August 19, 1986 ALBERTA HANSARD 1175 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA Title: Tuesday, August 19, 1986 2:30 p.m. [The House met at 2:30 p.m.] PRAYERS [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] head: INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today is the British consul general for the western region, Mr. John Doble. His posting was effective last November, and we welcome him here for his four-year term. I wonder if Mr. Doble would rise and receive the welcome of the House. head: INTRODUCTION OF BILLS Bill 35 Business Corporations Amendment Act, 1986 MISS McCOY: Mr.

Speaker, I request leave to introduce Bill 35, the Business Corporations Amendment Act, 1986. The purpose of this Bill is to extend the time within which a corporation can continue its existence under the new Business Corporations Act. [Leave granted; Bill 35 read a first time] Bill 32 Water Resources Commission Amendment Act, 1986 MR. KROEGER: Mr. Speaker, I request leave to introduce Bill 32, being the Water Resources Commission Amendment Act, 1986.

The key part of this Bill is that it permits us to move from three members at large to four. [Leave granted; Bill 32 read a first time] Bill 33 Naturopathy Repeal Act MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, I request leave to introduce Bill 33, being the Naturopathy Repeal Act. This Bill will repeal the Naturopathy Act and delete certain references to naturopathy in other provincial legis­ lation. [Leave granted; Bill 33 read a first time] MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, I move that Bills 32 and 33 be placed on the Order Paper under Government Bills and Orders. [Motion carried] head: TABLING RETURNS AND REPORTS MR. M. MOORE: Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to table four financial statements for the year ending March 31, 1986, for four Crown hospitals: the Alberta Hospital, Edmonton; the Alberta Hospital, Ponoka; the Alberta Children's Pro­ vincial General hospital; and the Alberta Cancer Board. MR. SHABEN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to table responses to motions for returns 145 and 155 as ordered by the Assembly and also file the answer to Question 161. head: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS MR. DAY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to introduce to you today and to the members of this Assembly Mr.

Harlan Hulleman from Red Deer North, a teacher/librarian with a long­ standing record of involvement in our community. He's here today to meet with our own legislative librarian and to survey our Legislature Library services. I'd like Mr. Hulleman to stand and receive the warm welcome of this Assembly. head: ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Budget Deficit MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct the first question to the Premier. Is the government still sticking by its budget estimates, which said that we would have roughly a $2.5 billion deficit?

Given that Bill 30 is asking for borrowing powers of up to $5.5 billion, will the government now come clean and tell us what the real deficit will be? MR. GETTY: As the hon. member knows, Mr. Speaker, that's the responsibility of the Provincial Treasurer, and I would ask him to deal with it when he returns to the House. Of course, the Bill has to progress through second reading, committee study, third reading, and then Royal Assent. The rules of the House provide for adequate discussion at that time. MR.

MARTIN: Thank you for that lecture in parliamentary democracy, but we're trying to get to some knowledge about what's going on with this government and their deficit. Mr. Speaker, my question is this: so we can knowl- edgeably debate this when Bill 30 comes through, will the Premier as head of the government suggest or, in fact, direct the Provincial Treasurer to table all revenue projections done by his department since May 8? MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, my first answer deals with this question as well. MR.

SPEAKER: The Chair respectfully points out that any further references to Bill 30 will indeed be ruled out of order. Perhaps the framer of the question could do so in another manner. MR. MARTIN: With due respect, I didn't even mention Bill 30 in that question, Mr. Speaker. But more importantly, by the nonanswers we're getting. I think it's causing Alber- tans concern.

1176 ALBERTA HANSARD August 19, 1986 Would the Premier — who I take it still runs the government, not necessarily the Treasurer — confirm that to try to deal with this tremendous shortfall that we're facing, the government is looking at, first of all, higher medicare premiums and income tax hikes for ordinary Albertans? MR. GETTY: No, I wouldn't confirm that, Mr. Speaker. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. We were told by the hon. minister that they were before, which is correct. Would the Premier try to get together with his ministers and let us know? MR. SPEAKER: The question, hon.

Leader of the Oppo­ sition. It did have a question mark at the end of it, but . . . MR. MARTIN: That was just rhetorical, Mr. Speaker. I'll try to get to the point. In view of the fact that there has been a severe drain on our provincial revenues since we signed the Western Accord, when will the provincial government start pushing for a floor price so that we can maintain some financial integrity in this province? MR. GETTY: Mr.

Speaker, first dealing with earlier com­ ments by the Leader of the Opposition, the Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care has never made the argument that we were seeking higher premiums. He mentioned that there is a possibility of even lower premiums or removing them altogether. The third option is higher. There are three of them. Coming back to the issue of the floor price, Mr. Speaker, I realize question period is running out of steam. I don't know how many times we have to deal with the same question. We have said that that is an option that's well down on our list and not one we are currently pursuing. DR.

BUCK: A supplementary question to the Premier. Is the Premier in a position to indicate if the committee that is looking at provincial finances is looking at a two-year, three-year, or four-year shortfall of revenue? Is there any kind of a scenario that the chairman of Executive Council is looking at as to when there could be a possible turnaround? MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, that question leads itself to such a discussion of options and conditions that may be facing the province in the future that I don't think question period really allows discussion of it. I would say, though, that the Bill does.

As I suggested earlier, that's an excellent time to raise that matter. MR. TAYLOR: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, also to the Premier. In facing the reality of Alberta's largest deficit ever, does the Premier plan to cut back not on people and not on programs but on the waste in the budget that the Tory government has imposed on this Legislature and the people of Alberta? MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, I don't agree with the debate part of his question at all. Not only do we work very hard to eliminate waste, we feel that members of this House should point it out as well.

I listened carefully through the estimates and did not really hear that much. As a matter of fact, I think I heard more arguments for increasing the budget rather than reducing it. MR. MARTIN: Selective hearing, they call it. Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax MR. MARTIN: My second set of questions is to the Premier. It's in regard to questions from my colleague from Edmonton Highlands yesterday, when the Premier answered that he was "convinced that the PGRT will be removed and removed soon." I believe those are the words he used. To say that, the Premier must have some commitment from the federal government.

My question is: could the Premier indicate what firm commitment he has from the federal government that would lead to his optimism? MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, if you and other members will recall, I advised the House that I believed it would be removed. I still believe that. MR. MARTIN: Do you believe in Santa Claus and the tooth fairy too? MR. SPEAKER: Thank you for the second question, Leader of the Opposition. Would the Premier care to respond to that question? All right then. Please, let's have the sup­ plementary. MR. MARTIN: Let's be consistent on both sides. MR. SPEAKER: Order.

The Chair will be entirely con­ sistent. In response to your question, would the Premier respond with regard to the tooth fairy and the other question? Let's come with a supplementary. Could we have the question? MR. MARTIN: My question is flowing from this. Has the Premier been in touch with the Prime Minister, and has he set a firm and specific date with the Prime Minister for complete removal of the PGRT? MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, we've had a variety of dis­ cussions with the federal government at a variety of levels. That leads me to my judgment and therefore to my belief that the PGRT will be removed soon. MR.

MARTIN: That's very nice, Mr. Speaker. Could the Premier tell us if he has actually spoken to the Prime Minister since Mr. Masse's announcement of last week? If not, what he is basing his confidence on? MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, I haven't spoken directly to the Prime Minister, but my source of information leads me to the judgment and the belief which I've already outlined to the House. MR. MARTIN: Isn't that interesting, Mr. Speaker. We've had a lot of discussions about the PGRT, but it's not even important enough to phone the Prime Minister. Could the Premier tell us why he hasn't taken it upon himself?

Is it not important enough that he get on the phone to Mr. Mulroney and tell him what this Legislature has told him clearly? MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, I have followed the course that I felt would give me the best information. That infor­ mation has led me to say to the House that I believe the PGRT will be removed completely and soon.

August 19, 1986 ALBERTA HANSARD 1177 DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, at the Premiers' Conference did the Premier do any negotiating or have any discussions with the Premiers of Ontario and Quebec to have them, as the primary consumers of our products, lobby to try to influence the Prime Minister to realize how important the gas and oil industry is to this province? MR. GETTY: Mr.

Speaker, I think one of the very suc­ cessful efforts during the Premiers' Conference was to discuss with all the Premiers — and certainly the Premiers of Ontario and Quebec, representing the major consuming provinces — the importance of Alberta's energy industry. I felt that for the first time there was a complete endorsement of the importance of the energy industry. Whether on a short-term, temporary basis it may provide lower prices for energy in their provinces, what they feel more important in the long run is that the industry is healthy and finding supplies for the future.

I was very pleased by the attitudes of the Premiers. I think it was a significant breakthrough. They are prepared not only to endorse it in the communiques on energy but to carry that argument to other parts of Canada, including their own voters and the federal government. MR. TAYLOR: Sympathy is very cheap. A supplementary to the Premier. What particular com­ mitments did you get from either the east or central Canada's Premiers, maybe even to the point where they would rec­ ommend a tax on their consumers to help Alberta out? MR. GETTY: Mr.

Speaker, in a meeting like the Premiers' Conference the most important thing was the realization that all Premiers agreed to a shift away from national policies that have been supporting manufacturing and indus­ trial regions, toward commodity and resource regions. That's a significant position for the Premiers of Ontario and Quebec, who represent mainly manufacturing and industrial regions, to commit to. They are prepared to carry that message to the federal government and of course to their own con­ stituents.

I think that was a significant breakthrough, as I said before, and it should be very helpful to our province in the future. Energy Industry Assistance MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, we will continue the questions on energy to the Premier in light of the increasing tragedy in this province of 30,000 to 40,000 unemployed and the Premier's hope that in spite of the fact that neither he nor his minister gets anywhere with the federal government, somehow or another the two Liberal Premiers in central Canada are going to be able to get somewhere with the federal government. It's indeed rather intriguing.

Can the Premier tell the Assembly what the industry's take-up to date has been on the inventive programs announced in the June 12, 1986, Speech from the Throne? DR. WEBBER: Mr. Speaker, with the announcement of the incentive programs, the developmental drilling program last April — as I've indicated in the House before, the deadline for that program is December 31, 1986. We anticipate a greater take-up on that program this fall. The take-up to date hasn't been what we expected. I don't have the exact numbers before me; however, we do expect a further take-up on that program during the fall.

The developmental drilling program and the well servicing programs have had a better take-up to this point, with a deadline of September 31, 1986. The well servicing program in particular has seen considerable activity but, again, it's difficult to say for sure because we won't know until the bills come in. The companies that are doing the work have to pay the contractors before they can submit their bills. So at this stage it's difficult to say. However, because of the cash flow problems of the industry, it certainly is not being taken up as well as we had hoped it would be. MR. TAYLOR: Mr.

Speaker, to the minister. I know the count might be difficult, but I suspect that if he takes off his shoes and socks, he will be able to count the number of take-ups on both hands and both feet. Nevertheless, could the minister tell the House whether he has any alternatives, any other programs that could be offered to assist the oil industry? The fact is that the other programs are just not working out, and in spite of the Premier's belief in Santa Claus, I doubt if he will get them all done by Christmas. DR. WEBBER: Mr.

Speaker, I think it's wrong for the leader of the Liberal Party to be making the conclusion that the programs haven't worked out. Let's judge that once those expiry dates come. We are assessing on an ongoing basis as to whether there should be any modifications to those programs. In terms of other steps, we've looked at a wide variety of options and proposals, and as I indicated previously, I did present a proposal to the federal minister in Calgary last Thursday.

The officials in our departments will be meeting with respect to that proposal, and subsequently I'll be meeting with the federal minister on it as well. MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, since the minister has correctly pointed out that cash flow is pretty necessary to take advantage of the plans he outlined, can he outline any other plans or initiatives under consideration to aid the cash flow to the companies, particularly the smaller companies, so that they indeed can get up to the level to take advantage of the fancy scheme he worked out earlier this year? DR. WEBBER: Obviously, Mr.

Speaker, the only way industry is going to provide activity is if their cash flow can be increased and subsequently investment takes place. The objective of the proposal I presented to the federal minister was precisely along the lines of increasing cash flow. MR. TAYLOR: A supplementary to the minister, Mr. Speaker.

In view of the fact that one of the ways of increasing the cash flow is not only getting money up for oil, it is making a favourable climate for investors to give money to the companies which they then can invest, has the government worked out any long-term stabilization plan so that the investors of this country could have some confidence in putting money into the oil business? DR. WEBBER: Mr. Speaker, each question leads me to say what I said publicly last Thursday, that the proposal we presented to the federal minister was a cash flow stabilization program. MR. PASHAK: Mr.

Speaker, given the minister's admission today that the drilling assistance program is a failure —

1178 ALBERTA HANSARD August 19, 1986 only 14 percent of the rigs are working — what is the source of the optimism he expressed, that there would be a greater take-up in this program in the fall? DR. WEBBER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Calgary Forest Lawn would love to see these programs fail. In fact, you see smiles of joy on their faces every time you see the program not being taken up. They take glory in failure. That hasn't happened. The programs are in place, companies are making their applications, some activity is taking place, and I hope there will be more.

However, the cash flow situation is a problem, as I've indicated, and we've made a presentation to the federal government. It's our intent to try to assist the industry to improve their cash flow situation. Hazardous Waste DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the hon. Minister of the Environment. On July 18 the minister committed to create a registry in order to record all toxic wastes sites. Can the minister indicate if that registry has been created? MR. KOWALSKI: Mr.

Speaker, I also recall that the day I responded to questions in the Legislature, I indicated that I would be undertaking a five-approach program that would begin in the fall of 1986. Work is being done with respect to that matter right now. We haven't kicked into it. One of the reasons I wanted it delayed to the fall is that we're also intent on asking the people of Alberta to contribute with their basis of knowledge to help us find such landfills in the province of Alberta.

We thought it would be best to kick that in when the summer holiday season is over so that we could deal with the maximum number of Albertans. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, the minister indicated that he is reviewing the joint venture agreement between Bow Valley Resources and Alberta Special Waste Management Corpo­ ration. Can the minister indicate when that final agreement will be signed? MR. KOWALSKI: Mr. Speaker, I indicated earlier that I hoped to have the joint venture agreement reviewed by the conclusion of this fall session.

I am anticipating that we will probably be here till mid-September, late September, or October, and that's the time frame I've been dealing with. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, can the minister indicate the progress of the plant? Apparently, we are supposed to be receiving some of the hazardous wastes this fall, with full operation in 1987. Can the minister indicate if that timetable is being met? MR. KOWALSKI: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any commitment to receive waste materials in Swan Hills in the fall of 1986.

It was always my understanding prior to assuming this particular position, and certainly since, that we would begin receiving such materials in the spring or early summer of 1987. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, can the minister indicate what mechanism is in place at this time to store hazardous wastes? MR. KOWALSKI: Mr. Speaker, such materials are being stored at a multitude of sites throughout the province of Alberta. Some of course have been stored in the past at the Nisku site.

Various industries and firms that have such material are currently storing them on site, and when the Swan Hills facility is operational, such goods will be moved to Swan Hills. It's also important to note that under the provisions of the legislation dealing with the Alberta Special Waste Management Corporation Act, there is a provision for firms, if they choose to establish such plants or facilities on their own industrial sites, to break down and neutralize the materials on site without having them sent to Swan Hills. MR. TAYLOR: A supplementary to the minister, Mr. Speaker.

Has the minister set out any plan on how and where and what highways will be used for transportation of hazardous waste? Will there be enough time set aside for the municipalities involved so they can make represen­ tations as to what routes will be used for hazardous waste? MR. KOWALSKI: Mr. Speaker, I think it's important to note that on any given date in the province of Alberta, the number of truck movements associated with the so-called inventory of special or hazardous wastes might be in the neighbourhood of eight to 12 per day. A movement might be from a fertilizer plant near Medicine Hat to Medicine Hat.

That would be counted as a movement. We've undertaken a study by an outside consultant with respect to all the roadways leading to Swan Hills, having them evaluated in terms of safety aspects, gradients, bridges, and number of accidents that have occurred in the past. Quite frankly, it appears that most of the roadways in northwestern Alberta are very, very safe. In terms of dealing with municipalities, that's been an ongoing matter. Just recently the city of Edmonton passed a bylaw dealing with their dangerous goods routes. City council approved it. The city of Calgary recently has. That's an ongoing system.

It's a continuous one, and it's the responsibility of municipalities on an ongoing basis. There is simply nothing new with respect to the procedure in place. MR. YOUNIE: Mr. Speaker, in the review of the joint venture agreement with Bow Valley Resource Services that was just mentioned, is the minister considering or is he willing to consider either reducing the rate of profit guar­ anteed to Bow Valley Resource Services or requiring them to increase the negligible risk that they are now taking in the venture? MR. KOWALSKI: Mr. Speaker, on numerous occasions we've discussed that matter in the Legislative Assembly.

I have responded to those questions in the past. It's also my understanding that there's a motion on the Order Paper, and I would look forward to the debate with respect to this matter when it comes up. Farm Credit Stability Program MR. FOX: Mr. Speaker, my questions are to the hon. Minister of Agriculture. They relate to recent concerns expressed about lending provisions of the farm credit stability program.

Given the fact that a large number of farmers in Alberta find it necessary to work out and supplement their income from off-farm sources, can the minister indicate to what degree these off-farm sources of income are considered as it relates to determining cash flow viability?

August 19, 1986 ALBERTA HANSARD 1179 MR. ELZINGA: Mr. Speaker, might I begin by congrat­ ulating the hon. member for being the author of the NFU news release yesterday and also indicate to him that we're gratified by the uptake of this very important program. To answer him in a very direct way as it relates to his question, that is used in its totality as it relates to one's repayment ability. Off-farm income is allowable to be calculated as it relates to repayment ability.

I know it has been a miscon­ ception conveyed by some members — and I wouldn't want to accuse anybody — but it's obviously false, because that is used in our calculations. MR. FOX: Mr. Speaker, my sources include Unifarm and submissions from individual producers, and I think the minister would like to consider those representations as well. A supplementary to the minister. What consideration has the minister given to waiving the land-as-security restrictions in cases where producers rent a major portion of the land base that they operate? MR.

ELZINGA: It has been indicated — and I'm sure the hon. member has corresponded or communicated with his banker — that repayment ability is the first criterion. In the event that one can show that the loans they are requesting can be repaid, that is the main and key criterion. In the event that security is available, it's only natural that security will be asked for. But repayment ability is the key criterion. MR. FOX: Perhaps the minister should apply himself and see that land has to be taken as security under most loans.

Would the minister consider using separate guidelines for the two types of loans; that is, the loans that are intended to help farmers who need refinancing,

schedule A and B loans, and the other types of loans which are intended to help farmers with new acquisitions,

schedule C loans? MR. ELZINGA: As I'm sure the hon. member is aware — at least he should be, because it was issued with the news release that he didn't take an opportunity to read when we first introduced this legislation but I'm sure he's had the chance to read since then — there are different criteria for those who are in the process of refinancing, as compared to those who are borrowing for new purchases. That lending criterion has been extended far beyond the traditional lending criteria of the banking institutions.

This government is assuming a portion of that guarantee so that we can extend it to the full 100 percent for refinancing present loans that are out, Mr. Speaker. MR. FOX: A supplementary to the hon. minister. Based on recent experiences farmers have had with the $200,000 limit and the no-stacking provisions, what consideration has the minister given to waiving these restrictions at least as they relate to the refinancing type of loans? MR. ELZINGA: Mr. Speaker, we acknowledge that there is a large farming population.

We also feel a strong obligation to involve as many of those farmers as we possibly can in this very worthwhile program. Because of that, as I men­ tioned to the hon. member — I'm sure this is the fourth or fifth time — we didn't feel that we should allow stacking provisions, so that we would have the broadest possible spectrum involved in our lending criteria. I must say, Mr. Speaker, that I sense a consistency here, as I did in Ottawa — I want to be careful with my words. In one moment the leader is asking us to reduce the deficit; the next moment his members are asking us to spend more.

They're speaking out of both sides of their mouths, and if that's not hypocritical, I don't what is. DR. BUCK: One thing my MP never learned in Ottawa is humility. In the minister's assessment of the $2 billion, Mr. Speaker, is he in a position to indicate what percentage of that fund he perceives being used just to refinance the present loans? How much of it will be an injection of new capital into the farming industry? MR. ELZINGA: When we introduced the program, Mr. Speaker, we indicated our initial projections.

We haven't had an opportunity to assess them to date because we wanted to make sure that the money was turned around as quickly as possible. Our projections were — we were hopeful that about 75 percent of this money would be taken up for refinancing purposes. If I could share with hon. members, as of six last night we had 1,773 requests for funding, and the average loan is in the vicinity of $150,000. We're delighted that we put a limit of $200,000. It now shows our wisdom. Individuals were saying that it should have been a great deal higher. The average loan is in the vicinity of $150,000.

Might I close by indicating to the hon. member that I'm going to take my humility lessons from him. MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, to the minister. I know he likes to leave being humble to those who have something to be humble about, but in view of his statement that the first criterion of lending is the repayment ability, it must be obvious even to the minister, who maybe doesn't do as much research as I do, that naturally the banks are going to lend to those who really don't need it, who can repay it quite easily.

In view of the huge number of applications — he's had over 1,700 — at the rate it's going, the plan will disappear in a couple of months. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Question. MR. TAYLOR: Don't be so noisy; the poor fellow is trying to hear. In view of the rate the money is disappearing, does the minister have any intention of informing the banks that they should be trying to lend first not to those that can repay it fast and don't need it but to those that need it and then, if there are funds left over, to those that don't need it so that they can speculate and do what they like? MR. ELZINGA: Mr.

Speaker, if the hon. member is aware of any farmers that don't need financing. I hope that he would point them out to me. The farming sector is in difficulty right now, even if the hon. member isn't willing to acknowledge it. That's why we've introduced this very substantial program. As I've indicated on a number of occasions, the lending criteria, because of our government guarantees, have been extended beyond the traditional lending guarantees. I must say, Mr. Speaker, that I find it rather ironical.

In one breath the hon. member indicates that the program is no good, and in the next breath he's saying that we're going to run out of money because it is such a good program. I wish the hon. member would make up his mind. MR. HYLAND: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. I wonder if the minister would assure the Assembly that they

1180 ALBERTA HANSARD August 19, 1986 won't change the rules for new financing. There are people who have saved their money and haven't bid on land because they couldn't afford it, and now they may be in that position. I hope they won't change the guidelines and penalize them at this stage of the game. MR. ELZINGA: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Cypress- Redcliff has touched on a very key point, and that's why we attempted to develop such a fine line in establishing this program. We believe we have done so. Money will be available for new purchases.

Again, the lending criteria have not been extended quite as far for them as they were for those who are in financial difficulty and who will use this for refinancing, but we didn't feel that we should deprive any of our agricultural sector of this worthwhile program. Natural Gas Deregulation MR. CHUMIR: Mr. Speaker, a question to the hon. Minister of Energy. Last night the minister advised the House that the oil and gas industry had expressed concern to the minister that the federal government is tying removal of the PGRT to deregulation of natural gas on November 1.

It's very disturbing that the Minister of Energy appears to have received the impression from last week's discussions with Mr. Masse that the two were not tied together even though Mr. Masse referred to a linkage in his earlier speech. What is the truth? Is Mr. Masse tying removal of the PGRT to gas deregulation on November 1 or isn't he? Or doesn't the minister know the answer to this fundamental question? DR. WEBBER: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member can't accept my answer of yesterday, maybe he should ask Mr. Masse. MR. CHUMIR: That's very comforting to the industry, I'm sure. Mr.

Speaker, does the government have firm conditions that it will insist upon before gas deregulation does take place on November 1, or is the government's position as mushy as it appears to this House? DR. WEBBER: Mr. Speaker, we dealt with a two and three-quarter hour session last night on gas deregulation. The hon. member raised points, and we had a discussion on it. He's asking the same thing all over again, but that's fair enough. In terms of gas deregulation, as I've indicated over and over again, we will be trying to achieve the date of November 1 for total deregulation.

However, a number of concerns have been raised by the industry, and they are important concerns. We will be addressing those concerns with the other two provinces that were involved with the agreement and the federal government. I have had discussions with Mr. Masse on the topic, as I've already indicated, and the industry is making their position known to the federal government as well. We will be trying to work together to remove those obstacles so that we can proceed on that particular date. MR. CHUMIR: Mr.

Speaker, can the minister tell this House how many hundreds of millions of dollars it estimates gas deregulation will cost the industry in Alberta over the next year, or is this something else the government hasn't thought about? DR. WEBBER: First of all, Mr. Speaker, it's a hypothetical question. I don't think the hon. member can assume that it's going to cost the industry extra dollars in the next year. As I indicated, we are addressing the concerns of the industry. Hopefully we will be able to achieve deregulation by that particular date. We will be working toward it. MR.

SPEAKER: Further lines of questions on this topic are ruled out of order because they can indeed be raised when it comes to Committee of the Whole with respect to that particular Bill. The Chair recognizes the Member for St. Albert. [inter­ jections] AN HON. MEMBER: Order. MR. SPEAKER: Thank you. The Chair recognizes the Member for St. Albert. MR. MARTIN: On a point of order. MR. SPEAKER: Your point of order is? MR. MARTIN: Could the Chair be a little clearer on that ruling? That's a new one to me. Pretty soon we won't have anything left. MR. SPEAKER: I doubt that. AN HON. MEMBER: A point of order. MR.

SPEAKER: Thank you very much, but the Chair will recognize the Member for Calgary Buffalo first. MR. CHUMIR: Point of order on that, Mr. Speaker. That philosophy could be used to preclude questioning on any topic that might be considered to arise in future. This is certainly a matter of urgent importance to the public at this point of time, and the House is entitled to an answer. MR. SPEAKER: The Chair is somewhat concerned to learn that the matter — what urgency developed overnight, from the line of questioning that went on at some considerable length of time last evening? MR. CHUMIR: The urgency, Mr.

Speaker, is that the industry is now expressing concern and has indicated to the government that there is a problem. The government appears to be unaware of that. MR. TAYLOR: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. The federal minister said just yesterday that the PGRT is not going to go unless gas is deregulated, obviously tying the two together, obviously expecting lower gas prices. We ask the government how much lower, and they hide behind the skirts of some possible legislation down the road. MR. SPEAKER: Final supplementary on this issue. The Chair has listened carefully and is carefully listening again. MR.

CHUMIR: In fact, this will be a slight deviation from the line, Mr. Speaker, by accident but certainly not intent. I wonder whether the minister might let the House in on the secret as to exactly what is the nature or the general tenor of the stabilization plan which has been presented to Mr. Masse with respect to the industry.

August 19, 1986 ALBERTA HANSARD 1181 DR. WEBBER: Not at this time, Mr. Speaker. MR. PASHAK: To the Minister of Energy. What steps is the government going to take to ensure that small gas producers in Alberta aren't going to be displaced by down­ stream users buying up production facilities here in Alberta? DR. WEBBER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raised a number of issues last night that were totally irrelevant to the point of discussion and today raises one relatively small point among a number of concerns raised by the industry.

As I pointed out earlier, we are reviewing all the concerns of the industry, working with them, and will be making a decision down the road as to whether or not we will be going with the November 1 date or not. Labour Legislation Review MR. STRONG: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Labour I'll direct my question to the Premier. My concern is with the Labour Legislation Review Committee recently announced by the Minister of Labour.

As the Premier and this Assembly are aware, the review committee consisted of three members from organized labour, three members from the general public, and three members from manage­ ment, with the minister to chair that review committee. Given the resignation of two of the three labour represen­ tatives on this government's labour law review committee, what review is the Premier going to do of the advisability of striking such a committee without consulting the Building Trades Council or the Alberta Federation of Labour? MR. GETTY: Mr.

Speaker, the Minister of Labour is responsible for this matter, and I'm sure he will be happy to discuss it in the House when he returns shortly. MR. STRONG: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I hate to belabour this, but in striking this committee, did the government give no consideration to the tenuous position all labour representatives were placed in in the absence of consultation with these two organizations, or did this government simply not care? MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, my original answer applies to this question as well. MR. STRONG: Mr. Speaker, I really get off on these nonanswers. A supplementary.

Will the Premier now direct the minister to abandon this process and establish instead an all-party committee of legislators to review labour legislation as it currently exists in the province of Alberta? MR. GETTY: No, Mr. Speaker. MR. STRONG: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Since the Premier rejects in his nonanswer that it's the role of legislators to review the province's legislation, will he at least direct the minister to replace the resigning members on this committee with individuals nominated or elected by the Alberta Federation of Labour or the Building Trades Council? MR. GETTY: Mr.

Speaker, that is a matter the hon. Minister of Labour would want to deal with when he returns to the House. MR. DAY: A supplementary. Has the Premier received any information either directly or indirectly that others in this province who are involved in positions of authority within the labour movement have already expressed a desire to fill the vacancies on that committee created by the pressure applied by the card-carrying Communist president of the Alberta Federation of Labour? [interjections] MR. GETTY: Mr.

Speaker, I have been advised of a number of people in organized labour in this province who would very much like to serve on that labour review panel. MR. TAYLOR: This question is to the Premier also. Is the Alberta liquor board's court action against a legally striking union an indication that this government advocates resolution of labour disputes through the courts rather than through fair and equitable labour legislation? MR. ROSTAD: Mr.

Speaker, as the minister responsible for the liquor board, I'd like to point out to the hon. leader of the Liberal Party that when the matter is before the courts, it's not proper to discuss it. Care of the Elderly REV. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, during the Department of Community and Occupational Health's budget estimates the minister spoke about the improved health promotion pro­ grams at the community level.

However, recent information from the Edmonton Board of Health indicates that among the presumed well elderly in our community, over the last three years in Edmonton alone 10 elderly people have died of malnutrition in their own homes while 23 have committed suicide. What plans does the minister have for a special designation of funding amounts specifically for health pro­ motion programs for the well elderly? MR. DINNING: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the representation by the hon. member and quite frankly was not aware of those deplorable statistics.

There is no doubt about the fact that it causes me and my colleagues a great deal of concern. As for health promotion education, that kind of activity is carried out both within our department, Community and Occupational Health, and the department of my colleague the Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care as well as through the Edmonton Board of Health, which receives a good portion of its funding through our departmental budget. I appreciate the representation, and it's something I'll take up with my colleagues in the days ahead. REV. ROBERTS: Mr.

Speaker, what mandate has the minister given to the regional medical officers of health for illness prevention and health promotion programs for the elderly through a variety of means, including better education of public health nurses and private health doctors vis-a-vis good health in the aging process? MR. DINNING: Mr.

Speaker, one thing I failed to mention in my first answer is that the home care program, which is funded to the tune of some $33 million in this year's budget, as well as a number of others within the budget, provides the necessary care, as best as we possibly can within limited resources, to keep our elderly people who can stay in their homes there so they are not forced to go into a costly institution. They stay with their family, friends, and neighbours in an environment that's familiar and com­

1182 ALBERTA HANSARD August 19, 1986 fortable to them. That's a major initiative by this government, something we're very proud of, promoting our intentions of keeping, assisting, and aiding the welfare of those well elderly. MR. SPEAKER: The time for question period has expired. Might we finish this set of questions? Do we have agreement? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. REV. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, that does not at all answer my question. Home care is for the frail elderly; I'm speaking about the well elderly.

Does the minister intend to provide additional funding for the five new nursing positions that Edmonton health officials maintain are essential for effectively co-ordinating and delivering illness prevention among the well elderly in Edmonton alone? MR. DINNING: Mr. Speaker, I'm not aware of the details of the Edmonton Board of Health submission for this year or for 1987-88, but that submission as well as submissions by the other 26 health units around the province will be carefully looked at, as all others have been.

It would be my hope to provide the best service possible within the resources we have within the department. REV. ROBERTS: Is the minister aware of any studies that have been done on the degree of costly institutionalization of our elderly or the unnecessary and tragic deaths occurring among the elderly? If not, will he commission such a study to determine the extent of these tragic problems province- wide? MR. DINNING: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I'm aware of those studies. It is an ongoing study within our department.

I believe that the philosophy, intention, and basic purpose behind home care and the provision of that service within the community is something we should be moving more and more toward because it is a more effective way of delivering health care and it's certainly a more cost effective way of delivering health care. MR. HYLAND: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.

Would the minister review with the same thoughts in mind the budgets of the 25 or 27 health units in this province other than the city of Edmonton — because there are parts of this province that face the same problems — and review with them their requests for educational things in their budgets dealing with this subject? MR. DINNING: Most definitely, Mr. Speaker. We are now receiving submissions, as I say, from all 27 health units for the 1987-88 fiscal year. I'm certainly a strong advocate of health education and promotion not just in the city of Edmonton but throughout the entire province. MR.

TAYLOR: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the minister. Would he extend the study about the issues of malnutrition and the shortage of funds of the Edmonton well elderly that he says he is going to do to the rest of the province while he is at it? MR. DINNING: Mr. Speaker, I can't say I made the commitment the hon. member has suggested. I can tell the hon. member that that is an ongoing review by our depart­ ment as well as by the 27 health units around the province. MR. STRONG: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Which is? MR. STRONG: Mr.

Speaker, my point of order is that during question period the Member for Red Deer North made some reference to a card-packing commie. Is that almost as bad as a card-packing PC? I don't think that deserves any place in this . . . MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I know the sound system here has its deficiencies. Perhaps you did not hear, but the Chair called the member to order at the time it occurred. MR. STRONG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Job-finding Centres MR.

SPEAKER: The Minister of Social Services wishes to give supplementary information from a previous question period to an issue that was raised by the Member for Edmonton Calder. MRS. OSTERMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday I received procedural questions respecting the five job-finding centres being funded by Alberta Social Services. As a preface I would like to stress again that these are pilot projects, experiments if you will, and I have committed to report to the Legislature early in 1987.

I also committed to get some detail on the arrangements between centres and the department in terms of recruiting clientele. Each job-finding centre is guaranteed payment for a minimum number of clients; that is, 30 per class. There are no quotas given to income security workers. The other area, Mr. Speaker, that I think was raised related to whether clients could take programs at another centre. Staff does not recall any client making representation to retake a program at another centre.

Further, the job- finding centres do continue to provide services to those people who have taken their programs and offer adminis­ trative support. MS MJOLSNESS: Mr. Speaker, can the minister then assure the Assembly that it is strictly the social allowance recipient's choice to be involved in the job-finding centres? MRS. OSTERMAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker. ORDERS OF THE DAY MR. SPEAKER: Might we revert briefly to the Introduction of Special Guests? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. head: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS (reversion) MS LAING: Mr.

Speaker, it is my pleasure today to introduce to you, and through you to the members of this Assembly, several special visitors: Patricia Hartnagel and Colin Park, representing Project Plowshares; Julie Ann

August 19, 1986 ALBERTA HANSARD 1183 LeGras, representing the Alberta Status of Women Action Council; Tom Monto and Bob Nichol, representing the New Democrat antiwar committee; Terry Matwichuk, representing the New Democrat women's section; and Juliette Trudeau, representing Voice of Women. I would ask that this Assem­ bly accord them our warm welcome. MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, I move that the written questions and motions for returns on the Order Paper today stand. [Motion carried] head: MOTIONS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT MOTIONS 216. Moved by Ms Laing:

Be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly acknowledge and endorse the declaration by the United Nations of 1986 as the International Year of Peace; and be it further resolved that the Legislative Assembly encourage all Albertans to participate as best suits them in activities and undertakings having as their goal the achievement of peace; and be it further resolved that the Legislative Assembly urge the government of Alberta to encourage the government of Canada, wherever possible, to advance forcefully and con­ sistently an international policy in favour of the achievement of peace around the world.

MS LAING: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring to this Assembly Motion 216. This motion addresses the central and crucial issue that faces all peoples of the world. It is a motion wide in scope that asks us to recognize the worldwide search for peace and encourages all people to participate in a meaningful way in working toward worldwide peace. We would ask that they express their commitment to peace through whatever gestures or activities may be meaningful to them.

For this reason I present a motion urging the government of Alberta to recognize the Inter­ national Year of Peace and to encourage citizens of this province to participate in activities that have as their goal the achievement of international peace and to urge our federal government to do likewise. In 1982 the United Nations passed a resolution designating 1986 as the International Year of Peace, and on October 24, 1985, 1986 was so proclaimed.

In April 1985 the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba voted unanimously to declare the province a nuclear-free zone, and on July 10, 1985, the government of the province of Quebec approved in principle governmental participation in International Year of Peace activities. Other communities in Canada will also participate in such activities. The city of Toronto has established an International Year of Peace committee with a $50,000 budget. One project, the peal for peace, is being organized for September 16. At noon of that day there will be one moment's silence, followed by the pealing of the bells.

The quest for world peace unites all the peoples of the world. You may well ask: what is this peace for which we all work and that we all seek? Peace is more than the absence of tension and war.

The United Nations proclamation sets out the multidimensional nature of peace, which includes the removal of the threats to peace, including the nuclear threat, respect for the principle of nonuse of force, devel­ opment and promotion of human rights and fundamental freedoms, decolonization, elimination of the racial discrim­ ination of apartheid, enhancing the quality of life, satisfaction of human needs, and protection of the environment. From this we can see that peace is the presence of justice — social, economic, and political justice for all the peoples of the world.

It requires that we recognize that all people have the right to adequate food, clothing, shelter, education, and medical care, that all are protected from pollution, and that all are to be freed from the threat of nuclear holocaust. It also recognizes that no people will be exploited for the economic or political advantage of another people. Such is our vision of peace. But such a vision of peace is not easily achieved, and too often, in our preoc­ cupation with war and the arms race, we are blinded to other human concerns. Yet there can be no lasting peace without justice for all the peoples of the world.

Our desire for peace joins us. However, not only are we united in our desire for peace, we are united in our fear for the future, fear for the world that our children and grandchildren will inherit, fear that the world as we know it will no longer exist, indeed fear that the earth will no longer exist. But even as our fear unites us, our beliefs as to what methods are to be used to achieve peace divide us. This fear of which I have spoken takes two forms and further divides us. There are those who fear the loss of freedom and of our political, economic, and social way of life.

For the most part, people who have this fear fear the Soviet Union. They fear Russian aggression and the imposition of the Communist way of life. They tend to believe that we must protect ourselves from armed aggression through the building of strong defence systems. Many believe that mem­ bers of the peace movement will seek peace at any political price, that they will sacrifice freedom for survival. Often they characterize the peaceniks as cowards who are afraid to defend our way of life.

On the other side there are people who fear destruction of the earth, who fear that the earth will be blown to pieces either by accident or through human or computer failure. Certainly all of us know that machines wear out, and international observers can observe how many close calls there have been due to computer malfunctions or how as human beings we all make mistakes. Members of the peace movement also fear the proliferation of nuclear arms.

They fear that nuclear weapons will fall into the hands of leaders such as the Ayatollah Khomeini or Muammar Qaddafi and that these weapons will be used in a fit of temper. Many believe that the defence-oriented movement will lead the world down the path to nuclear annihilation, that the defence-oriented believe it is better to be dead than to be red. In many cases these fears, however they are manifest, have taken the form of terror as we confront our feelings of vulnerability, powerlessness, despair, and hopelessness. Too often, to ward off these feelings, the fear is transformed into anger and hate.

Such is the basis, I believe, of much anti-Americanism. It is founded on fear that the Americans will not respect political sovereignty — Chile, Nicaragua, and Grenada are held up as examples — and fear that the Americans will put their interests before those of their allies and neighbours. Many Europeans fear this. The imposition of countervailing duties and the subsidization of farmers for wheat sales to Russia have shaken the confidence of many Canadians, and there is fear that the Americans will act irrationally. Certainly statements such as Reagan's, that Russia is an evil empire, escalate that fear.

In the same way anti-Soviet feelings arise. Fear of aggression as was seen in Russia's invasion of Hungary

1184 ALBERTA HANSARD August 19, 1986 and Afghanistan, fear of the imposition of political will and the destruction of freedom in sovereign nations such as has happened in Poland, fear that Gorbachev is a master manip­ ulator of world opinion with his pronouncements about a moratorium on testing: thus do the superpowers hold the rest of the world hostage. Most of us have some fear of both, even if we do align ourselves with one or the other. We are afraid because of how they, the leaders of the superpowers, respond to their fear. They respond by attempting to increase the fear and insecurity in the other leaders.

They respond by transforming their fear into hate and paranoia, and through hate transform the peoples they fear into the other, the enemy, and in so doing rob those people of their humanity. These enemies are seen as other than human beings who are born into a self-conscious life, other than human beings who, in the same way that we do, dream and love, marry and have children and, after having lived, die hoping that the world is a better place for their children than it was for them. Our leaders fail to see that their so-called enemies feel sorrow and joy as we do.

Thus they dehumanize them and create them as the enemy for us; thus we can with our leaders plan horrible consequences for those others because of the error of their ways and because we believe they are planning similar fates for us. The military people, the armaments people, work to instill in those people, the enemy, such fear that they will be afraid to act. Such is the philosophy of MAD, mutually assured destruction. But what happens when people are afraid?

They build bigger and bigger defence and even offence systems with all the inherent dangers that I mentioned earlier, and thus we have an ever-spiralling escalation of the arms race. Where might it all end? In conventional war? Not likely, if one side is losing. [Mr. Gogo in the Chair] Total nuclear war — we certainly know what that can mean — or limited nuclear war, if such a war is possible, which I do not believe, will result in a nuclear winter which will put in jeopardy all life on earth.

Even a limited war will fill the atmosphere with radioactive particles, and we know from the Chernobyl accident how vulnerable we all are to radioactive fallout. It is said that the living will envy the dead. Thus, we live in fear. But the peoples of the world pay in other ways. Dwight Eisenhower said in 1953: Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. The world is not spending money on arms alone.

It is spending the sweat of its labourers, the genius of its scientists, and the houses of its children. In the United States 30 to 50 percent of scientists and engineers are in military focussed programs, and 50 to 70 percent of research and development budgets are focussed on armaments and military spending, developing high technology that has little relevance for everyday life. In 1986 the world military budget equalled $1 trillion. That is $2 million per minute, and every minute 30 children die from malnutrition or lack of access to basic medical attention.

Just seven months' worth of world military spending would be enough to pay for supplying clean water and adequate sanitation to two billion people, the 40 percent of the world's population who now lack these bare essentials. If $25 billion per year, approximately 2 percent of this year's arms budget, were put into agricultural development for the next 15 years, the world's food problems would be solved. The $1 billion cost of one nuclear submarine equipped with missiles is equal to the combined annual education budgets of 28 developing countries with 160 million children.

For the price of one Pershing II missile, one million children could be immunized against preventable communicable diseases. Scientists also note the cost in terms of environmental pollution: contaminated water, acid rain, the buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, as well as the loss of topsoil and ozone depletion. Such factors, unchecked, place the future of life on this earth in jeopardy. However, we often close our eyes to suffering at a distance in other parts of the world, and we ignore the warnings of our scientists about the fragility of our ecosystem.

Here in our province in this city of Edmonton, we hear of another price being paid by our children, a price being paid by children around the world in the United States, Russia, Japan, and Sweden. In 1975 in the U.S. 22 percent of high school children feared that nuclear war or biological annihilation would be the fate of humankind in their lifetime; 35 percent thought so in 1983. About 30 percent of Canadian children think daily or weekly about nuclear war, mostly with fear and anxiety. In Edmonton 33 percent of adolescents say that their plans of marriage and having children are influenced by the threat of war.

The possibility of war was the leading concern listed in their responses to the question: which three things do you worry about most? Twenty-nine percent said that chances were high or very high that nuclear war will occur in their lifetime. It is all summed up in a statement made to me by one of my children: "Why would anyone want to have babies when there is no future for them?" Research shows that the most worried children are the better adjusted children, the ones who have higher grade point averages and more mature relationships.

They are the children most perceptive and most interested in life, and these are the children most robbed of a sense of future, of a sense of the continuation of life. These children, as do many peoples of the world, feel as if they are helpless witnesses to the destruction of their future, helpless victims of the arms race. The time has come for all of us to act to face this wall of fear that divides and immobilizes us. This motion before you today encourages you and all Albertans to work for peace in whatever ways are right for you. The work for peace can take many forms.

People could write to Reagan and Gorbachev and demand that they resume negotiations in regard to test-ban treaties and bilateral disarmament. People could wear a pin that symbolizes peace. They could write a letter to Prime Minister Brian Mulroney in regard to the visiting of our harbours by U.S. warships carrying nuclear-capable missiles such as the ASROC, seeking assur­ ance and confirmation that the ships are not carrying nuclear missiles. They could be involved with organizations con­ cerned with human rights violations or with organizations that work to educate or aid Third World countries in other ways.

They could just start discussion groups with other people to talk about their fear, their despair, and how they can take action to overcome their feelings of powerlessness, for it is acting, taking unto ourselves the power to direct the course of our lives and ultimately the course of human survival, that takes away from the despair we feel. We could put bumper stickers on our cars. We could approach municipal governments to have local districts declared nuclear- free zones.

August 19, 1986 ALBERTA HANSARD 1185 We could ask for and become involved in education for peace, education that opens students up to the oneness, the interconnectedness, of life and of all people, of our shared humanity and thus to tolerance and understanding and a quest for justice for all people. Through such education we would foster peace through the discovery of new ways of viewing the world and new ways of solving world problems through communication instead of confrontation and force. Recognition would come that security today demands social and economic development and justice.

We share a world, and we will share in its fate. We must recognize the sacredness, the beauty, and the fragility of our world. It is said that when the astronauts first viewed the world from space, they were struck with wonder of the heart. I believe many of us are struck with wonder in the same way when we first see our newborn child. Life is indeed a miracle. We must act to protect and preserve all life, and then we will have peace. I ask through this motion that we and all Albertans commit ourselves to peace, to life. Thank you. MR. DAY: Mr.

Speaker, I rise to address this motion today and concur with the member opposite that I would hope there would be a desire for peace in the hearts of every person here in this Assembly and in this province. I'd like to comment that matters of peace and defence as well as Canada's dealings with other governments and international government organizations like the UN fall into the domain of the federal government. However, that does not excuse our responsibility for voicing our concerns in this area.

I think it would be instructive for us to ask ourselves: has this country and has this province commenced initiatives in the area of peace, and are there ongoing initiatives even sponsored by this province and this government? We know that since the end of World War II, Canada has been instrumental in the forming of international organ­ izations and policies designed to preserve peace and promote disarmament. The Canadian government had considerable impact on the formation of the UN in 1945; we know that.

Out of this self-defined role Canada made, through the UN, considerable contributions to the restoration and preservation of peace around the world by pioneering the task of peace­ keeping. Canada has provided manpower and financial resources to peacekeeping forces in the Middle East, Cyprus, India, and Pakistan, just to name a few. One of the unfortunate outcomes of World War II was the polarization of international politics between east and west and, corresponding with and subsequent to that, the rapid increase of the nuclear threat.

Because of her political allegiances and strategic geographic position, it was natural and necessary for Canada to join alliances which were formed in response to these developments. Canada does have an ongoing commitment to NORAD and NATO and fully accepts responsibility to maintain the effectiveness of these alliances. Canada does contribute to the deployment of NATO troops in Europe and provides training facilities for NATO troops within Canada.

The Canadian government has also renewed its commitment to active participation in disarmament efforts, expressing concerns about the arms race and calling for arms reductions. In the speech given by the Rt. Hon. Joe Clark, federal minister of External Affairs, to the UN on September 25, 1984, that particular concern about disarmament was specifically expressed. In terms of Alberta as a province, again, we look at the Constitution Act of 1867, which defines foreign affairs as a prerogative of the federal government.

On the other hand, nowhere in the Constitution Act are the provinces clearly excluded from dealings with foreign countries. So the province of Alberta has undertaken a variety of inter­ national activities which not only are beneficial for Alberta but, it can be argued, also make a valuable contribution to the preservation of world peace without interfering in matters of federal jurisdiction. These activities are geared primarily toward the creation and improvement of economic and cultural ties with foreign countries.

As we know, the province maintains Alberta offices in New York, Houston, Los Ange­ les, London, Hong Kong, and Tokyo. The mandate of these offices is to raise Alberta's profile in economic and other areas. Foreign investment in Alberta is encouraged and trade opportunities explored, and this mutual understanding between Albertans and many foreigners is enhanced through the promotion of tourism. In the context of international peace and understanding, the Alberta offices in Tokyo and Hong Kong also deserve mention as their activities, among others, are geared toward the People's Republic of China.

Another important facet of Alberta's foreign relations is the friendly ties which the provincial government has estab­ lished with its provincial counterparts in Hokkaido, Japan; Kangwon, Korea; and as recently as 1981, the province of Heilongjiang in the People's Republic of China. We believe that this type of understanding engendered between provinces has spawned great mutual interest between the citizens of those provinces to get to know each other better. Alberta has also hosted a Chinese trade show, many cultural exchanges have taken place, and some schools have been twinned.

An important facet of international relations which has an impact on the level of peace and conflict worldwide is the question of development aid. Alberta has traditionally made efforts to aid in the development of foreign economies through the Alberta Agency for International Development. This agency's commitment to development is considerable. In 1984 and '85 alone 83 nongovernmental organizations received close to $10 million for 469 projects in over 90 countries in Asia, Africa, and the Americas. I would suggest that these peace initiatives of this province are significant.

As far as Alberta and the topic of national defence, the involvement of the provincial government is limited to ensuring that the danger of damage to the lives of Albertans be reduced to the lowest possible level. On matters of political principles cabinet ministers and private government members have repeatedly stated that they strongly oppose the use of nuclear weapons. They've also maintained that nuclear weapons and the principle of deterrence are political facts which have to be dealt with in a realistic manner. This includes Alberta's and Canada's commitment to western defence alliances.

Again, our commitment is to ensure that the danger of damage to the lives of Albertans be reduced to the lowest possible level. If we could use an analogy, I'd like you to picture yourself living in a home in a neighbourhood. In that neighbourhood I'd like you to picture a bully, a bully who breaks into other homes in the neighbourhood, a bully who terrorizes the people in those homes, and a bully who goes relatively unrestricted in his bullying.

Were you to live in that particular neighbourhood, observe that sociological fact happening and look around and realize that nobody in the neighbourhood seemed to be forcibly bringing that bully to a halt, you would eventually come to the conclusion that to protect your family and your children you would have to do something to defend yourself. You would make it known to the bully that you were defending your home.

1186 ALBERTA HANSARD August 19, 1986 Were the bully to make advances on your home, you would not roll over and sit there peaceably and tell him to come in, knowing his history of past bullying. You would make it very clear — first diplomatically and then forcibly, I would think — that you were not going to have your home invaded by such a bully. I suggest that on the world and international scene, there are such bullies in the form of countries. Let's now put ourselves in the global neighbourhood.

We have seen — I know we can name others, but we'll use the Soviet Union as an example of a country which since its inception has declared that violent revolution and uprising will be one of the means by which it accomplishes its goals. It has never retracted those goals. Even with its present leader there has been no retraction to date. In the Thirties we saw an estimated 5 million in the country of the Ukraine system­ atically starved to death.

We have seen invasions into Afghanistan; we have seen the influences in Angola and other parts of Africa; we have seen the influence, the bullying, and the terrorism that goes on in central America. I'm not saying that no other countries are involved in this; I'm just using one, the Soviet Union, as an example of an international neighbourhood bully. We as a province and as government members are willing and proud to say that we love our families, our children, and this province.

We will do what we can, first diplo­ matically and then along defence lines, to let such bullies know that they will not be able to come into our homes and bully. Because of that we are involved in certain initiatives along defence lines, at the same time declaring that we oppose the use of nuclear weapons and that we ourselves do not maintain nuclear weapons. I think we need to come to grips with this reality in terms of what peace initiatives are all about. We can look at Alberta personalities who have been involved with the peace and disarmament issues.

We can go back as far as the '30s and look at the late Chester Ronning from Camrose. [applause] Yes, he's worthy of recognition. He served as an Alberta MLA from 1932 to '35, for many years served as charge d'affaires in China, and was a special peace negotiator in Vietnam in the '60s. That's one of our Albertans. Douglas Roche, who was a Member of Parliament for Edmonton South, also has a longstanding involvement with peace issues.

He's on the board of directors of the World Conference on Religion and Peace, is the international chairman of Parliamentarians for World Order, and was also appointed Canada's ambas­ sador for disarmament by the federal government — another Albertan. Last but certainly not least — at least some would argue not least — the Member of Parliament for Yellowhead, the Rt. Hon. Joe Clark, should be mentioned.

He is presently the Secretary of State for External Affairs and has on many occasions promoted the importance of the UN to the world community and the Canadian government's commitment to peace and an end to the nuclear buildup. So we see many examples of initiation from this province, both individually and collectively as a province.

One part of the motion that could be seen as controversial is the last section, which urges the government to encourage all Albertans "to participate as best suits them in activities and undertakings having as their goal the achievement of peace." I respectfully suggest to the member opposite that this wording might imply that the Assembly would encourage activities which would run counter to Alberta's and Canada's commitments to the western alliances and that the Assembly might condone potentially unlawful behaviour like civil disobedience, as some groups may feel that that would be the best way to show their peace initiatives.

On the other side of that, we might see groups — many Albertans feel strongly that to establish peace we actually need more nuclear weapons. Many Albertans actually feel that. I'm not saying I share that feeling, but we could be encouraging those groups to come out almost confronta- tionally with other groups who would be on the other side of the issue. We could be encouraging actual confrontation between groups in terms of their various ideas on what should be done for peace.

Many people in this province feel that our gun laws are far too restrictive, that we should all have guns and that would be a deterrent for peace. By telling people to take

part in the activities which they feel would best promote their goals of peace, we would not want to be caught in the position of condoning or encouraging something that runs counter to either civil law or the present government position. Through its action on many fronts, Alberta has con­ sistently shown that it supports world peace and greater understanding between nations. I've numbered several of those. As such, while there has been no formal endorsement of 1986 as the International Year of Peace, the actions of the Alberta government have been consistent with this goal.

I would speak to this motion by saying I have some concerns with it on things that it might arouse us to do. At the same time, I would say to the member that I do support the principle of peace and supporting peace initi­ atives. Thank you. MS BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I think my comments will take even less than four minutes.

I rise to speak in favour of this motion, particularly the third paragraph, which urges us to operate not particularly on the basis of prejudice and assumptions but rather asks that we petition the federal government to represent Albertans by advancing forcefully and consistently an international policy in favour of the achievement of peace around the world. To that end, Mr.

Speaker, I would like to table copies of two postcards which I think may serve as reminders to all members in the Assembly of the sort of money, the sorts of jobs, and the sorts of priorities that we squander in the name of creating and perpetuating war, particularly as our society enters a very technologically advanced stage in the development of history. I'd like to read exactly what these postcards say. They're about four years old, and they're from Britain.

One says: The money required to provide adequate food, water, education, health and housing for everyone in the world has been estimated at $17 billion a year. It is a huge sum of money . . . about as much as the world spends on arms every two weeks. The other categorizes jobs generated by spending $1 billion: military, 76,000; transport, 92,000; construction, 100,000; health, 139,000; education, 187,000. Admittedly, the actual dollars here do not reflect inflation over the last few years.

Nonetheless, the general relationship between the figures stands and I think will serve as a reminder to all members how important it is that we keep our priorities right in defending this motion. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. ALGER: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to participate in the debate on Motion 216. The resolutions put forward in this motion by the Member for Edmonton Avonmore are

August 19, 1986 ALBERTA HANSARD 1187 timely ones which I have found to be quite thought pro­ voking. I can't find much to disagree with in this motion in principle, and I doubt that anyone would. I'm sure everyone hopes for the achievement and maintenance of peace throughout the world. I agree that everyone should be encouraged and be able to participate in activities in the pursuit of peace, provided that these activities are within the confines of the law. We are indeed most privileged to be living in a society whose foundations are democratic ones which support the notion of freedom of thought and expression.

A price had to be paid for this freedom, Mr. Speaker. Many people lost their lives fighting for our freedom in the last world wars. I for one and indeed a lot of you knew some of the people who died in the Second World War, and I guess a lot of us had many relatives who passed away in the First World War as a direct result of the conflict. They sacrificed their lives so we could have the freedom we enjoy today. Mr.

Speaker, I believe that peace can only be achieved and maintained through a combination of measures, one of which is declaring our objections to war and collectively lobbying for the preservation of peace. I think this is what Motion 216 addresses most adequately. Realistically, how­ ever, I also believe that we must take the appropriate measures to protect ourselves. This involves making a commitment to our allies around the world and maintaining our military.

A third and very important measure needed for the preservation of peace is a commitment to a variety of social and economic initiatives toward foreign countries. By developing social and economic ties with other countries, I believe we can develop a better understanding of the different cultures and perspectives of world issues. In this instance, I think the Alberta government within its own provincial jurisdiction makes a valuable contribution to the preservation of world peace.

A good example of this is the province's initiatives in developing economic and social ties with countries such as Japan, Korea, and the People's Republic of China. Another good example is the government's history of providing international economic aid to Third World countries. The provision of financial aid helps facilitate stability in countries where conflict is easily developed. Mr. Speaker, it's a combination of social, economic, and military measures that maintains the fine balance between conflict and peace. I thank the Member for Edmonton Avonmore for bringing this issue to the floor for debate.

It has allowed me to express at least some of my views on what I consider to be a very important matter. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. GIBEAULT: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this particular motion. It seems to me that more and more citizens in our province, our country, and our world are becoming involved in the peace movement. The reason they are becoming involved is because they have an apprehension and a concern about their future — their own future, their children's future, and their grandchildren's future. I think they're getting involved because they love this planet Earth that we all share together.

More and more I think they're expecting some leadership in our relations with other coun­ tries from their governments at all levels — local, provincial, federal — to work toward relations that can allow us to live together in peace. Mr. Speaker, I don't think we can have peace if we're going to continue to prepare for war. If we're really serious about having a society of peace, I think we have to do at least two things. One is that as a global community, as a family, we have to shift our resources away from the massive production of weapons toward meeting the basic needs of all the people of the world.

Secondly, if we're serious about working toward building a world of peace, I think we have to commit ourselves to saying that violence and war are no longer acceptable ways to resolve conflicts, if they ever were. Peace is not a partisan issue, Mr. Speaker. With the present range in nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, we're really talking about our own survival as a species. At this point I think we now face a choice.

We can either do nothing, drift along as we have in the past, and eventually have either an accidental or determined nuclear holocaust, or we can work together to make sure that all the people of the world have their basic needs met, renounce violence as a way of solving conflicts, and work together in a society that is characterized by peace. The choice is ours, Mr. Speaker, and I hope the members of this Assembly and the people of this province will choose life and peace. MR. STEVENS: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak to Motion 216, there are three components.

The first, of course, is the endorsement of the United Nations' declaration of 1986 as the International Year of Peace. The second component brought to us by the Member for Edmonton Avonmore is the encouragement of all Albertans to participate in activities to achieve peace. Of course, the third component is the urging of our federal government to advance policies to achieve peace. I support the motion by the member and I endorse those components. Who could otherwise not endorse or encourage or urge in this way? No one wants war. Certainly no one wants peaceful co-existence to end, unless it is a better peace.

We all want peace, but surely not at any price. What of Afghanistan? Who speaks for 13 million people, 3 million of whom have been slain or imprisoned or taken away? What of Cuba? Who speaks for the Cubans? What of the eastern block behind the Iron Curtain? Who speaks here in this Assembly for them or for any others who've had their freedoms, liberties, and rights taken from them by force, conquest, terror, or thuggery? We have a very special privilege: we can debate this motion in this Assembly. Manitoba can declare itself nuclear free.

In my own constituency, the members of the town council of Cochrane can present to the citizens of the town in the elections this year a plebiscite to determine if Cochrane will be nuclear free. As the Member for Red Deer North so eloquently reminded us all a few moments ago, who debates peace and these principles in the communities behind that Iron Curtain, in Moscow, Murmansk, Kabul, and Cambodia? As the Member for Highwood has said, I too would like to remind all of us — and I look at you, Mr.

Speaker, in your other capacity as the Member for Calgary Egmont — of the wartime sacrifices of countless men, women, and children in the Armed Forces or the merchant marine or as civilians in our cities and on our farms. They gave their lives or their limbs for freedom. Today in peacetime there are military and civilian personnel in our country on active duty or in reserves prepared to maintain peace by offering themselves as our defenders. Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I was hoping to put on my goggles and my helmet and by verbiage take you back 25 years to the construction of the Berlin wall in 1961.

During that period of time I flew 500 missions in defence of our country. Other present and past members of this Assembly

1188 ALBERTA HANSARD August 19, 1986 have served their country. I was a pilot then. I was flying CF-lOOs, twin jet interceptors, in North Bay, Ontario, as a member of Canada's NORAD and NATO commitment. I was a little younger; I was perhaps a little wilder but dedicated to peace, just as the Member for Edmonton Avonmore is. The aircraft was defensively, not offensively, armed. We protected Toronto or Edmonton or Chicago from a high altitude intruding bomber. In 1961 one bomber was capable of destroying with the push of a button any of those cities or our civilization as we knew it.

We flew in rain, hail, snow, sleet, and darkness. We went through cumulonimbus clouds or above, in the jet streams. We were subsonic then. Today it's different, but our targets then were subsonic. Most of mine turned out to be off-track passenger jets, but someone had to be first up there to see who they were as they penetrated our coastlines. Many were Strategic Air Command, United States Air Force bombers, on penetrating missions to help make sure that we were ready. Mr. Speaker, a number of my friends were killed. Many could not take the pressure and gave up and went home, back to civilian life.

But there was no war, and if you were born at that time you could sleep at night, even if we wakened you at 2:30 in the morning with our noisy take-offs. One of the activities I would like to see as

an act for peace is to encourage our young people to consider service in Canada's Armed Forces. I also support the federal government's initiatives in NATO and NORAD and so do the majority of the constituents of Banff-Cochrane who have talked to me about this. Mr. Speaker, in supporting this motion and in urging our federal government to advance international peace, I do not support any less vigilance, any sign of weakening of our defence budget and system, or any reduction of our central expenditures for the necessary defensive weapons and their replacement and renewal to keep abreast of tech­ nological change.

Others indeed gave their lives. I gave seven years for the freedom of this country and all of that was so we could have a debate like this in this Assembly in this country. Let us hope that freedom isn't bartered away in the name of peace and that we remain strong and vigilant in our search for peace. MR: WRIGHT: Mr.

Speaker, let us as an Assembly urge all people to make cool appraisal, devoid of preconceptions, of the actions of the leaders of nations around the world, temperately voicing our opinions accordingly and supporting those who appear to be against war and preparations for war, giving to those who seem sincere the benefit of the doubt and responding accordingly. Let us as an Assembly urge all people to be vocal about the efforts of those who are trying to uplift those oppressed by war with a view to the cessation of that war and support diversion of funds from the engines of war to the tools of peace. Mr.

Speaker, let us as an Assembly urge all people to support the efforts of the United Nations, recognizing the inherent difficulties of such a large organization always to progress lineally but at the same time recognizing that it is the chief hope of the world for the maintenance of peace. Let us as an Assembly urge all people to commit themselves to the principles of nonviolent solutions of disputes and tolerance for all generally embodied in the Christian ethic but which in truth is to be found in the principles of all the great religions. Mr.

Speaker, I believe the motion before us puts the matter as well as it can be without undue contentiousness, and I urge unanimous support of the Assembly for it. MR. McEACHERN: Mr. Speaker, just a couple of com­ ments. When we as nations become enemies of each other, I think we have to be careful that to some extent we don't become what we see the other one as being. I think we are very much in danger of that in the world now. I think that we in North America and the western world see the Russians, to quote Ronald Reagan, as an evil empire.

We — when I say "we" I guess I'd have to say mostly the Americans, in their foreign policy — end up doing things that we would normally be ashamed of and would not do, things like supporting Pinochet in Chile. Even in the paper yesterday we saw an

article in which they asked him to for heaven's sake quit abusing the civil rights of his people so much. I'm sure if you go to Russia and talk to the people there, they perceive the west as an evil enemy, so they build up their forces and send troops into Afghanistan. I have a good friend from Afghanistan. He walked out with his wife beside him and his child on his shoulder, so I know something of the Afghan situation. I'm sure they justify putting money into arms to defend themselves the same way we put money into arms to defend ourselves.

Surely one cannot be against the reduction of expenditures on armaments if we can just convince the other side to also make a like reduction. I would like to make that point. MR. YOUNIE: Mr. Speaker, I've a couple of reasons for supporting this motion with some fervour. The Member for Banff-Cochrane mentioned his tour of duty in North Bay, and although I'm sure he meant it rhetorically, it is in fact entirely possible that he did literally wake me up in the middle of the night, because it was in the early '60s that my father was posted there. Part of the reason I support this Bill is the military background.

In two bases in Ontario I spent a number of nights in my childhood huddled in a basement after hearing a siren go off. It was what those in authority called an air raid alert. In fact, our houses were inspected from time to time to ensure that we had a three-week supply of food and water in the basement in case we were bombed and had to stay down there for the three weeks it would take for it to be safe to come outside again. Newer knowledge has taught us that three weeks might be a quarter of a million years too soon, depending on what kind of bomb blew up above us.

I have not been in favour of peace because my human nature tells me to be peaceful. Oftentimes when I disagree strongly with a person, my nature tells me that if I punch him in the nose often enough, he might start to agree with me. Practical experience has taught me that nine times out of 10 he will be bigger than me and hurt my nose worse than I hurt his, and I have perforce become a much more pacific person than my nature might dictate on occasion.

One of my strongest reasons for supporting this is the result of 14 years of teaching and seeing young people develop a sense of insecurity about the world they're living in. It fills me with dismay when I hear a child talk about what he might be if he grows up instead of when he grows up. We may live in the first age of human history where the bulk of children cannot be confident of the fact that as a group, if not as individuals, they will grow up and fulfill all of those potentials. I heard a report on the radio with

August 19, 1986 ALBERTA HANSARD 1189 psychiatrists saying that more and more of the people they see are in fact young people and they are seeing them for longer periods of time for more serious ailments. They relate it to insecurities about their future. Although I was driving to work at the time and didn't want to jot down too many statistics as I drove, it filled me with a sense that we are not providing those children with the sense of security about the future that they need.

A government cannot provide security in all ways to all people, but I think that with the unanimous passage of this Bill, a number of the students I taught — students that I helped form a Youth for Peace club, which has started to spread to other schools in the province; students who in fact developed a petition and presented it in this Legislature with the help of their MLA for Clover Bar — will feel that this Legislature and the people in it truly care about their future and are truly concerned that that future happen in a way they find hopeful and decent.

Regardless of political ideologies, if for no other reason, I therefore urge that we work together to provide for the young people of Alberta confidence that the people in this Legislature do care and do wish to give them some assurance that we are working for peace in their future. Thank you. MRS. HEWES: Mr. Speaker, I too wish to speak in support of this motion brought forward by the hon. Member for Avonmore, and I thank the member for presenting it to this House. I fully support the first part of the motion in acknowledgment and endorsement of the United Nations' year of peace.

As we know, the United Nations is not an institution or organization without frailty, but we must do everything possible in our power to make it strong, because it's there; it's one of the great moves for peace and security in our world that we know, and perhaps the only one. Mr. Speaker, in my mind peace is not simply the absence of war. Conflicts cannot and will not be resolved by violence and war. Peace is freedom from the anxiety and threat of war, particularly nuclear war, perhaps the greatest anxiety and fear now present in people of younger years.

Peace is freedom from racial discrimination, freedom from a polluted environment. Peace is freedom from hunger and the loss of clean water. It's all of those things that we in this country take for granted and that we don't seem to be totally aware are great sources of anxiety and fear in other parts of the world. I thank the Member for Avonmore for her very thoughtful and passionate, yet rational, statement, and I can't add a great deal to it at all. I think any comments would perhaps detract from the importance of her statement, but I would suggest, Mr.

Speaker, that it's not enough for us to have pious hopes or a time to be smug or comfortable in what we're doing in this province, in our cities, or in this nation. I sometimes feel, Mr. Speaker, that we are so engrossed with our own objectives, which are often petty, ambitious, and parochial, that we fail to look up or take responsibility for the problems of the world we live in or do anything about it.

Perhaps it's a function of having lived through World War II or the wars that followed, such as the Korean war, and the fear and total anxiety of looking after small children during the Cuban invasion, the Vietnam war, the Arab-Israeli wars, and the wars that go on all around us every day. Or perhaps it's a function, Mr. Speaker, of having been privileged in my life to work and spend a great deal of time in other parts of our world and to get to know other cultures.

I am intensely patriotic, intensely Canadian, and intensely loyal, but when I see other cultures I realize how very much we have to learn, how many things in other cultures are valuable, beautiful, important, and safe, and how many things we should take unto ourselves from other cultures. Perhaps it's a function of aging, of being able to see the greater world around us and of trying to raise my sights beyond what's in my little, narrow, subjective world. Mr. Speaker, how can we in conscience look at our children and grandchildren unless we take the right course, and the only course, here.

I think we have to be prepared to test all our decisions and all our positions against whether they enhance or inhibit peace. I'm pleased with the second part of the motion, because it acknowledges that we aren't all the worldbeaters that have been mentioned. I'm proud, too, to have known Mr. Douglas Roche and Mr. Chester Ronning, who was a good friend. But we can all do our

part in whatever small way. We can be vocal; we can tell our decision-makers. We can make our position clear in our family life, our work life, and our community life. We can all do something, and we must all act together for the right cause, Mr. Speaker. In fact, the only cause is the commitment to the survival of humankind, to peace in our world. REV. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to add what for me has been a growing insight and concern and what has not yet been touched on in the debate on this motion so far this afternoon. I commend the comments of all hon. colleagues to date on this motion.

I guess all of us who are new to the Legislature have been experiencing a time of transition in terms of the way we think or act or, at times, the way we look at the world. Certainly before I became a member of the Legislature, I was able to look at the world with very personal eyes; that is, in very interpersonal ways with people, one to one in terms of relationships of a very personal nature.

But now that we are in a chamber of legislative authority and an assembly of political thought, my attention has turned to the third part of the motion, which directs us as legislators and as politicians in a sense to look at this issue and raise it at a political level, one which has of course been done in very many ways. It's one that is in a sense new to me in terms of how to best go about it. Certainly in some of my earlier reading, which I've been rereading, there is a real difference between what one person has called moral man and immoral society.

That is, there are differences between the way we can look at the compassion human beings have for one another as opposed to the competition nation-states have for one another. In this world view, what is the role of the nation-state, the collective, the conglomerate or, for that matter, legislators or politicians who, in terms of our defined nature, have their own self-interests, legitimate or not? As this com­ mentator said, individuals have needs but nation-states have interests. When those interests, legitimate or not, come into conflict, how can peace prevail?

Therefore, in the last of the motion, how can we lobby our own federal government to forcefully and consistently advance international policy in favour of peace, recognizing that in the nature of things and throughout human history, as long as we have had nation-states of any sort, they have come into conflict over how their interests are to be attained? It seems to me that even as we often come into conflict in this Legislative Assembly over how, through our own partisan politics or the needs of our constituents, we see

1190 ALBERTA HANSARD August 19, 1986 there is certain inherent conflict in the nature of things, yes, we must all indeed acknowledge there is, at the root of motivation for power, great power in national self-interests mobilizing themselves. As other members have already said, I am proud to be a Canadian, for in Canada we have, partially at least, a history of a nation-state that has as one of its self-interests that of being a peacekeeper.

We are a nation that works in the global community, in the inter­ national sphere, working with other nations to come up with not gaining interest for other nations through the use of violence, coercion, or force, but rather seeing that, yes, nations can work together peaceably for the economic, political, and social advantages of other nation-states. These skills are not violent and do not entail war but rather entail the greater skills of diplomacy, bilateral talks, and even sacrifice of particular national interests.

These skills are what we are calling for in the third part of this motion in terms of what an international policy in favour of peace must entail. My generation of Canadians has seen that with the buildup of nuclear weapons throughout the world, we have, as the hon. member who began debate on this motion said, nothing short of assured mutual destruction. We have a new political ethic. We have a new global ethic. That is, nation- states' interests are only viable in a world where there is one world.

We have national self-interests, which must now be transcended to seem the interests of not one particular nation-state over another but rather how the interests can be bilaterally achieved. We are in a world today where national defence must resolve itself into global economic sharing in the interests of humanizing our one planet. This international policy for peace, Mr. Speaker, must entail paying a new cost. This is the cost of increasing what it is to share. This is the cost of what it is to lay down our lives for one another. This is the cost of seeing ourselves, myself, as the enemy.

This is the cost of being Albertans and Canadians, yes, but most especially we are citizens of one world with our 3 billion brothers and sisters scattered over 100 other nations. This international policy is one that we all need to work for with fervor and with every fibre of our bodies. I think it is asking us to think globally and act locally. This is peace. My brothers and sisters in this Assembly this after­ noon, I hope this is what we are being drawn to from the roots of our humanity. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. PASHAK: I'd like to make a couple of brief remarks, Mr. Speaker.

I'd like to respond to some comments made by the Member for Red Deer North, who tried to build a case that we can only really build peace through building strength. I'd like to suggest to him that I think the history of the world would show a different record. Those nations that prepare for peace through building up armaments actually find out that they wind up in conflict. The second point I'd like to make is in response to some remarks made by the Member for Highwood. I really appreciated some of the thoughts he had to express.

He suggested that one of the ways we could reduce global tension is to engage in more trading relationships. I think that is the experience of the world too. I appreciate his remarks on that point. I would like to try to address this question from a somewhat personal point of view. We have been talking about a negative stereotype of the Soviet Union, the evil empire. In my rather lengthy time on the surface of this globe I've seen many nations treated as enemies, and over time a lot of those enemies have become our friends.

I think back to when I was in grade school, or even younger than that, during the Second World War. Many of you can recall the image of the Japanese and the Germans that was presented at that time, the stereotype of these people as being evil and fanatic. Now through the trading patterns the Member for Highwood mentioned, they are our friends. They're important allies, and we share many things with them. They helped us to improve our standard of living. I can remember, too, the image of the Chinese that was created in my mind as a high school student.

Remember, at that time you had the Korean War; United States troops began to cross the Yalu River and the Chinese came down into that. The image created in our minds of the Chinese during that period of time was a bunch of totally ruthless people with baggy pants from a completely authoritarian society. When our Prime Minister went to China back in the 1970s and opened up some kind of diplomatic relationships, we began to visit China and the United States began to visit China.

We began to see that at a certain level the Chinese really weren't that different from ourselves, that they had the same concerns and they too wanted to have prosperity and a good life. As trading patterns developed, we began to share new understandings with them. I think if we could only do that, encourage more association and more contact with nations around the globe, we would begin to see that at a certain level we're all the same. We all want to live in a world of peace and harmony.

If we could begin to arrive at that world by working toward the goal of disarmament, we would find that we would begin to have more wealth available for social purposes. Co-operation and sharing in itself would help to bring an increasing reduction in the arms race, which to my mind is the most serious obstacle to the question of peace. Thank you. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: May the hon. member for Edmonton Avonmore close debate? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MS LAING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to thank all the hon. members that have spoken in support of this motion.

I think we are all united in our commitment to peace. Even though we have expressed different positions, we all recognize the importance of peace, and if this motion passes, I hope all MLAs will return to their constituents and encourage them, as groups or individuals, to act toward the building of world peace. I thank you. [Motion carried] 217. Moved by Mr. Jonson:

Be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly urge the government to consider targeting the provincial share of grades 1 to 12 schooling costs towards providing an average of approximately 85 percent of the expenditure of school boards in the province on this program. MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, since the 1970s the local share of the payment of schooling costs has increased substantially. Many concerned citizens, as well as municipal governments, have expressed alarm over the rising level of

August 19, 1986 ALBERTA HANSARD 1191 school requisitions. They maintain that the costs of education increasingly are being borne by the local property tax payers. I was just glancing at a major Alberta School Trustees' Association document in which they've documented their concern regarding this particular trend. As another example, the Alberta Urban Municipalities Association for some years has lobbied for the use of the general revenues of the province to fund education. During its 1984 convention, the association passed the following resolution: Therefore

be it resolved that the government of Alberta be requested to fulfill its 1971 commitment to remove the funding of schools from the property tax and have this important service to people funded through the general revenues of the province. While I would not support the 100 percent type of funding that the AUMA is advocating, certainly it focuses upon a general trend and problem. There is also some concern that as this trend continues, Mr. Speaker, there is an increasing likelihood of education inequities occurring across the province.

There is statistical evidence that while there has been the general shift to a greater percentage of education costs being borne by local governments, this shift, when divided up so to speak, seems to be falling somewhat more heavily upon smaller juris­ dictions and smaller rural jurisdictions. Mr. Speaker, in a recent constituency survey the question of whether or not the province should be picking up a greater share of education costs was posed. A solid majority felt the province should pay a greater share.

The indication was that, in their minds at least, a reasonable level would be 75 percent of total education costs. My constituents are not shy about writing any comments on these questionnaires. There were several comments, some in very explicit lan­ guage, indicating that the property tax should be used for the service to property and that the cost of education should be more of a provincial cost. I thank the people who contributed to that questionnaire and took the time to com­ ment on the matter of education. Mr. Speaker, one could go on at greater length quoting sources of concern.

Perhaps it's because school enrollment as a percentage of our population has declined from roughly 26.5 percent in 1971 to 18 percent today, and the proportion of people with school age children has declined while property taxes have increased somewhat. Whatever the fac­ tors — and I want to focus on some of them a bit later one — there is a general concern about a trend to a greater share of education costs being borne by the local taxpayer. Mr.

Speaker, massive amounts of statistics have been generated by the school trustees, Alberta Education, the Alberta Teachers' Association, and many other groups to support one side or the other of the question of whether or not the province should pick up a significantly larger share of education costs. Over the years I've had the opportunity to read through quite a few of these documents, and in my remarks this afternoon I'll try to just zero in on two or three key pieces of information which I think put the whole problem in perspective. I would like to review these findings this afternoon.

First of all, I think it has to be acknowledged, and certainly should be acknowledged overall, that per-pupil expenditure in Alberta ranked second among provinces in Canada from combined provincial and local sources, second only to the province of Quebec. In 1986 it is estimated that this expenditure will be roughly $4,085 per pupil, made up of $2,597 from the provincial coffers and $1,488 from the local taxpayer. Also, another related statistic: in 1984 according to Statistics Canada — and I don't believe this ranking has changed — Alberta ranked first in terms of school board expenditure per capita.

So in overall terms, in Alberta education is being funded rather well. In the motion I'm not talking about there being a great overall deficiency in funding for education in the province; I am talking about the relative relationship between the two major participants as to who should be paying the greater part. [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] A second factor that I would like to comment on, Mr. Speaker, would be the trend we have in the province with respect to who is paying the cost of education.

We could go back to the 1960s when the school foundation program was introduced and the provincial share of education costs was approximately 90 percent, but to shorten up the time frame, I will use the period 1974 to 1983. I ran across a convenient table prepared by Alberta Education, and it outlines the situation rather well. Mr. Speaker, in 1974 the provincial contribution was 81 percent, and the local contribution, raised mainly from property tax, was 19 percent. By 1983 the provincial contribution was 64.9 percent and the local contribution was up to 35.1.

More recently, the relationship is 63 and 36 point something, although that's an estimate for '86. So, Mr. Speaker, there has been a very significant proportionate shift to more local expenditure in support of education, and that's mainly coming from the property tax although some­ what from school fees and other miscellaneous forms of revenue. Mr.

Speaker, the third statistical area I'd like to comment on is that, yes, the provincial government support through Alberta Education to schools has kept ahead of inflation, as shown by the consumer price index and the education price index, although there is debate over the actual degree to which this support has exceeded inflation.

One recent, fairly reputable publication, I think, from the University of Alberta would indicate that during the period 1974 to '83 the provincial contribution to grades 1 to 12 schooling has increased to something in the neighbourhood of .6 percent per year, while local contribution has been going up at about 10.9 percent per year. So we have a situation, Mr.

Speaker, in which the overall educational system is rather well supported, where, yes, the provincial government has been able to keep pace with inflation in terms of its contributions to school boards, but there has been a decided shifting of the cost of the offering of the grades 1 to 12 program to the local taxpayer. So one has to consider next: why the shift? Why has the local contribution increased? Certainly this needs careful study, but at least the following factors are involved.

First of all, we have the matter of program changes, and most of these are initiated at the provincial level, although certainly some are the decision of the local board, and that should, as I'll mention later, be their financial responsibility. I could use a couple of good examples here, because they fall into curricular and what I call co-curricular categories.

One area where there's definitely a curricular change — there's a promotion from the provincial level — is the whole area of French language and French immersion pro­ grams: very admirable developments in education, I think, ones that are quite popular and where demand is expanding throughout the province. But as trustees around the province and other people involved with education have noted, the introduction of a specialized program of this type has certain

1192 ALBERTA HANSARD August 19, 1986 cost implications that go beyond the simple consumer price index. Another example would be the library policy that a short time ago was approved by Alberta Education and distributed to school boards and schools across the province — an excellent document, Mr. Speaker, one that I think was long overdue — and I certainly hope that policy can be implemented. But once again, the cost implications of delivering on that policy go far beyond the simple matter of keeping pace with the consumer price index. A second factor, Mr.

Speaker, in explaining this trend is that there has been a shift in the mix of provincial funding to providing more provincial funds under special grants rather than in a more general way through school foundation program funding or through the per-pupil grants. Some of these grants — I might use as an example the recent library resources grant — provide a net gain in the revenue that a school board receives. But others require, in order to get and utilize them, extra local expenditure, and quite often that is not allowed for when the amount of the grants is decided upon.

One area — and once again it's an excellent move, but it has to be recognized as being of some cost — is the school modernization program through Alberta Education. I think it is an excellent move on the part of the government to upgrade our aging schools. But the problem once again, particularly for some rural school boards, comes up when you first of all have an 80 percent provincial, 20 percent local formula for funding the project, and then you apply a utilization factor and consequently pretty soon the local school board has to pay 30 or 40 percent of the cost to modernization. Nevertheless, a good program.

But it also is shifting more and more expenditure burden onto the local taxpayer in some cases. Then, Mr. Speaker, we come to a factor in this shift, of interest I'm sure to everyone, and that's teachers' salaries. Over the past number of years from 1981 to '86, the last five years — though we could go back earlier — the actual negotiated teachers' salary increases have exceeded the con­ sumer price index by about 1.9 percent. Yes, there's been some gain there, but it's far below the total overall percentage increase in terms of educational expenditure.

So teachers' salary increases have pretty well tracked inflation. But I think it has to be recognized that the the total cost of salaries has gone up faster than provincial support. I suppose this is caused by the payment of increments, but the major factor in all of this is a factor which I think is now diminishing in terms of its impact.

That is, some years ago — once again a very commendable move — the provincial government through the universities and then through the existing board of teacher certification set in place the policy that all qualifying teachers in Alberta should have a Bachelor of Education degree. Consequently, teachers who were not in that position got busy and began upgrading, and their salaries came up.

That factor which might, by some people's estimates, account for about 2 or 3 percent in the salary load of the school boards of the province over a period of years to my knowledge has never been factored in to the grants to school boards. The other factors to be considered are declining enroll­ ments; there's been a slight reduction in the pupil/teacher ratio across the province and an even more slight decrease in the class size/teacher ratio. These of course have caused some increase in the overall cost of the education package. I'd like to get back, Mr.

Speaker, to what I consider to be the major factor in all of this, and that is that the increased costs of provincially initiated and maintained pro­ grams have to be recognized when they're initiated and funded to a large degree from the provincial level. This problem, plus several others related to education finance, was recognized as needing attention in 1982, and the Alberta study program on education financing for grades K to 12 schooling was initiated.

This research group was to provide the best possible information to the minister's school finance task force, made up of representatives from 15 organizations in the province concerned with taxation and education funding. The list included the Alberta Association of Municipal Districts and Counties, the Alberta School Trustees' Association, the Alberta Chamber of Commerce, the Alberta Federation of Labour, the Alberta Urban Municipalities Association, the Alberta Teachers' Association, plus a representative from the general public, and I won't go through the other eight or nine groups on the list.

The task force made some 19 recommendations. Several of the 19 have been acted upon, but what was generally considered the major recommendation was not. This was recommendation 3, and I'd like to just read it from the document: The provincial share of total education costs should be targeted towards providing an average of . . . 85% of the total expenditures of all school boards in the province, leaving an average of 15% to be raised by a local supplementary requisition. Mr.

Speaker, following the completion of the report, some exchange took place between the minister of the day and the committee regarding this particular recommendation. The minister expressed the concern, and I think rightfully so, that this would lead to increased local expenditure driving the size of the province's expenditure. The committee indi­ cated in response that the move to 85 percent would be expected to be gradual and that, as indicated, the province should have a defined education plan or program that the government would eventually fund to the greater level of 85 percent.

If a board of education wanted to add their own program, their own features, that would be their cost and their responsibility beyond what would be the remaining 15 percent. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that through the putting into place of a school management and finance plan Alberta Education has in place the means by which a defined educational program they're supporting for the province could be put in place, monitored, and of course funded to a greater level than is currently the case. I chose this report as a base for phrasing the motion that is before the Assembly.

In the wording of the motion I've captured the part of the recommendation which recommends that funding go to the level of 85 percent. I know that some may look at the increasing of the local tax burden or the requiring of local expenditure to a greater degree as being a way of controlling educational expenditures, and if the province contributes more, then somehow local boards will go racing out finding ways to spend additional money. I think local trustees would handle the situation very responsibly and be grateful for it. Further, Mr.

Speaker, this approach should not detract from the fact that overall, when we look at other economic statistics, the factors which affect the cost of education are more related to general economic conditions, increases in costs, and not due to any relationship between the percentage the province is paying versus the percentage the local jurisdiction is paying. Mr. Speaker, I also realize that some might say, "Well, this is not such a good time to initiate such a move." As I've emphasized, the intent is that this is something that would be methodically phased in in terms of the funding

August 19, 1986 ALBERTA HANSARD 1193 program of the province. I suppose there is never a good time in the minds of some, because when there are good times, people can afford to pay their local property taxes at an increasing rate, and when times are not quite so good, the province can't afford to change the ratio. But I would urge support for the motion. I think it is a matter that should be looked at. I sense that there is increasing discontent over the trend that is occurring, albeit people recognize there is a great deal of money being spent on education.

I note that in the past number of years it seems there have been great dislocating cycles gone through in terms of educational financing. In the 1960s the local tax load built up to a point, and then there was a decision made to go into the school foundation program funding. For a period of time there was a major provincial contribution to edu­ cation.

Then in the mid-1970s our government removed the school foundation plan levy from certain types of property and the ratio between provincial commitment and local commitment went back to, as I said before, somewhere around 80 percent for the province and a lesser amount for the local jurisdictions. What I think has to occur, Mr. Speaker, is an investigation of just what factors are involved in the current trend.

We have to come up with a plan to phase into a greater provincial commitment to the funding of education, and along with that has to go a description of just what program the provincial government is prepared to make this greater commitment to. Thank you. MS LAING: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of this motion. We too have noted the increased tax load from 11 to 29 percent that has been shifted onto local taxpayers.

Although grant increases have kept up with the cost of living, they certainly haven't kept up with the increased cost in more complex and more specialized education and the increasing demands put on the school. Particularly, we see the need for increased technology: electric typewriters, computers, as well as technology for the learning disabled and people that have disabilities. In addition, there is a new curriculum being introduced that may increase the burden on the schools as that is implemented.

Another area where there has been an increase in cost has arisen from main- streaming, where more specialized services, again in terms of technology or teachers' aides, are required. To meet these incre