May 5, 1980 ALBERTA HANSARD 733 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA Title: Monday, May 5, 1980 2:30 p.m. [The House met at 2:30 p.m.] PRAYERS [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] head: INTRODUCTION OF BILLS Bill 221 The Adoptee's Origins Act MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce private member's Bill No. 221, The Adoptee's Origins Act. Very briefly, The Adoptee's Origins Act would allow adopted children, by going through a special process, to obtain information on their natural parents, upon mutual agreement. [Leave granted; Bill 221 read a first time] head: TABLING RETURNS AND REPORTS DR. WEBBER: Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to table the 1979 annual report for Alberta Government Telephones. MR. KROEGER: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to table the '78-79 annual report of Alberta Transportation. head: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS MR. MUSGREAVE: Mr. Speaker, today I would like to introduce to you, and through you to the Members of the Legislative Assembly, over 125 students from Colonel Ir­ vine school, grades 7 and 8, situated in Calgary Mc¬ Knight, one of the fastest growing constituencies in the province.

I would also like to mention that some of these students reside in Calgary Foothills, which is a neighbor­ ing constituency of mine, represented by the hon. minister Mr. McCrae. I believe these students are primarily in the public gallery, but some may be in the members gallery. I would ask them now to stand and receive the applause of the House. head: ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Quebec Referendum MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct the first question today to the Premier, and ask what the involve­ ment of the province of Alberta will be between now and the date of the referendum in the province of Quebec.

We're now within two weeks of the referendum, or close to that. What involvement, if any, will there be in the referendum by officials of the Alberta government be­ tween now and the date? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, as I believe I have said on a number of occasions, it's been the view and the strategy of the provincial government that the views with regard to this issue be communicated over the course of a number of months, and not within the intensity and to some extent emotional atmosphere that now exists, quite naturally, within the province of Quebec.

It's been our judgment that the best approach for us to take is to be part of the communiques — which have been tabled in this Legislature — with regard to sovereignty association which arose from the recently concluded western pre­ miers' conference in Lethbridge, where the four western premiers took a united and common position on the issues. In addition to that, specifically, I was in the province of Quebec in early March and had an extensive news con­ ference after a lengthy visit in Montreal with the leader, I believe is the appropriate phrase, of the "no" forces — that is, Mr.

Claude Ryan — and at that time dealt with a number of matters that were of interest to him in terms of the Alberta position on issues arising from the referen­ dum. As I made evident when I was in Montreal in March at the time of the press conference, and as dis­ cussed with Mr. Ryan, it was his view that there was probably not a position where we could be more helpful during the course of the referendum debate, other than a strong position from the western premiers' conference.

He was specifically asked that question in the news confer­ ence, and he responded on the basis that he didn't see a role being played during the course of the referendum, unless some of the issues that developed in the referen­ dum involved such matters as energy. It was then left between Mr. Ryan and myself for him to get in touch with me in the event he felt there was some way I could participate that would be constructive during the course of the referendum debate. To this stage, I have not heard from him. MR. R. CLARK: Mr.

Speaker, a supplementary question either to the Premier or to the Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs. What kind of monitoring is the province of Alberta doing as far as the referendum itself is concerned? I realize one thing is to be actively involved in the campaign, but obviously — and it's somewhat hypothetical, Mr. Speaker — the day after the referendum, if the "yes" people have won, it will be incumbent upon Alberta, as on all other provinces in Canada, to respond in a manner that will be very clearly thought out before.

My question to the Premier or to the Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs centres on the kind of monitoring or contingency plans that Alberta either has developed or is in the process of developing, leading up to what we hope will be a "no" vote. But we must be prepared for both possibilities. MR. LOUGHEED: Mr.

Speaker, perhaps the Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs may respond to the monitoring, but really all that can be monitored at this stage are the ongoing discussions, attempting to as­ certain whether there are any issues that might specifical­ ly arise in the course of the referendum debate, such as issues of energy, that need to be responded to in Alberta by the government of Alberta. As I said, that has not arisen. The monitoring is of course the monitoring all citizens are doing, relative to public opinion polls and other views that are expressed with regard to the referen­ dum debate.

734 ALBERTA HANSARD May 5, 1980 As for the question the hon. leader raises as to contin­ gency plans as to positions of the government of Alberta when the results are known on May 20, I think those questions were clearly answered during the Lethbridge conference, when we had a number of news conferences and were specifically asked questions of that nature. In other words, we were asked specifically what would be the position of the western provinces in the event of a "yes" vote, and with regard to a "no" vote. Now if the hon.

Leader of the Opposition wishes me to elaborate on what I said at that time, I'd be pleased to do so. Hog Marketing MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct the second question to the Minister of Agriculture, and ask the same kind of question I've asked on several other occasions in the Assembly. What progress is the govern­ ment of Alberta making towards a stop-loss program as far as hog producers of the province are concerned? MR. SCHMIDT: Mr. Speaker, having replied to the hon.

Leader of the Opposition of the interest indeed of the province in the short-term problem that exists in the hog marketing position in this province, we have been monitoring the activities, both price and numbers, with regard to the producers. Of course the announcement today by Agriculture Canada, and the issuance under the Agricultural Stabilization Act of a subsidization of about $4.07 a hog, which will be available to all eligible produc­ ers within the province, is one bearing, and certainly one of the aspects we will have to consider.

But the monitor­ ing of the problem that exists with regard to the industry here is still ongoing and under review at the present time. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, to the minister. Mr. Minister, the term now being used is "ongoing monitor­ ing by the government". Does that mean that the gov­ ernment has now ruled out the possibility of a stop-loss program such as that which was committed at Red Deer to the producers by yourself, Mr. Minister? MR. SCHMIDT: Mr. Speaker, the commitment made to the industry to look at a short-term commitment with regard to the industry still stands.

The monitoring and review of the actual prices as they exist from day to day and, indeed, of the cost factors involved for the industry across the province are of course of prime concern and part of the program that one must consider. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, to the minister. Mr. Minister, is this government still committed to doing something in the short-term future for hog producers in this province, of a nature which was outlined at Red Deer to the producers there some three weeks ago?

The reason I pose the question is that there is now getting to be a feeling out there, rightly or wrongly, that there's some backing off from what I took to be a very firm commit­ ment made in Red Deer that evening by yourself, Mr. Minister. MR. SCHMIDT: Mr. Speaker, the commitment that was made to the hog industry in this province, both short- term and long-term, recognizing the needs in the future — the commitment made to review the short-term prob­ lem that exists in this province is a commitment that we're still looking at and still honor. Forest Fires MR. NOTLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'd like to direct this question to the hon. Minister of Energy and Natural Resources. In light of the serious forest fire situa­ tion in much of the province, is the minister in a position to advise the Assembly this afternoon how many fires are now actively being fought and how many are being left on their own at this stage? MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I'm not aware of any fires that are not being fought. So far as I'm aware, action is being taken in an effort to bring under control all fires burning in the province. MR. NOTLEY: Supplementary question to the hon. min­ ister.

Is the minister in a position to outline to the Assembly what steps, if any, the government has been able to take to deal with reported manpower shortages as far as fighting forest fires in the province is concerned at this time? MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, with respect to manpower available for fighting fires, I'd have to check the actual number we have in the forests at the moment as com­ pared with other years, including last year when we had a very serious fire situation.

I'm sure there will be a short­ age, in the sense that when you have a severe fire situa­ tion, you would wish to have more people than you're actually able to put into the field at any particular time. But apart from expressing the shortage in that sense, I wouldn't want to concur in the hon. member's suggestion that we had a shortage of fire-fighting personnel. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. minister.

Is the minister in a position to advise the Assembly what steps have been taken to consult with both the Saskatchewan and Northwest Territories gov­ ernments, and to co-ordinate activities? MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I wouldn't be able to give the details of that. I will make inquiries and provide them to the House at a later date. I know there is considerable liaison between our government and the governments of the areas adjacent to Alberta to ensure an exchange of equipment and things of that nature, to have the most effective fire control system we can have in these areas.

But I will get the actual details and report to the House at a later date. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. minister. Is the minister able to advise the Assembly what considerations led the government to re­ duce the budget for fire operations from $13.2 million last year to $4.2 million this year? MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry the hon. member appears not to have been in the House when this item was going through Committee of Supply. I assume he is refer­ ring to the funds that were available for forest fire- fighting operations.

If that is correct, and had he been present, he would have learned that we normally provide funds for fire-fighting by picking a number that we think is reasonable and putting that in the estimates, because obviously it's impossible to forecast what expenditures we may need to incur fighting forest fires in any given year. In the event that that number is not adequate, we provide additional funds for fire-fighting services. The larger

May 5, 1980 ALBERTA HANSARD 735 number that shows up in the forecast in the estimates will of course include what was originally in the estimates for that year, plus the funds that were provided by special warrant. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. minister.

What steps has the government taken, either through training by professional foresters or otherwise, to safeguard those people who are now se­ conded in fighting fires, so that we don't have a situation similar to the tragedy in Ontario last summer where a number of young people fighting forest fires became vic­ tims of a forest fire themselves? What steps has the government taken with respect to training so that those people seconded are not injured? MR.

SPEAKER: I would have to leave it to the hon. minister, of course, to be aware of which of these ques­ tions refer to matters already covered in discussion of the estimates. If there are such matters, perhaps the hon. member would like to refer to Hansard before asking further questions on the topic. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I don't think there's any question about that matter being brought up in the estimates. So I would put to the minister whether there has been any training, or what assessment has been made, in view of the rather unfortu­ nate tragedy in the province of Ontario last year.

MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that that question is difficult to answer within the constraints of the question period, because it really involves a review of the forestry training operations and all the protective measures the forestry service takes in respect of personnel who are fighting fires. If there's a particular element of detail that the hon. member wishes, if he could be more specific in his question, I'd certainly be happy to provide that information for him. MR. NOTLEY: My question, Mr.

Speaker, to the hon. minister is: have there been any special training proce­ dures for people who are in fact seconded to fight forest fires? MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I don't know that there are any special training procedures in those instances. My memory of the procedure, and my understanding, is that they are normally placed under the direction of ex­ perienced fire-fighting personnel to ensure that undue risks are not taken. But again, I'll check on that, and amplify my answer if the facts warrant it. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, just one final supplementa­ ry question to the associate minister.

What steps will the department be taking to assess the impact of the present widespread fires on the income and livelihood of trappers in northern Alberta? Will there be any particular move to undertake an appraisal of the impact of the fires? MR. MILLER: Mr. Speaker, undoubtedly the fires in some of these areas will have a definite impact on the wildlife habitat. I should point out that, although it is a devastating thing when we have a forest fire, there are some advantages in the long term. The regrowth will stimulate the production of game over a period of time.

But in the short term, there will definitely be some serious dislocation of the trappers. For those who are directly affected, we will be looking at other areas where we might be able to give them trap line rights. University Programs — Quotas MR. HIEBERT: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the hon. Minister of Advanced Education and Man­ power.

In light of the increased funding for the universi­ ties under the spring budget of Advanced Education and Manpower, and the concern expressed by the Alberta chartered accountants last year, could the minister advise the House of the position of the University of Alberta on the possible expansion of quotas in the Faculty of Busi­ ness Administration and Commerce? MR. HORSMAN: Mr.

Speaker, the information I had just recently was that at the last regular meeting of the board of governors of the University of Alberta, they allocated the resources made available to them, including a substantial increase to the Faculty of Business Adminis­ tration and Commerce which will permit them to expand their quota by, I believe, 75 students in their first year, which is a fairly substantial increase. MRS. EMBURY: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. A concern was also expressed in the Faculty of Nursing at the University of Alberta regarding the post- basic nursing degree program.

Could the minister please indicate if there has been an expansion in the number of spaces in that program? MR. HORSMAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It's my understand­ ing as well that that program, which we had reviewed previously, will be doubled to meet the requests advanced to me last year by the Alberta Association of Registered Nurses, as well as by the Faculty of Nursing to the board of governors at the university. So there will now be 144 places in that program. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. Minister of Advanced Education and Man­ power.

Will the minister indicate to the Assembly if, as a result of the increased financing for commerce and for nursing, the University of Alberta will be able to take the large bulk of students who have high enough academic accomplishments to go into those two faculties? Or in fact will there still be a sizable number of students in nursing and commerce who will not be able to get into those faculties this year? MR. HORSMAN: Mr. Speaker, requests from the various faculties to the board of governors for quotas are of course based upon a number of factors, not only on the number of students applying to get in.

In fact, it is well known that many students apply to many universi­ ties in order to obtain admission to one or the other. That tends to distort the number of students applying to the faculties. But with regard to nursing in particular, the amount that has been allocated by the board, as I understand, will meet the requests of the Faculty of Nursing with respect to their assessment of the number of students who are required or could logically go into that program.

As to the Faculty of Business Administration and Commerce, I couldn't answer the question whether that will meet entirely the number of requests for expansion that have been put before the board by the faculty itself. But it certainly will be a major step forward.

736 ALBERTA HANSARD May 5, 1980 MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, one further supplementa­ ry question to the minister. Mr. Minister, would it be possible to indicate to the Assembly what progress we're making in the Faculty of Engineering at the University of Alberta in once again meeting the demands from the faculty and the valid requests for admission into that faculty from Alberta students who have the academic accomplishments? MR. HORSMAN: Of course that particular faculty has a number of parts; some programs are overextended and some are undersubscribed.

I think I would have to take the question as notice in order to determine the level of quotas within the Faculty of Engineering at the Universi­ ty of Alberta. MRS. FYFE: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the Minister of Advanced Education and Manpower could advise the Assembly if the increase in quotas in these two faculties will mean that there is a genera! reduction in quotas in other faculties at the University of Alberta? MR. HORSMAN: No, Mr. Speaker.

If I understood the question correctly, I would suggest that the increase in quotas in the individual faculties will not impact signifi­ cantly on any other faculty. I hope I got the question correctly. MRS. FYFE: Just a supplementary. Recognizing that the University of Alberta does have global funding, I wanted to be sure that these increases did not have a significant impact on other faculties. I think the question was an­ swered. Thank you. MR. HORSMAN: Mr. Speaker, if I could just make certain that my answer is as clear as the question now is.

These additional numbers of students who will be ad­ mitted to the quota faculties came about as a result of increased funding over and above the global funding, as a result of requests received to expand in the professional faculties. That amount of $810,000 in this year's budget provides for those additional spaces. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, one further question to the minister. Mr.

Minister, when the decision was made to add the $810,000 that applied to the faculties the minister just mentioned, was there an agreement between the universities and the Alberta government that in fact this is where the money would be spent, or was it left to the universities to determine in which faculties they would increase the enrolment? MR. HORSMAN: Mr. Speaker, it was left to the univer­ sity to make the allocations to the professional faculties of their choice. However, they had made it clear that they were requesting funding from the government for profes­ sional faculty enrolment expansion.

Treasury Branch Loans MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Provincial Treasurer is with regard to loans and interest rates at the treasury branches. When a new customer comes to the bank, I wonder if the minister could indicate whether the customer must bring all his accounts to the treasury branch to be dealt with; in other words, transfer to the treasury branch prior to getting a new loan or making financial arrangements with the treasury institution? MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, I suppose it would depend on the individual circumstance, and the number and range of accounts of the possible new customer.

I'll have to look into that in more detail and get back to the hon. member. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary ques­ tion to the minister with regard to interest rates. Will it be the continued policy of the treasury branches to have the interest rates track the national prime rate? MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, at the moment and over past months, in order to provide assistance to those who have been suffering the most difficulty, particularly farm­ ers and small businessmen, there has been a preferred rate, approximately 0.5 per cent under the prime rate of the banks. That will continue for the time being.

MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a final supplementary to the minister. Could the minister indicate, as informa­ tion, the policy of the treasury branches where a loan is being made and the customer understands that the rate of interest will be 0.5 per cent less than prime, but in the contract drawn up between the customer and the bank, the bank rate indicated is above the prime rate rather than below, as was the policy just indicated by the minister. MR. HYNDMAN: I'll have to check on that and report back. I'll be happy to do so, Mr. Speaker. Rapeseed Moisture Levels MR. BORSTAD: Mr.

Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Agriculture. The Canadian Grain Commis­ sion's decision to lower the accepted level of moisture content in rapeseed from 10.5 to 10 per cent will have a costly impact on our growers. Has the minister made representation to the Grain Commission to have this rul­ ing rescinded? MR. SCHMIDT: Mr.

Speaker, in light of safeguarding the storage of rapeseed, the Canadian Grain Commission of course has instituted the drop from 10.5 to 10 — it's my understanding that will be done in stages to the 10 — and over the period ahead is trying to arrive eventually at a 9 per cent moisture content factor. In meeting with the representatives of the rapeseed growers, they felt they could possibly live with the 10 per cent, but felt that any lowering beyond that would make it very, very difficult and indeed add to the initial costs of the product itself.

They made their submission, and we as a government agreed and supported their approach that any change from 10.5 to 10 should be guarded. Indeed, from 10 to 9 was almost impossible from the producer's point of view, and we gave them that assurance and support. 75th Anniversary — Pins and Medallions DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the hon. Minister of Government Services, responsible for the 75th Anniversary pin program. Can the minister indicate the reason for the shortage of plastic and metal pins? The constituents and Albertans seem to be demanding them,

May 5, 1980 ALBERTA HANSARD 737 but there seems to be a shortage. Can the minister indi­ cate what the problem is? MR. McCRAE: Mr. Speaker, I think it's just a question of such high demand. There's so much enthusiasm for the pins that they're being given out at a tremendous rate. MR. NOTLEY: Pretty weak answer. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, the supplier of the pins is, I believe, in eastern Canada. Can the minister indicate what correspondence or communication he has had with the supplier in eastern Canada to ascertain when the full quota of pins will be delivered to Alberta? MR. McCRAE: Mr.

Speaker, could I take that under advisement and report back. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, when the minister's looking for that information, maybe he could indicate if the pins are made in Canada. Mr. Speaker, I have another question to the minister. Can the minister indicate if the medallions will be minted in Alberta at Sherritt Gordon Mines? Will the gold and silver medallions be minted here in the province? MR. McCRAE: Mr. Speaker, very much so. They will be minted at the Sherritt Gordon plant here. On the last question about the pins being made in Canada: yes, very much so. DR. BUCK: Mr.

Speaker, then maybe the minister can check with the commissioner, because that's the informa­ tion given to us. If the minister looks closely, I think he'll see they're made in Taiwan. Can the minister indicate if that is a fact? MR. McCRAE: Mr. Speaker, as I've said, I will inquire and report back. I won't contradict the member, for a moment at least. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, to the minister, on the gold medallion program. Can the minister indicate if the gold has already been bought for the gold medallions? MR. NOTLEY: It was bought when it was at the highest. MR. McCRAE: Mr.

Speaker, I appreciate the member's interest in the purchases of gold. Suffice to say that we will purchase enough gold that there will be enough to make the medallions we are expecting to mint. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, did the minister say "will" or "has"? MR. McCRAE: Mr. Speaker, I think I indicated some days back that some 70,000 questionnaires or forms went out. They have not all been returned yet, although there has been a great and a good response. So we're still trying to determine the exact, or close to the exact, number required.

We are purchasing enough gold to mint what we believe will be the required number of medallions. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, can the minister indicate if the dies and the design have already been done for the medallion? MR. McCRAE: Mr. Speaker, the design is under way right now, I believe. I don't really know what stage it is at at the mint. But it is being done and will be available about September 1, we think, for delivery to the excited and expectant recipients. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, to the minister. Can the minis­ ter indicate if the medallions will be ready to be presented after September 1?

I'd just like to know from the minis­ ter: does "about" mean this year, next year, the 15th, the 1st? MR. NOTLEY: They're going to have it for the 100th anniversary. MR. McCRAE: Well, Mr. Speaker, what I tried to indi­ cate is that we believe the medallions will be ready on September 1. They're being done by a private firm. We have plenty of assurances that they should be available, but if their plant blows up or something, we don't abso­ lutely guarantee it. We simply say that is our reasonable expectation. Delivery will be about September 1. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the hon. minister. MR.

MAGEE: Mr. Speaker . . . MR. SPEAKER: I believe we still have another supple­ mentary on this tour of a manufacturing process that we've been going through. [laughter] MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. Minister of Government Services. What con­ siderations led the government to the conclusion that it should be September 1 — on, or about, or you believe we'll have them ready by September 1, hopefully. Why was September 1 chosen as opposed to January 1, so that presentations could have been made throughout the cele­ brations that are taking place this year? DR.

BUCK: Because they weren't ready. MR. McCRAE: Well, Mr. Speaker, I guess that's the kind of judgment that has to be made. September 1 was the date on which the province became a province, and it seemed to us to be a very auspicious day to present the medallions or have them delivered. I can't think of a better day. The hon. member suggested January 1; I presume he meant 1980. That would have made it very difficult to do any great deal of planning in terms of the different programs we had available for the 75th. Nurses' Strike — Costs MR. MAGEE: Mr.

Speaker, my question is directed the Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care. Now that the nurses are back to work and the hospitals have resumed normal operations, could the minister elaborate on some of the expenses associated with this strike? I'm referring specifically to the persons who had to be moved from the hospitals that were struck to places like Calgary and Edmonton. MR. SPEAKER: With great respect to the hon. member, it would seem to me that that kind of information would best be sought by means of the Order Paper.

738 ALBERTA HANSARD May 5, 1980 Construction Industry — Labor Negotiations MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a ques­ tion to the Minister of Labour. As in all likelihood tomorrow will be Tuesday, and that's the day that . . . [laughter] On a more serious note, that's the date that a number of people in the construction industry in the province may be facing very serious labor problems. I ask the minister if he would report to the Assembly on what progress has been made in the course of those negotia­ tions over the weekend so that, hopefully, we'll be able to avoid a work stoppage. MR. YOUNG: Mr.

Speaker, to the hon. Leader of the Opposition. Tomorrow will be Tuesday, according to the calendars supplied to us. Mr. Speaker, with respect to the collective bargaining progress in the construction industry, there have been discussions for some period of time, as I had indicated. Those discussions continue today, negotiations at a me­ diation level. Beyond that, I am reluctant to indicate what progress has been made. I would only say that some progress has been made.

I remain cautiously optimistic, but because of the nature of the discussions, I do not think it in the public interest to disclose the particular positions of the parties at the present time. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister: is the deadline that has been imposed by both groups still Tuesday? MR. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, I could indicate that one deadline passed last Friday. One deadline is tomorrow morning. There are some other deadlines later this week. MR. R. CLARK: One last supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, to the minister.

Last week in answering a ques­ tion in the House, I believe the minister indicated that the major question at hand was, in fact, wages. Without trying to impinge upon the progress of negotiations, have the matters other than dollars been resolved? MR. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, I indicated last week that, to the best of my information, there were very few items left on the table other than wages. I stand by that statement today. MR. R. CLARK: Mr.

Speaker, has the minister been able to get an assurance from the contractors' association — that isn't the exact name for the organization — that there will in fact be no lockout? MR. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, there's no way in the world that I would ask one party or the other to make a commitment that would be binding upon them, and would interfere with the collective bargaining process in the way that a request of that nature would certainly do to the Alberta Construction Labour Relations Association. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, to the minister.

There's been no discussion at the ministerial level with the Alber­ ta Construction Labour Relations Association about the deadline they've set as far as a lockout is concerned? MR. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, both parties in this series of disputes are quite well aware of their respective positions and the strategies they've been following.

Last fall, with the presence of government staff as a third party to the table, both parties agreed upon a procedure for bargain­ ing this spring which hopefully would see a conclusion of collective bargaining by the termination of the collective agreements, which occurred last Wednesday, with one exception. Mr. Speaker, while they are modifying their positions somewhat in that agreement, they seem to be doing it with an understanding, which I could perhaps charac­ terize as a gentlemen's agreement, which moves along slowly on the part of both sides.

They are abiding by that agreement as best they can, without precipitating a crisis which I think neither party wishes. Given that situation, I think they are conducting a most responsible set of nego­ tiations, and I believe both sides of the bargaining table wish to have their negotiations completed at the earliest possible date, without a work stoppage. Alfalfa Processing Plant — Boyle MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, if I may direct a question to either the hon. Minister of Agriculture or the hon. Minister of Tourism and Small Business. It concerns Boyle Forage Processors Ltd., which has encountered some difficulty.

Is either hon. minister able to report to the Legislature whether there has been a resolution of the problems encountered by that company, and whether it will in fact be operating this summer? MR. ADAIR: Mr. Speaker, I'll start that question; the Minister of Agriculture may want to supplement it. The Boyle alfalfa processing plant was placed in receivership some time in March, mid-March I believe, the idea being that they would possibly be able to get a new set of owners to take in this crop year. The deadline for appli­ cants to the receiver was April 30. MR.

NOTLEY: A supplementary question to the hon. minister. In view of the April 30 deadline, has the minis­ ter had an opportunity to review this with the receiver to determine whether the government is in a position to advise the Assembly whether the plant will in fact remain open this year? MR. ADAIR: Mr. Speaker, not at this particular moment. I've been in touch with the receiver, who's looking over the applications, talking to the people in­ volved, and will be getting back to us as quickly as he can. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. minister.

It's my understanding that the conditions of the request for bids were with respect to two options, either a sale of the plant in total or a dismantling of it. Is the minister in a position to advise the Assembly whether a wholesale dismantling of the plant and moving it to other places was in fact one of the options? MR. ADAIR: Not at this time, Mr. Speaker. I under­ stand that they are looking at the options of opening the plant and operating it with one of the applicants, if successful, as an operation whole and in the community of Boyle. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. minister.

Is the minister in a position to advise

May 5, 1980 ALBERTA HANSARD 739 the Assembly what instructions have been given to the receiver with respect to the outstanding AOC and ADC loans? Will they have to be discharged before money owing local people will be paid, or has the government, in fact, made any decision with respect to the priority, as it were, of AOC and ADC money owing? MR. ADAIR: Mr. Speaker, I would have to take that question as notice. I can't give the actual position of — I assume you're speaking of the sharecroppers, in essence — those who had accounts payable from alfalfa that was provided to the plant.

In talking with AOC, my under­ standing was that first of all, they had the obligations to their particular loan and to ADC's loan, and should the settlement be sufficient, they would then possibly be able to look at some payment for those growers. But I'm not sure which position it was, first or second. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question then, if I may, to the hon. Minister of Agriculture with respect to ADC involvement, as I understand it. Is the hon.

Minister of Agriculture able to advise the Assembly whether there has been any judgment at this stage as to the priority, whether money owed to farmers who con­ tracted to the plant will have to await total discharging of the loans to ADC and AOC? MR. SCHMIDT: Mr.

Speaker, with regard to the inter­ est shown, first, by the department and, of course, the financial interest by the Agricultural Development Cor­ poration, we have indicated our interest to the receiver in dealing with the Alberta Opportunity Company: first of all, interests on behalf of the producers themselves and, secondly, an interest in the plant itself collectively, in the

part it plays within the community and also the

part it plays in part of the agricultural production. It's too early at this time, but to assure the hon. member that we're interested in reviewing before any disposition is made of the plant itself — an opportunity on behalf of ADC and of the Department of Agriculture to review and view the interests of both the producer and the future of the plant. MR. NOTLEY: Just one final supplementary question to either hon. gentleman. At this stage, has the government developed any time line for evaluating the bids made, I gather, by April 30? They're in now.

At this stage, do we have at least an unofficial time line as to when a decision will be made about the future of this operation? MR. ADAIR: Mr. Speaker, I might respond to that. I've instructed AOC and the receiver to get back to us at the earliest possible moment. MR. APPLEBY: A supplementary question, Mr. Speak­ er. I wonder if the hon. Minister of Tourism and Small Business has had any representations from the alfalfa growers themselves regarding their concern about the future of the plant? MR. ADAIR: Mr.

Speaker, I've had a number of repre­ sentations from some of the alfalfa growers, from two of the members of the board of directors, and from the MLA for Athabasca. 75th Anniversary — Pins and Medallions (continued) Mr. McCRAE: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might supple­ ment an answer I gave a moment back, to say that the plastic pins are made in Mississauga, Ontario. If I could also respond to the question about why the medallions might be given out on the September 1 weekend, really I was digging too deeply for a good answer. The simple answer is: what better day to celebrate a birthday than the birthday? DR.

BUCK: Mr. Speaker, to the hon. Minister of Gov­ ernment Services. Can the hon. minister indicate where the metal pins are made? The Taiwan pins, does he . . . MR. McCRAE: Mr. Speaker, I didn't understand that he was talking about the metal pins. Certainly we will review that and advise him in due course. MR. KOZIAK: Walt, those are the instructions. DR. BUCK: It's so small you can't read "Taiwan" on the back. ORDERS OF THE DAY MR. SPEAKER: May the hon. Minister of Environment revert to Introduction of Special Guests? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. head: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS (reversion) MR.

COOKSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's a real pleasure this afternoon to introduce a large group of young people from the James S. McCormick school in my constituency. They have with them Mrs. Thompson, Mr. Damant, and Mrs. McLaughlan. It's a pleasure to introduce a distinguished gentleman by the name of Char­ lie Webber, who happens to be very closely related to the hon. Associate Minister of Telephones, the Hon. Neil Webber. I would ask that they rise and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. head: GOVERNMENT MOTIONS II. Moved by Mr. Hyndman:

Be it resolved that the messages of His Honour the Honour­ able the Lieutenant-Governor, the Supplementary Estimates (A), and all matters connected therewith, be referred to the Committee of Supply. [Motion carried] head: Committee of Supply [Mr. Appleby in the Chair] MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Committee of Supply please come to order. Department of Social Services and Community Health MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Chairman, as I recall our discussion on Wednesday of last week, we had begun to review this

740 ALBERTA HANSARD May 5, 1980 question of ministerial responsibility. I might just review some of the arguments presented. We have the hon. minister saying on page 687 of Hansard: Very clearly, Mr. Chairman, we go back to the basic point on ministerial responsibility, from my point of view: separation between policy and admin­ istrative matters. That, of course, is an interesting view of ministerial responsibility, but frankly one which is not consistent with any of the precedents I've been able to uncover. Mr.

Chairman, so that we can debate this matter — because I think this is clearly the most important question that has to be addressed before we come to the minister's salary — one has to look not only at what is happening in this province but put it in the context of our parliamen­ tary system. In 1977, Mr. Chairman, the federal government re­ leased a green paper. It made a number of comments on this business of ministerial responsibility.

I'd just like to read some of those comments into the record, because I think they are crucial: If advisers are to remain anonymous and pro­ tected, those who take decisions must bear the brunt of public scrutiny and public responsibility. Since a major function of democratic political institutions is to ensure accountability, the focal point for exercis­ ing control is through ministerial function. Ministers are accountable for their decisions — to Parliament and to the public. Public servants are accountable in the first instance to Ministers.

Ministerial responsibility implies, very simply, the answerability of Ministers to Parliament for the ac­ tions by them or by public servants responsible to them. It is this convention or doctrine which pro­ vides the basis for the questioning and criticism of Ministers which is undertaken by their parliamentary colleagues. This convention ensures the systematic and general calling to account of the government for its administrative actions and executive decisions. Mr. Chairman, it says: ". . . for its administrative actions and executive decisions".

Now the minister is attempting to tell the committee that there is a distinction between policy and administration. But when one looks at the federal precedent, it's very clear: ". . . for its administra­ tive actions and executive decisions". That's the federal government, Mr. Chairman. If we look back over some of the things that have been said in this House, members may recall the debate that occurred in the Assembly in 1975. There had been an investigation into the operation of the Department of Agriculture.

At that time, the then Minister of Agricul­ ture said — and this is on pages 1212 and 1213 of Han­ sard in 1975: "I accept the accountability for any actions I took . . ." I would argue that ministerial responsibility indeed goes somewhat beyond the bounds of just being responsible for general policy decisions and not administration. Mr. Chairman, if we look at the British parliamentary tradition — I've done a little research in that, and I'll table any of this that members find of value.

The follow­ ing quotes are from Some Problems of the Constitution, by Geoffrey Marshall and Graeme Moodie, professor of politics, University of York: Ministers, it is said, are responsible to Parliament as individuals for the work of their departments and the sanction for mismanagement is the House's demand for the resignation of the Minister. One example cited in this particular study is the resigna­ tion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in Great Britain in 1947, following an improper though trivial disclosure of a budget proposal. Nevertheless, however inadvertent it was, it led to Mr. Dalton's resignation.

Perhaps more relevant and more famous, Mr. Chair­ man, was the Crichel Downs affair, in 1954. There, some improper methods were used by the Department of Agri­ culture in Great Britain in acquiring public lands. There was no question about the minister being culpable in any way. There was no question about the minister knowing the event took place; he didn't. Nevertheless, Mr. Chair­ man, the minister took full responsibility in the House of Commons in Great Britain in 1954.

I think this quotation underscores what I mean: The Home Secretary, speaking in the debate after the Minister's resignation, referred to the Minister's duty to "render an account of his stewardship", and Sir Thomas himself said: "I have told the House of the action which has been taken . . . to make a recurrence of the present case impossible. . . Having now had this opportunity of rendering account to Par­ liament of the actions which I thought fit to take, I have, as the Minister responsible dur­ ing this period, tendered my resignation to the Prime Minister.

While the minister's speech in the House of Commons at the time was a strong defence of his policy, nevertheless, the administrative failing led to his resignation. Sir Ivor Jennings, in his Cabinet Government, speaks of "the responsibility of the Minister for every act done in his department". In the words of Sir Herbert Morrison, one of the famous parliamentarians of Great Britain: "There can be no question whatever that Ministers are responsible for everything that their officers do". The minister "is responsible for every stamp stuck on an envelope". With regard to Crichel Downs, Mr. Morrison took

part in the debate and said that the consequences "may be rather hard on the Minister from time to time"; nevertheless he must "accept responsibility as if the act were his own". Mr. Chairman, in the Crichel Downs case, the one area where British parliamentarians agreed there should per­ haps be a waiver of the question of ministerial responsi­ bility would be if a public servant deliberately disobeyed an order of the minister. Mr. Chairman, as I look at the events we are questioning at this time, I see no evidence at all of a deliberate act of disobedience on the part of any public servant. Mr.

Chairman, in reviewing the precedents of the Canadian government and of the Mother of Parliaments, I just have to come to the conclusion that there is absolutely no precedent at all for this interesting distinc­ tion that everything that is policy the minister will take the credit for, but when it comes to administration, we'll shuffle that off onto someone else. Mr. Chairman, as I look over Hansard on page 687, I had outlined four areas that I thought basically required the buck's stopping at the minister's desk. The first is any deficiency in policies.

If the minister is going to stand up and say, I take responsibility for policy matters, then if there is a deficiency in that policy, surely the minister must accept responsibility. Now, in his argument, the minister said: Saskatchewan doesn't have an assured income for the severely handicapped . . . . So under that crite­ rion, I suppose [the minister in Saskatchewan] should resign.

May 5, 1980 ALBERTA HANSARD 741 Well, that's not really the point. That's side-stepping the issue entirely. If there's no denticare program in Alberta, I'm not going to stand up and say the minister should resign. But if there are problems with the denticare program in Saskatchewan, then members of the House have every reason — as Conservative members in the House have had reason — to stand up in the Saskatche­ wan Legislature and call the minister to account. The crucial point is that somebody, Mr. Minister, has to take responsibility when things go wrong with the policy.

If there are deficiencies in the policy, if the policy is inadequate, then the responsibility must rest at the minister's desk. Surely he can't shuffle that off on the public servants of the province or the professionals, and say to the professional organization — the Alberta social workers, the Alberta Medical Association, the College of Physicians and Surgeons, or whatever — you're to blame. No, Mr. Chairman. If there are deficiencies in policy, it is clearly the responsibility of the government and the min­ ister, beyond any shadow of a doubt, to accept whatever flak comes their way.

The second area is with respect to problems with the budget. The minister says: I guess the question could be asked of my colleague the Minister of Education: what's the proper ratio in the schools? You could ask 10 people and get 10 different views. Or in hospitals: how many nurses do we need per patient? The whole list of things — value judgments. Yes, Mr. Minister; no question about that. Budgeting often comes down to balancing things that people would like to do and making choices, value judgments — some­ times objective, sometimes very subjective.

But clearly the responsibility for those value judgments has to rest with the government and the minister. If there are problems that accrue from budgeting, you can't blame that on the civil servants. You can't blame that on the professional organizations. That again has to be something directly attributable to ministerial responsibility. Then we have the question of errors in communication. I'd raised that because if there's a very serious error in communication, I think that too is something the minister has to be responsible for.

But here's what the minister says: But to suggest that if there's an error in communicat­ ing something from a regional office to the office in Edmonton, it is the minister's responsibility . . . The minister is very upset about that. The policy of how the communication takes place, Mr. Chairman, is very important. The actual com­ munication? An administrative matter. Now, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, in dealing with this issue we are looking at something rather more significant than, you know, just a minor problem in administration.

When the meeting took place on Novem­ ber 16, there was no communication with the minister. When the Hesses finally went to the provincial Ombuds­ man and the director of child welfare was informed, we had an order from that director to every child care facility in the province; we had the decision to appoint the Thompson inquiry. Mr. Chairman, to suggest that no notification of the minister on the 16th was just a minor slip-up — in fact it was a matter of some considerable consequence. How do we know? Because of the actions that were finally taken when the government found out about it.

But they didn't find out about it because of reasonable methods of communication within the department. They found out about it completely by happenstance because a young couple, instead of just letting things stop at the office in Peace River, wrote a letter to the Ombudsman. To his great credit, the Ombudsman said: all right; I'm not going to leave this unattended to; I'm going to refer it to the responsible person in the department. Mr. Chairman, we cannot expect the Ombudsman to be a conduit for information in the Department of Social Services and Community Health. In this particular in­ stance it worked.

But how many times hasn't it worked? When communication doesn't work properly, who's to take responsibility for that? Surely that is a question of policy. In his answers on March 21, the minister talked about the Cavanagh Board of Review. I don't think there's a member of this committee who isn't very, very much in favor of the board of review carrying out vital work. But in all likelihood, you know, that board of review would not even have been appointed had it not been for the fact that the Ombudsman picked up the ball.

Had it been the normal methods of communication in the department, the information wouldn't have come to the director's desk, wouldn't have come to the minister's desk, would not have led to the appointment of the Cavanagh Board of Review. For the minister to say, well, the question of the administration itself, the communication, is an adminis­ trative matter — when that communication breaks down on a matter that is crucial and vital, Mr. Minister, that is your responsibility. That strikes right at the heart of any democratic government's responsibility to the people and to the elected Assembly.

I want to deal with just one other point; that is, the question of a major breach of what one might call public standards. Here the minister slides out of that by saying it's a "catchall" phrase. Well, Mr. Chairman, there are issues and there are issues. But I don't think I need to tell the minister that right across this country and throughout the province of Alberta, the people were outraged that a child had to eat dog food. That's not something which is a matter of conjecture or debate.

It may be among a small number of professionals, but not among the vast majority of the people of Alberta or the people of Canada. No, Mr. Minister, I think that ultimately when one . . . MR. CHAIRMAN: I regret having to interrupt the hon. member. There has been a growing tendency within the committee to by-pass the Chair, and to carry on a direct address to a minister or even to another member. Besides in the committee, this has happened sometimes in the Assembly. It's unfortunate that it's been growing. It seems to be escalating during this session more than ever.

So I would ask all hon. members to address the Chair please. If they're speaking with regard to one of the ministers, please keep in mind that it is not a direct form of address. MR. NOTLEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That's fine; I certainly will direct everything through you. Mr. Chairman, I think the point is simply this: at issue in this debate is ministerial responsibility. However much the minister might like to have this new definition — a definition that is inconsistent with Canadian tradition, inconsistent with British tradition, inconsistent with any kind of logic or common sense . . .

Well, I don't blame him for trying, Mr. Chairman. But for this Assembly to be part and parcel of rewriting the entire system of British parliamentary government so that we have a situation

742 ALBERTA HANSARD May 5, 1980 where the minister can be responsible for every good thing, every announcement that is positive — that's policy and the minister can announce it with a happy, smiling face — but every time there's a problem, that's an administrative matter; no, Mr. Chairman, that simply won't do. It won't do.

In my judgment, as members of this committee we have to get a clear commitment from the government, not just from the Minister of Social Services and Community Health but indeed from all members, that in fact minis­ terial accountability in this Legislature is going to be consistent with ministerial accountability elsewhere in the Commonwealth. Surely we are not so parochial and inward looking that we are going to reject the experience of other jurisdictions. No, Mr. Chairman, and to the minister: very clearly the answers we saw last week in Hansard simply won't do. They simply won't do.

They are inconsistent with our whole system of parliamentary government. I for one certainly have no intention of voting for any appropria­ tion for the minister's salary as long as we have this kind of loose, sloppy definition of ministerial responsibility. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Chairman, since our review last Wednesday and the discussion we had, I'd like to make some comments with regard to ministerial responsibility and some of the communication that I feel has either broken down or maybe misdirected within the Depart­ ment of Social Services and Community Health.

One of the areas that concerned me some was a comment made by the hon. Member for Drayton Valley with regard to the statements and the "telling out of school" of some departmental employees. I recall making the comment at that time that no employees are making statements to us in the opposition or leaking things in the department, and as far as I'm concerned the minister and the deputy minister have the full trust of those employees. Since that time I've had the opportunity of going back and reviewing some of our files, letters, and information.

One of the letters that came from the minister outlines the present policy with regard to the communication through which an MLA, whether in the opposition or, I suppose, as a backbencher in the Conservative Party, must work to deal with the civil servants of the Department of Social Services and Community Health. In the concluding para­ graph of this letter from the minister, the hon. Mr. Bogle, to our office and to our leader, Mr.

Clark, states: It is my intention, therefore, to continue request­ ing that all M.L.A.'s direct their questions to, and requests for information from the Department of Social Services and Community Health in writing through the Office of the Minister, and request your cooperation in this procedure. Mr.

Chairman, what concerns me with regard to a policy such as that is that there is a basic mistrust of the general employees of the department, a mistrust that they will say something to the elected representatives that shouldn't be said, may say something that may be politi­ cally embarrassing to the minister, may give out some kind of information they think is confidential. If we look at the Act administered by the minister for personnel in the government, it states very clearly that any employee of government who deals with confidential information is not allowed under oath to give that information out.

And they know that; it's part of their contract in the civil service. So why should it be screened by the minister, by the deputy minister, by executive assistants, before it comes back to us as MLAs? Mr. Chairman, I just can't understand that. I can only say that it is a symptom of mistrust of the employees of the department. I think it symbolizes something about the communica­ tion system within the Department of Social Services and Community Health. I think that's an item we should discuss here in the Legislature. I don't know of other departments of government that are doing the same thing.

Maybe some other people are aware of it. I've had the opportunity of phoning employees in other depart­ ments, and they have given me the information. If it's consistent across government, I think that says something about this whole government and its policy of mistrust of the people who serve the people of Alberta through the civil service. Mr. Chairman, that's one of the points I wanted to make.

Also in my review since last Wednesday, I looked at some other areas that I felt symbolize this whole lack of communication within the department, or communica­ tion that isn't as healthy as it should be, and I'm sure relate to the whole concept of ministerial responsibility and this division the minister has made between policy making and administrative responsibility. The point we in the opposition want to make here is that the two are interrelated; one goes hand in hand with the other. What are some items I've noted in the last while? Well, let's look at the relationship of the minister and his department, Mr.

Chairman. First of all, the whole Peace River incident. If we look at that historically, we see delays in information coming through to the minister. You ask, why did that happen? If you look at the situa­ tion where mentally ill persons were being incarcerated in the Peace River area, even though mental health officials had been raising the concerns over a period of time and the matter was raised to several MLAs at a legislative event days before it was raised here in the Assembly — and then the minister finally found out. Why is this communication gap in the department?

Another example I noted: the employment opportuni­ ties social workers were asking for more flexibility in policy administration to provide support services for em­ ployable people. This refers specifically to mothers with dependent children and the policy in effect for those persons. What about the lack of communication that I see between the minister and the general community, and some things that I feel have broken down this communi­ cation link that is so necessary? First of all, the MLA joint handicap committee that was in effect for some time has now been disbanded. Why?

I thought it was one of the most objective committees. It had representatives of the NDP, the Socred Party, and the Conservative Party, and we were able to sit down with the minister, deputy ministers, other officials, and jointly discuss the concerns of the handicapped. Well, that's been disbanded. The second area I saw as a negative: a number of women's groups across the province have been calling for more support services for employed single women. They are just not being heard. At the present time, the minister in his responsibility is asking the employed single ladies to go out and get employment.

But during that transition period, they are faced with many difficulties. They are faced with a reduction in their income, a lack of an automobile because they can't buy insurance with the money that's made available to them. In some instances they are faced with the lack of a telephone, and this is not being communicated to the minister as a problem. The situation last Friday with regard to the health care facilities that were announced in southern Alberta: the Association for the Mentally Retarded just didn't feel

May 5, 1980 ALBERTA HANSARD 743 they had communicated their message to the minister, nor had the opportunity to do so. They're very concerned about that. Child care groups in the province feel they have not been consulted in the decision to locate a ju­ venile centre in Strathmore. Why the communication breakdown? The failure to consult some of the child care groups in forming a day care policy: some of the MLAs in the Conservative back bench were asked to go out and find that kind of information. Some of the groups felt they really didn't get a good hearing. Nor did they get a hearing from the minister.

The Mental Health Associa­ tion felt they were not consulted with regard to the appropriateness of the funding formulas for the group homes. Why the breakdown in communication? The last one I had was the failure to introduce amendments to The Dependent Adults Act, which have been presented by various groups including the Associa­ tion for the Mentally Retarded. Again, an example of where they felt communication had broken down. Some­ thing in ministerial responsibility had failed to meet the needs and wishes and to hear the desires of these grass roots groups across the province of Alberta. Mr.

Chairman, those are concerns I have. I think the communication system must work well, must be well oiled, must be open, must be a two-way street, and must be given time to work at all times. We feel that just hasn't happened. I think the minister should be able to explain to us why there have been those shortcomings in his administration. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Chairman, just before the minister responds, there are really three areas that I'd like to touch on in supplementing the comments made by my colleague the Member for Little Bow. I say this with no personal malice to the minister at all but, Mr.

Minister, last week when we started the estimates I was frankly shocked when you indicated to us that you had . . . MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. Leader of the Opposition is having the same difficulty as the Member for Spirit River-Fairview in by-passing the Chair. I would really request that they try to avoid that. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Chairman, I'm quite prepared to abide by that. I know your ruling is accurate. Mr. Chairman, might I simply say this: it's amazing how sometimes the Chair gets involved in that kind of ruling with some ministers and not with others. Now with regard to the question at hand, Mr.

Chair­ man, to the minister. Mr. Minister, last week the minister indicated to the committee that he'd finally sat down with some of his regional directors. When my colleague the Member for Little Bow was the minister responsible, one of the very first things he did was get out and meet with regional directors all across the province. Mr. Minister, what the minister needs to do . . . MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. Leader of the Opposition is still by-passing the Chair. MR. R. CLARK: And I may a few more times this afternoon, too. [interjections] MR. CHAIRMAN: I regret that the hon. leader . . . MR. R.

CLARK: I apologize, sir. But, Mr. Chairman, let me simply say this: in the course of the kind of feeling there is on an issue like this, it's just very difficult always to recognize the Chair when one is trying to make a point to the minister on issues that are basically issues of human decency. So I apologize to you for my comments, but let me . . . MR. CHAIRMAN: I would say to the hon. Leader of the Opposition that I regret he feels it necessary to by-pass the Chair, but I am concerned that this is becoming contagious within this committee.

Other members are picking up that sort of address and, unfortunately, that is not the proper form of address. I would hope that he would try to address his remarks to the Chair. MR. R. CLARK: I will, sir. Now, Mr. Chairman, to the minister. Mr. Minister, what we're talking about here very basically gets down to a matter of human decency. The minister indicated the other day that he had finally got to the stage, some year into the minister's term, where he'd sat down with some of the regional directors across the province. Mr.

Minis­ ter, through the Chairman, I could have much more compassion for the minister, Mr. Chairman, if the minis­ ter had got off his backside and got to Peace River the day after the Ombudsman advised his office of what was going on up there. Or if two days after, Mr. Chairman, the minister had said there would be an investigation, and three days after, if he had axed some of the people who were responsible. Mr.

Chairman, I could have much more compassion for what's going on here today and for the minister if, after the Metis files were raided, two days later the minister had got up and apologized to those people. But last year during the estimates, we had a great wrangle as to whether the minister was responsible and whether this really happened, which was idiotic. We had the discussion here in the House. The Ombudsman went through the investigation, and the Ombudsman told the minister that what we'd been telling him was right. Then, Mr.

Chairman, in a great show of decency the minister sent letters to the various colonies. Now it would seem to me that what the minister has got to do is get out of his office, get away from those advisors in that office, and get out to where the problems are. What took place up in Peace River, the minister should have been there the day after. And he should can the people in his office, who tried to tell the people of Alberta that it was acceptable to feed some people dog food. One of his executive assistants did that.

That's grounds for release as far as I'm concerned, with no disrespect to the individual involved. Mr. Chairman, when we talk about ministerial respon­ sibility, in this case why is it that when serious matters take place, we've always got to drag the minister into an investigation? The government and the people of Alberta — it wasn't the opposition — the people of Alberta forced the government into the Cavanagh review because the minister's office indicated initially there would be no review of what took place up north. Mr.

Chairman, it's this type of total lack of sensitivity in the office that's reflected through in the minister. The third point I want to make, Mr. Chairman, is simply this: last week I asked the minister seriously to consider this question of ministerial responsibility. I even asked that the minister may want to reconsider the matter over the weekend and come back and give us a broader, more complete and thorough definition of ministerial responsibility. Frankly, I was surprised today that the minister didn't expand or certainly develop more fully the explanation of ministerial responsibility as he sees it.

744 ALBERTA HANSARD May 5, 1980 Mr. Chairman, we're concerned about the decorum in this committee, about everyone using the proper termi­ nology in the committee — and that's important. But the basis of this whole system that allows any of us to have the opportunity of sitting here is ministerial responsibili­ ty. Mr. Chairman, for a moment we should perhaps weigh the two, as to whether we use the proper wording in the committee — and I apologize to you for being wrong — as opposed to an issue that I think is far more important; that is, the question of ministerial accountabil­ ity.

When we have a minister who stands here in the House and, to restate what the minister said: the minister has the responsibility for policy, but the day to day administration isn't an area of responsibility. Mr. Chairman, the reason there are the communication problems that my colleague referred to in that depart­ ment is because the senior people in that department, with the greatest of respect, know very well the minister doesn't feel that he is responsible. So they've had to take these things into their own hands.

That's why we have the kind of communication problems that my colleague from Little Bow referred to here today. I just ask the minister once again to rethink his view of ministerial responsibility, which in essence says that the minister is responsible for policy, but really no one is responsible for administration. That really appears to be what's happening in this department. No one is responsi­ ble for administration, Mr. Chairman. I simply can't make the point too often to the Chair­ man and the minister. It's so reminiscent of the debate we had last year, debate that I don't particularly like.

But it isn't a debate just on the Metis files. Now we're on at least the third major issue in the course of less than a year. We get back to this idea that really no one is responsible for the administration of the department. Cer­ tainly that isn't the way other ministers handle the situa­ tion. Mr. Chairman, to you and to the minister: these kinds of problems are going to continue in the future in this department unless the lines of communication of the department are firmly established and the senior people in the department know what is expected of them from the minister. Mr.

Minister, in a department the size of the one you're responsible for, there are going to be problems. That point has been made by the minister, Mr. Chairman; it's been made by others on the government side in defence. I can accept that if in the next day or two these matters are straightened up, dealt with, and steps are taken. But when we see the kind of action we've seen in these three areas, clearly what my colleague from Little Bow said when he talked about communications and ministerial responsibil­ ity just has to be right on.

I urge members of the committee: I know it's easy simply to sit there and not think about what's involved in ministerial responsibility, but if the concept as explained by this minister is accept­ ed by this government, then the administration by 40,000 to 45,000 civil servants in Alberta is not responsible to anyone. That, in essence, is what we're being told by this minister; the minister is not responsible for the administration. Dr. Horner said, in essence, I'll take responsibility for what goes on in my department. We're having a total change from that approach.

And if this approach to ministerial responsibility is to become the norm in Alber­ ta, we will have hit a new low as far as the meaningful¬ ness of this Assembly is concerned, because then minis­ ters will not be responsible in the Assembly for adminis­ tration. No one is responsible for administration. No one. Ministers then become responsible for policy, and no one is responsible for administration. Now any average, fair- thinking Albertan would recognize that in the long term, that will get us into horrendous problems in this prov­ ince. It gnaws away at the whole basis of our system. DR. PAPROSKI: Mr.

Chairman, I rose and spoke on this item of responsibility last Friday. In view of the fact that opposition members have risen again to make comments, I feel it's very important that the citizens of Alberta hear the other side again. At that time I indicated in all sincerity — and I know hon. opposition members feel quite sincerely, as we all do, about the importance of this specific item and the responsibility of the minister to the Legislature and to the citizens of Alberta. There is no doubt in my mind, Mr.

Chairman, that the minister is responsible to account to the Legislature and, through the Legislature, to the citizens of Alberta. He is responsible to explain, and he has done that abundantly clearly. He is responsible to correct, and he's done that. He's responsible to modify, and he's done that. He's responsible to provide programs and policies wherever necessary for people programs, considering his Depart­ ment of Social Services and Community Health, specifi­ cally with respect to child care. He's responsible to cor­ rect deficiencies, if there are deficiencies.

He's doing that now by the review and whatever will come from that review, and act accordingly. Indeed, he's responsible to provide a budget to this Legislature. This Legislature will either vote for or against, augment or decrease that budget, as the case may be. And truly, he's responsible to provide that policy. Surely, Mr. Chairman, what else can one expect from a human being, a minister of any department? Here we have the policies. He's in the House literally every day, in addition to monitoring all the various problems that occur in his department, specifically people programs.

He answers questions, both written and oral. He responds to motions for returns. He doesn't deny these things. If anybody can stand up — and I hope opposition members are listening very carefully — and say the minister has not answered a question on the topic, I would like to hear that. As I recall, the minister has answered every question as adequately as possible under the circumstances. If there was more information, I'm sure he would have given it to the Legislature and to citizens, who are indeed keenly interested and very hurt by this event in the northern regional treatment centre.

The question is very simple, but very important: did the minister sanction such an activity? Well, hon. opposition members heard the answer in this Legislature. I'm sure it was also quoted outside the Legislature in the press. But hon. opposition members obviously want to lose sight of the central point: the minister indicated he did not and does not sanction such an activity. To suggest the minis­ ter did, Mr. Chairman and hon. members of the Legisla­ ture, is at best ludicrous and at worst very silly.

I'm sure the minister will indicate to the Legislature again today that he did not — I repeat, did not — sanction such an activity and would not; I don't believe he would. With respect to the minister not necessarily being an expert in the field of child care — most ministers are not necessari­ ly experts in their fields, and we don't expect them to be under our parliamentary system of government — he still would not sanction such an activity. Yes, Mr. Chairman, we question.

To question the min­ ister, to ask the minister to explain, to ask the minister if he directed such activities, is fair game; it's fair ball, if

May 5, 1980 ALBERTA HANSARD 745 you wish. Indeed, opposition members and some gov­ ernment members have, either privately or in this House. And the answers are there. If he did direct such an activity, I think the answer would be obvious. I challenge opposition members to show that kind of situation. Mr. Chairman, the hon. Member for Spirit River- Fairview raised the Ombudsman. He said he should not be a buffer or a conduit for citizens' concerns. Well, I disagree with him, not a hundred per cent but a hundred and ten per cent.

That is exactly one of the reasons the Ombudsman is there: to protect citizens, where there may be miscommunication or even if the communication is direct and in fact the minister did not respond. But that wasn't the case here. Surely the Ombudsman has a re­ sponsibility to defend citizens, to bring attention to citi­ zens' concerns if the minister did not get that information in advance. In the case in point, and properly so, the Ombudsman referred the information to the minister, and the minister in fact responded, and was prepared to respond in either case. So, Mr.

Chairman, very simply put: in this case regard­ ing the northern regional treatment centre, did the minis­ ter direct and carry out such an objectionable activity? The answer is an emphatic no. The next question: did the minister establish a review to assure that such activities and related activities for our children in child care facili­ ties would not be done? Did he establish such a review? The answer is yes. Mr. Chairman, if both these things are answered — and they have been repeatedly — then I just don't see what the great difficulty is, except for the fact that it happened.

As a legislator, as a citizen of Alberta, I'm upset that it happened; we're all upset. We wish it wouldn't have happened. But hon. opposition members have become very naive to believe that the minister can be everywhere and directing every professional and non­ professional activity. Unfortunately, other errors will be made in that department and other departments. So the question again, Mr. Chairman: did the policy of his department intend to result in

an act to feed a child dog food? The answer again, in my opinion — and I ask members of the Legislature to rise if they think otherwise — is not only no but an emphatic no. Would the minister have sanctioned such an activity if he had known? Again, it's no, an emphatic no. Mr. Chairman, regarding the mentally ill: hon. opposi­ tion members raise that to color the waters again regard­ ing ministerial responsibility. The minister was asked whether a mentally ill patient who poses a danger to himself or others should be incarcerated in a jail. One of the opposition, the hon.

Leader of the Opposition, or whoever asked the question, knows very well that that does happen and will continue to happen, because of the time, the situation, and so forth. One case in point is where police officers might have to carry out the activity themselves and bring the mentally ill patient to a police station for a period of time, then call the doctor to have him certified and transferred to a mental facility. The answers were provided in this House by the minis­ ter. They were clear, and I don't understand why the hon. opposition members want to muddy the water again.

If you ask any relative of a mentally ill patient who poses a danger to himself or others, I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that they plead for something to be done right now, and not be waiting for whether there is a bed in a mental facility. I agree of course, as the minister indicat­ ed, that within 24 hours the doctor is usually called if he's available, and within 72 hours he's usually transferred, if that is at all possible. Police officers know the situation very clearly. They're certainly responding appropriately to our citizens' needs. This is not a pleasant task for them.

It's not a pleasant task for our citizens who have relatives with that kind of problem. But to raise that and drag it here in front of the minister at this time, after he answered all the questions — I just can't buy that. The other question is whether the minister is responsi­ ble and accountable to this House, to the Legislature, and through this Legislature, to the citizens. Mr. Chairman, the other day I asked a question regarding an injured individual in Michener Centre. Was the answer adequate? If the opposition members were not satisfied, they should rise and ask the question again.

I thought the answer was not only adequate, it was more than adequate. It's being investigated by the health care review committee and, in addition to that, a report will be going to the Ombudsman. Mr. Chairman, these are the comments I want to make. I wouldn't hesitate to stand up and repeat them again, because somehow it's difficult to get through to the opposition members. I hope the citizens out there — and I know they listen to many of these debates; unfortunate­ ly, not as many listen as probably should — hear this debate very clearly and clearly understand what the situa­ tion is. In

summary, the question is very fundamental: did the minister act appropriately when he knew the problem was there? My bottom line comment is yes, emphatically yes. Thank you. MR. MAGEE: Mr. Chairman, as one of the backbench­ ers, if you will, I would like to refute the statements made by the Leader of the Opposition about lack of effort on the part of this minister. When he makes allegations about this minister's not paying attention to his duties, I certainly have to take exception to it.

For instance, I can tell this Assembly that this minister spent a full day with me in attendance at the Michener Centre, which is only one of the institutions he has within his responsibility. In that day he had all manner of staff and executive members with him on that tour. He made statements that he wanted to see everything in that insti­ tution. He didn't just want to see the good parts of it; he wanted to tour the older sections, the newer sections, and the various types of operations that go on in that centre.

Since that time, the staff and the executives of that insti­ tution have told me that never in the history of their being involved with that institution has someone paid as much attention to digging into their concerns, their af­ fairs, and the operation of that particular facility. Cer­ tainly the minister has always responded to the concerns this member might have had in his day to day operation between constituents and his particular operation. I ask members: how can a minister be everywhere at one time, be in all places, and be knowledgeable about all the details?

I suggest to you that this particular minister is making a big, big effort to get on top of that gigantic job he has to do in this department. For the Leader of the Opposition to go on and on with implications of derelic­ tion of responsibility is ludicrous. MR. GOGO: Mr. Chairman, I've sat and listened now for what seems like an eternity, and I question whether we're dealing with the estimates of the minister or the commit­ tee on privileges and elections. I tend to get a little concerned, as I'm sure other members do.

746 ALBERTA HANSARD May 5, 1980 Mr. Chairman, the only comments I'd like to make with reference to comments made by some members about the minister getting around the province. Between sittings of the House, I find that most of my time is spent meeting ministers coming from Edmonton to the constit­ uency. I hadn't realized just how mobile the front bench was. I think it might be appropriate to designate it "the flying cabinet", because they seem to be all over the province.

So I would take issue with the member who made the comments that the ministers of this government don't take the time and don't have the time to go around the province and see first hand what the departments are doing, because I think that is absolutely wrong. Speaking with reference to the estimates at hand, Mr. Chairman, I've attended I don't know how many meet­ ings with the Minister of Social Services and Community Health in the constituency of Lethbridge West. If he's spending that much time there — and we don't have problems in that constituency — you can imagine how much time he's spending in others.

So I'd certainly recommend that we listen to the words of the Member for Calgary North West, that in estimates we're dealing with the future and should not spend too much time on history. As the Member for Vegreville put it so eloquently last week, there are two types of people, the doers and the doubters. I'm proud to be associated with a minister who's a doer. You don't make mistakes unless you do something. So I would certainly urge that we accept the minister's estimates. [Mr. Purdy in the Chair] MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Chairman, I just want to respond to a couple of observations that were made. First of all the hon.

Member for Edmonton Kingsway raised the ques­ tion: did the minister sanction such activity? The answer is no. No one in this House or in this committee has suggested that the minister sanctioned the activity. But if one looks at ministerial responsibility, Mr. Chairman, the fact of the matter is that a "no" answer to that question does not allow the government or the minis­ ter off the hook. Without retracing British history, the minister I referred to in the Crichel Downs case most definitely didn't sanction the activity. He knew nothing about it.

He was in exactly the same position as this minister was: he knew nothing about it. But the fact is that he still resigned. And that's in the Mother of Parlia­ ments. The Crichel Downs case sets a very clear prece­ dent that, where there is a major problem that can, in fact, be attributed to government policy, deficiencies in policy, deficiencies in communication, deficiencies in budgeting, then the minister must accept responsibility. No one in this committee is suggesting that we have as a minister some sort of ogre who would sit back and smile at the thought of children eating dog food.

That's not the point, Mr. Chairman. The issue is: when it occurs, what kind of action is taken? Well, if the minister's response to learning of this was, as the Leader of the Opposition has indicated, to go immediately to Peace River, to sit down with the regional administrator at that time and say, all right, what are we going to do, how are we going to resolve this, I think many of us would have been somewhat happier about the way this entire issue was handled. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, that didn't occur.

The much talked about Cavanagh Board of Review is an excellent step in the right direction, but a step that did not occur until March 17. There's a lot of time between December 11 and March 17. If this gov­ ernment had moved more quickly . . . But as I look at the Thompson report, it is dated February 29. The minister apparently didn't have a chance to see it until March 10. It wasn't until March 17 that we had the announcement of the Cavanagh Board of Review. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, that's hardly a case of spring­ ing into action.

It's hardly a case of moving quickly, when the first complaint had been given to the Peace River regional office on November 13. Here it is March 17 that we finally have the decision to proceed with the Ca­ vanagh Board of Review. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, some­ body has to accept responsibility for what appeared to be, in the most generous way I could put it, a rather sluggish response on the part of this government to what was clearly an outrageous event. An outrageous event.

Regar­ dless of how the government members wish to deflect it, it has to rest at the doorstep of the minister and the government. The Member for Edmonton Kingsway made one other point. He made reference to my observation about the provincial Ombudsman. Let me make it clear, Mr. Chairman, that the comment I made about Dr. Ivany's involvement was totally positive with respect to Dr. Ivany. When the matter was brought to his attention, the Ombudsman acted quickly and decisively, as he should, and conveyed his concern to the department, which was totally appropriate.

But one should not confuse — as perhaps the member from Kingsway did — the right of the individual citizen to the extra protection afforded by the office of Ombudsman with the normal avenues of communication, which should never have caused this kind of lack of information in the first place. You really have to separate the two things. Mr. Chairman, if the young couple in question had gone to the Ombudsman but the minister had already known because the Peace River regional office had sent the information to the director, then I would really say the avenues of communication are working within the department.

But that didn't happen. The entire issue was a consequence of an unlikely event, because most people who feel a sense of injustice don't go to the Ombudsman. About a thousand people a year do, but most people don't. So we have the happenstance of a young couple feeling strongly enough about the issue that after first going to the department and the department not relaying the information to the minister, they then took the next step — which some people do, but most people don't — of going to the Ombudsman. It was at this point that the minister found out about it. Mr.

Chairman, there's no way that any member of this Assembly can suggest to me that avenues of communica­ tion that, work in that manner are even within shooting distance of being efficient. It's one thing not to communi­ cate every single detail of administrative policy, but when you get an event that has even led this government to appoint the Cavanagh Board of Review to look at the total issue of child welfare legislation in this province and the limits of behavior modification, when you get a matter of this magnitude and it isn't communicated, then we're dealing with a rather more important matter.

It's not a sort of simple administrative slip-up between the Peace River office and the minister. I notice that other members of the Legislature — the Member for Red Deer indicates that the minister has gone to Michener Centre. Fine; I think that's excellent.

May 5, 1980 ALBERTA HANSARD 747 But the fact that the minister has gone to Michener Centre, however laudable that may be, doesn't mitigate the minister's responsibility for this particular event, as well as for some of the other events we could go into, such as the Metis raid and Westfield, but particularly this event. The Member for Red Deer says, how can the minister be everywhere? Our system of government is based on the simple proposition that major matters of administration and policy are intertwined, and the minis­ ter must be responsible. Mr.

Chairman, I know that some members may say, well, we're way ahead of everybody, way ahead of the rest of the people of Canada, way ahead of the Mother of Parliaments. You know, they can have a very clear rule that says the minister must accept responsibility for administration and policy, but we don't need it in Alber­ ta. The federal government can have a pretty clear policy, but we don't need it in Alberta. But, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, the people of Alberta don't feel that way.

If one finds one predominant feeling throughout this province, including that of many, many people I've talked to in the minister's own political party, I think there is a feeling that ministerial responsibility must apply in this instance, and that the minister must accept full responsibility for this unfortunate event, as well as for some of the other events that have occurred in the minister's department that have been the subject of some considerable controversy, and may be debated later in discussion of these estimates. Mr.

Chairman, I would just underline again that it would be a complete abdication of the responsibilities of all of us as members of the Legislature if we allowed what is a clearly inadequate definition of ministerial responsi­ bility to stand without being properly challenged. It is inadequate, and it simply won't do. MR. OMAN: Mr. Chairman, I don't feel any great need to defend the minister, because I think he can do that quite easily himself. In my view, he's handled the situa­ tion in a manner that's circumspect.

Rather than spinning wheels on an old issue — I think this has been mentioned — that's been predigested, digested, regurgitated, and swallowed again, I recall that in a car when you spin your wheels in a rut, you wear out your own tires and pretty soon you aren't moving very much at all. So let me leave that. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to inquire of the minister in another area. The minister knows I have some concern with regard to some of the agencies other than govern­ ment agencies involved in people services for the handi­ capped. I think he has done well on some of the steps he has taken with regard to day care.

But I have some suggestions or concerns about funding of private agen­ cies, church agencies, and so on which are looking after handicapped children and other people who need care, and whose level of funding, it seems to me, does not allow them to pay their staff adequate salaries. Therefore they are finding that there's an unusually high attrition rate to other agencies, whether private or government, and it's difficult for them to carry on.

I'm wondering if the minister could indicate to the House what plans his department may have to correct what I think is an imbalance in the system, to bring salary levels in some of the other-than-government agencies up to a standard whereby they can retain their staff. MR. MACK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I too do not feel that I would make any attempt to defend the minis­ ter. I think he's very capable of doing the same. However, I thought I would like to respond and perhaps make one or two observations with regard to some of the comments advanced by the members of the opposition.

I concur with members of the opposition as it would relate to ministerial responsibility. There's no question in my mind where that particular aspect lies. I think the minister is responsible for what occurs in his department. Having said that, recognizing that when you have a large staff who actually carry out those responsibilities which flow under policy — and perhaps there may be some merit in reviewing and updating policies, which we have­ n't really been addressing. As far as updating policies, to this point we've been critical of the existing policies.

In an area such as health and social services, where we are dealing not with the average, the norm, but in most instances with the abnormal kind of situation — and not every situation is alike. Perhaps you might have three, four, or five people in an institution, and each of them would require a somewhat different type of treatment depending on what their problems are. Therein lies the very, very difficult challenge. I would view it as a chal­ lenge as opposed perhaps to a duty or a job. These are challenges for us all, not only for the minister and his staff.

Being an advocate for so many years in the area of labor relations and having, I think, a very broad and varied experience in being able to determine what is the real issue and what is imaginary and ultimately finding those out, I believe I can relate to some of this with a sense of real empathy for those who are receiving the treatment.

I view with some degree of concern and perhaps regret that rather than coming up with sugges­ tions as to how we might initiate remedial action, that we might limit if not eliminate — and I think desirably and ideally it would be to eliminate all the bad side effects that from time to time some of those patients experience. It would appear we are majoring in an area of trying to gather political gain. That sort of upsets me a little. What are we trying to do in this Legislature?

We are attempting to provide services to Albertans who, in many cases, are less fortunate than we are, to the extent that their own homes could not cope with them, their own parents couldn't cope with them, or children couldn't cope with their parents, and so areas the government then must provide. [Mr. Appleby in the Chair] Funding is probably one of the easiest things to pro­ vide, but it's all those other elements that human beings require that money can't buy. Quite often we depend on professional or quasi-professional people.

I suppose if they were all-wise in all things, we might be able to establish and probably create a perfect kind of situation. But I haven't found it. I wonder whether that is the real issue, whether the real issue we are discussing today is to try to provide a more sophisticated and humane place of residence and atmos­ phere for those whom we are supposedly so concerned about. Rather, in listening I suspect it's nothing more than political advantage. I would suggest that that is the most despicable form of advantage that I would certainly want.

What I would want and suggest that we address ourselves, all of us — how we might improve and how we might be able to overcome these pitfalls that from time to time are brought to our attention. They are not there by design. In most instances they are there because of lack of

748 ALBERTA HANSARD May 5, 1980 true appreciation and perhaps knowledge of how to come to grips with some of the very difficult situations that arise. I am no professional insofar as behavioral modification is concerned. I guess we have people who attend many years of university to attempt to gain that expertise. At times I wonder if even they are fully satisfied that they have attained that type of expertise that they might be able to respond to any situation that may come before them and that they might face.

With respect, to blow a regrettable instance completely out of proportion is, in my judgment, irresponsible. I think we should address the subject in a way that we would provide the kind of legislation and the type of resources that would limit, if not eliminate, those types of recurrences. I'm not hearing that. I'm hearing how terri­ ble it is. We agree; it is terrible. I'm wondering and am concerned by an overreacting by the minister. Having been an advocate — and still am — for employees, I have some concerns with them as well.

They may have discharged their responsibility in good faith, even though one of their number may err. I have concern that unfair aspersions are cast at those good employees. For them to be able to discharge their responsibilities with any degree of confidence presents extreme difficulty. There is an additional dimension that is brought into a very difficult situation. So I would certainly not support that the minister immediately go witch hunting when a problem arises, and attempt to see who he can cut down in order to . . .

One of the first criticisms I would make of him is: is he attempting to cover up and place or shift the blame on an employee? I think a proper evaluation must be made in all of these kinds of situations in order that no further wrong be committed in attempting to resolve a wrong. So it is a very, very difficult task.

I believe all of us must shoulder the responsibility insofar as providing sug­ gestions and, particularly where we are dealing with areas within our own constituencies, to become acquainted with those constituencies, not in a sense of witch hunting but in a sense of trying to enhance all those facilities that are provided for the betterment of Albertans and, more importantly, for those Albertans who are disadvantaged. Rather than attempting to politicize a very serious area, an area that is extremely emotional, we lose the perspec­ tive of objectivity.

That gives me some real concern, because unless we have objectivity, we will never have the kinds of programs that would in fact provide the kind of care, the maximum type of care, these people deserve and that in fact it is humanly possible for us to provide. I'm sure if it were an easy task, these people would be in the family setting. But they are not within the family setting, because the family is not capable of coping. I would suggest that we attempt to place these areas in their proper perspective.

In the name of providing the services that these, our disadvan­ taged Albertans, deserve, I suggest that we pool our resources as opposed to trying to get political gain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. COOK: Mr. Chairman, frankly I am quite disturbed by some of the remarks that have been made by the opposition members today. I'm not going to rise in my place to defend the minister; he needs no defence. But I do want to deal with some of the arguments on ministeri­ al accountability and responsibility on a theoretical or constitutional level. I think what we're witnessing, Mr. Chairman, is theatre of the absurd.

We have the opposition members playing to the press gallery, not because of any fundamental policy differences but because of short-term political ad­ vantage. I think we have to put the discussion this after­ noon in that frame. It's important, Mr. Chairman, to define the concept of ministerial responsibility; not in the terms of the Member for Spirit River-Fairview, who last week offered some specious arguments on communication and a few other suggestions that he thought would fulfil the definition of ministerial responsibility, but we should go back to the theory of the responsible governmental system.

Going back there, a minister is both a member of the Executive Council — in that sense, he and his colleagues set the broad parameters of governmental policy — and a minis­ ter responsible for a department. I think it's important we recognize that in that function a minister has a responsi­ bility to determine the basic principles upon which public policy in that department is established. He takes those to his colleagues in Executive Council and, with them, de­ velops a policy position. The minister then goes back to his department and works with his senior administrative staff in a way that influences them.

Max Weber, the sociologist of the late 1800s, outlined the administrative model that followed in the German governmental system, where decisions flowed from the top down. In that sense, Mr. Chairman, I think today in the British system the minister is the feedback mechanism who constantly informs the political body of the state about the administrative quality of the programming, tries to upgrade the administration, and makes policy changes and decision that reflect the problems of the time. In every sense of that concept, I think the minister is doing an admirable job.

I think we also have to recognize that ministerial responsibility is fundamentally a political and not a legal responsibility. It's a political responsibility, and in that sense the members opposite are playing political games today. It makes good press, I suppose. I'm sure we'll see the opposition members sounding noble. I think they have a sort of pravda syndrome, Mr. Chairman. The pra¬ vda syndrome is a sort of single truth: there is only one truth and they have it; if there is any other point of view, it's not correct.

I suppose the pravda syndrome particu­ larly appeals to the Member for Spirit River-Fairview. What we're looking at today is value judgments. It's not possible to be objective. It's not possible, Mr. Chair­ man, because there is more than one single answer to a political problem. Matters of public policy are not simple matters to resolve; there are many conflicting values and problems. So when the minister comes and puts before the House his policy statements and estimates, I think the concept of ministerial responsibility falls basically on the House, to determine whether or not it wants to support him.

It's quite clear that this House is more than satisfied with the gentleman who has brought forward estimates that allow for some 8,000 civil servants in his department to be the largest single department in the government, which suggests something of the priorities of this gov­ ernment. It's important that we recognize there is a varie­ ty of ways of dealing with social problems. The province is experiencing burgeoning growth.

There are problems on all sides, and it's basically the responsibility of the minister and the Executive Council to try to deal with them in as fair and compassionate a way as possible, given the resources available. I think the minister does that very, very well. Just to sum up, Mr. Chairman, we have before us a

May 5, 1980 ALBERTA HANSARD 749 specious debate brought forward by the members of the opposition for political gamesmanship, in the best ex­ ample of the pravda syndrome I think we've had in the session thus far. They are trying to suggest that they are the only people in the Chamber who have a handle on the truth. In Russian, pravda means truth. It's evident that what they're trying to do is play to the press galleries and get some press.

I am reminded that my hon. friend from Spirit River- Fairview keeps a daily record — or did last year, anyway — of the days he performed well and thought the government did not do well. It's sort of like a notch on the butt of a revolver. [interjections] I guess he's trying to chalk up more notches than the government. In that sense, Mr. Chairman, perhaps that's why he has only one seat in the House. It's a very narrow and short-term view of politics, as opposed to the long-term view the Execu­ tive Council and the minister are bringing before the House.

It's not day to day notching on a revolver, Member for Spirit River-Fairview, but the long-term wel­ fare of the community that we're all responsible for. So frankly I am appalled and concerned at the perfor­ mance of the opposition. They have a responsibility in this House as well to have intelligent criticism of the government, and they're not doing it. It's a sad day for Alberta. DR. PAPROSKI: Mr. Chairman, very briefly in response to the hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview. I'm really pleased — and I want it for the record — that he agrees that the minister did not sanction such activity.

He agrees with that. But I think he also implied that I indicated he was off the hook. No way, Mr. Chairman. No way. I did not say he was off the hook. He is responsible to account, to correct, to stop the activity, which he did; to review the activity, which he's doing; and offer further corrections. He is doing that. So in no way did I say he was off the hook, and I'd don't think any member of the Legislature here would indicate that or would want that in the record. I don't think the Minister of Social Services and Community Health would want that.

Regarding the Ombudsman: indeed, the Ombudsman did bring this to the attention of the minister, because there was probably — and, I would say, was — difficulty or a breakdown in relaying information to the minister. There is a need for correction in that department with respect to that kind of activity. I agree with that. But my comments regarding the importance of the Ombudsman stand. The Ombudsman and his office, serving as an important action centre for citizens versus government, is critical — the very reason this Legislature supports that kind of office. That has to be underlined again.

If there are going to be deficiencies in the future, I hope the citizens, the MLA, whoever out there, will indeed use the Ombudsman's office to relay that information and chal­ lenge the government, for the very essence of that office is to increase the assurance of citizens being represented appropriately. I want to make one final comment, Mr. Chairman, because of the comments that have been made. If the press plays a role to expose inappropriate activity, so be it. They're to be congratulated if they do that. It's like any citizen who exposes such activity.

That is part of the democratic system, and I hope that never changes. Thank you. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to respond with regard to the discussion on political advantage, poli­ ticizing, or acting with political gamesmanship. It's been raised by the Member for Edmonton Belmont and the Member for Edmonton Glengarry. Mr.

Chairman, what must be understood in the debate at the present time is that we in the opposition, whether partisan or non-partisan, have a responsibility to ensure for ourselves as well as for many, many people we repre­ sent across this province that responsible action is taking place within whatever department. In this instance it happens to be the responsibilities of the Minister of Social Services and Community Health.

In order to play our role in this discussion of good government, of bring­ ing better government to the people of Alberta, and responsible government, we feel we have a responsibility to raise whatever issue is at hand or whatever issue is of concern to the people of Alberta. In raising that particu­ lar issue, we act as the control or the governor of the item at hand.

And the only way we can bring it to the floor of this Legislature, through committee at this point, is by raising it with as much concern as we can, indicating we are concerned about it and that something must be done or that a pattern of actions must change. At this point in our debate, I think that's what we're talking about. We're raising the concern about the minis­ ter and his actions. We look at past performance with regard to three specific areas we have raised at the present time: the Peace River situation; the Metis situation, which was the first one; and the Westfield situation.

I could name some others. In each of those situations, the concern we raised was the lack of immediate action by the minister. We felt that when the situation came to the minister's attention, there was a time span before action took place. That's already been explained in this Assem­ bly. In our responsibility we feel that we must, one, make it clear that we don't accept that kind of action.

Secondly, before this debate is ended we must assure ourselves that in any other situation that occurs, com­ munication is performed between the departmental offi­ cials and the minister, the public and the minister; and that any type of situation we deem — as these three — to be emergent will be dealt with as quickly as possible. Because in each situation, the lives of people, the rights of people, were being threatened, and needed emergent at­ tention, Mr. Chairman, we feel it's our responsibility to raise those situations, whether or not the press is in the gallery. We must raise that to our satisfaction.

If we let it go and don't raise it in this public forum, no one else is going to do it. It's not going to get raised in the govern­ ment caucus. We've heard a lot of members here today telling about how good things are at the present time: they're not bad; everything's going along well; leave it in our hands, and things will work out. Mr. Chairman, in our responsibility in the opposition, we just can't do that. One, it's to raise the problem. That looks negative, but it's where you start.

Two, it's to assure ourselves that actions or programs will change and, three, that the program or action change by the minister an­ swers the problems and meets the needs of Albertans in the future. MR. NOTLEY: Before the minister answers, I want to respond to the hon. Member for Edmonton Belmont and the hon. Member for Edmonton Glengarry. First of all, dealing with the question of political advantage, I thought that one question the Member for Edmonton Belmont asked was very appropriate; that is, how might we overcome the pitfalls? Mr.

Chairman and members of the committee, that's what this debate is all about: how

750 ALBERTA HANSARD May 5, 1980 we overcome the pitfalls. Unless we have a clear defini­ tion of ministerial responsibility, unless we know where the lines of communication are — who is going to accept the ultimate responsibility when things go wrong in major areas of decision or policy — then in fact all we are doing is setting this province, and the department, up for all sorts of pitfalls in the future. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, how we might overcome the pitfalls is very definitely related to the question of ministerial re­ sponsibility. No question about that.

In this debate we've heard the assertion, in a gentle way from the Member for Edmonton Belmont and in a rather more amateurish way from the Member for Edmonton Glengarry, that in actual fact the opposition is simply playing to the press gallery, and that we have a pravda syndrome. Well, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, in this entire debate it wasn't any member of the opposition who got up and called anybody any names. We haven't attempted to label members on the government side with any kind of names. We've differed strongly over the question of how you define ministerial responsibility.

That's clear and proper. That's our respon­ sibility as members of the opposition. But it wasn't any member of the opposition who got up and insinuated that somehow the opposition is next door to being reds be­ cause we we're talking about a pravda syndrome. Really, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, that kind of debate by the Member for Edmonton Glengarry is, if I can use the expression, a red herring. That's not really where it's at, Mr. Chairman. It is where things sit in this House and in this province on the question of ministerial responsibility.

We have the Mem­ ber for Edmonton Glengarry outlining his views, and the Member for Edmonton Glengarry is perfectly entitled to his views. But I would just say by contrast that the opposition, which he accuses of being narrow-minded in this debate, cited precedents from the government of Canada, from the British Parliament, from scholars in political science dealing with ministerial responsibility. It's not a question of just coming in here glibly saying this, that, or the other thing, but a case that's been made. The member may not agree with it, and he's entitled not to agree with it.

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Chairman: when is this government going to realize that whatever is decided in caucus isn't necessarily right; that elsewhere in the coun­ try and in the Commonwealth, people have views; that we have established precedents. When one looks at the ques­ tion of ministerial responsibility, I say with great respect to all members of the committee that the assertions that have made by opposition members in this House, in this committee, are borne out by the precedents. Mr.

Chair­ man, we have yet to hear any definitive speech by any member of the government caucus that would defend the proposition advanced in this House by the minister. We'll hear from him in a moment or two, but clearly the fact of the matter is that ministerial accountability is basically what is at stake. Whether it gets on the front page of the newspaper or the back page, or isn't reported at all, is totally irrelevant. What is reported is the Hansard in this House, and members of the opposition have a responsi­ bility to query, argue, and debate this issue. To go back to the hon.

Member for Edmonton Bel­ mont — most of whose speech was very well put; I didn't agree with all of it, but I thought it was very well put — if we are going to avoid the pitfalls, then we have to have a clear definition. This is where it all starts. Unless we have a clear definition of that, Mr. Chairman, this province and the department are going to face one pitfall after another. And every few weeks, or every few months at most, the minister is going to have explain yet another problem that has hit the headlines and makes the gov­ ernment look bad.

The question is really: where does ministerial accountability start? Looking over the record, Mr. Chairman, clearly we have to have a better definition than the one we've got to date from the minister in charge of this department. MR. COOK: Mr. Chairman, if I could reply a little bit. With regard to the precedents the hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview cites, it's interesting to note that in almost all cases, they were in times in British parliamentary history when governments were vulnerable: where they had slim majorities; if not majorities, they were minority governments.

It's all very well for the member to be so glib and to cite times in history when that was the case. But it is also possible to cite other times in British parliamentary history when governments were in firmer control of the House and able to give a little more direction to government policy. The member is citing those aberrations in parliamentary history when ministers were literally thrown to the wolves for political expedien­ cy. That is what the member is suggesting we now do, not on the basis of justice or anything like that, but simply because he would like to notch his revolver one more time.

I think that's an irresponsible attitude. Ministerial responsibility is a political, not a legal, concept that is at its strongest and most perverse, in a sense, when governments are their most vulnerable. If the member wants to cite those cases, he's welcome to do it. A better case, I think, is when governments are in a position like this government. When they have the over­ whelming support of the people and something serious goes wrong, then yes. I'd like the member to cite some examples like that.

Basically, ministerial responsibility falls on the concept that the minister is responsible for the execution of a policy of the House and of the government. Where the department has not met those responsibilities, it is not the minister's responsibility to be responsible for every single one of the actions of 8,000 civil servants. For example, because I was delayed in getting my licence plate tabs this year in a line-up does not mean that the Solicitor General should be held accountable for that action. I think the member is simply trying to notch his revolv­ er.

I was suggesting that he views the operations of the Legislature on a notching basis — points for him or points for the government. At the end of the session he adds them up, and he's a good guy if he's won more points. That's ridiculous. It's characteristic of the mem­ ber, but it's still not characteristic of good government. I think that he should go back to his constitutional law books, go back to the foundations of British parliamen­ tary government, and see that the concept is political not legal. He's playing politics, and he's playing it to our friends up in the press gallery. MR. MACK: Thank you, Mr.

Chairman, just very brief­ ly. I was delighted to hear the hon. Member for Little Bow give me some definition as to his function. There again, we're speaking of

definitions, definitive action, de­ finitive

interpretations, and so on. I think I have some experience working with the deficiencies within defini­ tions, and there are many of them. Sometimes a comma would create a deficiency in a definition. I would just like to assure the Member for Little Bow that I consider

May 5, 1980 ALBERTA HANSARD 751 myself an elected official and also respond to the needs of Albertans in general. I just make that as a passing comment. I appreciated your comments. I think they were very, very positive, and perhaps would reflect a much greater appreciation, because when one is putting a point across, you perhaps exaggerate the point to get a point across or at least to get attention. So that was greatly appreciated.

With regard to minister's responsibility, just very brief­ ly, I am sure there is no question or hesitation in the mind of the minister that the responsibility for his de­ partment is his, without question and without any equi­ vocation. I think, too, that where there may be a lack of adequate

definitions of policies, I am certain, as I stated earlier, this is an ongoing thing. It'll never stop at any action that has been taken, any initiative that has been put into place. It will be an ongoing thing. I think that we ought to remember that and place it in the kind of perspective and appreciation of what is actually before us, what we are going to have to be addressing continually. Perhaps