Alberta Hansard — 29 May 1975, Afternoon sitting (14:30) (Legislature 18, Session 1)

19750529

Alberta — Debates (Hansard)

May 29, 1975 ALBERTA HANSARD 259 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA Title: Thursday, May 29, 1975 2:30 p.m. [The House met at 2:30 p.m.] PRAYERS [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SELECT COMMITTEES MR. TRYNCHY: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to table the report of the standing committee outlining the members on the six select standing committees, as ordered by this Assembly. head: INTRODUCTION OF BILLS Bi ll 209 The Farm Land Ownership Act DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce Bill 209, The Farm Land Ownership Act. This will limit the agricultural landholdings of non-resident owners.

The purpose is to ensure that Alberta agricultural land is preserved largely for Alberta residents. The main thrust, Mr. Speaker, is that non-residents will not be able to hold more than 640 acres of Alberta land. [Leave being granted, Bill 209 was introduced and read a first time.] head: INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS MR. McCRAE: Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure today to introduce to you, and through you to the members of this Assembly, a group of some 40 students from the Collingwood school in my constituency. They are Grade 6 students.

They have been on a one-week bus tour of the Banff-Jasper-Edson region and are heading back to Calgary at this time. They have been billeted with friends along the route. It was part of their social studies project. Mr. Speaker, they are accompanied by their principal, Mr. David Bruce; their teachers, Mr. Bill Mahon and Mrs. Edna Inkster; and by parents, Mrs. Ramsey and Mrs. Eaton. They are in the members gallery, and I ask that they stand and be recognized by the Assembly. DR. HOHOL: Mr.

Speaker, I am pleased to introduce to you, and through you to this Assembly, 75 Grade 5 students from Kildare school in the constituency of Edmonton Belmont. They are accompanied by Mrs. Joan Budd and are sitting in both the public and members galleries. I should like to ask them to rise and be welcomed by this Assembly. MR. GOGO: Mr. Speaker, I have the honor and privilege of introducing to you, and through you to the members of this Assembly, three honor students from the City of Lethbridge.

I would ask that they stand: Linda Swanson, from the Lethbridge Collegiate Institute; Martha Kaplan, from the Catholic Central High School; Cindy Gaetz, from the Winston Churchill

260 ALBERTA HANSARD May 29, 1975 High School; and their host and longtime friend of the Assembly, a member of the Agriculture Hall of Fame, Dr. Ace Palmer. MR. ADAIR: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure this afternoon to introduce to you, and through you to the members of this Assembly, some very distinguished guests from Malaysia. They are members of the world youth organization and are visiting in our fair province. I would like to welcome at this time: Mr. Yap Yong Yih, the first youth affairs officer for the ministry of culture, youth and sports in Malaysia; Mr. Shaari lebai Awang; Mr.

Sofian Haji Tamat; Mr. Muhammed Tainu; and Mr. Zakaria Hamat. They are accompanied by Mr. Gerard Holdrinet and Mr. David Stott. I would ask that they rise and be recognized by this Assembly. MR. BOGLE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce to you, and to the members of the Assembly, two representatives of the Milk River town council. They are councillor Myron Verburg and administrator George Roberts. MR. SHABEN: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce to you, and through you to the members of this Assembly, the Mayor of the Town of High Prairie, Mr. Fred J. Dumont. He's seated in the members gallery.

I'd ask him to rise and be welcomed. MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I've great pleasure to introduce to you, and through you to the hon. members of the Legislature, Mr. Julian Fedoruk who is in your gallery. Mr. Fedoruk is a prominent merchant in the Town of Strathmore and a member of the town council. I would ask him now to stand and be recognized. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be extremely unfortunate if we overlooked the presence in the House today, in your gallery, of Mr. Roy Wilson, the former member of the Legislature for Calgary Bow. I'm sure we'd all welcome Mr.

Wilson back to the Legislative Assembly. Mr. Speaker, while I'm on my feet, I'd like to introduce someone who hasn't been formally introduced to the Legislature before but is frequently with us in the galleries. That's the leader of the Liberal Party, Mr. Nick Taylor, also in your gallery. head: TABLING RE TURNS AND REPORTS MR . MOORE: Mr. Speaker, with the presence today in the members gallery of the Farmers' Advocate of Alberta, Mr. Entrup, I take the privilege of filing copies of the 1974 annual report of the Farmers' Advocate of Alberta. Copies are available for all members. MISS HUNLEY: Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to table the annual report for the Department of Health and Social Development, as required by statute. While I'm on my feet, Mr. Speaker, I also wish to table Sessional Paper No. 36, The Disabled Persons' Pension Act, a nil report; The Old Age Assistance Act, another nil report; and The Blind Persons Act, as required by statute. MR. FARRAN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to table the answer to Question 118. MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to table the 57th annual report of the Workers' Compensation Board for the calendar year 1974. In doing so, Mr.

Speaker, I might mention that the form in which these are being tabled is the typed form. In due course they will be printed, and at that point I'd be pleased to provide hon. members with copies. The printing is expected to take into the middle to late part of June, but it is hoped they will be ready by the time the spring session might end. MR.

SPEAKER: Although there may be some doubt about the appropriateness of our Standing Order 100 in a year in which we have two sessions, I would assume that hon. members would agree that a report for the Alberta Hansard having been tabled at the last session of the 17th Legislature, it won't be necessary to table another one now. HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. head: ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Grants Procedures Review MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct my first question either to the Premier or to the Government House Leader.

May 29, 1975 ALBERTA HANSARD 261 [The Premier and Mr. Hyndman entered the House.] The timing was beautiful.

In looking over the Auditor's report the Premier tabled in the House yesterday and having regard for the observations the Auditor made concerning the absence of regulations providing for grants, specifically in The Department of Agriculture Amendment Act, 1972, and having in mind that in new government bills coming in this session there is a provision that grants would not be made unless regulations have been approved beforehand by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, I would like to ask the Premier if it is the intention of the government to introduce legislation this spring session that would cover grants made in other government departments so that, in fact, grants would not be made unless there were regulations approved by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that question is that we have been evaluating it, and it would depend upon the timing in which we have a reply from the Auditor to the request we've made to him to review grant procedures of the various government departments, as referred to earlier in the House by the Provincial Treasurer. We would want to see the Auditor's report before we moved in terms of a wholesale amendment of legislation in the various bills.

We felt that rather than making some amendments in the session now and then having to revise them in light of the Auditor's report because it's relatively imminent even though we might not receive it until July — we would be better served by awaiting his reports. In addition, as I mentioned in my statement yesterday, I've asked him to do a special assessment with regard to the concerns he raised on pages 7 and 8 of the report I tabled yesterday.

On the other hand, we did not think it would be appropriate to bring in new legislation, with new departments, that did not include a grant procedure which established the premise the hon. leader refers to, that grants should not be made without being within the parameters or guidelines of established regulation. Oil Industry MR. CLARK: Mr.

Speaker, the second question is to the Minister of Energy to ask if he has been contacted by representatives of small independent oil companies, primarily from Calgary, who are having extreme difficulty raising operating capital and in some cases, I am told, are having to consider letting their leases go. MR. GETTY: Mr.

Speaker, over the course of the rapidly changing conditions that have occurred in the energy field, there have been, I would say, many occasions when both large and small companies in the energy field have by mail and verbally expressed to me, and I'm sure to other members of the Executive Council and MLAs, problems they were encountering because of the rapid changes in the energy field. I have a little difficulty recalling any that specifically deal with the matter of inability to raise operating expenses. However, perhaps a review of past correspondence might indicate that some did.

I think the majority of concerns I encountered were from those who felt that a source of funds which they used to be able to rely on from the United States — these were venture funds, for exploration and development drilling rather than operating of the company — was to some extent drying up because of U.S. tax laws and greater incentives for drilling within the United States. MR. CLARK: Further supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the minister.

Does the minister have, either in his department or perhaps through the Energy Resources Conservation Board, any type of monitoring going on which deals with this problem, especially for small companies with, let's say, from 1 to 10 people involved, which, I understand, have done something like 70 per cent of the wildcat drilling in the province over the past number of years? Is there any type of ongoing monitoring in that area? MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, I wouldn't say there was a formalized monitoring system.

There's certainly constant communication between members of the department, members of this Legislature, and people in the oil industry — as well, I believe, through the Energy Resources Conservation Board. In that way we try to keep as fully aware as possible of the conditions in the industry. MR. CLARK: A further supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the minister.

Does the minister, either in this informal monitoring or any other mechanism, have an indication as to the number of geologists in Calgary — once again, who are engaged by these small independent companies — who are, in fact, either out of work at this time or effectively leaving the province and going south? Do you have any kind of feel for that area? MR. GETTY: Specifically in terms of geologists out of work, Mr. Speaker, I do not.

I would draw the attention of the hon. member and the House to the fact that there have been a lot of changes, some for the bad in the minds of industry and others, but some for the good — a lot of changes more recently in terms of increasing incentives for exploration and development of oil and gas reserves within the province. We believe many of these will start to create a greater activity and therefore more opportunities for employment for those in the industry.

262 ALBERTA HANSARD May 29, 1975 MR. CLARK: Further supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the minister. Has the government under consideration any specific program or proposals that would deal with the plight of these small independent companies, either through the Opportunity Company or through some guaranteed loans, or any proposals in this area? MR. GETTY: We have certain matters under consideration, Mr. Speaker. However, it's difficult to move in a firm way in this area because an assessment must be very detailed and thorough.

As the hon. members know, we have had a substantial Alberta Petroleum Exploration Program in effect only since December of 1974. He have had a dramatic increase in natural gas prices at the border and in domestic prices as well which are flowing back to producers. He have negotiations under way for oil and gas price increases which, we trust, will also increase incentives for oil and gas exploration. He have a new federal budget coming down in June, for whatever effect that may have on the industry. And we have some potential decrease in the attractiveness in the United States. So, Mr.

Speaker, all these things are at work in the industry right now. Therefore, it's very difficult at this time to institute programs until we are certain they are necessary. We do not want to be in a position of filling a need that is really created, for instance, by inefficiency of some companies. Therefore, we will keep this matter under consideration and try to see if there's a legitimate role government can play. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, one last supplementary question, in light of the minister's answers.

Would the minister be prepared to check with officials of his department and with the Energy Resources Conservation Board to see if there have been situations where small Alberta-based, independent companies have reported problems in raising operational capital to the department or to the board, and report back to the Assembly? MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, I would want to do that as a matter of fulfilling my responsibilities in the Department of Energy and Natural Resources. I certainly will do it. MR. GHITTER: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

I wonder if the hon. minister at the same time would determine whether some of the small oil companies that have left the Province of Alberta are, in fact, now coming back, as I'm receiving some such indications. MR. GETTY: There are some preliminary indications that both oil companies and drilling operators have found that the grass that perhaps looked greener on the other side of the fence has turned out to be not so attractive. Such matters as the U.S. tax change and the matter of depletion for oil companies within the United States have certainly softened some of the incentive within that country.

Therefore, there appears to be an early indication with both drilling operators and companies of some definite slowdown of the move to the United States, and perhaps even a return to Canada and Alberta. Automobile Insurance MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and ask if either he or his department has received reports of auto insurance companies refusing to renew policies unless the customer takes out a general package policy — all the way from fire insurance on the home to what have you — from the company providing the auto insurance? MR.

HARLE: Mr. Speaker, in order to answer that question I'd have to go into a fair amount of detail, if the House would permit me to do so. MR. NOTLEY: Agreed. MR. HARLE: The Superintendent of Insurance is aware of the problem. It must be noted, Mr. Speaker, that to the knowledge of the superintendent, only people placing new insurance business are affected. From the insurance companies' point of view, the companies have suffered a very serious loss on automobile business. They feel they're entitled to a better underwriting risk along with poorer risks, in order to balance their portfolios.

Some insurance companies are under pressure from the federal Superintendent of Insurance to improve their capital position, that is, the reserves to offset the business that is written. So the insurance companies have had to seek ways of balancing their portfolios. I might say that no Alberta driver, to the knowledge of the Superintendent of Insurance, has been unable to get minimum risks on the compulsory insurance. But in some cases, an Alberta driver has had to shop around and go to extra effort. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. minister.

Has he any indication from the report of the Superintendent of Insurance to him as to how widespread this practice is? Is it an isolated situation, or it is reasonably widespread throughout the province?

May 29, 1975 ALBERTA HANSARD 263 MR. HARLE: Mr. Speaker, to the knowledge of the Superintendent of Insurance, it only exists on new business. That is, there has been no problem with those who have had existing coverage with companies who are continuing to carry on an insurance business in Alberta. It has occurred where insurance companies have withdrawn from the province, and that is new business to those insurance companies which remain. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. minister.

Has the minister received any reports at all from people who have had business with particular insurance companies and find, when they renew their auto insurance policies, that they are asked to take out a package policy or their auto insurance will not be renewed? MR. HARLE: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a further supplementary question. Is it the government's intention to undertake any steps or action which would stop this practice? Or is it the view of the government that this practice, as long as it applies to new insurance, is okay? MR. HARLE: Mr.

Speaker, the superintendent of insurance doesn't like the practice, and he is watching it. No doubt in due course he will make recommendations if it becomes widely used in the course of conduct of insurance companies. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, one final supplementary question. Would the government give any consideration to an amendment to The Unfair Trade Practices [Act] at this time to put a stop to this sort of thing, once and for all? MR. HARLE: Mr. Speaker, that could be considered.

At this time, though, I would think that whether it falls within what might be called an unfair trade practice would be debatable. Truckers' Insurance MR. TAYLOR: A supplementary to the hon. minister. A very short explanation is required first. With reference to insurance for truckers, some contractors in the province are requiring $300,000 PL and PD. Those who are already insured have no difficulty getting this, but those who are under the age of 21 are having grave difficulty in securing $300,000. They secure $100,000 through the exchange.

Would the hon. minister look at this with a view to making sure that 19- and 20-year- old persons who have a good driving record are not discriminated against in this respect? MR. HARLE: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the subject of exchange, it is, of course, a method whereby the insurance companies have met the requirement of compulsory insurance. Where a risk is received by an agent, it can be placed through exchange. Exchange does cost some 5 to 10 per cent more than a standard risk which might have been placed through ordinary channels.

I will say this: it is my understanding that the insurance exchange is reviewing the necessity of an increase in premium on a standard risk. I also understand that as far as truckers are concerned, to the knowledge of the Superintendent of Insurance they have been able to get the extra coverage. As far as is known, we've had nobody tell us they have been turned down flatly on the $300,000 amount suggested by the member. The result is that the Superintendent of Insurance is aware of the problem.

Where a specific instance is brought to his attention, he has gone to every effort to make sure that such persons will get insurance. MR. TAYLOR: A supplementary to the hon. minister. With regard to the Exchange, the maximum that can be secured is $100,000. In order to lead up to the question — I phoned all over the province on behalf of a 19-year-old trucker who bought a truck and has an excellent driving record. Even the excess markets said they just couldn't place it. Finally, Lloyd's of London said they would place the $200,000 for a . . . MR. SPEAKER: Possibly the hon. member . . . MR.

TAYLOR: I'm coming to the question now. MR. SPEAKER: . . . is exceeding the bounds of informality. MR. TAYLOR: I'm sorry. Would the hon. minister recheck this matter? It is very unfair to young drivers who have good records. MR. HARLE: Mr. Speaker, I would agree with the comment made. I would ask that the member present his situation to the Superintendent of Insurance to look at.

264 ALBERTA HANSARD May 29, 1975 Automobile Insurance (continued) MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a final supplementary question to the hon. minister concerning the question I raised. With respect to the investigation now taking place by the Superintendent of Insurance and the monitoring, can the minist er give us anyi ndication as to what time frame he sees for a government decision on this matter as to whether the practice will be stopped or permitted to continue? MR. HARLE: Mr. Speaker, the government has this under consideration at all times and is very conscious of this problem.

It will depend on developments as we proceed through the year. The situation with truckers, of course, became a very pressing problem as a result of the spring break-up and the removal of road bans. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, just one final supplementary . . . MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member indicated previously that that was his final supplementary. It’s becoming a little difficult to understand what the hon. member means by the word "final". MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, let me ask this question for clarification purposes. This is the . . . MR.

SPEAKER: It's very difficult to see how a question, even for clarification, can be tacked on as a postfinal supplementary. The hon. Member for Drumheller . . . Is this a supplementary? Might this be the final supplementary on this topic. DR. BUCK: In that case, Mr. Speaker, I shall make it a two-part question. I would like to ask the hon. minister if he can indicate to the Legislature in ballpark figures the number of insurance companies that have left Alberta, which were writing automobile insurance — a ballpark figure in the amount of insurance they wrote? MR. HARLE: Mr.

Speaker, I would ask that the member place that on the Order Paper. Oil Recovery Rate MR. TAYLOR: My question is to the hon. Minister of Energy. What is the average recovery rate of oil now in the shallow and deep wells in Alberta? MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, I'd have to take that as notice. Or if there are follow-ups on a particular basis, the hon. member might place it on the Order Paper. Prisons DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to address this question to the hon. Solicitor General. This comes out of the report the deputy minister made relating to imprisonment.

The report said the system of imprisonment would be modified so there would be more programs of halfway houses, working off debts to society, suspended sentences, day parole. Mr. Speaker, my question is this. Can the hon. minister indicate to us in what position this places the Fort Saskatchewan Correctional Institution, the Peace River Correctional Institution, and Lethbridge and Spy Hill — the provincial institutions? Does this change their status? MR. FARRAN: Mr.

Speaker, I presume the hon. member is referring to a speech made in Lethbridge by the deputy minister in which he said it was a policy to seek to open a wide range of alternatives to judges at the time of sentence, alternatives to the traditional fine/imprisonment route. To try to increase this range of options open to the judge is definitely a policy. One hopes the result will be fewer people in correctional institutions. But the way the world is going, probably in fact they'll still remain at a comparably full level, which they are at present. DR. BUCK: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Can the hon. minister indicate to the House if any work is going to be undertaken this year to provide new facilities in the Fort Saskatchewan Correctional Institution? MR. FARRAN: Mr. Speaker, there is work under way at the moment to improve the classification procedures. Remodelling is presently being done by the Department of Government Services.

May 29, 1975 ALBERTA HANSARD 265 Meat Sanitation MR. ZANDER: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the hon. Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that the needs of tighter meat controls for inspection for human consumption are occurring in other parts of Canada, is the minister considering implementing tighter and more rigid controls and inspection of meat entering our province? MR. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member, I presume, is referring to the recent problem with respect to rendering plants in eastern Canada. Is this correct? The legislation in this province, Mr.

Speaker, provides that all dead animals should be burned, buried, or rendered. All the rendering plants in the Province of Alberta are under federal inspection. In addition, there is a monitoring by provincial government authorities of rendering plants in Alberta. I'm confident, Mr. Speaker, after having reviewed that matter in the last few days, that none of the type of meat which is supposedly entering the market in eastern Canada is coming from Alberta, and confident as well that there is none of that type of meat entering the consumer market in Alberta. Rural Gas Program MR. JAMISON: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Utilities and Telephones. Are utility companies required to serve potential rural customers within their franchised area under The Rural Gas Act? DR. WARRACK: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that this a sign-up matter and is the subject of agreement under the arrangements posed to have the opportunity to sign up and to be a part of the rural gas program. So that (

a) it would depend upon the customer asking to be signed up, and (

b) from there a question of feasibility, considering all the matters including cost. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, can the hon. minister indicate what is being done about the gas co- op in the M.D. of Sturgeon which has gone into receivership? Does the hon. minister know if anybody has bought that co-operative or if it is still under receivership? DR. WARRACK: Mr. Speaker, that is a question of detail. I would have to check. I know the hon. member appreciates there are several dozen of the co-ops in Alberta. MR. CLARK: A question, Mr. Speaker, to the minister.

Did the minister imply there were several gas co-ops in the province under receivership? DR. WARRACK: The hon. Leader of the opposition might have thought that was an implication, but what I said was that there are several dozen co-ops in Alberta. Prisons (continued) MR. LITTLE: Mr. Speaker, I would direct this question to the hon. the Solicitor General. I note from his annual report that 75 per cent or more of the inmates of the Alberta correctional institutions are serving terms of six months or less at extremely high cost.

Therefore, has consideration been given to placing such inmates in minimum security institutions at much lower cost? MR. FARRAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The very nature of the thrust I was explaining to the hon. Member for Clover Bar is that we are trying to pursue what one would call diversionary programs. A pilot restitution program should be announced very shortly in Alberta. It's just awaiting confirmation of cost sharing funding from the federal government. MR. LITTLE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I didn't have in mind programs, but minimum security. That is, less staff, much less staff. MR. FARRAN: Yes, Mr.

Speaker, I did understand the question. In terms of halfway houses and community residences, we are endeavoring to develop these facilities. In fact, at the present time there are about 60 inmates in such minimum security environments. I'm hoping to expand the range of this type of institution. We have, in addition, a large work camp at Nordegg and four smaller work camps.

266 ALBERTA HANSARD May 29, 1975 Summer Employment Program MR. MANDEVILLE: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the hon. Minister of Advanced Education and Manpower. Does the recent special warrant approving $6 million for the STEP program account for the total 1975 expenditure, or is it in addition to the previous funding? DR. HOHOL: Mr. Speaker, at the present time the STEP program is in the total of $6 million. MR. MANDEVILLE: Is there a set of guidelines for establishing the priorities on the applications sent in? DR. HOHOL: Yes, there is, Mr. Speaker. MR.

MANDEVILLE: Would he be able to explain the guidelines to the House, or table them? DR. HOHOL: I could do it either way, Mr. Speaker. The first way would take some considerable time to make certain the guidelines are understood and in context. I would prefer to table them. DR. BUCK: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Will the assistance to farm helpers be included in this program, or is this a separate program? DR. HOHOL: It's part of the total employment program for the summer, Mr. Speaker.

It is a separate program, but if the House would find information with respect to that useful, and I'm certain it would, I'm prepared to table it. If I recall rightly, Mr. Speaker, it was tabled by my colleague, the hon. Minister of Agriculture, about two weeks ago. DR. BUCK: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. minister, is the minister aware that last year, almost before it got under way, the program to help youths working on farms ran out of funds? DR. HOHOL: Mr. Speaker, I was incredibly aware, made that way by my colleagues on this side of the House and on the other side of the House. MR.

MANDEVILLE: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Will the applications refused as a result of lack of funds be able to reapply now for this assistance? DR. HOHOL: I should make it clear, Mr. Speaker, that we're speaking of two different things, or at least two different fiscal years. But in the sense in which the hon. member puts it, each new fiscal year opens the applications which may have been turned down in a previous year, or a new one. So technically, yes. But we're speaking of two different fiscal years, Mr. Speaker. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. minister.

What portion of the $6 million is allocated to the farm work program? DR. HOHOL: Going by memory — but as I see the sheet, I would recall $2 million. School Taxes -- Hutterites MR. COOKSON: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask a question of the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs. Could he advise the Assembly whether some Hutterite colonies are paying into the province foundation program and some may not? And, perhaps as a supplementary, where is the distinction? MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, the concept the hon. member is referring to deals with the reduction of the property education tax from farmlands.

Some complexities have been introduced because of a restriction in that act which suggests that if the land is owned by a corporation and that corporation is not owned within a family, the reduction is not applicable. In this sense, several Hutterite colonies across the province have found themselves owning the land within the corporation, but the corporation ownership was not within a family. Therefore, they were not allowed the property tax reduction. MR. COOKSON: Perhaps as a further supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Are there situations where they're not classified as a non-family corporation but are classified as a charitable organization, where they are being charged or exempted education tax? MR. JOHNSTON: Well, of course, there are several ways of holding shares in a corporation, Mr. Speaker. As I understand it, there are some exemptions given to the Brethren, if the Brethren themselves own the shares, or if the shares are owned by relatives of that corporation. In some cases they are.

May 29, 1975 ALBERTA HANSARD 267 MR. COOKSON: Perhaps a final supplementary. I presume the different systems are designed to solve the problems of income tax at the federal level. I'm wondering if there is any kind of appeal by the colonies if they wish to apply for the refund? MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I'm not altogether sure of the reference with respect to the tax act in the first part of that question. Yet there is provision for appeal, should the colonies find themselves prejudiced under this act. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. minister.

Is the government giving any consideration to possible legislative changes which would rectify this problem as it relates to Hutterian Brethren colonies? MR. JOHNSTON: There's no provision right now to make any changes to the legislation, Mr. Speaker. Yet it is my understanding there may be some changes within the Brethren themselves as to how they own shares in the corporation. U.S. Oil Import Tariff MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct this question to the hon.

Minister of Energy and ask whether the Petroleum Marketing Commission has been asked to review the impact of President Ford's decision to increase the import tariff on world oil by $1 a barrel, and what the impact would be on the Alberta economy, if any? MR. GETTY: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the Alberta Petroleum Marketing Commission is looking into the impact of the President's moves in energy matters, as are the department and, to some extent, the Alberta Energy Resources Conservation Board. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a further supplementary question.

Has there been a preliminary assessment made on the impact of the $1 a barrel import charge announced last winter? MR. GETTY: No, Mr. Speaker, not in any formal way. It's been taken into account on a continual monitoring basis. He have found the greatest controlling factor by far to the flow of exports of Alberta oil to the United States has been the federal export tax. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a further supplementary question to the hon. minister. Is it the view of the government that the now $2 a barrel import tariff represents an inhibition in the export of Canadian oil to the United States market? MR.

GETTY: Mr. Speaker, the $2 levy applies to all oil imported into the United States. So in that regard, it's all treated equally, and one wouldn't lose competitive advantage compared to another. Probably, though, when prices go up there is a threshold point at which consumers will stop using a product.

In that regard, the President's increase will, in fact, cause some people to restrict their consumption of the fuel and will, therefore, have a depressing effect on the amount of oil used, then presumably on the amount of oil imported into the United States, and presumably on the amount of Canadian oil imported into the United States. Countering that to some extent, however, is the proposal to decontrol domestic prices in the United States.

If that decontrol continues, obviously there will be greater profit incentives to domestic producers and domestic explorers in the United States, which will allow them to get a greater and greater amount of reserves and, therefore, also satisfy some of their own needs. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Bearing in mind the minister's answer, has any consideration been given to asking the Department of External Affairs either to protest or make representation to Washington concerning the import tariff? MR. GETTY: Not at this time, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member would have to amplify as to why we would want to do that. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, to amplify and then ask a further question. As I understood the minister's initial answer, this could, in fact, inhibit our market in the United States. Therefore, the reason for the question is to ask whether the Government of Alberta would want to make representation to the American government on this matter. DR. BUCK: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The hon. minister just said the protective tariff would encourage exploration in the United States.

My question is, this is just the exact opposite to what was said about the oil exploration rigs coming hack to Alberta. MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, I was referring to something the President has talked about doing in the future, and that is decontrolling prices. He is trying, in my mind, to create greater incentives for exploration and development within the United States, since they have been down the road of control of oil and gas prices, found it to be unsatisfactory, and are moving to decontrol. This will, if they go through with it and if Congress agrees with it, be a balancing incentive factor in that country.

268 ALBERTA HANSARD May 29, 1975 Round Hill High School MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Education, in light of the question I asked yesterday regarding the situation at the Round Hill High School. Is the minister in a position to report to the House? MR. KOZIAK: Mr. Speaker, the additional information I have been able to obtain is that it is my understanding the school committee is interested in closing the three schools mentioned, and in meeting with me in the very near future. I intend to accommodate that request.

As a matter of interest, the hon. members might like to know that the results of the vote in the three centres were — these are the three centres in which possibly there is some suggestion the schools may be closed — in Armena, 47 people voted for the by-law and 44 against; in Ferintosh, 33 people voted for the by-law and 38 voted against; and in Round Hill, 27 people voted for the by-law and 63 voted against. My understanding is, the people in these centres were fully apprized by school authorities of the possibilities that existed should the by-law be defeated. DR. BUCK: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

I don’t know if the minister will have this right at his fingertips, but will this also affect the Kingman school in that area as well? MR. KOZIAK: Mr. Speaker, I have no information regarding the Kingman school. DR. BUCK: Will the hon. minister check for us please? MR. KOZIAK: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to. School Financing MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, a further supplementary to the minister. Yesterday during question period, I think the minister indicated there was no place in Alberta where the supplementary requisition was higher than the levy of the foundation program.

Is the minister in a position to confirm that? MR. KOZIAK: Mr. Speaker, that wasn’t my intention. I don't know whether the hon. member took that in that fashion. I'm talking about the overall picture: that portion of global funds provided by the supplementary requisition. As I understand the matter, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Drumheller asked the question whether the study had been prepared or was under way by the Department of Education in this connection. I answered the hon. member that that hadn't, in fact, been the case. With respect to specific school jurisdictions, I don't have the information.

The information I volunteered the other day was a global picture, not specific. There may, in fact, be specific school divisions which have exceeded this. This information isn't available to me at this time. I don't even know if all the supplementary requisitions have been levied. As you are aware from the answer I gave the other day, some are in various stages of advertising. So we don't have a picture today that is definite for every school board or school jurisdiction in the province as to what the supplementary requisition is or will be. MR. CLARK: A further supplementary question to the minister.

Would the minister check with the department to see if, in fact, there are school jurisdictions in the province where the supplementary requisition is higher than the levy for the foundation program, and report back? MR. KOZIAK: Mr. Speaker, just so there is no misunderstanding, would the hon. member clarify the question as to what he means by the foundation program. Does the hon. member mean the foundation program as it existed when it was removed from the residential and . . . MR. CLARK: No, I mean the levy on businesses and apartments and so on: small businesses and commercial assessment across Alberta. MR.

KOZIAK: Mr. Speaker, this is perhaps a question which should be placed on the Order Paper because there are some specifics involved here. I understand apartments, being residential property, are not assessed with the foundation program. The foundation mill rate is imposed only on commercial and industrial property. Perhaps the hon. member would place that on the Order Paper, and we could supply the information requested. MR. CLARK: Mr.

Speaker, then specifically, would the Minister of Education check to see if the mill rate in the City of Edmonton for supplementary requisition is higher than the mill rate levied on commercial property in Edmonton?

May 29, 1975 ALBERTA HANSARD 269 MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Surely that is information which the hon. Leader of the Opposition would be able to get from the city as readily as from the minister. Firearms Registration MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the hon. Solicitor General. Is the government giving consideration to a system of provincial registration of shotguns, rifles, and revolvers? MR. FARRAN: Mr. Speaker, that would be a matter for the federal authorities who, I understand, are giving consideration to such a proposal.

So far as firearms are concerned, the province only has an indirect jurisdiction in that it appoints the local registrars who register what are called restricted weapons. Restricted weapons are handguns and the automatic weapons to which the hon. member referred the other day, Mr. Speaker. Fertilizer Supplies MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Has there been a shortage of fertilizer for spring seeding this year? MR. MOORE: Generally, Mr. Speaker, the situation has been that there have been adequate supplies of phosphorus fertilizers throughout the province.

Generally, supplies of nitrogen fertilizers have been sufficient to meet the needs, with the exception possibly of the Peace River country where some shortages of nitrogen are still occurring, perhaps partly because of the earlier than normal seeding in that area. Crime Statistics — Females MR. FARRAN: Mr. Speaker, I understand that yesterday when I was absent from the House a question was put to my colleague, the hon. Attorney General, and he promised that I would reply today. The question was: why has there been an increase in female offenders in Alberta's correctional institutions? The answer is this.

Although the percentage increase is high as compared with males, the actual increase in real cases of female offenders is not as significant. This is because there's a very small number involved. For example, natives make up some 15 per cent of the female population at Fort Saskatchewan Correctional Institution. When translated into actual numbers of female prisoners, it is only 6 people. The increase in female offenders can, however, be attributed to these factors. The major factor has been the increasing use of drugs, particularly the opiates such as heroin.

Sixty-nine per cent of the females serving time at Fort Saskatchewan had an identified drug problem. Many are serving lengthy sentences for trafficking, or possession for the purpose of trafficking, in heroin. Drug involvement also indicates involvement in other related criminal activities, which probably began with drug involvement, such as prostitution, fraud, breaking and entering, and theft. There seems to be a direct relationship between drug habituation and crime. Another factor is the sentencing pattern for females.

It appears that females receive probation now at the same rate as their male counterparts, and have the same percentage chance of receiving probation. However, earlier, the courts seemed to choose to give a much higher percentage of probation orders to females than they do today. MR. SPEAKER: May the hon. Member for Bow Valley and the hon. Minister of Utilities and Telephones revert to Introduction of Visitors? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS (reversion) MR. MANDEVILLE: Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to introduce to you, and through you to the members of this Legislature, some 70 Grade 9 students from the Brooks Junior High school. They are accompanied by their teachers, Mrs. Sekella, Mrs. Phelps, Mr. Weinmeyer, and Mr. McLeod; also their bus drivers, Mr. Smiser and Mr. Muhlbrier. I'd ask them to rise and be recognized by the House.

270 ALBERTA HANSARD May 29, 1975 DR. WARRACK: Thank you for this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to revert to Introduction of Visitors. I am very pleased today to introduce the Grade 7 class from Linden in my constituency. This is a class which is very active and very interested in public affairs. Under the leadership of their teacher, Mr. Weins, who is with the class, earlier this year they conducted their own mini-election and asked all candidates to come to the school and speak to them. I was informed of the results today, and I'm delighted.

I would like them to stand in the members gallery, along with parents Mr. and Mrs. Bernie Regehr, so we might welcome them to the Legislature. ORDERS OF THE DAY WRITTEN QUESTIONS 127. Mr. Taylor asked the government the following question: Has the government made grants or loans to Kindred House, 9918 - 111 Street and/or to Community Corrections for Women during 1973, 1974, and 1975? If so, in what amounts? MR. FARRAN: We accept the question, Mr. Speaker. 128. Mr.

Notley asked the government the following question: What was the pupil/teacher ratio in Alberta public and separate schools for the years 1968 through 1975 in each of the following categories: (

a) elementary, (

b) junior high school, (

c) senior high school, (

d) overall average? MR. KOZIAK: Mr. Speaker, I'll ask that the question stand to give me an opportunity to discuss the matter with the member who placed the question on the Order Paper. All four prongs of the question may not necessarily be possible to answer. I'll discuss that with the hon. member to see if we can't get together on a question and an answer which will be suitable to everybody. MR. SPEAKER: Does the Assembly agree that the question retain its place for next private members day? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. 129. Mr. Taylor asked the government the following question: Regarding the ban on the sale of (

a) machine guns and (

b) fully automatic rifles, in Alberta by the Solicitor General of Alberta

(1) To whom were (

a) the machine guns and (

b) the automatic rifles consigned?

(2) Who notified the Solicitor General of the consignment?

(3) Were (

a) the machine guns and (

b) the automatic rifles delivered to the consignee? (4) was any attempt made by the government or the police to ascertain what the consignee planned to do with (

a) the machine guns and (

b) the automatic rifles?

(5) Was any check made on the consignor of the machine guns?

(6) How many guns were in the consignment?

(7) Were any machine guns imported into Alberta (

a) during 1973, (

b) during 1974, (

c) during 1975?

(8) Has any check been made on why machine guns have been ordered by Alberta persons or firms?

(9) Has the government any knowledge of (

a) machine guns and (

b) automatic rifles being exported from Alberta?

(10) If the answer to No. 9 is yes, where were the said guns sent?

(11) Does Canada Customs keep the Government of Alberta posted on importations of weapons, dynamite and such items?

(12) Does the Government of Alberta or the RCMP divisions that come under the control of the Solicitor General keep an up-to-date inventory of (

a) machine guns and (

b) automatic rifles that are located in the Province of Alberta? MR. FARRAN: We accept the question.

May 29, 1975 ALBERTA HANSARD 271 MOTIONS FOR RETURNS 130. Mr. Ghitter proposed the following motion to the Assembly: That an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing:

(1) A breakdown of all service area approvals given by the Minister of Telephones and Utilities or the Minister of Utilities and Telephones pursuant to the provisions of The Rural Gas Act in 1974, enumerating the dates of the approvals, the names of the associations obtaining the approvals, and the number of actual hookups completed to May 1, 1975.

(2) A breakdown of all cancellations or cutbacks in approvals instituted by the Minister or the Department of Telephones and Utilities between January 1 and May 1, 1975. [The motion was carried.] 131. Mr. Ghitter proposed the following motion to the Assembly: That an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing: A copy of the contract presented by the Alberta Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Commission to the Bonnyville Indian-Metis Rehabilitation Centre for execution. MISS HUNLEY: Mr. Speaker, I accept the motion and table the information required. [The motion was carried.] 132. Mr.

Notley proposed the following motion to the Assembly: That an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing: A list of the names and addresses of all consultants and/or consulting firms employed, since January 1, 1973 to present, by the Government of Alberta for a term of two years or greater in the field of international petroleum marketing. [The motion was carried.] MOTIONS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT MOTIONS 1. Mr. Notley proposed the following motion to the Assembly:

Be it resolved that this Legislature recommend the establishment of a select committee of the Legislature to review conflict of interest legislation as it applies to all statutes of the Province of Alberta respecting both the municipal and the provincial level of government. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, this kind of resolution is particularly timely as a consequence of the announcement made yesterday by the hon. Premier. I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that I commend the government for announcing the inquiry into what has popularly become known as the Purnell case.

Certainly the total question of whether the former Deputy Minister of Agriculture acted properly, negligently, or what have you, is now, as it should be, before an inquiry. As a consequence further discussion in this House on that particular matter would not really serve any useful purpose. As I view the guidelines for the inquiry, I also note they are sufficiently broad so that they will be able to examine the judgment of the hon. Deputy Premier and the Minister of Agriculture at the time concerning his decision to okay the transaction. But, Mr.

Speaker, in the Auditor's report there are several important features which, in my judgment, bear directly on this resolution today and have to be discussed by the Legislative Assembly. They are not part of the inquiry as such. On page 7 of the report — the hon. Leader of the Opposition made reference to these points this afternoon in leading off the question period — we have the Auditor's observations. I'm just going to take a moment to read them, Mr. Speaker, because they relate directly to the resolution on the Order Paper. 1. The provisions of

Section 12.1(1) of The Department of Agriculture Amendment Act, 1972, which in the absence of regulations provides the Minister with unlimited discretion in the disbursement of public funds for grant purposes, eliminate third party participation as provided by the lieutenant Governor in Council . . . or Treasury Board . . . . 2. The use of a grant to effect a purchase appears to be undesirable.

It would have been preferable to use normal purchasing procedures, including the issuance of tenders and [written] contracts, with departmental responsibilities thereby being automatically assumed under Sections 43 and 59 of The Financial Administration Act. 3. There appears [to be an] insufficient division of duties within the department to effect adequate internal control.

272 ALBERTA HANSARD May 29, 1975 As I read the Auditor's report, Mr. Speaker, I also note rather a forlorn, but I think oddly relevant, statement made by the former Deputy Minister where he, himself, indicated there was a need for clear-cut guidelines on conflict of interest for people in the public service. Mr.

Speaker, while deliberation over the former Deputy Minister's conduct is beyond our purview, it is quite clearly our responsibility to examine the question of conflict of interest in its largest sense, not only as it applies to members of the cabinet, or for that matter, to MLAs, but as well to public servants and the municipal level of government. My motion calls for a legislative committee to review this issue completely. I believe it is important that the Legislature itself undertake this important responsibility.

We could say, fine, let's delegate that to the cabinet, or let's delegate that to other people within the government apparatus. But I don't think that is the proper approach to take. In my judgment, only the people who are ultimately responsible should be taking this approach. Under our British parliamentary system of responsible government, the entire government is responsible to the Legislature. And in my judgment, it should be the Legislature, through a legislative committee, which reviews the guidelines. Mr. Speaker, why is a review required?

In my judgment, we have to face the fact that government is becoming increasingly complex. Much of our conflict of interest legislation has grown like Topsy. It has come from a simpler day when government's role in the economy was much less substantial than it is today. We are in the era of joint ventures. That being the case, Mr. Speaker, there is, it seems to me, an even greater responsibility on the Legislature to properly delineate what constitutes a conflict of interest. Guidelines should apply to civil servants as well as elected members.

I want to take this opportunity to commend the government for announcing guidelines for top civil servants, as was done by the Premier on Monday of this week. Mr. Speaker, what is a conflict of interest? We have a number of

definitions. Kenneth Kernaghan in Guidelines for Government Employees is quoted as saying a conflict of interest is a situation in which a public employee has a private or personal interest sufficient to influence or to appear to influence the objective exercise of his official duties. We have also, Mr. Speaker, the comments of Mr. Justice Clement of the Alberta Supreme Court in a recent judicial decision, saying, a conflict of interest applies only in regard to an interest personal to the elected official and not held in common with other members of the community. Mr.

Speaker, I'm going to come back to that definition in a moment because I believe it does have some relevance to at least one of the problems we face in conflict of interest legislation today. Mr. Speaker, first of all let me look at conflict of interest at the municipal level of government. Generally, conflict of interest problems at the municipal level tend to centre on landholdings. That is not always or exclusively the case, but it generally holds true.

Section 30(2) of The Municipal Government Act says, "A member of a council shall not vote . . . on any question in which he has a direct or indirect pecuniary interest". Mr. Speaker, I raise this particular

section of The Municipal Government Act because there is now some effort in certain quarters to change that clause and eliminate the "indirect pecuniary interest"; in other words, to make sure it is just a direct interest, as opposed to indirect. I would hate to see pressure to water down that particular

section succeed. Were it to succeed, Mr. Speaker, we would open far too many loopholes. In my judgment, rather than strengthening the protective features of the act, we would be seriously weakening it. Mr. Speaker, I would like to note for the interest of the Assembly, a resolution passed this year by the Alberta union of municipal associations convention and proposed by the New Town of Fort McMurray. It says, and I quote: the public has a right to know the property holdings of elected officials. The Municipal Government Act should be amended to make disclosures compulsory.

I agree with that resolution as passed by the AUMA. I think that is one of the changes which could be made if a legislative committee were established to review conflict of interest at the local level. I would also like to suggest that we probably would eliminate many problems if aldermen or elected local officials were compelled to reveal their financial holdings as well. Now I know the argument is always made that if this sort of decision were taken, it would bar people from running for public office. Mr.

Speaker, it seems to me, anyone who runs for public office has to accept the fact of life that you enter a glass house. And if for one reason or another you want to keep certain financial things secret, no one is twisting your arm to run for public office. The right to know by the citizenry, Mr. Speaker, is by far the strongest safeguard to ensure that propriety in government is maintained. He can talk about all sorts of other safeguards, but public knowledge, public access, to information is far and away the most stringent and secure safeguard. Mr.

Speaker, what about conflict of interest at the provincial level? Conflict of interest at this level generally centres on business involvement, although land may be important. It's obvious that guidelines must be applied to public servants too. I should point out that we have been fortunate in Alberta because, with rare exceptions, this is a province almost scandal free, which says a lot about the people who have been serving in years past — or at least scandal free, Mr. Speaker, as it relates to conflict of interest matters.

May 29, 1975 ALBERTA HANSARD 273 The question arises, of course, why should we debate this at all when the Premier announced guidelines on Monday for civil servants and indicated that, once again, guidelines would be applied to cabinet ministers? Well, Mr. Speaker, let's take a look at those guidelines. Certainly as far as they go, I think they are worth while.

But I suggest we might examine the guidelines announced by Premier Davis in the Province of Ontario, where they have had some problems with this whole question of conflict of interest, and contrast the guidelines announced there with those we have in the Province of Alberta at the present time. Let me just quickly outline what Premier Davis' guidelines constitute:

(1) Public disclosure of land holdings, shares, or debt interest in private companies;

(2) Can't buy land or land development companies while in office;

(3) No private company in which the minister or his family has an interest may be contractually involved with the provincial government;

(4) If personal beneficial interest comes before a minister, a cabinet colleague must be appointed to act on his behalf. That's a change from Alberta.

(5) Ministers must refrain from day to day participation in business or professional activities. The point of this, I think, is rather important, Mr. Speaker, because it clearly indicates that, if a person is a cabinet minister in the Province of Ontario, he must give his full time to that job and not do a little bit of legal or medical work on the side, or run a business, or whatever the case may be. They must, in fact, be full-time ministers of the Crown.

(6) Ministers must divest themselves of, or place in trust, shares in private corporations. Some of these features are incorporated in the Premier's announcement of Monday, but at least some of them would be additions. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say a word or two about placing financial holdings in blind trust. That's certainly useful, but I don't think it constitutes a sure-fire guarantee that a conflict of interest, in a subtle way at least, will not exist.

Because whether a minister has any control over those shares is less relevant than the fact that his public action and his knowledge that he has shares, albeit in a blind trust, could lead to a conflict, where as a result of his public duties he makes a decision which would benefit the company or the trust that is set up. In other words, as long as the information is available, it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, it is highly unlikely, in a practical sense, that you can distinguish the conflict of interest from a situation that would otherwise exist. Mr.

Speaker, dealing very briefly with civil servants, the Ontario guidelines are four in number. Civil servants may do no outside work: (1) which interferes with the performance of duty, which is a very general statement; (2) from which he derives advantage; (3) which is full-time employment; (4) which influences his duties as a civil servant. In other words, there are pretty strict guidelines set by the Province of Ontario. Mr. Speaker, whether we should go that far may, in fact, be a subject of debate.

But what is not a subject of debate is that it is the responsibility of this Legislature to fully review what the ground rules are for conflict of interest in the Province of Alberta. Now, I noticed when the Premier made his announcement on Monday he made reference to The Legislative Assembly Act. Mr. Speaker, in reading over The Legislative Assembly Act, one can only say that it is ambiguous, to say the least. It has clearly been

an act that has grown as we tacked on one thing after another, without any overall assessment of what makes sense or is reasonable. For example, under The Legislative Assembly Act,

Section 12(1), any shareholder of a corporation that undertakes the building of a public work is disqualified from sitting as an MLA. Now, Mr. Speaker, that's rather interesting indeed, because that simply means that if an MLA is a holder of even one share out of 50,000 of a cement company that does work within the meaning of The Public Works Act, that individual MLA could be disqualified upon legal action taken by any individual. Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure that kind of clause is really reasonable. It seems to me it's debatable, at least.

It simply means that an individual who might have so few shares as to have no influence at all — if that firm does business with the Government of Alberta, the individual MLA could find himself thrown out of office on application by a citizen who, for one reason or another, would like to see a by-election. Mr. Speaker, we have also

Section 12(4): "having entered into a contract or agreement with The Alberta General Insurance Company or the Life Insurance Company of Alberta . . .". According to my information, neither is operative today, yet this clause remains in The Legislative Assembly Act. The point I'm trying to make, Mr. Speaker, is that when one looks through The Legislative Assembly Act it is quite clear that it is necessary to review this legislation, to update it, to make it relevant to the problems of modern government. I would suggest the best way to do that is through a legislative committee. Mr. Speaker, in general

summary let me just say that at this juncture in Canadian history, indeed the history of the western world, I don't suppose there has been a time when the reputation of people in public life has been at as low an ebb as today. There is a tendency on the part of vast numbers of Canadians to look upon politics as being a dirty game, to look upon the political process as being tainted with corruption, to look upon

274 ALBERTA HANSARD May 29, 1975 those in public life with hypocritical standards, with lack of integrity, et cetera. Mr. Speaker, that is not the case. But unfortunately, it does happen to be true that there is cynicism among the public throughout North America, which is so pervasive it cannot help but seriously affect the attitudes of people toward the whole democratic process itself. Mr. Speaker, how can we resolve it? We obviously can't deal with the entire problem. We obviously can't settle it ourselves.

But we can do certain things to upgrade, in my judgment, the role of politics — and within our jurisdiction, especially in Alberta where we've had the Alberta housing inquiry. In the City of Edmonton we've just had the Morrow inquiry. We now have the inquiry taking place into the stockbreeders' deal and Dr. Purnell. Clearly the time has come for the Legislature to show the initiative by saying, yes, we are concerned about conflict of interest guidelines.

We're going to set up a committee that will review the situation and report back to the Legislature, so we can present some positive guidelines to the people and at the same time provide for full and complete debate on this vital matter. Under those circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I would ask hon. members of the Legislature not to assume that the job is done because of the announcement made on Monday. It certainly isn't. That hasn't resolved the problems of The Legislative Assembly Act.

Not to assume that because of the appointment of the inquiry yesterday, all the difficulties that arise from joint ventures or the intervention of government in such agencies as the Alberta Export Agency and the technical problems of what constitutes a conflict of interest in that sort of situation — that we can sort of pass that aside and say, no, our job is done. Because it isn't done, Mr. Speaker. We have the example of PWA. How can you justify Pacific Western Airlines selling what is part of that air line, the trucking firm, without the ground rules being thoroughly discussed in the Legislative Assembly?

Because whether PWA is legally constituted as a Crown corporation or not, misses the point. More than 99 per cent of the air line is owned by the people of Alberta. If we're going to sell part of that air line for whatever price, or under whatever conditions, we should be able to debate that sale in the Province of Alberta, in the Legislative Assembly of Alberta; not treat the thing simply as a business transaction conducted by the board, and then we find out about it afterwards.

These are the assets of Alberta which, rightly or wrongly — and some of us had some definite concerns when we acquired those assets, but the fact of the matter is that we now own PWA. And if any part of that air line is to be sold, Mr. Speaker, clearly the discussion, the ground rules, and the guidelines of the sale should be fully debated in the Legislative Assembly. We have the problem that one of the applicants, one of the bidders for PWA, as I understand it, is a firm called Trimac, which has on its board of directors Mr. Southern, who is also on the board of directors of PWA.

Does that constitute a conflict of interest? Probably not in any legal sense. But is it a proper thing to do when we're dealing with Crown assets? Again, Mr. Speaker, I think there are so many questions raised, and I think raised very well in the Auditor's report, that at this time it is incumbent upon the Legislature not to lock upon this as a partisan matter, but to see if together, as a Legislature, through a committee, we can come up with guidelines and conflict of interest rules which will clearly be an asset to Alberta and complement the work of the members of this Assembly. MR. ZANDER: Mr.

Speaker, I too want to speak at this time and say a few words regarding resolution number one on Orders of the Day. I think the Leader of the New Democratic Party has raised what seems to be a concern in the province today. That concern not only rests in the provincial field, but also in the field of local government. I know at least once a year, or perhaps twice, many of us have been asked by members of council from local government, what constitutes a conflict of interest. I think Mr. Justice Morrow has pointed out how extremely difficult it is under the present legislation to define "conflict of interest".

I really don't know, Mr. Speaker, whether one could clarify the act more, or make the rules more rigid than they are, whereby we could possibly get people to go into public life. I'm thinking primarily this time, Mr. Speaker, of dealing with local governments. There's a difficulty. I think we have found that throughout the province in the last few years we have been unable to entice men and women into local government.

Most of the time we find that the pay of the local government officials is something that turns off a very good man or a very good lady who would probably do a very conscientious job in local government. The public must realize that in local government the dedication to local government affords little time for whatever business he or she may be in.

Local government and local people must surely realize by now, with the inflationary trends not only in this province but in other parts of Canada and the world, that whether it be a civil servant or an official elected by the people of the local government, sufficient pay must be paid to these people so they can render good service, where they do not require to take another job or have other interests in fulfilling the commitments they have made by taking the oath of office. I think we could probably say likewise in the provincial field.

Many of us here, as members of the Legislature, have to have other jobs, other businesses whereby we can keep our family and ourselves solvent. I've read the

article on the Members of Parliament in Ottawa where some of the Members of Parliament today are heavier in debt than they were at the time they took office. Surely, if one must divest oneself of all interest, Mr.

May 29, 1975 ALBERTA HANSARD 275 Speaker, I believe the pay in that field will have to be sufficient to entice good men and women into the field of government, whether it be local or provincial. I know, as the hon. member who has just spoken, that the question of impropriety arises in every part of our province and every part of the Dominion of Canada. We hear the cases of Slave Lake, the City of of Edmonton, in Ontario and B.C. I don't think we'll rid ourselves entirely, because we're dealing with human beings. Nevertheless, I must agree with the hon.

Member for Spirit River-Fairview that the guidelines must be sufficient and proper, that we have no conflicts of interest whatsoever in the area we're elected in. Now, Mr. Speaker, in dealing with local governments, and I have probably read this as many times as any other hon. member in this House, I think

Part 2 of The Municipal Government Act deals, first of all, with the candidate and the proper manner in which he or she shall conduct himself or herself during an election for the office, and

Part 3,

Section 29, Mr. Speaker, deals with the member who is elected. I know that many members of local government have gone far beyond what this Legislature has [done] in setting out guidelines, terms of reference of conflict of interest. I know of two municipalities which have passed resolutions that are enforced, and they must submit their interests to the reeve and to the secretary-manager of the county or the town they are living in. I know, Mr. Speaker, it would be very hard for us to draw up legislation that would cover every aspect of conflict of interest.

However, I believe now is the time and place that we must consider it, in view of what has happened in the last few months. What constitutes a conflict of interest is the manner in which you interpret the act. And I suggest, Mr. Speaker, in no way can a layman other than a lawyer — and there are arguments on those sides as well as to what constitutes conflict of interest. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that with minor amendments this resolution certainly should be passed by this Legislature, so that members of this Legislature and local government may set their guidelines for conflict of interest.

I think the hon. member has mentioned Ontario and Quebec. But in closing, Mr. Speaker, I can't overemphasize the fact that the necessary payment must be made by the public. When obtaining office, the elected person or civil servant must be properly paid for the work that's done so that he has no other interests. He must divest himself of all interests before he becomes a public servant. DR. WALKER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to join in this debate also. In The Legislative Assembly Act and The Municipal Government Act are long, long lists of stated conflicts of interest.

Then right below that is another long list of exceptions to those stated conflicts. But what does not come through in these lists, in any language that is loud and clear to me in any way, is what is most important: the intent behind some action where a conflict is said to exist. Was it personally profitable for the perpetrator or for some of his friends or relatives, or not? The "indirect pecuniary interest" referred to by the hon.

Member for Spirit River- Fairview has been interpreted by the courts in a very liberal way, resulting in a fairly large number of disqualifications on what would appear to be very tenuous grounds. Where bona fide errors have been made by legislators or councillors, there should be some apparatus to prevent them from being disqualified on purely technical grounds. In The Legislative Assembly Act there's a

section prohibiting MLAs from borrowing money from treasury branches, thus making it virtually impossible for the average hard-up MLA to continue routine banking with the treasury branches. All this, of course, was because of an overenthusiastic Provincial Treasurer we had a few years ago; this caused a rather overenthusiastic overreaction by the government. This has created very restrictive legislation. It has been a political headache to every administration since then, because every time you try to modify it somebody says, oh, you're playing hanky-panky.

If we continue to be too restrictive in our attitudes towards conflict of interest, we will fail to attract the calibre of candidate which legislature or councillors deserve. We could end up with a whole Assembly of pimps and hookers. In looking through The Legislative Assembly Act I came across some real gems. They weren't all connected with conflict of interest. There is a beautiful one, though, directed at our skirt-wearing members in the Legislature.

It says: Under this Act, women are upon an absolute equality with men, have the same rights and privileges as men, and are subject to the same penalties and disabilities as men. I wonder if this gives them the right to go into the government members' washroom. There's another dilly here,

Section 41: During a session of the Legislature, or the 20 days preceding and the 20 days following the session, no member of the Legislative Assembly is liable, except for a breach of this Act, to arrest, detention, or molestation, for any cause that is of a civil nature and within the Legislative authority of the Province. It sure would be interesting to get the history behind that one. I would like, Mr. Speaker, to agree with the principle of this motion made by the hon.

Member for Spirit River-Fairview, providing that that principle includes a good thick pen to strike a lot of the overrestrictive clauses from the statutes and submit a simpler clause taking into account the intent of the offender, rather than just long lists of specifics. It is, for example, absolutely ridiculous that The Legislative Assembly Act allows any officer of the armed forces to be eligible for election, but right below it says, any

276 ALBERTA HANSARD May 29, 1975 officer on the staff of the militia receiving a permanent salary shall not be eligible. Now, why on earth wouldn't he be eligible? I can't see any logic behind that one at all. There are a great number of inconsistencies all through these acts that could be studied with a view to change. Being one of those members not blessed with a very legal mind, I would welcome some simplification and clarification. Thank you. MR. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us is an interesting one. I think interesting, not necessarily for some of the reasons the hon.

Member for Spirit River- Fairview raised or implied in some of his comments, but interesting in a more general way; interesting because much time has run since some of the legislation was written. The attitude of society, and society itself in Alberta, have changed. I'd like to reflect on some of those things as well as the problem of what a conflict of interest is. Let's begin with what a conflict of interest is.

Let's assume that a conflict of interest is a situation in which I, as a member, am tempted on the one hand by an objective which may not be in the public interest or which could be seen by some people as not being in the public interest: that's a conflict of interest. Now, to use the reference that the hon. member just did, how do we establish my intent? Mr. Speaker, I submit there is no way that my intent can be established. What I do can be established, at least it may be established. My intent cannot be established. Even if I swear as to my intent, someone else can swear that that was not my intent.

That is a problem. The law must be written and must be followed. It must be followed, according to the hon. member, in a manner which provides us with a sure-fire guarantee; in a manner, according to Judge Morrow, in which there is no ambiguity. We should remove all ambiguity. I submit that it's just not possible to remove all ambiguity. It may be possible to try to arrive at a better consensus of what we want to achieve and what we would deem to be conflict of interest.

The problem that we have is, in my view, one of trying to establish the ethical, moral guidelines which we should all adhere to; that society now expects us to adhere to in the various situations either of provincial or municipal government. The challenge, then, is to establish that in a statute, because it is the statute which in a case of challenge must govern: the statute as related to the particular instance and judged by a judiciary or whatever kind of committee or structure we establish. In other words, I'm saying the problem is, first of all, to agree upon the guidelines; secondly, to put them in writing.

Then, unfortunately despite all that we may desire, each and every one of us elected at whatever level, must be guided by our

interpretation of that statute. Then, if anyone cares to challenge us and has, I suppose, prima facie evidence on which to challenge us, we must be judged after the fact by a different group of people. The circumstances must be judged in context of the law. So I submit to those who argue that we must have an unambiguous law, a sure-fire statute: there is no such animal. It's a part of the kitchen we're in; that's a little bit of the heat we have to bear. I suppose that, from time to time, some of us will get caught by others, because we don't recognize the heat which they think should exist. Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to address myself as well to the pecuniary interest aspects, since if we're going to frame something in statute we have to establish pecuniary interest. I'd like to go back a little way in the history of this province. I'll start today and progress backward. Mr. Speaker, if we were to examine our educational government, our school board situation: we have a statute which establishes school boards and which permits, apparently, the possibility of a trustee having a spouse who is a teacher. Now, Mr.

Speaker, we have in Alberta at this time quite a number of those situations where a spouse of a trustee is teaching, and teaching for the same school board of which the wife or husband is the trustee. I ask you to consider, do we have a direct pecuniary interest? In at least one school board I'm familiar with we have a situation where there are a number of teachers on the school board. Those teachers are in the employ of another school board, the members of which are partially appointed from the school board on which the teachers sit. Is that a pecuniary interest? Is that a direct pecuniary interest?

Is it a conflict of interest? Mr. Speaker, I was slightly involved, as part of a committee tack in '68-69, in the preparation of the statute which we now refer to as The School Act, and in the drafting of that statute. I remember that we long debated the problem of conflict of interest, and whether we should remove the bar which then existed against teachers running for election to school boards. We decided that we should. We decided that if the public felt the teachers should be on school boards, so be it.

But we also thought, and debated among ourselves, surely no teacher is ever going to put himself into what many would construe to be a conflict of interest. Now the judgment of that committee at that time, which I remember well, is clearly not the judgment which many teachers, given that situation, have chosen to exercise. From my understanding, Mr. Speaker, it is also not the judgment of a good sector of our society, because I understand that the Alberta Teachers' Association encourages teachers to run for office in that situation. Now I'm not belaboring this to say that I'm opposed to the situation.

I'm belaboring it to identify the need that we have, to clarify in our own minds and in the public's mind in this province what is a real conflict of interest. Now let me go back in time. Had we deemed that a conflict of interest existed when the spouse of a school trustee was employed by that trustee's school district, many, many,

May 29, 1975 ALBERTA HANSARD 277 many of our school boards would have ceased to function over the last 30 to 40 years. If we had — well, let me leave that point for a moment and just ask you to reflect on this: in the Province of Alberta, which is rather sparsely populated, if you take all of the politicians out of our society at the municipal and provincial levels . . . It might improve the society, I'm not sure.

But if we could just consider removing those people and families from our society, and look at the gaps that would leave in the structure of our social organizations and our business organizations in this society, I think you would be amazed. I really think we have a problem here which, if we take it too far, means that we eliminate many, many people and much of the leadership of our society from acting in any political capacity. I think we should think long and hard about this. We're quite different from the City of Toronto or the City of Montreal. Many of our towns are rather small.

Even the City of Edmonton is not that large. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the other evening I watched a program on CBC television. Probably I was one of the few people who watched it. In any event, the program dealt with housing in the Province of Alberta. During that program it seemed to me that the author was trying to establish a relationship between the decisions made by the Edmonton Exhibition Board and city council.

I believe they even went to some provincial administrators and politicians, trying to establish a relationship between those people, their families and their attorneys, and the decisions made by some of those attorneys and families in relation to their construction and building equipment operations, and the fact that we have a shortage of housing. Mr. Speaker, I draw it to your attention. I thought it was an extreme case of trying to relate and establish an interest, and implying an improper action based upon those interests. It was extreme.

Nevertheless, obviously some people in our society have quite a different view of what is a conflict of interest than others. At least, I presume a few agree with me and a few agree with the person who developed the program, so, Mr. Speaker, there may indeed be a case for us in some manner to try to reconsider what is a conflict of interest.

Another aspect of the resolution which I wanted to deal with is the question of what is the best method, if we assume the matter of conflict of interest as it relates to legislation or as embodied in legislation — if it needs to be reviewed, what's the best method of doing it? Is it, in fact, by a committee of the Legislature? Is it by the Institute of Law Research and Reform? Now, Mr.

Speaker, if we go the route of the Institute of Law Research and Reform — I'm not totally familiar, or I'm not familiar at all, I suppose, with the thought processes which that institute would follow in exploring a matter such as this. But I would suppose they would look at what the prevailing statutes say in other provinces. They would look at what the courts have stated over the years and at our existing statutes. They would look at the changes in our society in terms of the institutions which we might, as elected members, be involved with, which could in their opinion give rise to conflict.

They would try to frame a statute in that way. If we go to a legislative committee, I would suspect we would have more inclination to try to establish what the consensus is in our present situation among the people of Alberta, and be less inclined to follow the precedent established by the judiciary. Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure which route we should go. I'm not sure we should go any route, although there is no question that, as the hon. Member for Macleod has established, much water has run since some of our legislation was written. Maybe we do, indeed, need to review it, if for no other reason than that.

I suggest to the hon. members that this matter is a little bit deeper than appears on the surface. We need to take a pretty hard look at what we think we need. We need to ask ourselves whether, in fact, we should leave to the legal fraternity, the law profession, the identification of what our ethical and moral standards as interpreted in the statutes should be, or whether we should do some looking at that consideration ourselves, and then turn the problem over to the legal fraternity. Mr.

Speaker, I hope I have identified that we will have some real problems if we're not careful what direction we go in this matter. I have raised for you this afternoon the problem of the school trustee. That could take us a long way, before we get a resolution of that. I have raised, I hope, the consideration that if we remove from the business scene all the families which provide politicians in this province, we may find ourselves in some jeopardy.

Stating the matter in another way, which is perhaps less presumptuous: if we remove all the business and professional people, we may find ourselves relying upon pimps and hookers, as the hon. Member for Macleod has expressed it. In short, we need to be pretty careful. I had one other note here which I didn't draw to your attention. I should do that. Over the last few years, we've spent a great deal of time on professions and occupations.

Among the other considerations that bother us is whether a professional body responds and conducts itself in the public interest, or in its interest and the interest of its members. Now, I suggest to you that if we continue to go in the direction the hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview is advocating, we may very well embark on the edge of the problem of the professions and occupations.

We may have to consider whether rate setting — for instance, I believe the bar association establishes tariffs for certain types of activity, or suggests tariffs, which is very little different, inasmuch as if I am overtariffed, I may appeal to the benchers and have them review it. If that isn't a form of fairly direct control, I don't what it is. The association of professional engineers in this province establishes certain ground rules by which charges are levied. The architects' association does likewise. We could get ourselves into a great deal of difficulty in this area.

278 ALBERTA HANSARD May 29, 1975 I could even take it further, and say that the recent tendency to appoint employees to certain of our boards, commissions, and institutes also opens the way for what some people might deem to be a conflict of interest — not only might, but do. Mr. Speaker, it may very well be that this matter needs to be reviewed. I hope I have broadened the subject a little bit this afternoon, and have made people consider what kind of challenge would lie before either the committee or the Institute of Law Research and Reform, if we chose to go that route. Mr.

Speaker, inasmuch as it is now 4:29 and three-quarters, I beg leave to adjourn debate. MR. SPEAKER: May the hon. member adjourn the debate? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. PUBLIC BILLS AND ORDERS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT ORDERS (Second Reading) Bill 204 The Alberta Social and Economic Planning Act MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 204, The Alberta Social and Economic Planning Act. Mr. Speaker, during the course of the recent election campaign, the Premier of the province issued a statement on the Alberta heritage trust fund in the City of Red Deer.

I note one of the comments he made: a new standing committee of the Legislature would be proposed to review annually the operations of the fund and to report to the Assembly any recommendations or suggestions for adjustment, alteration, supervision, or guidelines for the operation of the fund, or possible amendments to the legislation. Well, Mr. Speaker, I don't believe that that commitment is really adequate, when we consider the fund is the heritage of all the people of Alberta. It's a large amount of money. We're not sure now whether it's going to be $1.5 billion or somewhat less.

But certainly, it will be a large amount of money. In my judgment, Mr. Speaker, any decision on the disposition of that money should be made by the Legislative Assembly. I am going to be coming back to that matter in a moment. In dealing with the three major principles of the bill, the first is the concept that the heritage trust fund requires a mechanism for planning. Mr. Speaker, there's a very real concern on my part that the play-it-by-ear approach is no way to allocate funds from the heritage trust fund. Alberta requires an inventory of resource opportunities.

In my judgment, that's one of the reasons I proposed a social and economic planning council which would help with the inventory of economic opportunities, so that expenditures which are made from the fund are made consistent with those proposals, or at least that there has been objective research and assessment done before decisions are made.

That doesn't mean that the economic and social planning council would have the power to make the decisions — I'm going to come to that in a moment — but it does mean that before decisions are made on the expenditure of these funds, there is a need for assembling as much objective information as possible; an inventory not only of our needs, but our potential opportunities. This is the kind of role I see the economic and social planning council playing. Mr. Speaker, I know there will be all sorts of concerns about the role of this planning council.

There is a general reaction against this sort of proposal whenever it's raised anywhere in North America. But I think we've learned from the western European countries, certainly the Scandinavian nations and, of late, West Germany, that a degree of economic planning is necessary in a modern economy. What I'm suggesting is that because the economy in Alberta has matured, there is a need for a mechanism [to be] established. This does not mean, Mr. Speaker, that the traditional role of allocating money should be circumvented — far from that. I would oppose that.

But it seems to me there is a need, if you like, for a mechanism of planning which can at least set in context the information required to make objective decisions on the expenditure of large sums of money. The second major principle in this bill, Mr. Speaker, is the recognition that this is, in fact, a heritage of all the people of Alberta. Therefore, in allocating funds we must be prepared to listen to the people of Alberta through public hearings. Now I know there will be some who say, well, that sort of device is totally impractical and really won't work. I would argue against that proposition, Mr.

Speaker, because we already have examples in this province where we have held public hearings to good effect. I would cite two illustrations which immediately come to mind. In 1972 and early 1973, we had the hearings of the Environment Conservation Authority on the east slopes. People throughout the province took a very active

part in preparing submissions for those hearings. I have no doubt at all that the final recommendations of the ECA report on the east slopes, recommendations which by and large I concur in, were strengthened as a result of the massive public input that took place during the hearings process.

May 29, 1975 ALBERTA HANSARD 279 Another example which is equally well known is the roving land Use Forum which held public hearings throughout the Province of Alberta in the last year. First of all, hearings were held on an information basis in the different communities through REDA to try to get people to think about the issue. There were further hearings and public meetings held where input came from the public.

Then there were the formal hearings of the Land Use Forum itself, where scores of people around this province made representations on what the future of land-use legislation will be in the Province of Alberta. Nevertheless I have to say, having some very strong views myself about what we should do in the land-use area, that the route we have followed in this province of setting up the Land Use Forum, and going to the people of Alberta and asking them for an input, has been a preferable route to that followed in the Province of B.C. or, for that matter, the Province of Ontario.

I just can't underscore enough how important I consider the role of public input to be. In my judgment, the Land Use Forum is just an excellent example of this very fact. Now, one can make the argument that we have delayed making decisions for several years as a result of all this public input.

That may be true, but the importance of finding out from the people of Alberta, or at least giving them the opportunity to make representation in a formalized way — not the play-it-by-ear approach of contacting an MLA someday when they meet him on the street, the after-the-fact complaint of coming to an MLA after the legislation is passed, or a demonstration in front of the legislature after the legislation is already completed, but before the legislation is drawn up, before the recommendations are made. Mr.

Speaker, I would like to see that sort of concept, which I think is a good one, basic to the way in which we operate the heritage trust fund. Because if it is true that public hearings were important for the ECA recommendations on the east slopes, if it is valid that public hearings are useful for the future of land use in the Province of Alberta, it must surely be even more valid that public hearings are necessary to determine what priorities, what commitments, what objectives we determine when we invest the money in the heritage trust fund. So, Mr.

Speaker, a second very important feature of this bill is the recognition that we should open the opportunity for Albertans to discuss the options before the fact rather than after the fact. I was interested in the remarks of the hon. Member for Highwood during the Speech from the Throne debate, when he was talking about the new planning act and expressing the caution that we not rush into it. He was raising this, as I recollect, in connection with the whole problem of land use. I agree with him. I think we have to make provision for input, and that is equally true with the heritage trust fund.

That money isn't going to run away. He don't have to spend it all immediately, Mr. Speaker, so that we don't have sufficient time to allow the people of Alberta to have their say. The third major feature of this bill, Mr. Speaker, is the very clear commitment that before money is spent, regardless of the role played by the economic planning council, regardless of the public hearings, the expenditure must be authorized by the Legislature, and there should be debate before the fact rather than after the fact. There are certainly some important options now which any government would he looking at.

For example, are we going to fund our commitment to Syncrude cut of the heritage trust fund? Well, that's something that should be debated in the Legislature. If we rush into the much talked about petrochemical industry, are we going to make a commitment to the industry from the heritage trust fund? What role do we see the heritage trust fund playing for human resource investments? Well, we've already had the announcement of $200 million for housing and $200 million for irrigation — the irrigation expenditures I particularly support, and the housing. But, Mr.

Speaker, I think there are other types of investments which could equally be considered when we look at investment in people; perhaps the total education system of the province. It's one of the real problems today, especially in rural Alberta where we have just had a whole series of increases in supplementary requisitions. I would say to this government that we are very lucky indeed that only two of them have actually gone to plebiscite, or we would have no end of trouble in rural Alberta.

In my own constituency, both the divisions completely within the Spirit River-Fairview constituency had to ask for an increase in the supplementary requisition. To date there doesn't appear to be a vote coming up on it. But I would hate to say what would happen if there was a vote, if it were actually put to plebiscite; because most taxpayers, if they have the choice between voting for a supplementary requisition or voting it down, will vote it down.

Then we have the problems which we now see in the Round Hill area, in the Camrose district, where, after the fact, problems arise because of decisions on the part of the ratepayers. Mr. Speaker, that needn't arise if part of the heritage trust fund were directed towards education, or a larger part of it were directed towards education, so that we needn't cripple educational opportunity in this province by relying on a supplementary requisition which, at best, is a crude instrument. When the vote turns out to be adverse, then very real problems arise. Mr.

Speaker, I'm saying there are certainly other areas we can look at in addition to just building factories, building plants, building industry to provide jobs tomorrow. When you look at investment in the larger sense, I think you have to recognize that investment in people is perhaps the most valuable investment we can make. But that doesn't get away from the basic principle I want to enunciate clearly. That is, regardless of what those expenditures may be, whether it is $100 million to petrochemicals, $800 million to Syncrude, X million dollars to Shell, $150 million or $200

280 ALBERTA HANSARD May 29, 1975 million to education, those decisions should be made in the Legislature by the Assembly where debate is in public. Mr. Speaker, I should note two editorials [which appeared] in major newspapers in Alberta after I introduced my private member's motion. I should point out, in fairnesss, both editorials dissented from the concept of a planning council. But on the major principle of the bill, that is legislative expenditure before — I just cite the observations of the Calgary Albertan on May 22: There is merit in having spending from the fund controlled directly by the Legislature.

The disposition and surveillance of a fund of this magnitude cannot be left with a standing committee, certainly not one whose review would come after the fact. Mr. Speaker, I read the Albertan editorial to contrast it very clearly with the proposal of a standing committee made by the Premier during the election campaign. In my judgment, a standing committee — I agree with the Calgary Albertan — is not adequate. It would simply be, in effect, accountability after the fact. It would be the sort of situation we got ourselves into with Bill 54, passed by the Legislature last year. Mr.

Speaker, that sort of reporting, especially when it relates to something as vital as the heritage trust fund, is just not adequate. I would also like to cite the Thursday, May 22 edition of the Edmonton Journal. The lead editorial is called "Minding the fund". Again, Mr. Speaker, the editorial dissents from the idea of the planning council, but it does say, and I quote: As an opposition private member's bill, Mr. Notley's measure has no hope of being enacted. Well, that's a truism, Mr. Speaker. We all know that . . .

But it is sound and timely in stressing that the right way of safeguarding the heritage trust fund money is to require the government to come first to the legislature each time it has some project on which it wishes to expend that money. So Mr. Speaker, that is really the most important principle which I see contained in Bill 204: that the people's elected representatives must accept not only the responsibility, but must insist on the authority to review expenditures before this money is made [available], rather than simply having it reported afterwards. Just several minor, additional comments, Mr.

Speaker, before I welcome debate from the other hon. members. As far as the function of the council itself is concerned, there would be a staff working under the council. It would be my view that the best way to ensure that the council would be fully accountable to the Legislature would be to have it report to the Legislature through the Premier himself, in the same way as the Energy Resources Conservation Board reports to the Legislature through the Premier. The council, as I see it, would be representative of Alberta.

But under the operation of the appointed members of the council would be staff who would have special expertise in whatever areas are relevant to provide that council with the statistical inventory which is necessary to clarify the options, both for the government and the people of Alberta. Mr.

Speaker, I conclude my remarks by saying that the principles of this bill, especially the concept of public hearings, so that we can ask the people of Alberta secondly, the determination that it will be the Legislature, and not the cabinet, not a standing committee, not a small group, not the patio crew, which will decide how this money is spent. That it is the Legislature is, in my judgment, the most crucial feature of the bill.

It is an attempt to reassert the traditional role of the Legislative Assembly as the agency of government, the function of government in this province, which clearly determines how public money is going to be spent. Just as that is true, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the normal ongoing operating costs of the province, so I think it should be equally true with respect to the disposition of funds in this trust fund which we all are obligated to hold in trust for future generations. MR. TRYNCHY: Mr.

Speaker, on entering this debate, I would like to point out the views, probably, from the right side of the Legislature. We've just heard from the left side of the House. And I think . . . SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order. MR. COOKSON: Mr. Speaker, we're actually on the east side of the House. MR. GHITTER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, relative to the comment made by the hon. member. Surely he's not suggesting that that side is the only right side of the House when there are others. I think the powers of the whip have gone to his head a little. MR. TRYNCHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'll say the southwest corner of the House on my left. These honorable gentlemen are on my right so I think . . . [interjections ] Mr. Speaker, I believe the people of this province are pretty proud of the government, in that we do have a heritage trust fund we can discuss today. I think this trust fund which is being set up is the envy of all Canada. And I think we should direct it in such a way that it is here for future generations and does the things we want it to do. This fund is a first in Canada.

Even though we have a number of provinces which are higher up the ladder in financial status than we are, we in Alberta are the only ones who have such a fund. I notice in B.C. particularly, which is well above us in standing.

May 29, 1975 ALBERTA HANSARD 281 richer than us in resources, they don't have any such fund, but they have gone to the Arab countries for loans to see themselves through. The hon. Member for Calgary Buffalo so well outlined the other evening the conditions of B.C. and where they are going. Their housing industry has gone, the oil and gas industry, and mining are going backwards every day. But an interesting item I picked up the other day in the Journal says "Night and day economics".

This is from the president of Woodward's stores and he told the annual meeting that "the strong, buoyant economy in Alberta allowed the company's operations there to offset its poorer showing in B.C., where he said the economy is flat, unstable and plagued by labor instability." So, Mr. Speaker, when we hear from the hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview, we sometimes wonder what really is going on.

The concerns, as pointed out by the hon. member, are that a committee should propose the spending of large sums of money, that we should have somebody tell us how to spend, that we don't know how to spend it ourselves. Well, I don't agree with this. Mr. Speaker, on March 26 the people of Alberta appointed a council. As a matter of fact they elected 75 council members. If the hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview wants to shirk his duties and not work for the people who elected him, that's up to him.

As I campaigned — and I did receive approximately three-quarters of the vote — the people told me: we appreciate the heritage fund; we accept the program, but make sure you spend our money wisely. Make sure you, as a government, spend it wisely. Let's not go to some council, because that's what we were elected for. We should have public hearings — and I think we should. Mr. Notley, the hon. member, says we shouldn't: it's not good enough to meet an MLA on the street and get the input to him. I say this is not correct. I think that's what we're there for, and we should be met by all people.

Public hearings are fine. I remember so well this last winter when I attended the Paddle River public hearings in Mayerthorpe, and I listened to the people at those hearings. You know, Mr. Speaker, the poor little fellow who really wanted to be heard didn't have the courage to stand up and be heard. But he came to me next day and talked to me. It was only the ones who had some education and wanted, maybe, to have a little limelight — I don't know — but they were the ones who spoke continuously and spoke well.

The ordinary joes on the street, the ones this legislation will really affect, come to their elected representative. And rightly so, because that's what we're there for, and they're the ones who elect us. So I can't agree that we shouldn't be able to be met on the street and have these people tell us what they think. The hon. member mentions that we should put some funding into education. Yet, as I looked through some education literature yesterday, I noticed that we're the second- highest province in Canada in total education funding.

We're well ahead of B.C., as I mentioned before, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and all others except one. It's easy to say, let's spend it all today. I've talked to some people who say, what are you going to do with all this money? Let's get rid of it. But, if you say to them: it's your money; how do you propose to save for the future? Do you spend everything you make, today, or do you put some away? Very quickly you can get them changing their tune. Even though I agree we have to have funding for education, I think we should also look very carefully at how we budget, and plan wisely for the days ahead.

It was mentioned that we should make decisions in the Legislature. I think we should. But why do we have to go through a council? As I read this bill, the council will approve the spending, then it has to be okayed by the Legislature. It can be rejected, so all that is for naught. Mr. Speaker, just going over this heritage fund, I notice that if we have $1.5 billion in this fund and we set it aside for a year, even at 10 per cent simple interest, which we can receive, there's $150 million of revenue. That's not compounded but it's simple interest.

It can be quite considerably more if it's compounded on a quarterly basis. We have heard that the opposition in some areas say we have squandered the heritage fund already. That's been public. Yet the hon. member mentioned we have done two things, irrigation and housing. He approves of both of them. So where is this squandering? I think we've made two great choices in the heritage fund, and it's approved of even by the opposition. But let's look at this $200 million for irrigation over a 10-year period.

You know, the interest alone on that fund after the first year, if it's set aside, is enough money to carry the whole fund, without taking anything at all out of it over the next 9 years. Two hundred million dollars will give us $20 million yearly, and that's what we're going to put in every year. He have the fund. We have the $200 million. Yet in the end, with the repayments, we'll be money ahead. The same thing results in housing. He can use the same type of interest. Over 10 years, the housing program will, by mortgages, be returning the whole principal plus interest to the trust fund, so it could grow.

We could even, for instance, charge no interest at all on housing on our $200 million, and not deplete the $200 million. That's something we could be looking at as we space these programs over a 10-year period. I think we should as quickly as possible set aside a substantial amount of funds from this heritage fund for agriculture. I think our number one industry has not been looked after the way it should have been in the last few months, because of our current beef situation. So I propose we set aside $400 million and keep it in a fund — at least I have one member who agrees with me.

And if we drew interest on this and didn't have to come up with any programs until such time as it was necessary, that fund could build up

282 ALBERTA HANSARD May 29, 1975 very rapidly. After the first year we could have $40 million, which we could use for equalization payments to our beef producers or what have you. I remember so well last year, when we had our program for snowed-under crops. A fund such as this could have taken a little off the top, not depleted the principal at all, and had something where the farmers could benefit. I think we must move in somewhat this direction for agriculture, because of the very, very upward trend of cost of production. I have had a number of calls in my constituency where the cattle prices are down.

They've kept them over, they would like to get rid of them now to buy seed and fertilizer and it has all gone up, and they can't even break even. Something like that could be a way to go. We've even heard, and I've read this in the paper, that the hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview claims PWA was bought with heritage funds. Well, I don't agree. This was never taken cut of the heritage fund and I don't know how he arrived at that conclusion. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order for clarification. I would not want the hon. member to mislead the Assembly.

At no time did I make any claim that PWA was purchased out of heritage trust funds. I disputed the purchase of PWA through The Financial Administration Act, but at no time made reference in any public statement here or anywhere else that it was purchased out of the heritage trust fund. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order. MR. TRYNCHY: Mr. Speaker, whether he said it or not, that's fine for him to say so. But what I read in the paper, you know, the press isn't here . . . probably they misquoted him. But that's what I read. Mr.

Speaker, as we go over the hon. member's bill, I read on the second page that "The Council [should] come under the authority of the Premier", and "The Council shall consist of eight persons . . . four shall be women". Well, that's fine. I don't disagree with that, but I disagree with the whole principle of a council for the simple reason, as I mentioned before, that we have 75 members on this council. That's what we were elected for. It says that one of them should be affiliated with the Alberta Federation of Labour.

Well, I don't know if we have a member here who is associated with labor, but we have the minister. Who else better to serve the people of Alberta but the minister himself? The same with industry or commerce. We have people here. An educator: well, as I look around this House, I have noticed that we have about 74 educators beside myself, so we have a lot of educators. One should be of native ancestry, and I agree with that. But there again, who do we pick? Which native tribe do we go to for a member? If we pick one from the Stoney, who else do we have who is a little disappointed?

So really, I think the minister here should be the man who represents the native people, because he represents each and every tribe. It says to appoint a farmer. Well, that's fine, we have a lot of farmers in this Assembly, and I think they're well educated and versed to be on this committee of 75. You know, as I look at this, it says it should be full-time employment. Well, I want to say this, Mr. Speaker: with $1.5 billion to look after, if that was my fund and I was going to set up 8 people, they'd have to be pretty good people, and they'd have to have a pretty good salary.

Because I'd like to see the one $1.5 billion grow and not be depleted. So what do we pay them: $30,000 a year, 40, 50? AN HON. MEMBER: Sixty. AN HON. MEMBER: One hundred and eighty. MR. TRYNCHY: Well, there we go. So it comes to $300,000 or $400,000. AN HON. MEMBER: Tell us what you're going to pay the chairman. MR. TRYNCHY: . . . $300,000 or $400,000, Mr. Speaker, to bring in their recommendations and for us to turn them down in two and one-half minutes. You know, the council should be a full-time employment for a three-year period, and they can only be removed by cause of the Lieutenant-Governor. AN HON.

MEMBER: Your time's up. MR. TRYNCHY: I suggest . . . AN HON. MEMBER: Your time's not up. Keep going. MR. TRYNCHY: Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that we're appointed for four years or thereabouts, give or take a few months, and I think we're accountable to the people. AN HON. MEMBER: Great. MR. TRYNCHY: And I really just can't see how this would ever enter that member's mind. The member also states that we should have a support staff of whatever is necessary. Of course, if this council is to work right, they are supposed to have a support staff. So

May 29, 1975 ALBERTA HANSARD 283 what do we get? How many more do we appoint, and at what salary? Do we spend $.5 billion a year, $.5 million, or a million, to administer this fund? I’ll go back a few years when the hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview spoke in this House about salaries for MLAs. He stood in that corner and expounded so strongly, and pretty well, on why we should get an increase. The day we took the vote — I think it was mentioned the leopard changed its spots — he voted against it. AN HON. MEMBER: Great. MR. TRYNCHY: So is this the kind of thing we'll have from this council again? DR.

BUCK: Do you think he’ll do that again next fall? [interjections] MR. TRYNCHY: In closing, Mr. Speaker, having public hearings is great, and as I travel through my constituency this is exactly what I do. People can come to me, they can present their input on these funds. I'd sooner listen to them, the people I really represent, than the eight people who would be on this council. Because of the eight people, likely I wouldn’t even have one of them from my constituency. There are 75 constituencies and let's say we spread them around. Eight constituencies will be represented and the rest of us will answer to whom?

I still say, Mr. Speaker, that we should do it the way it's presented, with each one of us having an input. I think if the hon. member really wants to have input, that's where he should get it, from his people. The thing that bothers me the most is that when this council does come in we can reject it very easily. So what is their input going to be? He'll have to go back to the people and start all over again. So I suggest we should keep our options open, and we should be as flexible as we can be, and that way we can do the best for the most in this province. Thank you. MR. GHITTER: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to add a few comments to those very few, brief words of the hon. Member for Whitecourt relative to this bill. I think, Mr. Speaker, that indeed it's very useful that we have this bill before us to consider the very serious responsibilities we have as legislators relative to this heritage trust fund. But I think in the process of examining this bill the hon. member who sponsored it is forgetting quite a few things relative to this fund.

He forgets, for example, the many hours that were spent in this particular building, by all of us, from the point of view of the policies that created the fund in the first place, the considerable amount of legislation that was debated at great length as to how these funds would accrue to the Province of Alberta from 1971 to the present date, and that the fund is, in fact, a creature of this Assembly. The fund is something that has evolved by long-range policies created by a government, from the point of view of acquiring a certain amount of capital to be dealt with for the future benefit of all Albertans.

I think no one in this House would decry the fact, and the importance that the responsibility of this Legislature lies in the useful and long- range application of these funds. I think all of us would well agree that this responsibility is one that must be taken seriously.

But as this Legislature created the fund, or will create the fund, and as this legislature created the policies that brought forward these funds for the benefit of our citizens, it is this Legislature that should decide how those funds should be allocated, not a council created by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, or the Premier, but this very Legislature. For after all, as the hon. member has so well expressed, that is our responsibility.

It is our responsibility to determine, as representatives of the people of this province, where these moneys should be allocated, and in what way, not to be dealt with and opted out by some council totally unqualified to consider the nature and responsibilities of this fund, and in fact, responsible to no one. I have no objection to creating a motherhood council, Mr. Speaker. I have no objection that women should be on the council or members of the trade unions, or educators, or natives and the like. But what do these people really know about the $1.5 billion or whatever the figure is?

What expertise do these people enjoy that they should come and advise us as to how this money should be allocated? Surely, Mr. Speaker, we're not dealing with toys and pennies and frivolities. We're not dealing with trivial matters. We're dealing with a tremendous amount of capital upon which the future of our province will ride.

Surely it doesn't make sense that the people who would go on this council should be selected not for their expertise, not for their knowledge, not for their understanding of money management; not for any of those things, but they should be selected because they happen to be women, they happen to be educators, they happen to be native. That is not the reason or the way we should select people for anything, from the point of view of any council that is determined. We should select a woman, not because she's a woman, but because she has abilities that she can provide for whatever the selection process should be.

We should select a person from the Alberta Federation of Labour, o

Document details

Collection	Alberta — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	19750529
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	L18 S1 19750529 1430 01 han.pdf
Language	en
Format	json
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	2f0a2fc9e1255101283e9890a13b30e6f260d862

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