Alberta Hansard — 7 December 1981, Afternoon sitting (14:30) (Legislature 19, Session 3)

19811207

Alberta — Debates (Hansard)

December 7, 1981 ALBERTA HANSARD 2073 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA Title: Monday, December 7, 1981 2:30 p.m. [The House met at 2:30 p.m.] PRAYERS [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] head: INTRODUCTION OF BILLS Bill 259 The Heritage Savings Trust Fund Protection Act MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, I request leave to introduce a Bill, being The Heritage Savings Trust Fund Protection Act. This Act is very significant at this time in our history in Alberta. The Heritage Savings Trust Fund has some $8.5 billion and could grow to a much larger sum in the next few years.

With the possible passage of Bill 69 in this Legislature, we may add another $2 billion to that fund. In light of that large amount of money that Albertans own and have invested in that fund, the Bill is to establish the office of the Heritage Savings Trust Fund auditor, under the Auditor General. This auditor would be direct ly responsible to the Auditor General, working with the sincerity, honesty, and good will of the Auditor General, within the format that has been established.

The respon sibility of the new trust fund auditor is to monitor the trust fund exclusively and to report directly to the Legis lative Assembly of Alberta, as does the Auditor General. As I've said, this Bill recognizes that the trust fund is one and one half times the size of the provincial budget, so requires a separate, identifiable audit department under the Auditor General. There must be direct ac countability to this Legislature for the management of the fund. [Leave granted; Bill 259 read a first time] Bill 224 The Human Rights Commission Independence Act MR. NOTLEY: Mr.

Speaker, I request leave to introduce Bill No. 224, The Human Rights Commission Independ ence Act. There are several provisions in this Act. The first is that a chairman will be selected by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, as recommended by the Legislative Assembly. Secondly, the Human Rights Commission would be directly responsible to the Legislative Assembly. Thirdly, a report will be tabled within the Assembly within 15 days of the commencement of the legislative session. [Leave granted; Bill 224 read a first time] Bill 260

An Act to Limit the Exclusion of Rights Legislation MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to request leave today to introduce a Bill,

An Act to Limit the Exclusion of Rights Legislation. This amendment provides that any Acts passed not withstanding The Alberta Bill of Rights cease to have effect five years after being passed, unless re-enacted by this Legislature. This patterns The Alberta Bill of Rights after the constitution agreed upon by nine of the pre miers, the Prime Minister of Canada and, hopefully by tomorrow evening, the Canadian Senate. This would bring it in line, also point out that the clauses in that area under The Bill of Rights would be revised.

The purpose of the Bill is to guarantee Albertans — as we all would recognize — that their rights in The Alberta Bill of Rights will receive the same protection now in the federal constitution. [Leave granted; Bill 260 read a first time] Bill 247 The Solar Energy Development Act MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I request leave to introduce Bill No. 247, The Solar Energy Development Act.

The main principles contained in The Solar Energy Development Act are to mandate the Research Council to conduct research and development projects relevant to the commercialization of solar heating, to maintain a continuing study of developments in the field of solar energy, and to prepare and submit an annual report in respect of each of these activities which will be tabled in the Legislative Assembly. [Leave granted; Bill 247 read a first time] Bill 248 The Right to Sunlight Act MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I request leave to introduce Bill 248, The Right to Sunlight Act.

Bill No. 248 is modelled on legislation which has been submitted in several states in the United States to the south of us, which would set out the question of the right people have to sunlight, and which must in fact be set out in statutory form if we are going to encourage solar development of any kind in the province. [Leave granted; Bill 248 read a first time] Bill 250

An Act to Amend The Alberta Energy Company Act MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I request leave to introduce private member's Bill No. 250,

An Act to Amend The Alberta Energy Company Act. There are two important principles in Bill 250. The first is that notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the government shall at all times hold no less than 51 per cent of all the issued and outstanding voting shares in the company; that is, to move it from 50 per cent to 51 per cent so there is control by the government of Alberta. In fact, we would be turning it into a Crown corporation. The other principle contained in Bill No. 250 is that by

2074 ALBERTA HANSARD December 7, 1981 being a Crown corporation, the Alberta Energy Company would be totally answerable to the Legislative Assembly, and all questions raised with respect to it would be debatable in the Legislative Assembly. [Leave granted; Bill 250 read a first time] Bill 252 The Public Information and Personal Privacy Act MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I request leave to introduce Bill No. 252, The Public Information and Personal Priva cy Act.

Very briefly, the principles in Bill 252 are first of all with respect to the right of the public to be able to obtain public information with respect to the operation of gov ernment. That would include those papers or reports which have been compiled by government, except for certain specified circumstances. The legislation in that respect is modelled on legislation for introduced for many years in the House of Commons by the then member for Peace River, Mr. Baldwin. The other aspect of the Bill is with respect to the personal privacy question.

That sets out certain standards with respect to the confidentiality of government files. [Leave granted; Bill 252 read a first time] Bill 256

An Act to Amend The Energy Resources Conservation Act MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I request leave to introduce private member's Bill No. 256, being

An Act to Amend The Energy Resources Conservation Act. The main principle in Bill 256 has been partly — but only in part — addressed by government legislation. This would set out more clearly the requirements of notice for ERCB hearings where people are affected by sour gas plants or any kind of energy development. It would set out very clearly the method by which the Energy Re sources Conservation Board must advertise in the appro priate local newspaper or method of communication directly to the people affected by such a move. [Leave granted; Bill 256 read a first time] head: TABLING RETURNS AND REPORTS MR.

SINDLINGER: Mr. Speaker, today I would like to table a letter written by me, the Member for Little Bow, and the Member for Spirit River-Fairview to the Auditor General. It's essentially the same letter delivered to the Auditor General by the Premier last week, asking the Auditor General to look into specific matters dealing with the audit of the Heritage Savings Trust Fund. The only difference is that this letter is a little bit more specific . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. I have to express some concern if our time during the daily routine is going to be taken up by tablings accompanied by explanations.

I have a notion that most of us here in the Assembly have a fairly voluminous correspondence. MR. SINDLINGER: Mr. Speaker, I just wish to table it, and I thank you for the opportunity. MR. CHAMBERS: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to table the annual reports of the Alberta Housing Corporation and the Alberta Home Mortgage Corporation for the year ended March 31, 1981. While I'm on my feet, I'd like to file with the Assembly motions for returns nos. I25A and 126. MRS. LeMESSURIER: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to table with the Assembly two reports: the annual report of the Department of Culture for the year 1980-81; and second, the Alberta Cultural Heritage Foundation, 1980-81. head: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS MR. L. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, it's a real honor and pleasure for me today to introduce to you, and through you to members of the Assembly, a former MP from our riding, Mr. Stanley Schumacher. Stanley did a very fine job of representing our constituency for 11 years.

He's seated in the members gallery, and I would ask him to rise and receive the welcome of the House. head: ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Heritage Savings Trust Fund Auditing MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Premier is partly with regard to the letter that was tabled, also a statement the Premier made in the Legislature on December 3, 1981, in response to a question by the hon. Member for Calgary Buffalo. At that time the Premier said, with regard to a letter to the Auditor General: "I don't see any reason why any member of this Legislative Assembly can't communicate directly to the Auditor General".

As well, Mr. Speaker, in my question I'd like to refer the Premier to The Auditor General Act,

Section 17(1), which was quoted in one of the Premier's responses, and the indications are that: "The Auditor General shall per form such special duties as may be specified by the Assembly.

Section 17(2) says: "special duties as may be specified by the Executive Council". Mr. Speaker, my question to the Premier is: because it does not allow a member of the Legislature to send a letter directly to the Auditor General and in turn expect a response, would the Premier consider taking the letter that was tabled here today and having it presented to the Auditor General for response to this Legislative Assembly? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, I'd certainly consider that.

I find it puzzling that a Member of the Legislative Assembly doesn't feel that he or she can correspond with or send a letter directly to the Auditor General. That seems puzzling to me. If there's some difficulty with that, I'd certainly be prepared to look into it. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary ques tion. Would the Premier be prepared to come back to the House tomorrow, having given consideration to that mat ter in the interim, and report to the Assembly? MR. LOUGHEED: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I'd be prepared to do that. Again, it's a matter of puzzlement to me what is really being requested.

But I'll certainly read the Blues,

December 7, 1981 ALBERTA HANSARD 2075 then try to respond to the hon. Leader of the Opposition tomorrow. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary ques tion. In light of the events before us, has the Premier considered calling a recess to the Legislative Assembly until the Auditor General's report is tabled in this Legislature? MR. LOUGHEED: No, Mr. Speaker. Oil Sands/Heavy Oil Development MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct my second question to the Premier as well. It's with regard to the Esso Cold Lake and the Alsands projects.

I wonder if the Premier could indicate whether progress has been made with regard to those two matters, whether negotia tions are proceeding, are at some kind of stalemate, or are not proceeding at all at the present time. MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, I don't have that in formation at hand at present. Perhaps it should wait until the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources returns. I know there are meetings of officials of the Department of Energy and Natural Resources with representatives of the Cold Lake project. That's really all I could report at this stage. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr.

Speaker, a supplementary ques tion to the Premier. Is it the intention of the government to reach an agreement this winter, so that some of the winter work that could proceed can proceed? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, we believe the energy agreement of September 1, 1981, provided a very sound basis of commercial encouragement for the projects. If they have difficulties unrelated to the commercial terms, that's a matter that arises from a number of external factors that they as developers would have to consider themselves. For our part, we are always prepared to listen to representations.

I anticipate that there would be dis cussions with the developers over the course of the winter months, but I can give the Legislature no assurance of the results. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary ques tion to the Premier, with regard to the federal budget. Could the Premier indicate whether the latest federal budget added further deterrence to the progress with regard to these two plants? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr.

Speaker, as I mentioned in the House last Thursday, I believe in answer to a question from the Member for Bow Valley, there's no question that the federal budget certainly had a negative effect on job creation in Canada. I do not have any information in regard to whether it had a negative affect directly upon the Cold Lake project the hon. Leader of the Opposition is referring to.

In the course of representations and dis cussions in the next few months with the developers on that project, it may or may not develop that they may make some representations to us which refer to the feder al budget of November 12, 1981, but I have no informa tion in that regard at this time. MR. SINDLINGER: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Could the Premier please indicate whether the developers of either the Alsands or Cold Lake projects have advised the government that there's a deadline for decision making, or a target date which has to be met, beyond which further development cannot occur? MR.

LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, I don't think the devel opers have set any firm deadlines for their management decisions. As far as I know, they are continuing discus sion at the official level with representatives of both the Alberta and federal governments. MR. SINDLINGER: Mr. Speaker, could the Premier please advise the Assembly whether a target rate of return has been set on any heritage fund investments in either of these projects, such as that which the Alsands group has indicated it would like to have; that is, something in the range of 20 per cent on equity on a discounted cash flow basis? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr.

Speaker, if and when we make investments in a project of that nature, we'll make those investments beneficial to the people of Alberta in the aggregate sense, in terms of our best judgment at the time. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary ques tion. Could the Premier indicate whether the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources is presently out of the House because he is negotiating with regard to these two plants? Or is the minister away on other energy business outside or within Canada? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources is outside the country.

He's been on important tours in Japan and Australia. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary ques tion. Could the Premier indicate the content of those visits? Are they with regard to agreements with Canada, and specifically with Alberta, with regard to oil or gas, technology that could be better used in Alberta, or the sale of technology to these countries? Specifically, what is the purpose of the trip? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be inappropriate for me to start a long, involved answer. A report should await the return of the hon. minister.

If the session is adjourned when he returns, I'm sure he'd be happy to do it when the House reconvenes. MR. SINDLINGER: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Could the Premier please indicate whether ratification will be sought from this House prior to investing heritage funds in any of these energy projects? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, no that wouldn't be our approach and hasn't been to this date. As a govern ment, we will make decisions of that nature and present the information to the Legislature. If they wish, the Legis lature can ask for whatever accountability is required.

They will be decisions made by a duly elected govern ment, which we will stand by, in terms of their being in the best interest of the citizens of the province. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the Premier. Have there been any preliminary discus sions beyond the statement the Premier issued on July 21 last year with respect to possible investment in the ven

2076 ALBERTA HANSARD December 7, 1981 tures beyond a debt basis, to include equity? I raise that with the Premier because of the decision to convert the Syncrude debentures into equity. At this stage, have there been any discussions with either of the participants about a significant equity investment by the province of Alber ta, as opposed to debt instruments? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, nothing other than in an exploratory or preliminary way. MR. SINDLINGER: A supplementary, please.

If there is equity investment in either of these projects, could the Provincial Treasurer advise the Legislative Assembly whether there will be an upper limit on the amount of equity the Alberta government will take relative to the other participants? MR. SPEAKER: The question could possibly be put in an unhypothetical way. Perhaps we could assume that's been done. MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, no decision has been taken in that regard at this time. MR. SINDLINGER: Mr.

Speaker, could the Provincial Treasurer advise the Assembly whether the guidelines presented to the heritage fund committee — that is, 5 per cent of total equity in any particular project — will be considered and applied in these two particular cases? MR. HYNDMAN: No they will not, Mr. Speaker. Water Management — TV Production MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct this ques tion to the hon. Minister of Agriculture. It concerns a widely advertised television program, On The Water Front. It says in the add that water is essential for agriculture.

Is the minister in a position to advise the Assembly whether this particular program, apparently paid for by the Department of Agriculture, will in fact be aired tonight? MR. SCHMIDT: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Agri culture has many programs on behalf of producers throughout the province that appear at various times. I don't have an answer, but I would be quite pleased to check into it and report back to the House. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question.

In terms of the production of this particular program, is the minister in a position to advise the Assembly that the position of the government with respect to water man agement, as enunciated by the hon. Premier a few days ago, is in fact the position being represented in this program, or is it the position outlined by either Mr. Martyn or Mr. McFarlane in their memos? MR. SCHMIDT: Mr. Speaker, I would have to take the question as notice. Agriculture deals with water as it pertains to irrigation. I would have to assume that that would be the direction the Department of Agriculture would be involved.

I will certainly take the question as notice and report back. MR. NOTLEY: A further supplementary question. It's my understanding that the CBC has chosen not to carry this particular program because it's controversial. [in tejections] Is the minister in a position to advise the Assembly whether it is the intention of the government to buy time on the private stations, and what the budget is? If the Minister of Agriculture is not in a position to answer that question, perhaps whoever is acting minister in charge of the Public Affairs Bureau could. MR. SCHMIDT: Mr.

Speaker, I stated that I would take the original question as notice. The information the hon. member provides is interesting, and we'll still accept the question as notice. MR. NOTLEY: A further supplementary question. While the minister is taking these questions as notice, would he also find out the cost of this particular production and report back to the Assembly? Perhaps I could put that as a direct question to the hon. minister. MR. SPEAKER: With great respect, it was put as a direct question. MR. NOTLEY: I didn't get an answer. Health Care Insurance — Doctors' Fees MRS. CHICHAK: Mr.

Speaker, my question is directed to the hon. Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care. Could the hon. minister advise the House of the status of negotiations with the province's doctors, the AMA? MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, the negotiating teams met again on Friday afternoon. A carefully worked out gov ernment offer was put to the AMA negotiators for their consideration over the weekend, in the hope that it would be put to their membership for vote. I'm sorry to say that the AMA directors have decided not to put that offer to a vote, so I guess we have to go back to the table for some more work. MRS.

CHICHAK: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Could the hon. minister take two supplementaries into consideration? Inasmuch as the doctors have indicated publicly that their request is for a 32 per cent increase and other figures seem to be quoted publicly, the questions I'm being asked are, what does it all mean and what is the real offer? Has the provincial government offered 11.1 per cent? Where are we at, and can we have some clarifica tion on those figures? MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could put it in simple terms if I just use the global figures with respect to each side.

These figures have elements of recognition of overhead expenses, doctors' income component, and what are called additional benefits by way of substantive issues. The doctors have been talking about 32 or 30 per cent, plus substantive issues. Our last offer, which was rejected over the weekend, was for approximately 17.5 per cent in the global basis over one year. That includes the matter of substantive issues. I say "approximately" because it's very difficult at this time to put a precise dollar figure, and thereby a percentage point, on the substantive issues. But I believe I'm within one or two decimal points.

MR. SINDLINGER: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister indicate whether or not the new offer presented by the government to the doctors which was

December 7, 1981 ALBERTA HANSARD 2077 just referred to, entailing a 17.5 per cent increase, was based on an increase in premiums paid by Albertans? MR. RUSSELL: No it isn't, Mr. Speaker. I've been trying to indicate to the public lately the cost of any potential agreement we might come to. When I spoke to the Alberta Hospital Association convention last week, I mentioned that the package now being asked for by the AMA would mean a doubling of existing medicare pre miums if the premiums are going to be asked to support it. If the premiums don't support it, some other source of income will.

But I think that perhaps helped put it into perspective. MR. SINDLINGER: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister indicate whether or not consideration would be given to eliminating health care premiums in their entirety for Albertans? MR. RUSSELL: Well, Mr. Speaker, that's the proposi tion put to us by the federal Minister of National Health and Welfare, who believes that medicare is free. We hadn't realized that. Apparently there's no cost to it. We have often been asked to consider eliminating medicare premiums but don't agree to that proposition.

It's a way of directly relating the costs of health care to costs to the consumer. MR. NOTLEY: A supplementary question to the minis ter, for clarification. In his answer, the minister indicated that had the proposition put by the medical association been accepted, if the doctors accepted, there would be a doubling of fees if that were the way in which it was paid. However, specifically with respect to the government's 17.5 per cent offer, is the minister saying to the House that that will be accommodated totally from general revenue, or will some increase in fees in fact be anticipated? MR. RUSSELL: Mr.

Speaker, that decision hasn't finally been made. I think it's important to get the message to Albertans, especially the ones urging substantial income raise in the fee benefit schedule, that that direct relation ship be made. An option we'll have to consider in drawing up the budget for the next fiscal year is whether those added costs will come from medicare premiums or from some other source. At this time, I've tried to give an indication of the scope of change that would be necessary to meet those costs. MRS. CHICHAK: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Could the hon. minister indicate what proportion the premiums are paying for medicare costs? Does the minis ter have the information on hand as to what percentage of the real cost the government is paying in total medical care support? MR. RUSSELL: At the present time, Mr. Speaker, it's approximately one-third. If all medical care premium revenue were directed to the medicare program only, it would cover one-third of the costs and nothing for hospitals. MRS. CRIPPS: A supplementary to the minister, Mr. Speaker. What is the government's position on overhead costs? That's a point very often raised. MR.

RUSSELL: I don't believe there's any disagreement between the government and the Alberta Medical Asso ciation on that issue. We think the bona fide increased costs in their overhead should be met, and that those should not be deducted from the doctors' incomes. We've tried to establish that. There's some difference of opinion as to what overhead is, and we're certainly willing to reach agreement on that as quickly as possible. MR. GOGO: A supplementary question to the hon. min ister, Mr. Speaker.

Are fee schedules in other jurisdic tions in Canada a criterion in determining the fee sched ule with the Alberta Medical Association in the province of Alberta? MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, I understand it is an element that is put on the bargaining table. For example, the other highest provincial fee

schedule at the present time is British Columbia, I believe. That is one yardstick for measuring incomes. The other one, of course, is to use the available federal statistics with respect to net incomes of any provincial group. I think it's fair to say that Alberta doctors have the highest at the present time. Sugar Beet Industry MR. MANDEVILLE: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the hon. Minister of Agriculture. Has the minister had any recent meetings with the Alberta Sugar Beet Growers Association in southern Alberta with regard to the prob lems they're having processing their sugar beets this fall? MR.

SCHMIDT: No, Mr. Speaker. MR. MANDEVILLE: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. There has been some suggestion that the sugar beet growers put up their own processing plant. Has there been any discussion with the Minister of Agriculture or the Minister of Economic Development with regard to making funds available on loan from the heritage trust fund to put up such a factory in southern Alberta? MR. SCHMIDT: Mr. Speaker, I've had no such request from the sugar beet growers, either of a change in the processing of their product or for a meeting on the production of sugar beets. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr.

Speaker, a supplementary ques tion to the minister with regard to the closing of the Picture Butte plant two years ago. At that point in time, was any commitment made by government that the Taber plant would have a capability of processing all the sugar beets grown in southern Alberta, without a significant reduction in acreage? Could the minister indicate what commitment the government made with regard to that? MR. SCHMIDT: Mr. Speaker, I can't recall the com mitment at the time. I would have to take that as notice and check back.

But in regard to the sugar beet growers themselves, the meetings we have had — and that had to entail last year's production — were involved basically with the contracts and the opportunity from a transporta tion point of view. After the original meeting, the prob lem of transportation of sugar beets apparently was solved in signing the contracts, according to the produc ers themselves. I've had no contact with them to date in regard to a problem for this year.

2078 ALBERTA HANSARD December 7, 1981 Public Affairs Programs — Agriculture MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct this ques tion to the hon. Minister of Agriculture. It concerns the foray of the Department of Agriculture into the television business. What is the policy of the department with respect to the production and advertising of programs such as On The Water Front? Is it the position of the government that public funds should only be expended on programs which accurately reflect the policy of the government of Alberta? MR. SCHMIDT: Mr.

Speaker, the extension department of Agriculture enters into all kinds of uses of the media, including television, for passing information to producers throughout the province on varied subjects in areas of production. As a rule, the programs deal directly with production in a way that is acceptable to the producer, and meets that need between the information media through Agriculture directly to the producer for his or her use. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. The minister has answered the question with respect to objective material.

However, where the government is dealing with areas of subjective assessment, what policy guideline does the Department of Agriculture follow, with respect to the production of television broadcasts or extension material, in areas where there is a very definite difference of opinion? Is the position of the Department of Agriculture that where public dollars are expended, those programs accurately reflect the position of the government? MR. SCHMIDT: Mr. Speaker, I'm not aware of any differences of opinion.

The presentation of information to producers may vary somewhat from the individual pro ducer's method of production but, in a general way, I see no opposition collectively. In fact, the intent in the use of the material presented is to give that flexibility to produc ers throughout the province. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. I'm pleased to hear the minister's response, although I suspect there may in fact be a difference of opinion over On The Water Front. However, my question does relate to the production of information dispensed by the gov ernment generally.

But since it relates directly to the Department of Agriculture in those areas where there is debate among the people of Alberta, what policy guide lines are followed before public dollars are invested in any production on a controversial matter? Does it follow that government policy must be accurately reflected be fore public dollars are invested? MR. SCHMIDT: Mr. Speaker, I'm unaware of any con troversy that exists. If the hon. member is referring to the question asked previously, which I took as notice, I suggest that I take it as notice.

Perhaps he has informa tion and some preconceived idea of the end result of a program of which I'm not aware at present. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary ques tion to the Minister of Agriculture with regard to the co-ordination and monitoring of this kind of information. Does the Minister of Government Services monitor the terms of reference or guidelines for advertising or produc tion, whether television, radio, or paper articles that leave the government? Does each department have its own set of guidelines? Or does no checking at all go on, which seems to be the case in this instance? MR.

SCHMIDT: Mr. Speaker, we in the Department of Agriculture have our own services in providing extension. We have our own checks and balances for the release of that material, making sure that the basic material is designed for whatever specific use the original design was intended, and is handled within the department. Each article, whether it be written or appears through the media of radio or television, has the scrutiny of our own department. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary ques tion.

Is the minister indicating that that scrutiny is just by deputy ministers and other senior officials, not by the minister himself? MR. SCHMIDT: Mr. Speaker, I've had the opportunity to read and see some but not all of the information generated through the department. MR. NOTLEY: A supplementary question to the minis ter. A production of this kind would cost many thou sands of dollars. Who would authorize it, then? If the minister hasn't seen it, would it be the deputy minister? Who would authorize the very considerable expenditure of public funds on the production, plus advertising, of this kind of program? MR.

SCHMIDT: Mr. Speaker, the basic planning of the collection of data and the method by which it is to be transmitted to the producers throughout the province, is part of the budgetary aspect. If we are to use the medium of television, of course there is a cost involved. As minis ter, I have the opportunity to discuss the programs in the planning stage and, from that point of view, have the opportunity to agree with the expenditures collectively and, if they are programs of a fair monetary size, indivi dually. Of course, television falls into that category.

So yes, I do have the opportunity to agree on the direction one is taking. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, bearing the minister's an swer specifically in mind, did the minister know anything about this program? Was it discussed with the minister in any way, shape, or form, considering the fact that a lot of dollars are involved in the production — as well as advertising costs — of what would be an hour-long program? Has the minister the foggiest idea of this pro gram? Was there any discussion at all between the minis ter and any officials of the department on this particular program? MR. SCHMIDT: Mr.

Speaker, I'm aware of the overall program. It would appear the hon. member is discussing a particular finished product. If that is the same presenta tion the hon. member alluded to and which I said I would take as notice, I can't answer any further. He's talking about a finished product of which I'm not aware. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. I'm not suggesting that the minister is going to be a censor, sitting down and watching television programs, but was the minister at any time advised that the depart ment was going to undertake a substantial investment of

December 7, 1981 ALBERTA HANSARD 2079 public dollars on a program dealing with the management of Alberta's water resources? MR. SCHMIDT: Mr. Speaker, we spend a fair amount of money each year in water management, irrigation, and other aspects of production through the department. I see nothing different with this approach from any we have through our extension department over the period of years, or for any other programs we've had this year. MR. NOTLEY: One final supplementary question. Was the minister given any information about this program, yes or no? MR. SCHMIDT: Mr. Speaker, I've answered that question.

Edmonton Municipal Airport MR. SINDLINGER: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask a question of the Minister of Transportation. Could the minister advise the Assembly what action the government is taking as a result of the light airplane crash in Edmonton last night? MR. KROEGER: Mr. Speaker, we haven't taken any action. The MOT is doing the investigation, as they do in all accidents of this kind, so we wouldn't be involved at this point. MR. SINDLINGER: Mr.

Speaker, could the minister please advise whether or not any consideration has been given to removing the air traffic from the city limits of Edmonton to the outskirts? MR. KROEGER: Well, Mr. Speaker, that's not a deci sion we'd be making. The city of Edmonton would be involved. [interjections] MR. SINDLINGER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the minister.

Inasmuch as heritage savings trust funds are being spent to build airport terminals as well as air facili ties around the province, would the province give consid eration to constructing similar facilities outside the city limits so there wouldn't be a repetition of what happened last night? DR. PAPROSKI: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. NOTLEY: Just let him answer, Ken. DR. PAPROSKI: I wonder if the minister would indicate to us whether the emergency measures ordinarily in place were activated or in place in this particular case to deal with this type of accident? MR. SPEAKER: Emergency measures in place?

The rea son I'm asking a question about the question is that if the regulations governing emergency measures are a matter of public knowledge, of course the question would be out of order. But if it involves some kind of action, that's something else. DR. PAPROSKI: Mr. Speaker, I'll clarify it. I meant disaster services. MR. SINDLINGER: Mr.

Speaker, a supplementary to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who I understand is responsible for disasters. [interjections] Can the minister indicate whether the government's preference is to have a contingency plan to move the airport facilities outside the city or an emergency contingency plan when a jumbo jetliner crashes into a building? MR. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, first of all, the questions directed to me would be in my capacity as a member of Executive Council responsible for disaster services and not as Minister of Municipal Affairs.

I can advise that the emergency procedures that come into play in such an event with respect to both the city of Edmonton and the Royal Alexandra hospital in fact were implemented last evening. As well, I can advise that a review of those emergency procedures carried out by the director of dis aster services indicates that the emergency procedures were handled well and that the response from fire, police, hospital, and city officials was extremely well co ordinated and appropriate, in accordance with the emer gency procedures outlined previous to the action occurring. Mr.

Speaker, the only other thing I can add from a safety point of view is that this government and the government of the city of Edmonton, I believe it's fair to say, are extremely concerned about occurrences of the nature that occurred last evening and will be undertaking to review both our procedures with respect to disaster preparedness, which is appropriate regardless of whether the airport is moved or not. We will be having discussions with the city of Edmonton with regard to the future of the airport.

One shouldn't suspect that that would neces sarily lead to some kind of immediate decision to alter the plans, but that's certainly something our government will be discussing with the city of Edmonton. MR. SINDLINGER: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The minister has discussed some remedial plans; that is, in the nature of contingency plans. Can the minister please indicate what preventive plans are in place? MR. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, that would not be my responsibility, but I might refer the hon. member to various preventive plans in place with respect to the operation of the Edmonton municipal airport.

He might want to check with the city of Edmonton and with the federal Transport people. Indeed, accidents of that type are rare. A lot of people expend a lot of effort to make sure they don't occur. MR. NOTLEY: A supplementary question to the hon. Minister of Transportation. What discussions, if any, has this minister undertaken with MOT concerning the exten sive use of the municipal airport by very light aircraft? The minister's predecessor talked about Villeneuve air port being an alternative for light aircraft, which would make it safer for major aircraft to come in and out of the Edmonton municipal airport.

What discussions have the Minister of Transportation or any member of the provin cial government had with federal authorities with respect to that question? MR. KROEGER: Mr. Speaker, I've had no conversation with them at all, because the disposition of that sort of thing now falls under the Department of Economic Development. MR. SINDLINGER: A final supplementary, Mr. Speak er, with regard to ancillary facilities being constructed

2080 ALBERTA HANSARD December 7, 1981 outside the city of Edmonton. I again place the question to the minister as to whether or not any consideration is being given to constructing ancillary facilities outside the city limits so there no longer would be a need to land within the city? MR. KROEGER: As I've already said, Mr. Speaker, I haven't responded to this at all in any way. First of all, the accident itself is now under investigation by federal authorities. Secondly, the ongoing negotiation we have with regard to airports doesn't relate to this specific accident in any way.

A lot of light aircraft have been moved to use Villeneuve; the flow has been reduced here. But beyond that, I would have to hold any further questions for the Minister of Economic Development. Surface Rights Report MR. MANDEVILLE: Mr. Speaker, my question to the hon. Minister of Agriculture is with regard to the report regarding surface rights that was done during the summer months and was tabled in the Legislature. Could the minister indicate what the process will be for handling these recommendations?

When we will be able to look forward to some of the recommendations being put into force by way of regulations or legislation? MR. SCHMIDT: Mr. Speaker, if one looks back over the period of a year and a half, it was the amendments that were brought forward to The Surface Rights Act that created interest throughout not only members of the Assembly but the province, and that created the legisla tive committee and, the end result, a report. It would be our intention to review the report with the view in mind that, because of the total report itself, The Surface Rights Act should be rewritten.

At the time of making a few amendments, it was also suggested that a total new Act would be required. So the intent would be to review the recommendations and come to the Assembly with a New Surface Rights Act. Sulphur Emissions MR. SINDLINGER: Mr. Speaker, over the weekend the Minister of Environment made a comment that consider ation would be given to holding down sulphur emissions from sour gas plants in Alberta to that level which it is at present. My first question to the minister is: what is the status of that decision, and when can we expect a regula tion to that effect? MR. COOKSON: Mr.

Speaker, it is still our intention to hold the existing plants at the emission rates they now are, if that is the question. MR. SINDLINGER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. My understanding was that the total sulphur emissions for the province would be held at the level they are at present. My question to the minister is whether or not this new regulation would be conveyed to the ERCB, which is now considering expansion of the Jumping Pound and Quirk Creek sour gas plants? MR. COOKSON: Mr.

Speaker, in the comments I made Friday evening, in reference to a recent document put out with regard to an interprovincial/federal document. I mentioned that one recommendation was that all prov inces attempt to control the total S02 emissions within the jurisdiction of the province. One suggestion in that report was that we then attempt to maintain the present total emissions so that they would be essentially the same in the year 2000.

My comment to that was that I think that we in the province can work toward that objective, keeping in mind that new plants that come on have much tighter standards than some of the older plants that eventually will be phased out.

So by the year 2000, barring unforeseen circumstances over which we have very little control, as you know, insofar as we are not sure about the total amount of coal development that will take place in the province, nor are we sure about the escala tion of tar sand plants in the north — other than that, we should be able to keep total emissions close to what they are at the present time. MR. SINDLINGER: A final supplementary, please, Mr. Speaker.

The Jumping Pound and Quirk Creek plants are old, and my question would be whether the old standards or the new, tighter regulations, to which the minister just referred, would apply to those plants. Perhaps the minis ter might indicate what the emission level would be for both those plants under both cases. MR. COOKSON: Mr. Speaker, I think the hearing pro cess is still on, and I don't think I could accurately comment on the emissions that will eventually be reach ed.

An information letter, which essentially lays out the sulphur recovery guidelines for gas processing operations, was made public at Calgary on November 4, 1980. Perhaps the member should obtain this document and review it, because basically it lays out the emission requirements. MR. SINDLINGER: A final supplementary, please, Mr. Speaker. Would the decision or criteria for the level of sulphur emission in regard to these plants be 96 per cent or 98 per cent depending upon the level attainable or the cost of attaining that level? MR. COOKSON: I think both factors are considered, Mr. Speaker.

Certainly we have to consider the total cost of the project. For example, if a project is processing a very minimal amount of tonnes of sour gas per day, we would have a certain standard for that type of plant. If it is removing a larger volume of this material per day, then we would have different standards. The standards are basically on a sliding scale, so essentially we would take into consideration the cost and the total amount we could practicably remove. MR. SPEAKER: The time for the question period has elapsed, but if the Assembly agrees I have already recog nized the hon.

Member for Spirit River-Fairview for another question. Possibly we could handle another short question and short reply. Ex-Principal—Northland School Division MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could direct this question to the hon. Minister of Education. It flows from the minister's decision to suspend the Northland school board. Has the minister had an opportunity to meet Mr. Morriss Rees and to review Mr. Rees' dismissal, in light of that dismissal on the future teaching career of that particular gentleman who was the centre of much contro versy surrounding the Northland School Division last year?

December 7, 1981 ALBERTA HANSARD 2081 MR. KING: To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, my office has not received any request that I should meet with Mr. Rees. I know that it has not come to my personal attention. That being the case, I have had no reason to review the circumstances surrounding Mr. Rees' dismissal. ORDERS OF THE DAY head: GOVERNMENT MOTIONS 16.

Be it resolved that notwithstanding any provisions of the Standing Orders, the estimates of the Capital Projects Division of the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund and all appropriation Bills as herein defined, shall, unless earlier disposed of, be dealt with as follows:

(1) In this resolution (a) "Appropriation Bill" means (

i) Bill 69 — Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund Special Appropriation Act, 1982-83, and (ii) any Bill introduced in the House to appro priate the funds covered by the Estimates; (b) "Estimates" means the estimates and supple mentary estimates of the Capital Projects Divi sion of the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund that have been referred to the Committee of Supply during the 1981 fall sittings, and includes the resolutions before the Committee of Supply relating to them.

(2) The Estimates shall be considered by the Committee of Supply on 5 separate sitting days after and includ ing the day upon which this resolution is adopted and if, on the 5th day, the Committee has not voted upon all of the Estimates by the following time limit: 10:00 p.m. if it be a Monday, Tuesday or Thursday, or 4:30 p.m. if it be a Wednesday, or 12:00 noon if it be a Friday, the Chairman shall immediately interrupt the proceed ings and shall forthwith put a single question propos ing the approval of every resolution then necessary to complete consideration of the Estimates, which shall be decided without debate or amendment, and the Committee shall forthwith rise and report.

(3) A motion in the House (

a) that the Speaker leave the Chair and the Committee of the Whole meet to consider an appropriation Bill, or (

b) that the House receive a report of the Commit tee of Supply on the Estimates or a report of the Committee of the Whole on an appropria tion Bill shall be decided without debate or amendment.

(4) An appropriation Bill may be introduced in the House at any time after the receipt of the report of the Committee of Supply on the Estimates covered by the Bill, when the Order of the Day is Government business.

(5) An appropriation Bill may be read a second time, considered by the Committee of the Whole, reported therefrom to the House and the report received, on one sitting day.

(6) If an appropriation Bill is moved for second reading, and if, on that day, at the time limit defined by paragraph 2, all appropriation Bills have not yet been read a second time, the Speaker shall at that time interrupt the proceedings and put the question on second reading of every appropriation Bill then await ing second reading, which shall be decided without debate or amendment.

(7) If, after all appropriation Bills have been given second reading, any appropriation Bill is before the Commit tee of the Whole for consideration, and if, on that day, half an hour after the time limit defined by paragraph 2, there remains any appropriation Bill not reported by the Committee, the Chairman shall at that time interrupt the proceedings and put . . . every question necessary to complete consideration of all appropria tion Bills still before the Committee, which shall be decided without debate or amendment, and the Com mittee shall forthwith rise and report.

(8) If an appropriation Bill is moved for third reading, and if, on that day, at the time limit defined by paragraph 2, all appropriation Bills have not yet been read a third time, the Speaker shall at that time interrupt the proceedings and put the question on third reading of every appropriation Bill then awaiting third reading, which shall be decided without debate or amendment. MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, I move Motion No. 16 on the Order Paper. I think a number of observations can be quite concisely made with respect to what is indeed an important motion. Many hon. members would agree that MR.

SPEAKER: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. minister, but in order to avoid misunderstanding, especially on the part of those who may be listening or reading Hansard, I think it should be pointed out that two motions are numbered 16 on today's Order Paper. One of them, of course, is under Motions other than Government Mo tions. It's my understanding that we're now dealing with Motion No. 16, which is a government motion. MR. CRAWFORD: Yes, indeed, Mr. Speaker. I have not acquainted myself with the other Motion No. 16. Therefore, I move Government Motion No. 16, standing in my name on page 2 of today's Order Paper.

I think a number of hon. members might agree that it would be more agreeable to deal with the matters before the Legislative Assembly at the present time without the need for a motion of this type. It is my purpose to speak of that need and to say what the motion actually does. In so many respects it speaks for itself. In its wording, the motion sets out a

schedule of time during which the remaining estimates of the capital projects division of the Heritage Savings Trust Fund for 1982-83 may be consid ered and adopted by the House. That is all it does. By implication, it takes note of the fact that many days have already been spent on consideration of those estimates, but by declaring a number of additional days, the motion itself really establishes a total

schedule for the considera tion of those estimates. Mr. Speaker, certain statements have been made which I think it may be relevant for me to comment briefly upon in speaking to the essence of the motion. When I say "certain statements", I speak of ones that will be quickly well known and understood by all hon. members. I'm speaking primarily of some of the statements made by members of the opposition. I think they, in their quiet moments and away from the cameras, would agree that a lot of those statements are very foolish indeed. I have the

2082 ALBERTA HANSARD December 7, 1981 press release the hon. leader wanted me to have today, talking about a free speech league. I would only say this, Mr. Speaker. Over the history of all parliaments and throughout the history of our country, many things have been done to guarantee free speech. For any person to stand in his place and say there is not free speech in this Legislature would be saying there is not free speech in the Mother of Parliaments, in the Parliament of Canada, or in any legislature or parliament in the world. [interjec tions] That's what they'd be saying. Mr.

Speaker, every one can see that such foolishness that is put forward in this way lacks merit. The hon. gentleman made these statements in regard to free speech which all Canadians prize so highly, knowing that their remarks are a sham and foolishness. Mr. Speaker, what is really involved, of course, is whether or not certain estimates pass.

Those estimates deal with subjects such as the provision of moneys for libraries, irrigation, reforestation, for the development of grazing reserves to improve that aspect of our agricultural industry, land reclamation, urban parks — going beyond Calgary and Edmonton in these estimates to provide amenities in that respect for the cities of Medicine Hat, Lethbridge, Red Deer, Lloydminster, and Grande Prairie — and a considerable amount of research in a number of fields: testing of food products, agriculture in the larger sense, the oil sands, and the health and safety of workers in the province.

Those are the areas in which funds are proposed to be committed. When hon. members say they do not want to proceed, it's in respect of those matters that they do not want to proceed. As is well known, Mr. Speaker, the real question is the amount of time to be available for estimates. That is what the motion deals with. It has been more than fair. We ask what other legislatures would do. I don't know how anyone could stand and say that doesn't matter, that's not relevant.

I don't know how anyone in a parliamentary tradition could say that the customs and practices of the Mother of Parliaments, the House of Commons, and the other legislatures in Canada do not matter. Look first at the size of the estimates in the House of Commons. In their regular budget — and this is not our regular budget this fall. The government is presenting a smaller sum by far than would be presented in the spring sitting under the main budget. The government is present ing the capital projects division for the beneficial pur poses I've described.

In comparison with the budget we're talking about now, the regular federal budget is some 150 times larger than the estimates we have under considera tion. For those estimates in the House of Commons, 150 times larger than what is proposed before the Assembly this fall, the House of Commons allows 25 days. They don't expect it to be any different. That's the arrangement it has long been.

For these estimates this fall in this Assembly, given the additional days provided for in this resolution, we will have provided 23 days the other day I even had the question from one of the members of the media why we didn't go the extra two days. That's fine. I don't mind questions like that, but 23 days for a budget which is less than 1 per cent of the 25 days spent in the House of Commons in Ottawa. I might add just one more thing in regard to when estimates are being spoken to in the House of Commons. Members may speak only once, for only 20 minutes.

In Westminst er, the number of days provided is 29 — 23, 25, 29. How do other legislatures and parliaments handle things, in the sense of the provincial legislatures in west ern Canada? Here again, we come to some of the foolish remarks that have been made. One of the ones that interested me most, in particular considering some of the language used, was Manitoba. As a matter of fact, a portion of the resolution before hon. members was signif icantly taken from the item in the Manitoba Standing Orders called compulsory vote on items of estimates.

That standing order was brought into the Manitoba rules in 1975 or 1976. The reasons it was brought in by the NDP government of that day must have been adequate or it wouldn't have been done. For the moment, we will refer to Manitoba rule No. 15 as the "NDP jackboot". [interjections] Next we have the "Blakeney garrotte", Mr. Speaker. In Saskatchewan, the rule that applies in Committee of Supply provides that after a given date, no member shall speak more than once or for longer than 20 minutes, and none shall rise to speak after 1 a.m.

Because of the 1 a.m. limitation, they weren't able to treat them selves to the sort of thing my hon. friends and colleagues in British Columbia were treated to the other day by going through the night. But that's another matter and has nothing to do with the prairie provinces, so compara ble in so many ways in regard to their background in parliamentary tradition. Mr. Speaker, what has really happened is that my hon. friends in the opposition have set themselves up a little partnership. I have remarked before that if they're not strange bedfellows, at least they often share the same bunk.

That deserves repetition. I really raise that in order that the hon. Leader of the Opposition — and I make this suggestion to him — might reconsider some of the things in his mind in regard to that particular marriage. Strange things happen in marriages, Mr. Speaker. Not all of them end happily, and perhaps not all of them commence with higher hopes. But, Mr. Leader, I would be careful of the hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview. I say that for this reason: I'm going to leak a document. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh. MR.

CRAWFORD: I'm going to leak a document that came to me in the mail not long ago, addressed to me personally. It shyly asks that I send $250 to help Grant Notley. That's what it says. It goes further and says that if I send less, that will be all right. [laughter] It is accom panied by a letter, dated fall 1981, in which one of the hon. member's henchmen writes me saying they need the money because Grant gets more attention and, more important, more action every day. They say that. Having mentioned that it's one of the hon. member's henchmen, I might say it's a Mr. Basken.

The letter then goes on to say that Peter Lougheed cannot ignore him as he does the rest of the opposition. [interjections] That is the view and opinion of the hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview of the hon. Leader of the Opposition. [interjections] Wedded bliss. I don't think the hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview will say to me that he didn't know about it, that he hadn't heard of it, or that he didn't approve of it anyway. MR. NOTLEY: Did you send the cheque, Neil? That's the important thing. MR. CRAWFORD: Don't worry about the money. Mr.

Speaker, what is proposed here actually allows two more weeks from when I gave the oral notice, because it included Friday — substantially two more weeks of opposition days at the end of a fall sitting. For what purpose? For the consideration of estimates in respect of

December 7, 1981 ALBERTA HANSARD 2083 which 17 days had already been spent. The record of previous years is that hon. members of the opposition required an average of five. They say that we should not find a way of bringing on the matter the way any other legislature would in disposing of it. We say that there is no merit in what they propose. They're saying: put it over till spring, do it some other time, don't do the work now, do it some other day, Mr. Speaker. I have never under stood the merit, by itself, of delay in important work. That is just one proposal being made. In concluding, Mr.

Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 20, I give notice of one clear day. At the next sitting of the House, immediately before the order of the day is called for resuming debate on government Motion No. 16, and on any amendments proposed thereto, I will move that the debate shall not be further adjourned. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to this motion, I think we have to set the principle in place first of all. After I set the principle in place with regard to this motion, then I can respond to what the hon. House leader has said in the last few moments.

The principle is very clear: for years and years and years in this Legislature, there has never been an incident where closure was necessary. There were large majorities and few people in the opposition. They were given time to speak on every subject. They were given time to ask every question that was necessary. There was never closure in this House before. There was never limitation of debate by government by a formal resolution presented to members of the Legislature.

Freedom of speech, the right of members of the Legislature to represent their constitu ents in a very responsible manner, flourished in this Legislature until this motion was introduced last week and is now being formally debated on the floor of this Legislature today. Mr. Speaker, that is a sad situation. It only compounds the atmosphere and attitude of this Legislature following the incidents that we had in the last two weeks, where a point of privilege was a situation that was raised. Now it is questionable whether any member in the Legislature can raise a point of privilege without it being clearly . . . MR.

SPEAKER: Order please. I thought we had dis posed of this point of privilege. It must be a matter of some concern to all members of this Legislature that what occurred here was so little understood. There were some serious breaches of privilege inside and outside the House, which in other times perhaps would have been dealt with fairly severely. There were allegations of gag ging and that free speech had been cut off in the House. There were direct allegations of unfairness by the Chair.

Hon. members know that when they were elected to this Assembly — they freely allowed themselves to be elected — they were elected . . . I'm sorry, I'm going to be a few moments longer. If any hon. members wish to leave or resume their seats, I'll just pause. In fact, I hoped that we had done with that situation, but it appears we haven't. Hon. members, especially members who have been in the Assembly for previous terms, know what the Standing Orders and the parlia mentary traditions are. They came to a House which has certain rules.

I am not aware of any game where you have a built-in right to chew out the referee, to use the common expres sion, when you don't like the way the game is going. That is what occurred here. The impression has been given that free speech was denied in this Assembly. The fact is that that was never denied, notwithstanding a motion which purported to appeal a ruling which was not in fact made. The motion dealt with a ruling denying the opportunity to speak,

whereas in fact all the ruling said was that the discussion of the point of privilege would have to await an occasion when all members involved directly would be in the Assembly. In other words, a member was not to be accused behind his back. Now, the matter had first come up some four days before. As it turned out, it was dealt with three days later, on Friday, November 27, as the very first order of busi ness, right after prayers. It was dealt with for two hours. Every member who wanted to speak spoke. In fact, they came quite close to using their full allotted times.

I'm not aware of any member who wished to speak in that debate who wasn't given the opportunity. There was full, free speech within all the rules of fairness, with everybody involved present in the House, and that's as it should be. Not only that, the time of the Assembly that week was taken up on that point for over seven hours in total. I don't propose to say any more about it. The topic is not open for debate. We'll continue with this debate. But I would say that I have to regret the charges made that free speech was denied by the Speaker in this Assembly.

I have very limited means of dealing with charges of that kind. I'm not free to run to the cameras, the tape- recorders, or the papers. But it does seem appropriate that the matter should be concluded once and for all. I think what I have just said should be sufficient reason for saying that any further reference to that matter, which has been ruled on by the Assembly, in this or in any other debate will be totally out of order. MR. SINDLINGER: Mr. Speaker, may I just make a couple of observations. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Has the hon. member a point of privilege or a point of order?

If so, would he state it, so I may know whether I must recognize it. MR. SINDLINGER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order in regard to the decision you've just made. It's

section 12(2), if I recall correctly. It's simply this, sir. In my judgment, you've been gracious and generous in the application of your decisions for this Legislature. Over the three years I've been here, you have offered a great deal of latitude. I respect that and appreciate it. I'm sure all other members do too. We just had a good example of that this afternoon when the Attorney General was speak ing. For example, he went on about some campaign li terature and to make oral notice as well, neither of which are strictly relevant to this motion being considered today.

He could quite easily have been ruled out of order. One of us could have risen on a point of order, but out of courtesy we allowed him to go on. In any case, it intro duced some levity into the proceedings, and there's noth ing wrong with doing that from time to time. You, sir, as arbiter of the rules, could have got up immediately and said: point of order, this is out of order; it's not relevant to the motion being considered here. So I applaud you for the latitude you've given us in this debate and in other debates as well.

However, there's one point here, and that is the reference to the decision made previously. It's my understanding that most of the things we go on in this Legislature are based on common law. Common law is based on what goes before, precedence, stare decisis. The decision in regard to the point of privi lege referred to earlier has now become part of our

2084 ALBERTA HANSARD December 7, 1981 common law. It's a precedent upon which we must base our actions in this Legislative Assembly. So it's not unnatural that from time to time references will be made to that decision, just as references are made to other decisions as we go along. Notwithstanding the fact that there might have been some acrimony, bitterness, or dis taste for what was done inside or outside the Legislature at that particular time, we must bear in mind that that precedent is now established for us.

As we would refer to other precedents, we must also refer to this one, bearing in mind too, sir, that we shouldn't try to reopen the debate. Nevertheless, we should have the opportunity to refer to it and use that for a basis for any discussion or debate we have in the Legislature. MR. SPEAKER: I appreciate the hon. member's re marks. Certainly, to whatever extent that particular rul ing may be of use, as I think I mentioned shortly after it was made, it belongs to the House, and I can't deal with it any further. Of course, I may be confronted with it at some time, but that's not the point.

The point is that that particular ruling or occasion is now being raised, as I understand the hon. Leader of the Opposition, as an example of denial of free speech. That is why I felt it was my duty to lay that to rest, perhaps at some length, to say that that may not be used. It's a debate that is closed, and it may not be used as an example of the denial of free speech. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, I would like your guidance. As I understand the rules, you as the ultimate servant of the House must follow the decisions of the House.

While you chair the proceedings of the House, as an hon. member you must follow the same guidelines as other hon. members, as I look at the rules. That being the case, I would ask you to consider very carefully, sir, the advisability of the statements you've made this afternoon in reopening a subject which you yourself declared closed some days ago. I would say that if you're going to apply the strictures to all hon. members of the House, the person who must beyond any shadow apply those strictures absolutely scrupulously to himself must be the Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Fair enough. I have to agree.

But I also have to say that when a matter of that kind is raised again, as I thought it would not be, I must deal with it, and I have dealt with it. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order with regard to the rules. I was cut short in terms of where I was going in my debate, but my intent was to indicate that whatever happens in the House becomes precedent. There was an incident, which I started to describe, that at that point in time we felt limited some of our ability as members of the Legislature. I still have concern about it being a precedent, Mr.

Speaker, but I certainly wasn't going to use this forum to make my case or my change. I have another avenue through which I wish to do that at a later date. I'm not going to reopen that argument at this point and certainly will stick to the agenda. Mr. Speaker, clarifying what I felt this motion means to members of the Legislature, to me it certainly means I am restricted in the ability to represent my constituency and Albertans. That's the principle being violated by the motion presented to this Legislature.

It's the principle that will be violated by this large government, all these Conservative members who sit here, as they vote for it today, tomorrow, or whenever the vote comes before us in this Legislative Assembly. The point I was going to make when I referred to the incidents of a couple of weeks ago related to the incident before us at the present time is that the precedent we set in this Legislature lives with us from this day on. Mr. Speaker, the hon.

House leader on the Conservative side of the House has indicated to his colleagues, to other members of this Legislature, that it's all right to restrict freedom of speech in this Legislature, to restrict the rights of members. Why? Because they do it in the House of Commons. There are only 25 days of debate on supply. That's the House of Commons; that's not Alberta. The hon. member talked about Saskatchewan and the rule there that restricts a member from speaking more than once. That's Saskatchewan; that's not Alberta.

That doesn't say anything about the tradition and the rights of members in the Alberta Legislature. We're different, and I know that in this Legislature we treat things differently. We treat things independently. We can make our own decisions of how we want the democratic process to work. I think that should be a tribute to us in Alberta, not a condemnation. I think it's very unfortunate that the House leader was able to say that. He went on to say that in Westminster, the supply estimates are discussed for only 29 days; the Mother of Parliament should set an example for us. Well, they do Mr. Speaker.

In some of my remarks later this afternoon, I'm going to point out where there are some great examples with regard to the birth of freedom of speech, the beginning of free speech in this land of ours, a heritage we continue to nurture in this Legislature. It all started with the Mother of Parlia ment in England, the British Isles. We can be proud of that because we are benefiting from that today. Albertans are benefiting because of that precedent, because of the difference. Mr.

Speaker, there is no argument that says we must follow the style of other legislative jurisdictions when we are enabling and facilitating the democratic process in Alberta. Nothing says we have to follow it. We in this Legislature are a senior court. We are a senior adminis trative body in the province of Alberta, which means we can establish our ground rules. We do that, Mr. Speaker.

That's why each member follows Standing Orders of the Legislative Assembly, which we support by Beauchesne, Erskine May, and other authorities, so we can fulfil and accomplish in this Legislature the business of govern ment, the public affairs of this province. Mr. Speaker, today we're coming to a point where this government is again saying to Albertans: when you send your member to the Legislative Assembly of Alberta, his speech, his ability to ask questions, his ability to give direction to government is going to be curtailed.

We are now attempting to set a precedent that is the most unfortunate precedent ever to be set in Alberta. One of the senior administrators of this province, Mr. Manning, was asked a few days ago if he had ever heard of closure or any thought of closure in this Legislative Assembly. The answer was a very clear no. Well, here we have it. In 1981, the province of Alberta is not allowing greater freedom of speech but is taking actions to restrict the freedom of speech before us. Mr. Speaker, I think that is unforgivable and should not be accepted in this Legisla tive Assembly.

For 18.5 years, I've come to this Legisla ture with the opportunity — hopefully, with the ability — to ask questions, give direction to government, and serve the people I represent. I can't do that under the kinds of

December 7, 1981 ALBERTA HANSARD 2085 restrictive rules this government is going to impose upon me and my colleagues on this side of the Legislature. What is the real focus of this debate, and why is the government concerned? Mr. Speaker, I think it's very clear. The government wants to avoid scrutiny of the spending of this government, the Heritage Savings Trust Fund, $8.5 billion; a budget in this province of $6 billion, the highest expenditure per capita of any province in Canada: a tremendous responsibility for government. That's a lot of money.

Here we are in this Legislature saying we should be doing other things: going on our holiday, getting ready for our Christmas break, preparing for whatever in January, not remembering the primary responsibility we have when we come to this Legislature; that is, to scrutinize, to investigate the responsibilities before us. The one responsibility that is added to Alberta legislators is scrutinizing the Heritage Savings Trust Fund. That's a bigger responsibility than other legisla tures in Canada have today. But we ask the question, why doesn't the government want us to scrutinize the Heritage Savings Trust Fund?

Why can't we look at all the details? Why can't we have management letters? Why can't we find out why $60 million has been lost by bond invest ment? Where's the documentation? What management procedures are put in place to prevent that from happen ing again? Mr. Speaker, none of that information has been pre sented to us in this Legislature. If we had't had a leaked document — which the hon. House leader took very lightly today, feeling that he had to have a leaked document to be part of the company of this Legislative Assembly.

If some responsible citizen hadn't provided background information to us, most likely we would have passed by this situation. We would have adjourned three weeks ago. The government would have felt it was re sponsible. We would have thought we had done our job, but we haven't yet. That's why we intend to stand up in this Legislature to speak and to press the government for information, accountability, and responsibility. If they haven't anything to hide, Mr. Speaker, the government can provide all that documentation.

There is no reason why we cannot have information with regard to the trader's notes that lost the $60 million. There is no reason why this government cannot tell us what manage ment procedures are in place. There are no reasons why this government can't present to us in this Legislature the management letters we have been demanding. That would make public business be done in public. That's what we're demanding. We're saying that's the important thing. What has this government done to us? How have they reacted today?

They are bringing down closure and say ing: look, we're not going to give you that material, you little opposition; go away, go home, because you're not going to get it; but if you're going to stand up there and ask questions and try to be responsible, the way we're going to get rid of you is give you a little backhand and push you aside. That's what this closure motion does, Mr. Speaker. It gives us a backhand.

Send us home and say, don't ask questions, little boy, because it's not your responsibility to do that; we're going to look after the affairs of this government in Alberta; Behind closed doors, we will invest and spend $8.5 billion, plus another $6 billion. The Premier stood up in a most arrogant fashion today when the question was asked, are we going to know about the agreements with Alsands and the investments in the north? Will we know something about the details? Will we have a right to approve it in this Legislature?

Like a little backhand, the answer is, no, I'm not going to let you guys have any say in this. It's not your money. That money belongs to the Conservative party of Alberta. It's the Premier's money, not the people of Alberta, not the citizens of Alberta. It's not the 2 million people who have a share in the Heritage Savings Trust Fund who really own the natural resources of this province. It's the Premier and a few members of cabinet who make the decisions. The rest of us take the backhand. The back hand is all we get. Is that responsibility, Mr. Speaker? There is no way that's responsibility.

The responsibility of the democratic process means that all members of the Legislature are involved in decision-making. [Mr. Crawford left the Chamber] The hon. House leader wants to go out and have a press conference. I know he doesn't want to sit in here and hear the truth. Most likely somebody out there has a TV camera, so he can tell his side of the story. [interjec tions], so the people will know the truth when this great man comes out of the House, this great House leader walks out of the House and tells the real side of the story. The story is always from one side, not two.

The Premier says, we are responsible for the Heritage Savings Trust Fund; trust us. That's a bunch of nonsense. When you can't get the information and see the informa tion documented, how can you trust them? I think that's nonsense. The people of Alberta are going to be asking that question shortly. Do I really have any involvement in the Heritage Savings Trust Fund? Our surveys show they feel they have no involvement in the Heritage Savings Trust Fund. They don't know what the benefits are. The other day in the Legislature, I raised the 15 per cent loans for small business men and farmers.

The government couldn't even understand that question. They said, we give that money to Hydro-Quebec, and we made that decision in cabinet. But our small business men and farmers, who are facing bankruptcy in many situations, don't count. They're not going to stay around Alberta too long, so maybe it doesn't matter. That's the kind of treatment this government gives the people of Alberta.

The closure resolution we're talking about is the kind of treatment given to this Legislative Assembly, the treat ment given to the opposition, because it says, just get out of here boys because you don't need the answers; we're responsible and we're looking after things. Mr. Speaker, that kind of attitude can lead to the breakdown of government, lead to somebody replacing these people who feel they have all the answers. Historic ally in Alberta, that's what happened.

Unfortunately, that kind of attitude might have been presented in 1971 by a government, the members of the government, and their cabinet, that they really weren't listening to the people. They got replaced. The Social Credit replaced the UFA government. I read the history on that. The very same kind of attitude was there. They thought they knew all the answers for the people. The only thing is that Social Credit took from 1935 to 1971 maybe to portray that kind of an attitude. I say "maybe" because I'm not quite convinced of that.

This government and that kind of callous attitude towards public responsibility has been in place for 10 years. Mr. Speaker, that's really not good enough. I think this government can do a lot better. When there is such a small opposition on this side of the House, such a large government, I think there has to be greater tolerance involved in the democratic process. We in the opposition

2086 ALBERTA HANSARD December 7, 1981 feel we have a responsibility for accountability and to ask many, many questions. I remember opposition leader Peter Lougheed standing in this spot saying the very same thing about 12 years ago: we have to stand on this side of the Legislature and ask questions, and we're going to ask questions till we get all the information. Mr. Speaker, that's what we're doing today. We are doing exactly the same thing. If the sequence of events occurs, we're going to be on that side of the House and they're going to be on this side.

The arrogance is there, the callous attitude towards the public, the resistance to questions being asked. I think the setting will change. Why do I feel this motion is not necessary? There are a number of reasons. We on this side of the House have been very responsible since the inception of our question ing, since the inception of the debate on the Heritage Savings Trust Fund. First of all, the focus of this issue came to light by a memo from the Auditor General to the Deputy Provincial Treasurer.

As we all recall, that memo was the concern that lit the fire and found that this government wasn't doing a responsible job in accounting for the Heritage Savings Trust Fund. I'd just like to refresh our memory with those words so that we know why we should be concerned in this Legis lature, and is one reason it isn't necessary to bring in closure, but it is necessary to bring answers into this Legislature. I'd like to quote from page 2 of that memo, which I tabled in this Legislature a few days ago.

I think any Albertan who read this paragraph would be con cerned and upset if we in the opposition did not ask questions and did not pursue not only the loss of the $60 million but the use of investment money by this govern ment in other areas. I'd like to read that

section for our memory. This is the Auditor General to the Deputy Provincial Treasurer: It would appear that traders should be in a position to explain the rationale for purchases and sales transactions long after the event and should be able to provide information on the results of their activi ties to senior investment management. There is con siderable [and that's a very key word] scope for collusion between an investment trader employed by the Treasury Department and someone in . . . the brokerage houses, which could result in fraud. Mr.

Speaker, if that didn't excite anyone in this Legisla ture, raise concerns, I think we'd all be very irresponsible. As we all recognize, over the past weeks the government has taken a very callous attitude towards that very state ment. But that's why we're here in this Legislature. We are administering the public affairs of this province. When a statement like this is made by the Auditor General, that means we must look into every nook and cranny. We must look not only into the investment divi sion of the Heritage Savings Trust fund, but into the investments to other provinces.

We must look into the investments in the capital projects, under the Alberta division: all over the place, Mr. Speaker. We must seek to find the answers. I would think that Conservative backbenchers on that side of the House feel that no corruption, fraud, or collu sion could happen. They go home and say, everything's great in good old Alberta. They're fooling themselves, because any organization that deals with the billions of dollars we deal with in the Heritage Savings Trust Fund can create temptation for one of the employees, hopefully not the employer.

Temptation is there, and fraud and collusion could happen. If we don't investigate and dig into the details, we're irresponsible. We should also realize this: the Heritage Savings Trust Fund is still in its infancy stage in Alberta. It is not a program that's been here for a number of years. When the Social Credit government lost in 1971, there was $300 million . . . MR. JOHNSTON: Not in cash. MR. R. SPEAKER: Not all in cash — that's accurate. The same as the Heritage Savings Trust Fund, with cer tain investment amounts, some to the municipalities and various allocations across the province.

The Auditor's report of that time will show that there was $300 million. Mr. Speaker, the point is that the patterns, the invest ments, the handling of that amount of either cash or investments as it could be classed at that time, or borrow ings, had followed traditional patterns of checks and balances. For years and years, it had been administered and looked after. The Heritage Savings Trust Fund, though, follows a different format. That should cause us concern. New players, new people, a new organization, and maybe an inadequate organization, are involved.

I cite two examples: one, the Treasury Department did not have adequate management procedures in place to have the movement of the bond market documented in a responsible manner. That's pointed out in the report. Another good example in terms of the Department of Hospitals and Medical Care and the Walter C. Macken zie centre: there we had a loss or a mishandling of funds. Change orders were found in a desk drawer of one of the employees over there; a change order that was going to impose greater expenditure from the Heritage Savings Trust Fund. Mr.

Speaker, we found that administrative procedures were not in place. Let's take another example: Kananaskis. When we started our discussion of Kananas kis a few years ago, the amount of money — I don't recall the original sum — was $40 or $50 million. Now we're up over $200 million. At that time, a good administrative procedure that documented the things that were going to happen in the Kananaskis was not in place. There was inefficiency in administration. Those were only three pro grams where we happened to find some inadequacies. It may not be the responsibilities or fault of the ministers in charge.

Maybe it was the fault of some of the senior administrative officials. But someone had not put his finger on good management procedures and said, look, we are investing millions and billions of dollars on behalf of Albertans, and we haven't good management proce dures in place. There were three. Well, Mr. Speaker, when we see something like this written in an Auditor General's report — and it was not in a public report. That's what concerns us. That's why we're saying, through Bills and various procedures, that all these documents should be in the Legislature for our information as members of the Legislature.

We're saying there could be other examples in other departments. Who knows if all the administrative responsibilities are taken in the Department of Environment? Who knows whether all the management procedures are in place in the minis try of workers' compensation to look after that $1 million of research going on? Do we really know whether or not they're there? We haven't been able to ask those kinds of questions yet. The hon. minister hasn't been able to tell us about all the administrative procedures in place to assure that there is accountability.

In the Department of Educa tion, who knows whether all the administrative proce dures are in place so that accountability can occur? We

December 7, 1981 ALBERTA HANSARD 2087 don't know that, Mr. Speaker. If we don't have two options before us — being able to ask questions as long as necessary and to speak on the subjects as long as necessary — then we can't do our job. Closure, which is the result here today, prohibits us from taking a respon sible position and doing a responsible job in this Legisla ture. That's unfortunate. What other reasons are there that this motion is not necessary? We have made requests in this Legislature.

In numerous question periods, I have asked the Provincial Treasurer whether the three management documents could be tabled; that's number one. Number two is: when the $60 million was lost, whether there could be a window, whether those traders' notes could be placed in this Legislature, or any other kind of evidence that would indicate the background of why the $60 million was lost. We also asked for the management procedures to be presented in this Legislature. They weren't, with the rea son that if we allowed these kinds of things to become public, the integrity of the system would be lost. Well, Mr.

Speaker, the only thing that would really be lost is that the government wouldn't have confidential informa tion. Information would be presented to the Legislature to know that responsibility had taken place. If the gov ernment had presented that information in a responsible manner four or five weeks ago, this motion today would not have been necessary. The government chose to take a very dug-in position, to say no, the opposition doesn't need it, and they didn't give it to us. So it is the fault of the government that we're at the stage we are today, but it's a reason for this motion not to be necessary.

What else? Bill 258 was another option we presented in this Legislature. We said that all management letters in the future could be presented to this Legislature so that the Auditor General, on making any observations, could present those observations to either the select committee or the members of this Assembly, so that we could make responsible decisions. With that amendment to The Audi tor General Act, all management letters would have come before this Assembly. Most business could have been done in public.

If they had been able to support Bill 258 at that time, that would have been a feather in the government's hat. The point I make is that that was an option to government by which they could have avoided a situation where they feel very strongly they had to bring in a motion of closure. Mr. Speaker, who's really responsible for bringing in this motion for closure? I know the government over there would like to blame the opposition and say that because we're asking questions we're keeping the Conser vatives here too long, that the only way they can get rid of us is to bring down closure.

That's partly right, but the fact of the matter is that if the government was responsi ble, had taken some responsible actions in presenting information to this Legislature, they would not have required a motion of closure at this point in time. I can only say that the fault and the responsibility for this motion totally lies with the government and not the opposition. One act of the government which they thought may be accepted by members of the opposition was the letter presented to the Legislature by the Premier which indi cated that they would refer this matter to the Auditor General for a special report.

Mr. Speaker, that sounds very good, that the Auditor General will review the matter and write a letter back to members of the Legisla ture saying, all is well. But in my questions to the Premier I said very directly, does that mean that the documenta tion of the loss will be presented to us? Does it mean that management procedures put in place will be presented to us? Does it mean that any management letters will come to us? There's no guarantee of that in the Premier's letter and in the Premier's remarks.

We may be in the same position we're in at the present time: a lack of informa tion as to what is really happening with the Heritage Savings Trust Fund. I think we have to be concerned with that. The Premier put forward a letter which was supposedly a way of getting rid of the opposition and giving us that backhand, saying to us that the Auditor General is looking after it; don't worry about it fellows, everything's okay. I'm sure the Auditor General will do a very responsible job.

But I think the thrust of our debate and our concern has to be to have good and documented information about the actual situation, not general im pressions or attitudes about a certain happening. Mr.

Speaker, this letter that was presented here to this Legislature by the Premier as something as a token offer to us in the opposition to call off our long debate, call off our filibuster, is not good enough, because it doesn't show in any way that the government really wants to do public business in public, that the government really wants to give information to this Legislature so that informed and accurate debate can occur. So we don't accept that.

That's why today we tabled in this Legisla ture a letter which is a little more specific, requiring the Auditor General, hopefully with the support of the Pre mier and this government, to require more in-depth kind of information rather than general observations. To me and to my colleagues, that's very, very significant and important. What is the other reason this motion is not necessary at this point in time? Mr. Speaker, the supply we are discussing in this Legislature does not become invested or directed into various programs until after March 31, 1982.

That means there is no reason we couldn't debate this matter until March 31, 1982. We could have ad journed the Assembly over the Christmas break. The Auditor General's report could have been made available to us in January. Debate on supply and on Bill 69 could have continued, because neither one requires approval or assent until March 31, 1982.

The people of Alberta would have been impressed by this government if they would have said to them, look, we're an open government; we want to provide information to the opposition; we don't have to pass the legislation or the supply until into 1982; we're going to take some time and are going to discuss it in a responsible manner; we're going to allow the opposi tion to ask as many responsible questions as it can. But that option was not even considered by the government.

The government said, we must get rid of that opposition, get them out of our hair; maybe they're getting too much publicity, saying too many things; we're going to give them the backhand and send them home. That's what the government is going to do. So this week that's the big reward we get for our work in the Legislature: closure, the backhand, and off home we go. Well, we're not going to lay down and fight. We think this debate must be told to the public. We think the public of Alberta wants to hear how the members of the opposition are treated, that there really isn't consideration for the democratic process.

Those were some options the government had, Mr. Speaker. They could have given us documents in this Legislature. They could have given us a promise that management letters would be presented to the Legislature in the future. They could have answered our questions in question period. They could have held off the vote that is

2088 ALBERTA HANSARD December 7, 1981 being demanded during this week until March 31, 1982. Those are very easy, very responsible, and legal things the government could do. There is no law that prevents the government from doing any one of those things. I want to refer very quickly to the legal document I presented to this Legislature, which shows very clearly by legal opinion that the management letters could have been presented in this Legislature. What concerns me about that is that I gave a legal opinion, presented a neutral, non-partisan as far as I'm concerned, opinion in this Legislature.

On the other hand, the government didn't have the courtesy to even having someone in their department review the document, nor did they have the courtesy to hire their own legal advice to give an opinion on the other side. The steps were very clear. The Provin cial Treasurer said, it doesn't matter; we don't have to give a legal opinion; we've got a big majority on that side of the House; we don't want to give you the documents; we're not going to give them to you; we're going to outvote you, so who cares about a legal opinion.

I think a man of the legal fraternity giving that opinion is rather a condemnation of the fraternity that hopefully the hon. member respects considerably. That's all we got, but it's the type of attitude that's presented by this government towards opposition. It's a type of attitude that says don't worry, we'll look after the job; you fellows stay on your side of the House, vote for us, follow us, and then go home. Mr. Speaker, as I've said, that's not good enough.

We've given the options to government to provide: responsibility, to provide us with documents so we could do our job and this motion of closure would not have been necessary. But that was an option the government didn't want to take. I said earlier in my remarks that I wanted to talk about the historic rights of members of Parliament and of the Legislature to freedom of speech, which I feel are being eroded and damaged by this motion of closure.

First of all, if we look at an historic sketch with regard to freedom of speech, we find that the word "parliament" first appeared in the English language in the 13th century. That's a long time ago, Mr. Speaker. We find the word is derived from French "parlement", which means deep speech. I think that is very meaningful to us in this Legislature: parliament, meaning deep speech. What that really means is it allows members of the Legislature and of Parliament to speak, to ask questions, and to take their responsibility.

We look further and find that Anglo- Saxon chronicles tell of William the Conqueror having very deep speech with his witan or great council. The precedent for freedom of speech, the right to speak out and give your point of view was set even in the time of the councils of William the Conqueror. We look back to the year 1275; the Statute of Westminster referred to the king's great council as the parliament. Inherent in the name "parliament" is therefore the right or privilege of deep speech. Mr. Speaker, this implies depth and thoroughness in discussion.

We as an opposition are trying in the best way we can, in spite of this government which has clearly shown a disregard for any meaningful discussion by invoking closure on us in this Legislature, to preserve this long-established tradition of deep speech. Freedom of speech is essential to the independence of a parliament, a legislature, and certainly for the protection of members in the discharge of their responsibilities.

As well, the impor tance of this privilege is entrenched in the Bill of Rights of 1689, which states: That freedom of speech, and debates or proceedings in Parliament, ought not to be impeached or ques tioned . . . That's what we're talking about today. The right to freedom of speech, the right to question your govern ment, was allowed and protected back in the 13th cen tury. Mr. Speaker, we note what is certainly happening today.

I'd like to follow with quotes from Erskine May, Par liamentary Practice, 18th Edition, and some background that I think are relevant to the debate today, pointing out that there are privileges enjoyed by custom and statute. One of those privileges is freedom of speech. Some privileges rest solely upon the law and cus tom of Parliament, while others have been defined by statute. Upon these grounds alone all privileges whatever are founded. The Lords have enjoyed them, simply because "they have place and voice in Parlia ment" . . . . . .

At the commencement of every Parliament it has been the custom for the Speaker, "In the name, and on behalf of the Commons, to lay claim by humble petition to their ancient and undoubted rights and privileges; particularly to freedom of speech in debate, freedom from arrest, freedom of access to Her Majesty whenever occasion shall require . . ." In other words, freedom to have access to government. ". . . and that the most favourable construction should be placed upon all their proceedings." Mr. Speaker, it says that all opportunity should be given to members for freedom of speech.

That freedom of speech should be protected in the proceedings of a legisla ture or the House of Commons. The Lord Chancellor replies to the Speaker's peti tion that . . . And I read as follows, which is relevant to our freedom of speech: "Her Majesty most readily confirms all the rights and privileges which have ever been granted to or conferred upon the Commons, by Her Majesty or any of her royal predecessors". The practice of claiming these privileges developed gradually. Mr. Speaker, the right to freedom of speech is rooted there, in the long tradition and custom of Parliament.

Hopefully, it can endure in this Legislature. When did that right begin? I read from Erskine May: In 1536, there is a definite demand of access to the Crown, in 1541 comes the demand for freedom of speech . . . Mr. Speaker, that's a demand for freedom of speech by Speaker Moyle back in 1541. . . . and in 1554 the three claims of freedom from arrest, freedom of speech, and of access, were made together. By the end of the sixteenth century the practice seems to have become regular. Mr. Speaker, I think that is very noteworthy: by the end of the 16th century, the concept of freedom of speech became regular.

Where are we today? What century are we in today? A lot of time has passed. That was an agreed format, an agreed custom, an agreed practice in the House of Commons and in the legislatures in the 16th century. What's happening today in this Legislature? After all those years, a custom that has worked well is now going to be eroded by this government. It's not acceptable in the province of Alberta. What else does Erskine May say about the privilege of freedom of speech? I refer to

Chapter VI. The topic

December 7, 1981 ALBERTA HANSARD 2089 Necessity of Freedom of Speech makes the point in terms of necessity. Freedom of speech is a privilege essential to every free council or legislature. Just a flat statement: "a privilege essential to every free council or legislature". Mr. Speaker, on that basis I think we should accept that principle. One, it's a long-time custom; two, Erskine May says it's basic to a free council or legislature. He goes on to say: ". . . The members must be as free as the houses;

an Act of Parliament cannot disturb the state; therefore the debate that tends to it cannot; for it must be propounded and debated before it can be enacted". It says that you must be able to discuss the item with all ability, with all information, hopefully with all intelli gence, with all information from your constituents, and as fully as possible before it can be enacted. I think that's the intent of this Legislature.

If it is the intent and has been the historic intent, supported by one of the great authorities in terms of parliamentary procedure and prac tice, then I think we should adhere to it in this Legislature. Erskine May goes on to say: This important privilege has been recognized and confirmed as part of the law of the land. Mr. Speaker, as far as this author is concerned, it's the recognized law of the land, the law that should be accept ed. There should be no way that a government with a large majority should be able to take away the freedom of speech or rights of a member of the Legislature.

It's an important privilege that has been recognized and con firmed as part of the law of the land, accepted by all legislatures, not to be ignored. Erskine May goes on to say: "There could be no assured government by the people, or any part of the people, unless their repre sentatives had unquestioned possession of this privi lege. . . ." Mr. Speaker, "unquestioned possession" of the right to speak. The best authority with regard to parliamentary practice tells us this in this Legislature.

If the government is going to bring down this motion of closure, they have violated a custom, an accepted procedure, and a right that is needed by representatives as an unquestioned possession. I think that is most unfortu nate, because we in Alberta can be different. We can lead in parliamentary procedures and show that there's a greater amount of freedom of speech in this Legislature than there may be in any other parliament of the Commonwealth. I think we can be proud of that. Mr.

Speaker, as the president of the Speakers of Canada, you would be able to take that to the various legislatures, not only in Canada but to other legislatures, and say we have some special rules we're very proud of: we have protected to the nth degree the right of freedom of speech; there has been no erosion in our Legislature. That would be a great day, when the Speaker of our Legislature, without hesita tion or any doubt, could go to any other parliament or any other meeting where our Speaker is representative of this Assembly and be able to make that statement. It's a very proud statement.

There may be times, and it seems as if the government feels this is the time, when closure is necessary. But I would recommend to the government that it should reconsider the move it has made, in light of the responsibility and the possibility of infringing on basic rights of members in this Legislature. Here one of our best authorities, that we all adhere to in this Legisla ture, tells us we shouldn't be doing what we're doing today. Mr. Speaker, that's unfortunate.

I'd like to quote another quote from Erskine May that only supports the dropping of this motion of closure and supports the concept of the greatest amount of freedom of speech that's available to a member of this Legislature. This is from a book by White on the English constitution, page 440. He says: "He would have been a bold King indeed who had attempted to stop discussion in the House of Lords". Mr. Speaker, it talks about the king stopping discussion in the House of Lords.

In the same context of this Legislature, I don't think there's any minister, back bencher, or anyone else who would want to really stop discussion, but we have the motion of closure that will do just that. Mr. Speaker, Erskine May goes on to point out that there is statutory recognition of the privilege of freedom of speech, not only custom but statutory recognition: This recognition by law of the privilege of freedom of speech received final statutory confirmation after the Revolution of 1688. By the 9th

Article of the Bill of Rights, it was declared "That the freedom of speech, and debates or proceedings in Parliament, ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament." The right of freedom of speech was put into law. Mr. Speaker, we as members of this Legislature have a duty to maintain that privilege.

Erskine May points that out in his book, saying that: The Speaker, having claimed and statutory recog nition having been granted to the privilege of free dom of speech, it becomes the duty of each Member to refrain from any course of action prejudicial to the privilege which he enjoys. Mr.

Speaker, I think that statement places the responsi bility not only on each individual member of this Legisla ture to maintain the freedom of speech in that Legisla ture, but it places responsibility on the Premier as the chief administrator of this province, on the House leader, and on any other cabinet minister to refrain from any course of action prejudicial to the privilege which he enjoys or which a Legislative Assembly enjoys. Mr.

Speaker, as far as I'm concerned, it's conclusive that the right to freedom of speech was given to us in this Legislature, a right that we should not take lightly or erode by a quick motion of closure so the Conservative Party can get out of this Legislature and go home for the Christmas break. The reason is not good enough. The trade-off is unbelievable. We are trading off rights of members in this Legislature for the right to go home and have the Christmas break. Mr. Speaker, that's not good enough.

If the government could point out to us that there is some pressing business outside this Legislature, so that we should trade off our debate and our right of speech for that pressing business, then maybe they would have a case. But in the House leader's opening remarks, there was no indication, not one indication, of the urgen cy of stopping this debate and the urgency of trading off the right to our freedom of speech and to interrogate the government.

There was not one reason to trade off this great, historic principle; a custom, a law passed in 1688 and given to us in this Legislature as a privilege and a right. This government, in a backhanded manner, in a very quick motion of the hand, will say to future legisla tors that you don't need that privilege and we're going to take it away by the precedent we're setting in the closure motion. Mr. Speaker, that is a very, very unfortunate and irre

2090 ALBERTA HANSARD December 7, 1981 sponsible situation. It's not a responsible course of action. It is a selfish course of action, where each member on that side of the House is thinking about their holidays, their break for Christmas, and other things they're going to do. I don't know of any pressing ministerial responsi bilities. They're going to trade that off for, this privilege that we have enjoyed for years and years in this Alberta Legislature. How can we vote for a thing like that, Mr. Speaker? It's unacceptable.

When a person took on the responsibility to be an elected member of the Legislature, they took a responsi bility to be in this Legislature for day and night on end if necessary, to debate topics of concern to Albertans, the priority topics of our constituents. That's why we're supposed to be here, Mr. Speaker. If we want to leave the Legislature, there's an easy process. I don't say this in any negative way, but my hon. colleague felt he had other responsibilities and took the course of action he wished to take. That was a very responsible way to handle the matter.

Others here could take exactly the same course of action if they so desired. Nobody is stopping them. Everybody can make that independent decision. If they feel that there are other urgent matters outside this Legis lature in the next two weeks, in the next two and a half months, that are more important than the accountability of the Heritage Savings Trust Fund, the accountability for billions of dollars, the accountability for the needs of Albertans — and there are some needs out there.

Alber- tan farmers are facing very difficult problems ahead, not totally recognized by this government because they're looking at themselves too much. There are small business men faced by very difficult problems in terms of interest costs, medical people who are concerned about their income and whether they can really earn a reasonable living in this province, and people in Cold Lake, Fort McMurray, and Bonnyville who really do not know what their future is, whether they should stick with their in vestments and lose more money, whether the government is with them or not.

There are problems out there in good old Alberta that are not being recognized by the members of this Legisla ture, particularly on the Conservative side of the House. They're willing to say, let's ignore those things. Let's just close up the House and go home and self-indulge, that that's a better action, and kind of forget Albertans as a whole. Mr. Speaker, that's really not good enough. They can do better than that. They were elected to be responsible. Every once in a while, just to refresh my memory I take out a little pamphlet that I carry around, "What Do We Stand For?

All the great promises are in that little document, a million and one little promises. They were going to do all things for all Albertans; all forgotten. When they gained the seat of power, after making these promises, Albertans were forgotten. Albertans were no longer part of govern ment. If you read this little document that was sent out to impress all Albertans, it sounds like they're going to do some great things, that they're going to be responsible in their government management, that they're going to be really concerned about Albertans. I quote a couple of things that look very interesting.

For example, "The pub lic has a right to know" and "We believe that public laws should be made in public" — number one items. Mr. Speaker, the persons on the other side of this House couldn't care less where the laws are made. If they really believe they should be made in public, let's with draw the motion of closure, take it out of this Assembly and put it in the back rooms where it should be. It deserves no place in this Legislature.

If any backbencher, any Conservative, really believes in what the Premier told Albertans — that we believe public laws should be made in public; the public has a right to know — there is no way that your conscience can allow you to vote for the motion before you. There is no way because if you believe those two tenets, you believe in staying in this Legislature and taking your responsibility. But if you believe that that was just a statement and who cares, we have a lot of votes and we're going to buy some votes again the next election and fool the people in Alberta, then vote for the motion.

I'll be able to tell some of your predecessors and people who follow you in other legislatures that the day you lost freedom of speech was the day that your prede cessor, your uncle, or whoever it was who was in the Legislature at that time, didn't have the courage to stand up and fight for freedom of speech or the basic tenet of the Conservative Party, that public laws should be made in public. They had no courage at all.

When this vote is taken, the people across the floor who vote for it can certainly hang their heads, because they haven't done themselves, their constituents, or any future legislature to follow a favor. As I pointed out in my debate, the history of freedom of speech is clear. By custom and by law it was our right and our privilege to have it in this Legisla ture. It is now being eroded. The next area I would like to talk about is closure itself: the use of closure, the impact of closure, and what it's done for Canada and other places it was used. How do people feel about it?

When we look at the history of closure, we have to look at one of the early Acts of Canada,

an Act to incorporate the Canadian National Railway. As we all recall, there were many hours of debate and concern about the treatment taken at that point in time. As I recall the debate from my reading, the concern was over whether clauses two and three of the Act could be passed after clauses four and five. There was some significance in the Act that indicated that was the procedure the government wanted to take. The opposi tion fought the matter until closure was brought down. The opposition fought for a long period of time. The government said, we don't want to hear any more of this.

The opposition said, you're gagging us as government. They used that term even in those days. Finally the government brought closure down, the Act went through, and we lived with that situation. I'm certain it didn't benefit the CNR any. One of the concerns at that time was expenditures, the money men of Toronto, the wast ing of funds, and the government wouldn't listen to any of those arguments. Mr. Speaker, the CNR really hasn't fulfilled its obligation even yet.

Maybe a little more debate at that point in time, without closure, could have set better financial and and administrative ground rules for the Canadian National Railway in Canada. Maybe we wouldn't have the situation we have today with VIA Rail. Who knows? Closure had impact on the passage of that legislation. I feel that there was inadequate debate that had long-term ramifications. The second one we could look at, Mr. Speaker, was the Naval Aid Bill in 1912 and 1913. It was actually the real use of closure in Canada. It was introduced by the Conservatives on December 5, 1912, for a money grant of $35 million.

The Prime Minister, Borden, had the House rule No. 17 amended to define circumstances and proce dures for applying the rules of closure on that date. He gave his reasons for introducing closure as follows:

December 7, 1981 ALBERTA HANSARD 2091 "The present position of the House is painful to its credit and incompatible with the performance of its inherent functions. When obstruction reaches the point of destroying Parliamentary Government it must be arrested, condemned, and banished," he argued. "Liberty of speech ought to be preserved: but, as Mr. Gladstone said, it must be prevented from descending into frivolity and license." Mr.

Speaker, I thought that could have been one of the reasons the government might have advanced at this point in time with regard to closure, that potentially we were obstructing the process of the Legislature. I don't think that was really what the filibuster has done, as we in this Legislature can well recognize. We haven't been destroying parliamentary government. I feel that the right to speak freely thus far has not resulted in any frivolity and licence, but in responsible and necessary questions. The Leader of the Opposition at that time had a response to closure.

I would like to echo that response with regard to the government's concern about closure and obstruction. Laurier's response said: "The poison he offers us to-day will come to his own lips at some future day; we are in the minority; we can be gagged [that could apply to us] we can be prevented from expressing our opinions; they can trample upon our rights. But, Sir, the day of reckon ing will come and it comes as soon as we have a dissolution of the present Parliament." Mr. Speaker, maybe that's what has to happen in this situation.

If we're going to be gagged, if we can't have freedom of speech, maybe what we need is a dissolution of the Legislature. We go to the polls and ask the people about the right of freedom of speech. I wonder what they would say out on the hustings if we gave various ex amples from this Legislature, which we can list very easi ly, where the opposition has not gotten information, where the government hides many, many documents that should be presented in this Legislature — if we were to tell Albertans that that's the way it is in their Alberta Legislature. I would have to say, Mr.

Speaker, that there are many Albertans today who really believe and under stand the difficulty in getting information from this gov ernment and making representation to this government. In that debate, we find not only Mr. Laurier respond ing but Mr. Oliver as well. I think he echoes some of the same concerns. This is Mr.

Oliver speaking to the House of Commons on May 8: It was not until my right hon. friend and his follo wers undertook to manage the business of this House by physical force . . . by physical force, by establish ing an endurance test in which they failed, that there was any unwillingness shown on the part of this side of the House to come to an arrangement as to taking the vote. Since that time my right hon. friend has seen fit to ignore the precedent of Canadian Parlia ments, and on the strength of his majority . . . That's th

Document details

Collection	Alberta — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	19811207
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	L19 S3 19811207 1430 01 han.pdf
Language	en
Format	json
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	356d7a1522855922cdbbc090579e4d53b67414ee

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