LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY 0F ALBERTA Title: Thursday, May 4, 1972 2:30 p.m. (The House met at 2: 30 pm.) PRAYERS (Mr. Speaker in the Chair.) head: INTRODUCTION OP VISITORS MR. BATIUK: Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to introduce to you and through you 29 Grade IX students from Ryley School accompanied by their teacher Mr. Voegtlin and supervisor Mrs. Voegtlin. I would ask that the students, the teacher, and the supervisor rise that they may be recognized by this Assembly. MR. MINIELY: Mr.

Speaker, it is my pleasure today to introduce through you to members of the Assembly, 120 students from McKay Avenue School in my constituency of Edmonton Centre. Mr. Speaker, McKay Avenue School is a very distinctive school having the distinction of being the oldest in the Edmonton Public School system, and is also on the site of the very first school ever built in the City of Edmonton. An additional historical note, Mr. Speaker, is that the first meeting of the Council of the Northwest Territories was held here.

As well, prior to completion of our present beautiful Legislative Building, the first meetings of Alberta’s Legislative Assembly were held at McKay Avenue School. The students are accompanied today, Mr. Speaker, by their principal Mr. Olsen and several staff members. They are seated in both the members' gallery and the public gallery and I would ask that they all now stand and be recognized by the Assembly. head: ORAL QUESTION PERIOD MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview followed by the hon. Member for Hanna-Oyen. Funds for Friendship Centres MR. NOTLEY: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to direct this question to the hon. Minister of Health and Social Development. Is the hon. minister aware that the Lethbridge Friendship Centre has closed down and that the reason given is an alleged delay in receiving federal-provincial funds? MR. CRAWFORD: No, Mr. Speaker. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2765

43-2 ALBERTA HANSARD May 4th 1972 MR. NOTLEY: A supplementary question then. By way of explanation, it is my understanding that the federal government sent their share of the cost-shared program for friendship centres to the province on or about the 24th day of March. My question to you, in view of the fact the fiscal year for friendship centres starts on April 1st, can the minister advise the House why there was a delay in receiving this money? MR. CRAWFORD: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot. But I don't mind looking into the question and ascertaining if there was any delay. MR. NOTLEY: One final supplementary question.

Can the hon. minister advise the House whether the government will give any consideration to changing the policies in the future, so that provincial and federal funding will be announced well before the beginning of the fiscal year for friendship centres? MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, the lead time that this government is trying to give in various programs that relate to municipalities or, in this case, a group operating in a particular municipality, has been to give as much notice as possible.

I think the hon. member will know that there have been several matters brought before the House already including things like the municipal assistance grants and so on, where a great improvement had been effected in this area of timing for the benefit of, in that case, the municipalities all across the province. All I can say in respect to this particular matter is that I will assuredly look into it and see if there is some difficulty that has been caused that might have been averted. MR. HO LEM: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

In view of the situation which has arisen, and it also affects Calgary, will the hon. minister give consideration to providing interim financing to keep these places going? MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, I don't know the situation in Calgary to which the hon. member referred, but on the whole, the position that I'm taking with voluntary associations which have a background of dealings over the years with the provincial government -- in the sense that they receive grants from time to time, is that they should budget annually and adjust themselves to the government's budget year.

I've been able to explain this to a large number of such associations on a person-to-person basis. Most of them seem to understand it fully and are willing -- well, indeed I would say, without exception, those that I have talked to are willing -- to submit their budgets by the fall of the year for the following fiscal year. MR. NOTLEY: One more supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, just for the sake of clarification, does the government intend to make grants available in conjunction with the federal government to friendship centres? It's not a question, I take it, of this money not being available.

It's just a question of the time. Is that not a correct assessment of what you said? Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2766

May 4th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 43-3 MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the question from the hon. Member for Calgary McCall did not relate to the situation in Lethbridge. It was a statement generally as to my approach to associations that seek funding in some way. My answer in regard to the Lethbridge situation would have to stand on its own merits, as previously given to the hon. member. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Hanna-Oyen, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary Bow. The Highway Traffic Act MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the Attorney General.

Have you issued instructions to the police not to enforce the laws in existence in Alberta? SOME HON. MEMBERS: [Groan] MR. SPEAKER: The question is out of order in its present form. MR. FRENCH: A supplementary question, then. Is the Attorney General aware that the Calgary... MR. FARRAN: A point of order. If the question is out of order, how can you have a supplementary to it? MR. SPEAKER: I understand the hon. member.... MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to... HON. MEMBERS: Sit down. Sit down. The Speaker is on his feet. MR. SPEAKER: As I understand it, the hon. member is rephrasing his question.

He may have called it a supplementary, but I'm sure the contents will be the same. MR. FRENCH: Is the Attorney General aware that the Calgary City Police are not enforcing the statutory provisions of The Highway Traffic Act, as indicated in a press story appearing in the Calgary Herald, May 3rd, which states the city police say they aren't issuing summonses for inadequately insured vehicles, and won't until the current revision of the penalties under

section 255 of The Highway Traffic Act is completed ? Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2767

43-4 ALBERTA HANSARD May 4th 1972 MR. LEITCH: Well, Mr. Speaker, there were no such instructions issued. I think there may be some confusion. What I've asked the Crown Prosecuters to do is to hold, for the time being, charges that have been laid, assuming the accused consents to it, until the Legislature deals with the bill which the hon. Minister of Highways has introduced. But at no time has there been, nor will there be, any instructions to anyone not to lay the charges. It's a question of whether they are proceeded with until that bill is dealt with.

Of course they will be proceeded with should the accused wish them to go forward . MR. FRENCH: Supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the Attorney General intend to proceed with this bill that's before the House as quickly as possible, and give it special consideration, and possibly third reading? MR. LEITCH: Well, it isn't my bill, Mr. Speaker. It's the hon. Minister of Highways', but I would see no reason why it shouldn't proceed as quickly as possible. MR. FRENCH: I have a supplementary question for the hon. Minister of Highways. Is it the intention of the hon.

Minister of Highways to give this particular bill special attention, and proceed with it as quickly as possible? MR. COPITHORNE: Yes, Mr. Speaker. If the hon. member had been noticing we have hurried along with the bill from its introduction. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary Bow, followed by the hon. Member for Drumheller. English Employment Bureau Ads MR. WILSON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Labour. Would you please advise this Legislature what results you have had in your investigations of the exotic employment ads of the Senitol Bureau of Liverpool, England.

DR. HOHOL: Mr. Speaker, one thing we found out in this investigation is, it is extremely difficult to investigate this kind of problem. You will recall, sir, that the hon. Member for Calgary Bow brought to the attention of the House advertising by a company called Senitol. This is what we found out. It is run by a couple from the United Kingdom; it sells clippings from U.S. newspapers, these are clippings which advertise jobs in the United States. We found that there is no conflict with the law in the United Kingdom, in the United States or in Canada.

But we still question the ethics of this thing which appears to be lawful but unethical. The service does not provide any visa information. A work permit is, of course, required for foreign students to work in the U.S.A., and this is very difficult to get. Because visas are Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2768

May 4th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 43-5 difficult to get, not many Canadians are able to go to the United States for this exotic work. I think this is the only saving grace of this particular venture. I would like to mention in closing that the newspapers, led by the Calgary Albertan, have voluntarily given up running this advertisement at some cost to themselves, but agreeing -- and voluntarily by the way -- that while lawful, it is not altogether ethical. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Drumheller, followed by the hon. Member for Medicine Hat-Redcliff. New Driving Licenses MR. TAYLOR: Mr.

Speaker, may I direct a question to the hon. Minister of Highways and Transportation? Now that the cost of the driver's licence has been doubled, is it the intention of the government to include a photograph of each driver on the next issue? MR. COPITHORNE: Mr. Speaker, I have made no such announcement. MR. TAYLOR: A supplementary. Is the government considering having photographs of drivers placed on the operators' licences? Secondly, in order to save standing up again, is the government considering the many submissions made on this particular subject? MR. COPITHORNE: Mr.

Speaker, we get many submissions on many subjects, and we consider them all. MR. TAYLOR: Does the hon. minister ever answer a question? Redcliff's 60th Anniversary MR. WYSE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the hon. Deputy Premier. Is he aware where these beautiful roses came from today? DR. HORNER: No, I am not, Mr. Speaker. But I must say they improve the smell and the appearance of the Legislature. MR. WYSE: A supplementary answer for the hon. Deputy Premier. These beautiful roses come to us from the town of Redcliff.

Redcliff will be celebrating its 60th anniversary this year, and so they have sent us these roses to commemorate the wonderful occasion which they will be celebrating on August 5th, 6th and 7th. The town is known for its four 'B's — bricks, bottles, bouquets and babies. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2769

43-6 ALBERTA HANSARD May 4th 1972 MR. SPEAKER: If he has recovered his composure — the hon. Member for Calgary Mountain View, followed by the hon. Member for Olds-Didsbury. STEP Program MR. LUDWIG: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Minister of Public Works. Is the government going to follow the practice of the Social Credit government in providing summer employment for high school students? DR. BACKUS: Mr.

Speaker, I would draw the hon. member's attention to the STEP program, but if he is referring specifically to the Department of Public Works, we are, of course, participating as fully as previously and more so with the STEP program in this respect. MR. LUDWIG: Mr. Speaker, in view of the answer -- he said more so -- could he tell us how many jobs are provided by the Department of Public Works last year and how many will be provided this year? MR. SPEAKER: That type of question perhaps should appear on the Order Paper. MR. LUDWIG: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question? SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR.

LUDWIG: What procedure will be followed? MR. GETTY: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. If you have asked somebody to place a question on the Order Paper, surely then it follows a supplementary should also be placed on the Order Paper. MR. SPEAKER: There was a question and a supplementary, and the suggestion was that that a particular supplementary appear on the Order Paper, but perhaps this will be a supplementary that need not appear on the Order Paper. MR. LUDWIG: Mr.

Speaker, could the minister explain what procedure is to be followed by high school students in applying for these jobs so that students would know how to get these jobs which are to be available, specifically with regard to the Department of Public Works' summer employment program? DR. BACKUS: Mr. Speaker, I think the usual practice is to apply through our personnel department, and if they make their application there, I Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2770

May 4th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 43-7 believe if I am correct, in my recent checking which was about two days ago, nearly all the jobs had already been filled. They were certainly filling up very rapidly, and so I wouldn't hold out too much promise that there will be lots of openings available. But if they apply through the personnel department of the Department of Public Works, they will be able to be told what possibilities are available. MR. LUDWIG: Mr. Speaker, a further supplementary.

Has the minister taken any steps to ensure that some of the jobs will be available for high school students rather than be taken up by university students whose term is completed much earlier than the high school students of June 30th? DR. BACKUS: I hadn't taken any specific steps. I will assure the member that I will look into it and see if this is possible. Although the university students do finish sooner, the high school students also have an opportunity of applying just as early as the university students have. MR. LUDWIG: Mr. Speaker, a last supplementary.

Would the minister be kind enough to advise the House at an early date whether any jobs are, in fact, available so that high school students would not be waiting for these jobs but could look elsewhere if the jobs are not available? SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Olds-Didsbury followed by the hon. Member for Calgary North Hill. Dairy Sampling Program MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, in keeping with the rosy atmosphere of the Assembly this afternoon, I would like to ask a question of the hon. Minister of Agriculture.

Yesterday the minister met with representatives of the dairy industry in the province regarding the possibility of a provincially supervised dairy sampling program. Is the minister in a position at this time to indicate to the Legislature if the government will be able to proceed in this direction in the very near future? DR. HORNER: Yes, Mr.

Speaker, we met with the representatives of the dairy industry in regard to their improving the program for grading cattle, or cattle production, and we intend to take advantage of their submission, and to establish as soon as we possibly can, from a physical point of view, the necessary steps to make it a standardized program because it has some definite value in regard to, not only the kind of production we get, but the availability of grade cattle for export. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary North Hill followed by the hon. Member for Calgary Millican.

Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2771

43-8 ALBERTA HANSARD May 4th 1972 Calgary Convention Centre MR. FARRAN: Mr. Speaker, a question to the hon. Minister of Public Works. Sir, I understand that there has been some difficulty over the proposed new provincial Treasury Branch on Centre Street and 8th avenue in Calgary in relation to the Convention Centre site. Is there any outstanding difficulty now, in that regard, that might delay the building of this convention centre? DR. BACKUS: Mr. Speaker, that's a very good question because it has received a good deal of publicity in Calgary.

At this stage I can assure the hon. member that as a result of making every effort to co-operate with the developers, and finally in view of a lack of agreement being reached, we had a meeting of all the top people in this regard and have now settled a manner in which the Convention Centre will not be delayed in any way by our proposals for the Treasury Branch. They are free to go ahead with their plans as of now. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary Millican, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton Norwood. Foreign Investment Policy MR. DIXON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the hon.

Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs. Federal legislation was recently proposed in the House regarding a statement of the foreign direct investment, and according to the federal legislation the final decision will be left to the federal cabinet. I wondered if it is his intention and that of his government to negotiate with Ottawa before any final decision is made between an Alberta company or a Canadian company with a branch operating in Alberta. Does he plan on approaching the federal government and asking them to consult with the Alberta Cabinet before the final decision is made? MR. GETTY: Mr.

Speaker, if I understand the question, the hon. member is referring to the recent foreign investment policy statement that the hon. Herb Gray made in the House of Commons. It was referred to briefly by the hon. Premier yesterday on Orders of the Day just before we closed for the day. At that time he pointed out that Mr. Gray himself is coming with several officials to Alberta to request the feelings of the province and the government on the policy statement, and to explain how Mr. Gray and the Government of Canada sees that policy working.

At that time the Government of Alberta will assuredly express its feelings regarding the policy, and the suggestion of the hon. member today is certainly one to be considered. Also the hon. Premier gave his assurance that the position taken by the Government of Alberta will be made public immediately to hon. members of the House. So I think that covers the situation as you asked it. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton Norwood, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary Bow. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2772

May 4th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 43-9 Workmen's Compensation Board MRS. CHICHAK: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the hon. Minister of Labour and it has to deal with the Workmen's Compensation Board accident claim appeal procedure. I wonder if the hon. minister could advise whether any province in Canada follows different appeal procedures to those in Alberta wherein a claimant must file his appeal to the same board that made the initial decision. How do other provinces handle this situation? DR. HOHOL: Mr.

Speaker, it is notable that every workmen's compensation act across this nation has the same appeal board. There are cases for it and against it. There are many precedents in court, a notable one in the Supreme Court of Ontario which examined the practicality and the status of a built-in appeal procedure within our board that is not responsible to government. So all the workmen's compensation acts have one

section such as ours,

Section 28, which, when all other procedures within the board are exhausted, an injured person can than appeal to the board. And if I may, sir, I would like to just comment upon the procedure. DR. HOHOL: The board appoints a chairman and each of the parties to a hearing. For example, the worker and the company appoint the doctor. This is the procedure and an appeal is heard. Again, noteworthy information is that the injured person can't appear and, indeed, a notary or a solicitor cannot appeal for him except in unusual circumstances.

I say this, not to make any judgments but to give information to the House in view of the fact we will have a legislative committee examine the whole matter of The Compensation Act in Alberta this summer.

Section 28, the appeal procedures, in my view, are one of the major examinations that will face this particular board, or this particular legislative committee. MR. DIXON: Supplementary question to the hon. minister, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Premier a few weeks ago announced that your government was considering raising -- let me go back -- in the throne Speech the minimum pension was going to be raised from $175 to $225 and the hon. Premier announced that they were giving serious consideration to raising the minimum pension to over $225, and I wonder if your government has made any decision on that as yet? DR.

HOHOL: Mr. Speaker, we haven't on that particular subject. In the Throne Speech we mentioned the major changes we will make in The Workmen's Compensation Act, and that's in that particular benefit. However, in addition to that one there will be two or three other amendments to the act that the House will be asked to examine and debate and approve or not approve. And so in the light of other benefits which we intend to increase, it may be that that particular one will remain or it may be that it will be raised. I think the hon.

Premier's intent was to invite both sides of the House, on an issue that is purely and clearly nonpolitical, but having to do with the humanitarian consideration. He gave you this information in advance, inviting you to think about it and, in the meantime if you wish, you can discuss it with me or with the Premier. Or certainly in clause-by-clause examination of the amendments to this particular act you will have an opportunity to debate. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2773

43-10 ALBERTA HANSARD May 4th 1972 This can, of course, occur too on the second reading of The Workmen's Compensation Act. The first reading has yet to come to the House and I will try to bring that as soon as possible. MR. DIXON: Further supplementary, the hon. minister, I am sure when he leaves the House, will be asked by the press about the other two proposals and I was wondering if he was in a position to let the House know what the other two proposals are, in order that we can give it a better study than waiting for it to be announced later on.

If he's in that position, if not, if it's in confidence well, of course, I will abide by that confidence. DR. HOHOL: Mr. Speaker, because of the nature of the amendments and the fact that they're at the printers now, and still open to examination and further change, I will make this commitment to you and the Assembly, sir, in saying to you that it's in the best interests of the House to read the amendments in total when the bill is printed. At the same time, I will not discuss any additional detail with the media, and I'm sure they will respect this position also. MR. FARRAN: Supplementary, Mr.

Speaker, to the hon. Minister of Labour on this same subject, workmen's compensation. Under the last increase which was allowed to the permanently disabled some time ago by the former government, those who had suffered under 15% disability permanent disability -- were not included, they didn't get an increase. Is the government considering the possibility of giving an increase to these people who are partially disabled, less than 15% disability at this time? DR. HOHOL: Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. Member for Calgary North Hill will accept the explanation I gave to the hon. Member for Calgary Millican. DR.

HOHOL: Certainly that particular area was considered, as was every aspect of the act. We moved on about four or five major amendments and these will come to you when the first reading of the bill is presented. This particular one, to which the hon. member refers, is extremely complex and many of the more complex sections were left to the consideration of the Legislative Committee which will be struck in a very short time and announced in this House. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary Bow followed by the hon. Member for Taber-Warner. Municipal Land Banks MR. WILSON: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to address a question to the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs. Does the provincial government have a policy on municipal land banks at this point in time? MR. RUSSELL: Well, I think there are two programs which the hon. member is probably referring to. One is the loans which are available under Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2774

May 4th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 43-11 the land bank program lor major arterial expressway composition. And the other is the land assembly program for residential purposes such as the Mill Woods sub-division in Edmonton. MR. WILSON: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Is the government in favour of, or opposed to financially assisting municipal government's acquisition of tracts of raw land for residential development? MR. RUSSELL: I can only say this, Mr. Speaker, that that is an item that is undergoing review at the moment, not only by this government but by the federal government. MR. WILSON: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Does that mean that the provincial government has not made up its mind in regard to the federal government supplying money for municipal land assembly under the existing National Housing Act which clause, I believe, expires this month? MR. RUSSELL: Well, Mr. Speaker, there were commitments made right up to the expiry date of last March 31st with various land assembly programs throughout the province. And to mention two, commitments were made for Fort McMurray and Claresholm.

So, certainly this government supports the principle, but I did emphasise that this government and the federal government have that kind of legislation under current review. MR. WILSON: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Would that review include the situation of the federal government supplying money for municipal land assembly with debenture security rather then straight mortgages? MR. RUSSELL: Well, here we go fishing again, Mr. Speaker. I can only emphasise that there are discussions going on today in Edmonton with respect to that, and several other major points. MR. WILSON: Supplementary to the hon.

Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs, Mr. Speaker. Who is representing the provincial government at those discussions today? MR. RUSSELL: Representing the provincial government are the Deputy Minister of Municipal Affairs, the Executive Director of the Alberta Housing Corporation, and the Assistant Director of the Alberta Housing Corporation. We have also invited to be present -- pardon me, there is one more -- there's the Director of the Department of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs.

We have also invited the Alberta Union of Municipalities to have one representative present as well as its rural counterpart. There are officials from CMHC and the Federal Ministry of Urban Affairs representing the federal side. And I should emphasize that at this first meeting that there are no elected people at the federal or provincial level participating. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2775

43-12 ALBERTA HANSARD May 4th 1972 MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Taber-Warner followed by the hon. Member for Drumheller. Sugar Consumption MR. D. MILLER: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Minister of Agriculture. Is it a fact, Mr. Minister, that residents of Alberta use more than 100 pounds of sugar per person per year? DR. HORNER: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the figure is pretty accurate. MR. D. MILLER: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If this is not entirely Alberta sugar will you ask promoters to cease bragging about it? AN HON. MEMBER: Agreed. MR. SPEAKER: The hon.

Member for Drumheller followed by the hon. Member for Calgary Millican. ID Cards MR. TAYLOR: May I direct a question to the hon. Attorney General. Is the Alberta Government Liquor Board still supplying ID cards, with the photographs of youths on them, free of charge to youths? MR. LEITCH: I believe so, Mr. Speaker, but I would have to check it to be sure. MR. TAYLOR: A supplementary. Would the hon. Attorney General know the approximate cost of the beautiful ID cards supplied to the MLA's that have a photograph on them, and which incidentally, I think, is a very excellent idea? MR. LEITCH: No, I don't, Mr.

Speaker. MR. TAYLOR: One further supplementary. Would the hon. Attorney General agree that one ID card in the province with the photograph of the person on it would be very valuable for police enforcement instead of a multitude of ID cards that we have today? MR. LEITCH: Well, Mr. Speaker, I don't have much doubt but what a universal identification card would be of assistance in many areas.

But if the hon. member is asking whether I support or promote that view, that is a somewhat different question, because I think there are a great many other considerations to take into account, apart from the convenience of policing, before one can reach a conclusion on that issue. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2776

May 4th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 43-13 MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary Millican. Expansion of Northern Boundaries MR. DIXON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the hon. the Premier. The Premier of British Columbia is making statements regarding extending their borders north, and I think the hon. minister, Mr. Russell, pointed out the other day expansion of our northern boundary as far as the Northwest Territories are concerned.

I wonder if his government has been in negotiations or in preliminary negotiations, at least, to extend the Alberta boundary, because of all the major announcements that are being made now regarding the Northwest Territories, because of the fact that our economies and our industries are so closely related. I wondered if there had been any action at all on negotiating with the federal government? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, that is a very important subject and a very difficult one to respond to in the Question Period. I fully concur with the views expressed by the hon.

Minister of Municipal Affairs and implied in the question by the hon. Member for Calgary Millican that there are certainly considerable advantages for Canada and for Alberta, and I believe, too, for those people in the north, to an assessment of the situation of an alteration of provincial borders. However, I feel personally quite definitely of the view that to a very large extent the initiative has to come from the people who are living in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon.

I think that that initiative -- in other words, I don't think it is a matter of statements being made in provincial legislatures or negotiations with federal governments -- I think that in the longer term of the future of Alberta this should come about. I think it only is likely to come about if the initiative is taken from the people who are living there and who have made the pioneer effort and the sacrifice to move into the north and taken advantage of the opportunities. I don't think it should be something that should be imposed upon them without their initiating the action. MR. DIXON: A supplementary, Mr.

Speaker, by way of a question. I was wondering more from the energy corridor, where Canada would then have an energy corridor in one province rather than dividing it into two provinces? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, as I said at the outset of the answer to the previous question, there are certainly some very significant advantages. That would be one, both to the people of Alberta, and I think from the standpoint of energy policy for Canada, if that should occur.

We are talking about the rights of people who are now residing in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, and that is what I referred to in the answer that I gave to the first question. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Vermilion-Viking. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2777

43-14 ALBERTA HANSARD May 4th 1972 Canadian Employment Support Board MR. COOPER: My question is to the hon. Minister of Industry. Was it necessary for any Alberta manufacturing firm to obtain a grant from the Canadian Employment Support Board in Ottawa during the past three months? MR. PEACOCK: Mr. Speaker, I didn't quite understand that question. I wonder if he'd mind repeating it. Would you repeat the question, please? MR. COOPER: Was it necessary for any Alberta manufacturing firm to obtain a grant from the Canadian Employment Support Board in Ottawa, during the past three months? MR.

PEACOCK: We have no notification of any Alberta manufacturers making application, Mr. Speaker. MR. COOPER: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Does this job support plan apply to Alberta? MR. PEACOCK: Yes, it does. It applies to Canada. ORDERS OF THE DAY head: MOTIONS FOR A RETURN 194. Mr. Trynchy proposed the following motion to the Assembly, seconded by Mr. J. Miller. That an Order of the Assembly do issue for a Return showing: The total amount of money paid to the members and staff of the Social Credit Board from January 1, 1942 to 1948. MR. TRYNCHY: The reason for this return, Mr.

Speaker, was to give me the complete answer for Return No. 184, which was filed some time ago, and I'd like to read it to the House so they’ll know what I'm talking about. The question was: "What is the total amount of money paid to each of the members of the Social Credit Board (Caucus Committee) during its year of existence?" That's the question, and I hope to have the answer. Contrary to what the hon.

Member for Drumheller has quoted and said in the House, I'd like to also point out to the House that the Social Credit Board was appointed in 1937 by the legislature, but the act was amended in 1940, and I'd like to quote No. 4: "There is hereby constituted a board to be known as the 'Social Credit Board', which will consist of such number of members not exceeding five that the Lieutenant Governor in Council may, from time to time determine." So, in essence, this board is a caucus committee. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2778

May 4th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 43-15 Mr. Speaker, to go further, the hon. Member for Drumheller said, and I read from Hansard, tape 35, "There is not another party in Canada that has had the gall and the audacity to do the type of things this government is doing, to pay their own caucus committees with public funds and not make the information available, but to pay their caucus committees with public money -- the grave misuse of public funds. That's what it is." In view of the facts, Mr. Speaker, I request the hon. Member for Drumheller to withdraw his remarks. MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, what a hope!

If I'd said something that was incorrect, I'd be very glad to withdraw my remarks, but what I said was completely correct, and completely right. I said that the Social Credit Board was set up by the Legislature, and under the authority of the legislature, and it was. The hon. member quoted the

section from the act himself. The Legislature gave its authority for the appointment of the Social Credit Board and that is completely correct. And that's the same situation as if we passed a resolution or passed a motion in this House for the Executive Council to set up a Royal Commission. That would be legislative authority and the Cabinet would be completely within its bounds to set up that Royal Commission. It would have the authority of the Legislature. But, Mr.

Speaker, the caucus committee task forces that were set up by the Lieutenant Governor in Council did not have the authority of this Legislature -- in no way, shape or form. SOME HON. MEMBERS: [Groan] MR. TAYLOR: And if the hon. members who are saying "Oh, take out the Votes and Proceedings and show me where it is, in case I missed something", it's quite possible I may have, but I'd like to see it in the Votes and Proceedings, and there's no such item. I have no objections to the order that the hon. member is presenting. This is public money and the people were told in that day how much it was costing.

I suppose there is nothing wrong with telling them now how much it cost 30 years ago. I have no objection to this at all -- if the government wants to live in the past -- that is fine. We would much rather be looking into the present and the future, and where the present taxpayer is more concerned about what is happening to his dollar today than what happened to the dollars 30 or 35 years ago. If that was a bad expenditure, the people had the opportunity to correct it in those days.

As a matter of fact, the people were not too happy with the Social Credit Board -- at first they were -- and that is why we did away with the Social Credit Board, and I was one who helped to do away with it, when we finally dissolved it. I have said before, perhaps we should have cancelled that

section out of the act at that time. Now, it wasn't because there was anything wrong with the principles of Social Credit. The Social Credit Board turned out to be propagating Social Credit instead of economics, to some degree. This wasn't right -- exactly what the caucus committees are doing today. They were advising the Cabinet too, but they are doing it at public expense. Finally, the Social Credit members themselves decided, and the Legislature decided, to do away with the Social Credit Board.

I want, at the same time, to say that the Social Credit Board did a lot of good work, too. [Interjections] Certainly it did. You know, Mr. Speaker, some people think the only people who can do good are those people themselves. They can see no good in anybody else. I can see some things wrong with the Social Credit Board, but there Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2779

43-16 ALBERTA HANSARD May 4th 1972 were a lot of things right with it, too. I can see some things right about the caucus committees of the Conservative party, but I can see a lot of things wrong with it, too. One thing that is wrong is paying them out of public money, without legislative authority, -- without legislative authority. Again, I want to elaborate on this point on the social credit principles. I said the other day that the Social Credit Board was primarily to advance economic principles, based on social credit philosophy, of course.

They did do this, and as a result hundreds of people in the province got an understanding of the money system of this country that they otherwise would not have had. Mr. Speaker, today, if some of the hon. members on the other side of the House would get a little bit of social credit philosophy into their makeup, and if some of the Canadian government would learn a little bit about social credit, we wouldn't have to go on the open market for $200 million at 8% and 9%. This money could be supplied by the Bank of Canada at cost. Oh, sure, the orthodox financiers over there will laugh at that.

I would like to have one good reason why the Bank of Canada shouldn't advance money to the people of Canada for such things as hospitals, schools, roads and bridges, that are not profit-producing. There is no reason why the Bank of Canada shouldn't do that for every province in Canada, at cost; at cost, and having regard to inflation and deflation, of course. It always amazes me, Mr. Speaker, that those who are so stilled and steeped in orthodoxy, can't begin to see that we are paying the price; the people are paying the price. We are paying high interest rates.

We shouldn't have to be borrowing money in this province or in any other province for schools at high interest rates. It should be advanced by the Bank of Canada at cost. It wouldn't be one bit more inflationary -- not one bit. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, maybe the Social Credit Board should have stayed on. Maybe some of the hon. members would have been converted -- would get the light, because there is a lot of light to be shed in regard to monetary policies in this country. I have no objection to this particular return.

But, let's not confuse the Social Credit Board that had legislative authority, with Conservative caucus committees that are set up by the Cabinet without legislative authority of this Legislature. DR. HORNER: Mr. Speaker, I hadn't really intended to speak on this motion, but after the harangue by the hon. Member for Drumheller, I just can't sit down. He started talking first about how he didn't want to stay in the past and he was looking to the future.

I suggest he convey that measure to his friend from Calgary Mountain View and my friend from Wainwright because they continually refer to the past in trying to justify their existence as a government. Mind you, Mr. Speaker, by the time that the hon. Member from Drumheller got around to completing his address he was way back around, and maybe we should reinstitute the Social Credit Board. He is quite right that there is some difference between that Social Credit Board and the task forces of this government.

The Social Credit Board was nothing more than out and out latent political propoganda with the taxpayers' money, and that is what the Social Credit Board was all about, and the task forces in fact, are using taxpayers' money to develop policy for all of the people of Alberta. So there is a pretty major difference allright, Mr. Speaker, and I think it should be pointed out. Again, Mr. Speaker, and I don't really want to encourage a real debate on monetary policy, but we got that strange, same old refrain Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2780

May 4th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 43-17 that started back in 1935 about schools and hospitals, as though these things were any different from food or clothing or shelter.... AN HON. MEMBER: Were you here? DR. HORNER: No, but I have read them, and the former Member for Lethbridge used to regale us with these things every couple of weeks in former Legislatures, Mr. Speaker, and it would appear that the only one left to give us the old story of Social Credit is the hon. Member for Drumheller.

I am sure that we should see on the Order Paper some day soon, a resolution with regard to monetary policy, because I would really like to debate with him, the nonsensical proposition be put forward today in regard to schools and hospitals being any different from shelter or any other kind of necessity that a person requires. And, of course, it comes back to a pretty basic premise, Mr.

Speaker, that a country or a people have to produce the wealth themselves in actual production, and you can't take a pen and write it out, because when you start taking a pen and writing it out you have got runaway inflation and it completely wrecks your country. And strangly enough then, Mr. Speaker, the ordinary people and the poor people are the ones who really suffer. And this is really what was wrong with the Social Credit philosophy. Of course, it brings me around to the final point, Mr.

Speaker, that in fact, the Social Credit party is based on nothing, can go nowhere, so I suggest that it was a good idea to demolish the Board. But we should appreciate, and the people of Alberta should appreciate, that just in a very short period of time for this political propoganda on the previous motion by the hon. Member from Whitecourt, there was something like $164,000 of the taxpayers' money used. And that, in today's equivalent, Mr. Speaker, would be somewhere in the neighbourhood of a half a million dollars, and I think that should be impressed on the hon.

Member from Drumheller, because he apparently doesn't appreciate just how they squandered the people's money in those days. MR. BENOIT: Point of order. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Pincher Creek-Crowsnest I believe is next followed by the hon. member -- [interjections] The hon. Member for Highwood then, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton Strathcona. MR. BENOIT: Mr. Speaker, I want a point of order, only I just wondered if the hon. Member for Whitecourt would reread that 1942 Legislative amendment, if he would please. MR. TRYNCHY: I would be glad to, Mr. Speaker. MR.

SPEAKER: Is the hon. member closing the debate? SOME HON. MEMBERS: No. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2781

43-18 ALBERTA HANSARD May 4th 1972 MR. HENDERSON: He should reply on a point of information. MR. TRYNCHY: I can read it, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: You could, if the House will agree that it will not be count as closing the debate if the hon. member reads it. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. TRYNCHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. "Assented to February 16th, 1940 4.

(1) There is hereby constituted a board to be known as 'The Social Credit Board' which will consist of such number of members, not exceeding five, as the Lieutenant Governor in Council may from time to time determine. (2) (I will go on further and finish this, if I may) The Lieutenant Governor in Council shall appoint the members of the Board and shall designate one of the members of the Board to be Chairman thereof.

(3) Any vacancy which occurs in the membership of the said Board shall be filled by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. This act comes into force on February 16, 1940." AN HON. MEMBER: Shame. MR. KOZIAK: Mr. Speaker, I look at the roses in front of me and I think of my hon. friend's remarks and his unusual sense of humour. I feel that I 'rose to debate'. [delayed laughter] As I said it's an unusual sense of humour and I thought I would share it with the House. I'm also amused, Mr. Speaker, by the rules of statutory

interpretation that the hon. Member for Drumheller applies in this House. In the one case he relies on the fact that a board is constituted under

Chapter 3 of The Statutes of Alberta, 1940, to support his particular case and to support his argument that the Social Credit Realization Board is something other than party propaganda. In the other case he denies the

interpretation of

Section 14 of The Legislative Assembly Act which specifically provides for the appointment of members to committees by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. To say the least, I am amused by the various rules of statutory

interpretation applied by the hon. Member for Drumheller in his applications to the arguments which appear on this particular motion. I think, if we are going to use rules of statutory

interpretation, they should apply equally in one case as in the other. For if the Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2782

May 4th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 43-19 argument fails in the one act, it fails in the other. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question? MR. KOZIAK: Yes, the hon. Member for Drumheller may. MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you hon. member. Did the Social Credit board not report back to the Legislature and does your caucus committee report back to the Legislature? MR. KOZIAK: Being one of the younger members of this Legislature I can’t speak from knowledge on that point. Perhaps when the hon.

Member for Whitecourt closes debate he can answer that question, but I can't speak positively on that point. MR. HENDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take about thirty seconds to contribute to this debate, just to find out a flaw in the logic -- MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary Buffalo was wanting the floor a moment ago. MR. GHITTER: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to enter the debate from the point of view that the comments that were made by the hon.

Member for Drumheller would do any member of the legal profession proud, from the point of view of the way he has jockied back and forth in legal semantics trying to distinguish the Social Credit board in any way from the caucus committees that we have established and our task forces really are, in fact. But I am amazed at the hon. Member for Drumheller that he can say, as quoted by the hon.

Member for Whitecourt in Hansard, that there is not another party in Canada that has had the gall and audacity to do this type of thing, when his own party back in the early days was doing it, much to the chagrin, I'm sure, of the hon. Member for Drumheller this afternoon. But in answer to the question that the hon. Member for Drumheller, Mr. Speaker, suggested to the hon. Member for Edmonton Strathcona as to whether or not there were reports to the Legislature. I am pleased to report that indeed there were. I'm referring to the annual report of the Social Credit Board for the year ending December 1947.

It must be noted in these reports that I assume the value of these reports was dedicated to the future policy of the Social Credit government, so that they could indicate better policies for the leadership of the citizens of the Province of Alberta, Mr. Speaker. I would like to read from some of the recommendations and the comments in 1947 of the Social Credit Board that was filed and left for the members of this Legislative Assembly. I quote from page 4 of that report: "The stage is now set for a third world war -- [laughter] I think that is very important from a provincial legislature point of view in 1947.

"In the face of this appalling threat to our Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2783

43-20 ALBERTA HANSARD May 4th 1972 very existence the only course of action that is likely to be effective is to expose the conspiracy and identify the conspirators, as well as fellow-travellers who wittingly or unwittingly, are aiding them. It is, therefore of paramount importance at this time that the following facts be brought to the attention of Canadians: (

a) That a Third World war is indicated in a matter of months unless timely and effective action is taken by the people who comprise the democratic nations. (

b) That the real issue in the world today is Christianity versus Marxist Materialism. (

c) That international finance, communism, socialism and political Zionism are all pursuing one policy and that policy is threatening whatever may be left of our civilization. As a result we are rapidly approaching a world slave state. (

d) That universal war, revolution, and economic chaos are being deliberately promoted by evil men, so that out of the results and confusion will emerge a tyranny of monopoly on a world scale modelled on the pattern of the USSR.” This is really unbelievable, it really is — shall I go on? SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes. MR. GHITTER: (

e) That a critical state of our economy and that of the United States, combined with the existence of a powerful Communist- financed fifth column within our gates places us in a position of most deadly peril." And it goes on, and then for a number of pages it talks about Alberta and the Social Credit movement. Then in conclusion, I found very interesting the one positive recommendation that was made by this valuable Social Credit Board -- paid for by the citizens of the Province of Alberta -- as we'll find out in this return as to just how much was really paid, and to whom.

It says in conclusion, talking about the secret ballot, something we hold sacred in our society. It says: "Though it is essential, especially under our existing social system that the secret ballot be retained when voting individuals into office, it should be abandoned as soon as possible as a means of imposing a policy on a governing body. It is well to remember that the secret ballot is in vogue in totalitarian countries and, therefore, cannot of itself be considered as proof of the existence of a true democracy." Mr.

Speaker, may I suggest that the expensive contributions of the Social Credit Board, if they had an influence upon the Social Credit policies, as indeed they must have judging from what the hon. Member for Drumheller has stated this afternoon, I think it is well that this Social Credit board is removed, and I will certainly undertake for all the members on our task forces that our contributions, when we make them to this Legislature, will indeed be much more serious and much more meaningful than this nonense that I've read this afternoon. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, Hear.

Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2784

May 4th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 43-21 MR. LUDWIG: Mr. Speaker, just briefly, when I hear the hon. Premier No. 2 talk about economics and tell us that he is goinq to debate us further, I am quite convinced that he’s told us everything he knew about e c onomics in the five minutes that he spoke. And when they talk about going into the past, there are times when you have to go to the past, and in the legal profession, as all lawyers know, you go back to previous decisions to see what was done right and what was done wrong -- and perhaps learn something from it, sometimes. That is precedent.

But I’m amazed that they take such delight in proving to us that we did something wrong. It wasn't right. Now they're going to tell us, because you did it wrong many years ago, we now have justification for doing it many times over. This kind of reasoning -- this is 1970, and I suppose -- SOME HON. MEMBERS: It's 1972! MR. LUDWIG: Well, the '70's. When you talk about going into the past I hear the hon.

Minister of Municipal Affairs -- somebody from the municipalities came and told him, "We want more money, you said you're going to give us more, so how about coming clean about the thing?" And he said, "Tighten your belts." You can go into the past for a precedent like that. I can remember a prominent Conservative Prime Minister told the west to 'tighten your belts' and I suppose if we showed them a scandal, or something, they'd quote the Brownlee and McMillan case, say, "Well it happened before so what can you do to us?" That's the kind of juvenile reasoning they use.

I'm not supporting the Social Credit Board at all. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hooray! MR. LUDWIG: I would never support it, but how can they say, 'because you people did it and we're now in office, we're going to do it five times over.' Now this is common sense -- Conservative style. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Wetaskiwin-Leduc followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton Norwood. MR. HENDERSON: Mr. Speaker, my comments will be very brief. I can only say after hearing the report just read to us by the hon. Member for Calgary Buffalo, thank the government since 1948 that had the sense to disband that board.

I quite frankly don't feel any more bound by the action of what that government did, or the government of Alberta did back in those years, than the present Conservative government does by what John A. Macdonald did when he accepted all the kickbacks from the companies that were trying to build the railways across Canada. That's about as much relevancy as the debate has. To the hon. member, Mr. Koziak, I would just like to point out one slight flaw in his legal reasoning as to the pros and cons of the action of today versus that of 30 years ago.

Of course, I think the Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2785

43-22 ALBERTA HANSARD May 4th 1972 'now' government, on the action they've taken, is in the interesting position that the Speaker of this House has ruled that the committees aren't Committee of Assembly, but nonetheless, the authority of the Legislative Assembly Act has been used to spend money on them. And I'd like to suggest that this is quite a significant factor which should be taken into account in any legal analysis of the problem. MRS. CHICHAK: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to make two brief comments. One is with respect to the hon.

Member for Drumheller's comment that the report of this board was made to the Legislature and in fact, it is quite correct, it was made. But nowhere in that report, as I look through it, is there any iota of indication of what the expenditure of this board was, which I feel certainly is a matter to be considered. Secondly, the fact that is brought out by the hon. Member for Wetaskiwin-Leduc, that what happened 30 years back and what is happening now has no relation.

I think in fact, there is relation with respect to the two, because of the comments that were made that no other government would have the audacity to take such steps, I think there is a point in principle here, and I think that certainly it has a great deal of relation, one as to the other. AN HON. MEMBER: Good girl! MR. MINIELY: Mr. Speaker, I'm not as... MR. SPEAKER: To continue the debate, the hon. Member for Calgary Millican is next. MR. DIXON: Mr.

Speaker, getting back to the motion 194, and asking for a return for the total amount of monies paid to members and full-time staff of the Social Credit Board of January 1st, 1942 to 1948. I wondered why the hon. Member for Whitecourt had this on the Order Paper, but after I heard his plea the other day to the Attorney General about the fact that he couldn't cash a $15 cheque without leaving his fingerprints, I thought maybe he would be the strongest advocate for Social Credit we had, and I think you would agree, when you can't cash a cheque for $15 without leaving your fingerprints -- MR. TRYNCHY: Mr.

Speaker, point of order. I didn't say I couldn't cash a cheque because the cheque was cashed. I think the hon. member is wrong. MR. DIXON: Well apparently if I understood it right, Mr. Speaker, his complaint to the Attorney General was that he wanted the Attorney General to investigate why a person couldn't cash a cheque without leaving his fingerprints. Maybe I’m wrong -- but that's what I understood him to say. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, there's been a lot of things said, but we all seem to miss the point of the whole argument, and as I've argued before in this House regarding the caucus committees.

They weren't Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2786

May 4th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 43-23 approved by this Legislature. Number one, this is the main argument, if the task forces had been brought before this Legislature as an announced program and the Legislature passed them -- good, bad, or indifferent -- I would have supported them. Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Calgary Buffalo -- you know it’s a wonderful thing when you have to stand up and be counted, or quote whatever you're responsible for, or make a report -- then you've got something to shoot at. But you can't shoot at these so- called task forces because we aren't going to get a report.

It's a secret report. And so that's an altogether different thing. Now if they were brought before the Legislature, maybe we could quote some crazy ideas that maybe the hon. Member for Calgary North Hill had regarding municipal finance. It may have sounded just as stupid as the hon. Member for Calgary Buffalo tried to make out about the world-wide situation the Social Credit Board was taking. But until we see those reports, we're not in a position to judge them. AN HON. MEMBER: That's right. MR.

DIXON: When the public is paying for these reports they should be made available to the Legislature, so I can see whether we got our money's worth or not. And so this is my complaint, Mr. Speaker. I believe the hon. member -- but I can see now, he wasn't interested in trying to reform the money system, he wanted to find out something different. I was wondering, Mr. Speaker, while I'm on my feet, if the hon. member means full-time staff of the board, is this what he has in mind.

Because in government there are all sorts of staff that may be working, incidental to the committee, and if we needed to look into all that, we'd have an awful time trying to find the information when it was thirty or forty years ago. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, the idea of the task force to say that they are going to come in with Conservative policy, well I can't see too much difference than in the Social Credit Board bringing in a Social Credit policy.

I don't see the difference -- and like I say -- the big advantage we had with the Social Credit Board, at least they reported back to the Legislature, and unfortunately the task forces apparently are not going to do this. MR. MINIELY: Mr . Speaker, I am not even going to debate this seriously. I am just going to say that the reason that I won't debate it seriously is because there is no comparison between the task forces which are being utilized to involve all government members in the formulation of government policy, and Social Credit Boards. First, there is clearly no comparison.

We have had a little bit of fun. As a new member in the Legislature, we say that once in awhile you have to have a little bit of fun. I think we have had some fun and I think that what I would say to the opposition is that there is an old saying: you should never throw stones if you live in a glass house yourself. I think we should get down to the business of the House. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2787

43-24 ALBERTA HANSARD May 4th 1972 DR. PAPROSKI: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments, if I may. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Olds-Didsbury is next, followed by the hon. Member for Drayton Valley. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, might I just supplement the words of the hon. Provincial Treasurer. At some rather rapid calculation, I think this debate has cost us $350 in the last half hour, as the cost of running the Assembly. That is just for the payment of the members, let alone the use of the facilities, and so on, and so forth. I suggest we get onto the next matter of business. SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Hear, hear. MR. ZANDER: Mr. Speaker, I did not want to say anything at this time, but I do not agree with the hon. Member for Drumheller when he says that these different task forces are not constituted in the same manner as this board was. May I only read the total, for your information hon. member -- I have read the total amount of the total work. I can't understand why it cost that much money, because it is certainly nothing but garbage. Let me read from page one, 1947 -- and what the hon. member read before is certainly included in the following year.

So actually we did not receive new information, it was just things taken from the previous year and inserted into the following year. I will read on page one. It says: "During the past year, your board has been comprised of four members, three of whom are engaged in the board activities on a full-time basis. One board member has taken

part in the board work on part-time basis only, because of the pressures of other business." Further on down: "The board has therefore found it necessary to maintain an adequate stock of books and pamphlets. Literature distributed by the board is usually sold at prices to recover . . ." and so on and so forth. "Books which are purchased by the board are for resale. Public meetings:", it says, "It has been a policy of the board to have its members address public meetings, or the membership of organizations that so requested it.

The public demands for speakers are so heavy and so unusual during the earlier part of the year because of the interest taken in the public rapid succession of important world events." Mr. Speaker, the thing that amazed me more than anything else was the board went back to 1902 -- and may I only read on page 12 - - what this has had to do with Social Credit policies I don't know, but in 1902, a Mr. M. Warburg of the powerful German banking house of M. Warburg and Company of Hamburg emigrated to the United States and became a partner in the firm of Koon, Lathe and Company.

Both he and Smith married daughters of Solomon Lathe, one of the founders -- and it goes on and so forth. Then it goes down to 1904 and really there are no recommendations, none whatsoever. The total ends up and it says -- and if you don't believe me, Mr. Speaker, I would have you read the total end of it -- it ends up as "your board has, during the past years conscientiously used the facilities at its disposal and it disseminates accurate information to assist the people of Alberta in Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2788

May 4th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 43-25 their struggle against the tyranny of international finance. The members of the Social Credit Board recommend the foregoing to the earliest consideration of members of the Legislative Assembly." There is really nothing to recommend. The caucus committee that I am on, we made recommendations. They are implemented. So if there was anything in this report that was recommended in 1945, I can say, hon. members, that I never heard of it. I agree with the hon. Member for Olds-Didsbury.

I think that if this House sat and paid as much attention as we should, that this matter -- it is closed -- that if the hon. Member for Drumheller can say that this was not a caucus committee, then he should get legal advice. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the hon. member a question. Would the hon. member table the recommendations of the task force that he served on? MR. ZANDER: I think the Deputy Premier, if you will check, has said that when this has been taken to the Executive Council, it will be dealt with - - he said perhaps it will be. MR. CLARK: He said perhaps. Will you table it? MR.

ZANDER: I have to abide by the decision of the Executive Council. [Interjections] DR. PAPROSKI: Mr. Speaker, may I allow the past member to speak for a moment? He has a few words to say before me. MR. APPLEBY: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make one comment. I think that the debate actually has gone far enough this afternoon. Several members have quoted from the annual report in 1944 of the Social Credit Board, and I think that was significant in itself, but I think there was one line they left out which should have been quoted, and I'd just like to read that, and that's all I want to say.

It said, "It can be readily understood in the light of the foregoing that Social Credit is not a political party." DR. PAPROSKI: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to make a few comments on this item. I think the people of Alberta are going to be laughing at this as, as time goes on they read in the Hansard what is happening in this Legislative Assembly when both of these -- the Social Credit Board and the task forces -- are legally constituted and we all know it, and yet we're wasting time, as the other hon. member has indicated, and that this is very costly. MR. CLARK: When they pay you, it costs much more.

Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2789

43-26 ALBERTA HANSARD May 4th 1972 DR. PAPROSKI: I'd like to make a few points here. The task forces on this side of the House are members of the government, elected by the people and we all know this very well. They are members on this side of the House that form the government in power, which is carrying out a day-to-day activity regarding policy and programs as the people have chosen. And we also know that.

This side of the government, and I repeat, the majority and the Executive Council portion, have decided to select committees to form task forces to assist in the formulation of part of the policies for programs for this government for all people in the province, which is within their prerogative, as the people know across the province. Now after that, the policies are crystalized and they are brought to the Assembly for execution and for further action.

And in this form, then, everybody has an opportunity for resolutions, motions, for bills -- and at this time all members have an opportunity to debate, amend, reject or accept, and so forth. Now we know that, too. As a member and chairman of one of these task forces, I consider it an honour to be able to serve, firstly as an MLA here -- and I’m sure we all agree that we're honoured to serve as MLA's -- and specifically also, as the chairman and member of one of these task forces to assist in the formulation of policy in an intense and concentrated manner over and above what is called for by some MLA's.

Now, you can do this, too. Many of the members have brought in bills. Some of the bills are fair, some are good, some are awful. But that's beside the point. You are assisting, and one of the bills may get through. Based on this fact, I am on this side of the government that forms the majority -- and I make no bones about that. You know that. In this House, this represents the majority of the people in the province, and as a result, the majority chooses direction.

Despite this fact, the task forces continue to hear and listen to others, and that includes the opposition, for further clarification and then, as necessary, pass this information for programs and direction to the Executive Council, which in turn will bring it here for your final approval. I repeat, I have taken this task with honour and will be judged by the people in the next election. Thank you. MR. CLARK: We'll see you there. HON. MEMBERS: Question. MR. FARRAN: No question yet, let's just wait a minute. Mr.

Speaker, the opposition didn't make it clear that the only objection to the task forces was one on the principle that they were appointed by the Cabinet and not by the Legislature, and their concern over ultimate reports. They have chipped away in the cheapest manner possible since the opening of this Legislature. They've talked about people having their hands in the cookie jar. They've insinuated that money has been improperly spent. They've put two-bit little questions about how $20 was spent for 10 people at the Chinese restaurant, day after day.

Now, this petty back-biting seems to me so wholly out of character with the hon. Leader of the Opposition, that I can only think lesser minds are prevailing in your caucus. To put it more bluntly, I am sick and tired of the constant chippy little narrow- Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2790

May 4th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 43-27 minded attitude of the opposition, especially the hon. Member for Drumheller. I suppose it shows the breadth of mind over there. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The purpose of the Rules which are, you might say, a job description for the Speaker, are undoubtedly to ensure that ideas rather than reflections on personalities will contend in the House. Actually, references to paranoia and greenhorns and things of that kind are not relevant to the debate, and hence, out of order on several counts.

The regrettable thing is that this type of remark tends to escalate from one side of the House to the other, and the ultimate result is that the matter gets out of hand. I would suggest that hon. members would not wish to emulate some of the language which may have been used in one of the distinguished Assemblies to the east of us. I would, therefore, ask hon. members not to skirt closely to the limits of parliamentary language. MR. FARRAN: Mr. Speaker, I will do my best. In all fairness, you must allow me my 'day in court'. These fellows have been nit-picking at me for about three weeks.

While the province of Alberta has huge problems -- a billion dollar budget, ballooning costs for health, education and welfare, municipalities struggling along under backbreaking financial burden, high unemployment among the young, drastic shifts in our economy -- this is all they have been able to talk about. At has been the main theme from the opposition since March 2nd. Nit-picking into expense bills of less than two figures for a night's lodging and food -- this is the idea of the present attack of the loyal opposition.

The great statesmen apparently think they should devote their time to a cheap chasing-after-pennies, while millions of dollars are being spent. It is no wonder, to my mind, that $3 billion of oil money was frittered away in the years since 1947, because obviously the government of that day was not capable of thinking in greater terms than small change. I am not being unparliamentary here -- I am being very honest, Mr. Speaker. Also, I would like to refer to hypocrisy and hypocrites. The inference has been there plainly enough in the reports from the Social Credit Board.

The opposition thought nothing, when they were the government, of paying the party faithful who had been put out to grass, huge salaries like $35,000 a year for a job that I am doing for nothing. They blatantly put party members on the payroll on such obviously partisan boards as the Social Credit Board. They had members who collected rents for buildings from the government, and became involved in companies involved in doing business with the government, who retired as millionaires, who started their political careers as poor boys and ended up rich.

They were elected on hypocrisy and they have been practising it ever since. They promised a basic dividend of $25 to every Albertan; they promised to lend money without interest; they promised to limit prices and profits to what they called 'a just price' in the words of Mr. William Aberhart. They made no serious attempt to fulfill any of these wild promises, probably they never had any intention of doing so, Mr. Speaker. What the highly-paid members of the Social Credit Board did, I don't know. They must have been really interesting debates -- and I wonder if they were open to the public.

Did they ever make any real hard recommendations that were followed through by their own Cabinet? Were they published in any other form except on those mimeographed sheets? The public finally got the message of how phony the whole Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2791

43-28 ALBERTA HANSARD May 4th 1972 set-up was when the Prairie Bible Institute became a go-go girl joint, and the blue-eyed boy became a senator and a director of a bank. From office boy to tycoon, via Social Credit. The whole game makes me wonder about the calibre of the people who have been governing us for 36 years. They pick away at $600 worth of legitimate expenses that I have had for five to six months full-time work for the government. Then, in the same breath, members opposite say that I should hold hearings in every centre from Lesser Slave Lake down to Coutts. I wonder if they live in the real world.

I've come across in my life a few people, horrible little sneaky snoopers, all dreaming that somebody else has got a nickel advantage over them. They spread rumours in small towns, whisper insinuations, they peek over everybody else's shoulders to see if they can find fault to report to the boss instead of getting on with their own job. But this is two-bit stuff, and I believe your two-bit attitude or the two-bit attitude of the opposition takes the prize. In the words of J.J.

Zubich, you know the great admirer of your party's philosophy, a sacred Socred oracle, you are as phony as a three dollar bill -- [Interjections] MR. SPEAKER: May the hon. member close the debate? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. TRYNCHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Being a mild and meek mannered man, I don't know why I would do such a thing as stir up a hornet's nest. I would like to close the debate briefly, but there are a few things I would like to mention before I do.

Some of the remarks that hon. members from the other side are making in papers, and I wonder if they wouldn't be wise to do a little reading and maybe watch what they say, what they have edited, and maybe say the facts from now on and not be nit-picking as the hon. member from Calgary-North Hill has mentioned here. It says here from ... and I read ... that the hon. member from Calgary Mountain View says that 'the backbenchers have been caught dipping their fingers in the cookie jar'. Well, I would like to suggest, Mr.

Speaker, that the Social Credit government with their Social Credit Board, the four members, in 1939 drawing $54,000 expenses and subsistences, they had their arm in the pork barrel right up to the arm pit. And then the other member talks about style. Well, I would like to tell you what it says here about style. "The Social Credit Board was paid $8.00 per day and they were allowed expenses, transportation charges, including electric carfare". Now, we don't travel in that type of style right now, together with sleeping parlour and everything else, and 8c a mile for car expenses, so they did travel in style.

So they talk about Cadillac Conservatives. I wonder what they called themselves then? MR. TAYLOR: They didn't have an airplane. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2792

May 4th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 43-29 MR. TRYNCHY: And the hon. Member from Drumheller wants to know what the function of the board is.

Well, I would like to read to you what the function of the board was, and this is from the 1939 Social Credit Board report: "They were to conduct meetings throughout the province, and a feature of these meetings was a series of lectures illustrated by lantern slides" -- well, I don't know what that is, I guess that would be before my time -- "to bring to people's attention the variety of Alberta's expanding industries and the importance of buying home products." They attended 542 meetings at various points, so I can see why they spent so much money.

Also when it goes and you look at the expenditures for the members of the task force, I would just like to quote one. "When the salary of one member of the board was $2,000 and his expenses for that year were $3,039.57". I think they should look at that too. The hon. Member from Hanna-Oyen, an

article in his paper about the task forces -- I think you should read this over again and maybe put another

article in suggesting that he was wrong in saying what he did. There was only one member that agreed with me and that was the hon. Member from Cardston. He said "he couldn't use it either", so I agree with him. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to see us get on with the business, and I think this should settle the issue once and for all. Thank you. [The motion was passed without dissent.] MR. MINIELY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table Return No. 194. head: MOTIONS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT MOTIONS MR. GRUENWALD: Mr.

Speaker, after that last ordeal I would say that we are not getting as much opportunity for debate on this particular motion it's almost like a dog surrounded by four trees, it just doesn't have a leg to stand on. Well, anyway, Mr. Speaker, the motion is moved by myself and seconded by Mr. Clark.

Be it resolved that the Alberta government set up a Legislative Committee to investigate the feasibility of a system of vouchers to students as a means of partial financing for their education, with a full report to be brought into the next session of this Legislature. I should indicate, Mr. Speaker, before I embark on the arguments in favour of setting up this committee, that I wouldn't for one moment try to pretend that this was my original idea. In travelling across the country to school board meetings and conventions, this issue has been raised from time to time.

The most enthusiastic advocate of the voucher system is a Dr. Milton Friedman who is in the Department of Economics at the University of Chicago. Those of you who may be on the mailing list of the Canadian education publication entitled "Education Canada", the March issue has a very good

article on it, a very honest

article that gives the pros and the cons of this particular thing. For those of you who are not familar with it I would commend the

article to you. I would like to say also, Mr. Speaker, I feel that having travelled the breadth and the width of Canada and of the United Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2793

43-30 ALBERTA HANSARD May 4th 1972 States on school trustee work, and looking and observing, watching and listening to school board people and administrators, teachers, everyone in education exchange ideas, as I come back to Alberta I am throughly convinced that Alberta and Ontario -- I'll give Ontario close second -- probably have the two best educational systems in all of those areas. And I will put Alberta to the top. Now I have no reason to believe that this is going to change under our present ministry or the present government and I certainly commit myself to making sure that this does happen.

Having said that, in spite of the fact that I believe that we have a lot of things going for us, nevertheless there are a lot of things that are not so good. There is tremendous dissatisfaction and disenchantment among the public, and more importantly among parents and students, with the educational systems in the Province of Alberta. Parents feel left out of the educational system. They feel that they are not wanted; they feel that they are ignored and they also feel inadequate.

Now the basis of the arguments that I will put forward are based on a premise, a premise that I think anyone would have a hard time to argue against. And that is this, Mr. Speaker, the parents have the prior right and the responsibility for the education of their children. I don't know how anyone could really argue with that as a launching pad. This just has to be important. I'm sure that the government feels that this is important. I know that the people on this side feel that it is important, so I'm going to assume that we accept, at least, that position.

Now what are some of the key problems in education that we would like to solve? First of all I think that we must give parents more control over their children's schooling. I submit that parents have less control over the educational system and over the school that their children attend today than they have ever had before. This is due primarily to the fact that we have bigger centralized units and it is becoming more impersonal all the time, and the parents have been almost completely left out of the picture.

We must give parents a choice in the kind of a school and the type of an education that their children should receive. And I want to make it very clear when I will be referring frequently to parents, that it does not preclude the student. Naturally as we get into the higher grades of education the student choice is important too, so I wouldn't want to get bogged down in the semantics of whether it's a parent or whether it's the children. It depends on what the situation is so the parents and the children should have something to say. We must improve the quality of education.

I don't think anyone would argue that no matter how well off we are; how good a job we think we're doing, that we certainly always want to continue to improve. We want to encourage parents to spend more of their own money on education. One would have thought that in an affluent society parents would have thought that maybe they should contribute to the education of their own children. But, of course, this just isn't happening. As the government puts more and more into education they take over more of the responsibility for it and the costs rise higher and higher and higher.

I will elaborate on this business of parent input a little bit more later on. So how can we give parents some control or some say and some choice over the school that their children attend? Well the government under this plan would collect the school taxes and then give parents a fixed amount, an annual amount, in the form of a voucher. let's use a hypothetical figure of about $800 because that's very close to what the per pupil cost on the operational basis is in the province of Alberta. That's excluding capital costs of Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2794

May 4th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 43-31 course. The parent could then take that voucher, they could spend it for schooling only, and they must give it to a school that's an approved school. But they could not spend it on anything else. In that regard I would refer to an

article from the Toronto Globe and Mail by Richard J. Needham where he is trying to point out some of the terrible problems that the Province of Manitoba are having in their educational system. I'll just quote a couple of sentences here, Mr. Speaker. He talks about how Manitoba might solve at least part of their problems with this type of a situation.

"The government, "he says, "would collect the school taxes and then give parents a fixed annual amount for each child, probably in the form of a voucher or scrip, which could only be used for schooling purposes, the parents deciding which school the child would attend." Then he goes on to say, in a sort of a cynical way, "Such a system would be neat, it would be simple, and it would be fair, which is precisely why it will probably never be adopted." Now, of course, this plan would enable parents themselves then to exert economic pressure on the individual school.

Parents too, would be encouraged to add to the voucher with money of their own. Some proponents of the voucher system believe that the voucher let's use that hypothetical figure -- of about $800 -- if this is the amount that the school would have to educate for.

Well, I would submit that if a school were set up, a private school or something, and they wanted to offer an enriched program with a little bit lower pupil-teacher ratio, if they thought that they could add something that the parent and the student really wanted, then if they said: "well we need an extra $100", I think the parents should be free to put that $100 up to add to the voucher if they chose.

Public supported schools, as we know them, would have to meet this new competition by consistently improving the quality of education which, if they did, of course, they would keep their customers, they would keep their clientele. But if not, enrolments would gradually decrease and eventually they would lose financial support. Such a plan, if introduced, would give emphasis to private schools many of which, I submit, Mr. Speaker, are doing a very commendable job in education with a very limited financial help from the government, $150 per student, that's all, just a very minimal amount.

Parents choosing these schools would no longer have to pay taxes to the public schools which they choose not to support or not to use, and at the same time finance their own school, or the school of their choice. The plan would have the potential of a free market to improve education and to broaden the range of alternatives that would be open to our children. All would benefit by using this market, parents, students, taxpayers, and the teachers. Now there would be, quite naturally, be opposition to the plan, particularly from educational bureaucracies and from others.

They would quite correctly see that this would be a threat to them. There's no question about it. But the real professionally-dedicated teachers would welcome the plan as they could quite easily command higher pay for more and better than average professional service. I recognize that a plan such as this, if initiated, would necessitate possibly a great change, but it would he a gradual change. Significant change would occur only if and when new and better schools were ultimately developed. But really, are we afraid of change? I hope not. I'm sure the new government is not afraid of change.

They have indicated this. Because after all we really live in a rapidly changing world. Change probably is about the only Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2795

43-32 ALBERTA HANSARD May 4th 1972 constant thing that we have in our lives. So in the face of change, we have to make some choices, either deliberately or by default. Now, number one, what can we do? We can drift along with the tide. We can make no more changes in our lives than are imposed on us -- and just sort of be carried along with the current -- or we can just fall behind by changing even more slowly than the changing world about us, and thus living more in yesterday's world than in the actual world of today. And I don't think we want to do that. Or we can anticipate change.

And this is what I think we must do. Or we can even create it -- also I think we must do that. And then we must try to shape our changing world to some very worthwhile ends. Someone must take the responsibility for trying to anticipate what should happen, and to bring about the desired goals. That is what I am asking, Mr. Speaker, in this resolution. Let us do the study. Let’s let the people at least have the opportunity to express their wishes and views on this very important matter.

A small committee to do a feasibility study would not commit the government to the plan at all, it would not be expensive but it may just be very revealing. So I think we should give it a chance. I would say, Mr. Speaker, in conclusion that I'm committing myself to working with the government or for any committee that would be set up to better the education system in the Province of Alberta, because we must realize that we are working with young people, very dynamic people, people who are looking for new ideas -- they are looking for some leadership.

And I can tell you that they are interested in this type of a plan. When I first spoke of this I was asked to go to the University of Lethbridge to speak to the fourth-year graduates of education students. I would say that about 50% of them pretty well committed themselves that they felt something like this just had to come about. About the other 50% were not sure, but they knew that things were not going as they should.

Through their practice teaching they recognized that the parent has not been brought into the educational system, that he has been pushed out of it, and therefore they would suggest that some sort of a plan as this should be introduced. So I would hope that we would give serious consideration to setting up a committee to do a feasibility study on this plan. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, in rising to second the motion put forth by the hon.

Member for Lethbridge West, let me commend him in the way that he has presented the idea, and let me say that it is rather obvious to the members why he was the President of the Alberta School Trustees for a period of two years. On the matter of the voucher system, Mr. Speaker. I don't want to become involved in the philosophy of the voucher system because I think Mr. Gruenwald has covered that well. But I'd like to deal with some of the things that have happened in various places with regard to the voucher system, and then hopefully make some suggestions as to where we can go from here in the future.

At the outset, Mr. Speaker, let me say that there have been several studies done of this possiblity by the U.S. Office of Economic Opportunity and that the matter has been given considerable consideration in a number of U . S . states. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2796

May 4th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 43-33 Also, Mr. Speaker, the federal government has looked at this very seriously within the last two years, when the federal government had been thinking of what alternatives they would look at in the field of The Fiscal Arrangements Act and the Post-Secondary Education Agreement.

One of the three or four alternatives they looked at, at a thinkers' conference, was the possibility of lumping that money, which they now make available to the various provinces in the form of grants which are equal to about half the operating costs of universities and colleges, and Grade XII, plus all post-secondary education.

One of the possibilities the federal government considered seriously was the possibility of not sharing that money with the provinces, but in fact, making that money available in a lump sum to individual students, students who indicated they were prepared to go to post-secondary educational institutions across Canada. The student, in fact, would get this from the federal government and then be able to cash the voucher at an approved educational institution in Canada. I am not suggesting at this time, Mr. Speaker, that I support the federal government doing that.

I , in fact, find myself in a situation saying that I strongly support the individual provinces having complete autonony in the field of education. But the reason I do cite this as an example of what the federal government were looking at, is to indicate that this isn't an idea that hasn't been given any serious study here in Canada. I do think, as has been indicated by the hon. Member for Lethbridge, that this idea of a voucher system has real potential in the Grade I to XII system.

From the studies that I have seen and the discussions that I have had with people in the Federal Secretary of State's office, certainly there are some possibilities in the field of post-secondary education. I would prefer that to be administered, frankly, by the province and certainly not by the federal government. I would draw the attention of the members to an experiment which will be starting this September in the state of California, in San Jose in a place called Alum Rock. There is an elementary school in the state of California which is going on a voucher system experiment.

The experiment will be funded primarily by the U.S. office of Economic Opportunity. The original plan was to give parents vouchers, and these vouchers could be used in the school of the parents' choice. The project in California, because of the legislation, Mr. Speaker, has had to be changed somewhat and will not allow private or parochial schools to be a part of this project in its initial year.

However, there is some serious consideration being given in California to amending the legislation in California, so that in the second year of this experiment, and if other experiments go in California, that private schools, such as we know them here in Alberta, would be able to take advantage of this kind of a system. So, in fact, parents in that community, could select between the public school system as it is known in California, also the private school system and the parochial schools.

I should perhaps point out to the hon. members that the State of Connecticut is the first state that I am aware of anyway, that has passed legislation in their educational area now, so that a voucher system could, in fact, be operational. I would seriously encourage the hon. members of the Assembly to seriously consider this as a possibility. I don't stand here and tell you that I think a voucher system will solve all the problems there are in education. But I do think that there are a number of things that a voucher system would do. I think, Mr.

Speaker, it is imperative, too, that we look to the future in the field of education. I think it is imperative, Mr. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2797

43-34 ALBERTA HANSARD May 4th 1972 Speaker, that as members of the Legislature, we simply don't take the approach on this matter which has been raised by the hon. Member for Lethbridge, of saying 'well, we'll wait and see what happens in the Worth Commission Report because it is going to come in on the 15th of June'.

If we leave too many things and use this approach too often, we are going to raise public expectation of the Worth Commission's Report, so that -- and I say this with great respect -- the Worth Commission's Report will almost become worthless, because people's expectations will be so high and there just won't be all the answers to all the educational problems in the Worth Commission Report. Getting back to this example in California that I was talking about, there will be approximately 4,000 students who will be embarking on this program in September of this year.

The students and their parents will have an opportunity to choose between six types of programs in the public school system in this particular area. The parents will receive a voucher of $680, or the voucher will be equivalent to $680 for elementary school students and $970 for students in Grades VII and VIII. The funds that have been allocated to elementary and what we would refer to as junior high -- Grades VII and VIII -- are really made up of the state's contribution and local contribution to the per pupil expenditures in that particular area.

I perhaps should also point out that vouchers will also be used for students who are handicapped and the education voucher will be increased by one-third because of the need for special education opportunities for youngsters who are handicapped. It has been pointed out already that the parents themselves will not see this $680 or the $970. But, by enrolling their student in one of the six programs, they will give the voucher to the school and the school will then be able to cash the voucher and in this way get the state and local funds towards education.

I should perhaps also add that the principals in the individual schools and the individual projects will assume a great deal more responsibility and certainly carry a much heavier load in this kind of a program and I certainly commend this. I think for a moment or two, Mr. Speaker, we should look at some of the advantages of the program as it's been outlined by the hon. Member for Lethbridge. Certainly it provides an opportunity for individual difference.

All members of the Assembly, whether you've been a school trustee or a teacher or if you have youngsters going to school from your family, are aware of the move in recent years towards the open area concept. I say, and I don't profess to be any kind of an expert at all, that for some youngsters the open area concept does a great deal for their educational opportunities. But for some youngsters the open area concept really discourages the student, and for some people to think that this open area idea is the answer to all the educational problems isn't right.

Frankly, this is one of the reasons why I became rather intrigued with the voucher idea, because we would hopefully have schools which wouldn't have to be everything to everyone, but which could do some specialization in various fields, which could become very capable in, shall we say, the use of open areas. And for those students who can make good progress in that area, that's to their advantage.

On the other hand, there are some students who really need almost individual tutoring, or who certainly need a teacher, not standing over their shoulders, but in near proximity anyway, to get the very best out of the student. This certainly opens up the opportunities for far more development of the individuality of the particular student. The Member for Lethbridge West touched upon what I think is the second major advantage, and that is more parental involvement. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2798

May 4th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 43-35 I'm sure most members are aware of a study done in the United States not long ago which indicated that the school system was responsible for something like 20% or 30% of those things that developed a person's outlook and attitude and point of view towards life, and that the family and the community and the peer group and such organizations one belongs to, and the church -- these kinds of things -- are responsible for determining a person's point of view in those areas other than where the educational system is involved. The reason I mention that at this time, Mr.

Speaker, is to point out that many people today are too willing to say to the educational system, 'It's your responsibility', and too many parents opt out. It seems to me that this would provide more of an opportunity for parental involvement. Now I know some members will say: "some parents won't want to be that interested." Well then I say, if that's the case, certainly there must be some things that we can do to stimulate this kind of interest. Thirdly, I think the voucher system, Mr. Speaker, would be one more step in the direction of bringing more accountability into the educational system.

This is certainly needed. Conceded, Mr. Speaker, there certainly are some disadvantages to the voucher system. I suspect that hon. members will be saying, especially if they are rural members, really what choice will students have in Valleyview, for example, or perhaps Valleyview is not a very good example — --because there are two school systems there, but what types of choices would youngsters have in a community where there is only one school?

This is one of the problems in the voucher system as it's now thought of, but I'm convinced that if there's a willing mind, these kinds of problems can really be worked around. Some people say that boards will become too concerned about the profit involved as to how they can, shall I say, almost make money by getting the voucher and operating the system on that amount of money or less. If that happened, it would be quite a marked change to what we've seen in education to date, anyway. I don't think that that would happen, but certainly it's one of the things we'd have to look at seriously.

Other people have pointed out that there could be problems in the area of religion. Certainly this could be a possibility but once again I think it can be worked around. And then, of course, there are people who say, 'well you know, all parents can't make a wise decision as to which school their youngster should go to'. But the same parents today who pay education tax, are the same parents today who elect school trustees. It's the same parents today who elect members of the Legislature. So, likely, if they are competent in these areas, they will be able, hopefully, to live with the responsibility there.

In conclusion Mr. Speaker, let me say once again that I recognize the voucher system would not be the answer to all the problems of education. But, for goodness sakes, if we were to take the attitude of sitting back and not moving until something did come along that would solve all our problems, it seems to me that we would never move. Very specifically, I think it would help with the problem of the private schools here in the province of Alberta. Private schools presently get $150 per pupil, and certainly, it would open up a whole new range of opportunities so far as private schools are concerned.

The second problem that it would certainly help with, would be the problem of separate schools -- be they Protestant or Roman Catholic -- but separate schools in rural Alberta, where at this time they can't form into separate divisions. A voucher system would go Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2799

43-36 ALBERTA HANSARD May 4th 1972 some distance towards overcoming that problem. It is a problem, with the growth of the separate school system in the province in rural Alberta, which is going to become increasingly serious. I would just say, Mr. Speaker, that I would hope the government would be agreeable to the establishment of the committee mentioned in the motion, that a study could be done of the voucher system itself. I think we could make use of the work which the federal government has done; the work which the U . S . government has done.

Certainly, there has been work and serious consideration given to it at the University of Alberta. I would earnestly ask the government please, not to take the approach and say, "Let's put this off and wait and see what the Worth Commission does.” I think that would be grossly unfair to the Worth Commission.

I wouldn't say I would plead with the government, but almost plead with the government, not to amend the motion and say, "Well, we will let the Department of Education look at it." Because, in fact, if we do that -- and with great respect to the Department of Education -- the preponderance of people in the Department of Education are educators, who are rather steeped in tradition of the educational systems we have today.

I don't think, frankly, the voucher system would get the kind of viewing in the Department of Educaton that it would if there was a representative group of members of this Assembly, or some members of this Assembly and some people from the outside. I would support either approach. As far as asking what the ATA thinks about it, I really think it is well recognized, Mr. Speaker, that in the United States where this has been moded and tried to some extent, the teachers' federations have been less than enthusiastic about the voucher idea. I think it would be a mistake to ask the ATA and the ASTA to have a look at it.

I don't know the attitude of the ASTA on it, but it would seem to me that if we try to sidetrack the idea just a bit, and have the Department of Education or the Alberta Teachers' Association or the Alberta School Trustees' Association look at it, that really, in fact, the voucher system in Alberta wouldn't have the kind of all- encompassing scrutiny that I think is needed. So, Mr. Speaker, in concluding my comments on this matter, I would ask the government to very seriously consider going ahead with this idea.

I think the hon. members of the government would be very pleasantly surprised at the amount of enthusiastic support they would find for this idea across the length and breadth of the province. MR. BENOIT: Mr. Speaker, may I adjourn the debate? MR. SPEAKER: May the hon. Member for Highwood adjourn the debate? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. head: PUBLIC BILLS AND ORDERS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT ORDERS [Second Reading] Bill No. 201:

An Act to Amend The Planning Act MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I would like to move second reading of Bill No. 201. Before saying a few words, I would like to express my appreciation to the hon. Member for Medicine Hat and the town of Redcliff for the very beautiful flowers, and express the hope that Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2800

May 4th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 43-37 1972 and onwards will be very rosy times for the splendid town of Redcliff. Mr. Speaker, in dealing with this Act to Amend The Planning Act, I should point out, first of all, that this is only one very small

section of The Planning Act. But I think it exemplifies the need for many changes in the Planning Act. There are few boards or commissions whose work is more important than that of our planning commissions, and there are few boards or commissions that are so steeped in red tape and cumbersome regulations as are the planning commissions. I don't know whether this is necessary or whether this has grown up through tradition, but I know it creates a great number of frustrations on the part of our people.

The commissions seem to give little thought or consideration to the need, the urgency of the need, or the convenience of the applicants. Everything must give way to the regulations and the red tape irrespective of the delay, of the expense, and sometimes of what appears to be ordinary good horse-sense. Consequently, frustration of the applicant, frustration of many lawyers, frustration of many surveyors, is probably the understatement of the year. This bill will help to solve only one of these silly red tape regulations.

I refer to the regulation that persists today that where an application is made for a sub-division of less than 20 acres adjacent to a main highway, the application must be made to a regional planning commission. I have discussed this matter with the Calgary Regional Planning Commission and the commission had no hesitation in saying that it had no authority to deal with such an application, and so the application, plus the $10, etc., is simply rejected, and then the way is cleared for an appeal to be made to the Provincial Planning Commission. This seems very hard for most people to understand.

If the board has no authority with which to deal except to reject it, then why spend the $10 and why go to the inconvenience of making the application to the Regional Planning Commission? All that this act is doing in cases like this, is to permit the application to be made directly to the Provincial Planning Board. It would save one middle- man, otherwise the planning regulations, etc., would apply. If there is something wrong with the curvature of the road that was adjacent and if it affected the subdivision, the Provincial Planning Board could deal with it.

If the number of acres had to be more or less, then the Provincial Planning Board could deal with it too. I might say one other thing. I present this bill because of two or three, particularly two, and possibly a third case in my own constituency where there has been great frustration on the part of the lawyers and the part of the applicants and the part of the surveyors on account of this particular section. I think if this

section is corrected, then it will certainly at least do something towards making our Planning Act more effective and more acceptable to our people. MR. DIXON: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could just say a word or two and then maybe the hon. minister could answer my questions. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is that agreed? MR. DIXON: I was just wondering -- there seems to be a great confusion speaking to this bill, Mr. Speaker, in The Planning Act and In particular we have noticed a case in the High Fiver area that has Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2801

43-38 ALBERTA HANSARD May 4th 1972 been going on for years over the right-of-access to a gentleman's farm. It seems now -- it has been I think for 10 years, and every once in a while it is announced in the press that a settlement has been made -- the municipality is going to build a road or force the road through, I am just wondering, in a case like that, if there isn't something that can be spelled out, so there can be an appeal over and above the people that they have been appealing to, because apparently it's not getting anywhere.

I noticed the other day where there was a march down there by some individuals trying to bring this to the attention of the authorities. It seems ridiculous to me for this old couple to be locked in their quarter

section a long way from access. Surely to goodness we can have our planning made so that where somebody buys a quarter

section of land, in an area that has been settled for 50 or 60 years, there should be some way of getting access. If it cannot be settled at the local level I think there should be an appeal board that can override and make a decision so that these inequities, if there are inequities, can be settled, and I just thought I would bring this up while we are on this same subject. MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, I am familiar with the case that the hon. Member for Calgary Millican speaks of, but only to the extent of the newspaper accounts of it.

I have had some background briefing on what seems to be the problem down there and I have talked it over with the hon. Minister of Highways who has a much greater understanding of the problem. It appears there that a back part of that parcel was taken off many years ago before there was, in fact, a planning act or subdivision regulations as we know them today, but no access to that back parcel -- of course this kind of thing would never happen today. You are not allowed to subdivide and create a parcel whereby you are not providing access to it.

But that did happen many years ago, so that access was allowed across the front portion of the property by some form of private agreement, and I don't know the details of that agreement. Subsequently, because of the nuisance factor of traffic going in and out to the back parcel -- and it wasn't the residents that created the nuisance, it was people doing business with the residents that apparently annoyed the fellow in the front part who originally granted the easement. He finally put up the gate and tried to put a stop to it.

The local council got involved in trying to provide a road across the existing surveyed right-of-way for the road, but because of typographic features and the high expense involved, they are trying to now get the right-of-way across the fellow's property and off the regular road allowance. Apparently they have been unable to do this and they are unwilling to go to expropriation because of the principle involved and the expenses. Perhaps the hon. Member for High River knows more of the details, but that is generally the background.

I can only say that that situation with a contemporary planning act, and subdivision and transfer regulations, could not happen. But that is generally what is involved down there. Getting to Bill 201, Mr. Speaker, I just want to make three brief comments. I think members should vote against the bill, for three reasons. The reasons are as follows: In the first place, the explanatory note as written and the explanation given by the sponsor of the bill are not factually Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2802

May 4th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 43-39 correct. They are wrong, and the process that has been described is not the way that he described it. Number two, and I think this is a very important feature, if we did what the bill asks us to do, we would remove any right of appeal against a decision by the applicant. I think it is very important, whatever kind of legislation we do set up, especially in dealing with planning and subdivision matters, to always maintain an appeal route.

Number three, I have announced earlier that it is the intention of the government to bring in a completely new Planning Act in the spring session of 1973. To that extent, letters have already gone out to the users of the act, asking them for their ideas and for their input. I was interested in the remarks made by the hon. member that the Calgary Regional Planning Commission apparently finds this portion of the act unwieldy and awkward. So presumably we'll get that kind of discussion from them and hopefully some suggestion as to how it should be corrected.

But I do want to emphasize that for this year, anyway, we propose to keep amendments to The Planning Act and we have a file of amendments that have been requested by a variety of sources. It is fairly lengthy but we propose to proceed with very few of them in light of the fact that we are bringing in a completely new planning act in 1973 and, hopefully, it will be written primarily by and for the users of the act. I did want to elaborate for just a moment on the fact that the explanatory note in the act is not correct, Mr. Speaker. This is quite important because under The Planning Act in

Section 14, the

section that the hon. member wishes to amend, in Clause 2, the Regional Planning Commission is specifically charged with exercising such rights and powers and perform duties relating to the planning and control of development that are assigned to it by order of the board in connection with the administration of the subdivision and transfer regulations made under this act. And, of course, it's

Section 59 of the subdivision and transfer regulations that has this 20 acre stipulation insofar as subdivision along a major highway is concerned. But certainly the Regional Planning Commission does have the authority to deal with the matter. So that sentence in the explanatory note is not factually correct. If the Regional Planning Commission believes that the case has merit, is less than 20 acres, and there is some reason why it should be dealt with, they can very easily apply for a waiver of the regulation from the Provincial Planning Board and deal with it that way.

Then the applicant still has the route open, if he's not satisfied with the decision that is handed down, of going to the Provincial Planning Board and appealing that decision, based on the waiver that was obtained by the commission. So they certainly do have full legislative authority to deal with the matter. The other way in which it could be dealt with and this is the way the hon. member spoke, is they could automatically turn it down, which they're not required to do, but they could, and then the applicant could go forward with an appeal to the Provincial Planning Board.

But if we went directly to the planning board for decision, as is suggested in the proposed amendment, it wipes out any route of appeal for the applicant and I don't really believe that that was the intention of the mover. Then, my third point again, is that due to the fact that we will have a completely new planning act in 1973 I would hope that this and other matters could be dealt with by the Regional Planning Commissions who are using the legislation. So I believe those are three solid reasons why this bill should be defeated at this time.

Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 2803

43-40 ALBERTA HANSARD May 4th 1972 MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? Does the hon. member wish to close the debate? MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to make two or three comments. In the first place, in connection with the third reason given by the hon. minister, that a new act will come in in 1973, may I say that I'm very pleased to have this information. I hope the new act will do away with much of the red tape and frustration that is in the present act and that it will be putting the people ahead of the convenience of the planning boards and the planning commissions.

But in spite of that I can't see any reason why we can't make corrections that will ease that frustration and provide some convenience for the next year. I don't know how many applications there are across the province involved, but there are, undoubtedly, quite a few. There are three right in my own constituency that I know about, and maybe a great many others that I don't know about. Because we're going to do some good in 1973, surely that shouldn't bar us from doing the same thing -- or something just as good - - right now, and give the people the benefit of that during the coming year.

So while I commend the government for bringing in a new planning act, and I know it will take some time to prepare, I really can't follow the argument why that should be reason to reject or vote against the present amendment. The second point raised by the hon. minister is the matter of removing the right of appeal. And this is a valid point, this is what it does. I'm not sure that this is serious, because the Provincial Planning Board is the final appeal in any event.

And if it used the same type of reasoning, the same type of sense that it generally uses in the first application, I think it would stand to reason that it would use the same type of reasoning and sense in the appeal. So I really can't see where an applicant is losing anything, particularly the way it is being handled presently by the Calgary Regional Planning Commission. Because they have to consider the whole thing the way these are presently being handled, and the appeal is the wrong word altogether, because it is really considering a new application simply because it has been rejected.

In connection with the first point, that an explanatory note is not factual, I wonder why the Legislative Counsel didn't find