Alberta Hansard — 8 March 1982, Afternoon sitting (14:30) (Legislature 19, Session 4)

19820308

Alberta — Debates (Hansard)

March 8, 1982 ALBERTA HANSARD 23 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA Title: Monday, March 8, 1982 2:30 p.m. [The House met at 2:30 p.m.] PRAYERS [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] Commonwealth Day MR. SPEAKER: As hon. members are no doubt aware, today is Commonwealth Day, a day of special signifi cance to us, a reminder that we belong to a parliament, which in turn belongs to a long tradition which is shared by a substantial number of other parliaments throughout the Commonwealth. I think it is probably accurate to say that the Commonwealth is a group of parliamentary self- governing democracies unique in history.

The day has a special significance for us because we are also members of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, an asso ciation which gives us opportunity for exchange and shar ing with our colleagues in the other parliaments through out the Commonwealth. The day is of course significant to both men and women, but there is another day which is also significant to men and women today, namely, International Women's Day. Perhaps it would be fair to say that that has a special significance for women.

Consequently I have taken the liberty of asking the longest serving woman member of the Assembly if she might wish to make some remarks appropriate for this day. International Women's Day MRS. CHICHAK: Mr. Speaker, I am indeed very grate ful for this opportunity to bring a message to my col leagues, the members of the Legislature, and to you. As you indicated, today is International Women's Day. March 8 was proclaimed International Women's Day in 1910 to commemorate a women's rights demonstration for economic independence and freedom in New York city in 1908.

Over the last few years, a coalition of women's organi zations and individuals has renewed the celebration in most Canadian cities. In Alberta, numerous activities have been planned to mark International Women's Day. Some of those activities commenced on Saturday in the city of Edmonton. The activities are to continue over the next week with various functions to take place to indicate the progress that has been made, the further recognition that needs to be given, and the struggle that continues for recognition of the equality of service and the significance of women.

Various activities are also being planned in other centres across the province. On behalf of my colleagues I would like to extend support, recognition, and encouragement to all women in Alberta on this International Women's Day and to rec ognize that among the members, both the men and the women have a common goal and are working together. It is an encouragement that there be established as early as possible in those areas where there is an absence, equality of service and recognition.

We wish all women and their organizations well in continuing to pursue — and I wish to applaud those men who, as the other half of our population, are with us and are hoping that we resolve the differences and the difficul ties and that in fact we will all come to the same ultimate goal. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. head: INTRODUCTION OF BILLS Bill 8 Transportation of Dangerous Goods Control Act MR. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, I request leave to introduce Bill No. 8, being the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Control Act.

This Act is similar, if not almost identical, to the legis lation which was introduced last fall and which has been reviewed by many parties throughout Alberta during the course of the fall and early winter. It is our intention that this Bill proceed through all stages of the Legislature and receive Royal Assent in the spring session. [Leave granted; Bill 8 read a first time] Bill 7 Planning Amendment Act, 1982 MR. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce Bill No. 7, being the Planning Amendment Act, 1982. This Bill is designed to ensure that parcels of land registered for title under

Section 84 of the existing Act have proper and legal access. [Leave granted; Bill 7 read a first time] Bill 205 Ambulance Service Act DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce Bill 205, the Ambulance Service Act. The purpose of this Bill is to establish a uniform, high standard ambulance service across Alberta. The Bill sets out a mechanism for legislative approval for funding the service and establishes the basic standards which ambu lance services would provide. [Leave granted; Bill 205 read a first time] Bill 204 Agricultural Land Protection Act MR. COOK: Mr.

Speaker, I wonder if I might introduce Bill No. 204, the Agricultural Land Protection Act. Among other things, it establishes an agricultural lands commission. The commission would have the power to review the Planning Act and recommend changes to rein force the primary policy need to protect agricultural land from redevelopment. It would also establish an agricul tural land preservation fund. Among other things, that fund would purchase protection rights on prime agricul tural land. [Leave granted; Bill 204 read a first time]

24 ALBERTA HANSARD March 8, 1982 Bill 5 Alberta Home Mortgage Corporation Amendment Act, 1982 MR. CHAMBERS: Mr. Speaker, I request leave to in troduce Bill No. 5, the Alberta Home Mortgage Corpora tion Amendment Act, 1982. The purpose of this amendment is to enable the Alber ta Home Mortgage Corporation to have a broader in vestment base and to clarify and update the authorities and responsibilities of the members of the corporation. [Leave granted; Bill 5 read a first time] Bill 3 Department of Government Services Amendment Act, 1982 MR. McCRAE: Mr.

Speaker, I ask leave to introduce Bill No. 3, the Department of Government Services Amendment Act, 1982. This being a money Bill, His Honour the Honourable the Lieutenant-Governor, hav ing been informed of the contents of the Bill, recom mends the same to the Assembly. Mr. Speaker, there are three principles in the Bill, all very brief but all very significant. The first is the substitu tion of a representative of the Auditor General to the Public Records Committee in place of the representative of the Provincial Treasurer.

This results from a recom mendation of the Select Standing Committee on Legisla tive Offices, which recognized the independence of the Auditor General, and is a carry-over from the period when he was the Provincial Treasurer. The second provision is the provision of statutory authority for the Department of Government Services to provide a telecommunications service for government. The third point is the increase of the revolving fund of the Department of Government Services. [Leave granted; Bill 3 read a first time] Bill 2 Legislative Offices Statutes Amendment Act, 1982 MR. McCRAE: Mr.

Speaker, I also beg leave to intro duce Bill No. 2, the Legislative Offices Statutes Amend ment Act, 1982. The amendments are to provide for the Select Standing Committee on Legislative Offices to review the estimates of expenditure of the offices of both the Chief Electoral Officer and the Ombudsman. It is consistent with the legislation that applies to the Auditor General and, again, results from a recommendation of the Select Standing Committee on Legislative Offices. [Leave granted; Bill 2 read a first time] Bill 203

An Act to Amend the Financial Administration Act to Control Special Warrant Procedures MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, I request leave to introduce Bill No. 203,

An Act to Amend the Financial Administration Act to Control Special Warrant Procedures. Mr. Speaker, this Bill would require more rigorous certification of the urgency of a special warrant expendi ture requested by a cabinet minister. As well, the Bill would limit the total special warrant spending by gov ernment to 4 per cent in the fiscal year. Any expenditures beyond that amount would require calling together the Legislature for the appropriation. [Leave granted; Bill 203 read a first time] Bill 6 Public Lands Amendment Act, 1982 MR. MILLER: Mr.

Speaker, I request leave to introduce Bill No. 6, being the Public Lands Amendment Act, 1982. These amendments will serve to improve the manage ment of dispositions of Crown land in Alberta. [Leave granted; Bill 6 read a first time] Bill 10 Law of Property Amendment Act, 1982 MRS. CHICHAK: Mr. Speaker, I request leave to intro duce Bill No. 10, the Law of Property Amendment Act, 1982. It is a significant Bill for the consumer.

The proposed amendments in the Law of Property Amendment Act, 1982, provide that the mortgagee provide a statement of charges at no cost not more than twice a year at the request of the mortgagor, or purchaser, and that the mortgagee furnish a discharge of mortgage at no cost when the mortgage has been fully paid. [Leave granted; Bill 10 read a first time] Bill 9 Cancer Treatment and Prevention Amendment Act, 1982 MRS. EMBURY: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce Bill No. 9, the Cancer Treatment and Prevention Amendment Act, 1982. This Bill changes the name of the Act to the Cancer Programs Act.

It also changes the name of the board to the Alberta Cancer Board. A new

section is added, which extends the functions of the board to non-cancerous dis eases.

Section 11 expands the purchase or sale of phar maceuticals or radio-pharmaceuticals. The amendment to

Section 19 permits employees to be members of the hospital services utilization committee. [Leave granted; Bill 9 read a first time] Bill 4 Wildlife Amendment Act, 1982 MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, I request leave to in troduce Bill No. 4, the Wildlife Amendment Act, 1982. This Bill will make a number of administrative changes which will provide more flexibility, thereby increasing the benefits to Albertans of the fish and wildlife resources in the province. [Leave granted; Bill 4 read a first time] MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, I move that Bills 4, 9, and 10 be placed on the Order Paper under Government Bills and Orders.

March 8, 1982 ALBERTA HANSARD 25 [Motion carried] head: TABLING RETURNS AND REPORTS MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to table two documents. I've given notice to the Assembly with regard to the Speech to the Throne from the opposition; and secondly, a document called The Case for Revenue Shar ing in Alberta. I'd like to share that, and I am tabling the required numbers. head: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure today in introducing a class of 25 grade 6 students from Lendrum school in the Edmonton Parkallen constitu ency.

I'm not sure about these particular students, but I know their group leader has been here before. I just take this opportunity to say what a very useful thing it is for students to be able to come and see the Legislative Assembly, as these youngsters are today. I hope they learn a lot about the building and the process while they're here. Mr. Speaker, I ask that they now rise and receive the recognition of the Assembly. MRS. LeMESSURIER: Mr. Speaker, today I'm pleased to introduce to you and the members of this Assembly 12 adult students from Continuing Education in the constit uency of Edmonton Centre.

They are accompanied by their leader Mr. Scragg, who is well known to many of us. These students represent many countries: China, Hong Kong, India, Vietnam, and the Ukraine. I ask that the members of this Legislature join me in welcoming these students as they rise. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to introduce some members of Local 79 of the nurses' organization in general, as well as some specific people: Barbara Surdy- kowski, Deborah Weber, George Bowen, and Irene Gouin, who are leading members of that group.

I'd like them to stand with the rest of Local 79 and be recognized by the Legislature. head: ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Nurses' Strike MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care, with regard to the strike we are facing at present and an update as to what is happening today. First of all, I'd like the minister to comment with regard to conditions in the hospital system. Secondly, could the minister look at the respon sibility he has taken with regard to the negotiations and the partnership he forms with the AHA in the settlement of those negotiations? MR. RUSSELL: Mr.

Speaker, I'll have to make the same correction I made last Friday. There's no partnership between me and the Alberta Hospital Association. DR. BUCK: Who do they get the money from, Dave? MR. RUSSELL: They are an autonomous body repre senting a number of various owners and a number of elected and appointed boards. After what I've heard about autonomy from the other side, I'm really surprised that that question would come. I do not have any role with respect to the negotiating position or responsibilities of the Alberta Hospital Association.

Insofar as the condition of the hospitals is concerned, the report I got today shows things in a slightly improved manner, I suppose. Because of increasing staff numbers, some hospitals are able to expand services slightly. The count of nurses crossing the line this morning went up to 1,072. I'm told that the only significant change over the weekend is a noticeable tiring of the night shift at the University of Alberta hospital. Other than that, the sys tem seems to be managing and holding well. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the hon. minister.

Last Monday, the minister told the Assembly that his department receives reports daily from all the hospitals currently operating. Is that information exclusively from the administrators, or are the nurses of the hospital who are working a source? The minister just made reference to the staff at the University hospital. Specifically, are the nurses consulted with regard to the care going on in the various institutions? MR. RUSSELL: Mr.

Speaker, the report itself — and it comes in tabulated form, phoned in by hospital adminis trators to my deputy minister, where it's put on a comprehensive provincial report form — is assessed that way.

I'm advised that the administrators, through their nursing directors or acting nursing directors, get that advice with respect to the level of patient care and also with respect to the status of the nurses themselves; for example, the shifts they're working, what time off they're getting, whether or not they're tiring, how many nurses are crossing the line, how many out-of-scope nurses are on duty, and whether or not nurses are coming from other jurisdictions to take temporary employment. So we have a pretty comprehensive assessment of the nursing situation.

The other source of advice comes from the medical chiefs of staff, who report to the College of Physicians and Surgeons. Again, that advice is either relayed to me directly or through my deputy minister. [Two members rose] MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton Kingsway, followed by a supplementary by the hon. Member for Edmonton Mill Woods, then the hon. Member for Bow Valley. Then, if we don't forget the order, the hon. Member for Clover Bar. DR. PAPROSKl: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary ques tion to the Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care.

Recognizing that the department is monitoring the health care system, I wonder if the minister would indicate to the House whether he has information as to whether those who are ill and awaiting hospitalization are getting sicker or their health is deteriorating as a result of the nurses' strike. MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, that is very difficult to assess. Because of the nature of the topic, it causes us a great deal of concern and a great deal of distress to me.

We're getting advice from individual doctors and from a group such as the College of Family Physicians, from the medical staff of the University of Alberta hospital, and

26 ALBERTA HANSARD March 8, 1982 from individual patients phoning the office in considera ble numbers each day about the effect the work stoppage is having on their particular medical problems. There's no question in my mind that it is causing increasing distress and discomfort to a number of people waiting for hospi tal services. MR. PAHL: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is to the Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care as well.

I noted that some very precise numbers are kept as to the number of nurses working or crossing picket lines, and I wonder whether the minister could share similar precision in terms of the number of patients in the hospital who have surgical requirements that are not being treated because of this labor dispute? MR. RUSSELL: I don't have those numbers, Mr. Speak er. And I don't know if there's any way of collecting them, because this goes back to every individual doctor's roster of patients throughout the province.

We do have the number of surgical procedures that are occurring in different operating rooms throughout the province each day but, as I said earlier, my concern is for those people who aren't included in those statistics of work being done. MR. MANDEVILLE: My supplementary question is also to the Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care. Is the minister monitoring the number of nurses leaving the profession or the province to seek work elsewhere at this time? MR. RUSSELL: We're not monitoring that as part of the strike situation, Mr. Speaker.

I believe that information would be available by a canvass of the individual hospi tals, asking for numbers of staff resignations. MRS. CHICHAK: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Clover Bar, fol lowed by the hon. Member for Edmonton Norwood, then the hon. Member for Calgary North West, the hon. Leader of the Opposition, and the hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. Minister of Advanced Education and Manpow er. It's a follow-up to the questions my hon. colleague Mr. Mandeville and I asked.

Is the minister in a position to indicate how many spots will be available when the minister has the new training facilities in place? How many students will those facilities be able to take? He can answer a supplement to the supplement at the same time: is there a waiting list of applicants wanting to get into these facilities? MR. HORSMAN: Mr. Speaker, the Grande Prairie school of nursing, which was discussed in the question period last week, expects to take 20 students for the first manpower intake in the fall of this year, but of course the schools will grow substantially beyond that point as they adapt.

Unfortunately, the school at Keyano hasn't yet progressed to the point where there will be an intake of students in the fall of 1982. But it is hoped that by the time the two-year schools are in full operation, they will each be able to accommodate significantly more numbers than the original intake at Grande Prairie. I should point out as well, supplementary to the ques tion asked the other day — and I did not have precise figures at that time — I indicated that approximately 900 students would receive upgrading courses this year.

That was a two-year figure for the funding that was made available over a two-year period. In fact, I'm now advised that approximately 600 students in the first year of that two-year program received upgrading to permit nurses to return to the profession. In the coming year, approxi mately 530 spaces will be made available to accommodate in excess of 1,000 students in the two-year period, to permit them to upgrade and get back into the profession. Of course, that will have a much more significant impact than the introduction of the two nursing schools I re ferred to.

I should point out to the Assembly that it is also the intention of other nursing schools within the province to increase the number of students they will take. For example, in the degree nursing programs at the universi ties, an additional 18 student places will be made availa ble; in the colleges programs, 79 additional student places; and in the hospitals programs, 110 additional places: a total of 207 additional places in the fall of '82-83.

As I indicated in my remarks in the Assembly last week, the increase in numbers of spaces available in Alberta will certainly not be sufficient to meet the future nursing manpower needs in this province. We will have to seek in-migration from other provinces and, indeed, from other parts of the world in order to increase the number of nurses to accommodate the growth in the hospital building program, which is well under way in the province. MRS. CHICHAK: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is to the hon. Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care.

I re ceived a number of calls, and reports that a number of cancer patients who require surgery are being delayed have been made public. Has the minister had any reports from either the College of Physicians and Surgeons or the medical profession as to the status these delays in surgery are causing, particularly with respect to these serious cancer patients who are indicated as requiring immediate surgery? MR. RUSSELL: Mr.

Speaker, the hon. member is cor rect in that by far the majority of persons I referred to earlier, waiting to get into hospitals but unable to, usually involve the treatment of cancer in some form or another, either as follow-up to radiation treatment or exploratory surgery. While their doctors are unable to say that it is an emergent type of surgery that should be carried out, it is very urgent in the eyes of the doctor and the patient. Naturally, the distress and worry of waiting two or three weeks' additional time to have that work done is affecting a large number of families in Alberta today. MR.

LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could supplement the answer given by the Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care on that important subject. I've been concerned about the level of care of our citizens, particu larly the sick at home. As a result, I asked for a special meeting with the College of Physicians and Surgeons, which was held on Friday with the Minister and Deputy Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care and me. Over the weekend, they provided us with their professional advice and assessment. We're considering that assessment, and I'll be reporting to the Legislature tomorrow.

March 8, 1982 ALBERTA HANSARD 27 MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is to the Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care and the Minister of Labour. It's with regard to a document I have in my hand, from the acting executive director of the Royal Alex hospital to all nurses, urging them to come back to work and indicating to them that during the strike period it's legal for them to be in attendance at work. My question to the hon.

Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care is: in terms of the minister's statement that all is well at the hospitals and that adequate service is being provided, could the minister indicate why the pres sure is being put on the nurses to return? My supplemen tary question is to the Minister of Labour, as well in light of this letter. In terms of the letter and the negotiations going on, is a letter from one of the persons in the bargaining process — a letter such as this —

an act of bargaining in poor faith, or part of that bargain? MR. SPEAKER: With regard to the second part of the question, it would certainly constitute a matter of opin ion, probably a legal opinion. Might I respectfully suggest to the hon. leader that it might be sought otherwise, apart from the fact that it's somewhat unrelated to the first part of the question. MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, the ability of a particular hospital, wherever it is or whatever size it is — the reports I get with respect to it deal with how well they are managing vis-a-vis the services they are providing.

Many hospitals are running on a very limited basis, and others have a fair selection of services available. I think it's well known that many hospital administrations have made the decision to try to get additional nurses to come back, either to give working nurses more time off and rest periods or to expand the services they have under strike conditions.

So if a particular hospital advertises in the province of Quebec or Ontario, or asks its nurses locally to consider returning to work pending the resolution of the strike, I think that is a direct decision of the owners of the hospital and its board of directors. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the minister. It flows from the minister's response last Friday with respect to the nursing study conducted by the Alberta Hospital Association in 1980. The minister indi cated there was a global figure as to the cost of imple menting the recommendations.

In view of the fact that working conditions now seem to be the major obstacle to a settlement, is the minister able to report to the Assem bly whether the government, in concert with the Alberta Hospital Association, has acted upon any of the recom mendations from the 1980 report and, if so, what recommendations? MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, in view of the nature of that question, I think it would be better to put it on the Order Paper. I'll provide a written response. MR. NOTLEY: A supplementary question to the hon. minister.

Can the minister advise the Assembly whether there have been any discussions between the department and the Alberta Hospital Association, at which the minis ter was present, to discuss the recommendations of this important study and what steps might be taken, in the last year and a half since it was presented? MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, I meet regularly with the Alberta Hospital Association, either with their full board of directors or just their executive committee, and I would have to search the records to see at what times that study was discussed in any detail.

I think the steps our government has taken with respect to the nursing profes sion and, more particularly, the challenge that faces us vis-a-vis adequate manpower in the nursing sector are well known. I won't repeat what my colleague the Minis ter of Advanced Education and Manpower just went through in some detail. MR. SPEAKER: We have supplementaries outstanding by the hon. Member for St. Albert, the hon. Member for Calgary North West, and the hon. Member for Three Hills.

I wonder if we might deal with those and then go on to another topic, since we've already spent a very substantial part of the question period on this topic. MRS. EMBURY: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care. In your state ment, I believe you indicated that there's grave concern in this province for people who are at home, and the Premier has also substantiated this claim.

Would the minister please advise the Assembly if, from the calls you have received, you are speaking primarily of people in Edmonton who wish to enter our acute care facilities in this city, or is it geographically right across the province? I'm particularly concerned about the situation in Calgary. MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, we keep a log of those calls, and it's province-wide. Last week, the number was an even 100. MRS.

FYFE: As those hospitals admitting patients are unable to accept persons for admission unless they quali fy for a certain definition of emergency and the number of people who desperately need treatment seems to be growing, is the minister aware of any patients, other than the four neo-natal babies, who have been referred to hospitals outside the province of Alberta? MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any more who have been sent out by hospitals. Some patients have voluntarily gone to other provinces for the types of cancer surgery I mentioned or for therapeutic abortions.

But those are the only two classes I am aware of, and that was done by patient decision. MRS. FYFE: Thank you. One further question to the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister advise the Assembly if negotiations between the United Nurses of Alberta and the Alberta Hospital Association have resumed? MR. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, I can advise that the media tor has called the parties to the bargaining table this afternoon.

In line with the commitments given to me by the presidents of both associations last Thursday morning that they are responsible and do not wish that I should become involved in the bargaining process other than through the mediation, then they have a very great re sponsibility this afternoon to get on with the job. I trust they will do that, with the assistance of the mediator. MRS. OSTERMAN: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary to the Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care is along the same lines as that of the hon. Member for Calgary North

28 ALBERTA HANSARD March 8, 1982 West. Would the minister give a commitment that his department will involve itself in an assessment across the province to determine where the most critical people are, in terms of their needs for surgery? From many calls, I am given to understand that there may be a dispropor tionate number in some areas, depending on what hospi tals are on strike. It may well be that we need to priorize those people on a provincial basis. I hope the minister could give the commitment that the department would be so involved. MR. RUSSELL: Mr.

Speaker, I partially dealt with that question earlier in today's question period. It would be very difficult to do that without going to each practising doctor in the province and assessing his patient waiting list. I could offer this information: it is fairly obvious that a very limited number of hospitals are able to do this at the present time and that the major load for the province is falling on Foothills in Calgary and the University of Alberta hospital in Edmonton. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Leader of the Opposition has kindly indicated that he is foregoing his second question. Suncor Emissions MR. NOTLEY: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to direct this question to the hon. Minister of the Environment. Is the minister in a position today to confirm statements by the department's water quality control engineer to the effect that toxic liquids in excess of Suncor's licence to operate have been discharged into the Athabasca River on a number of occasions over the past several years? MR. COOKSON: Mr. Speaker, I wouldn't want to go into total detail at this time. I don't have all the details on the emissions since November 1978. There have been a number of excursions on and off.

In practically all these cases, the department has been in consultation with Suncor. I think it is fair to say that most of the problems are emissions such as oil and gas which go beyond our limitations of about 200 kilograms per day. Because of the emission control order issued by the department last week, we are satisfied that we should be able to handle both the present problem and some of the problems in the past. MR. NOTLEY: A supplementary question.

Bearing in mind the minister's answer on the last day of the recently prorogued session, is the minister able to advise the Assembly what happened in the department that the in formation with respect to the excessive discharging of waste, of toxic liquid emissions into the Athabasca River, was not reported to the minister so that he was in a position to advise the Assembly last Monday? MR. COOKSON: Mr. Speaker, it would be very difficult for me as minister to deal with all the emissions that occur throughout the province continuously, where there are excursions from our normal regulations or guidelines.

I think I have responded in that respect at other times in the Legislature. These events occur, and it is the responsibility of the company concerned to report them to the department. Under both the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act, it then becomes a responsibility of an official appointed under the legislation — the director of pollution control in this respect — to review with the company any excur sions that have occurred and respond accordingly.

In terms of being toxic in nature, the excursions that occurred in the case of Suncor would be subject to some question because of the pollution factor, the amount emitted, and the subsequent neutralizing by the volume of water in which the excursions occurred. So they were not considered a problem insofar as toxicity is concerned. Later in the week, I will have a little more detail that perhaps I can table or give to the member that will indicate those emissions as we have checked them through.

As I said, the emission control order which has been issued should effectively deal with future emissions of this nature. MR. NOTLEY: A supplementary question. Is the minis ter in a position to advise the Assembly whether any consultation took place with the people in the Fort McKay Band by any official of the Department of the Environment, to warn them of possible danger — even though it is a matter of some opinion — as a result of the toxic emissions, prior to the band deciding to take the matter to court? MR. COOKSON: In this respect, Mr.

Speaker, I think I stated earlier that the company itself has a responsibility. My information is that they were rather negligent, to say the least, in not reporting. We were subsequently advised, and we followed through on the complaint that was made. We are satisfied there was no toxic problem in this respect in terms of the volume released into the river. However, as the member well knows, I have asked for a detailed inquiry into the events.

Both the Energy Re sources Conservation Board and ourselves will be pro ceeding with that inquiry to see if there is sufficient evidence for negligence and perhaps subsequent charging of the company. But I wouldn't want to prejudge what events will come out of the inquiry. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister, with respect to the inquiry. Will the terms of reference of the inquiry to be conducted by the department and the ERCB include an evaluation of the department's role? The minister has indicated that the inquiry will examine whether the company was negligent.

Will the terms specifically review the possibility of wheth er the department was negligent? MR. COOKSON: Mr. Speaker, I think the NDP member is getting a little overanxious about the procedures we go through. The terms of reference for the inquiry should be available within days and will take into consideration the kinds of problems that led up to this particular issue. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. So are the people of Fort McKay rather anxious about it.

I ask the minister whether the inquiry that was an nounced — outside the House, I might add — is going to be under the provisions of the inquiries Act, with broad terms of reference and the ability to subpoena and have people under oath. Or will it be an informal, departmental/ERCB review? MR. COOKSON: I think I've responded to that, Mr. Speaker. As yet, the actual detail of the inquiry has not been totally reviewed, and we'll take into consideration any particular submissions the member might like to make on the issue. We'll deal with it when the time comes.

March 8, 1982 ALBERTA HANSARD 29 MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a further supplementary question. Will the minister give an undertaking that either the minister or someone from the department will in fact meet with the Fort McKay Band before the formal de tails, including the terms of reference of the inquiry, are established and discuss the proposals made by the Fort McKay Band with respect to this inquiry? MR. COOKSON: Mr. Speaker, as far as I know, the members of Fort McKay — I think it is Chief Mac- Donald — have not as yet approached me as far as the problem they're alleged to have had is concerned.

I say "alleged" because last week the Minister of Municipal Affairs indicated that they had proper water supply. They had some problems with one of the pumps, and so on. I've said many times in the Legislature that no one should be using water from any of our streams without proper treatment as far as boiling or whatever may be necessary. I don't know how many times I have to repeat that point; it's extremely important. If the members of Fort McKay wish to make any submissions to me and to the department with regard to the sort of procedures we might go through in the in quiry, I have no problem with that.

I'd be happy to advise in that respect. MR. NOTLEY: A final supplementary question to the minister. Can the minister give the Assembly a time frame as to when the terms of reference will be completed and the determination as to whether it's an inquiry under the inquiries Act, with the full power of that Act, or whether it will be a departmental review in conjunction with the ERCB. When can the Assembly expect either a specific ministerial statement or a position with respect to that matter presented to the House? MR. COOKSON: Again, Mr. Speaker, I've indicated that we should be able to do this in a few days. MR.

WEISS: [Not recorded] could you clarify the extent it was necessary for the residents of Fort McKay to drink water from the Athabasca River or snow water? MR. SPEAKER: Is the hon. member asking the minister to confirm a report? MR. WEISS: No, Mr. Speaker. Thank you once again. Would the Minister of Municipal Affairs advise if it was necessary for the residents of Fort McKay to drink water from the Athabasca River or melted snow water? MR. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, I can say this. As I reported earlier to the Assembly, there are two sources of domestic drinking water in Fort McKay, aside from the river.

They had problems with both water supplies from time to time during the period from near the end of December to late February. But generally, with the exception of a few days, one or the other of the sources of water supply was available to all the residents of Fort McKay. Mr. Speak er, one must also recognize that we're not just dealing with band members from Fort McKay. There are many other citizens of Fort McKay who require domestic water supplies as well.

During the period of time that both wells were out of production, water was being hauled by the Department of Municipal Affairs improvement district operations into the community and delivered to some households. In addition to that, I'm advised that the Indian band in question has in its possession for hauling domestic water supplies, a new or nearly new water truck that was not used at all during that period. One would have to assume that there isn't any question at all that there was no necessity for the people of that community to draw water supplies from the Athabasca River.

Now, whether they did or not is a matter I can't determine. MR. WEISS: Supplementary to the minister. Did Munic ipal Affairs offer to hire the services of the Fort McKay Band's truck? MR. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, I'm not aware whether that was the situation or not. I don't believe it was, because the Department of Municipal Affairs improvement dis trict operations had access to other means of hauling water into the community.

I am advised by officials in my department that the band's water truck was not utilized, and one would have to assume they didn't feel there was any necessity for their truck to be put into operation. Nurses' Strike (continued) MR. MACK: Mr. Speaker, my question basically deals with a ruling you made a little earlier on the question of topic on the supplementaries on the interruption of the health delivery system. However, it is of a somewhat different nature, and I wish to pose the question to the hon. Minister of Labour.

Have the parties to the dispute, the Alberta Hospital Association and the United Nurses [of Alberta] representatives, requested either the minis ter's or the government's assistance in direct negotiations to the dispute? MR. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, the parties have accepted mediation services. They have not, however, asked for further involvement. In fact, at the meeting I had on Thursday morning with Mrs. Ethier, president of the United Nurses of Alberta, and Mr. Pals, president of the Alberta Hospital Association, the parties did ask that I not become further involved.

That is a matter which I must leave with them because, clearly, with the privilege of collective bargaining goes some very heavy responsibil ity. As I indicated earlier, that responsibility is to the respective members of the two presidents and to the general public. At this point in time, I am not satisfied that the presidents and their staffs have exercised that responsibility to its fullest measure. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Edmonton Kingsway, followed by the hon. Member for Clover Bar. DR. PAPROSKI: Mr.

Speaker, I already asked my ques tion regarding the serious concern of delayed hospitaliza tion due to the nurses' strike. MR. SPEAKER: I believe the hon. Member for Clover Bar has indicated that his question has been asked. Metrication MR. KESLER: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the hon. Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Is the government of Alberta making any effort to stop compul sory metrication, which is causing undue hardship for Albertans through this economic turndown?

30 ALBERTA HANSARD March 8, 1982 MR. NOTLEY: Okay Julian, answer that. MR. KOZIAK: I'd like very much to answer that ques tion; however, I don't want to impinge upon the respon sibility of my colleague the Minister of Government Serv ices, who answers in this House on that very important topic. MR. McCRAE: Mr. Speaker, that is a question that should more appropriately be raised in another House. I appreciate the hon. member's concern about metrica tion. It isn't something that any of us wax eloquent on or are enthused about, but it is something that appears to be happening across Canada.

I could refer the member to the hon. Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs in Ottawa, who is the minister for this federally inspired and instituted program. Or I could give the member all the names of the federal MPs for Alberta, which I'm sure he's familiar with. Mr. Speaker, the province has had a role in metrica tion, but it is a very remote or facilitatory role. If I could give the history, it might be important to do that. The whole thing was initiated by a federal white paper in about 1970.

Subsequent to that, and after passage of federal legislation accommodating weights and measures and other adjustments to metrication, the provincial gov ernment set up a branch of metrication in the Depart ment of Government Services. It was intended to facilit ate the federal move toward metrication; not to impose it provincially but, if it had to be brought into Alberta as it was agreed to among the several provinces, to assist farmers, agricultural people, and people elsewhere in adapting to or learning about metrication.

So if there are problems the [member] would like to take up, and I'm sure there are — I have difficulty myself, not only with weights and measures but with speed limits — I would recommend that he make those views known in Ottawa. MR. KESLER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs. Has the government of Alberta had any represen tation for this province in dealing with the metrication problems? MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Minister of Government Services has already answered that question. MR. KESLER: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.

As this order in council infringes on the rights of Alber- tans, will this government take action to protect the people of this province from the encroachment by this policy upon their individual rights? MR. NOTLEY: That's to you, Dick. MR. KESLER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs. As this order in council infringes upon the rights of Albertans, will this government take action to protect the people of this province from the encroachment by this policy upon their individual rights? MR. JOHNSTON: Mr.

Speaker, first of all, to give a very broad explanation of the constitutional propriety of whether the province can legislate in that area, probably suggests an understanding of the constitution of Canada, the BNA Act, which sets out the jurisdictional responsi bilities for that. If the hon. member is suggesting that the province has some new jurisdiction which we have ac quired as a result of order in council or that the federal government is impinging on our jurisdiction by an order in council, then we should know about it and it would be settled in the courts.

But to this point, no question has been raised by us or suggested to us that the federal government is legislating improperly. As the hon. Minister of Government Services has indicated, that is clearly a federal responsibility. Any further question with respect to the details as to how metrication will be phased in, here in the province of Alberta, should be properly addressed to him. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Vegreville has attempted to get the floor several times; followed by the hon. Leader of the Opposition. MR. BATIUK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the Minister of Government Services.

The minister has stated that metrication was initiated in 1970. Could the minister advise what stand the government of that day took towards metrication? MR. SPEAKER: With great respect to the hon. member, that is an exercise in historical research which perhaps might be carried on outside the Chamber. MR. R. SPEAKER: The government that has had 11 years to put all things right and hasn't, must take respon sibility. My question is to the Minister of Economic Development, because this question does sit in provincial jurisdiction. The economic impact of the implementation of metrication in Alberta is serious.

For example, a small store called "The Alberta": it cost the store owner there, a one-man owner, $500 to change his gas pump — second- grade gas — $1,500 to change his scale. He says to me, where do I get it from? We all know: consumers. And his consumers do not want it. Mr. Speaker, pardon me for the long explanation, but it was necessary. My question, which needs the hon. minister's serious attention: has the minister studied the economic impact of metrication in Alberta? That's num ber one.

Number two: if the government is going along with the program, has the minister looked at any kind of relief to assist some of these small business men who are getting hurt very seriously? MR. PLANCHE: Mr. Speaker, to both questions: no we haven't. MR. KESLER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs — I hope he's the right minister this time. As this order in council will effectively eliminate many of the Alberta trading partners, has this government prepared for alter native markets? MR. KOZIAK: Mr.

Speaker, it's always been my disposi tion in this Assembly to be as helpful as I possibly can in responding to questions. However, I find that I'm trou bled somewhat by trying to provide the information the hon. member requests. Perhaps he could enlarge upon his question, so I have a better feel for the information he seeks. MR. KESLER: Mr. Speaker, metrication in Great Bri tain, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and the United

March 8, 1982 ALBERTA HANSARD 31 States has been phased out or is currently being phased out. Is this government currently pursuing markets to replace those that will be lost when we're on metrication and others are on the imperial system? MR. KOZIAK: First of all, Mr. Speaker, my colleague DR. BUCK: Horst has an answer. Welcome back, Horst. MR. KOZIAK: . . . the Minister of Federal and Inter governmental Affairs did deal with the aspect of constitu tional jurisdiction. As members are aware, weights and measures come foursquare under the federal . . . MR.

SPEAKER: With great respect to the hon. minister, that would not appear to be the topic of the question. I don't think it was directed to constitutionality, rather to [alternative] markets. MR. SCHMID: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to answer that question. It would really misinform Alber tans if a question put like this would stay the way it is.

First of all, it seems that the best technology and also, naturally of course, as far as manufactured goods are concerned, specifically in the oil and gas sector is, after our natural resources, one of the — what can I say — most successful export items we have in the world. As it happens, specifically in that area we deal internationally in tonnes, and of course in all other metric products rather than using barrels or anything else that is done with other measurements.

So wherever we go in the world, except in the United States — in Australia, Japan, and everywhere else, we deal in metric standards only for our oil and gas equipment as well as for our products. They're not phasing it out. MR. KESLER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. minister. Perhaps he could tell us why they're moving grain in both metric and imperial through the rail system and loading the ships with imperial measurements. MR. SCHMID: Mr. Speaker, I'd be pleased to answer that. Naturally, of course, in order to help our people in Canada in that process, we're using both measurements.

If you go to any capital city around the world and discuss exports even of grains, not only of oil and gas equipment — the hon. member said, exports to other countries — you will find that most of the time it's being discussed in tonnes. Of course, you have to figure it back to bushels and everything else, to make sure that the selling country can know what kind of capacity and load we are talking about. MR. SPEAKER: Might this be the last supplementary, since we have exceeded by a few minutes the alloted time for the question period. MR. KESLER: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask a supplemen tary question.

Have the hon. minister and his department been able to do a study to find out the additional costs in dealing with two systems of measurements and the confu sion that is caused by that? MR. SCHMID: Mr. Speaker, I answered the hon. member only in regard to seeking out other markets where the metric system is not used. All these markets use the metric system. The question he has just asked is something for the Minister of Economic Development. ORDERS OF THE DAY head: CONSIDERATION OF HIS HONOUR THE LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR'S SPEECH Moved by Dr.

Carter: That an humble address be presented to His Honour the Honourable the Lieutenant-Governor of Alberta as follows: To His Honour the Honourable Frank Lynch-Staunton. Lieutenant-Governor of the province of Alberta: We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly, now assembled, beg leave to thank Your Honour for the gracious speech Your Honour has been pleased to address to us at the opening of the present session. [Adjourned debate March 5: Mr. R. Speaker] MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to thank you again for the honor of speaking to the throne debate.

First of all, I'd like to recognize the honor that was bestowed on two members of this Legislature: the hon. Member for Calgary Millican, Dr. Carter, to move the Speech from the Throne, and the hon. Mr. Isley from Bonnyville. Historically, that honor bestowed on a con stituency is certainly a mark of recognition of the con tribution of those members and a recognition of the citi zens or residents who live in those respective constituencies. Mr.

Speaker, in the few minutes I am speaking today with regard to the throne speech, I would like to deal directly with the Speech to the Throne, that I introduced to the Legislature the other day and tabled for members' examination. I feel this had to be done for three very basic and important reasons at this time in Alberta's history.

First, the signal is coming from the general public that the Conservative government is not listening, and that one of the functions that must be performed to bring ideas into this Legislature is the process of listening: not only government or legislators thinking they are listening, but that they are actually hearing what the public wants them to do in the management of its affairs. That phrase may ring bells with some members of this Legislature, but it is applicable to this point in the history of Alberta government.

Secondly, listening must not only be recognized, but responses to those concerns of Albertans must be laid before this Legislature and discussed during the period of time that this 19th Legislature, Fourth Session, sits and is responsible to the public. Thirdly, along with those con cerns is to outline, which we have in this Speech to the Throne, some very good policies and programs that we feel will meet the needs of Albertans. They're alternatives that can be looked at and used to manage the affairs of Albertans.

This Speech to the Throne is a first from an opposition in Alberta, introduced to the Legislature in a formal way. We feel it's a responsible document. If it can be imple mented in this Legislature over the next year, or the next short period of time, certainly it can set the parameters of our economic development and meet the desires of Alber tans. The suggestions in it will be the framework from which my colleagues and I will work during the next few

32 ALBERTA HANSARD March 8, 1982 months and into the fall session of the Legislature. We will be introducing Bills, resolutions, amendments, and various forms of debate to cover the different topics. In my remarks today, though, I'd like to highlight what I called three bold responses to the general public that I feel this government has not had the capability of accept ing as bold responses, has ignored the questions the public is raising. The public is saying: this government is not listening, because the bold responses or reactions by the government have not been taken. They're very simple, Mr.

Speaker, but they are the voice and the request coming from the general public of Alberta. What are those three bold responses necessary for Albertans? First of all, Heritage Savings Trust Fund loans to other provinces must be frozen immediately. That response by government is necessary. The second response being asked for by the people of Alberta is that fixed low-interest loans for fixed terms should be made available to Albertans from the Heritage Savings Trust Fund.

Thirdly, a home and business heating rebate pro gram should be implemented, returning a substantial por tion of the natural gas royalty tax to home-owners, re nters, and businesses in Alberta. We could call it the residential and business heating rebate. Those are three bold responses that are necessary by this government. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to talk about each one for just a few moments. This government will ask: why freeze the loans to other provinces? They say, isn't that not being Canadian or not doing our thing?

Well, when you ex amine what this government has done, I think we can agree that it's time to freeze them until this government examines exactly what they are doing. First of all, other provinces in Canada get fixed-interest loans at fixed terms. Individuals, corporations, and businesses in Alber ta do not qualify for those loans. Some members here will say, what about AOC and ADC? That isn't to general Albertans; you have to be in a special category. Less than 1 per cent of Albertans in either the business category or the farming profession even qualify.

But every province in Canada qualifies for a fixed-interest loan for a fixed term. Albertans are being discriminated against, and today that story is out loud and clear in the grass roots of Alberta. This government is so callous, so disinterested in what the people are really saying, that they can't hear that one simple message. When they go to the polls the next time, they'll be told about that message. But I don't think they've heard it, and it's been said in this Legislature before. But it's a bold response, because it's a change in attitude that is neces sary by this government.

Secondly, the Premier has said — and I remember him sitting on this side of the House when the Heritage Savings Trust Fund committee raised the matter last summer — that some people here want to squander the Heritage Savings Trust Fund. Mr. Speaker, that's non sense in itself. We have given $2 billion — some $380 million this year — to other provinces in Canada. We haven't any collateral. We're just hoping it comes back. But if we make low-interest loans at a fixed rate to Albertans, they're here; their business, their farm, what ever they're doing is collateral. Mr. Speaker, I believe in Albertans.

I believe they'll repay those loans in a responsible way. As my hon. colleague from Bow Valley pointed out to me as we discussed this matter, many Albertans will have the op portunity of having funds to build their business, their farm. They will spread it out across the economy of Alberta. All Albertans have opportunity, and economic development can occur in this province. We can protect people in their business or in whatever form they earn a living. That's pretty basic. Albertans will not squander the fund. What else, Mr. Speaker?

When I examined some of the information from other provinces, it really surprised me. I found that other provinces that get our low-interest money at 15 per cent and less — and we in this Legisla ture all know the low percentages — use the money, or a derivative therefrom, to give low-interest loans to their own residents. A couple of days ago, we phoned the Ministry of Agriculture and Marketing in Nova Scotia and said, what kinds of loans are you giving? They said, some farmers qualify for an 8 per cent loan; they go out at 10, but under certain circumstances they get a rebate of 2 to 2.5 per cent.

They said that farmers in Nova Scotia can get that. As I look at the documents here, on January 21, 1982, we loaned $25 million to the province of Nova Scotia: fixed term, six years; interest rate, 15.75 per cent. Nobody in Alberta can even get a fixed-term loan for 15.75 per cent, or for six years. As a farmer, I'd love to have that kind of interest, but like the other farmers I pay 18, 21. That's what we pay in this province — total discrimina tion with our own money.

Another example — we have been researching this, and the information was given to me just before I came into the House today — is very interesting, a document Farm credit in the Canadian Financial System. This is a 1980 document that covers 1979 and 1980. We understand that Quebec is looking at this at the present time because of the economic pressures. This is what it says about the Quebec government Farm Loan Act: The Quebec Government pays the amount owed to the lending agency in excess of its own rates, i.e. anything over 2 1/2% on the first $15,000.

I go over my list of loans to other provinces, and again we find the province of Quebec on the list: loans of $200 million, March 31, 1980. There it is: a fixed loan of fixed money. There's more for the hydro corporation as well. Here again we find the very money we send down there, given to the farmers at a low interest rate. They couldn't do it unless we gave them loans. They couldn't administer their government; whether it goes directly or indirectly to the program, they'd have to cut back somewhere. We give them the incentive to do it.

Farm credit administered by the Farm Credit Bureau in Quebec: Up to 39 1/2 years. 2 1/2% interest for the first $15,000 and balance at 8%. Well, you wonder why any farmer in this province will ever vote for a Conservative government. DR. BUCK: They won't. MR. R. SPEAKER: There is no way, when that kind of discrimination goes on with their own money. This gov ernment can't trust the businessmen and farmers of this province, but they'll give it to the other provinces so they can compete with them in an unfair manner.

Hog producers in Quebec get this low 2.5 per cent interest loan and compete with our hog producers. You should hear that one out at the grass roots of rural Alberta. They tell me that, day after day after day. When I travelled my constituency for two and a half weeks, went door to door and talked to many people, they told me that story over and over again. I said: I'll check it out, I'm not sure; maybe you heard that, maybe it's a rumor.

March 8. 1982 ALBERTA HANSARD 33 But it's no rumor. This document has it documented as fact. That's the way it is, and this government goes on in a carefree manner, giving away our money at terms we who live in Alberta don't even qualify for. Mr. Speaker, that's disgusting. That matter is going to be dealt with at the polls if this government can't take some bold responses and deal with it. What they're doing is totally irresponsible. That's why we have to quit giving it to other provinces until this government straightens itself out. I think it has to stop as soon as possible.

Alberta farmers and small business men will stop this government if we can't do it in the Legislature. The other fact of the matter, and I've already men tioned it, is that these loans go to the other provinces and there's just no security. As I've mentioned, people in this province — farmers, businessmen — will certainly give their land, machinery, business, or inventory as security. What's wrong with a loan like that? I think there should be some very basic principles to those loans. My colleagues and I feel that this govern ment could put a loan program in place. The $2 billion is now to the other provinces.

There's no reason we couldn't have $2 billion here for the people of Alberta and put a program in place. What would the program be based on? There should be some very basic principles, and I've listed seven. One is equitable treatment for Albertans, as for others who get loans. I've mentioned the example of provinces of Canada. Secondly, in that principle we must protect the integrity of and the rate of return to the Heritage Savings Trust Fund. I think we can do that. Thirdly, there should be fixed interest for a fixed term. The fourth principle: the loans should be for a broad cross

section of Albertans. The fifth principle: Albertans must have re payment capability before the loan is given. The sixth principle: the loans could be used for operating and capital loans for businesses or farms, mortgages; the loans would be used for basic economic development or home ownership, or retaining the business, farm, or home. The seventh principle: in each fiscal year, a fixed amount would be allocated through the Legislature to the loan from the Heritage Savings Trust Fund. I think those general principles are important for this kind of loan program.

This is what Albertans are asking for at the present time. What is the suggested program for fixed-interest, fixed- term loans from the Heritage Savings Trust Fund? Number one, I've said that $2 billion should be allocated by the Legislature to the loan fund. The investment portfolio has nearly $2 billion. When I look at that investment portfolio — the recent report of the Auditor General, that just came out a few days ago, pointed out to us that the rate of return for that investment portfolio in terms of bonds and short-term money, is not too good.

For example, for the fiscal years ended March 31, '79 and '80, the median Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund return with regard to bonds was minus 9.2 per cent; 1980-81 was 14.2 per cent; '79-81 overall was 1.8 per cent. Short-term money: '79-80, 11.4 per cent; '80-81, 14.2; '79-81, 12.8 per cent. When you combine those two in vestments, bonds and short-term moneys, we find the return in 1979-80 was 3.7 per cent; '80-81, 13.6 per cent; '79-81, 8.5 per cent. Mr.

Speaker, we could set the loan at a fixed term of 15 per cent today and meet the rate of return of the investment portfolio without even as much risk, without risking it on the bond market and losing $60 million over a three-year period, like we did in the last Legislature: no risk and a way to help every Albertan. But this Conserva tive government, under Mr. Lougheed, wants all the control of the money in its own hands. Albertans don't count; they couldn't spend it responsibly. So Albertans can't even have a loan at a fixed rate, at a fixed term, out of their own money.

What's the second thing that could go into a program? Through the treasury branches, we could establish a spe cial agency or department to allocate the loans to Alber tans. Maybe other lending agencies could be involved there as well. That's one of the agencies already set up to do this across the province; another bureaucracy isn't necessary. Thirdly, the ceiling on the loans. To initiate a program like this, I'd say a ceiling of $50,000 would be sensible. That would help a lot of Albertans. In one year, we could help a minimum of 40,000 Albertans with loans, who in turn would repay it.

In other years, we could allocate more money to the loan fund. We could get the economy moving in the right direction. We could do something in Alberta. Fixed interest: I've said 15 per cent. I've pointed out from the Auditor's report that that would give a reasona ble rate of return to the investment

section of the Herit age Savings Trust Fund. Fixed term: I suggest maybe 10 years, but it could be five or 20. As we look at the loans that have gone to other provinces, they vary anywhere from one to six to 20 years. I believe some are even close to 30 years — loans at a fixed term, at a fixed interest rate. Well, Mr. Speaker, this government doesn't even un derstand how to be fair to its own people here in the province. If they aren't able to respond to that very basic need and request of Albertans, then they don't deserve to be government. As an added comment, Mr. Speaker, many people feel that way today.

Certainly, as we talk to Albertans and explain this program to them, if the gov ernment can't come up with something that is even comparable to this, they will suffer the consequences, which they should. The third area I want to talk about in terms of bold responses necessary by this government is keeping people in their homes, keeping heating costs at a very basic rate. I heard Albertan after Albertan, constituent after constit uent — and this is no underestimation and comment about how many people told me this.

They said: here I stand in my store, here I am in my own home, here I am on my own farm, and right under the ground, if we drilled a hole here, there's gas that belongs to all Alber tans; in the last year, my heating bill has become totally unreasonable and unacceptable. They can't understand how a government in Alberta could agree to an energy agreement that would cost them a fortune, practically put them out of business, make it impossible to stay in their homes and, at the same time, not even recognize the problem, not even have the capability of responding.

The throne speech before us was a disaster in terms of that, Mr. Speaker, not even recognition that the problem was there, that heating your home has become a major cost. We did some research with regard to that as well, and talked to people in specifics. One of the most interesting was a fellow right here in Edmonton, in one of the hon. members' constituencies, west Edmonton. The fellow is a 77-year-old pensioner. I tell you, he won't vote for you guys anymore. He owns an 1,100 square foot house, 3 bedrooms, and he uses natural gas for furnace and water heating. In 1971, his cost for the year was $90.59. He

34 ALBERTA HANSARD March 8, 1982 produced all the bills, and they're available for anybody to see. In 1981, the total cost was $454.13. From 1971 to 1981, the cost under this government went up nearly 500 per cent. The reason we chose this person is that he's on a fixed income, always on pension. In 1971 he was on pension; today he's on pension. The cost for heating his home has gone up 500 per cent. His pension hasn't gone up that much. His income hasn't gone up anywhere near that. As well, he's faced with increased food and other costs that are unbelievable.

He made a couple of comments that I thought were interesting. He said he's absolutely convinced that if 30 per cent of the revenue from the natural gas wasn't going into the heritage fund, his monthly heating bill would be 30 per cent lower. I know it isn't all connected like that, but that's what he believes about this government. He doesn't agree, however, that he ought to pay 30 per cent into a heritage fund for future generations when he is being driven from the home he's lived in for over a quarter of a century by ever-increasing utility costs. He is a proud pensioner who wants to stay in his home.

So the heating cost has gone up 500 per cent. We also made some other examinations. We looked at the gas rebate over that period of time. I recognize that gas prices at the gate are reduced a certain amount to the consumer. The consumer gets the gas priced less because of the natural gas protection plan. But even in light of that, the heating cost is significant and unbearable. As he looked over his bills and showed them to us, the rebate from that $454.13 in the final year came to $8.27, an average of about 1.8 per cent. It just isn't adequate.

You look at gas co-ops, the price of gas that was supposed to be stabilized. I remember the minister, the hon. Dr. Horner, standing in the House saying, we're going to bring cheap gas to all these Albertans; we're going to hold the price. From 1979 to 1982, it as well has gone over 490 per cent in increased prices. I have a number of the rural co-op gas prices here to show that the price has increased. We can't say that that is all capital cost, because that was usually built in at the beginning of the distribution system. Canadian Western for example: we find the very same kind of . . .

When we examine their general bills on the cost of 250 MCF per year, the percentage gas price increase from 1971 to 1982 is 458 per cent. The ICG Utilities (Plains Western): from 1971 to 1981, their increase was 419 per cent. I examined bills in some of the businesses in the town of Vulcan, and it alarmed me. That's the first place that really triggered it to my attention. A number of the businessmen were saying, my bill has gone up from $100 to $250. I checked some of those bills and talked to them.

From 1980 to 1982, the increase in one businessman's bill was over 30 per cent; another one at 43 per cent; another at 51.9 per cent; another at 43.3 per cent; from January '80 to February '82, one of the confectionery stores in creased 157 per cent — significant increases. That's the story of all these figures: another added cost to the small business men, to the home-owner, to the farmer in this province. This government doesn't even recognize what it's doing.

All it does is lurch ahead for a money grab for its own treasury, so that most likely we can invest $2 billion in the Alsands plant or some other venture that the Premier and a few cabinet ministers have control of, rather than giving it to all Albertans. Mr. Speaker, in this province it's time to go back to basics, back to helping individual people in their own livelihood: lowering input costs so they can meet the common daily pressure that's on them from the economic turndown. It's there. If this government can't respond in these two or three ways, they don't deserve to govern. Mr.

Speaker, I hope the people of Alberta deal with them accordingly. This government, which continually blames the problems of interest and high costs of heating on the federal government, is not telling the truth to the people of Alberta. They do have control. This Conserva tive government, under Mr. Lougheed, can answer the questions, and it's incumbent upon them to do so. If they don't act in this legislature, it'll be too late. And, thank God, it'll be too late when the people are able to deal with them as they should.

In the Speech to the Throne, which we raised, there are other areas we are going to cover during the legislative session. The Heritage Savings Trust Fund: we're going to press as much as we can for legislative and public ac countability. We think there should be some new priori ties in the Heritage Savings Trust Fund. I've mentioned a couple, but we also feel that the shares in PWA, Syn- crude, and Alberta Energy Company should be sold so that instead we can help all Albertans. The crisis in health care: doctors, nurses, other health care personnel are demoralized today.

This government must deal with that problem. We intend to press the government for a better health care system. There should be a public inquiry, Mr. Speaker. Ambulance service: my hon. colleague, who worked hard in the Legislature of 1976, called for a province-wide paramedical ambulance service to be put in place. This Legislature passed the resolution supporting it. This gov ernment has not even acted on that resolution — a direc tion of the Legislature, and we have had no results. Agriculture: we must deal with input cost — interest, fuel cost, establishment of a better transportation system.

Five-year program of roads, which my hon. colleague from Clover Bar has called for a number of times; improvement of the Trans-Canada Highway through the Bow Valley constituency, for which my colleague has worked hard a number of times. The Crow rate: we're hoping the government will introduce a resolution on the Crow rate, so that discussion can follow in this Legisla ture and the Conservative government puts its position clearly before the people of Alberta so they're not hiding behind the skirts of the federal government. Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from Bow Valley will lead us in that debate.

Housing: high cost of mortgages, shortage and price of rental accommodation, and the wasteful burden of devel opment planning and the approval process are three areas that we think have devastated the housing industry in this province. This government is responsible. It must take the responsibility. I've mentioned natural gas for home heating. Business environment for the oil and gas exploration industry: we think the 1981 cutbacks, suspension of the oil sands, and the September energy agreement were devastating actions by this government that ruined the basis for the economy in this province.

We've now suffered an economic turn down, capital moving into the United States, and we have a government that will not take the responsibility and turn it around. We have Alsands negotiations going on, but we don't know what they are. They're always behind closed doors, secretive. All of a sudden the people of this province will be told about it and be hosed again, just like the energy agreement and some of the other agreements of no good to the people in Alberta that come out of the back rooms of the Conservative caucus. I don't know

March 8, 1982 ALBERTA HANSARD 35 when this government will learn to do business in public, in this Legislature. But with that kind of tactic, the public will deal with them eventually. Corporate income tax: I think that's been on the books about three years now. In 1981-82, it cost the taxpayers of Alberta $6,800,000 for the Provincial Treasurer to set up a bureaucracy of people, a bunch of bureaucrats — most likely a few political appointees — who now have jobs in this government. That's number one.

Number two, we have 40,000 or 50,000 businessmen — I forget the number — in this province who are paying anywhere from $400 to $1,000 to fill out a form and register with these bureaucrats. Unbelievable waste of money, Mr. Speaker. If at the same time, this government had the initiative and concern for the small business man, they wouldn't put the bureaucracy in place till they told the businessmen the benefits. In our survey, we could not find a businessman who knew of the benefits. But they knew they had to refer a form to their accountant, who charged them $250 to $400 to fill it out and file it. Wasted money.

About the only benefit was a tax write-off by the federal government. That's the kind of dumb planning that occurs by this government. They have no concern for the guy out on the street, the man who has to pay the taxes, pay the bills, support his family, and make the economy run — just another example of the attitude of this government. They feel they rule by some right — I hesitate to say divinely — that's given to them at election time. They feel that that right will be given again, which I don't believe. With this kind of administration, it shouldn't happen.

Hopefully democracy will work in a positive way, but that's the way it is. Another program area: fair share for local govern ments. Today I tabled a report on revenue sharing. If you look at the picture on the cover of that report, you'll notice a big pair of pliers where the municipalities of this province are right in the pincers. That's an actual graph of how the education costs and tax have been added on to the property tax of the people of this province.

Big promise by the Provincial Treasurer a few years ago at a municipal convention that they were going to get rid of that education cost on the property tax. The Premier promised it before he came into government, but it's growing continually. At the same time, this government is starting to blame the municipalities for overspending and not controlling their budgets. Mr. Speaker, I don't think the fault lies with the municipalities. Give them funds with which they can manage their affairs, don't intervene, share revenue, and they'll do their job.

But that's not the format of this government that wants to control everything, that wants to set up a bureaucratic system so they approve any dollar spent. That system in this province has got to go. We've got to get down where people — municipalities, small business men, and farmers included — can do their own job and be responsible for themselves. In this report, I mentioned the International Year of Disabled Persons because I was disappointed that a committee was appointed, after the fall session closed, to go around and have hearings from all the various groups as to what the disabled wanted.

I have read reports in this Legislature. There are organized groups that can present the cause of the disabled. Those programs should have been implemented in the year of the disabled. We're now a year late. By the time we have these hearings, it will be two years. By that time there will be an economic downturn, and the poor disabled will be at the bottom of the list again. To me, that was very disappointing. We had a chance to do something for people who have a social need and want to participate in general society, but we blew it.

The last point I want to make in my remarks is about the general attitude of this government, and to some extent I've already touched on it. As Socreds, we make four points in our Speech to the Throne. The number of orders in council by this government has increased signif icantly, which means laws are not made in this Legisla ture but in cabinet. It's a violation of a principle we talked about and pressed for last fall; that is, public business being done in public. The second point is the use of special warrants.

I thought the law case we held a year ago would be an indicator to this government that they should change their plans or their format. But this government thinks: who cares, we can do what we want. Albertans again live with the decision-making of special warrant spending, where the government budgets poorly, talks about re straint and being responsible, and on the other hand, after we leave the Legislature, spends millions of dollars.

Between January 6, 1982, and February 24, 1982, a total of $419.5 million in special warrants was approved — half a billion dollars approved outside this Legislature, without our even having the opportunity of saying anything. Can you blame me as a member for introducing a bill which would limit that to at least 4 per cent? When we look at this, we find that the total budgetary expenditure for last year is $6.7 billion, which is 16.3 per cent above the revised — and to be fair with the government, this is the revised — 1980-81 budget, or 22.5 per cent above the comparable 1980-81 estimates.

That's how much the ac tual budget approved in this Legislature was increased: 16.3 per cent on one figure or 22.5 per cent. These special warrants that this government passed, which should have been new added money to the budget at most anyway, came to 9.5 per cent. So the actual increase this govern ment made in expenditures, in increasing the bureaucrats and looking after contracts that don't help the people of Alberta, was 25.8 per cent. That's one-quarter of the budget that was approved outside this Legislature: 32 per cent. Why didn't you do it in the Legislature? Mr.

Speaker, that is the kind of arrogance — I've called it callous attitude — that this government has towards people of Alberta. The people don't count; they don't matter; they are not part of this government's plan. The plan of this government is to look after their own jobs and power, and to look after the big corporations. Who cares about the little guy? Not one bit of care about the free-enterpriser trying to make his business or farm operate, and to participate in a community and pay the taxes that are going to be given to him as a blessing from this government. Mr. Speaker, that is the second one.

Third, we have talked about the exclusive control of the Heritage Savings Trust Fund: 88 per cent by the Premier; 12 per cent, supposedly, by the Legislature. But that is a joke in itself. We are here to talk about it, but we don't really count. The legislation is brought in. Cabinet has decided and told all the backbenchers what to ap prove. It doesn't really matter anyway. You might as well say 100 per cent of that Heritage Savings Trust Fund, and no programs in there for the people of Alberta. The cancerous growth of regulations: we are having a study done on regulations in this province.

Our initial study indicates an unbelievable number of regulations passed outside this Legislature that tie up the hands of

36 ALBERTA HANSARD March 8, 1982 people, that introduce all kinds of red tape for people in the various communities who are trying to do their own job, look after themselves and be individual, competitive free-enterprisers. This government doesn't understand that, Mr. Speaker. I think they are going to have to look at the role they are playing in the affairs of people, because Albertans are not accepting it. I would like to make these concluding comments. First, the Speech from the Throne put forward by this govern ment was not perceptive of the problems I raised.

They don't even hear the voices of Albertans, Mr. Speaker, and I believe they don't want to hear them. Secondly, when I wrote my remarks and thought about them, I was going to give some very good advice about the years 1970 and '71, when I saw the same kind of environment in this Legislature. The government thought they were really lis tening to the people, but they weren't. The people dealt with them accordingly, and rightly so. I think we are at the same threshold again, where the people are going to deal accordingly with a government that has forgotten where they are, who they are, and what their needs are.

Mr. Speaker, this government does have a chance. Programs such as the ones we have introduced in our Speech to the Throne should be taken with some sinceri ty. This government can admit its mistakes even yet and become a little more humble than they are at the present time — humble not for their own good but for the good of Albertans, because that is who they represent. Their own personal needs are irrelevant in this whole democrat ic process; it is the needs of Albertans. But that will take a change and a bit of humbling, Mr. Speaker.

There's still time for this government to do something in their budget speech. I hope the hon. Provincial Treas urer doesn't come in with a bunch of excuses. We hope the minister is able to deal with spending priorities and say what this government really thinks is important and isn't important. How are they going to deal with interest rates? The province can deal with that question and not say it is a federal problem. If I hear that in the budget speech, that is just an insult to Albertans. They can deal with residential and business heating, and health care. This government has a responsibility to lift morale.

In the history of any province, we have never had more money to spend on basic social services like hospital care and extended health care for Albertans. This government has blown it, Mr. Speaker. We pro crastinated for 11 years. The minister prior to the present one procrastinated for four years in terms of planning and organizing, and got caught up with four bureaucrats who cost us a fortune in this province. We still haven't caught up, nor have we made some proper decisions. It is unfortunate. Mr. Speaker, I call on the government to deal with those problems. It is their responsibility.

The people of Alberta elected them to take that responsibility. Mr. Speaker, I would like to move an amendment, of which I gave notice the other day, to the motion which is on the Order Paper. The amendment reads as follows: The motion is amended by inserting the following words after the words "present session": "but we regret the omission of adequate provision for the needs of Albertans as outlined in the docu ment entitled, 'Speech to the Throne' tabled today in the Assembly." SOME HON. MEMBERS: Question. MR. KOWALSKI: Mr.

Speaker, before we move to the question, I want to take the opportunity to make some comments this afternoon on behalf of all the good people in the constituency of Barrhead. First of all, I would like to extend my congratulations to the Member for Calgary Millican and to the Member for Bonnyville for being involved in the actual debate. I want to make it quite clear at the outset that I am speaking against the amendment put forward by the Member for Little Bow. MR. SPEAKER: I see some expressions of concern on the faces of some hon. members about the continuation of the debate on the amendment by the hon.

Member for Barrhead, but I don't know of any strictures in parlia mentary usage which would prevent the opening of de bate on an amendment by the inclusion of some compliments. MR. KOWALSKI: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I will be geared by your direction and take the liberty, but not the wanton liberty, of just adding a few more comments of congratulations to my colleagues from both Calgary Millican and Bonnyville. I very much appre ciated the very, very humanistic approach that the Member for Calgary Millican took in moving his speech the other day.

I am particularly pleased with some of the basic comments he made on behalf of individual human beings in the province of Alberta. To the Member for Bonnyville, an area I come from, my home town in fact, I am very pleased he was asked to second the speech. I think that is a great honor to both the people living there and the people he represents, and even to some of those who have long gone from that part of Alberta and who now are trying to find their roots in other parts of the province. Mr. Speaker, I am speaking against the amendment put forward by the Member for Little Bow.

I want to comment on a number of subject areas: the question of property rights in the province of Alberta, a few com ments with respect to the Heritage Savings Trust Fund, housing, special warrants, the electrical marketing agency Act, agriculture, Alberta municipalities, and Alberta business.

I want to assure you, sir, and all good members of the House, which is everyone in the House, that I do not intend to use phrases such as: don't want to hear the people of Alberta, do not trust, doesn't understand how to be fair to its own people, is not telling the truth to the people, arrogance, callous attitude, no programs in there for the people of Alberta. I certainly will not take the wanton liberty of exercising those phrases this afternoon. Mr.

Speaker, over the last several months, really since the midpoint of December, all hon. members have had an opportunity to visit their constituents, travel about their constituencies, and meet people in all parts of Alberta. We've all had an opportunity to listen, hear the concerns, and be involved in a lot of discussion.

One interesting item a number of my constituents brought to my attention in the latter part of December, the first part of January, and through February, was some degree of misapprehension or perhaps misunder standing of the whole question of property rights: the resolution of property rights in the new Canada Bill that will soon become law in this country and, in essence, how it relates to the Alberta Bill of Rights.

Interestingly enough, in undertaking numerous discussions with my constituents, inevitably and invariably I found they were reading magazines published in the provinces of Sas katchewan and Manitoba, which in fact looked at proper ty rights in those two provinces. My constituents were

March 8, 1982 ALBERTA HANSARD 37 saying: now look, we don't have any property rights. I consistently and continually had to sit down with them, and I then started referring to two documents. One is the new constitutional proposal, that in essence has been cleared through the various provinces in Canada, the House of Commons, and is now awaiting recognition and approval by the British House of Commons prior to its return to Canada. One particular

section in that new constitution to which I specifically had to draw my constituents' atten tion, was

Section 26 in the Charter of Rights, which very, very specifically points out that it provides for the con tinuation of all existing rights and freedoms that particu lar individuals in our country have. The second very important document I take and show to my constituents is a Bill passed in this Legislature in 1972. It's known as the Alberta Bill of Rights. I had to take just a little bit of time to read

Section 1 of the Alberta Bill of Rights to them, and I would like to read it into the record this afternoon: It is hereby recognized and declared that in Alber ta there exist without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex, the fol lowing human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely: (

a) the right of the individual to liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law . . . Those two documents,

Section 26 of the new Charter of Rights in our new, soon to become, made in Canada constitution, and

Section 1 of the Alberta Bill of Rights emphatically prove to me without any doubt or reserva tion at all that the property rights of Albertans have not been lost. In fact, they are protected in a manner and way in which few citizens in perhaps other parts of Canada have their same property rights protected. That really is primarily because their legislatures have still not moved to incorporate the whole property rights question as our Legislature did some 10 years ago, in 1972, when it was included as

Section 1 of the new Alberta Bill of Rights. I think my constituents are much more relaxed now about this whole question of property rights and their protec tion than they were several months ago when there seemed to be quite a public debate on this question through a number of magazines. Not all were published in the province of Alberta, but certainly those magazines gave the unfortunate opportunity of some misapprehen sion to some of my constituents. Mr.

Speaker, listening and responding to the concerns of my constituents and talking to people in all parts of Alberta gave me an opportunity to point out what this government has really been doing in a number of areas over the last 10 years. We have just gone through the 10th anniversary of this government, a government that I think is well respected in all parts of Alberta, a govern ment that has taken bold initiatives over the last decade in a number of areas, and a government that has said again that as it enters 1982, it's going to take bold initia tives in a number of new areas. Again, a point of reflection.

I listened to my constitu ents and, of course, responded to their concerns. They said: well, have you thought about doing this, and what's the direction you'd like to go in in this regard? We talked about alternatives, because we always do that. Any gov ernment that purports to be a government of the people, as this government is, is consistently looking for new alternatives, new directions, new approaches. I had another little document that I took around with me, and I basically looked at very significant expenditure areas: people programs, programs for people.

When I looked at the expenditure by selected provincial govern ment departments over the last 10 years and compared the expenditure levels in 1971 with the expenditure levels of those same departments in 1980, I came across some very fascinating statistics. As an example, on the question of hospitals, in 1971 the total provincial expenditure was $189.8 million. Mr. Speaker, my constituents were very surprised to learn that by the year 1980, expenditure levels in that one department alone, that very important people department, had risen to $822.3 million.

In 1971, total provincial expenditure on education was $378.1 mil lion. In 1980, the figure for our young learning students, the people who will become our leaders 20 and 30 years from now, had risen to $1.421 billion. In 1971, expendi ture level on agriculture was $25.3 million. In 1980, that expenditure level was $93.7 million — people programs. A very important infrastructure development in our province over the last 10 years deals with the area of highways and transportation. It's not peculiar to people who live in urban or rural Alberta. It transcends the wants and desires of everybody.

We need a fine transpor tation system to do two things: bring people closer to gether and bring goods to market. That's what Alberta is all about. Look at the expenditure level in 1971, $93.7 million. In 1980, that expenditure level had risen to $483.9 million. Mr. Speaker, in every one of those cases — hospitals, education, agriculture, highways and transport — those budgetary expenditure increases from 1971 to 1980 were all in the magnitude and neighborhood of 400 to 500 per cent.

I for one, as a member of this Assembly, don't stand up and say that we should be proud, because look at all the money we're spending. We're not spending our money; we're spending, investing, and using money that belongs to the people of Alberta. But the point, the key reality, is that over that decade this government has responded to the needs of the people of Alberta, and has responded very, very well in a number of very important areas. Some can say that a 400 to 500 per cent expendi ture level increase hardly keeps up with the pace of infla tion. So, Mr.

Speaker, I went a little farther and checked the 1971 consumer price index as a base. It was 99.7. In 1980, it was 210.6. So according to the consumer price index for that decade, the increase was approximately twofold. All the figures I've just finished talking about show a magnitude of expenditure in the neighborhood of four to fivefold for people programs in this province now — not 40 years from now. Mr. Speaker, I indicated earlier that I also wanted to make some comments on the Heritage Savings Trust Fund, a very, very important aspect to the way of life in Alberta.

A lot of my constituents said, what are you really doing for us; isn't it true that you're putting all this money away for the future; what are you doing now? So we sat down and had some chats — some around the table, some on the street corner, some in a car on main street, but they were held. We had some interesting dis cussions on the Heritage Savings Trust Fund. We talked about what the Heritage Savings Trust Fund is doing for the homeowner, for the person who has to live in a home in the province of Alberta.

It's very interesting, when you take a look at the magnitude of expenditure levels just in the last short period of time, the magnitude of expenditure, develop ment, expansion, and assistance through such agencies as

38 ALBERTA HANSARD March 8, 1982 the Alberta Housing Corporation and the Alberta Home Mortgage Corporation in the last year, the 1981-82 fiscal year. The expenditure level in that regard will see us provide some 24,000 units of shelter to the people of Alberta — in this province, not in some other part of Canada that somebody's wanton exuberance might sug gest might take place. That commitment for those 24,000 units really amounts to some $1.7 billion. That's only in the 1981-82 fiscal year.

A commitment in years previous to '81-82 really brings our total commitment to housing in the province of Alberta to $3.4 billion. Mr. Speaker, we all know that the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund, through the various housing pro grams that are part of it, encompasses a whole variety of different types of programs. We have only to take a look at an excellent booklet, called Provincial Housing Pro grams in Alberta. It's made current every several months [as] a new program comes out. We take a look at the 24,000 units that are being provided.

In the '81-82 fiscal year, 3,425 senior citizen units are being developed, from Etzikom to High Level, Alberta. Rental units through CHIP, or the core housing incen tive program — a lot of people don't like acronyms, because they don't quite appreciate what they all stand for. We're living in a world of acronyms. We have MAP, or the modest apartment program; mobile-home parks; municipal non-profit housing; community housing; and transitional housing. We've even got a few little houses we're building for some of our bureaucrats, as the Member for Little Bow referred.

Those are bureaucrats living in some areas of the province of Alberta where there really is no opportunity for conventional housing. As a former bureaucrat — and I don't say that too loudly in coffee discussions with some of my colleagues — we found in the department I was once a deputy minister of, that in fact it was to the advantage of the public purse of the province of Alberta to provide government housing. It was much cheaper in the long term, from an adminis trative point of view, to do that than to provide an assistance factor to the individual to move his own trailer in, and the like. Mr.

Speaker, 9,680 units were provided in the fiscal year 1981. There were various home ownership programs: the Alberta family home purchase program, the farm lending program, the rural and native housing program, the rural home assistance program, the rural mobile- home program, and land assembly and development which was provided to a number of municipalities in this province. We have programs for renovation and adaptability for various homes under the Alberta pioneer repair program.

I don't know of any member of this Assembly who would suggest that that is not one of the most important people programs this government has ever brought forward. Our handicapped housing grants, our emergency repair pro grams, and our home conversion programs are all there. We have other incentive programs for municipal gov ernments. To repeat, the fact of the matter is: over 24,000 units; a commitment of $1.7 billion in one fiscal year alone; and, in the Speech from the Throne, a commit ment for more in the 1982-83 fiscal year. That's just housing.

That's just one part of the various people pro grams we have. Let's talk about what we're doing for Alberta farmers. I represent a constituency that is rural, as do a large number of members in this Assembly. Our farmers are independent, proud people. MRS. CRIPPS: The greatest. MR. KOWALSKI: As the Member for Drayton Valley has correctly said, they are the greatest you'll find any where in the agricultural community in the world. Our farmers came to this province. They developed the prov ince. They are creating; they haven't stopped. They're innovative.

They are upset with the current economic situation for their products. But they also understand that if they're in beef in the province of Alberta — and two and a half times the amount of beef produced in this province must go out of it; it's not consumed in this province — they have to meet a market competitive factor that's really set in the North American market, not set totally in the province of Alberta. Our grain producers understand that they have to sell their products in all parts of the world.

They recognize that the transportation system in western Canada and Canada is a prime responsibility of the government of Canada, not a prime responsibility of the province of Alberta, although this government has decided by itself to get involved in the system and do whatever it can to improve the transportation system. Our farmers also recognize that interest rates in this country are not set in the province of Alberta or in the province of British Columbia, but in a national city in the country of Canada.

They don't appreciate the interest rate policy of the federal government, but they're also not confused about the fact that a government sitting in Edmonton can arbitrarily say that henceforth the interest rate in the province of Alberta will be 12 per cent for each and every individual, and that's the way we're going to live. It doesn't happen that way, Mr. Speaker. My constituents appreciate that. In fact they're very thankful for the total commitment made under the Herit age Savings Trust Fund to Alberta farmers. They look forward.

They make very positive statements about the beginning farmer program, which since April 1980 has made some 2,000 loans amounting to over $3 million. They're also very pleased with the Farming for the Future program, which talks about research. In fact, I think one of our difficulties today is the lack of really top-notch ideas to address, forward, further cultivate, and develop research in agriculture in this province. My colleague from Macleod, who is very active in that particular program, is consistently looking forward to new ideas that can be further expanded and developed.

In southern Alberta, a great part of this province, some $60 million has been devoted to irrigation rehabilitation and expansion. The people who live in the constituency of Barrhead are really part of southern Alberta, because the geographic centre of the province really goes about 30 miles north of the town the constituency is named after. None of my constituents believes we live in southern Alberta, but from a geographic point of view, we're really a part.

We're looking forward to when irrigation rehabili tation and expansion take place between the Paddle and Pembina rivers in the heart of the constituency of Barr head. I'm sure we'll have total support from some of my good colleagues living in the deep south, the banana belt part of our province. The grazing reserves development program funded under the Heritage Savings Trust Fund is one we're all very proud of. Mr. Speaker, we have 1,000 very distinc tive heritage cars hauling Alberta grain and helping out the western grain industry.

They're going to be hauling some of that grain to a new terminal this province is investing money in to help its people, its agrologists.

March 8, 1982 ALBERTA HANSARD 39 What about small, business? I've met with a lot of small business men. They're angry with high interest rates; there's absolutely no doubt at all about that. For any small business man to go down to the bank and have to borrow money at 21, 22, 23, 24 per cent — they're furious. But by the same token, not too many of them are suggesting to me that the province of Alberta should make available 12 per cent interest money. They're par ticularly not suggesting that if it's meant to finance new business, where business may already exist in a particular town.

They recognize and understand — from a risk point of view, because along with our people in agricul ture they are the foremost risk-takers in this province — the difficulties of an international market and a national market as much as they understand the difficulty of only a provincial market, if artificial barriers are maintained within that particular environment. Mr. Speaker, a lot of questions have been raised by my constituents: why are you saving 30 per cent; what are you doing with the other 70 per cent? I say we're using it today.

The 70 per cent that doesn't go into the Heritage Savings Trust Fund goes into the operating budget of the province of Alberta on a year-to-year basis. In essence, it's being used today for some of those programs I talked about before: hospitals, education, transportation — prime expenditure functions. They said, you've got so much money in the Heritage Savings Trust Fund; how come you're lending all this money to these other provinces in this country of Cana da; why aren't you spending more? First of all, we're not spending; we're investing.

Secondly, do you really appre ciate or comprehend the magnitude of investment in other parts of Canada and understand the reason why? Alberta being a good citizen, being a good partner in a strong Confederation known as Canada, has been pre pared to assist the national economy by loaning money to other provinces. When you take a look at the Heritage Savings Trust Fund today, you see the make-up of it: 57 per cent of the funds are found in the Alberta investment division.

Those are the loans to the Alberta Home Mortgage Corpora tion, the Alberta Housing Corporation, the Alberta Op portunity Company, the Agricultural Development Cor poration, the Alberta Municipal Financing Corporation, Alberta Government Telephones. Thirteen per cent is found in the capital projects divi sion, an enormity of activities. We've even got a little dirt-moving project not very far away from where I live outside Barrhead. It's on the Paddle River. We're build ing a great big dam there to protect the flow of water. That will really help some 500 people in agriculture.

Those of you who were in this Assembly as long ago as 1967 and 1971 will surely have heard my predecessor, a colleague of many of you, talk about the Paddle River. It was one of his dreams. I'm just delighted that for his satisfaction and for the satisfaction, as I said, of literally hundreds of individual farmers, the Paddle River project is now going. The Canada investment division, Mr. Speaker, 16 per cent for Canada, in terms of loans to other provinces. I want to correct the Leader of the Opposition. He indicat ed that we're really loaning money to the province of Quebec. That's not correct; he's wrong.

There are no Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund loans to the prov ince of Quebec. There are loans to Hydro-Quebec, but that is not the province of Quebec. We also lend money and have assisted the province of Manitoba. Other income-earning investments under the Heritage Savings Trust Fund: 14 per cent. That gives you the total of the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund. It's important that we remember that, number one, it's savings, and that it's based on trust. I was a member of this Assembly last fall when we had a great debate on the Heritage Savings Trust Fund and how people were administering it.

Then some people suggested that all of a sudden somebody got up one morning and found out that $60 million had gone, disap peared. Somehow it was away from us. We scurried in here for 30 days. Some of us — not me — even sat through what seemed to be an eternity one evening, and we had debate and we had question and we had speech. It was fascinating. And the whole thrust of it was that we lost $60 million, and somebody better go find it. So after various speakers on the government side tried to calm down some hon. members on the opposition side, the government decided, okay, maybe we should have a study.

You don't want to trust us; you don't want to appreciate that we're honorable people and that when we stand up in the House and provide an answer, that answer is based on truth, not on fiction. A letter was sent. The Auditor General, an independent officer, did a report. Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a few comments on the report, known as the Conspectus of a Report of the Auditor General of Alberta on Certain Matters Related to the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund.

I want to make the comment, if I may, on the basis of some opening statements used by my colleague from Little Bow, who talked about such things as not telling the truth to the people, arrogance, callous attitude, doesn't want to hear the people of Alberta, do not trust. The document put forward by the Auditor states very, very specifically and very, very much to the point that: The main conclusions contained in the report are that throughout the life of the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund: (

a) no malfeasance, including fraud or collusion, has occurred relating to marketable securities owned by the Fund; (

b) satisfactory action [has been] taken by the Gov ernment respecting audit observations and recommendations made pursuant to the Auditor General Act in connection with marketable securities owned by the Fund; (

c) marketable securities owned by the Fund were adequately safeguarded and accounted for. We're talking about trust, and that was the trust. The Auditor even goes one step further and says: In the event that fraud had been discovered, or marketable securities had not been adequately safe guarded or accounted for, or audit recommendations had been ignored, the Auditor General would have reported these matters previously in an annual or special report to the Legislative Assembly.

The Auditor even went beyond his own good offices and got hold of a firm in Vancouver, British Columbia, and asked that firm to perform an independent performance appraisal of the Fund for the thirty months during which most of the $60 million loss was incurred. The firm provided an opinion letter. I think it's important as well. I'd like to read it as part of my contribution to the Speech from the Throne and the amendment put forward by the Member for Little Bow. The Auditor's consulting firm said: Combined Marketable Bonds plus Short Term Se

40 ALBERTA HANSARD March 8, 1982 curities [of the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund] when compared against similarly structured Fixed Income Funds . . . demonstrated superior combined performance. Mr. Speaker, that was there last fall. We've now gotten over it. A few comments on special warrants. I'm very, very fascinated by the whole question, phraseology, and com ments put forward by my colleague on the question of special warrants.

It seemed we had question after ques tion after question on a daily basis about a beef cattle program for our very hard pressed beef producers in this province, and we talked about it and talked about it, and we had to get a good, fair assessment of what was happening on a province-wide basis — how many people were hurting and the like. They said, why don't you get going with it, why don't you deal with it? Well we did. We've got a production assistance program. We reacted to it with a special warrant last winter. If we hadn't done that, our farmers would still be hard pressed and waiting to see what we'd do.

Let's just take a look to see where special warrants are going. The Member for Little Bow said that some $632 million had been expended in special warrants in 1981-82. He's wrong. It's actually a little more than that; it was about $637 million. But item number one in the special warrant proposal was to agriculture: $153 million for production assistance to beef cattle, sheep, hogs, feed freight assistance, and the like. A second very important area in special warrants — again for people — in the form of forestry protection: $105,397,000.

My constitu ents, the people in Swan Hills, want to say thank you to the government of Alberta for being in a position to provide that special warrant. Otherwise Swan Hills would not be here today; it would have been nothing but a pile of dust and ash. A third active major expenditure area we're talking about in terms of expenditure in special warrants: appeals and deficits through active care hospitals, $52 million. Regional and municipal water sewer programs came fourth on the list of expenditures under the special warrant provisions: $48 million.

Fifth on the list, Alberta Transportation received $47.5 million for the construc tion and maintenance of highways. People programs: our good citizens in this province who happen to live in Calgary are going to get a new coliseum. I think we all agree the coliseum should go. There was some assistance under special warrants, to the tune of $22 million. The Member for Calgary Millican smiles. But the people of rural Alberta were not forgot ten. Under the major cultural/recreation grant program, they came in seventh on the question of special warrants, with the expenditure level of some $22 million.

Eighth on the list: energy research, $21.5 million. My, isn't that important; this is an agricultural/energy prov ince. Water management is important in some parts of this province. We like dams in the constituency I repre sent. I think the Dickson dam is another important expenditure: $21 million. Manpower contract settlements for active care hospitals, people who work in our hospi tals. The other day the Member for Calgary Millican talked about some very, very gifted and dedicated people. They're not to be forgotten. There had to be some contracts to assist these people.

They were funded in terms of salary settlements under the special warrants provision. Mr. Speaker, we can go on. The gist of the whole thing is that special warrants are important if governments care, if governments want to be in a position to react to ongoing problems, and if governments are prepared to say to people, look, we not only listen, but we're prepared to do something about the concern you have. We've talked before about the importance of special warrants when we had that tragedy in northern Italy.

When the earthquakes came, Italians were out of homes, and many communities in this province came together to assist people. Mr. Speaker, I think I'm just about running out of time, and unfortunately I won't be able to talk about some other subjects, including the Electric Energy Mar keting Act which . . . MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member and I have come to exactly the same conclusion with regard to the time. MR. KOWALSKI: I'll sit down in just a fraction of a second, Mr. Speaker, by just saying thank you to my colleagues who paid very careful attention to what I was saying.

I hope that perhaps I'll get in when the motion comes. Just to conclude, I am definitely opposed to the amendment put forward by the Member for Little Bow. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Question. MR. SPEAKER: Before we deal with this amendment, may I mention to the House some difficulty that I foresee with the amendment. By reference to the document en titled Speech to the Throne, the scope of it is so extensive that I could see that difficulty extending to both sides of the House.

As hon. members know, there is a rule of practice which is pretty solidly established that when a matter has been decided in a session of the Assembly, that same matter may not be raised for further considera tion subsequently in the same session unless in some way some further scope is found, or perhaps the previous decision is rescinded.

What we have here is an amendment proposed to the motion for the address in reply which is of such wide- ranging extent that to adopt the amendment would of course cause one set of difficulties, and could have the effect of taking a considerable list of topics out of the reach of the Assembly for consideration further in this session. To reject the amendment could constitute a nega tive judgment on those same topics or on other topics, and hence also take those out of the consideration of the Assembly during the remainder of the session.

I haven't my Beauchesne here, but I have looked at it recently, and I'd like to refer to — I think it's page 124. If I'm not mistaken, the citation is No. 130, but I'm not sure of that; that's subject to checking. In any case, whatever it is, if the Assembly agrees, may I suggest that we might continue with the debate. Certainly the amendment is not as confining as some amendments might be. It's a rather unique amendment as a matter of fact, insofar as throne speech debates go. Might I respectfully suggest we con tinue with the debate without being unduly restrictive — and certainly the speech by the hon.

Member for Barr head wasn't unduly restricted — while that matter is under consideration by hon. members, and perhaps someone might like to make a proposal or suggestion with regard to this amendment this evening or later on in the throne speech debate. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Question.

March 8, 1982 ALBERTA HANSARD 41 MR. SPEAKER: If we call the question, we may be getting into exactly the difficulty I have indicated. How ever, if it's the wish of the Assembly that we go ahead notwithstanding, with the vote on the question, I'm in the hands of the Assembly. MR. COOK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder, in referring to your ruling or observations, if the effect of either approving or rejecting this amendment would preclude the opposition and also other members of the House from raising any topics in the Speech to the Throne package prepared by the Social Credit opposi tion.

I suppose if the opposition wanted to do that and effectively remove themselves politically from raising any of these topics, either by way of motion or Bills, they're certainly welcome to do that. Perhaps it might be possible for them to withdraw the motion and substitute some more narrow amendment for it. I think that would be about the only recourse hon. members would have. AN HON. MEMBER: They know the rules. MR. COOK: If they don't know the rules, Mr.

Speaker, perhaps you could elaborate further on withdrawal of the motion if the House would permit with unanimous con sent, if that would be a reasonable way to go. MR. SPEAKER: With great respect to the hon. member, and appreciation for his intervention, I'm not sure we can come to a conclusion on this topic as rapidly as this because, as I see it, it's conceivable that whether the amendment is accepted or rejected, it may introduce sub stantial difficulties during the remainder of the session.

Therefore I would respectfully suggest to the Assembly that we not vote on the amendment until hon. members have had an opportunity to discuss its implications fur ther. It may well be that my fears are groundless. But if they are not, the repercussions could be somewhat serious. MR. COOK: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order. Would it not be possible for you to instruct the Assembly on whether it would be practical to have the motion simply withdrawn and therefore not approve or reject the amendment offered by the Official Opposition?

That way the Assembly would not be bound by Citation 350 in Beauchesne, which would suggest that if it's either sup ported or rejected, the opposition would not be free to comment further on the items in their Speech to the Throne. MR. R. SPEAKER: On the point of order, I think the suggestion you have made is very sensible. Certainly we should have a look at it and see if the concern you raised is there. I think we should recognize — and remove all partisanship from it — that one of the purposes we have in this Legislature is that subjects in our Speech

Document details

Collection	Alberta — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	19820308
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	L19 S4 19820308 1430 01 han.pdf
Language	en
Format	json
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	2075757867044735280e7234469ef20befecf476

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