Alberta Hansard — 1 May 1984, Afternoon sitting (14:30) (Legislature 20, Session 2)

19840501

Alberta — Debates (Hansard)

May 1, 1984 ALBERTA HANSARD 599 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA Title: Tuesday, May 1, 1984 2:30 p.m. [The House met at 2:30 p.m.] PRAYERS [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] head: PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SELECT COMMITTEES DR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, the special committee appointed November 21, 1983, for the purpose of searching for and select ing an Ombudsman, has had under consideration the question of such an appointment. The committee unanimously recom mends to the Assembly that Mr. Brian Sawyer of Calgary be appointed Ombudsman for a five-year term, commencing Sep tember 1, 1984.

I am tabling the report, Mr. Speaker, and copies are available for all members. head: INTRODUCTION OF BILLS Bill 260

An Act to Amend the Prearranged Funeral Services Act MR. ZIP: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce Bill 260,

An Act to Amend the Prearranged Funeral Services Act. The purpose of this Bill is to have interest earned or money paid under a prepaid, prearranged funeral plan either held in trust or paid yearly to the person who bought the plan. [Leave granted; Bill 260 read a first time] Bill 210 Energy Conservation and Environmental Protection Tax Credit Act DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce Bill 210, the Energy Conservation and Environmental Protection Tax Credit Act.

This Bill provides that the tax credit applies to research and development in the field of energy conservation, as well as the refining and reusing of toxic or hazardous materials. This will help Albertans to clean up our environment and to keep it that way. It also establishes Alberta as a leader in high-tech energy conservation and environmental protection. [Leave granted; Bill 210 read a first time] head: TABLING RETURNS AND REPORTS MR. M. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table the response to Motion for a Return No. 147. head: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS MR. COOK: Mr.

Speaker, on your behalf, I would like to introduce a group of students from your constituency. Monsieur le Président, je vous présente un groupe d'étu- diants de Québec. Ils [inaudible] de l'école Jasper Place com posite high. Il y a un groupe de quarante-quatre étudiants, ici dans la gallerie publique. Monsieur le Président, c'est un groupe d'étudiants qui participent au programme Open House Canada. Je pense que c'est très important pour le pays d'avoir les étu- diants de Québec ici avec nous en Alberta. Mr.

Speaker, we have a group of 44 students, half from Jasper Place composite high school and half from Quebec. The students are participating in the Open House Canada program. It's important to have exchanges like this. I ask them to rise and receive the very warm welcome of the Assembly. MR. McPHERSON: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the hon. Member for Barrhead and on his behalf, I would like to intro duce to you, and through you to hon. members, 75 grade 6 students from the Barrhead elementary school. Our students are seated in the members gallery, accompanied by teachers Mr. Ron Roblin, Mr.

Marvin Sheets, and Mrs. Florence Wal lace. I now ask them to rise and be recognized by the Assembly. MR. SZWENDER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce to you 40 very well-behaved and enthusiastic grades 5 and 6 students from St. Vladimir elementary school, located in the constituency of Edmonton Belmont. Seated in the public gal lery, they are escorted by their teacher Mrs. Lynda Poplawski. Would they please rise and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. head: ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Battleford Mortgage Co. Ltd. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct the first question to the hon.

Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. It deals with the operation of the Securities Commission and, in particular, the $1.5 million loss by investors in Battle- ford Mortgage Co. To the minister: what review has the government done of the actions of the Securities Commission and the superintendent of real estate and insurance in the matter of the collapse of Battleford Mortgage? MRS. OSTERMAN: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of a review, but I will get that information for the hon. member. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister.

If a review has not been done, have there been any discussions with officials of the Securities Commission and the superintendent of real estate and insurance, regarding whether or not the Alberta government fulfilled all the necessary sta tutory obligations to regulate the activities of Battleford Mort gage in order to protect the investors in that company? MRS. OSTERMAN: Mr. Speaker, I assume that the government indeed fulfilled all its statutory obligations or there would have been questions raised by court action. MR.

NOTLEY: Without getting into matters that I am sure will be before the courts, could the minister advise the Assem bly whether any consideration has been given to amending the Mortgage Brokers Regulation Act and the

section that allows

600 ALBERTA HANSARD May 1, 1984 lawyers — or at least has been interpreted to allow lawyers — to operate mortgage companies without a licence under the Act? It's

section 2(

k) of the Mortgage Brokers Regulation Act. MRS. OSTERMAN: Mr. Speaker, in conjunction with the Alberta Mortgage Brokers Association, there have been a num ber of amendments contemplated. This one has been briefly discussed. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. The minister has indicated that it has been briefly discussed. Given the collapse of Battleford and the loss of investors' money, has the government given any consideration to changing this par ticular section, to protect investors? MRS. OSTERMAN: Mr.

Speaker, I suppose it would be fair to say that all the recommendations coming forward from the Mortgage Brokers Association are receiving very careful con sideration, and no decision has been made yet. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Given the $1.5 million loss by investors in Battleford, when does the minister expect a decision on the various proposals; in partic ular, changing the Mortgage Brokers Regulation Act to protect investors from the actions of lawyers, who at this stage can escape through a loophole in the Act. MRS. OSTERMAN: Mr.

Speaker, the hon. member is making an assumption that an amendment to the Act is indeed the cure- all for this particular situation. But in answer to the first part of his question, a decision with respect to possible legislation for this fall should be made this summer. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. Attorney General. Is the Attorney General in a position to confirm that he has met with representatives of Battleford investors, who requested that the province make an ex gratia payment to those investors? MR. CRAWFORD: Mr.

Speaker, I had what I think would be called representations on behalf of people who declared, through their legal counsel, that they did have claims they would like to make on account of the dealings they had had involving Battleford mortgage corporation, in most cases a good many years ago. I met with that group last June, if I remember correctly. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Could the minister advise the Assembly what position he took with respect to this request? Was it the position of the government that it would drag these investors all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary? MR.

CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, I don't think words like that passed between us. I think there was some discussion of whether or not the people on behalf of whom representations were being made had a claim that could succeed at all. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister. What considerations has the government made on this issue subsequent to that meeting, given that about 50 people are involved and that many of them are senior citizens? Has there been any review of perhaps the Re-Mor precedent in Ontario? MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, I've certainly reviewed the Re-Mor precedent from Ontario.

In that particular case, I think it was of the essence that negligence on behalf of the admin istrative agency was in effect admitted to. If not in precise terms, it was certainly effectively admitted to by the government of Ontario of that day. Because of that, according to my understanding, they made a partial payment to claimants who might well have proceeded through the courts had it not been for that particular intervention. I could not find any com parison between the Re-Mor case and the Battleford case that would make such an approach appropriate in this case.

I think the only other thing I'd like to add at this point is that since these discussions following the meeting I had last year have been with legal counsel on behalf of persons who may indeed become more formal claimants, my preference is still to communicate with them on their concerns rather than with the hon. Leader of the Opposition. However, insofar as the matter is also a public concern, I have no hesitation in responding in the Assembly.

I just want to indicate to the hon. leader, for consideration in his supplementaries, that we may indeed get to the point where I'll take the view that the matters are ones that should be made from legal counsel to legal coun sel. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'm sure that day will come before too long. MR. SPEAKER: Might this be the final supplementary on this topic. If there's time, we can come back to it. MR. NOTLEY: Mr.

Speaker, given the assertion of creditors that there was in fact negligence on the part of Alberta agencies, the Superintendent of Insurance and the Securities Commission being the principal agencies this assertion has been made about, my question to the Attorney General is: has any review as to the effectiveness of these two agencies in terms of fulfilling their statutory obligations been commissioned by his office? MR. CRAWFORD: No, Mr. Speaker. That wouldn't occur, that the Attorney General's office would undertake to inves tigate another government agency.

What does occur is that when people come forward and make representations that they believe they have a claim and urge that upon whatever grounds, whether it be negligence or some other grounds, then we exam ine the evidence they choose to put forward through their legal counsel and make our determination based on that. Bank of Alberta MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct the second question to the hon. Provincial Treasurer.

Given this government's position, as expressed in the Speech from the Throne, of commitment toward privatization, what was the policy consideration that led to investment in the Bank of Alberta? MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, the policy is very clear. Ever since approximately 1971, through a number of initiatives of the private sector and the government, the province of Alberta has been increasing in strength as one of the financial centres of western Canada. The government of Alberta feels it is very important that our financial sector be strong and be responsive.

In this case, we have a situation regarding a new bank which has headquarters in the province of Alberta. There are two other banks with headquarters in the province of Alberta. Accordingly, in order to ensure the continuing strength of finan

May 1, 1984 ALBERTA HANSARD 601 cial institutions which are headquartered in this province, we felt it would be appropriate, not only as a financial policy but also as an economic strategy policy, to invest in the new Bank of Alberta to the tune of 5 percent. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. Provincial Treasurer. MR. MARTIN: Government involvement. Socialism. MR. NOTLEY: I'm sure Bay Street is shaking in its boots. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a supplementary question to the minister.

In light of the participation of the former super intendent of the treasury branch system in this new bank and as part of the government's broader banking initiative, is there any consideration to making structural changes in the operations of the treasury branch system and possibly linking it with one of the privately headquartered banks in this province? MR. HYNDMAN: On the second point, Mr. Speaker, I can assure hon. members and Albertans that there will be no change with regard to the activities and individual identities of the treasury branches. They have served Alberta well; they will continue to do so.

At the moment we are conducting an update of the activities of that organization. It is a homegrown Alberta financial institution. It originally was devised to fill, and has successfully filled, gaps in the financial services presented in the province by institutions. I am looking at ways in which it could continue, and perhaps expand that role. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister.

Does the government's updating contain any option whatsoever that would alter the ownership of the treasury branch from what it is at the moment — an extension of the Alberta Treasury — to a combination, or some link, with one of the privately owned but Alberta-headquartered banks? MR. HYNDMAN: No it would not, Mr. Speaker. There is no contemplation and no investigation of any kind into the treasury branches becoming linked in any way, other than perhaps the commercial ways in which various financial institutions are linked throughout the country.

The treasury branch will con tinue to remain as an entity of the government of Alberta. It has served Albertans well and has a good reputation, and that will continue. Child Support and Maintenance Orders MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Attorney General is with regard to child support and maintenance. I wonder if the Attorney General can indicate the position of the government at this time with regard to the federal government's national program for the enforcement of child support and main tenance laws. MR. CRAWFORD: Mr.

Speaker, my colleague the Minister of Social Services and Community Health may want to sup plement the answer, as to some of the practical considerations. As to the overall philosophy, I think hon. members would be aware that in particular the federal government and the government of Manitoba have recently given some publicity to plans to have child support payments on behalf of single parents — or separated in any event — collected more effectively, and have in mind what amounts to a reciprocal enforcement type of program that would link the various provinces. Much of the information would be computerized.

I make two observations on it, Mr. Speaker. One is that the government of Manitoba has done more in this field than other governments, and we've discussed that sort of program with them. One of the concerns I've always had is that the potential use of police forces in civil matters should be of grave concern to anyone who contemplates what that means. I'm well aware of the current philosophy in respect of the suitability of using more stringent law enforcement techniques, one might say, than merely leaving the parties to their private devices through their own legal counsel and going to the courts.

So there is perhaps a growing recognition, including one that is the basis of certain recent international understandings, that it may be appropriate in areas, including the collection of support payments, to have a bit more involvement by government, as distinct from leaving it entirely to the parties. That's the concern I wanted to express, in that one shouldn't just up and endorse it and proceed to do it, in my view.

At the same time, I think there's a general concurrence among people that people who are ordered to pay support payments should indeed pay them, and that if there is something that can be facilitated in the way of reciprocal enforcement of judgments, that should be done. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with the statement. A supplementary question.

Could the minister indicate whether some studies are going on within the department, or is someone looking at this matter, with regard to maybe a changed position of the government of Alberta at the present time, in terms of some type of compromise position that could facilitate the child support and maintenance orders across this nation? MR. CRAWFORD: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We are looking at that now and canvassing the significance of what developments in that area would in fact amount to.

To sum up, we're certainly working within the philosophical context of recent published reports or recommendations of the federal government. We feel that from the point of view of a totally integrated system, they and the provinces could not be ready for still some time, because it would involve interlinking — if it were done in the ultimate sense of reciprocal enforce ments in the way that some people contemplate it, it would require a lot of computer software. For that reason we think they'll be a little while actually getting to that point, so we feel we have time to continue to examine it. MR. R.

SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. There is some concern that Alberta is or could become the haven for parents that have kidnapped their children in other provinces and come to Alberta. The ability to find those parents is not quite as adequate as it should be. Is the minister finding that to be the case in any of the research, and is there concern with regard to a matter such as that at the present time? MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, that type of concern has not been specifically brought to me, other than the hon. member mentioning it now.

It's the sort of thing one could speculate about and contem plate, and I would think that people from some other government who want to advance their particular system — in particular the federal government — could begin to make alle gations like that. They have not made them to me; therefore I would not think it really is a type of concern that people would put forward with much credibility. I think the only thing that could be said about it is that if part of the country went to an

602 ALBERTA HANSARD May 1, 1984 integrated system and part of the country did not, then you would probably find missing spouses and missing children more easily in the parts that had gone to the new system. The issues remain the same as to whether or not it should be done. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. Is the minister planning any meetings with federal officials or other attorneys general of Canada with regard to this matter in the next few months or over the summer? MR. CRAWFORD: Mr.

Speaker, I would be surprised if that did not come up at any regularly scheduled meeting, either of provincial attorneys general or of the provincial attorneys gen eral and the federal Minister of Justice. I can only say that there are no such meetings scheduled within the next month or so. But I would expect meetings during the course of the year and, in the course of those meetings, to have that particular matter raised. Rural Electrification DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, my question to the hon. Minister of Utilities and Telecommunications has to do with the Rural Electrification Association task force.

Is the minister in a posi tion to indicate if that task force has completed its work and when the information will be made public? MR. BOGLE: Mr. Speaker, the interdepartmental task force the hon. member referred to was made up of the Deputy Min ister of Executive Council, who chaired the committee, the Deputy Provincial Treasurer, the Deputy Minister of Agricul ture, and the Deputy Minister of Utilities and Telecommuni cations. The primary purpose of the committee was to review rural electrification services throughout Alberta.

The committee held a series of meetings and gave an oppor tunity to the utility companies, the Union of REAs, the three- phase power committee, and several other groups, to present briefs to the committee. As well, the committee reviewed the work of previous committees in this area. Their report was recently submitted to government. It is now being very thor oughly reviewed by both the utilities and the agriculture caucus committees. DR. BUCK: Mr.

Speaker, is the minister in a position to indi cate when this information will be made available to the REAs, in light of the fact that many of the REAs are trying to decide if they're going to sell their lines to the power companies or keep them and update them? MR. BOGLE: That's a very fair question, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member may be aware that in December I wrote to the presidents of each of the REAs in Alberta, in the event that they were not represented at the annual meeting in Red Deer in June 1983, when I announced the formation of the com mittee.

Although certainly the decision whether or not an REA wishes to sell its assets rests solely with the membership within that rural electrification association, in that December corre spondence I suggested that as the results of the report were expected sometime in the spring of 1984, if I were a member of an REA I would want to wait and see what decisions would in fact be made by government. The member may also be aware that in the Speech from the Throne, delivered on March 15, we indicated that legislation dealing with rural electrification would be introduced during the spring sittings of this session.

It is our intent to meet that deadline and commitment. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, to the minister. Is there anything in place as an interim measure, if the REAs are seeking advice as to what position they should advise their members to take on selling their associations? Is there any mechanism in place so that the department or someone can give these associations advice at this time? MR. BOGLE: Clearly, Mr. Speaker, it's not the role of the Department of Utilities and Telecommunications to advise members of the rural electrification associations whether they should or should not sell.

On the other hand, we want to ensure that all the facts are on the table when the members are in fact making a decision. Once the government caucus committees on both utilities and agriculture have concluded their review of the process and full government caucus has made a decision, it will be our intent to convene a meeting of representatives of all the REAs to share with them directly, one on one, what the government proposes to do. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, a final supplementary.

At this time, is the minister in a position to indicate, if he knows, just how many REAs in the province have sold their possessions to the power companies? MR. BOGLE: Mr. Speaker, the REA program was initiated in the late 1940s, early '50s. At that time, almost all the farmers in the province were served by REAs. Today approximately two out of three farmers are served by REAs. One-third are direct farm customers of the utility companies. Viscount Bennett School MR. LEE: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Education.

Is the minister in receipt of complaints by the Vis count Bennett home and school association concerning the lack of time to prepare a submission with respect to the change of use by the school, and that the Calgary school board may in fact be circumventing the minister's guidelines by changing the use rather than closing it? MR. KING: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have received letters from parents associated with the Viscount Bennett school. They do express the concern just represented by the hon. member, as well as other concerns. Labour Legislation Challenge MR. MARTIN: Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to direct my question to the Minister of Labour. Can the minister confirm that he received a copy of the CLC-sponsored challenge to Bill 44 placed before the International Labour Organization, I believe in November last year? MR. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, the normal routine is that, through the office of the minister in Ottawa, I receive copies of matters placed before the International Labour Organization. I assume that I have in fact received that document. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question. Has the minister read that brief? MR. YOUNG: Mr.

Speaker, I always read what my colleagues from Ottawa deliver to me. MR. MARTIN: Then I take it that it is more than assuming that he has the document; he has had it.

May 1, 1984 ALBERTA HANSARD 603 My next question: can the minister advise whether the Alberta government, through the government of Canada, has filed a response to this challenge? MR. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, I believe all the concerns which have been forwarded from whatever source in Canada to the International Labour Organization have received responses. There are several, and I'm quite sure that there has been a specific response to all of them to this date. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question.

Can the minister advise what steps have been taken to forward a copy of the Alberta government's response to the affected bodies: namely, CLC, National Union of Provincial Government Employees, and AUPE? MR. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, the procedure which is normally followed is that the responses are delivered to the appropriate minister — in this case, the Minister of Labour in Ottawa — and the minister co-ordinates the response. Canada is a member of the International Labour Organization, and that is the pro cedure which is followed in a federal relationship. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question.

Is the minister say ing that the Alberta government could not transmit their response to this to these bodies? Is that beyond the realm of possibility? MR. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, I'm just indicating the protocol which is normal and usual and which is followed in dealings with the International Labour Organization. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question. At the first oppor tunity, will the minister undertake to table in this Assembly a copy of the Alberta government's response to the ILO, so we can take a look at it? MR. YOUNG: Mr.

Speaker, I know of no reason not to do that, other than to be assured that since it is really a response on the part of the government of Canada to the International Labour Organization to which we make our contribution, it is kept in that context and that the parties to whom the response is going have had the opportunity to receive it first. MR. MARTIN: I appreciate protocol. It's very nice. But it's the Alberta government's response and, because it's an impor tant one, we as legislators would like to take a look at that response.

My final supplementary question is simply: could the min ister give us a time frame when we might be able to see that response in this Assembly? MR. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, I'd be quite pleased to check on the times which are obviously involved, and then I'd be very pleased to table it for the hon. member. I think he might find it very instructive. MR. MARTIN: Oh, I'm sure I will. MR. GOGO: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Could the Minister of Labour assure the House or inform the House or clarify for the House that matters of labour policy of this government are determined by the ILO in Geneva, Switzerland?

MR. YOUNG; Mr. Speaker, the policy for labour relations for the province of Alberta is indeed determined by this Legislative Assembly and this government. Under the protocols and inter national conventions with which we operate, it is possible that there can be some questioning of those policies from time to time. When that occurs, it is handled through the offices of the federal minister because of the federal relationship. That's a protocol which I've been explaining. But in the end result, the policy is established in this Assembly and by this government. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question, flowing . . .

Because there seems to be some doubt, would the minister confirm for all members of the Assembly that the provincial governments and the federal government have signed the ILO, and we all operate under it? MR. SPEAKER: It seems to me the hon. member is simply making an assertion. MR. MARTIN: It's simply the same assertion that he made. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary Currie, and then the hon. Minister of Social Services and Community Health and the hon. Minister of Transportation would like to provide some information that was sought in a previous question period. Viscount Bennett School (continued) MR.

ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, my question to the hon. Min ister of Education is with respect to Viscount Bennett high school in my constituency and the school closure policy of the Calgary Board of Education. In reviewing the request from the parents of Viscount Bennett school, is it the opinion of the minister's department that in fact Viscount Bennett is a closure, since all the students in that school will be moving to five other schools if current regulations or motions by the Calgary board follow through? MR. KING: Mr.

Speaker, it is the position of the government that the proposal adopted by the Calgary Board of Education for the operation of Viscount Bennett school in September 1984 is in fact a school closure, although the Calgary Board of Education has not referred to it as that. I have advised the parents and the Calgary Board of Education that I will treat it as a school closure and that the Calgary board cannot proceed with the plans it has discussed until such time as it has gone through the process leading to a resolution to close the school. School Closure Guidelines MR.

SHRAKE: A supplementary question for the minister, Mr. Speaker. You had a series of guidelines for school closures, and among those were things such as social impact upon a community. Are these guidelines going to be enforced and conditions such as if it's a community school looked at before we allow some of these closures? MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, if the question is whether or not we expect the guidelines to be honoured, then the answer is yes we do. Women's Shelters DR. WEBBER: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon.

Member for Clover Bar asked some questions relative to recommendations of the Alberta Council of Women's Shelters. One of the sup- plementaries he asked related to programs for counselling wife batterers. I prefer the terms "spousal abusers" or "perpetrators of spousal abuse". In any case, I indicated that there were programs in Calgary and Lethbridge. We do have a family violence program in

604 ALBERTA HANSARD May 1, 1984 Calgary, but not specifically for spousal abusers. I would like to indicate that I was correct in the fact that we have one in Lethbridge, funded through the family and community support services program. Also, the rural family violence program that we're funding as a pilot project in the Lac La Biche area does have a component for treatment and counselling of spousal abusers. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Transportation, and then the hon. Minister of Utilities and Telecommunications wishes to supplement some previously given information. Highway 56 Upgrading MR. M. MOORE: Mr.

Speaker, yesterday the hon. Member for Drumheller asked some questions with regard to Highway 56 and, in so doing, indicated he had some information about the condition of the highway and the fact that it may have been closed for some two days this spring. I took the opportunity to have staff in my department check with the maintenance foreman for the highway, the councillor of the county of Wheatland, who lives along the highway, the regional director, the district engineer, and the Wheatland county office.

I'm advised that the road has been freshly regrav- eled, that calcium chloride has been put on it with regard to dust treatment, and that throughout the spring season it was in good condition. No one is aware of it ever having been closed at any time, and all those contacted are totally happy with the condition of the road and the maintenance on it. Rural Electrification (continued) MR. BOGLE: Mr. Speaker, in my enthusiasm in response to the questions from the hon.

Member for Clover Bar, I indicated that there is reference in the Speech from the Throne this year that legislation regarding rural electrification would be brought in during the spring sittings. The actual wording in the Speech from the Throne is session. While it's still my hope that it will be done this spring, it should be clear to the hon. member and others that the actual wording is session. Water Management — Oldman River MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr.

Speaker, my question to the Minister of the Environment is over the concern about the lack of poten tial irrigation of water in the Lethbridge Northern Irrigation District in southern Alberta. I wonder if the minister could indicate what progress has been made on construction of a dam on the Oldman River. MR. BRADLEY: Mr. Speaker, I addressed that question earlier in the session in my estimates, and I repeat the information today. The government has under serious consideration the matter of a reservoir on the Oldman River.

By midsummer, which is the end of July, we're committed to making a decision with regard to siting, whether it be at the Peigan site at Brocket or at the Three Rivers site. ORDERS OF THE DAY MR. SPEAKER: Does the Assembly agree to revert briefly to Introduction of Special Guests? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. head: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS (reversion) MRS. EMBURY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It cer tainly is a distinct pleasure for me today to introduce to you, and through you to members of the Assembly, 135 grade 8 students from F.E. Osborne junior high school in Calgary North West.

The reason it's an added pleasure for me is that this is the first time I've had the opportunity to introduce students in this Assembly since I was re-elected in 1982. Due to the foresight of one of the teachers at F.E. Osborne, who noticed that the students were studying a unit on China in social studies, the students have the opportunity to travel to Edmonton to take

part in a very unique experience; that is, the Chinese trade fair and circus here in Edmonton. I'm very proud to say I was able to assist the school, the parents, and the students by appealing most sincerely to our Minister of Edu cation to hopefully find some added funding so that students from the southern part of the province would have the same opportunity that the students from the northern part of the province have. On behalf of the students, parents, and teachers, I would like to thank the Minister of Education most sincerely for accommodating them.

The students are seated in both the public and members galleries. They are accompanied by Mr. Art Hanson, Mr. Dave Murray, who is the principal of F.E. Osborne, Mr. Al MacDonald, who is the vice-principal, and Ms. Maxine Bishop. The parents who are with the students are Mr. and Mrs. Tabachniuk, Mrs. Vanderberg, Mrs. Lott, Mrs. Nikiforuk, and Mrs. Nysetvold. I would ask all the students to please stand and receive the warm welcome of this Assembly. head: WRITTEN QUESTIONS MR. HORSMAN: Mr.

Speaker, I move that Question 165 stand and retain its place on the Order Paper. [Motion carried] head: MOTIONS FOR RETURNS 162. Mr. R. Speaker moved that an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing:

(1) Copies of every contract concluded or existing between November 1, 1982, and March 1, 1984, to which (

a) the Alberta government or any department, office, agency, board, or commission of, or controlled by it, or (

b) any office, agency, board, or commission to which the government has the power of appointing, by itself or in consultation with any other party, a majority of its constituent members, or (

c) any Crown corporation or any corporation in which the government holds more than 5 percent of the equity is a party, under which there is provision for any payment of money or other valuable consideration or benefit to any of the companies or partnerships listed as direct associates of Members of the Legislative Assembly in returns filed pursuant to

section 31 of the Legislative Assembly Act, other than contracts or arrangements resulting from a pro vision in an enactment under which any member of the public or a member of a defined class of the public to

May 1, 1984 ALBERTA HANSARD 605 which the company or partnership belongs may receive the benefit.

(2) Copies of every contract concluded or existing between November 2, 1982, and March 1, 1984, to which (

a) the Alberta government or any department, office, agency, board, or commission of, or controlled by it, or (

b) any office, agency, board, or commission to which the government has the power of appointing, by itself or in consultation with any other party, a majority of its constituent members, or (

c) any Crown corporation or any corporation in which the government holds more than 5 percent of the equity is a party, and under which any benefit accrues to any property listed in a return filed by a minister of the Crown as a declaration of assets pursuant to the directive of the Premier dated May 2, 1973, other than a contract of arrangement authorized by an enactment under which a member of the public or of a defined class of the public to which the owner of the property in question belongs may receive a benefit. MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, I move an amendment to this motion.

It has been prepared in consultation with the hon. member who moved the motion and with the government. It's a rather long amendment and is probably as complex as the original motion. I have conveyed copies of it to the Clerk, Your Honour, and the hon. member. It contains the elements of the motion and simply sets it out in a way to avoid duplication of time, effort, and cost. [Motion as amended carried] head: MOTIONS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT MOTIONS 201. Moved by Mr. Musgrove:

Be it resolved that the Assembly urge the government to research and encourage the development and adaptation of com pressed natural gas as a primary fuel energy source for motor vehicles in Alberta. [Adjourned debate March 20: Mr. Cook] MR. COOK: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to begin my remarks by moving an amendment to the motion. I have copies available for hon. members of the Assembly. The only change I'm pro posing is to insert the word "consider" in the motion: "urge the government to consider research and . . . development". I think the motion as amended should be passed. I think the hon.

Member for Bow Valley has done a great service to the Assembly by bringing this forward. I'd just like to make a couple of quick points in passing. The Alberta-Canada energy research fund was established as part of the energy program of 1980. It set aside certain tax and royalty dollars from the federal and provincial governments and endowed a research fund which, up to this point, has largely had research into coal and energy conservation as its focus. Both those objectives are laudable.

I think it might be timely for the government to also consider using some funds from that trust fund for research into compressed natural gas. As I understand it, the main issue is extending the range of vehicles. With the capacity of most of the tanks on the market right now, a vehicle can travel perhaps 150 or 200 miles with one fill-up. That's not as far in range as one can go in a lot of vehicles with liquid fuels. So to my understanding, the main problem in trying to market the compressed natural gas the province has is trying to extend the range. As the hon.

Member for Bow Valley pointed out in his earlier remarks, there are some opportunities for using activated carbons which will absorb natural gas and allow greater carrying capacity for the same volume of tank. That's one area that could be looked at. Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member has done the Assem bly a great favour by bringing this motion into the Chamber. I think the motion ought to be adopted.

I also think the government ought to be encouraged to use some of those research dollars that are there for energy research and reassign some of them for compressed natural gas research and, in particular, extending the range of vehicles. With that, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to close my remarks. MR. MUSGROVE: As the mover of the motion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak in favour of the amendment. As I see it, the amendment doesn't significantly alter the intent of the motion.

To "consider" research is certainly important although, as I said in my former talk on the subject, there has been a lot of research done in this area. Italy has been using compressed natural gas for many years as a basic fuel in automobiles. In Alberta, CNG Fuel Ltd. and Airways Compressor have done a lot of research and recently converted a diesel farm tractor to burn 75 percent natural gas and 25 percent diesel fuel. There is also some research in the United States that could be a great benefit to the transition to natural gas.

Although they say it'll probably be two years before they will have it qualified to the point where it will be used, it will allow us to use compression tanks that only need 300 pounds of pressure per square inch instead of 3,000 pounds of pressure per square inch. Of course this will be a great benefit to the needs of filling stations. The problem right now is that it costs a tremendous amount of money — I believe $300,000 — to develop a filling station. If we get down to 300 pounds per square inch, it won't take a lot more cost to have a filling station than it does to fill up with ordinary gasoline now. Mr.

Speaker, I am in favour of the amendment, and I agree that we should pass the resolution. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question on the amend ment? The purpose of the amendment is simply to add one word to the resolution. [Motion on amendment carried] MR. LYSONS: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to join the discussion on this resolution today and talk in favour of our doing some research on the use of natural gas. When I see a motion like this, though, I wonder why we need to have the government involved in pushing for something like this.

If industry thought it was practical and could use it, then they would certainly go ahead. I'm just amazed at seeing all the locomotives that roar back and forth across our country. They used coal initially, and then diesel fuel. I certainly think they would be the very first people to use natural gas if there were such cost savings. I wonder if the mover of the motion has ever had any contact with the railroads. Insofar as using it on the farm, we've used compressed natural gas, or propane, for years. As the farms became larger, it became impractical to run back to a stationary tank to fill up.

If you're going to be handling a pressurized container with 300 pounds or 3,000 pounds, you're dealing with a very volatile

606 ALBERTA HANSARD May 1, 1984 commodity. Accidents can happen so very, very easily and quickly when you're handling fuel at the best of times. I think this is one of the reasons, other than the cost savings, why more people have switched to diesel fuel. It's the safest fuel we have that is practical for us today. But I believe that if we were to expend some research money — not just here in Alberta, but I think it should probably be an initiative taken by all governments, and particularly the federal government, on a joint package.

We could use it on our farms and have a compressor system that hooks onto our natural gas system, which comes right to our farms, and com press it right there, something that costs in the neighborhood of $200 or $500 or something like that. I'm sure they can be built. But I suppose the answer to that may well be: what are you going to use for power to compress the gas? So often we see these research projects, and they look so good to us.

We wonder whether it might be like some of the first oil sands projects, where it took three barrels of diesel fuel to get one barrel of bitumen out of the ground: it hardly paid. So with the cost of running the compressor to compress to 300 pounds or 3,000 or anything in between — it takes a great deal of power to do that. We have gas wells that have — I don't know what the maximum pressure would be on a gas well, but they would be up into the hundreds and thousands of pounds.

If we could just bleed off a gas well and use the gas at that point — the hon. member from down south in the shortgrass country would know more about that than I. I don't think the gas that comes out of the ground is liquid, although I suppose it well could be. I think that's the kind of thing we have to look at: being able to tap. It would only be practical when we could actually tap into a gas well filler tank and away we go — and have it metered and pay for the cost of metering. But the cost of compression would be very, very dear. I get a little edgy about another thing on this, for use in passenger cars.

Although it would clean up our environment — there's no question about that; natural gas is a lot cleaner than any known fuel, other than sunlight. But when you go into a parking lot with a propane-powered vehicle, they tell you to turn around and get out of there. We've have some experience with vehicles popping off in garages and service stations and things like that. They call them a building expan sion trick when they . . . [interjection] That's right, members popping off. I guess that's what we're paid for.

I'd rather be over at the Chinese trade show with those kids from Mannville, but I had to come back and do my thing. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, I . . . AN HON. MEMBER: You should have stayed. MR. LYSONS: They don't show pauses in Hansard — I don't think. Anyway, I am happy the member has brought this resolution forward. No wonder I can't find my notes; I'm looking at the special report from the Ombudsman. I lost my notes here. But I didn't do too badly for going without notes for a while. Mr. Speaker, the whole business of using available resources as best we can is commendable.

It wasn't that many years ago that we had a great urgency to develop hydrogen and all those other things, so we could actually go to our well or to a slough and make hydrogen and fuel our vehicles and so on. After a little research was done, it was found that the cost of hydrogen was about five to 10 times higher than conventional fuel when you converted it.

With that, I say I would support this resolution but only in a very limited way, in that if there is money to be expended by our government for research, it be done in a co-operative manner, much like AOSTRA is, where industry puts up 50 percent and we put up 50 percent. Do a test study. But I'm afraid that it's years and years down the road before the practical farmer or the practical businessman out in the country would be able to use this. Perhaps in the city it would be better. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I was talking to some farmers the other night.

They had some 75 young people from all over the world coming to work on the farms here in Alberta. They're very impressed by our country and the vastness of things. I was mentioning to one of the farmers that the most economical farm seemed to be one between a

section and two sections of land and those were the people who actually paid income tax. He questioned me on this a little bit, and I told him I knew a farmer who had three quarters of land and was making money and paying income tax and owned a new car and a new house. He said: my God, I can't believe that, because I would think of farming three quarters of land as something I would do after supper. It's true on his farm, where they farm 20 sections. He would do three quarters after supper.

When we are looking at fuel that's loaded as this would be, in all fairness I don't think we could really convert it to be used on the large agricultural acreages because of the com plexity of getting it to the equipment involved. That's why I suggest that if it were done on the basis of using it firstly for the railroads, and if the CPR would take a chance on using compressed natural gas for at least five years, maybe I'd take a look at it. Thank you very much. MR. McPHERSON: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to briefly enter the debate on Motion 201 and the amendment therein.

I must con fess that initially I had some reservations over this motion. But after carefully listening to the debate on March 20 when this motion was originally debated and having listened to the argu ments on both sides, I've come down in support of the motion, particularly as amended, because the motion simply urges the government to consider the encouragement of research, devel opment, and adaptation of compressed natural gas as a fuel source for motor vehicles in Alberta.

I must confess I'm still slightly concerned with the wording of the motion, which urges the government to consider it as "a primary fuel energy source for motor vehicles in Alberta". I'm not so sure that compressed natural gas can ever become a primary fuel source. Nonetheless, having said that, I am in support of this motion for a variety of reasons which I'd like to articulate at the moment. There are a number of advantages in using compressed natural gas as a fuel in our vehicles.

Of course one which has been stated before is that the cost of CNG to fuel a vehicle for any given distance is about half that of gasoline. Therefore there are significant savings in utilizing this particular fuel. In some of the research I canvassed on this subject, I notice that the potential market is as large as the number of cars but that a more realistic goal might be about 5 percent of the vehicles in Canada converted to CNG. Using that figure and interpo lating it to Alberta, that could result in approximately 60,000 passenger vehicles being converted to CNG.

If we quickly consider that the cost of operating a vehicle under CNG would be about half that of gasoline, it doesn't take much mathematics to recognize there is a considerable savings involved in this motion. I think that would greatly encourage the private sector to become actively involved in research on their own. Secondly, Mr. Speaker, compressed natural gas is very safe to use. Indeed it's much safer than gasoline. To begin with, natural gas is nontoxic. It's lighter than air so that if a tank is

May 1, 1984 ALBERTA HANSARD 607 ruptured and springs a leak, the gas will dissipate into the atmosphere. In addition, natural gas is more difficult to ignite than gasoline because it requires a higher temperature. I would raise one caution here. In my understanding of this subject — I would hardly consider myself to be an expert in the area — certainly when one considers the rupture or leakage of gasoline, gasoline of course forms a puddle or a pool underneath the vehicle. If ignited, of course it will blow up the whole car or light it on fire.

On the other hand, CNG is the kind of gas that dissipates quickly and goes straight up. So that has considerable benefits in terms of safety. Again I guess the caution could be raised that that may not be quite so safe if the vehicle is confined in a garage, where that may blow up the whole building. It hearkens back to the whole emphasis of this motion, and that is that we're encouraging the government to consider research in this area. The third point I would like to make, Mr. Speaker, is that natural gas is virtually pollution free. That's extremely impor tant, because this gas is a clean-burning fuel.

I find that to be an appealing trait, given the growing number of difficult envi ronmental concerns we're dealing with and trying to address in this area, particularly in the area of hydrogen sulphide emis sions, acid rain, and what have you. Mr. Speaker, natural gas is a very important resource in Alberta. Once overshadowed by the demand for crude oil, natural gas now represents this province's most important fuel in our energy future. Therefore it's not unreasonable to suggest that new methods of utilizing this fuel should be developed and encouraged.

Increased use of natural gas in Alberta would be a definite benefit. It would solve the problems now being encountered by the industry with so many shut-in gas wells and the severe restrictions the industry finds in terms of cash flow. It would create jobs as the industry could again become more active. As well, if the use of compressed natural gas were encouraged over the use of gasoline, it would have a tremen dous impact on our energy imports. Greater use of CNG, a resource we have on hand in abundance, could help us further down the road to energy self-sufficiency.

There are a number of drawbacks encountered in utilizing this fuel source, Mr. Speaker. I recall the debate on March 20, when the Member for Calgary Mountain View articulated a number of the drawbacks and raised some of the concerns. They are there. Certainly one of them relates to the size of the tank required to use compressed natural gas. Accommodating this kind of gas requires a large tank or cylinder. That large tank can't be handled easily in today's small cars. The weight of the cylinder disturbs the balance of these vehicles and road handling. There are a number of concerns there.

Additionally, it tends to take up all of the storage space in these small vehicles. So these are are some of the challenges that have to be addressed through research. Perhaps another drawback with CNG is the fact that there are not as yet enough refuelling stations throughout the province to provide a viable service for everyone that might become involved in this kind of service. It is difficult to plan extended road trips in a vehicle that uses CNG, for example, for fear of running out of fuel before reaching the next CNG station. Despite all of these problems, Mr.

Speaker, the use of CNG does hold some promise in Alberta. It has many strengths, which I have tried to illustrate. Research into the utilization of this energy also looks promising. Improvements are continually being made, such as the development of lighter fuel storage cylinders and experimentation in blending CNG with other fuels. On balance, I would come down in support of this motion. I feel that the future does look bright for this fuel and that we as government have an important role to play in encouraging its continued and further use. Therefore, Mr.

Speaker, I encour age all members to support this important motion as amended. DR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak briefly to amended Motion 201. The whole issue of compressed natural gas is obviously one which the province of Alberta would have a tremendous vested interest in if further development of this technology does indeed take place. This past weekend I was travelling in concert with a friend of mine, and his vehicle was equipped not only with gasoline but with propane gas.

It was interesting for me just to watch the matter of the simple flick of a switch to enable a vehicle to use two types of fuel. It was also interesting for me to then try to figure out how many filling stations along the route, the Trans-Canada Highway or Highway No. 2, really had the facil ity for dealing with propane tanks to service vehicles that have been converted to that fuel. Obviously that kind of system has been improving, especially within our province. Therefore the matter of accessibility is of prime importance if you are going to use any other kind of alternative fuel for your particular vehicle.

I then had reason to deal with some comparisons between propane fuel and compressed natural gas as a fuel. I must confess I was quite ignorant of some of the capabilities of the two types of fuel as alternative means of propelling our trucks and cars. I understand that the conversion costs for either pro pane or compressed natural gas are somewhat similar. It's inter esting that the federal government gives a $400 grant for conversion to propane and a $500 grant to cover the cost of converting commercial and private vehicles to compressed nat ural gas.

With respect to propane, I understand that it makes it almost impossible to start when the vehicle is cold,

whereas one of the advantages that compressed natural gas affords in terms of an alternative fuel is that as it enters the engine in a completely vaporized state, it eliminates cold-weather starting problems. On that point alone, perhaps I should get my own vehicle converted, because there are some times when I am parked an awful long way from a plug-in. Given the fact that my vehicle is a standard, operating at the moment, this seems to be a good selling point.

I understand that the octane rating for compressed natural gas is in the neighbourhood of 130, which makes it 20 higher than the octane rating of propane. Therefore it is quite suitable for use in high-compression engines. As pointed out by the previous speaker, natural gas being lighter than air, it dissipates into the atmosphere if there is a leak. That makes it a much safer fuel than propane. The price of course is something to be considered by all of us, in terms of research and development.

As an alternative fuel supply, one can well agree that at the moment compressed natural gas selling at 22 cents a litre is a considerable bargain compared to what we are paying for leaded or unleaded fuel. Of course the major drawback within the province, and not simply within our province, is the fact that there are very few public compressed natural gas stations available. That is a major problem. I understand that the Husky organization has opened one station in Calgary which has this fuel available.

No doubt that organization is studying the experiment and may well go on to opening other facilities throughout the province to make the whole use of this fuel much more beneficial to other persons in the province. Mr. Speaker, I spoke with some people involved with Nova, an Alberta Corporation, especially people in the Alberta gas transmission division. They kindly supplied me with some

608 ALBERTA HANSARD May 1, 1984 information which I would like to share with the Assembly, because this is an up-to-date indication of what movement is taking place within the province. I understand that in June of 1983, Nova purchased a 50 percent ownership in Compressed Natural Gas Fuel Systems and that that fuel systems operation is the world's largest in the business and in fact the only one in Canada to provide a complete line of CNG conversion equip ment and service.

CNG Fuel Systems has a compressor manu facturing plant in Brampton, Ontario, and also has conversion and training centres in Calgary, Vancouver, Toronto, and Mon treal. They have just recently opened a product development centre in the United States at Detroit, Michigan. I am given to understand that in this current year, 100 vehicles will be converted to dual fuel capability at Nova's head office in Calgary. That will pick up the majority of the vehicles they use in the Calgary area and will include half-ton trucks, vans, station wagons, and cars.

I am also given to understand that in this current year, Nova will install CNG compressor and fuel dispensers at six field locations throughout the province for the vehicles that have been converted in those locations. Those field locations include such interesting places as Rocky Mountain House, Edson, Vegreville, Brooks, Ath abasca, and Medicine Hat. In addition, with the new facility Nova is building at Airdrie, which should open next year, they are going to have the same capability for compressed natural gas fuels for the operation of their vehicle fleet.

So by the end of this year, they hope to have 240 natural gas vehicles in place within the system. They obviously believe the vehicle conversion is econom ically attractive and has an almost immediate return on invest ment. They would underline the fact that CNG has the following advantages: it is compatible with existing engines; the conver sion system is readily available; and it's a clean-burning fuel, which results in longer engine life and makes for less frequent oil changes and reduced spark plug fouling and changing. They believe it to be one of the safest vehicle fuels available on the road today. Mr.

Speaker, with those few comments to read into the record some of the development which is taking place within the province immediately, I urge all hon. members to vote in favour of the amendment and then the motion as amended. MR. MUSGREAVE: Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to say a few brief words. Most of my hon. colleagues have already made the points I was going to make.

When the Member for Edmonton Glengarry suggests that we should be taking money from the coal research program, I point out to him that when we move into our new facilities in the very near future, we are very concerned about having enough money to operate the program. So I suggest that that is not one area where you can get any money. I agree with the hon. Member for Vermilion-Viking and the hon. Member for Calgary Egmont. It is primarily an industrial endeavour that should be carried out. When I listen to the Member for Calgary Egmont, I question why we need this motion, because obviously industry is doing that.

And in my opinion, they're the people that should be doing it. The research, as far as using it as a fuel or the containers it needs, is primarily done. It comes down to economics. As far as a citizen is concerned, he's got to decide if he wants to spend $1,500 and hope to get it back over a short period of time or continue to use a fuel that is available at service stations throughout the nation. With regard to the fact that it costs a lot of money to put these stations up, again it's economics. It costs a lot of money to build an ordinary service station. The hon.

Member for Little Bow mentioned $300,000 for the facilities in an urban setting; it would cost you $300,000 to buy the land to put the station on. So we have to keep all these things in perspective. One area of research I would like to point out to hon. members, which perhaps they are not aware of: the federal government is developing a joint program with the B.C. research institute to consider how they could convert farm vehi cles from diesel fuel to compressed natural gas. The B.C. research institute is farming out this research to various insti tutes across Canada.

We at the Alberta Research Council are looking at becoming involved in this program. We have not yet decided whether or not we should participate, but some of us think this would be an excellent opportunity for us to use funds from the Farming for the Future program. It certainly should be of great interest to our farm members who are con cerned about input costs on the farm. While I appreciate the comments that have been made and the intent of the motion, I just suggest to the hon. members that if it is passed — it is an excellent motion, but I would like to know where the money is coming from. MR.

MUSGROVE: Mr. Speaker, just to close the debate. We had a few questions this afternoon. The hon. Member for Lloyd- minster asked if anyone had contacted the railroads to see if they were interested in using compressed natural gas. To my knowledge no contact has been made with the railroads, but they are a diesel motor, similar to the research that has been done with farm tractors. I see no reason why it wouldn't be of financial benefit to them to be convinced to convert their diesel motors to use 75 percent natural gas. He was concerned about the cost of energy to compress the gas.

It's done with an electric motor and probably costs not a great deal more than the pumps that run our filling stations. He made mention of the compressors used by the gas com panies. At the present time, some of our natural gas production companies are fuelling their own trucks out of their own com pressor stations to use natural gas. This could possibly be a supply station to other vehicles, but generally the major com pressors that are used by the gas companies are not in a location that is accessible to a lot of vehicle traffic.

It was mentioned that the compressed natural gas vehicle would be dangerous in parking lots. In Italy they've been using compressed natural gas as a primary fuel for many years. Unless it's enclosed within a building, they say it is safer than using conventional gasoline, for the simple reason that once it's been mixed with air it is not as combustible. This is one of the differences with propane. Propane is still quite combustible when it is mixed with air. There has been some concern about the weight of the tank.

Of course we have the research in Detroit, where they are now working on mixing compressed natural gas with hydrocarbons. It will reduce the amount of compression necessary to fill a tank. In a discussion with Alberta Energy recently, they're quite enthusiastic about that part of it. The hon. Member for Calgary Egmont made mention of natural gas allowing a vehicle to start quite a lot easier than propane. The reason is that propane without compression can become a liquid at minus 40 degrees,

whereas natural gas has to be cooled to approximately 260 degrees before it becomes a liquid. I believe industry will adapt to natural gas without a lot of encouragement; that's private industry as we know it. What we need to do is to encourage the use of natural gas as a primary fuel for vehicles. That will reduce the amount of gas we have in reserve at this time and probably provide that industry with a freer movement of their product.

May 1, 1984 ALBERTA HANSARD 609 Mr. Chairman, I would call a motion on this. [Motion as amended carried] 210. Moved by Mrs. Koper:

Be it resolved that the Assembly consider the desirability of legislation in Alberta to provide for the mandatory use of child restraint devices in motor vehicles for children from birth to five years of age. MRS. KOPER: Mr. Speaker, you may recall during the First Session of this Legislature, on April 21, 1983, the hon. Member for Stony Plain brought a motion to the House asking us to consider legislating the mandatory use of seat belts in motor vehicles on the highways in the province of Alberta.

He intro duced this motion to the House because of his direct experience as a fire chief, seeing "death and carnage on Highway 16 and on . . . rural roads in the county of Parkland". He has a deep commitment, and has recognized the fact that seat belts save lives and can reduce injuries due to accidents. The hon. member spoke well in this debate, and he was followed by other speakers equally as eloquent and serious in their intent to save lives on the highways of Alberta.

All of them unequivocally supported and recognized the idea that seat belts can save lives, but many of them brought forth very real concerns to their debate. The first one was: should this Legislature enact laws that are difficult or maybe even impossible to enforce? The second one was: does the individual have the right to endanger others or even risk death or crippling himself or the other passengers in the car when he or she drives an automobile? Is it a matter of choice for the individual, or is it a duty of individuals and the government to protect people from a very evident danger?

To me, any rules we introduce about seat belts are just as vital as the sign posted on the river by the weir in Calgary that talks about the undercurrents that will pull one to instant death, or those areas on a mountain that are restricted because of ava lanche danger, which leave the people who break these notices liable to prosecution. The debate last session, however, was not the first time this House has discussed potential seat-belt legislation since the Canadian Parliament in 1974 first decreed that all Canadian automobiles had to be equipped with lap belts and harnesses. In fact the hon.

Member for Calgary Currie introduced a Bill in 1980 to amend the Highway Traffic Act. The objective of that Bill was to mandate the use of seat belts by every individual under the age of 18 travelling in a car in Alberta. The speakers at that point recognized the safety features, the educational value, of such legislation. They also recognized that it left the opportunity for freedom of choice for all individuals over the age of 18; they could make up their own minds. But this Bill was left to die on the Order Paper as well, and we in Alberta have gone on debating the issue.

Without trying to be mel odramatic at all, we have also witnessed 695 deaths and 25,121 people injured — some of them quite disabled — since 1981, when we could have enacted that legislation. In 1982 the hon. Member for Calgary North West introduced a related motion, urging the government to initiate a multimedia campaign to increase public awareness of traffic safety. That again died on the Order Paper, but during the debate the people recognized the following facts.

They recognized that first of all, there was a study that concluded the major problem was attitudinal and particularly a sense of a lack of personal respon sibility of people to put their own seat belts on. It was felt that the wearing of seat belts could not be legislated, that other methods of awareness should be encouraged. It was also quite evident during that debate that Alberta has one of the worst collision records in all of Canada — the average Albertan does not wear a seat belt — and that use of seat belts on a percentage basis is significantly higher in provinces with mandatory leg islation.

Seat belts were not in use in most fatal accidents in Canada, and over one-half of the fatalities could be prevented. This goes back quite a way. When we consider those facts and that this Legislature has had that opportunity to know the facts, I think it puts a different perspective on our debate. Again the motion died on the Order Paper, but those in government responsible for safety on the highways have not ignored this problem. They have gone to different ministers since that time.

Ministers of Transportation have accepted the challenge of a suggested alternative as it arises in every debate this House has heard on seat-belt legislation. The alternative is education of the public. They have accepted that and carried forth with it. They've done a really good job, with a lot of help of course from volunteer organizations throughout the province. There was an active program of education initiated at the time the hon. Member for Chinook was Minister of Transpor tation in this House. There was active support of a program called Buckle Up, that was initiated in 1976.

In 1979 there was formation of the Alberta Action Committee for Child Transportation Safety. That was a Year of the Child project. This committee has remained very active and is supported, I might add, by Alberta Transportation. It enjoys membership from such important bodies as the Alberta Safety Council, the Alberta Motor Association, the University of Calgary injury research unit, the health services of the city of Calgary, the Calgary police department, the Calgary boards of education, the Alberta children's hospital.

This organization of course supports mandatory seat belt legislation all around and specifically has worked very hard in spreading the material, the information, they have on child restraint devices throughout the province. They've actively pro moted public education of the merits of child restraint devices in automobiles. They have travelled the province of Alberta and presented workshops to health professionals and to car dealers. They've initiated a car seat rental program. They've provided demonstration of car seats for pediatricians' offices throughout the province.

They've included car seat information at prenatal classes and in newborn nurseries. They've gone to health promotion and anticipatory guidance for physicians and nurses. They've conducted displays in key community loca tions. They've gone on media interviews and TV public service spots wherever possible. They've maintained a data base. They're providing resource material, and they are doing active research on the problems in Alberta connected with safety on highways for children. But, Mr. Speaker and hon. members, that's not good enough.

Intelligence, as my favourite author Ashleigh Brilliant says, is not much use unless you're intelligent enough to use it. In the absence of legislation since 1980, when the amend ments were first introduced by the hon. Member for Calgary Currie, statistics reveal that there's one traffic collision every four minutes in Alberta. There's one nonfatal injury every 21 minutes, and there's one fatality every 12 and a half hours. It totals 119,891 traffic collisions, 25,121 people injured and, more grimly, 695 people killed.

Can you imagine the outcry if every year the equivalent of a PWA full of Albertans were to crash in Alberta? That's exactly what's happening on our highways. All the time there is enough evidence to suggest that at least half of these deaths could have been prevented had the occupants been wearing seat belts. For the children involved, child restraint devices in automobiles have been judged to be 85 percent effective in preventing fatalities, 65 percent in reduc ing serious injury.

610 ALBERTA HANSARD May 1, 1984 Paraphrasing the title of one of the very excellent pamphlets produced by Alberta Transportation, do we really want to gam ble with the lives of children here in Alberta just to save money? It doesn't even save money. For each child that dies on Alberta roads, there is one seriously handicapped. There are 10 others hospitalized for 30 days or more. For each child that dies on our highways, 40 suffer severe injury, 100 are hospitalized for smaller injuries. Do you know that one child in every 20 will be injured in a traffic accident before the age of 15? This is shocking to me.

In 1982 seat-belt usage in the province went up to 16.6 percent, and the deaths decreased quite dramatically by about 190 people. You could do a cost/benefit analysis on all of this, but how do you put a worth, a dollar figure, on the life of a child or the potential productivity of a young person? I guess you can do it, but I don't think any numbers will ever describe the heartache, loss, needless disability, and suffering of a family that has been in a traffic accident. Mr. Speaker, the right to choose not to use occupant restraint devices has too high a price altogether.

Child restraint devices are endorsed by the Alberta Motor Association. The Alberta Safety Council has issued a release that tells us they approve of this. The Alberta Medical Asso ciation has taken a proactive approach with their patients and the public. Legislation was enacted in Ontario in 1976; in Quebec, 1977; Saskatchewan, 1977; B.C., 1977; Newfound land, 1982; Manitoba, 1983; and New Brunswick, 1983. In Nova Scotia, it's passed but not yet proclaimed — seven prov inces in all. Mr. Speaker, I have high hopes that the time has come for the government of Alberta to take steps in this direction as well.

In proposing this motion to the House today, it is hoped that the focus is narrow enough — legislation for newborns and young people, who cannot make a decision for themselves — that perhaps it will be more acceptable. It is also hoped that it will be easier to enforce than universal legislation and will reduce the concern in the minds of the hon. members that it is unenforceable. It also has great public acceptance. I have received many, many petitions; one more came just the other day. Public acceptance is far more evident for the protection of young children. Mr.

Speaker, most living people are careful, and I believe the reason for that is that most of those who aren't careful are no longer living. I don't want that to happen to our children needlessly. So on behalf of the newborn children and those up to the age of five in Alberta, I urge all hon. members to pass this motion so traffic accidents will no longer be the number one killer in Alberta for children beyond the first year of their lives. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. GOGO: Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend and support the Member for Calgary Foothills in bringing this resolution for ward.

I will say at the outset that I don't think it goes nearly far enough. It makes reference to "consider the desirability". I think we're long past the stage of desirability. I think it's probably time we exercised something not found too commonly in this Assembly, and that's common sense. How can we as legislators have the feeling that we should introduce within this Assembly

an Act called the Child Welfare Act to look after those children who are unable to look after themselves and at the same time even doubt the desirability of using child restraints for young people in this province? Where else but in this Assembly could we even think that way? Clearly that's the absence of common sense. I'd like to speak in favour of the motion and make some comments I hope would convince members to support the Member for Calgary Foothills. She made reference to other jurisdictions. I suppose many Albertans think the key is to be different from other jurisdic tions.

I guess at the outset, if you look at Ontario, which has mandatory use except for those under five, Quebec that includes those under five, and B.C. which excludes those under five — I submit to those of you who know those people who live over the mountains, when things drop on your head as often as they do, one can understand why they think differently than we in Alberta do. But I say with respect that one of the provinces that entered Confederation in 1870, called Manitoba, has seen the practical use. They're the most current province to introduce it. I understand it became effective April 1, 1984. Mr.

Speaker, I think those members of the Assembly — it happens to be current now with the Canada Health Act — who maybe meet with physicians in this province know the AMA or doctors' union position. But if you talk with a plastic surgeon who's in the business of putting people's faces back as a result of coming in collision with dashboards, one wonders how any body could fail to even begin to utilize the system. I don't want to get in particularly deep with regard to freedom of choice of those who are able to make the choice.

I would argue and advance the theory that General Motors spent some $3.5 million building a passive system called air bags. They then spent another $2 million on an interlock system; unless you were sober, you couldn't turn the key unless you were belted up. Why in heaven's name can we put a man on the moon and bring him home, yet we can't design an automobile like a Volkswagen Rabbit that automatically belts you in? I don't understand. But we don't have that jurisdiction. The jurisdiction we do have is the preservation of our young people's lives. Mr.

Speaker, it's reminiscent of — I apologize to members who may have heard this before; perhaps someone here even told me. In a flood not very long ago, the water reached about five feet. The person in the house was obviously concerned. A boat came by to pick him up, and he said: no, no, don't worry about me; the Lord will look after me. Two hours later, the water reached the second floor. Another boat came by, and he turned down efforts and offers of assistance to rescue him. Sure enough, the water got high enough and he was on top of the chimney. A helicopter came by to lift him off.

He said: no, no, I believe in the Lord; the Lord will look after it. Sure enough, he perished. He drowned. He ascended where all good people ascend, I suppose, into heaven. He said to St. Peter: I don't understand it; I've been a God-fearing man all my life; I prayed that the Lord would save me from drowning; what happened? St. Peter said: we sent two boats and a helicopter; what more could we do? Mr. Speaker, one has to look at the seat belt question the same way.

If those who are over the age of puberty, who certainly are of the age where they're allowed to drive an automobile, don't want to use safety restraints or seat belts or whatever we call them, I suppose that's their prerogative. One day we'll get around to deciding that, depending on whether it will defeat us at the polls.

But when it comes to those who can't even vote, when it comes to those people who are young, surely to God we in this Legislature, after listening to the Member for Calgary Foothills about the numbers who die each year, never mind the ones who are maimed — if we have the intestinal fortitude to bring forward a Child Welfare Act, if we spend $240 million on single parents, if we have all these concerns about those who can't fend for themselves, how can we possibly even debate this thing without having unanimous support? I think this should be a law, not a motion.

May 1, 1984 ALBERTA HANSARD 611 Mr. Speaker, in the riding I represent we have a service club, the female Jaycees, called Jaycettes, who three years ago undertook a project of supplying infant seats through the health unit. I'm very proud of the fact that my own children — and I have five and seven-eighths grandchildren — will not start up their automobile without those kids being restrained in the automobile. Now how did that happen? I think it happened because the Member for Chinook went a long way, took a lot of heat, to encourage Albertans to use common sense and belt up. And that message stuck.

It certainly stuck with my children, and I'm proud of that. I'm proud of the former Minister of Transportation who went a long way to encourage that. The fact of the matter is that there are people today who don't. The fact of the matter is that there are young people in this province who are unable to fend for themselves. We're not talking about fluoridation in Calgary and dental health; we're talking about lives. Mr. Speaker, I urge all members not only to speak strongly in support of this Bill but to encourage the Government House Leader that we should draw up legislation as soon as possible to implement it.

Thanks very much. MR. KROEGER: Mr. Speaker, unaccustomed as I am, I was invited and I will respond. The use or non-use of seat belts was of no interest to me for most of my driving life until the Premier said to me one day: by the way, do you realize that with the Department of Transportation goes the responsibility for seat belts? I said: no, I didn't know that. Having been informed in that way, I decided I should learn something about it.

Up until then I didn't like the idea of seat belts when I thought about them, certainly didn't use them, objected to having to pay for them when they were in the cars that I bought, and so on. I find it interesting that for some reason whenever the subject of restraints came up, be they for children, adults, or in-between — I noticed this with members of our caucus and others — there were always smiles around as though this was something quite funny.

Having had the opportunity to think about it, I could never see what was so amusing about some thing that could be as useful as I think it is and as we could make it. When you get into a discussion on seat belts, if you like, or restraints, be it related to adults, children, or both, I think it breaks into two parts. One, does it work? And two, does the legislation work? I don't think there's any question at all. I think it's been completely proven that restraints work, and it's not hard to illustrate how they work.

Those people who are required to drive dangerously — and I'm talking about the professional drivers, whether that's car racing, Hollywood, or wherever it is — would not think of getting into those cars and driving them the way they're required to do to make a living using just an ordinary seat belt. They strap themselves in so tightly that all they can do is move their arms and legs, because when those units they're inside of take off, they want to be a part of them. The shock that comes, not with the flying through the air but with the landing, is absorbed by the container.

All your car really is at that point is a container and a protector. We quickly found that people don't necessarily get hurt in cars when they are involved in a crash. Cars have a propensity to have the doors spring open when they start to roll. Then the occupants are thrown out in the same direction the automobile is going, and they wind up on the ground with the car crushing them. So you have to think about what it is you're trying to do.

I guess you could further illustrate whether these things work or not by checking into, as I did, what happened to the fellows that used to try to go over Niagara Falls in a barrel. The guy that finally made it was suspended in straps from all directions inside that barrel. When he went over, at no time did he touch the surface of that barrel, and he finally survived. There are so many examples of how you would want to be protected.

I had a discussion one day with a colleague of ours, Stu McCrae from Calgary, former Minister of Government Services in this House, and he was totally opposed to the use of seat belts. One day he was telling me he was going down the Deerfoot Trail into Calgary, going home from here. There were large patches of ice . . . Mr. Speaker, should I send that note back to you again? MR. SPEAKER: I have a little difficulty chairing the discussion which is taking place in the back row, and I do have a respon sibility to chair discussions which take place in the Assembly.

I wonder if we might pay attention to the member who has the floor. MR. KROEGER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Stu McCrae was the fellow I'm talking about. He was charging down the Deer- foot Trail at a great rate, doing just fine, until he hit a patch of this ice. When that car started to go like a curling rock, he knew there was nothing more he could do in the way of keeping his hands on the wheel. It wouldn't make any difference. And guess what he was doing? He was fumbling around for his seat belt, trying to figure out how to put it on while his car is going like this.

And it came home to him: if you find yourself in a position or condition where it's going to count, you no longer question whether it works or not. So I don't think there's any argument about whether the restraints work. The second

part is: does the legislation work? Because most people want to obey the law even though they don't approve of it, after a law has been in force for a while, about 54 percent will respond and obey the law without enforcement. With some enforcement, you can get that up to about 80 percent. So I guess it works. As far as how difficult it is to enforce, I still occasionally forget to put my belt on, except when I hit the Saskatchewan border. There's a sign that reminds me, and I stop and put it on. When I hit B.C., I do the same thing. So it's not really all that difficult.

Over 80 percent of the people in Canada are now covered with legislation, so we're not really in the realm of experimentation any longer. Who really says this is a good idea? The people who are most determined that it's a good idea are those who have to go to the accident scene: the police, first ones on the scene, and the ambulance drivers, usually the second ones on the scene. They see what happens. They're totally supportive, and in fact they insist. The medical profession has been mentioned; they know the people who arrive at the hospitals broken up and cut up.

The doctors who have to deal with that certainly support it. Other groups such as the AMA, which the member who's introducing the motion mentioned — those people who are exposed to the results of not doing this sort of thing, the well-informed people who have to deal with it, are the ones who are saying: by all means you should do this. I suppose you could make the argument that we don't need more regulation, and I'm a member of a committee that is looking at deregulation. I don't like regulations.

I don't like government telling me what to do, but I've sort of gotten used to government telling me that I should drive on the right-hand side of the road. I suppose that's an infringement on my rights. I don't find that too onerous. Driving around the city, if that light turns red and I don't see it, I usually get about a $30 tag

612 ALBERTA HANSARD May 1, 1984 that reminds me. I guess you can drive through it even though the law says you shouldn't. Notwithstanding our objection to regulations and laws, I think there are some things that have to be looked at in a more sensible approach than that. Let's extend that just a little bit further. The last year I was in this Transportation thing, I think we killed about 704 people in traffic accidents.

Our best judg ment, with research done by many people, was that easily 50 percent — probably more, but easily 50 percent — of those people would have lived, never mind all the people who had broken bones and were cut up. Just think for a minute about getting cut up in that fashion. When you go into a hospital, a doctor is going to make a very careful incision to do a very ordinary operation. There's great care exercised that the tools are sterilized and the incision is no greater than it has to be. This is all handled very carefully.

When you get in an auto mobile, you can't select the part of that car that's going to cut you up or where it's going to cut or break you. So if you really had a close look, I think that could become a little bit scary. There are so many elements in this thing that just don't make any sense to me when I hear the arguments against it.

One of them is that if the number of roughly 700 makes any sense, and if the number of 50 percent makes any sense — that 50 percent would not be killed if we had the legislation — then I guess we as a government are deciding that we don't have the guts, if you like, to pass the legislation because it may not be politically palatable to avoid 350 people being killed. I don't really like that idea very well, but we play this Russian roulette with it because we don't know who is going to be slaughtered. We say, well, take your chances; this is freedom of choice.

But we know that over 300 are going to be executed because we don't do something in this House. If you could identify ahead of time one person of those 350 who were going to be executed in this fashion because we wouldn't pass the law, you'd pass it this afternoon. You wouldn't fool around. But you don't do it because it's okay; we don't know who it's going to be next, and let's play the game. And so it goes. Mr. Speaker, I think I have expressed my views. Thank you for the attention, and good luck with your motion. MR. McPHERSON: Mr. Speaker, it's my great pleasure today to participate in this motion.

We've had the opportunity in the last half hour or three-quarters of an hour to hear three speakers. I think the persistence of the mover of the motion, the hon. Member for Calgary Foothills, in putting forth this motion should be commended by all members. We then heard an impassioned plea by the hon. Member for Lethbridge West — logical, yes, but very forceful, very impassioned on the need to provide some direction and enact legislation to save many, many children's lives. Our third speaker on this motion was the hon. Member for Chinook, whose cool, dispassionate logic and wisdom just comes forth.

I appreciate those comments as well. Mr. Speaker, in my view it's an extremely important motion, and I would like to perhaps take a different slant toward this overall debate. In this province we are ever mindful of our need to protect our natural resources, both renewable and non renewable. It begs this question: is there a more important natural resource in this province than our children? Surely there is not. What is a more important resource to the future of this province than our children?

It has become very clear to me from the empirical evidence and research that has been done recently that most children in Alberta in fact are not being adequately protected while riding in motor vehicles. This is a situation that we as legislators have an opportunity to correct. Mr. Speaker, I've had some misgivings in the past on the overall question of seat-belt legislation. In our constituency we recently conducted a questionnaire. The question with respect to seat belts simply stated this: Compulsory seat belt legislation has been suggested by a number of interest groups.

Alberta is currently the only province that does not have such legislation. Should the Government of Alberta enact compulsory seat belt legislation? Yes  No  Not sure  Well, Mr. Speaker, the jury's out. I sent out 22,000 of these constituency questionnaires and, at this moment, have only been able to go through 267. Of the the 267, bearing in mind that I was asking a question in relation to seat-belt usage — not child restraint devices, but the full question — which has come under some criticism in relation to freedom of choice, the answers so far are rather startling.

I hope to have the oppor tunity to stand in my place in the not too distant future and relate the statistics on the overall study. Of the 267 responses so far, I have 127 affirmatives, which represent 47.5 percent of respondents; 112 who have said no, which represent 41.9; and 28 undecided, which represent 10.48 percent. Frankly I was rather surprised at that. It's clear to me that the education process we have embarked on in this province for a goodly number of years, through the efforts of the former Minister of Transportation and the continuing efforts of our current min ister, are working.

They're certainly working in relation to changing attitudes, but I don't think they're working in relation to increased usage of seat belts. Mr. Speaker, statistics on injuries and deaths in children as a result of automobile accidents lend an incredible weight to the argument that child restraint legislation is needed. I don't have to trot out the statistics the hon. Member for Calgary Foothills has done, but it is mind-boggling to me to consider that more children are injured or killed in car accidents than were ever killed or injured as a result of polio.

More injuries to children are caused by car accidents than all other causes combined. Car accidents are the leading cause of death among children and the leading cause of debilitating injury to children. Head injuries from car accidents are also the most common cause of epilepsy among children beyond one month. Mr. Speaker, in a motor vehicle collision there are actually two collisions. First, of course, there's the collision of the car. The second collision is the human collision, whereby an indi vidual who is unrestrained is propelled forward into other occu pants or into the dashboard.

It's this second collision that causes the injury. The car begins to crush and slow down, but an unrestrained person continues at the vehicle's original speed. In just a fraction of a second, the occupant impacts against the vehicle's interior or is ejected. I could relate in some gruesome detail a personal experience I had of an individual who in fact was ejected from a car. Indeed I could relate two, but I'll leave that for another day. Mr.

Speaker, because children have a proportionately heav ier head, a higher centre of gravity, and a lower height on the vehicle seat, they are by far the most susceptible to head and facial injuries — far more than adults. Unrestrained children tend to have a greater level of serious injuries due to motor vehicle accidents or sudden stops. If a child is properly restrained during a collision, he or she is decelerated at a rate that is tolerable to the body. Injuries do not occur, or if they do occur, they are minimal. Studies indicate, Mr.

Speaker, that child restraints are extremely effective in preventing death and injury. In fact, as has been pointed out by other members, statistics reveal that proper child restraints are approximately 85 percent effective in preventing death and 65 percent effective in preventing inju

May 1, 1984 ALBERTA HANSARD 613 ries. These are startling figures and reassuring for the cause I in particular am advocating at the moment. Statistics from areas where mandatory child restraint legislation has been enacted are equally reassuring. In Tennessee, for example, where the first car legislation in North America was enacted, the child death rate decreased by 55 percent during the first two years of the program, and car-seat use increased two and a half times. There is indisputable proof, Mr. Speaker, that child restraints are effective. No parents wish to intentionally harm their children.

Yet there is growing and considerable evidence that parents in Alberta are not ensuring that their children are properly restrained while riding in motor vehicles. I think a recent survey done in Calgary indicated that over 80 percent of small children who rode in cars were not belted in. As I have mentioned, there is also evidence that education programs just aren't enough to significantly alter this occurrence. Either the fact that these programs do not reach enough people or the lack of a penalty for noncompliance — I'm not sure what the case is.

But clearly, not enough people are using seat belts or child restraint devices in their automobiles. It's become clear to me, Mr. Speaker, that some form of legislation is required before anything near the wholesale use of child restraints will be initiated. In my view, a law to enforce the restraint of small children in motor vehicles has become necessary. We have empirical evidence that death and injury to children due to motor vehicle accidents are very high in relation to other hazards that children face.

We also have proof that child restraints are effective in reducing or eliminating deaths and injuries, but our citizens are simply not utilizing them. Finally, we have data from other areas that illustrate the effectiveness of mandatory seat-belt usage. Mr. Speaker, a number of groups have been advocating the cause for child restraint legislation for some time. I would like to point out a number that have recently come to my attention. In a recent letter I received from the Alberta Association of Registered Nurses, they have adopted a resolution that says simply this.

There is a crucial need to reduce the human carnage on our highways. Not one but many factors may cause auto mobile accidents. We advocate that the specific preventive measure, seat belts, be adopted to reduce the shocking highway statistics. The Alberta Medical Association has long been on record.

The people who are on the front lines having to deal with the gruesome realities of children involved in automobile accidents have recommended for a good many years that seat-belt usage would not only reduce health care costs but in fact would do the more important aspect, and that is save the lives and the important resource of our future. There are some other aspects that I think should be entered into the debate. I do it with some caution, because one can hardly discuss the death, maiming, and disfiguring of children at the same time as discussing cost/benefits.

But if it's given that our society is at a point where it is prepared to save the lives of our youth, then certainly to enhance that argument one could say that not only is that the most important aspect but the cost/benefits involved in this kind of legislation are abso lutely overwhelming. It's clear that the total savings and ben efits from installing child restraint legislation for children under five, by enacting that measure, have been estimated by researchers through the Department of Transportation to be in excess of $5.494 million per year. Where does one get that kind of figure?

If we assume the number of lives that will be saved — and that is very easily estimated in relation to seat-belt usage and child restraint usage — if we estimate the savings in medical and rehabilitation costs, if we factor in the benefits in increased economic production that would be lost in the event of the death of a child under five, if we add some other savings and costs that have been worked out, we arrive at a total savings benefit in excess of $5 million for enacting child restraint legislation. Which brings one to another point, Mr.

Speaker, and it has to do with the ever increasing costs of health care in this prov ince and indeed throughout North America. This may not sound like it should be entered into the debate, but I believe it should. In Alberta this year, the 1984-85 budget calls for $2.8 billion to be funded towards the Department of Hospitals and Medical Care. Fifty-one percent or $1.4 billion will finance the oper ations of our hospitals. Another 24 percent or $641 million will pay for the nonhospital-related medical services of our doctors and other health care professionals. That's an astounding amount of money.

We're dealing with costs that represent about 24 to 25 percent of our overall budget, and increasing at a rate we can barely track. In fact total health care costs over the past five years have increased at a rate greater than 24 percent per year. In Alberta we spend on average $1,000 per capita in health care. That is 17 percent above the national average. When we consider those numbers in relation to the contribution of indi viduals in the health care system, in my view it's startling. The revenue from personal income tax in this province is estimated for this fiscal period to be $1.5 billion.

I just mentioned that we will spend $1.4 billion on operating costs of hospitals alone. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the stark reality of the situation is that we spend almost two times more on health care dollars than we receive in personal income tax.

Startling revelations, in my view, and I feel it is time that individuals recognize the impor tance and the need first of all to protect our most important natural resource, our children, and of course at the same time recognize some personal responsibility that is needed to be attached to the difficulty and the problem of having up to 100,000 children in the province of Alberta driving around in cars without any protection. Mr. Speaker, in conclusion I would simply say this. We are indeed very fortunate in this province to have protected our resources so well.

We have had to over the years, to ensure that our resource base continues to grow and provides the important contribution to our economy. I believe it is time that we extended at least this protection to the greatest resource we can possibly have, and that is to our children. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge that all fellow members join me in supporting this motion. MR. ANDERSON: Mr.

Speaker, it is my pleasure today to rise to participate briefly in debate on the motion before the House, briefly because I have spoken to this Legislature on several occasions with respect to my feelings on child restraint devices and because the members who preceded me made the case so well for this obviously necessary, obviously crucial, motion. The reasons for it have been laid out before those of us here today in an extremely articulate and in-depth fashion. I could perhaps add, though, my first reason for supporting the concept of child restraint devices.

That indeed is the philosophy of why government exists. It is my personal opinion that governments exist primarily and first of all to protect those who cannot protect themselves — to protect them from other people, from circum stances as is possible, and upon occasion from themselves. In this particular motion we have inherently a proposal which suggests that we carry out our responsibility to the people of Alberta to protect those people least able to deal with their own destiny, least able to make decisions for themselves, least able

614 ALBERTA HANSARD May 1, 1984 to in fact deal with the condition that many of them find them selves in after an automobile accident. For that reason alone, I feel we have to give serious consideration to immediate and quick passage of this motion. Indeed the health care costs and the benefits that could possibly accrue as a result of legislation such as this were outlined well by the Member for Red Deer. The fact that chil dren are by far the most hurt and most vulnerable in accidents has been proven emphatically. I have had the opportunity on several occasions to discuss the issue with Dr.

Lane Robson, assistant director of the children's hospital in Calgary, who talks constantly about the degree of injury that infants and children encounter as a result of automobile accidents, the fact that these could be stopped or at least minimized as a result of legislation in this regard, and that technology has evolved to the point where we can now ensure that child restraint devices cum seat belts are a benefit and not a harm.

The case has been made in past years, and rightfully so, that the technology had to evolve, because for a long period of time it was thought that child restraint devices in the form of seat belts could harm infants and children of certain sizes more than they could help. That has now been dealt with well. There are stages of seat belts that are needed to keep an infant or a child in line with their particular growth and weight struc ture. There are seat belts for those of older ages, and that's of great benefit. So I believe those arguments are well made.

I have only one point of debate with the motion before us today, and that deals with the age. There is no question that we are addressing those most harmed by talking about those under the age of six. But when we put any age in a piece of legislation, we of course beg the question: why not those who are six years old? Are they any less deserving? Are they any more able to make their own decisions? Are they any less hurt when an accident takes place? What about those of seven years old?

Even if we designate it to ages and talk about the weights and sizes, what about the 6-year-old who indeed has the body of a 4-year-old, and the reverse? Those questions are all begged by putting in place any particular age in legislation. Mr. Speaker, that leaves us with somewhat of a dilemma. Either we go with full legislation for all Albertans, regardless of age, or we find another rationale for the age that has to be included in legislation.

I personally would not support legis lation for all Albertans, even though I strongly and emphatically support the use of seat belts by all Albertans, albeit I myself am often found without one in a car, being raised without the necessity being made apparent to me. I believe governments should not place upon individuals 18 years of age and over decisions about what is best for their personal well-being. If that person takes an action that harms others, then I believe government has the right to interfere.

If it harms only them selves, then indeed, I believe that decision should be made by the individual involved. There is a question regarding that, with respect to seat-belt legislation. There are those who contend that a person not wearing a seat belt is much less capable of controlling the vehicle in an accident and therefore becomes a danger to others in many instances. I have not yet had that proven to me, Mr. Speaker. I have read a number of the reports. I have looked at some of the data.

I am not yet convinced that all of us aren't disoriented enough in an accident that the difference between wearing a seat belt for that aspect is not very great. However, should that become the case, I could be convinced of full legislation, if the research that we in fact harm others by not wearing seat belts were emphatic in that regard. But as long as it's for ourselves. I think those over 18 years of age have a right to make that decision for themselves, even if it's the wrong decision. I say over 18, because that's the age at which this Legislature has decided people become adults.

We have decided that by a number of pieces of legislation. Be it the right to drink, the right to vote, primarily, or a number of other areas, we have decided that at 18, rightly or wrongly, a person is able to make their own decision. It is for that reason that I suggest to this Assembly, as I have on occasions before, that they may wish to consider the age of 18 rather than under five, not because there is any specific development that takes place at that age that makes people less in need of seat belts than others but because we have a philosophical responsibility to protect those under that age.

We have a philosophical responsibility to protect those whom we've decided aren't yet able to make those deci sions. I believe that criterion does not leave us open to the question of why one age and not another should be in place with respect to the bodily harm that is done. So with that caveat, Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Member for Calgary Foothills on bringing forward this motion.

I believe we've now in all ways completed the research in our society that shows us that this solution is one that will relieve the pain and suffering of many individuals in our society and will stop the destruction of many others. I believe we should at least move this far, though I strongly suggest that we look further at an age that we can philosophically justify, so that we won't be back to this Legislature each year saying that next year we will initiate it for 6-year-olds and the year after that for 7-year- olds, and so on.

I suggest we start off with 18, that that be based on the philosophical argument, and that we do so for the arguments so well made by the Member for Calgary Foothills and others in this Assembly. MR. COOK: Mr. Speaker, I fully support the resolution the hon. member has brought before the House on child restraint devices. I have a very vivid memory of coming back to school after spending the Christmas holidays with my parents and riding on the Greyhound bus up to Edmonton. A small Datsun had unfortunately slipped across the median and gone into the other lane of traffic, and was hit head on.

There was a man and a woman, and a youngster in the back seat. The Greyhound bus driver and I pulled those three people out of the car, and it was a messy sight; it wasn't very pleasant at all. From about that point on, I became convinced of the need for not just child restraint devices but seat-belt use generally. That feeling was compounded about two years ago when a friend of mine was hit head on, on the Capilano freeway.

He had just come home from the Northwest Territories after two months as a Bank of Montreal manager, his first banking assign ment with that bank, and he was killed at the age of 24; just an incredible loss. Mr. Speaker, I don't think we can measure the impact of that kind of tragedy on the family, but I agree with the hon. Member for Red Deer that we can begin to measure the financial impact on society.

I know there may be some people who are highly individualistic in their philosophy and would argue — in fact I got a note from one member in the House just a little while ago, suggesting that we might go so far as to try to restrict people from smoking around children, and that might be the logical extension of this kind of argument. I don't think that's an argument that really bears serious examination, but I understand the philosophical perspective one might have in that position. I think the hon.

Member for Chinook put it best when he said that in our conduct on the road, we are regulated quite stiffly now by society. There are rules for speed; you slow down and speed up according to highway signs. You follow certain rules of the road, and you don't think anything of it; it's just the way it ought to be.

May 1, 1984 ALBERTA HANSARD 615 When you drive on the road I think it's a privilege, not a right. The Crown has conferred upon you the right to drive on the Queen's highway, and that's a privilege. When you exercise that privilege, some responsibility goes with it. So when I think back to that awful memory of the spring of early January 1976 and remember pulling the driver of the car, who survived, out of the vehicle — his wife did not. She was not belted in; she was sitting in the passenger seat. The youngster had massive injuries. I'm not even sure to this day whether the youngster survived.

It was a bitterly cold day. We had to pull those people out of the car. Just the cold alone, because we had to wait about half an hour for an ambulance, and the blood — the windshield was crashed in on two sides. It was not a very pleasant sight at all. Mr. Speaker, like the hon. Member for Calgary Currie, I know Dr. Robson, and he has lobbied me a couple of times on behalf of child restraint devices. The family physician that took care of me when I was a youngster, Dr. Crossfield of Calgary, happened across me at the Conservative annual meet ing in Calgary a little while ago.

He wanted to talk to me about the future of the Holy Cross hospital but also seat-belt legis lation. Mr. Speaker, I think we have to start asking ourselves as a society whether we can afford the ever increasing costs of medical services that are related to the style of life we have. People who drink a lot or smoke a lot or drive fast cars are asking for trouble. Unfortunately in our society, with state medicine, it's not that individual who bears the financial respon sibility for his or her actions with that kind of conduct. It is society that tries to pick up the pieces and pays for it.

With that reason in mind, I think we can argue with the people who take the individual rights argument to its logical absurdity and say that society, in bearing the costs of these accidents, of these problems, has the right to protect itself as much as is reasonable from people injuring themselves and then having society pick up the costs later. I would argue, for example, that the taxation on alcohol and tobacco should be dramatically increased again to make people think about what they are doing. Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation. It's a child restraint proposal.

It doesn't deal with the larger concept, but I think it's a good start. I think that children under five are a good place, although I would say that perhaps we should look at children under 12, adults under the age of 80 — those would all be logical extensions of this concept that I would like to see. The suffering and pain that is needless and the financial penalties that society pays all argue, I think very compellingly, for the need for seat-belt legislation of some sort, and this is a good start. The hon. member has done us all a service by bringing this proposal before the House.

I would like to see it come to a vote, and I support it. MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, I rise to participate in the debate on the motion, that the Assembly consider the desirability of legislation. I've listened to three or four, and we've had similar debates in the House. It's not often I find myself agreeing with the Member for Edmonton Glengarry, but in this case for once he made ultimate sense, and also, previously, the Member for Calgary Currie. I don't want to get us in any trouble on this motion, if we're going to pass it, so I'll be short.

What I would say is that I think we know very clearly, and we don't have to go over it one speaker after another, that most importantly, seat belts save lives. We know that seat belts save money. Most importantly, the Alberta Medical Association has been presenting very clear evidence of examples in Ontario where, if you have an accident, the average cost to medicare there is four hundred and some dollars if you're not wearing a seat belt, to two hundred and some if you are wearing a seat belt. In terms of saving money, we hear a lot of talk about medicare being very expensive.

Certainly that's one thing we've suggested before. I know the extreme argument of civil rights, that you cannot interfere with my right to kill myself, which it comes down to. I think that breaks down when we recognize that we're all paying taxes and we're all paying for the high cost of accidents. So when that person's individual freedoms start to get into our pocketbooks and into our pockets, I think that argument breaks down.

Frankly, I wish — and we've had this debate before — that the government would have gone all the way, as they have in most of the other provinces, and said that seat belts are a necessity. As the Member for Edmonton Glengarry has pointed out, we are regulated by many laws on the highways. Other provinces as right wing as this government — certainly B.C. — have seen fit to go ahead. But saying and recognizing that this is not going to happen in this House, I believe there is some chance the government may move.

I'm a little surprised it's being brought up again as a motion other than government motion, because it is my understanding — I wasn't there — that this was perfectly acceptable even at the most recent Con servative convention, if I read the newspaper reports correctly. [interjections] So I am surprised — I don't want them to get excited over there — that we are dealing with this as a motion other than government motion. I hoped we would have gone this limited way and seen it as government legislation.

I'm hoping that perhaps the hon. member is proposing the motion again to fly it by the Legislature and see if the majority of the members here support it, with the idea that it will be brought back as a government motion in the fall session. I sincerely hope that is the case. I would say to the hon. members, Mr. Speaker, that if that's the case, we would go further with it. But if that's the case, certainly you'll have no problems with the Official Oppo sition. It's one of the times we can pass legislation through this House rather quickly, if you want to bring this motion back as a government motion.

Just to go on record, Mr. Speaker, the Official Opposition of this province would go further, but we will firmly support Motion No. 210 and look forward to its coming back quickly as a government motion. MR. ZIP: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to speak on Motion 210, towards which I would like to make a couple of brief remarks. After listening to the excellent arguments made by the hon. members who spoke today on the merits of child restraint devices, there is very little left for me to say.

The only thing I would like to emphasize — and that's a very important and a very paramount consideration — is that with regard to tax payer-financed medical and hospital care, there is an onus on government to take every step possible to prevent expenditures wherever they can be made. That was very appropriately argued by the hon. Member for Edmonton Norwood. I think he brought up a very good point in this respect. Medicare costs have now soared enormously, and we should look at everything in people's life-styles that adds to medical costs.

Since by and large under the Canada Health Act it's encumbent upon the taxpayer to pay this enormous cost; then it's no longer a right or a privilege of individuals to assume — as the Member for Edmonton Glengarry so appropriately said, they no longer have the right to pursue certain injurious life-styles that are costly to the taxpayers and become a burden and a nuisance to society at large.

616 ALBERTA HANSARD May 1, 1984 Since child restraint devices in motor vehicles are proven injury preventers and, hence, health care cost savers, I can't but support this motion. As the hon. Member for Lethbridge West so eloquently stated, let us do all we can to protect the lives of our children, who cannot vote and protect themselves from injury and even death, a cost in terms of suffering and sorrow that cannot be measured. These considerations, faced objectively and honestly, have certainly changed my mind on the whole question of restraint devices. It's no longer a question of freedom of choice but of overriding responsibility to o

Document details

Collection	Alberta — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	19840501
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	L20 S2 19840501 1430 01 han.pdf
Language	en
Format	json
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	0c498ebe51421ac308b536b0d53edad100676554

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