on on the other changes he made, but I don't think that really contributes much to the debate. I suggest the hon. member should spend some of those vast amounts of research money on hiring people like the Member for Calgary Buffalo or the Member for Medicine Hat-Redcliff to get the proper drafting. MR. GHITTER: No, no, no.

There are certain require ments as to the clientele we will accept and whether they can afford us. MR. ASHTON: To attempt to apply the problems they have in the federal house to the Alberta Legislature, I suggest some of the principles involved here are just absurd. I can only think the hon. member got his motivation from people like Harold Midgley rather than the hon. federal member from Alberta. I hope all the members have read the bill, because it is a very serious matter.

What this bill attempts to do is remove decision-making from this Legislature, from the elected representatives, and transfer that to the appointed judiciary. That's a pretty basic principle we're talking about. The members of this Legislature are elected in free and open elections to represent the people of the province. The buck stops at this Legislature, so to speak. We are the ones account able to the people who elected us. There's no way I could support a bill that would, in effect, transfer this responsibility from this House to

1130 ALBERTA HANSARD May 6, 1976 the judiciary. I refuse to abdicate that responsibility. I hope hon. members are stronger than to accept this way of avoiding the responsibility of making these decisions. That's the first reason I object to the bill. The second reason is that it downplays and deni grates the role of the individual MLA in this Legisla ture. I don't doubt that there have been times in the past and will be times in the future when govern ments will be unreasonable and perhaps improper in refusing to give information, but there are remedies when governments do that.

For example, the public has other ways they can deal with those refusals. One, of course, is the old method which may not be always effective, and that is to develop that refusal as a public issue, and to use that refusal as one of many other reasons why that individual MLA or a govern ment should not be re-elected. I suggest that tradi tionally the even more effective remedy Albertans have is to approach their own MLA; or, if their own MLA is a government MLA and they don't get co-operation, to approach an opposition MLA.

I doubt that the hon. members of the opposition would deny that some of their motions for returns and some of their questions come from people who have been frustrated in obtaining information, and go to the opposition and they put it on the Order Paper, [inter jections] I'm sorry, I missed that. Do you deny that? AN HON. MEMBER: Lots from Ottewell. MR. ASHTON: I see — lots from Ottewell. Right. This is what happens. A motion for a return or a question is put on the Order Paper. It comes to this Legislature. There's an open public debate by the elected representatives in this province.

What the bill would suggest is that the public debate that takes place in this Assembly and our accountability to the public would be transferred and delegated to a judge's chambers, where the arguments would be made by lawyers. Some members may suggest that we need to create more work for lawyers, but I'm not one of them. That's a pretty basic decision this bill is discussing. I can understand, of course, how opposition members become frustrated. I don't question their sincerity in their efforts to gain public support and votes between elections and votes during elections.

But when I see a bill like this from an opposition member, it appears to me that when they cannot succeed with the people in getting support, they are attempting to have reference to a judge to get what they want. I reject that as being contrary to our basic parliamentary system. The third reason I oppose this bill is that there is no need for such a bill in Alberta. I have always opposed and will continue to oppose the introduction of legis lation to solve problems we don't have. I suggest that's what we have before us today.

A quick review of last years' Votes and Proceedings would indicate that out of some 129 questions and motions for returns put on the Order Paper, only 13 were defeated. For every one of those defeated, the members of this Assembly have to account to the public. They have to give reasons. I assure you that if they don't give good reasons and logical reasons, this is going to be an important factor in the next election.

Of course, I know some of the members, perhaps the opposition members, might suggest that out of the motions or questions defeated by the Assembly, only those that were important were defeated and the unimportant ones were accepted. I don't accept that, because that would mean something like 116 motions were not important. I know some members would suggest that if this bill were accepted and an honorable judge got hold of some of the motions and questions, he would reject many of them as being trivial, frivolous, or vexatious, as he has the right to do under

Section 3(

e) and 3(

d) of the bill. But I think the opposition is entitled to ask those types of questions, and that some judge should not interfere on that basis. I suggest that this bill would bring only one improvement to the legislative system in this prov ince, and that is that it might reduce the paperwork. One of the hon. members referred to the system in Sweden. From what I've read, I understand that rather than being a glowing example we should be following, we should be looking at it and finding the reasons that approach should be rejected. If a government is determined to avoid this type of legis lation, it can do it.

One, of course, is to reduce the amount of paperwork and make more decisions and provide more information verbally. Apparently they've developed several ingenious systems in Sweden for avoiding the legislation there. I think that's unbecoming to any government. I hope this Legislature will reject the bill. Thank you very much. DR. PAPROSKI: Mr. Speaker, as I rise to speak on Bill 213, The Right to Information Act, I'd like to say I believe the bill is premature. It requires more work and thought. With that statement, Mr. Speaker, of course there should be the right to information. That right exists now.

The questions are: how much and what information? Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Spirit River- Fairview, who introduced the bill, indicated that material should be available when policy is being developed — meaning, I would take it, before the fact, before public policy has actually been formulated. Mr. Speaker, I don't think that is correct or appropri ate, because that information may develop in three or four different directions before public policy is formu lated. I think thoughts and those directions should be confidential until public policy has been made.

Then the citizens at large can criticize as they see fit. Mr. Speaker, access to factual information is the issue to bring about appropriate change. If we're going to bring about change it's not enough to have access just to facts. Appropriate use of those facts is essential. Then appropriate action, I suggest, may take place, not necessarily will take place as the hon. member indicated. Mr. Speaker, I also take exception to the hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview because he quotes the experience in Sweden. Mr. Speaker, this is Canada. It's not necessarily applicable to Canada and Alberta.

The other comment I'd like to make regarding his comments before I get into the main discussion of the bill, Mr. Speaker, is on motions for returns. This is public information, Mr. Speaker. It's accepted at the will of the majority of the House. Mr. Speaker, what is more important than the majority, which is the

May 6, 1976 ALBERTA HANSARD 1131 central pillar of our parliamentary democracy, our government by representation? If we reject this in this House, I suggest that that rejection is a democrat ic response. If anybody challenges that, I suggest we go back to the polls to prove that point. I'll come to that. Mr. Speaker, the hon. member suggests we don't have investigative reporters. I suggest he review the literature in Canada.

Even more important than the investigative reporters, there are govern ment MLAs who review and bring up issues in the House in the question period and so on; opposition members — and I suggest they should probably be reviewing a little bit more, because their weakness has been demonstrated over the past few weeks; and the Ombudsman, Mr. Speaker. We have an Om budsman in Canada who has information at his discretion in all departments. I suggest that this is another area that has been neglected in the consid eration of this bill by the hon. member.

Of course, we have citizens' action groups, we have environ mental groups, we even have yours truly, as an MLA. Regarding land banking in Mill Woods, I indicated to the House that this was going at below market price and yet these houses were going to the citizens at market price or higher. I notice the minister has made an announcement in the last 24 hours correct ing this issue to some extent. This is investigation. This is action by government MLAs, getting the appropriate information and doing their homework. I suggest the hon. opposition members would do well in that area. Mr. Speaker, we have 69 MLAs

Document details

Collection	Alberta — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	19760506
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	L18 S2 19760506 1430 01 han.pdf
Language	en
Format	json
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	0ba05ba659ef1ea2f9fa90f693cae7d66aa0d21e

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