Alberta Hansard — 17 May 1977, Afternoon sitting (14:30) (Legislature 18, Session 3)

19770517

Alberta — Debates (Hansard)

May 17, 1977 ALBERTA HANSARD 1375 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA Title: Tuesday, May 17, 1977 2:30 p.m. [The House met at 2:30 p.m.] PRAYERS [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] head: INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS MR. DOWLING: Mr. Speaker, I have the honor and privilege today of introducing to you a distinguished parliamentarian in your gallery. He is the Hon. Gil bert R. Clements, Minister of the Environment, of Municipal Affairs, and of Tourism, Parks and Conser vation in the province of Prince Edward Island.

I would ask him to rise and receive a traditional west ern welcome to Alberta and the Legislature. head: PRESENTING PETITIONS MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition opposing the passage of Bill 29 from the 60 delegates to the Alberta Conference of the United Church of Canada. head: INTRODUCTION OF BILLS Bill 54 The Petroleum Marketing Amendment Act, 1977 MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce Bill No. 54, The Petroleum Marketing Amendment Act, 1977.

The main objective of the bill is to place the marketing of pentanes or condensates produced from Crown lands in Alberta under the control of the Alber ta Petroleum Marketing Commission. This action would put the pricing and marketing of pentanes on the same basis as crude oil in Alberta. In particular, it would provide some assurance that an adequate sup ply of pentanes would be available as feedstock for a liquid-based petrochemical industry in the province. On the matter of price, Mr.

Speaker, producers may be assured that Bill 54 is not intended to be used as a mechanism to subsidize Alberta petrochemical feed stock costs. While it appears that pentanes, like crude oil, will continue to be regulated in Canada in the foreseeable future, industry should note that such regulation will not be used to distort the historical price relationship between these two commodities. I might also say, Mr. Speaker, that the bill is intended to be left on the Order Paper over the summer break. [Leave granted; Bill 54 read a first time] Bill 46 The Banff Centre Act MR. KIDD: Mr.

Speaker, I beg leave to introduce a bill, being The Banff Centre Act. This act will remove the Banff Centre from the trusteeship of the University of Calgary, and make the institution independent and self-governing. Mr. Speaker, this bill will be held over until fall for further legislative consideration. [Leave granted; Bill 46 read a first time] MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill No. 46, The Banff Centre Act, be placed on the Order Paper under Government Bills and Orders. [Motion carried] Bill 243

An Act to Provide for Warranties in the Sale of Consumer Products MRS. CHICHAK: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce Bill No. 243,

An Act to Provide for Warranties in the Sale of Consumer Products. This bill is designed to eliminate many of the ambiguities and loopholes that are present in consumer product warranties. To ensure that the consumer is afforded some real pro tection under product warranties, this bill attempts to clarify the conditions that warranties must fulfil and provides the consumer with methods of governmental and legal recourse where warranties are not properly honored by sellers, retail sellers, and manufacturers.

The bill allows as well sufficient flexibility for sellers and manufacturers not to be held unfairly responsible in claims for breach of warranty. [Leave granted; Bill 243 read a first time] head: TABLING RETURNS AND REPORTS MR. MINIELY: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table a reply to Motion for a Return No. 155. head: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS MR. MILLER: Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure today to introduce to you, and through to this Legislature, 23 students with us today from Lloydminster. They are accompanied by their teacher Mr. Messmer. They're seated in the public gallery.

I would ask that they stand and be recognized. DR. HOHOL: Mr. Speaker, I should like to introduce 60 students from the grade 6 class in North Edmon ton in my constituency of Edmonton Belmont. They're accompanied by their teacher Mrs. P. Bradley. They're in the public gallery. I should like to ask them to rise and receive the welcome of the Assembly. MR. DIACHUK: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take this oppor tunity to introduce a class of grades 5 and 6 students, 24 in number, from the Rundle Elementary School in the constituency of Edmonton Beverly. They are accompanied by their teacher Mrs. Gouchee. They're

1376 ALBERTA HANSARD May 17, 1977 seated in the members gallery. I would ask that they rise and receive the usual welcome of the Assembly. MR. APPLEBY: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Member for Barrhead, the Deputy Premier and Minister of Transportation, the Hon. Dr. Hugh Horner, I would like the privilege of introducing to you, and to the members of the Assembly, 21 grade 10 students from Fort Assiniboine. They are in my neighboring con stituency to the west. The school is located in the northern part of the Barrhead constituency, on the Athabasca River. This afternoon the group is accom panied by teacher Mr.

Parmider Basahti. They're seated in the members gallery. I would like them to stand and be recognized by the Assembly. MR. ASHTON: Mr. Speaker, perhaps last but certainly not least it's my pleasure to introduce an important group of young people from Terrace Heights school. They're sitting in the members gallery accompanied by their teacher. I'll ask them to stand and be recognized. MR. KROEGER: Mr. Speaker, in 1952 a very signifi cant event occurred that affected not only Albertans but Canadians and probably people all over the world. Mr. Speaker, 1977 is the twenty-fifth anniversary of that event.

I'm now going to invite all members of this House, and anyone else in the House, to rise and join me in acknowledging the twenty-fifth anniversa ry of Her Majesty the Queen by singing God Save the Queen. [Members rose and sang God Save the Queen] head: ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Hospital Construction MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct the first question to the Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care. In light of the announcement the minister made on Friday, will construction of the twice- announced Grande Prairie regional hospital be going ahead? MR. MINIELY: Mr.

Speaker, the announcement I made on Friday did not in any way cancel any proj ects. What it does, for this period, is slow projects down. I would estimate the project could be slowed down a maximum of six months and, more realistical ly, [for] projects not on the list attached to the minis terial announcement I tabled in the Legislature, prob ably an average of approximately three months.

In the case of Grande Prairie though, the MLA for Grande Prairie and the board of the hospital indicate to me that there is sufficient planning at the local level in Grande Prairie to keep them going, and it's likely that the Grande Prairie hospital will not be affected in time terms as long as it comes within reasonable cost to the province, of course, as with any other project in Alberta. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister.

In light of the fact that the hospital was announced once in 1975 and again in the 1977 throne speech, what is the target date now for the Grande Prairie hospital to go to tenders? MR. MINIELY: Mr. Speaker, as I've said several times in the House, with respect to Grande Prairie or any hospital projects in Alberta there are different stages at which the board and the province have indicated agreement in principle. In the last two years I've stated that agreement in principle does not constitute final approval of a project.

Final approval of a project — any project in this province and, again, considering financial responsibility to the taxpayers we mutually serve — is when we are satisfied with the detailed design of a project that has been submitted by the board, and we are satisfied that the pre-tender esti mates are reasonable in relation to the design, and that the space requirements are reasonable in rela tionship to the programs and services that should be provided in the facility. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister.

Can the minister assure the Assem bly that it's his intention to live up to the commitment given in the throne speech, that construction of the hospital in Grande Prairie would commence during 1977? MR. MINIELY: Mr. Speaker, I would simply repeat that the announcement I made on Friday is in no way cancellation of any commitments the province has made.

On the other side of that, members of the Legislature would understand that when the province makes a commitment in principle to build any facility — not just hospitals but other facilities — that means that other factors such as design, architecture and engineering, and end cost have to be satisfactory at the stage of final approval. Certainly, in the throne speech and in the Budget Address we made commit ments relative to these projects. I think those com mitments remain, but they remain certainly subject to satisfactory end cost and space requirements, as I indicated in my earlier answer. MR.

NOTLEY: It'll be clearer at election time. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister. What portion of the capital construc tion budget, which has been approved by the Assem bly, has been allocated to new construction, or proj ects which are already under construction, for the fiscal year 1977? MR. MINIELY: Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure what the hon. leader is saying in relation to. Obviously we're talking about a capital construction matter. The fund ing of hospitals in Alberta has never been part of the provincial budget.

Hospital funding in Alberta has been related to borrowings by district boards and local municipal boards through the Alberta Municipal Financing Corporation. Ultimately the liquidation of that debt is through the operating budget of the province. So it does not show, and historically never has shown, in the province's capital budget, as direct provincial public works would.

May 17, 1977 ALBERTA HANSARD 1377 MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, let me rephrase the ques tion to the minister. The minister will recall that during the subcommittee study of the minister's es timates we went over the list of hospitals, and the minister gave us a lump sum that would be used in the construction of hospitals, nursing homes, and auxiliaries for the year.

My question to the minister is: what portion of those funds that were allocated for active treatment beds in the kind of regional hospitals I'm talking about — in Grande Prairie — has already been committed this year, either in new projects like the one at Brooks that has already gone to tender or the ones that are already under construction? MR. MINIELY: Mr. Speaker, I think detail of that nature would be more appropriate on the Order Pa per, but I would say one thing.

I said in estimates subcommittee that we're working on a four-year plan, that no year is fixed, that amounts in any given year may roll over from one year to the next, and that our plan is related to a longer term plan over a four-year period, and within dollar capital budget expenditure — which we believe to be responsible to the citizens of Alberta — for total hospital construction. At no time did I indicate that the annual amount was fixed in any given year. Things that may not be accomplished in 1977 may be accomplished early in 1978. It's a rolling budgetary factor. MR. CLARK: Mr.

Speaker, let me follow up with a supplementary question to the minister. I ask the question in light of some concern that's been ex pressed to us by hospital boards who frankly are saying that the reason for the nine-month holding pattern is that the capital budget has been overcom- mitted . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Would the hon. leader please come directly to the question? MR. CLARK: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister assure the House that there hasn't already been an overcommitment of the funds allocated for active treatment beds this year? Did that overcommitment lead to the nine-month holding pattern?

MR. MINIELY: Mr. Speaker, to state the reason again, my announcement on Friday was related to three primary factors. One was that we were watching, and I was asking officials of the Alberta Hospital Services Commission to watch, hospital construction cost rises on a square foot basis comparable to the rise in general construction. Now all hon. members know that general construction costs commenced to level off in the latter part of 1976 and, in consultation with my colleague the Minister of Housing and Public Works, that is confirmed.

My concern arose at the time when hospital construction costs did not appear to level off in any way consistent with the levelling off in general construction costs, doubled by the fact that we had an expanding space requirement in relation ship to the beds in the other programs and services that were in projects which I think are indicated in the document tabled and require much more careful assessment.

In addition, we had the experience of the very large projects of Red Deer and Fort McMurray as examples where the cost and space requirements . . . in Fort McMurray, we're in a definite situation of population growth where that need has to be met. Nevertheless I can express that I was not satisfied, and we did pare down costs to some degree. As an example, we had to make a judgment on that one — on one hand being very concerned about the cost at Fort McMurray, but on the other hand realizing that that's a unique situa tion in the province that must be met.

But adding all these factors together was the rea son for my announcement on Friday: that it was time for an assessment of the underlying causes of the dramatic rise in hospital construction costs. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the minister. Since the Friday announcement, has the minister established a

schedule of meetings with the respective 14 boards that I think are of immediate concern? Specifically my question would be: has the minister established a meeting date with the High River board to explain the announcement? MR. MINIELY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say two things with respect to that. One is that I would ask all Members of the Legislative Assembly — as well, we are going to communicate by letter directly with boards that are affected — for their co-operation on something that I think is in the longer term best interest of the province. Again I would say that there is no cancellation of projects.

At most, it is a matter of, on average, maybe a three-month . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. If I recall correctly, the hon. minister was specifically asked whether he had arranged a certain meeting. MR. MINIELY: Mr. Speaker, I understood the question to be whether I was going to meet with all boards affected; then High River was stated. I was trying to answer or come to the answer to that question. Perhaps it could be repeated. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, my question to the minister is very specific. Will the minister meet with any boards concerned about the Friday announcement? MR. MINIELY: Well, Mr.

Speaker, what I was trying to say, very specifically is that I think it's important during this nine-month period that we . . . MR. CLARK: Yes or no? MR. R. SPEAKER: Order. My question very specifical ly: will the minister meet or will he not? If not, tell us. MR. MINIELY: Mr. Speaker, I'm trying to answer the question for the hon. Member for Little Bow. But I'm also trying to indicate what I think is in the best interest of the province during this nine-month period, and that's part of . . . MR.

SPEAKER: I don't recall any part of the question having tried to elicit an answer concerning what might or might not be in the best interest of the province. The question appears to relate to a meet ing. The hon. minister is not obliged to answer.

1378 ALBERTA HANSARD May 17, 1977 MR. MINIELY: Mr. Speaker, I've met with the High River hospital board once. I meet on a regular basis with boards throughout the province. Over the four- year period I intend covering the entire province. I do not believe we should meet with all hospital . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. minister, to clarify Friday's announce ment.

Will the assessment with respect to the square footage per bed correlate the increased cost per square foot for that sort of thing against the savings in operational costs that that sort of approach will mean over a period of time? MR. MINIELY: Mr. Speaker, I'm glad the hon. member raised that, because one of the other factors I should have stated in answer to this was the very fact that initially we were advised by boards that with some new projects in Alberta the operating cost component would be reduced as a result of expansion of outpa tient services.

The actual results indicate that has not been the experience. That's another factor I think we have to consider in this assessment. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary for clarification of my earlier question. Will the minister give the Assembly assurance that he will meet with any hospital boards that make a formal request to have an explanation of the Friday announcement? MR. MINIELY: Mr. Speaker, I always like and enjoy meeting with hospital boards.

I think we'll have to place our priority during the eight- to nine-month period on assessing the hospital construction cost control system and bringing recommendations for ward on the longer term solution. If we can direct our efforts to that and have sufficient time during this period to meet with all boards affected, that's a matter I'll consider. MR. NOTLEY: A supplementary question to the hon. minister flowing from . . . MR. SPEAKER: Might this be the last supplementary on this topic. We can return to it if there's time. MR.

NOTLEY: In light of his answer that the savings in operational costs had not been borne out, what time frame does the government have for making that preliminary assessment? MR. MINIELY: I think the implication in the hon. member's question, Mr. Speaker, is probably what has been one of the dilemmas in health care plan ning. Too frequently decisions have been made by guess and by golly, that savings may be achieved 10, 15, or 20 years down the road.

I think there's a need for a better evaluative mechanism on some of these things, particularly at a time when we're concerned about the dramatic rise in health care costs. MR. R. SPEAKER: A supplementary . . . MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps we could come back to this topic if there's time. Environment Conservation Authority MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct my second question to the Minister of the Environment and ask if he has received the report from the Public Service Commissioner's office dealing with the affairs of the Environment Conservation Authority. MR. RUSSELL: Yes I have, Mr. Speaker.

I've also just recently received the report of the management consultant. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, so the minister doesn't keep us breathless for too long, when can we expect some announcements by the minister with regard to changes in the organization of the ECA and a per manent chairman being put in place? MR. RUSSELL: I hope to deal with those matters just as quickly as time permits after the end of this session, Mr. Speaker. Naturally this is the kind of thing that must be discussed in cabinet committee and perhaps in cabinet as well. But it's at the top of my list. Red Deer River MR. CLARK: Mr.

Speaker, another question dealing with the ECA. In the early portion of May, the minis ter responded to a question from the Member for Drumheller with regard to the hearings on the Red Deer River dam question. The minister used the expression that the government was looking at "a dam or a series of dams" on the Red Deer River. My question to the minister is: has he ruled out the possibility of off-stream storage on the Red Deer River project? I ask that question in light of the terminology the minister used when he said "dam or a series of dams". MR. RUSSELL: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Members will recall that was specifically one of the subjects the citizens of central Alberta wanted investigated for the final hearings on the Red Deer flow regulation. We provided a substantial amount of information relating to that possibility. None of those possibilities has yet been ruled out, as far as I'm aware. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, to the minister, just to clarify. In light of the minister's answer today, the possibility of off-stream storage is still under active consideration as far as the minister is concerned, until he receives some other type of advice from the ECA? MR. RUSSELL: Mr.

Speaker, the ECA said they would do everything they could to get their final report and recommendation to the government by the end of this month. I assume they're in the final stages of writing now but — with those qualifications — I have to say that as far as the government is concerned all alter natives are still being considered. Oil Sands Research Program MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of the Environment with regard to the Alber ta oil sands environmental research program. The

May 17, 1977 ALBERTA HANSARD 1379 program is approximately into its third year. I wonder if the minister could very briefly give the objectives of the program at this point. MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, we're now entering the third fiscal year of the program. During the total 10-year period, the objective of the program is to spend approximately $40 million on a cost-sharing basis with the federal government in investigating all identifiable environmental problems in the oil sands region and come up with recommendations pertain ing to them. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the minister.

I wonder if the minister could indicate what specific groups of people were originally charged [with] drawing up these objectives or are bringing the objectives forward to the minister? MR. RUSSELL: Well, Mr. Speaker, very briefly the structure of the program is this. The basic program is defined through a provincial agreement with the gov ernment of Canada. The stewards, if I can put it that way, are the deputy minister for Alberta and I believe an assistant deputy for the federal department. We have a project manager, and the project itself is divided into eight specific areas of research.

I could read those out; I believe I have them here. This will give members some idea of the nature of topics being researched: aquatic fauna, human environment, hydro-geology, hydrology, land use, meteorology and air quality, terrestrial fauna, and vegetation. I think hon. members can see that pretty well covers everything there is to consider with respect to the environment. Each of those teams has a project leader, and has its own budget and list of proposed research projects it wants to undertake. They are co-ordinated through a central administrative system, a steering and an advisory committee. MR. R.

SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the minister. Could the minister indicate the process of selecting the director of programs? Was the direc tor appointed by the minister or was it a recommen dation by other people? MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, the director was in place when I came. I believe he was already in government service, but I'm not sure of that. The former Deputy Minister of the Environment Dr. Ballantyne had this as a special project. It was then handed to Walter Solodzuk, the present deputy. I want to say at this time I am very pleased with the way Mr.

Solodzuk has taken hold of this very difficult program, hasn't minded knocking a few academic and scientific noses in the process, and we've got the thing pretty well-organized. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the minister. Could the minister indicate — he said things are well-organized — what type of review procedure is in place at the present time to examine some of the research work that has been done? MR. RUSSELL: Well, Mr. Speaker, I mentioned the advisory committee, or steering committee if you want to call it that.

It's made up of the deputy ministers of the line departments who are most affected by the research programs being undertaken, as well as the northeast commissioner and a repre sentative from the northern development office. There is probably one more change to make. We're still considering whether or not the managerial func tion should be split in two, that is, straight business administrative management kinds of things vis-a-vis the straight scientific things, because some of the debate this calendar year has revolved around that kind of issue. But I can report good progress in that program, Mr. Speaker.

So far we've committed or spent just under $7 million in two years on some 80 projects involving researching the environment. I know some of the research teams aren't getting all the money they ask for. But I also say that some of their requests are unreasonable. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the minister. The minister indicated a new role for some of the committees. Is there a specific reason for phasing out the responsibility of the scientific advisory committee? MR. RUSSELL: Mr.

Speaker, I could probably refer the program's May newsletter to all members, if they were interested in getting it, because that describes in written form the organizational structure of the program. Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, it's a unique and very large program. I don't know another one like it in Canada, and I think the governments of Alberta and Canada should be . . . MR. SPEAKER: With respect, it would appear that the minister is diverging more and more from the topic of the question. MR. RUSSELL: Well, permit me to stray back to the topic of the question, Mr. Speaker.

Like any new program of this magnitude, I think it was important to review the success and the progress being made. Hon. members are aware that this year we cut the provincial share of the budget by $500,000. I have asked Mr. Solodzuk to undertake a very careful reorganization of the managerial struc ture, and that is just about complete. I'm very pleased to date with the progress being made. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a final supplementary to the minister with regard to the program in its third year.

The minister has indicated that a number of programs or research projects are being phased out at the present time. I wonder if I could ask the minister the reason for that. What is the reason the phase-out is occurring without the review of these projects by persons with expertise or scientific back ground in the field? MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, I hope I didn't leave the impression that programs were being phased out. Programs are being carefully assessed with respect to timing and overall management, and for budgetary reasons. For example, a group wanted somewhere in excess of $300,000 to count moose.

They got $199,000, and I think that's not bad.

1380 ALBERTA HANSARD May 17, 1977 Hall Commission Report MR. WOLSTENHOLME: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the hon. Premier. I wonder if the Premier has taken any steps to obtain the support of the other western premiers in the implementation of the Hall commission report. MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, we discussed the mat ter when we had the briefing with the other three western premiers. Before I came in the House, I tried to get an assessment of the responses made by the other three western premiers with regard to the Hall commission report. But now the report has been made public, Mr.

Speaker, I believe I can state to the Legislative Assembly that the response was positive, at least on the briefing we received from Mr. Justice Emmett Hall in Brandon. I would hope we would see a follow- up, as we're intending to do in this province, by the other three western provinces in terms of the imple mentation of the commission report. Petroleum Industry Monitoring MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct this ques tion to the hon. Minister of Energy and Natural Resources.

Is it the intention of the government to make representation to the federal government con cerning the provisions of the petroleum corporation monitoring act, under which oil companies will have to account for their use of revenues from higher oil prices? MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, this new legislation was discussed briefly during the energy ministers' meet ing last week. It was agreed that we would wait until it was introduced in the House, and the various governments had an opportunity to look at it and consider its implications, before making any judg ments one way or another. MR. NOTLEY: Mr.

Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. minister. In light of the statement expected by the federal minister on this matter and the fact that it is being introduced, is the minister in a position to advise members of the Assembly what time frame the government has at this point as to determining its position on this rather important fed eral measure? MR. GETTY: No, Mr. Speaker. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. minister.

Has the minister had an oppor tunity to review the federal report on petroleum in dustry revenues and expenditures from 1971 to 1976, which notes an overall decline in the portion of revenues spent on production and exploration investment? MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, we reviewed a

summary at the energy ministers' conference last week. While there has been some decline in some areas of Canada, there has been a very dramatic increase in the province of Alberta. MR. NOTLEY: A supplementary question to the hon. minister. Has the government issued the Alberta petroleum industry with any guidelines as to what the government considers an appropriate percentage of reinvestment? I say that, in light of the federal act which is now being proposed in Ottawa. MR. GETTY: No, Mr. Speaker. RITE System DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the hon.

Minister of Government Services and has to do with monitoring the RITE number. Can the minister indi cate if he has instructed RITE operators to monitor phone calls to the office of the Leader of the Official Opposition? MR. SCHMID: Mr. Speaker, the phone calls are mon itored to ensure that only private citizens of the prov ince of Alberta are using the RITE system. No other monitoring is involved. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Are RITE operators instructed to ask the phone number of every person using the RITE system? MR. SCHMID: Mr.

Speaker, whatever information the RITE operators would gather is definitely under the oath of secrecy they have to take regarding any phone calls they would happen to be in on. Therefore no one is asking them for that information except, as I've stated before, it is only for the use of private citizens in the province of Alberta. Therefore the questions, who is calling and where are they calling from, are asked. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Mr. Minister, are RITE operators instructed not to place calls in cases where the person making the call refuses to divulge his or her phone number? MR.

SCHMID: Well again, Mr. Speaker, the RITE sys tem is for the use of private citizens of the province only. If the person doesn't want to leave their phone number, more or less as a check whether this is a private person, I would have to check that out, Mr. Speaker. Most likely the operator may have been instructed not to complete the call unless the person wished to place a long distance call. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, can the minister indicate if callers to the Premier's offices are asked for their number? MR. SCHMID: Mr.

Speaker, I'm very sure that any callers from anywhere in Alberta to Edmonton, or for that matter any long distance calls through the RITE system, are being questioned whether this is a pri vate call from a private line and/or a business call or any boards or commissions outside direct government involvement. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the min ister. In light of the fact that the minister indicated that RITE operators are instructed to take the calls if the number is given and they take an oath of secrecy.

May 17, 1977 ALBERTA HANSARD 1381 can the minister indicate if RITE operators are asked their political affiliation? [interjections] MR. SCHMID: Mr. Speaker, I can answer this ques tion because I know for a fact — and the person is prepared to take an oath — that the minister in the former department of culture, youth, and recreation that I am now responsible for asked people directly whether or not they belonged to the Social Credit party, [interjections] MR. CLARK: Really! DR. BUCK: Mr.

Speaker, the Provincial Treasurer has already indicated there are no guidelines about who was asked questions about political affiliation. Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Government Serv ices. Can the minister assure this House that no tabulation of numbers is being kept; that when the RITE operator intercepts a call, there is no tabulation or monitoring of where these calls are coming from or to whom? MR. SCHMID: Mr. Speaker, I can definitely assure the House that no tabulation is being kept of where the calls come from and to whom these calls are being placed.

As I have said before, the only reason these calls are being intercepted is to assure that the person calling is a private citizen of the province of Alberta. The operators who were hired have not been asked their political affiliation. They were hired strictly under the public administration act. MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the hon. minister. A very short explanation is required first. Some citizens from smaller centres must first phone long distance in order to reach the RITE opera tor.

Is the government considering extending this very excellent system so all citizens of the province may have this privilege of phoning the government on their own business involving the government? MR. SCHMID: Mr. Speaker, initially the RITE system was introduced only to help the civil service help the government reach different points without long distance charges. It was then extended to private citizens. Right now the entire system is under review as to whether or not it should be contracted or expanded to serve an additional segment of our peo ple in Alberta. MR.

CLARK: A supplementary question to the minis ter. In light of the review going on with regard to the RITE system, is the minister prepared to give serious consideration to the idea that no calls coming to any MLA would be monitored or their numbers asked? I raise the question in light of the fact that the problem has been raised with our office once again today. If I could rephrase the question, Mr. Speaker. Mr.

Minister, would you give a commitment to the As sembly that you will seriously consider the concept of not requesting or keeping the number when an indi vidual phones the minister's office, the office of the Leader of the Opposition, or an MLA? MR. SCHMID: Mr. Speaker, first of all I think that not having a person who places a call to an MLA or for that matter to any official of the Legislature — for instance, Mr. Speaker himself — even asked where the call is coming from is probably very valuable.

We will definitely take it under consideration and proba bly incorporate it into the considerations presently going on regarding the RITE system. I thank the hon. Leader of the Opposition for proposing that. DR. PAPROSKI: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the minister would indicate to the House whether it's true that the number is taken down by the RITE system so the individual could be recon nected if there was a disconnection during the pro cess of discussion. MR. SCHMID: No, Mr. Speaker.

I really have to state again that it's only asked because of the background needed because of private citizens only being allowed to phone in. But again the idea of having open access to MLAs, and maybe to Legislative Assembly person nel, is most valuable. Hall Commission Report (continued) MR. MILLER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Premier. It's one of importance to all people in northern Alberta.

Does the government of Alberta plan any response to the reaction of the federal Minister of Transport to the effect that the northwest rail network was beyond the terms of reference of the Hall commission? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, yes we do. I, too, saw the statement made by Mr. Lang, the federal Minis ter of Transport, suggesting that the important rec ommendation with regard to the northwest rail net work was beyond the terms of the Hall commission report.

I can't exactly put my finger on the precise wording of the Hall commission that dealt with that matter, but it's clear to me that the Hall commission terms of reference dealt with the whole question of rail transportation and resource development in the western provinces. I think he's wrong in that as sessment, and we intend to let him know that. MR. NOTLEY: Supplementary question to the hon. Premier. Will there be any follow-up by the Alberta government with respect to one feature of the northwest rail network, that is, the rather important recommendation with respect to an Arctic railroad? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr.

Speaker, no there will not. Hospital Beds MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the hon. Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care. Will the number of active treatment beds increase or decrease when the University Hospital is replaced by the new health sciences centre? MR. MINIELY: Mr. Speaker, one of the fundamentals of the proposal of the health sciences centre was that the active treatment component would be reduced, I believe in the neighborhood of approximately 100 beds from its existing level of approximately 1,000 beds. The shift in emphasis would be toward

1382 ALBERTA HANSARD May 17, 1977 research, a combination of medical education and health professional education with patient care, also greater emphasis on outpatient and ambulatory care or general outpatient services of the hospital, recog nizing the growth of the southern area of Edmonton. MR. TAYLOR: A supplementary to the hon. minister. Has any study been made of the number of active beds in the province that will decrease due to the nine-month or year order made the other day? MR. MINIELY: Mr.

Speaker, I was very careful in my assessment and in the announcement that the nine- month holding pattern in hospital construction be consistent with our longer term objectives. I would explain it this way. We have, and I have said in the Legislature that we continue to have, a higher number of active treatment beds for our popu lation than is deemed necessary or desirable. In Alberta we continue to have approximately close to seven beds per thousand,

whereas the desired objec tive is four general beds per thousand population, and a shift in emphasis from active treatment to longer term care, being auxiliary beds and nursing home beds. Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. Member for Drumheller, that is the reason the holding pattern only applies to active treatment. We exempted the longer term care area. MR. TAYLOR: One further supplementary. Is it not good to have more active beds per thousand than to have fewer than the average? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member has made a repre sentation which is probably complete without an answer.

If we're going to debate the ideal level of active treatment beds, that should be put on the Order Paper. Summer Employment Program MR. MANDEVILLE: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the hon. Minister of Advanced Education and Manpower. Could the minister indicate what elements of STEP are now in place? DR. HOHOL: Mr. Speaker, none of the elements is in place until June 1 this year. However, program detail and information has been made public in a press release, [which] information I am certain is provided in the mail of every member of the House.

If any member [was] missed, if they let me know I'll make certain that information is provided. I mention this, Mr. Speaker, so members can assist municipalities and students, and so members who are ministers can begin developing the programs for the STEP elements that begin on June 1. That's when the funding begins and when students can come in line for employment under STEP. MR. MANDEVILLE: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will university students be eligible for em ployment under the STEP element that comes into effect July 1? DR. HOHOL: Yes, Mr. Speaker, they will. MR. STROMBERG: Mr.

Speaker, my question was to . . . Oh, I see my minister is missing. [laughter] Consumer Warranties MR. KUSHNER: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. If the minister is monitoring the standards of material being sold that do not have true value or proper guarantees; for example, in the area of electri cal kettles, vacuum cleaners, tires, toasters, furniture, I have been receiving quite a few calls . . . [interjections] MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Possibly instead of adding a postscript to the question, the hon. member might clarify it.

It seems to be a little vague. MR. KUSHNER: Mr. Speaker, would you please repeat the question. I didn't hear you. MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. member would refer to one of the captions under 171 of Beauchesne, it rules out questions which may appear to be vague. I was unable to understand the question. Possibly the min ister may do better with it. MR. KUSHNER: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.

Can the minister inform this Assembly if in fact materials that are substandard or probably haven't got true value, being sold to the citizens in Alberta, are being monitored — such materials as tires, vacuum cleaners, or furniture? MR. HARLE: Mr. Speaker, there's an old expression that you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. [laughter] MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps the sow's ear should be under warranty. [laughter] MR. HARLE: I think that was my point, Mr. Speaker. Mr.

Speaker, I think what the hon. member is trying to get at is the problem of warranties, but also of course the problem of CSA approval on such units. From the way I interpret the question, I think it applies to both. I would refer the hon. member to some comments I made in the question period on May 11, I believe, with regard to warranties. MR. KUSHNER: Mr. Speaker, if I might, is the minis ter making any studies in these areas? I understand that in the province of Ontario at the University of Waterloo, such studies are under . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please.

I believe the hon. min ister has referred the hon. member to a source from which that information can be obtained. Perhaps that would make it unnecessary to deal with it further in the question period at this time. The hon. Member for Camrose was previously rec ognized. If hon. members don't disagree, perhaps we could come back to him. Waste Paper MR. STROMBERG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My

May 17, 1977 ALBERTA HANSARD 1383 question is to the disappearing Minister of Govern ment Services. In order to set an example to our citizens of Alberta, has the minister given considera tion to cutting government waste and contributing to a very worth-while charity? In view of the fact that the RITE directory is coming out almost several times a month, I wonder if he would consider doing the same as is being done now with the Edmonton city directories and contribute them to the Heart Fund. MR. SCHMID: Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge we are presently recycling or selling about 300,000 pounds of waste paper.

With the new shredding machine we now have, it's going to be increased to about 1 million pounds. We are presently negotiating to sell that waste paper to recycling companies, and of course the RITE directory would be part of that. It would be very difficult to extract the RITE directory, for instance, for making a donation to the Heart Fund. MR. SPEAKER: We've gone slightly past the time for the question period. Not having anticipated the diffi culty of the hon. Member for Camrose, I've already recognized the hon. Member for Little Bow.

If the Assembly agrees, perhaps we could have one short question and one short answer. HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. Hospital Construction (continued) MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care, for clarifica tion. Would the minister meet with hospital boards that make formal requests for (

a) an explanation of the Friday agreement and (

b) to outline a work plan for their proposed hospital that is to be built within the year or the next few years. I think there's an unknown out there that should be explained. Would the minister meet with them? MR. MINIELY: Mr. Speaker, I think I had indicated we are going to communicate by letter with all boards relative to follow-up from the ministerial statement. I'll certainly consider meeting with hospital boards MR. CLARK: Consider? MR. MINIELY: . . . that are affected. MR. CLARK: Why not just say yes? Benzene — Carcinogenic Effects MR. CRAWFORD: Mr.

Speaker, I wonder if I could give an answer to a question asked the other day by the hon. Member for Clover Bar. HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member enquired the other day about benzene in regard to occupational health and safety concerns in the prov ince of Alberta. I wanted to indicate to him that — the best-known consequences from benzene of course being anemia and possibly leukemia — there are two types of standards in the province of Alberta at present. One is related to parts per million in the air. The other is related to the

part in milligrams per litre based on urine tests of people who are exposed to this substance. The airborne standard is 25 parts per million for an eight-hour day exposure for anyone working in that field. The other test that might be applied, as I indi cated, is based on 200 milligrams per litre in the urine. In the event that either of these tests shows a risk in regard to particular workers, they are given, either through their own physician or otherwise, a full blood-chemistry test.

The other thing that might be said about it is that the department is attempting to make known to the industry — and in fact is making known — substitutes in lieu of benzene that might be used in all cases where possible. ORDERS OF THE DAY MR. SPEAKER: May the hon. Member for Edmonton Jasper Place revert to Introduction of Bills, followed by the hon. Member for Whitecourt reverting to Intro duction of Special Guests? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. head: INTRODUCTION OF BILLS (reversion) Bill Pr. 5

An Act to Amend

An Act to Incorporate the Society of Industrial Accountants of Alberta MR. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce Bill Pr. 5,

An Act to Amend

An Act to Incorporate the Society of Industrial Accountants of Alberta. [Leave granted; Bill Pr. 5 read a first time] head: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS (reversion) MR. TRYNCHY: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Member for Barrhead, the hon. Dr. Horner, Deputy Premier and Minister of Transportation, I'd like to introduce some 27 grade 10 students from Lorne Jenken High School in Barrhead. I might point out at this time, Mr. Speaker, that school has twice won the top honors of Reach for the Top provincially, and also gone on to win the national title. They are accompanied by their teacher Mr. Boyle, bus driver Mr.

Baker, and parents Mr. and Mrs. Peachey and Mrs. Devine. They are seated in the members gallery. I'd ask them to rise and receive the welcome of the House.

1384 ALBERTA HANSARD May 17, 1977 head: WRITTEN QUESTIONS 154. Mr. Clark asked the government the following question: How many positions were filled in any government of Alberta department, board, agency, or commission during the period April 1, 1976, to March 31, 1977, in which job applicants were asked to state their political affiliation or the political affiliation of their spouse. MR. FOSTER: Mr. Speaker, I move Question 156 stand. [Motion carried] head: MOTIONS FOR RETURNS 147. Mr.

Notley moved that an order of the Assembly to issue for a return showing: (1) the total cost to the Alberta government of legal and related expenditures for the government intervention in the matter of the reference by a registrar of land titles of a caveat filed by Messrs.

Whitehead et al on behalf of the iso lated communities and showing the persons to whom funds are payable; (2) the total of funds spent or budgeted by the government for research on the history and anthropology of that area represented by the Iso lated Communities Advisory Board during each of the fiscal years 1975-76, 1976-77, and 1977-78; (3) for each of the years 1975-76, 1976-77, and 1977-78, the total amount of funds granted and/or budgeted to be granted directly to the Isolated Communities Advisory Board for: (

a) administration, (

b) legal fees, (

c) research respecting their claim to aboriginal title. MR. BOGLE: Mr. Speaker, I wish to amend Motion for a Return No. 147 as follows: strike paragraph (1), strike paragraph (2), add the words "and projects in the communities" to item (

a) in paragraph (3). MR. FOSTER: Mr. Speaker, speaking to the amend ment to Motion for a Return 147, I would simply like to offer a couple of comments with respect to the amendment as it relates to (1) and (2); that is, those are matters which refer to the Crown's capacity to conduct certain legal proceedings in the courts at this time, and I would not be prepared to make that information public while the matter is before the courts. But I would be quite happy to reconsider it at a later date, when the matter is not in that forum. [Motion as amended carried] 153. Mr. R.

Speaker moved that an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing: A copy of the study, commissioned in 1975 by the Department of Advanced Education and Manpower, on the possible effects of a Mackenzie Valley pipeline on Alberta's manpower resources. [Motion carried] 157. Mr.

Clark moved that an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing: With respect to every policy-related study and feasibil ity study and all general purpose data collection, basic research, applied research, and experimental devel opment contracted for by a government of Alberta department, board, agency, or commission during the period April 1, 1976, to March 31, 1977, whether resulting in a written or oral report or advice: (1) the title or other identification; (2) the name of the government of Alberta depart ment, board, agency, or commission for which it was undertaken; (3) the name of the firm, group of individuals, or individual who undertook it; (4) the purpose; (5) the date on which the contract for its completion was executed; (6) if completed, the date of completion; (7) if completed, the total sum paid and, if incom plete, the projected cost.

MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, after giving careful consideration to this motion, it's our view it is clearly damaging to the public interest, and inappropriate.

While it may well be correct for the opposition to seek out in any way they can all aspects of an existing or future government policy, while it may be proper for an opposition to comment on the adequacy or inade quacy of an announced policy of the government, or while it may be right for an opposition member to attempt to establish more precisely the details of an existing government policy, I submit it is improper and clearly damaging in the public interest for the opposition to demand oral reports, advice, and policy- related studies which go into the development of future policy that is not yet decided and not yet announced.

Mr. Speaker, if motions of this kind were to be passed or accepted, it would effectively cripple the conduct of the public business. The business of making effective decisions in the public interest, and for all citizens, requires a thorough consideration of all options and alternatives by a government — to look at studies from all sources. If a motion such as this proceeded, I suggest the efficient conduct of that business would grind to a halt almost to the point of paralysis. No candid, realistic, and totally objective advice would be available. Mr.

Speaker, I venture to say that no government in Canada, of whatever political flavor, would or could accept this motion and still carry on the public business. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, in responding and, I assume, closing debate on Motion for a Return 157, I simply say to the Government House Leader, as far as his comment that the government would "grind to a halt" if it agreed to this kind of motion for a return: that's completely ridiculous. Any government that would make this kind of undertaking understandably would not make all information available until a policy matter was resolved.

What we are asking for here, Mr. Speaker, is the basic background information. The important

part is that it is paid for by the public. It's part of this

May 17, 1977 ALBERTA HANSARD 1385 question of the public having a right to know. If the public having a right to know would grind this gov ernment to a halt, that's a sad commentary on this government. [interjections] [Mr. Speaker declared the motion lost. Several mem bers rose calling for a division. The division bell was rung] [Three minutes having elapsed, the House divided] For the motion: Buck Mandeville R.

Speaker Clark Notley Against the motion: Adair Harle Moore Appleby Hohol Musgreave Ashton Horsman Paproski Backus Hunley Peacock Batiuk Hyland Planche Bogle Hyndman Purdy Butler Jamison Russell Chambers Johnston Schmid Chichak Kidd Shaben Cookson King Stewart Crawford Koziak Stromberg Doan Kroeger Tesolin Donnelly Kushner Topolnisky Dowling Leitch Trynchy Farran Little Walker Fluker Lysons Warrack Foster McCrae Webber Getty McCrimmon Wolstenholme Ghitter Miller Young Gogo Miniely Zander Hansen Totals Ayes - 5 Noes - 61 [Motion lost] head: GOVERNMENT DESIGNATED BUSINESS head: GOVERNMENT MOTIONS 3. Moved by Mr.

Hyndman:

Be it resolved that when the Assembly adjourns for the summer recess, it shall stand adjourned until 2:30 o'clock in the afternoon of Wednesday, October 12, 1977. MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, I urge all hon. mem bers not to clean out their desks once this motion is passed. This motion does not adjourn the Assembly. It's only later on after the motion to adjourn for summer recess, in perhaps two or three days, that it adjourns.

So I would urge that this motion be sup ported by all members of the Assembly. [Motion carried] head: GOVERNMENT BILLS AND ORDERS (Second Reading) Bill 30 The Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 1977 MR. GHITTER: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill No. 30, The Attorney General Statutes Amend ment Act, 1977. Mr. Speaker, this particular bill implements changes to seven pieces of legislation of a conse quential nature.

The first principle, dealing with The Clerks of the Court Act, merely removes some redun dant provisions of The Clerks of the Court Act with respect to the appointment of the clerks of the district and Supreme Courts and, more particularly, which are dealt with by The Judicature Act. The second amendment, Mr. Speaker, deals with The Commissioners for Oaths Act, and in that it merely changes from a two-year to a three-year appointment period.

It's more consequential from the point of view of saving of administrative time and the problems of the re-appointment on a two-year basis; it extends [this] to a three-year basis. The third amendment, Mr. Speaker, is to The Expropriation Act. This merely simplifies the approach and procedures under that act in situations where the parties are in agreement relative to the fact of the expropriation but are not in agreement as to the compensation to be paid.

As a result, the parties can by agreement proceed directly to the Lands Compensation Board for the determination as to the compensation, without the necessity of filing the formal expropriation papers and many of the procedures which are within the act itself. The results will be that the matter will be dealt with in a more expeditious and clear-cut manner when the par ties are in agreement, and costs will be saved. The fourth amendment in principle is to The Gara gemen's Lien Act, and this merely changes the form which is attached to the act. Members will recall in 1976 amendments to The Garagemen's Lien Act.

Unfortunately, at that time the Form A which was attached as part of the legislation was not amended satisfactorily to bring it into the context of the act. This will merely bring Form A into the proper form we're dealing with, the procedure whereby a gara geman's lien might be filed by a garageman who retains the particular chattel in his possession. Mr. Speaker, the one relating to The Notaries Public Act merely allows the Attorney General instead of the Lieutenant Governor in Council to appoint notaries public, which is again an administrative matter to expedite the situation.

The last two amendments relate to amendments to The Gas Utilities Act and amendments to The Public Utilities Board Act. The wording of these sections is identical. They are both designed to endeavor to do the same thing; that is, to express more accurately the board's normal procedures in relation to dealing with excess revenue, and revenue deficiencies of an owner of a public utility, and as a result, would merely reaffirm the procedures of the board followed, I believe, since 1945, and clarify what appear to be certain ambiguities as to the procedures and interpre tation of those particular acts. Mr.

Speaker, those are the principles with respect

1386 ALBERTA HANSARD May 17, 1977 to the seven bills that are proposed to be amended under The Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 1977. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, in taking

part in this debate very briefly, I'd like to direct my comments to that portion dealing with the Public Utilities Board. Has the sponsor of the bill received the representation of the city of Edmonton? Has the hon. member had the opportunity to meet with the city of Edmonton and satisfy [them] that this in fact is going to have no negative effect upon the city? MR. GHITTER: Mr. Speaker, if I may . . . MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member wish just to answer the question, or conclude the debate? MR. GHITTER: With the permission of the Legislature, Mr.

Speaker, I'd be pleased to close the debate, if that's satisfactory. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Drumheller wishes to speak. MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, there are one or two points I'd like to raise in connection with The Notaries Public Act. The first item is the principle that a notary public must attest his seal on each certificate, write or stamp the date upon which his appointment expires or terminates. Under the act, an MLA is a notary public. In signing documents there's no diffi culty with the seal, but we have difficulty in placing the date that the notary public commission expires.

I have simply been leaving it out on the ones I've been getting because I don't know when the next election is going to be or whether I'll be re-elected or other wise. I'm wondering if we could have some com ments on that. Is it simply satisfactory to ignore that

section and leave it out when we're notarizing documents? The other point in connection with this bill has been brought to me by some notaries public in small areas. Apparently they got a letter last January from the Department of the Attorney General advising them that they were not to act as lawyers, or to pretend that they were lawyers and so on. This rather hurt the feelings of two or three of them. They came to see me and said they had been notarizing documents and doing a service for the people of the area, and in no way were they acting as lawyers or pretending they were barristers or solicitors.

I'm just wondering if there has been any, change at all in the duties that a notary public may carry out. They are providing a very excellent service in our smaller communities. Even where there are some lawyers, they take a lot of what you might call "nuisance work" away from them, and most lawyers are very happy about this. MR. SPEAKER: May the hon. member conclude the debate? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. GHITTER: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the point raised by the hon. Leader of the Opposition, I have in fact read the letter, from Mayor Cavanagh of the city of Edmonton.

The Attorney General has responded to that letter. It is clearly not the intention of the government to act on a retroactive basis with respect to this legislation. In fact, you will note the bill will come into effect on the date of assent. As a result, there is no intention to deal with this particular legis lation to affect the interest of parties in the past or to deal with matters presently before the court. The hon.

Leader of the Opposition may be aware of the fact that the decision of the Public Utilities Board with respect to the Northwestern Utilities application in August 1975 was successfully appealed by the city of Edmonton. That matter is now under appeal in the Supreme Court of Canada. Northwestern Utilities and the Public Utilities Board are taking that matter to Ottawa, and have in fact received permission from the Supreme Court of Canada to receive leave to appeal, and that matter will be dealt with. But as the hon.

Attorney General advised His Worship Mayor Cavanagh in the letter of May 5, 1977, in response to the inquiry of Mayor Cavanagh, it is not the intention of the government to act retroa ctively or take away any interest. The purport of the legislation is really more to bring into perspective how the board has acted for many, many years, from the point of view of what they take into consideration in determining a rate base, and how it has always been understood that they would act.

As a result, to clarify that, brings in the need of the legislation — which I think is beneficial to all parties — that the board would have the right to deal in terms not just of material which is obtainable after the filing of the application but in fact performance as to deficiencies in revenues from the period prior, in order that on an interim rate application they could better assess the information, which could certainly be to the benefit of both the citizens and the utility to get a fair and equitable interim rate matter. That is the answer to the inquiry of the hon. Leader of the Opposition.

I hope that satisfies him from the point of view of the present situation. I move to the comments of the hon. Member for Drumheller relative to The Notaries Public Act. I might refer the hon. Member for Drumheller to Sec tion 7 of that act for future reference. It clearly states the responsibility of a notary public to state the expiry date on the document they are notarizing. That is a legislative requirement under

Section 7. I think many in Alberta do not do that. On notary documents you see in the United States, they clearly do that. I know lawyers put on theirs that it does not expire. It doesn't appear to be the custom in Alberta to do that as frequently as it should be done, but it is a legisla tive requirement under the act. I don't know whether it negates the notary seal if that is not put on, other than the fact that it says: A notary public failing to comply with the pro visions of [that particular]

section is guilty of an offence and liable on

summary conviction to a fine of not more than $10. So I think it probably is punishable. I've never heard of a case actually proceeding on that basis. But it is there, and I refer the hon. Member for Drumheller to

Section 7 of that act. As to the second point raised by the hon. Member for Drumheller as to whether notaries public, are entitled to give legal advice, of course the answer is obvious. But I think there are situations which will

May 17, 1977 ALBERTA HANSARD 1387 arise where in fact the notary public has responsibili ties [for] more than merely attesting to the swearing. I think first of The Guarantees Acknowledgement Act, where the notarial seal must be affixed and the form of the guarantee must be explained to the guarantor. That is a responsibility of the notary public. It might be that some overzealous lawyers have misunder stood the notary public performing the service and giving this advice, but they are required to do so as a condition of the affixing of their notary public seal.

I quite agree that they perform a very important and valuable service throughout the community, and I under stand in rural Alberta particularly. If at times they give a little legal advice, I think we all give legal advice whether or not we are lawyers. I've heard a lot of legal advice in this House from non-lawyers, and we're always happy to hear it for whatever it's worth. [Motion carried; Bill 30 read a second time] MR. HYNDMAN: Mr.

Speaker, before moving into committee, insofar as at the end of designated busi ness at 4:45 we'll be into committee, to avoid moving out of committee into the House, could I ask for unanimous leave of the Assembly to move at 4:45 to government business for the balance of the afternoon? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. HYNDMAN: I therefore move you do now leave the Chair and the Assembly resolve itself into Com mittee of the Whole to consider certain bills on the Order Paper. MR. SPEAKER: Having heard the motion by the hon. Government House Leader, do you all agree? HON.

MEMBERS: Agreed. head: GOVERNMENT BILLS AND ORDERS (Committee of the Whole) [Dr. McCrimmon in the Chair] MR. CHAIRMAN: The Committee of the Whole As sembly will now come to order. Bill 1 The Alberta Historical Resources Amendment Act, 1977 MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any comments, questions, or amendments to be offered with respect to any sections of this bill? [Title and

preamble agreed to] MR. SCHMID: Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 1, The Alberta Historical Resources Amendment Act, 1977, be reported. [Motion carried] Bill 41 The Public Service Employee Relations Act MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any comments, questions, or amendments to be offered with respect to any sections of this bill? There are several government amendments. Is everybody familar with those amendments? Has eve ryone received copies of those amendments? MR. LEITCH: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make some remarks in respect to the amendments which have been distributed to the members of the Assem bly.

There are a number. The majority are drafting or wording changes not designed to change the sub stance of the bill. Included in that would be a group of consequential amendments because certain of the amendments do change the meaning of the bill. I would like to call the attention of the members of the committee to the more significant amendments. Before going through them, Mr.

Chairman, I'd simply say that following the introduction of Bill 41, there were a significant number of meetings between members of the Assembly and representatives of the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees, including a meeting I had with the president of the union and his counsel. A number of concerns were raised at those meetings. We considered those concerns. After hav ing considered them, we are proposing the changes that are in the amendments now before the committee. Mr.

Chairman, the first amendment I'd like to comment on removes the requirement of filing the constitution or by-laws before an association becom es union under the definition in the bill. The second change is

Section 2: removing from the Executive Council the capacity to add to or subtract from the

schedule that is part of the bill. After examining that matter it was our conclusion that it was unlikely there would be any need between sit tings of the Assembly for additions to or deletions from that schedule. Therefore we propose the change, which will mean that additions and deletions can only be made by the Legislative Assembly. We do think it necessary to retain the capacity in the Execu tive Council to change the description or names should that need arise between sittings of the Assembly. Mr. Chairman, there is also a striking out of

Section 12, which had given the board members the capacity to delegate any or all of their functions to the chair man. Upon reflection, we felt that might be undesir able to leave with the board, and have therefore proposed that the

section be struck out. We are also proposing in the amendments that

Section 25 be struck out. That was the

section which provided that the board could deal with professions that had similar characteristics to the dental, medical, engineering, and legal professions, et cetera, which were mentioned in the bill. Again after further con sideration of that section, we've concluded that because of the difficulties in determining what pro fessions might have similar characteristics, it would be better to delete the division. That has resulted in several consequential amendments. Mr. Chairman, a significant number of amend ments have also been proposed to

Section 51, which

1388 ALBERTA HANSARD May 17, 1977 is the

section dealing with arbitral items. The pro posed amendment would remove from that

section a number of items which it had declared to be non- arbitrable. Again, our reason for making that propos al is the number of representations made to Members of the Legislative Assembly which led us to conclude that the

section could be interpreted, or perhaps covered a wider area than we had intended. That is the reason for proposing the change to that section. Mr. Chairman, I believe the remainder of the amendments are of the type I had earlier described as being changes in wording, or consequential and not designed to change the substance of the bill. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Chairman, I would like to propose an amendment to the amendment. I have copies for all the members of the Assembly. The amendment to the amendment would deal with

Section 51. It's considered Item 12 in the government's amend ments, the

section the Provincial Treasurer just out lined dealing with the question of arbitration. The amendment I am proposing would strike out Subsec tion (2). In rising to argue the case for the amendment to the amendment, I want to say at the outset, Mr. Treasurer, as I look at the amendment that you propose, I think you have made some significant strides in expanding the area of arbitration. So the amendment is certainly an improvement over the bill as originally drafted.

But in view of the fact that this legislation specifically precludes the right to strike, I would argue that we must make sure arbitration ap plies to everything that is in fact subject to a collec tive agreement. The net result of the amendment to the amendment would be to say clearly in the legisla tion that virtually everything will in fact be subject to collective bargaining, and that where a collective agreement cannot be reached, it would be subject to arbitration. It's my view, Mr.

Chairman, that we have to go somewhat further in this area than we would even need to go with respect to The Alberta Labour Act. I say that to make the point that where the right to strike does not exist, in my judgment it is absolutely vital that the arbitration process be comprehensive enough to cover all the features that conceivably arise, and that we eliminate any lingering suspicion that the government will be dealing on a unilateral basis with its provincial employees.

When he concluded the debate on second reading a few days ago, the Provincial Treasurer indicated that the legislation must not only be fair but seen to be fair. I suggest that the amendment to the amend ment would clearly underscore the need for a latitude as comprehensive as possible for the arbitration pro cess. Mr. Chairman, that is the reason for the amendment to the amendment. I would certainly admit that the amendment has gone some distance toward meeting the objections of many of the provincial employees.

In my discussions, at least it is my understanding that they feel all the sections under 51 in fact should be arbitrable if the right to strike is to be denied. MR. YOUNG: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to make a couple of observations here. I'd like to begin with the closing observation of the hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview: the expression "if the right to strike is to be denied". First, he and I disagree — and we know we disagree — about the expression "right". We're talking about capacity. Also, we ought to be quite clear, Mr.

Chairman, that we're not taking something away for the large majority of the govern ment employees we are talking about. In my view, we are talking about a situation which in fact is going to be much preferable for the employees of the government in the future, compared with what it is now. Even if we talk about it in terms of capacity to strike, the capacity doesn't exist. So let's not talk about it in terms of taking something away.

So if we start from the position we are now in, what we are trying to do is give the employees a definitive approach to the resolution of a collective agreement, an approach which is as fair as it can be. Mr. Chairman, I think we are all concerned about what is and is not arbitrable. As I see it, if we proceed with the amendments proposed today by the hon. minister, a considerable scope of the conditions of employment would in fact be arbitrable.

Inasmuch as it seems to me that that's a substantial improve ment over the situation which employees of the gov ernment service now enjoy — and just to be sure that that's where we're moving from, it's where we are now and not where somebody would like to see us out here, as the hon. member seems to think we are in — I think we have made a very substantial im provement in the situation. One of the non-arbitrable provisions which would remain even under the amendments proposed today is pensions. The whole pension scheme the hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview is suggesting should be subject to arbitration.

I really question whether this Legislature can put itself — with respect to this pension system of all employees of the province, which is tied to and relates to the pension systems of all the other provinces, as I understand it. I think we have a reciprocal arrangement with every province in Canada, along with the federal government. I'm not sure it is reasonable to expect that that sort of thing should be subject to arbitration. So, Mr. Chairman, I would have to oppose the proposition advanced by the hon. member. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Chairman, I don't want to cut anyone off, but I would like to conclude debate.

If any other members would like to make comments, I'll defer until they do. AN HON. MEMBER: Agreed. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Chairman, to respond to the hon. Member for Edmonton Jasper Place — not necessari ly concluding debate, because I suppose we can speak as often as we like during this sort of discussion. I don't think anyone is arguing the case that something is being taken away. The point I want to make is that Bill 41 denies the right to strike. We can get into an argument over semantics. But I doubt that we can really debate that particular

section of this act, which simply says that provincial employees com ing under the terms of Bill 41 will not have the right to strike. That being the case, Mr. Chairman, I say to members that we must be very careful to ensure the arbitration process not only is fair but is seen to be fair, and that it covers everything that could conceiv

May 17, 1977 ALBERTA HANSARD 1389 ably be discussed during collective bargaining. The hon. Member for Edmonton Jasper Place raised the issue of pensions. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, as members know, pensions have been part of the col lective bargaining process. We have had strikes under The Alberta Labour Act because of pensions. Now if we are fair employers, are we not going to say that an independent arbitration award is something we can live with? I really question that the govern ment is not able to do that. I just don't believe any stricture on pension plans would preclude that. If so, I would be interested to know it, and perhaps that

section might be amended — the amendment to the amendment. Certainly the question of negotiating pensions has been part of the collective bargaining process. So has the organization of work. So has the system of job evaluation. So has selection, appointment, promo tion, training, and transfer. All the items which, under the terms of the amendment to the amend ment, would be subject to arbitration are now condi tions of work negotiable under most legislation in this country, with the right to strike at the bottom line.

We're taking away the bottom line, in terms of the right to strike, and substituting arbitration. I say to the members of this committee, if that is going to be the bottom line, at the very least that bottom line should in fact apply to everything that possibly comes under collective bargaining. MR. LEITCH: Mr. Chairman, there are quite a few comments I would like to make. First I'll deal with the matter of pensions. The position with respect to pensions in the government is, in my view, substan tially different from the matter of pensions in the private sector, where they may well be arbitrable.

In the government sector we have a pension plan that covers a number of employers — not just one. All of those employers will carry on separate negotiations. So we're talking about one plan being negotiated or arbitrated — if the hon. member's amendment were accepted — with respect to a number of different employers. That is a system I wouldn't conceive as working satisfactorily. The last point I wish to make, Mr. Chairman, is that the amendment proposes that we go a step further than is certainly the common practice in the private sector, and make arbitrable matters which are not commonly arbitrated.

For those reasons, Mr. Chairman, I'd urge the members of the Assembly to vote against the pro posed amendment. MR. NOTLEY: One additional comment. First of all let me just say, Mr. Chairman, listening to the Provincial Treasurer I'm still not sure the problems dealing with pensions are that insurmountable. But if in the opin ion of the law officers of the Crown, that is one area [in which] we are going to get ourselves into all sorts of problems — fair enough. Let's leave that. I suggest, with due respect to the Provincial Treas urer, that if he looks at these other sections, he's not correct.

These other sections are in fact not only arbitrable but negotiable, with the right to strike at the bottom line. Therefore I would suggest to members that the amendment to the amendment is consistent with the concept [that] if the right to strike doesn't exist, arbi tration must apply as much as possible. DR. McCRIMMON: Are you ready for the question? I'll read it out so there is no misunderstanding. The amendment, proposed by the hon. member, Mr. Not ley: "Amendment to government amendment, May 16, 1977 to Bill 41, The Public Service Employee Relations Act". The amendment to the amendment is as follows:

(1) Item 12 is amended by striking out sub-item (

b) and substituting the following: (

b) by striking out subsection (2). [Motion lost] MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, I haven't had time to follow this through, but

Section 25 has been struck out, and

Section 19 — which reads "The employees of the Crown in right of Alberta constitute a single bargaining unit" — remains in the bill. Is it now the intention of the government that there will be one bargaining [unit] for the entire public service, or — the way I rather think it will now be — that there will be discretion in setting out those groups that logically go together for bargaining purposes?

While I disagree with the method used by Air Canada in having almost every outfit of the aircraft industry a separate bargaining unit, I do think there's some argument for teachers and instructors in schools, compared to the average civil servant. It seems to me it would be much easier for some logical groups to bargain collectively, rather than being for ced to bargain in one bargaining unit. I'd appreciate having the comments of the hon. Provincial Treasurer on that point. MR. LEITCH: Mr. Chairman, I welcome the question from the hon.

Member for Drumheller, and simply say that in the matter of bargaining units, we are essen tially retaining the status quo. That is, the employees of what one might call the general government serv ice — the employees of the department — are now one unit, and this act maintains them as one unit. Members will note that in areas such as hospitals, where there are a number of units, a

section provides that the board can continue that practice. Dealing with other employers such as the Alberta Petroleum Marketing Commission, the legislation points the board in the direction of having one bargaining unit for an employer: But the legislation provides that if the board is of the opinion that the labor relations between the employees and the employer would be better served by having more than one bargaining unit, the board has the capacity to form more than one bargaining unit. But I think it fair to say, Mr.

Chairman, that the essence of the provisions in the bill on bargaining units is that we are essentially maintaining the status quo. MR. R. SPEAKER: To the minister. With regard to NAIT or SAIT, for example, would they come under the same terms of reference they have at the present time? MR. LEITCH: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

1390 ALBERTA HANSARD May 17, 1977 MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Chairman, I have another amend ment I would like to propose in addition to the government amendments. I believe I have copies here for all the members of the House. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I would propose is with respect to

Section 3 of the bill. It would strike out subsections (2) and (3). Mr. Chairman, members will recall that subsection (2) states: The Board shall consist of five persons appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, one of whom shall be designated as chairman. And subsection (3): The Lieutenant Governor in Council may appoint a person, in addition to the persons appointed under subsection (2), as alternate chairman of the Board to act as chairman (

a) when the chairman is absent or unable to act, or (

b) upon request of the chairman, and when the alternate chairman is so acting he is the chairman for all purposes. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of the amendment would be to give substance to the proposal made by the government representatives to the task force studying the public service in Alberta with respect to the composition of the Public Service Employee Rela tions Board. Members will recall that in the report the government representatives on the task force in dicated that there should be a committee of three.

But the key and significant provision of their proposal was that one person should represent the govern ment as the employer, one person should represent the employees, and a third person would be a neutral chairman. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I have accepts the government's basic size — the size remains at five — but the composition reflects the recommendation of the government members on the task force. The proposal would read: two persons appointed by the Lieutenant Gover nor in Council one person appointed by the bargaining agent for the employees of the Crown and right of Alberta.

That means the bulk of the provincial service, and then: one person appointed by majority vote of all bargaining units, other than the unit consisting of the employees of the Crown in the right of Alber ta to be exercised by the bargaining agent of each unit. The reason that

section is there, Mr. Chairman, is that it is conceivable that we may not have everybody covered by the same overall bargaining agent. And then, of course, the final section: one additional person selected as chairman by the other members of the board . . . appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

So under the terms of this amendment, we would have two representatives from the government appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, two representatives from the employees — one from the employees of the Crown in right of Alberta, and one from those employees other than employees of the Crown in right of Alberta — then one additional person also appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council to act as chairman. The other part of the amendment, Mr. Chairman, would simply indicate that the alternate chairman should be chosen by the board as opposed to the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

The basic arguments for this amendment have been made before when I attempted to expand the scope of the arbitration section. It seems to me one can make the argument that if the bottom line is not the right to strike, which has been traditionally con sidered the basic right of organized labor, then we have to make sure that the mechanism is completely and totally fair and is seen to be completely and totally fair. I know that when the Provincial Treasurer closed second reading he indicated that the composition of the Board of Industrial Relations is not so set up. But, Mr.

Chairman, the fact of the matter is that under the terms of The Labour Act the bottom line is the right to strike. With that in mind, Mr. Chairman, because the right to strike doesn't exist in this act — it is specifi cally precluded — in my view it is necessary that we clearly set up — and I think this point was made rather well by the government members on the task force looking into the public service — whatever board is given the responsibility of administering this very tricky act [so] that there would be equal repre sentation from both sides, with a neutral chairman.

So I would ask the members of the committee to seriously consider this amendment which is consist ent with the government's own task force representa tives who spent well over a year examining and assessing and then finally coming forward with a recommendation. MR. STROMBERG: In regard to this amendment, we've had two very good meetings at Camrose with the public service employees. Their concern was, in

Section 3(2), that perhaps there would be no labor representation on there. But they made it very clear to me at our meeting last Sunday evening that they did not necessarily want representation from AUPE. They would feel considerably safer, or let's say at ease, if there were two representatives with a broad labor experience, not necessarily from AUPE. I con veyed to them that I would convey that message to this Assembly.

I realize that the minister made reference to this in second reading, but I would like the minister's comments, and if he would give con sideration to two gentlemen with broad labor experience on that board. MR. LEITCH: Mr. Chairman, there are two points I want to deal with that underlie the comments made in connection with this

section and that I'm sure are behind the amendment, now before us. The first is that I think there has been some misunderstanding of the function of this legislation. I want to draw to the attention of the members of the committee that this is not the board that settles the terms of the collective agreement. A different board does that — an arbitration board set up under the bill. That board is composed of three members, one being appointed by the union, the other being appointed by the employer, and the third being a neutral chairman selected by them.

Alternatively, if they're unable to agree upon the selection of a chairman there is a procedure in the legislation which will lead to the appointment of a chairman. So I think it's important, Mr. Chairman, that that

May 17, 1977 ALBERTA HANSARD 1391 distinction be kept in mind. This is not the board that will settle the terms of a collective agreement. That will be done by a different board — an arbitration board. On the arbitration board there will specifically be representation from the union and from the employer. Secondly, reference has been made to the govern ment members' task force report. This has been mentioned a number of times, with the suggestion being left that the government members recommend ed appointments by the union and appointments by the government. That isn't what the recommendation says.

The recommendation says an independent, part-time, three-member board should be created to administer the new act; that a mutual chairman be appointed; and that the other two members of the board be appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council after consultation, which is an entirely dif ferent thing from what's proposed by this amendment. Mr. Chairman, let me say a word or two about a legislative requirement for consultation. I referred to this on second reading. I simply don't think it works. We've had legislation in this province requiring con sultation before appointments.

I functioned under one such act and find it's a totally ineffective provi sion in legislation. I don't know when you can ever feel confident that you've carried out the direction of the legislation when it contains a requirement to consult. Lastly, and I think this is the most important, Mr. Chairman, and again I referred to it in my comments on second reading: it is clear to me that this board, in order to do its work, must have the confidence of both the union and the employers.

It's my view that if one looks carefully through the duties this board is required to perform under the legislation, it isn't going to be a very satisfactory board if you have two members representing the union, two members representing the employers, and a chairman. That isn't the kind of atmosphere, Mr. Chairman, that I would hope to see develop within the board; the kind that inevitably develops out of that system of appointment. As I stressed, this is a board that's going to have to have the confidence of both the union and the employer.

I certainly expect that the government will have discussions with the union dur ing the course of preparing to make appointments to this board. But, Mr. Chairman, I can't see any legisla tive requirement for discussions or consultation in any way advancing what will in fact occur. The hon. Member for Camrose referred to our appointing to the board some people with a wide experience in labor matters. I think that's inevitable. I think we need to appoint to this board persons who are knowledgeable in the areas in which the board has to deal. With those comments, Mr.

Chairman, I would urge the members of the committee to reject the proposed amendment. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Chairman, I was intrigued on listen ing to the minister submit his arguments on this matter, particularly with respect to the question of the difficulties of having representatives from the work ers and from the government on the board. I say I was intrigued, Mr. Minister, because I remember with strong reflection the great fanfare given to the task force when it was commissioned in 1975, just a few days before the election was announced.

It was cer tainly a double approach: two representatives from the — at that time — CSA, two representatives from the Alberta government, [were] asked to examine this whole issue, the pluses and minuses, at a time the government wanted to make sure everybody was happy. At that time, Mr. Chairman, the government in its wisdom felt that equal representation from both side was very workable. Now we're told there is some danger that if that were carried through we might have a public service employee relations board that has strains. There might not be the cohesion, and there may be some problems. Mr.

Chairman, I say to the members of the committee: I suspect that will happen. But I'm not sure the way to avoid that is to try to appoint a board where the employees are not given equal representation with the government, with due respect to the hon. Member for Camrose. The hon. member makes a point. It may well be that some provincial employees are not very enthused about having someone from the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees on the board.

In my travels in the province, meeting any group in any union, I can't recall not knowing that at least some members of that union were not totally sold on their organization. That's not only true of unions, Mr. Chairman. That's true of church groups, chambers of commerce, asso ciations. I know of virtually no association — I'm told that even within the Alberta Progressive Conservative Association there are some members who are not always happy. DR. BUCK: Conservative members. MR. NOTLEY: That's the Conservative members. Well, that may be true. In any event, Mr.

Chairman, I say that in terms of a coherent public policy the worst thing we could get into would be to try to find people who may have a labor background but would not have the allegiance of most of the provincial employees. I suggest that the amendment is simply putting in a statute form what, in my view, is absolutely mandatory if this Employee Relations Board is to be workable. Now of course I realize, Mr. Minister — I don't think anyone in this House who doesn't realize that there is a difference between the Public Service Employee Relations Board and the arbitration procedure.

But let's look at some of the powers of the board we're appointing. They have power, under

Section 9, that is really very extensive. One of the concerns brought to my attention by members of the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees is that the powers of the board are so broad. That being the case, Mr. Chairman, I think it is necessary that we ensure the representation on the board is, to use the minister's own words, not only fair but seen to be fair. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to speak in support of the principle of the amendment. I feel from past experience that where the employees of the province and the employer were able to sit together to solve a number of problems was a good one.

Now, we've certainly changed the principle here to some extent, where it is removed from the ministerial level

1392 ALBERTA HANSARD May 17, 1977 being involved in the board to a point where there are persons outside the cabinet level as part of the composition. But, as an employee group, I would feel rather insecure with this type of relationship. We should recognize that the legislation we pass is not particularly going to be administered by anyone who sits in the front line at present, nor who sits on this side of the House. But the principle is establish ed for the time ahead. I think there are times when you have to build safeguards into legislation.

This may be one of those times we should make it possible that employee representation will be assured on the board, and that the functions carried out and the decisions made reflect employee attitude. I recall reading this when the bill was presented, and hearing it a number of times since then. It has concerned me very much, because it is difficult to judge exactly what will happen in a board of five people. If the people are all on the side of the employer, the employee end is lost. That could hap pen when the employer, in the final analysis, has the unilateral right to appoint the board.

So I think it certainly would be worth our while to give some recognition to the fact there should be something in the legislation, which isn't there at the present time, that ensures employee representation. MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to say a word or two on this principle. I support the principle of labor and employer representation on a board like the Workers' Compensation Board, because it's the em ployer's money that's being spent. Consequently the employer requires representation, and employees have a representative to counterbalance it.

But from my observation, in many cases the decision has to be made by the chairman. Where there is a conflict between the employer and the employee to the extent they can't resolve it, the chairman makes the deci sion. So in effect you have a one-man board. This principle was enunciated several years ago by the late Premier William Aberhart, who for many years refused to have a three-man board. He thought it was a waste of public money, because in difficult cases the decision always came down to the chair man in any event. But I support the three-man board in workers' compensation.

When the public service is involved, it is my view that the people have to be represented. It's the people's money that's being spent; not the employer's money and not the employees' money. So in my view it's wrong to have on the board someone who is dedicated to carrying out the wishes of any one group. The people on the board should be objective. They should make sure the employees get a fair deal, but they should not be bound to any particular group — employer or employee. They should be fair to all employees. Mr.

Chairman, when we say we are going to appoint a board that is going to be dedicated to one cause, we're not fulfilling our obligations to the peo ple of the province as a whole. Let's get people on there who are going to be objective, who are fair minded, and who are going to look after the public interest and make sure every employee gets a fair deal. Surely that's what the public service is requesting. MR. YOUNG: Mr. Chairman, just three quick observa tions on the debate before us. I'd like to remind hon. members that what we're talking about here relates to the administration of the legislation before us.

In my view there has been considerable confusion in the public mind about that matter. Secondly, I'd like to remind all hon. members that my constituency, I am sure, contains many employees of the government of Alberta. It also contains many other people; many other employees who do not have any organized union, any organized association at all. So in terms of the protection being afforded to em ployees of the government, we're already one up on many other employees in the province. I don't know the statistics on the number of organized employees as a ratio, but I think it is 30 per cent of all employ ees.

So we're talking about some smaller number. So at this stage, in 1977, approximately 70 per cent of the employees in this province don't even have this kind of protection. Thirdly, Mr. Chairman, we're talking about adminis tration. Surely the success of administration is the credibility that board can bring to bear. If I interpret this amendment correctly, the credibility of the board would be severely damaged by someone having to go through an election process, I guess, and make all kinds of commitments about what he or she is going to achieve on the Public Service Employee Relations Board. AN HON.

MEMBER: Like an MLA. MR. YOUNG: What kind of objective commitment is that going to be? What kind of objective feature is that going to attract to the board? AN HON. MEMBER: Campaign managers. MR. YOUNG: What kind of light is the whole board going to be placed in by that sort of process? I think it much fairer to all the public service that the people on there be seen to be acting with empathy for the employees of the government and be seen to be acting in concert, trying to arrive at the best and most objective decisions. Mr. Chairman, I ask hon. members to reject this amendment. MR. LEITCH: Mr.

Chairman, I simply wanted to say that I was going to comment on the point about the public interest in the decisions of this board, made by the hon. Member for Drumheller. But he's done it much more effectively than I could have, and I thank him for that. I would conclude my remarks on this by saying I have no hesitation in saying I am sure we will be able to find people of ability and judgment to appoint to this board, and that they will reach fair decisions. There are all kinds of examples where that has been done.

Equally there are examples where people appointed in that fashion have not always agreed with what government's view of a matter might have been, and had no hesitation in saying so. Mr. Chairman, I am satisfied that the proposal we have in the bill is going to function very well. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Chairman, just before we conclude debate on this particular motion — I still want the

May 17, 1977 ALBERTA HANSARD 1393 amendment voted on, but I would like to ask the minister a direct question. The minister indicated consultation would take place. Would the minister be specific in terms of the consultation that will take place before the appointment is made? For example, will consultation on the composition take place be tween the minister and the Alberta Union of Provin cial Employees?

To be specific, will consultation take place between the minister and the Alberta Federaton of Labour — as suggested, for example, in the task force report — before the government finalizes its decision on the composition? MR. LEITCH: Mr. Chairman, the hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview has used the word "consulta tion". I did not. I used the word "discussions". I said there was no doubt there would be discussions with the union before appointments were made. At this stage I'm not prepared to say with whom we might have discussions or how many or their exact nature.

I think I have indicated to members of the committee the underlying and important principle that we are aware and conscious of the fact that the people appointed to this board have to be people whose decisions are going to earn the respect of both the union and the employers. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Chairman, let me just follow that up. Can I ask you specifically whether or not discus sions will take place with the Alberta Federation of Labour in view of the concern expressed by that organization about Bill 41? MR. LEITCH: Mr. Chairman, I don't know that I can add to what I said earlier.

Certainly, I haven't made any final decision as to with whom we might have discussions or who might have them or with whom in a particular organization we might have them, and wouldn't be prepared to make any specific commit ments in that area today. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question with respect to the amendment to Bill 41 by the hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview? [Motion lost] MR. NOTLEY: Before we conclude Bill 41, Mr. Minis ter, I wonder if we could move to page 25,

Section 43 of the act. Basically, I'd like to ask the government where it stands on this matter. It's my understanding that not all provincial employees are members of the union. That's certainly true in some hospitals, for example. The question really relates to what happens in terms of agreements negotiated by whatever bargaining agent may be certified, whether those people who benefit from the agreement are to pay union dues — whether or not they wish to join and participate is a separate matter — but whether or not they are to pay, perhaps I can use the term, "their fair share of the freight".

My question is whether the government has given any consideration to a Rand formula with re spect to this area, so that the bargaining agent would still receive support, but those individuals who for one reason or another do not wish to participate in the bargaining agent as members or take a role are not obliged to. But they are not able to go along, if you like, for a free ride. They must bear part of the financial responsibility, even if they do not wish to take a full role in the activities of the bargaining agent. MR. LEITCH: Mr. Chairman, I believe the answer to the member's question is yes.

I think it will be found, in the amendments we proposed, as amendment no. 2 to

Section 43 of the act. While I'm on that, Mr. Chairman, I just want to be sure that the committee's vote on the government amendments included the second amendment. I understand it did. MR. CHAIRMAN: It covered all. MR. LEITCH: That being so, I believe the changes to

Section 43 effected by the second amendment pro posed by the government enable the deductions referred to by the hon. Member for Spirit River- Fairview to be made; that is, the Rand formula deductions. MR. STROMBERG: Mr. Chairman, I just have a ques tion I want to ask the minister in regard to our people down in Camrose voicing their question and their concern as to when the Public Service Employee Relations Board would be appointed. Would they be moving into bargaining in the fall or the summer? Could some time frame be indicated as to when the board would be appointed? MR. LEITCH: Mr.

Chairman, it is my intention to have the board appointed as quickly as it can be done. I would hope that would occur during the summer. My memory of the transitional provisions of the bill is that upon the appointment of three members, the board is then operational. I hope that would occur during the summer. Certainly we want to see it done as rapidly as possible. MR. STROMBERG: Mr. Chairman, in the intervening time, before three members of that board are appointed, do we continue doing as we are now? MR. LEITCH: No, Mr. Chairman.

There are transition al provisions which deal with how things that are now going on under existing legislation will continue. Some of them will continue under the existing legis lation; others would be carried out under this legisla tion. But in the interim, between proclamation of this bill and the appointment of the board, there is a provision enabling the Executive Council to do the things the board is authorized to do under the bill. I would see Executive Council doing routine matters which the board is required to do under the bill.

If something of a contentious nature arose between the proclamation of the bill and the time of the board's appointment, I would see Executive Council appointing some independent party to resolve that contentious matter. The capacity for the Executive Council to do that is also in the bill. MR. COOKSON: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to make a comment or two. I would like to congratulate both the Minister of Labour and the Provincial Treasurer for the dedicated way in which they have worked at Bill 41, The Public Service Employee Relations Act, as

1394 ALBERTA HANSARD May 17, 1977 I have gone through it. I would also like to thank them for giving many members of the Legislature an opportunity for some input into the amendments. I was able to attend a meeting at Red Deer with the public service people and review some of the concerns expressed to us. In my time in the Legislature, I don't know of any other bill presented that has this many amendments at this late stage of the game. So I'd just like to thank the ministers involved for taking the time to consider those requests. Some of the meetings weren't held under the most desirable circumstances.

I simply say this: it's a fair document. I think it's important to the people of Alberta, and for the people of Alberta to realize — and I'm sure they do — that legislation for the people of Alberta is passed in this Legislature. I think the Premier made that point a week or two ago. Mr. Chairman, I'm sure we have a lot of good support for this moderate kind of bill — a way of handling the problems between provincial employees and employers.

I think it's highly important that the employees involved in Bill 41 realize the thought and the depth that have gone into it, the number of stops and checks, and the protection for the employee. I know that when they go through this — and many of them have, through their organization and so on . . . I know that we have a tremendous support for this kind of moderate legislation which, hopefully, will reduce the amount of confrontation that often occurs in these kinds of negotiations. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question on Bill 41 as amended? [Mr. Chairman declared the motion carried.

Several members rose calling for a division. The division bell was rung] [Three minutes having elapsed, the House divided] For the motion: Adair Gogo Musgreave Appleby Hansen Paproski Ashton Harle Peacock Backus Hohol Planche Batiuk Horsman Purdy Bogle Hunley Russell Butler Hyland Shaben Chambers Hyndman Stewart Chichak Johnston Stromberg Cookson King Taylor Crawford Kroeger Tesolin Diachuk Kushner Trynchy Doan Leitch Walker Dowling Little Warrack Farran Lysons Webber Fluker McCrae Wolstenholme Foster Miller Young Getty Miniely Zander G hitter Against the motion: Buck Mandeville R.

Speaker Clark Notley Totals: Ayes – 55 Noes – 5 [Title and

preamble agreed to] MR. LEITCH: Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill 41, The Public Service Employee Relations Act, be reported as amended. [Motion carried] Bill 38 The Municipal Election Amendment Act, 1977 MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any comments, questions, or amendments to be offered with respect to any sections of this bill? There is an amendment to the bill. Are you all familar with the amendment? [Title and

preamble agreed to] MR. PURDY: Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill 38, The Municipal Election Amendment Act, be reported as amended. [Motion carried] Bill 49 The Election Amendment Act, 1977 MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any comments, questions, or amendments to be offered with respect to any sections of this bill? There is an amendment. Are you all familiar with the amendment? [Title and

preamble agreed to] MR. PURDY: Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill 49, The Election Amendment Act, be reported as amended. [Motion carried] Bill 34 The Hydro and Electric Energy Amendment Act, 1977 MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any comments, questions, or amendments to be offered with respect to any sections of this bill?, DR. WARRACK: Mr. Chairman, during second reading the Leader of the Opposition asked me to follow up on three matters that he had posed. I'm in a position to do that. Perhaps his colleagues would indicate to him the responses I'm about to give so that he might examine them in Hansard. One was the concern with respect to

Section 12 as related to

Section

Section 12 deals with trans mission lines. The hon. member was wondering whether this would include every conceivable line involved. On checking I find it would not, inasmuch as transmission rather than . . . also distribution lines that are involved. Regulations would in fact be writ ten under that

section that would provide for exclu sion of very small units. In relation to

Section 16 and the powers therein, including the 'sunset clause' we discussed on second reading, I wanted to indicate the concern we had had

May 17, 1977 ALBERTA HANSARD 1395 as a result of four instances so far, during my time of responsibilities, where we have been close to a power shortage and the need to have quick action — for example, by way of gearing up the small power plant at Lethbridge or the power plant at Fort McMur ray or possibly the Wabamun No. 1 plant, a gas unit plant — to meet any shortages and allocations necessary. A couple of examples might point out how impor tant this is, Mr. Chairman.

One was the time the Jasper power plant burned and it was necessary to make immediate emergency decisions in order to have continuity of power supply. Those decisions were made and arrangements struck. But it's not all that clear they were within the terms of The Hydro and Electric Energy Act and we certainly feel that those kinds of actions should clearly be within the statutes of the province, rather than [having] any question about it. At the same time common sense prevailed in terms of meeting the emergency that came about in that particular area. That's one example.

The second example — and I would just refer it to all hon. members for reading when they have an opportunity — is an

article in this month's Fortune magazine, called "The Night the Lights Almost Went Out". It deals with the problems in the United States on Monday, January 17, the severe cold snap beyond what was anticipated there, and the very difficult problems of brownouts and rotating blackouts that were necessary. Those are the kinds of the things we want to guard against and the basic concept of con cern and planning we wanted to instigate in The Hydro and Electric Energy Act in order to handle the situation. That was one question posed by the hon. member. I can be very brief on the second item.

It says in Hansard in the remarks by the hon. Leader of the Opposition, "Section 10", but from the context I'm able to determine that he really means Item 10 in Bill 34, which deals with

Section 15 of The Hydro and Electric Energy Act. The question posed was: under what circum stances would the government be instigating a move of, for example, a power plant or any related facility. The answer to that question is related in consulting the basic act, which is not evident looking at Bill 34, inasmuch as

Section 15(1) refers to "Upon an appli cation". So the powers involved in this amendment of

Section 15 are responsive to an application from a power generator rather than on the initiative of the government or the Energy Resources Conservation [Board], by way of recommendations and advice to the government. The third and final point the hon. member brought forward was noting the insertion of the words, "and operation" at the bottom of Page 2, I believe. The hon. member wondered whether or not that particu lar insertion of two words related specifically to REAs. The answer is no.

It does refer to operations of all electrical systems, but that particular amendment is really in the basic act, The Hydro and Electric Energy Act. Hon. members will note, if they have a chance to take a look at it, that

Part 3 deals specifically with electric distribution systems.

Part 3 does not include the particular amendment involved here. So while it would apply in its general application to distribution systems like any other part of the electric system, it does not specifically refer to REAs. I understand that to have been the question posed by the hon. Leader of the Opposition. [Title and

preamble agreed to] DR. WARRACK: Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill 34, The Hydro and Electric Energy Amendment Act, 1977, be reported. [Motion carried] Bill 11 The Vital Statistics Amendment Act, 1977 MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any comments, questions, or amendments to be offered with respect to any sections of this bill? [Title and

preamble agreed to] MR. WOLSTENHOLME: Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 11, The Vital Statistics Amendment Act, 1977, be reported. [Motion carried] Bill 23 The Financial Administration Amendment Act, 1977 MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any comments, questions, or amendments to be offered with respect to any sections of this bill? MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Chairman, one of the concerns we had with regard to this bill was the significant increase from $46,000 to $51,380. The Provincial Treasurer has explained to us that under various circumstances a significant increase could be made.

We recognize that under the AIB guidelines the increase was to be kept to around $25 or $100. We feel that to keep in accord with that type of principle, we should certainly adhere to it in this bill. In light of that, Mr. Chairman, we'd like to propose an amendment which brings us within the AIB guide lines relative to the salary increase. I would move as follows: The Bill is amended as follows: A.

Section 2 is amended by striking out the figure "$51,380" and substituting therefor the figure "$50,800". MR. LEITCH: Mr. Chairman, the question of the AIB guidelines was raised during the debate on second reading, and I pointed out then that for many years in the government the principle that the Auditor be paid the same salary as the Deputy Provincial Treasurer has been followed. This increase brings the Auditor's salary to the same level as that of the Deputy Provin cial Treasurer. It's a question of whether one were to break that principle.

In light of its long standing, it appears to me it should not be broken, particularly when the Auditor is not within the Anti-inflation Board's guidelines, and as there are a number of other people outside of that. I appreciate the comments made on second reading

1396 ALBERTA HANSARD May 17, 1977 debate about the importance of following those guide lines. Certainly there is merit to that. I think they ought to be departed from only when there's a good solid reason for doing so. I simply say to the members of the committee that I have no hesitation in saying that the good solid reason here is that we are keeping the Auditor's salary at the same level as that of the Deputy Provincial Treasurer, in accordance with long-standing practice. [Motion lost] [Title and

preamble agreed to] MR. LEITCH: Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill 23, The Financial Administration Amendment Act, 1977, be reported. [Motion carried] Bill 24 The Election Finances and Contributions Disclosure Act MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any comments, questions, or amendments to be offered with respect to any sections of this bill? MR. CHAMBERS: Mr. Chairman, with regard to the amendments circulated, I might add that if members wonder about

Section 48, part (

b) of the amendments, what is in the existing bill which members have is quite valid. It's just that if you think about it, the way the amendments are written is a simpler way of saying the same thing. So it's really tidying up the wording. However, there is one amendment of substance with regard to

Section 1(1), the definition of "consti tuency association". We felt it was only fair and proper that the constituency association of an inde pendent sitting member of this House should be able to enjoy the same benefits as that of any member with political party affiliation. I might add that we had really intended that to be in there right from the start, but somehow in the drafting that wording was left out. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Chairman, just one question. I don't want to delay the bill. I certainly subscribe to the addition Mr. Chambers has outlined.

However, the question is: I gather the restriction is for an independent member who is a member of the Legisla ture. Would there be no provision for individuals who would seek election to office as independents and would like to use this act in order to raise money? MR. CHAMBERS: No, Mr. Chairman. If we think about the proliferation that could occur if it were available to anybody who said he was a candidate, I think that would be a difficult complication to live with. However, I believe it's an entirely different situation with a sitting member of the Legislature, and I think members concur.

I don't think there's any reason an independent sitting member shouldn't be able to enjoy the same benefits as any of the rest of us with political party affiliation. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Chairman, just to follow that up. So we're really talking about a sitting member, regar dless of how that person was elected. We've had several examples between '71 and '75 where people were elected on one basis and then ran on another basis. We have the example of Mr. Taylor, who was elected as an Independent.

It's not a question of how one was elected; it's a question of how one is sitting at the time of dissolution of the Legislature — is that the definition of it? MR. CHAMBERS: Yes, Mr. Chairman. In other words, regardless of whether he ran and was elected as an Independent or whether he was elected on a party basis, as long as he's in the House as an Independent he would enjoy the same benefits under this amend ment as any other member of the House. DR. BUCK: Mr.

Chairman, in light of the fact that I have some reservations and some strong feelings that election expenditures should be limited, I beg leave to adjourn the debate. MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee

Document details

Collection	Alberta — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	19770517
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	L18 S3 19770517 1430 01 han.pdf
Language	en
Format	json
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	2d2c156f364f8a108fce4c3f72c718e6a65a13f2

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