November 1, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 1553 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA Title: Tuesday, November 1, 1983 2:30 p.m. [The House met at 2:30 p.m.] PRAYERS [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] head: INTRODUCTION OF BILLS Bill 102 Planning Amendment Act, 1983 MR. KOZIAK: Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to introduce Bill 102, the Planning Amendment Act, 1983. The amendments provide for strengthening of property rights during the course of the subdivision process. [Leave granted; Bill 102 read a first time] Bill 88 Ombudsman Amendment Act, 1983 MR. PAYNE: Mr.

Speaker, I request leave today to introduce Bill No. 88, the Ombudsman Amendment Act, 1983. The purpose of this Bill is to extend the term of the office of the Ombudsman for a period of up to six months, thereby enabling the Legislative Offices Committee to conclude its deliberations on the question of a successor to the present Ombudsman. [Leave granted; Bill 88 read a first time] head: TABLING RETURNS AND REPORTS MR. HARLE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to table the 20th annual report of the Racing Commission for the year ended March 31, 1983. head: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS MR. PAPROSKI: Mr.

Speaker, I am pleased to introduce to you, and through you to members of this Assembly, seven students from the Coralwood Academy, the Seventh-Day Adventist private school situated in the constituency of Edmonton Kingsway. These bright and interesting grade 10 students are seven of 115 students attending this academy. The students' names are: Kevin McKay, Troy Zylenko, Lorrie Wearden, Renatta Grosso, Joy Reid, Madhu Enjati, and Lowell Alexander. They are accompanied by their instructor, Mr. John Janes.

They are seated in the members gallery, and I would ask them to rise and receive the usual warm welcome from all members. MR. ALEXANDER: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to intro­ duce to you, and through you to the House today, 22 grades 5 and 6 members of St. Teresa school in the Edmonton con­ stituency of Whitemud. They are accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Morley Pinkoski, and by parents Mrs. Glenda Hume, Mrs. Catherine Heslip, and Mrs. Terry McGhee. They are in the members gallery, and I request that they stand and receive the welcome of the House. MR.

JONSON: As their MLA and principal, it gives me great pleasure to introduce to you, and through you to members of the Assembly, 25 grade 10 students from Ponoka Composite high school. They are seated in the members gallery, and they are accompanied today by their teacher, Mr. Gary Anderson, and their bus driver, Mr. Wilfred Massey. I would now ask them to stand and receive the traditional welcome of the House. head: ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Public Service MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct the first question to the hon.

Minister responsible for Personnel Administration, and ask what is the government policy today regarding the layoff of provincial employees. Is a hiring freeze in place, as announced last spring, or is the government now implementing a new program of layoffs, more comprehensive than the one outlined in the budget speech? MR. STEVENS: Mr. Speaker, there is a nine-point program in place. MR. R. SPEAKER: What is it? MR. NOTLEY: That's certainly lots of information, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps we could expand a bit and put a supplementary question to the hon. minister.

It's with respect to a letter sent by the Public Service Commissioner to the president of the AUPE, outlining four points — I wasn't aware there were nine points — that would govern policy as it relates to employees and technological change. Could the minister advise the Assem­ bly what specific steps have been taken to retrain or find other positions for health care clerks who are scheduled for layoff? MR. STEVENS: Mr.

Speaker, I'm very pleased that the Leader of the Opposition has made reference to a letter, in March, from the Public Service Commissioner to the president of the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees, which clearly sets out that the government will provide its best efforts to minimize the impact of technological change. There are four points in the letter. They deal with retraining, placement in vacancies in the department, and assisting employ­ ees to find other suitable employment.

Finally, if none of those alternatives exists, the letter clearly says that the Master Agree­ ment will be utilized for the abolition of positions, and this government will deal with its employees in a fair and respon­ sible manner. I said there were nine points, Mr. Speaker. I would be happy to elaborate. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, could the minister then advise the Assembly what the policy is with respect to point four of this letter — that is, the Master Agreement — in terms of casual employees? Will the placement of employees who have been laid off be given priority over the decision to hire casual employees?

MR. STEVENS: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care may wish to supplement my answer. But basically

1554 ALBERTA HANSARD November 1, 1983 the collective agreement clearly provides for the abolition pro­ cedures for permanent employees. They are, of course, the employees that must be considered first and foremost. That agreement clearly specifies the notice that is required to be given and the vesting rights that employee will have, and the government will recognize, in available positions for which that employee will be qualified.

In addition, this spring this Assembly approved amendments — over some objections from the Leader of the Opposition, I might add — to the Public Service Act, which provide for the employment of our per­ sonnel in positions for which they may not be qualified but for which, through suitable training, they will be qualified. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister. I'm dealing with point four. As I understand the minister's answer, that point relates to

Article 15 of the Master Agreement. Just a word of explanation is necessary, Mr. Speaker. It is my understanding that that Master Agreement says that providing people who have been laid off have a year of service, these people should have priority placement over the normal placement process. My question is: given that as part of the agreement, what is the policy developed by the department of Personnel Admin­ istration with respect to hiring casual people as opposed to permanent people, or the substitution of permanent people with casual employees? MR. STEVENS: Mr.

Speaker, that's a decision that each min­ ister and his or her department make, through the administration of their departments, on the recruitment and selection of employees. Each department must ensure that it meets its budget and program delivery. There may be cases where tem­ porary, casual, part-time, or all other categories of employees can do the job, and we can still live within our budget. The important point to know is that our government and the people of Alberta recognize technology. We have to be in the market for world trade, and we have to improve our produc­ tivity.

We are endeavoring to do that by ensuring that our employees have the opportunity to be retrained or relocated, to be given a new opportunity. But if those positions do not exist and if that budget dollar is not there, then the provisions in the agreement for abolishment of their positions will be followed. That is clearly in the agreement, and we will rec­ ognize and honor that agreement. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question.

What discussions took place between the minister and his officials — in particular the Public Service Commissioner — and offi­ cials of the Department of Hospitals and Medical Care, with respect to the layoff of employees in that department, especially as it relates to points one, two, and three of the letter to Mr. Booth? MR. STEVENS: Mr. Speaker, there have been a number of discussions carried out with not only officials of the Personnel Administration Office, Hospitals and Medical Care, and Alberta health care insurance but the employees themselves, including a recent meeting in this past 10 days, I think.

The employees are very much aware that change is about to take place. They are being consulted. It is being discussed with them, and they have been given advice which will correct some of the misunderstandings they have been reading about in the news media. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Can the minister tell the House why the employee representatives on the employee/management advisory committee which is reviewing layoffs at the health insurance division were not nominated by the union, but rather were chosen by manage­ ment? MR. STEVENS: Mr.

Speaker, there has been consultation with primarily the employees and, at the same time, but not in order of priority, with the employees' representatives, the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees. In fact, discussions took place about the time of that letter. There has been no conclusion reached with regard to a consultative mechanism. We have not yet heard from the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees as to their wishes, although I have been reading about them in other areas. The employees concerned are fully able and free to discuss with other employees the concerns and questions that all may have.

They are meeting jointly with management officials. The management officials are placing themselves available to be consulted by the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister. I don't want there to be any misunderstanding, so I am making particular reference to the employee/management advisory committee in place which is now reviewing the layoffs in the health insurance division.

To either the Minister respon­ sible for Personnel Administration or the Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care: I would like to know why the employees on this employee/management advisory committee were not representatives of or nominated by the union, the bargaining agent, but in fact were chosen by management. MR. STEVENS: Mr. Speaker, my colleague may wish to sup­ plement my answer. But basically, in a number of areas the employer and the employees meet on joint matters. We have several joint committees. Many of them deal with occupational health and technology.

This is one of those committees on technological change. The employees within the unit, within the agency, and within the department are best able to present to their employers, who are working side by side with them in a consultative way, the concerns on their work place and their work problems. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister. The question is not who is best able; the question relates to how those people are chosen.

Why is the process of selection a process which apparently by-passes the bargaining agent and can only create ill will, as opposed to taking rep­ resentatives suggested by the people working in a given area, who belong to that bargaining agent, through the formal struc­ ture of the bargaining agent? MR. SPEAKER: This is the third time we have had this ques­ tion. Perhaps it could be the last. MR. STEVENS: Mr. Speaker, I thought I had made it clear.

Again I would indicate that in the work place itself, whether it is a technological matter or an occupational health matter, the employees who have concerns and wish to see those con­ cerns addressed are best able to bring those forward to their colleagues, supervisory staff, or managers, who are jointly determining how to best manage change in a way that is ben­ eficial not only to the people of Alberta, who are paying the bill, but to the employees themselves. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Can the minister then tell the House what the policy of the

November 1, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 1555 government is with respect to dealing with technological change in all departments, not necessarily just the Department of Hos­ pitals and Medical Care? Is it the policy of the government that it will be management who chooses the employee representa­ tives, as opposed to consultation and nomination by the bar­ gaining agent in each given department? MR. STEVENS: Mr. Speaker, the question is being framed in such a way that it would suggest that there has been a decision reached.

I indicated earlier — and I believe Hansard will show — that we have had discussions with the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees. We do not know whether a consultative mechanism which will be appropriate to both parties can be attained. We have not yet had a response — I say again, no response — from the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees as to that kind of mechanism. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question.

Could the minister indicate whether this policy with regard to the effect of new technology on layoffs or transfers of employ­ ees is being discussed with employees of other departments outside of that now being discussed, the Department of Hos­ pitals and Medical Care, such as the Solicitor General's Depart­ ment? MR. STEVENS: Mr. Speaker, again, my colleague the Sol­ icitor General may wish to supplement my answer. Basically, the policy that was provided to the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees in March clearly applies to all provincial depart­ ments.

That policy provides for retraining, redeployment, and counselling services. Finally, if none of those are suitable, the position abolishment procedure would be followed. Now, each department has to consider its vacancies and programs. Whether or not positions are filled or filled temporarily is a decision of that department. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a final supplementary question to either the Minister responsible for Personnel Administration or to the Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care. It again relates to the employee/management advisory committee.

I would like to know what, in the absence of consultation with the bargaining agent, the specific route was. Was it ministerial direction? Was it the direction of senior management within the department? If so, who in fact made the decision to have the employees on this committee chosen by management as opposed to the bar­ gaining agent? MR. RUSSELL: I would like to respond to that, Mr. Speaker, because I am a little perplexed by the line of the questioning It is my understanding that we have worked very hard to directly involve every employee who has been involved in this and not do it through a committee.

About 10 days or a week ago, Mr. Ozerkevich, the assistant deputy minister responsible for the Alberta health care insur­ ance plan, finished a series of seminars which he personally directed with all the affected employees in small groups. This was done with the concurrence of the Alberta Union of Pro­ vincial Employees. I believe Mr. Booth was involved, although I can't be sure of that. I know he was consulted; I don't know whether or not he was personally present at all of the seminars. Where did the direction come from?

We discussed this at some length at a staff meeting of senior officials: the deputy, the assistant deputy ministers, and myself. We were very con­ cerned as to how the four-step program my colleague referred to could be put in place. I'm confident, and I've been assured that the employees have been fully informed, that every effort is being made to place them. Incidentally, just in passing, I should mention that the num­ ber of employees is half that reported by one Edmonton news­ paper this morning. But other than that. I believe every effort has been made to either retrain or redeploy.

In fact, in my own office I have as a receptionist one of the young ladies that was given her notice as a result of the disappearance of her job. She took a little bit of retraining, applied for the job, and is doing an excellent job in her new position. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, any more questions would simply provoke debate, and we certainly wouldn't want to do that. I'm sure all kinds of discussions will occur outside this House, some of which may not entirely coincide with the minister's answer. Crowsnest Pass Freight Rates MR.

NOTLEY: In the absence of the Premier, let me direct my second question to whomever I gather is Acting Premier. I assume it's the hon. Attorney General. As a result of the turmoil in the House of Commons over the Crow rate, can he advise the House whether or not the government of Alberta did in fact make representation to the federal government con­ cerning the application of time allocation or closure to this very vital piece of legislation for western Canada? MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, in the first instance. I would have to take that question as notice.

My colleague the Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs is away. It may well be that either the Acting Minister of Agriculture or the Acting Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs could respond to that. MR. MARTIN: Who are they? MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the Minister of Economic Development, who I know has an interest in the Crow rate. Could the minister advise the House what action the government has taken re the application of closure on this item, or was he simply going to leave it up to his colleague the Minister of Agriculture? MR.

PLANCHE: My answer would be the same as the Acting Premier's, Mr. Speaker. That's an issue that was really 'intra' the federal government. All we could do was put forth an opinion. If my memory serves me correctly we did that, but I'd like to check. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the Government House Leader. During the Premier's absence — I gather he's going to New York and to an energy conference — will the Premier be meeting with any federal officials or with the Official Opposition, to discuss the crucial Crow rate and its implications for western Canada? MR. CRAWFORD: Mr.

Speaker, I think not. On the Premier's absence from the Assembly at the present time, the prime destination is New York. I'm not aware of any plans he may have, in the sense of returning via some other cities. Alberta Government Telephones MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Utilities and Telecommunications is with regard to the intro­ duction of Altel Data into the microcomputer market. My con­ cern is in light of a statement the minister made to the Assembly

1556 ALBERTA HANSARD November 1, 1983 on April 15, in Hansard, which indicates the minister's posi­ tion: . . . the objective of the government that we should not be either directly or indirectly in competition with the private sector through a Crown corporation. My question is: why has the policy changed and we are now competing in the private market of microcomputers in this province? MR. BOGLE: Mr. Speaker, the policy hasn't changed. If the hon.

Member for Little Bow had gone on in the quotation, he would have noted that I indicated that the telephone and tele­ communications business is no longer a monopoly, as it was 10 years ago, and that companies like Alberta Government Telephones find an increasing degree of competition from oth­ ers. At that time I cited one such example, that today we can purchase a telephone at any number of commercial outlets around the city or other centres in the province,

whereas 10 years ago that was part of the monopoly area held by the telephone company. Mr. Speaker, I did indicate as well that there would be a six- month review of the role of Altel Data, the mobile com­ munications division, and the business communications divi­ sion of Alberta Government Telephones. After that six-month review was commenced by the Alberta Government Telephones Commission, the city of Edmonton and the province of Alberta received the results of a joint study into a number of matters relating to Edmonton Telephones and Alberta Government Telephones.

The first and most significant recommendation was that a new company should be created by 1988, that that company should acquire all of the assets of both Edmonton Telephones and Alberta Government Telephones, and that — most signif­ icantly in my view, Mr. Speaker — members of the public should be given the right to acquire shares in the new company. Shortly after that release, I publicly indicated that the review which had earlier been undertaken on a very small portion of AGT would be put on hold.

We further committed that if, for one of a variety of reasons, the recommendations of the joint task force committee between the city and the province are not accepted, we would then reinstitute the review of Altel Data, business communications, and mobile communications. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. It's an unusual situation, where AGT or Altel Data is continuing to expand.

Could the minister indicate whether he personally is interviewing some of the private business men that are in the microcomputer business as well, to see what effect this decision on the introduction by Altel Data of a program into microcomputers, is going to have on their businesses? MR. BOGLE: Mr.

Speaker, a number of businessmen have contacted me directly, either by telephone or by letter — I believe six over the last eight months or so — and I've given the same response to those individuals that I've just passed on to members of this Assembly; that is, our primary objective is to ensure that we have good and uninterrupted telecommuni­ cations service in the province of Alberta. We're looking first at the possibilities of implementing the recommendations of the Milvain committee.

If that is not possible, we will go back and reinstitute the more specific review of Altel Data, business communications, and mobile communications. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. Can the minister give a commitment to this Legislature that between now and at least the time of review, Altel Data will not introduce any other programs that compete with the private sector? MR. BOGLE: Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure if the hon. member fully appreciates what he's asking. We're dealing with a highly advanced form of technology that's ever changing.

I would be remiss if I gave the hon. member a blanket guarantee that Altel Data will do anything other than carry out the mandate it has been given. That is part of the overall thrust of what I might mention is one of the really bright spots in the whole Alberta Government Telephones system. MR. McPHERSON: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister explain what efforts are being made to shore down the operating and capital costs of the Alberta Government Tele­ phones? MR. BOGLE: Mr.

Speaker, for the past year and a half there has been a very concerted effort under way in Alberta Government Telephones to reduce the capital budget and to reduce the manpower within the corporation, to bring it more into line with the economic realities of the day. Over that period of time, through attrition and through an early retirement pro­ gram, in excess of 1,600 positions in Alberta Government Telephones have been eliminated. That has not been through firing or laying off any staff; it's strictly through attrition and through an early retirement program.

In the same period the capital budget of the organization has been cut in approximately half, to the point where it's about $270 million today. MR. McPHERSON: Mr. Speaker, can the minister advise the House that had there been an agreement by the Public Utilities Board for an increase, that increase for small businesses would have caused small business costs to soar from $17.15 a month in March 1982 to $33.65 in September 1983, which would have represented a 96 per cent increase, and residence services would have increased 48 per cent at the same time? MR. BOGLE: Mr.

Speaker, I'm somewhat reluctant to respond to rate increases, matters which are regulated under the Public Utilities Board. I think the rate increases sought by Alberta Government Telephones and the subsequent action of the Public Utilities Board are public knowledge. Physiotherapists' Legislation MR. LEE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct my question to the hon. Minister of Education, concerning the Chartered Phys­ iotherapists Act.

This question arises from representations made to me by constituents who allege that current legislation permits persons to represent themselves as physiotherapists, whether or not they are in fact qualified. Can the minister advise this House whether or not present legislation does allow unqualified persons to call themselves, and use the title, "physiothera­ pists"? MR. SPEAKER: With great respect to the hon. member, he's asking for an outright legal

interpretation. That is not included in the purposes of the question period and is something he might wish to see a solicitor about. MR. LEE: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. Could the minister advise whether he is aware of representations being made in the province of Alberta by individuals, who are not qualified to do so, that they are in fact physiotherapists, contrary to the present Act?

November 1, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 1557 MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, we are not aware of anyone acting contrary to the present Act. The situation arises because existing legislation grants an exclusive use of the titles "chartered phys­ iotherapist" or "registered physiotherapist". The word "phys­ iotherapist" by itself is not a title in this province, let alone a reserved title; it's simply a word we find in the dictionary. So at the present time people may hold themselves up to be phys­ iotherapists, and there is no comment implied in that about whether or not they are qualified to do any job or task.

The Act, the existing legislation, protects the titles "chartered phys­ iotherapist" and "registered physiotherapist". MR. LEE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister advise this House whether or not he expects to change the Act so that there will not be the possibility of a danger to the public by persons who allege to be physiotherapists? MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, no one has made any representations or allegations to us that the public is at risk in this situation.

That being the case, as I have mentioned in the House before, having in mind the fact that at the present time I'm dealing with approximately 67 organizations that want legislation of one kind or another, the question of the future of legislation for physiotherapists is not a high priority. The priority would of course change if someone could substantiate to me that the public is in some way at risk at the present time. MR. LEE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

In view of the fact that the Alberta physiotherapist association has asked for a change to this Act since 1975 and in view of the concerns that the association has, would the minister be prepared to meet with the executive committee some time within the near future to discuss their concern of the urgency for an update of this Act? MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I am always delighted to meet with anybody who has an interest in meeting with me. If the phys­ iotherapists fall into that class, I'd be delighted to meet with them at the earliest mutually convenient date.

I would only enter the caveat that in the view of the government, professional legislation is in a sense a contract between a professional group and the general public. If anyone wants a contract with the general public, they have to be pre­ pared to honor undertakings inherent in the idea of a contract. It's a two-way street; no one gets something for nothing. Social Allowance MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct my question to the Minister of Social Services and Community Health.

It's with regard to the report prepared by a coalition of human service agencies in the Edmonton area, entitled The Unkindest Cuts: The Impact of the Recent Social Allowance Cutbacks. What consideration has the minister given to the report's indi­ cation that social allowance recipients are being forced to spend portions of their food and clothing allowance on shelter? Appar­ ently half of them are doing so. DR. WEBBER: Mr. Speaker, the final comment he made is an interesting one. He may have information that I'm not aware of; it's not the information I have.

In terms of looking at any effects of the changes for social allowance recipients last spring, which went into effect July 1, I have received information from a number of sources, includ­ ing the particular group the hon. member refers to. I believe I indicated earlier in the session that the overall impression I have with respect to the changes, specifically with regard to shelter adjustments, is that the changes were just and fair over­ all. In terms of dealing with individual problems and circum­ stances, however, we are making special considerations.

The particular study the hon. member refers to — I'm not sure "study" is the right word. It's a report provided by the Edmonton Social Planning Council. The work was done by the Edmonton Social Planning Council; this report was submitted by a coalition. As I understand it, the process was that a number of questionnaires were left in different agencies and social service offices. Any social allowance recipient who had con­ cerns could pick up the form, fill it out, and send it in. In terms of the responses, there were some 177.

I must say that in terms of studies or in terms of questionnaires being administered to people, in my opinion it was a very unscientific study. The conclusions in the report that relate to the responses of some 177 people are, I believe, conclusions that cannot be accurately drawn from the information they have. Having said that, how­ ever, we are looking into ways in which we can work more closely with the agencies to better deal with any individual concerns that are out there. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.

It's the only report I've seen, and I think the minister should take it into consideration much more than what he feels. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Question. MR. MARTIN: Question, question. Will the minister outline what provisions he has made for higher utility bills to be covered by his department on behalf of recipients, considering the recently requested TransAlta rate increases and, of course, the onset of winter? DR. WEBBER: Mr.

Speaker, in terms of overall adjustments to those changes last spring, we've made some adjustments which make it easier to deal with special circumstances, par­ ticularly as they relate to problems of those people who are awaiting unemployment insurance cheques, problems related to unmarried mothers in the 16- to 17-year-old category, and in terms of the special consideration dealing with the shelter ceilings. Utilities are an aspect or a component of the shelter allow­ ance. There have been no changes at this particular time with respect to the utility component.

The utility component is still included in the overall; however, we are taking into account some of the concerns that have been expressed, and we'll be looking to see whether or not it's necessary to make any changes. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. What will the minister do if TransAlta is given a rate increase? That's the question. MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps that hypothetical question could await the event. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question.

Is the minister pre­ pared to reassess the elements of safety and security of social allowance recipients, especially women, in terms of his sug­ gestion that recipients take in boarders to ease the burden of the lowered sheltered allowance? DR. WEBBER: Mr. Speaker, that's a very specific kind of a question. I would indicate that overall, we have looked at the concerns related to the effect of the social allowance changes,

1558 ALBERTA HANSARD November 1, 1983 and we think we are dealing with those special considerations in the best way we can at the present time. So I really don't see what . . . If the hon. member would like to rephrase his question, maybe I could get a better handle on what he's trying to drive at. MR. MARTIN: I'll come back to it if I get time. What we're talking about is what it says in the report — if the minister has read it — about the fact that for women to take in boarders could be unsafe, and that was suggested by his department. That's what I'm asking about. DR. WEBBER: Mr.

Speaker, there were no specific instruc­ tions given to social allowance workers, in terms of suggestions to social allowance recipients as to what they should or should not do. Certainly individuals who were in a situation where they had the opportunity to take in a boarder in order to help meet their expenses relative to shelter would be expected to do so. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. That's just not true. I have an important message to social allowance recipients, March 25, which says . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. [interjection] Order please.

The hon. member well knows that the question period is for getting information and not giving it. There are of course plenty of opportunities in the House to give information and, in spite of the rule, a considerable amount of it purports to be given during question period. MR. MARTIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was just trying to help the minister out. MR. SPEAKER: That's very kind. MR. MARTIN: Has the minister reconsidered imposing a 20 per cent user fee on recipients' prescriptions, given the hard­ ships imposed by other measures his department imple­ mented . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Outright debate. MR.

MARTIN: I'll try to say it as gently as I can, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Not gently but correctly, properly. MR. MARTIN: All right. Can I ask this? I'll try this one: is he prepared to allow a prescription budget to social allowance recipients? And I don't want to debate. I'll ask it very gently. MR. NOTLEY: Take away the user fee, Neil. DR. WEBBER: Mr. Speaker, in terms of dealing with emer­ gency situations and special cases, I certainly can't indicate to the House all the rules and regulations that the social workers work by. If the hon. members has seen the manual, it is quite thick.

In terms of the concerns that have been expressed relative to the needs of social allowance recipients, however, the regional and district offices are dealing with the difficult situ­ ations on a special-consideration basis. The information I have is that that special-consideration basis is meeting the needs of social allowance recipients. MR. SPEAKER: Might this be the final supplementary by the hon. member. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question. Is the minister aware that the city of Edmonton Social Services Advisory Com­ mittee has endorsed this program?

I wonder if that makes any difference in terms of how serious he pretends this report is. DR. WEBBER: When the hon. member says they endorse this program, I don't know what he's talking about. MR. MARTIN: Let me say it slower for the minister, so he understands it. The Edmonton Social Services Advisory Com­ mittee has said that this report is correct and urged the minister to do something about it. What will the minister do now? DR. CARTER: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. How many supplemental is this member going to be allowed to ask this afternoon? MR.

SPEAKER: The number of supplementaries is, as you know, always at the discretion of the Speaker. I try to gauge it according to the number of members whom I anticipate want to ask questions. I realize we've gone on a bit on this one. The hon. Leader of the Opposition had 10 supplementaries, the hon. leader of the Independents added one to that number, and the hon. Member for Edmonton Norwood has now had five. We're starting to run short of time, and that's why I asked that this be the last supplementary. However, the question is really not in order.

It's just a matter of trying to get the minister and the member to debate something that's somebody else's opinion about something. If the hon. member wants to deal with a question of policy or action, something dealing with fact, then perhaps he could rephrase the supplementary. MR. MARTIN: This is a fact. MR. SPEAKER: People's opinions are not facts, except the fact that they give them. DR. WEBBER: Mr. Speaker, I'll pretend that he asked a ques­ tion. On that basis, I think it's fair to say that any group or agency is totally free to back whatever report they care to.

There's no attempt made on our part to try to stop that. If they want to back a report that I consider to be unscientific, that's their business. MR. MARTIN: Where's your report? Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Commission MRS. EMBURY: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the hon. Member for Lethbridge West, in his capacity as chairman of the Alberta Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Commission. It fol­ lows the distribution of the annual report of the commission. There was a substantial increase in the budget in 1983. Was this incurred by an increase in services to Albertans or by the public media program? MR. GOGO: Mr.

Speaker, there was a welcome increase to one of the hardest-working agencies in the government of Alberta. [interjections] It was richly deserved. To answer the question, it was dealing with treatment of alcohol and drug abuse problems, mainly with the operation of the David Lander Centre in Claresholm. MR. STROMBERG: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I am wondering if the hon. member could explain why that equally

November 1, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 1559 hardworking group, the John Howard Society, was cut out of all funding in this year's annual report. MR. GOGO: Mr. Speaker, there's no obligation on any member of this House to answer a question, and I won't answer that. MRS. EMBURY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the chairman. As many of the programs are informative and preventive in nature, what evaluation is carried out to determine the effectiveness of these programs? MR. GOGO: Mr.

Speaker, one of the requirements of the government of Alberta as the funding agent to AADAC, enun­ ciated through the cabinet of Alberta, is that whatever program is put in place should have an evaluation system built into it. The member is asking with regard to the moderation or media campaign being carried out by AADAC, to the tune of some $2 million. There is a built-in monitoring or evaluation process whereby each year the commission is able to record an eval­ uation of the effects of that. In

summary, I'd have to say that as chairman of the com­ mission, I'm very satisfied that each program we commence, particularly the media campaign, has built into it an evaluation system. MRS. EMBURY: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I would also like to add that I commend the commission for the pub­ lication Zoot Capri. Was this media campaign totally developed by staff personnel, or was it contracted out to the private sector? MR. GOGO: Mr. Speaker, the media campaign was contracted out to the private sector. I think the reason would be interesting. The staff at AADAC are there to conduct existing programs.

Certainly in the area of influencing young Albertans, we look to the private sector as having the expertise to develop creative programs whereby they can indeed influence, primarily through the print and electronic media, positive life styles for our young people. MRS. CRIPPS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Might this be the final supplementary on this topic. We're running out of time. The hon. Member for Calgary Egmont wishes to be recognized, and the hon. Minister of Labour is ready to give some further information that was previously requested. MRS. CRIPPS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Impaired drivers convicted of an offence are often required to take a course from AADAC. How many impaired drivers were required to take that course, and how many actually took it? MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps we could deal with that by way of the Order Paper, since it's a request for statistics. MRS. CRIPPS: Knowing the hon. member, I imagine he has them. MR. SPEAKER: I'm not aware of any such arrangement, so I'm just dealing with it in the usual way. MRS. CRIPPS: I'm not talking about arrangements; I'm talking about his facility for figures. MR. GOGO: Mr.

Speaker, my facility for figures has been arranged by the officials at AADAC; they are contained in the booklet. Of the some 28,000 Albertans convicted last year — the highest in the nation for impaired driving, which is indic­ ative of the good job the Solicitor General does — there were only some 16,000 who showed up to take the mandatory course to get their licences back. Grain Handling DR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Economic Development.

Has the calling of the public service strike in British Columbia had any immediate effect upon the ability of the port of Vancouver to handle Alberta exports? MR. PLANCHE: Mr. Speaker, not at this time. That's a public service strike, and the longshoremen and others are private- sector unions. DR. CARTER: Supplementary to the minister, Mr. Speaker. Is there any possibility that sympathy strikes might well develop, which would adversely affect the handling of grain on the Vancouver water front? MR. SPEAKER: With great respect to the hon. member, I think that sort of research should be done outside the House.

Earth Sciences Building MR. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, last day the Leader of the Oppo­ sition asked several questions relative to the Earth Sciences Building. One of the questions had to do with the involvement of Department of Labour staff. I would like to advise today that the building in question is subject to the regulations of the fire codes; however, it is excluded from Uniform Building Standards Act application, in a legal sense.

I am pleased to report that following an inspection, on May 17 a review was prepared for officials of the university as to the changes which would be required if the building were to be constructed today, under the 1981 code. We must keep in mind that the building was constructed 30 or 32 years ago, and it is not practical to make a direct comparison. On August 19, following a certain type of headline in a newspaper in Edmonton, which caused some concern, the head of field services for the building standards branch and the regional administrator personally reviewed the building.

Their conclusions were that with a few minor changes, such as increasing the fire rating of certain partitions from 40 minutes to one hour, this building — which is primarily of non-com­ bustible construction and is just slightly over three storeys above ground — would be very safe and, in fact, would offer accom­ modation as safe as, if not safer than, many buildings in the province.

The end result and the conclusion of the most senior and expert officials in the Department of Labour is that all the building requires, from the point of the view of the functions now performed there, is some relatively minor upgrading and that it is a reasonably safe building and certainly poses no potential or immediate harm to the occupants. None of the occupants are in the building for the purpose of sleeping or otherwise. MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps we could save the supplementaries. We have exceeded the question period time. ORDERS OF THE DAY MR. CRAWFORD: Mr.

Speaker, I move that Question No. 203 and motions for returns 207, 209, 210, and 212 stand. [Motion carried]

1560 ALBERTA HANSARD November 1, 1983 head: WRITTEN QUESTIONS 205. Mr.

Martin asked the government the following question: What is the best estimate of the Department of Social Services and Community Health as to: (1) the number of social allowance recipients who have changed accommodation as a result of the reduction in the shelter subsidy ceilings, showing separate estimates by family size and by reason for assistance; (2) the number of social allowance recipients who are paying shelter costs in excess of the new shelter subsidy ceilings, showing separate estimates by family size and by reason for assistance; (3) the average amount being paid for shelter in excess of the new shelter subsidy ceilings, showing separate estimates by family size and by reason for assistance.

DR. WEBBER: Mr. Speaker, I propose that Question No. 205 be amended by replacing part (1) with "the number of social allowance cases who have changed accommodation, showing estimates of family size and by reason for assistance"; and by replacing "recipients" in part (2) with the word "cases". MR. SPEAKER: I've not seen a copy of the motion. I'm going to put the question, if the House might agree that it won't be a precedent. Because I have some doubt whether a member's question may be amended in the same way as a member's motion. It is the member's question; he may not want to ask it if it's amended.

However, assuming that this will not be a precedent, does the Assembly agree with the motion by the hon. minister? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. SPEAKER: The motion is adopted. 211. Mr. Martin asked the government the following question: With regard to the operations of the Cavanagh Board of Review into the child welfare system, (

a) what is the total cost, paid and payable, of the operations of the board; (

b) what is the total cost, paid and payable, of legal counsel secured by the board; (

c) what is the name or names of the person or persons paid to supply the board with legal counsel? AN HON. MEMBER: Agreed. head: MOTIONS FOR RETURNS 195. Mr. Martin moved that an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing a copy of the 1983 evaluation of the Public Guardian's Office, undertaken by the planning secretariat of the Department of Social Services and Community Health. DR. WEBBER: Mr. Speaker, in terms of this motion for a return, the hon. member is requesting a copy of an evaluation of a particular office in the Department of Social Services and Community Health.

Such evaluations are internal working reports; therefore I would recommend that it not be tabled. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, once again we get this government showing just how little regard they have for the release of public information. I would say that surely, in the last five years in this province, we have just gone through an agonizing situation with child welfare legislation. We now have the government admitting that they have to do something about child welfare legislation.

Four or five years ago we had mem­ bers in this House smugly stand up and say everything was fine, till we had that dog food eating incident in Peace River and had to order the Cavanagh Board of Review to examine something where we should have taken action years ago. I know that with respect to the Public Guardian we're not dealing with child welfare legislation, but we are dealing with depen­ dent adults. We are dealing with a very important area of social responsibility. We are dealing with the lives of many, many Albertans. Mr.

Speaker, the reason we're requesting this information is that rumors we get are that this report is an indictment, not of civil servants but of the government and its lack of com­ mitment to follow through. It will be interesting to see how motions 196 and 197 are dealt with too, because I gather . . . AN HON. MEMBER: The same way. MR. NOTLEY: Somebody says, the same way. MR. MARTIN: The minister said that. MR. NOTLEY: It doesn't surprise me at all.

But I say that if we as legislators are going to be genuinely concerned about fulfilling our responsibilities, it isn't good enough just to wait until we see the headlines in a newspaper or watch the six o'clock news on television if there's some other horror story in the Department of Social Services and Community Health. Mr. Speaker, I don't believe there is any plausible excuse other than the embarrassment of this government for [not] releasing the information requested. I anticipate we'll have the same story with 196 and 197.

If we do, then at the end of the three motions for returns we will find what the government is really saying they're going to do about the Cavanagh Board of Review, the hidden agenda. I want to make it clear that 195 obviously doesn't relate to child welfare legislation. But it does relate to all the issues that surround those people we have set up legislation to protect. I remember in this House some years ago when we passed the Dependent Adults Act. Mr.

Speaker, because there have been some concerns, I think it is not inappropriate at all that this evaluation of the Public Guardian's Office which was under­ taken be tabled in the House so that the people of this province can evaluate the way in which this government is handling a social issue before it hits the headlines, rather than reacting to it after the fact. MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to stand. I have to admit that I'm not surprised. I expect that if it had been a good document praising the department, the minister would have been only too glad to lay it out for public perusal.

But again, by putting these things out in the public now, the whole point is that we can begin to do something about it before it gets to the point where we have to have another Cavanagh commission. They say that the mark of a civilized society is how we treat the most defenceless in the society, and certainly dependent adults fall into that category. Obviously an important report has been done.

What is wrong with us as legislators knowing what is in that report, so that we, the government and the opposition, can begin to make sure that if there are problems, we here — if we're wrong, we don't know, because we can't see the report. But if [they] were brought before this Legis­ lature, in a public forum, we could begin to solve some of the problems. When they're left behind closed doors and nothing

November 1, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 1561 is done, all that problems do is get worse. As my colleague said, the best example was five years ago when we were told everything was great and wonderful till we had the horror stories that were going on. What we're trying to do is find out exactly what's going on in social services, and the best way would be to lay it out. Lay it out. What is there to hide? We were told by the Attorney General many times that we're such an open government we don't need freedom of information. Why do we keep coming back to these things?

A report is done by the Department of Social Services and Community Health and we as legislators in Alberta are not going to be allowed to look at it to try to do something valuable, something that we could do. As I said, Mr. Speaker, I expect that if it had been positive, we'd probably get it. But now all it does is confirm our worst suspicions about what's happening in that area. I would hope — although I'm not holding my breath — that members would start to take their positions here as legislators seriously and vote that this be tabled. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. [Motion lost] 196. Mr.

Martin moved that an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing a copy of Compulsory Care in Alberta, a report prepared by the Department of Social Services and Com­ munity Health concerning the compulsory care program for juvenile delinquents. DR. WEBBER: Mr. Speaker, Motion for a Return 196 is requesting a report prepared by the Department of Social Serv­ ices and Community Health. I appreciate the help that's offered by the hon. members of the Official Opposition in terms of improving any particular area of the department.

However, I think hon. members would recognize the importance of being able to look at doing assessments and preparing internal doc­ uments to assist the department and minister responsible to make decisions and to improve the system. In terms of the child welfare area, since reference was made to it, hon. members all have copies of the Cavanagh Board of Review report. Certainly that was not work done in isolation from work going on in the department.

I indicated to the Assem­ bly that later in this session of the Legislature, we would be putting before the House a new child welfare Act to die on the Order Paper, and for new legislation to be brought in, in the spring. But in order to prepare for that particular legislation, one has to have officials in the department provide information and prepare working documents for the minister. In the case of 196, that is the case, and, since it is an internal working report, once again I recommend that this motion be rejected. MR. NOTLEY: Mr.

Speaker, what we have at this stage is an effort to construe every possible report as the kind of confi­ dential advice a minister would receive from his deputy. No one is suggesting that we want personal files dug out here. What we're talking about is a report that is dealing with the question of compulsory care in Alberta. Presumably in the next while — the minister tells us, possibly next spring — we're going to deal with legislation regarding child welfare in this province, although knowing this government's ability to procrastinate, I'm not entirely sure we'll actually get around to it.

Presuming that the minister is able to convince his colleagues in caucus to agree, we are going to be pressing ahead, and well we should. But how can members of the Assembly press ahead on something as important as changes to a vital piece of legislation if we don't have relevant material at our disposal? The minister can say we have the Cavanagh Board of Review. But what do we find in the Cavan­ agh Board of Review? We find that even the board of review had important information withheld from it by this government.

The minister said, oh, I didn't think I should make that infor­ mation available; I didn't want to upset the commissioners of the board of review. Even the board of review people have to say, through Justice Cavanagh, that that kind of action was presumptuous. Mr. Speaker, here we have the same attitude that the former Minister of Social Services and Community Health took with respect to releasing information to the Cavanagh Board of Review. We have the same attitude that seems to dwell in the mind of the current minister: we're going to keep information away from this Assembly. On what?

On compulsory care, an important aspect of juvenile problems in Alberta. I understand that one of the difficulties we have is a vast increase in the number of young people that are put in compulsory care insti­ tutions, a process which started with about 150 cases and we're now looking at 1,500 cases a year. That has created problems. Four years ago I had an opportunity to look at the Westfield institution in the city of Edmonton.

One of the concerns I had in travelling through that institution — notwithstanding the public controversy that had been raised in the Legislature — was the genuine problem that the administration had to deal with because this government wasn't giving sufficient attention to properly funding these kinds of institutions. It's fine to say we want a hard, Tory, right-wing position, law and order, lock them up. But what are you going to do with the institutions? To what extent are we going to then find that the casualties are young people whose lives are lost because of this route? Mr.

Speaker, we understand — and all we can go on is the basis of a public service which is increasingly not very happy with this government and that from time to time discussion occurs. While I have not seen this report, I understand that it is also critical of the government, and that the major reason — the sort of coffee row speculation — it's not being released is that it's embarrassing to the Department of Social Services and Community Health. Mr.

Speaker, we had a former minister of the Crown with the unmitigated gall to deny information to a board of inquiry, and now we have the current minister standing up and saying, this is information which really shouldn't be shared with the Assembly. This government reacts to crises after they hit the front page of the Edmonton Journal. But when in heaven's name are we going to see some leadership in this Legislature in dealing with issues before they become political controversy?

If this Assembly is going to have any credibility at all when we deal with changes in child welfare legislation in this prov­ ince, we have to have all the relevant information made avail­ able. It may be that some of that information is going to make the current minister uncomfortable. It may be that it's going to make the government's lack of action over the last four or five years look as it is — a case of neglect. It may be politically uncomfortable. One of of the things that comes with leadership is that you have to be prepared to take the knocks as well as the boosts.

If you're going to be flitting off to give a speech someplace, you also have to be prepared to face the criticism that comes when things don't go well. This government can herald good news, but it has a terrible tendency to try to hide bad news. As legislators, our obligation is to find out what the facts are before we make important changes. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would just say that my col­ league is asking for information which every single member, whether on the government or opposition side of the House,

1562 ALBERTA HANSARD November 1, 1983 should have before we make changes in legislation that will affect the young people of this province. MR. SPEAKER: May the hon. member conclude the debate? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, I imagine we could make this speech 100 times, but with a big majority, they just sit there on their hands and say public documents are internal docu­ ments. I am told that this report on compulsory care was written as a public document; it was not written as an internal docu­ ment. It has now become an internal document because it's embarrassing to the government.

That's the only reason. It was set up as a public document, and the minister knows full well that that's the case. But because it is embarrassing . . . We are told some things — as my colleague said, we are set up for 150 over the whole province to be locked up in compulsory care, and we are now to 1,500 a month. We are told that it may even criticize the judicial system. Why are we as legislators not given this report, Mr. Speaker? It makes no sense at all if we are to be making policy. Even the backbenchers would probably like to get some information now and again. Why do we not have this?

We cannot hide behind internal documents when this was set up to be a public document. I think this is basically a charade, especially when the Attorney General tells us that we do not need freedom of information in this province. If there is any province or any government in Canada that needs freedom of information, it's this one, when we see what's happening right here today. [Motion lost] 197. Mr.

Martin moved that an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing a copy of each of two reports initiated in 1981 and prepared by the Department of Social Services and Com­ munity Health concerning the foster care system, one entitled Foster Parents in Alberta and the other Foster Children in Alberta. DR. WEBBER: Mr. Speaker, for the same reasons as the pre­ vious two motions for returns, I would recommend that mem­ bers defeat this particular one. MR. NOTLEY: Isn't that surprising? AN HON. MEMBER: A broken record. MR. NOTLEY: Someone says "broken record".

Yes, it cer­ tainly is a broken record if one wants to plead the case for democracy and openness as far as this government is concerned, because we don't get to first base. I think poor John Diefenbaker would be rolling over in his grave if he had to listen to the kind of nonsense that we get from members on the front bench when they don't want to make information available. Mr. Speaker, I think it's worth . . . MR. ALEXANDER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

I won­ der if we might follow the hon. member's earlier suggestion: instead of repeating the same speech 100 times over, he could make us a tape so we could listen to it at our leisure. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Alberta New Dem­ ocratic Party would be quite happy to sell you tapes, hon. member. I would like to deal with the motion, however, and just note what we're asking for here. We are asking for information concerning the foster care system. Mr.

Speaker, I don't really understand how members on that side of the House can seri­ ously object to the release of information on something as basic to the child welfare legislation in this province as foster care. If any of us had paid any attention to the Cavanagh Board of Review at all — I don't how many members have even read it. MR. MARTIN: Not the minister. MR. NOTLEY: Today I noticed that the minister hadn't even read his own departmental memorandum, which is really quite incredible. I don't know what he's getting a salary for if he doesn't read the rules he's sending out to social workers. MR.

MARTIN: He's on welfare. MR. NOTLEY: What does he do? Just sign everything that comes on his desk? Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that, by the minister's own admission, we are being asked to look at important changes in legislation in the next year. We have the Cavanagh Board of Review detailing some of the problems with our foster care system in this province — one child gone from one place to another 37 times. Some of the members in this House sneer and sort of catcall and giggle. It's not something to catcall and giggle about when you think of what you're doing to the life of a child — 37 times.

How many of us, no matter where we sit, could smirk if that was a child of our own family or someone we knew? That's a shocking thing. Mr. Speaker, it's time that we as legislators got away from trying to play the high roller role, flitting off to New York to give a speech or having tuxedos or the next best thing to it at Kananaskis park when you play golf. It's time we began to take seriously our duties about the legislation we have direct responsibility for. Changes in child welfare legislation are not something we can blame on Ottawa. It's not Ottawa's fault. It's our responsibility.

And we can only make judgments on the basis of the information which has been compiled. I just want to close by saying that, yes, there has been a similarity, because the three reports we've made reference to this afternoon — all three reports, as we understand it — blast this government for neglect, incompetence, and inaction. Mr. Speaker, I know that politicians don't like to make this infor­ mation available.

I know that it would be nice to be able to say: let's keep away from the public, information which shows we aren't doing a good enough job, because it may mean that we have to pay more money; it won't fit in with the Provincial Treasurer's new gospel of restraint. But if we fail to act, then when those problems occur as they did in 1979 in the Westfield institution, as they did in 1980 in Peace River — all of a sudden we found people who a few months before said there were no problems at all. Now we have the minister himself saying that our legislation is badly out of date and needs to be overhauled.

But the cas­ ualties — and not the casualties in this House. If it were the politicians who were the casualties, it would be one thing. But the casualties are the people who need our help. We're talking about foster care, young children who need our help, and we're simply saying, business as usual. Wendy Koenig won't write any more bad articles in the Edmonton Journal, so we can go back to sleep. And thousands of young children can pay the price of Tory neglect.

November 1, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 1563 Mr. Speaker, that isn't good enough. Let them produce this kind of information so that all members, regardless of which side of the House they sit on, can take their duties seriously. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, I've been involved in this debate since 1971, the very same debate over and over again. I can appreciate the comments of the hon. Member for Edmonton Whitemud with regard to the repetition of debate such as this.

But in light of policy making, I think the point is often well taken in the Legislature that more information, up-to-date information which this certainly would be . . . A new minister has taken over the portfolio. Tomorrow is the first anniversary of the government's new reign, the first year in terms of the minister's responsibilities. Certainly there were things wrong. In the Department of Social Services and Community Health, there are always going to be difficulties. There are always going to be problems that are not quite solved.

But I think it would stand well if the minister — and the government in other responsibilities, but specifically this one — after a year of administration could table in this Legislature documents that say, look, there are some things that are just not right; I'm going to take this next period of time between now and a year from now and, by the second anniversary, I will have some solutions. Not all of them, because you never will; the system will never be perfect. Thou­ sands of years have proven that particular statement.

I just urge other members of this government to consider that admission of problems, admission of programs which are not being admin­ istered correctly, is often a positive thing. Trying to conceal it and not revealing it in the Legislature often creates an adversary attitude — and that's what's happening right now — that maybe isn't necessary in good positive program development by the government. I think the minister and others in the government should reconsider when they continue to refuse to give information because it's an internal document. Maybe the document is just a statistical analysis.

It would be nice for the minister to say: oh, I've looked it over; sure, it criticizes me and some of the department, but here it is; if you have some positive alterna­ tives, give them to me; but I'm going to try to solve the problem, so get off my back. He could say to the opposition members: leave me alone; if you have positive alternatives to give back to me, then suggest them; I've enumerated the problems, but if you can't give any positive suggestions, I'm going to try to do my best, whatever it is, and after a period of time I'll step down as minister and somebody else can do it.

But the material is in this Legislature for discussion. It's open, and I think it would be a rather positive and most likely novel approach not only for this government but for other governments across Canada. It would be so open that it would take away all the defences of many others. So, Mr. Speaker, in making comments to the minister, I'd appreciate if he'd consider other motions for returns on that basis. I think it would certainly be a step ahead in matters such as this. But I know what's going to happen to this motion, and certainly I'll let the process take its course. MR.

SPEAKER: May the hon. member conclude the debate? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. MARTIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We certainly wouldn't want to bore the new right, so I will be rather short, because I think the arguments have been made. I would say to the minister on these specific reports too: Foster Parents in Alberta and Foster Children in Alberta were intended to be public documents. They were set out that way; they were not internal documents. The minister shakes his head. Well, if that's the case, show us and I'll take it back.

All you have to do is bring it here and we'll take a look at it, before you shake your head. Then we'll be able to know. But until we have evidence, that's what we're told. I think some of our other rumors have been pretty good in terms of the content of the report. The other point: when we had the Cavanagh report tabled, the minister said he is looking at a new child welfare Act. He is going to ask the Legislature to look at a new child welfare Act, perhaps tabled this fall and brought back in the spring.

If we as legislators want to do a proper job there, we should have the evidence to indicate what would make a good child welfare Act. And certainly Foster Parents in Alberta and Foster Children in Alberta were a very big part of the Cavanagh report. If the minister has other evidence — as I say, it started off as a public document — that would be of help to members on both sides of the House, I think that would help make this a better doc­ ument when he brought it back. The minister indicated that he was going to table it because he wanted discussion, and perhaps bring it back in the spring.

Well what better way, in terms of foster care, than to table it here in the House so members of the Legislature, from both the government side and from the opposition side, can take a look at it and come up with some alternatives. It seems to me that would make eminent good sense if we wanted a good child welfare Act. The minister indicated that's what he wanted, because he wanted some discussion; I remember him saying that. So I cannot understand why, then, he would refuse to put this in the Legislature so we can take a look at it as a public document. He's going to get more discussion back about it.

Even if this specific report about foster parents was damning the government, which I expect it is, the minister would be able to say, look, that's fine, but I'm coming back with a new child welfare Act. He wouldn't even get that much flak at this point. But again, we have this penchant for secrecy, and we're afraid of the truth, no matter what. I expect it's a government too long in power and growing a little inward looking. But hope springs eternal, so we'll have the vote on the motion now. Thank you. [Motion lost] 208. Mr. R.

Speaker moved that an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing: For each of the prototype expandable hospitals that have been completed or are in construction or planning in the province: (

a) the location, (

b) the capacity, (

c) the completion date or anticipated completion date, (

d) the proposed use for any previous hospital replaced. [Motion carried] head: MOTIONS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT MOTIONS 204. Moved by Mr. Kowalski:

Be it resolved that the Assembly express its concern over current employment levels in Alberta and, further, that the Department of Manpower be commended for its innovative and speedy action in implementing substantial job-creation programs to assist thousands of Alberta citizens.

1564 ALBERTA HANSARD November 1, 1983 [Adjourned debate March 29: Mr. Hiebert] MR. PAPROSKI: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Member for Edmonton Gold Bar, I beg leave to resume debate on Motion No. 204. The importance of this motion . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Does the Assembly agree? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. PAPROSKI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The importance of this motion is very evident, given the current economic downturn in the Alberta economy.

In the last few years the province of Alberta has experienced unprecedented change, affected simultaneously by world economic recession, the national energy program, a fall in the demand for energy, and the overbuilding and excess in-migration caused by the 1970 resource boom. The province must adjust to a new economic environment. In the meantime, the human cost in terms of unemployment must be addressed. I'd like to commend the Department of Manpower for addressing this problem and implementing numerous job-cre­ ation programs.

The quickness of this department in reacting reflects its concern and commitment to the current situation for all Albertans. The programs provide work for the unemployed. As well, they provide valuable work experience and emphasize job retraining. Let me touch upon just a few of the programs that have been made available by this department. First, I'll deal with the programs directed at the province's youth, since they are among the hardest hit by the economic downturn.

The Alberta youth employment program is a six-month wage subsidy program in which the government provides funds up to 50 per cent of an employee's wages to a certain limit if the jobs provide skill development or training and are additions to existing jobs. In this particular program alone, $5 million has been allocated. Another program aimed at youth is the summer temporary employment program, which I'm sure many members are aware of. This provides jobs for up to 6,000 high school and post- secondary students.

The main elements of this program are provincial government department hiring, community employ­ ment hiring, and summer farm employment. Each job helps to improve the youth employment level and provide valuable work experience needed to help find future employment. Because of the importance of this program to students, I'm very pleased to see the dramatic increase from $7.8 million to $12 million in the funds allocated to STEP this past year.

Under the Canada/Alberta new employment expansion and development program — in short form, the NEED program — the provincial and federal governments have each provided approximately half of the $22.5 million committed to this pro­ gram, which is expected to create some 3,000 jobs. Mr. Speaker, with a funding commitment of $25.9 million, the priority employment program will provide employment and training opportunities for approximately 9,200 Albertans during the upcoming winter months.

This program provides support for business and farm employment, employer based industrial training, research and development, and work experience for apprentices. As well, another component of this program pro­ vides support for training in skill shortage areas in private vocational schools. Each of these areas offers opportunities in distinct fields, yet they have one thing in common: they facil­ itate job training and career development. Mr. Speaker, these are some of the more prominent programs that the Department of Manpower has initiated. Of course there are more.

Even with this concern and commitment to alleviating the conditions of the unemployed, there will still be opposition to this motion, based on the belief that the government is still not doing enough. The government could provide more fund­ ing, but this is not the total solution. Rather, the key to eco­ nomic recovery in Alberta will stem from policies that will encourage the private sector. The role of the government should be to develop temporary positions that provide training to help an individual enter the private-sector work place when jobs become available.

This government does not want to manage the economy by excess spending, as this would only create jobs in the short run and, in the long run, destroy the viability of the province's economy. This does not mean that the government should totally rely on the private sector to employ the population. The job creation programs outlined earlier recognize that the private sector, and therefore the provincial economy, is going through a period of adjustment. To lessen the adverse effects of this adjustment on Albertans, the Department of Manpower has accordingly created numerous jobs.

The department's inno­ vative initiatives serve to combat unemployment and develop a trained work force that will enable the province to achieve balanced long-term growth. What we have, Mr. Speaker, is a concern with short-run and long-run viability, and a strong belief that the private sector is the long-run solution to economic growth. The government can facilitate and provide the stimuli for growth, but it cannot replace it.

This belief is reflected in the types of job-creation programs implemented, which have a strong private-sector emphasis, upgrading the skills of workers and allowing busi­ nesses to start up or complete projects otherwise cancelled or postponed. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, in supporting this motion, I would again like to commend the hon. Minister of Manpower for the measures he has taken not only to aid Albertans in the near future but to contribute to the development of a valuable and variable economy in the longer turn. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MRS. FYFE: Mr.

Speaker, if I could just add a couple of words before the question is called, I'd like to commend the Member for Barrhead for bringing forward this most important concern. It's one that I think every member of the Assembly recognizes and shares. It's extremely relevant that it be debated. I think each of us would like to emphasize the concern we have within our own constituencies and commend the government for actions it has taken. We have a limited amount of time this afternoon, knowing that we have to adjourn in a few minutes and that the mover of the motion may wish to sum up.

But I did wish to briefly express the concerns of the constituency I represent, applaud the moves that have been made, and look forward to new initiatives on the part of the minister responsible for manpower development, as he has great challenges ahead of him, which all members of the Assembly, I am sure, will support him. Thank you. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few moments this afternoon to speak on the motion, where we're talking about the employment situation as it applies to this province and the great and wonderful things that the government has done to enhance employment. Mr.

Speaker, I would like to say to the Assembly that the government backbenchers especially seem to be living in a wonderland or something. They don't seem to be understanding or listening to the constituents to find out what's going on in the real world. I found it very interesting when the Minister of

November 1, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 1565 Manpower used a set of statistics that told us how many people are employed, not how many people are unemployed. I have to give the minister credit for taking the offensive and trying to sort of water down the facts of how many people we have unemployed in this province. And that, of course, is a direct result of the policies of this government. I'd like to know if it was the Prime Minister of Canada or the Premier of this province that turned the oil taps off. It was a policy of this government.

But it's the policy of this government to always be blaming somebody else for their short­ comings. Had this government had the foresight to divorce Alsands and Imperial Esso in Cold Lake from the energy agree- ment, this province would not have felt the recession. We went through a recessionary cycle in 1973 or thereabouts. People in other parts of Canada were feeling a downturn in the economy, but not here in Alberta because the oil economy was booming at that time, not because of policies of this government but because OPEC had jacked up the price of world oil and we rode along on that escalation.

So let's not stand here trying to twist our arms out of shape patting ourselves on the back for something we didn't do. Then we have the audacity to turn statistics around and say, look at all the people that are employed. Well most of the time 95 to 97 per cent of the people are employed. But the cold, hard statistic is, how many are unemployed? Mr. Speaker, it's going to be interesting when this government, in its benevo­ lence, is raising the personal income tax 13 per cent. What is that going to do for the unemployed people in this province?

Are they going to be proud of that statistic when more busi­ nesses go down the tube? We hear so much from this government — they understand that it's the private sector that generates jobs. But in question period this afternoon, hon. Member for Barrhead, look at how many parts of the private sector this government is getting into. And it's going to be quite interesting to see who does buy PWA. I think we'll probably go ahead and try to convince many private investors to buy PWA, because I don't think PWA is ever going to make a profit. AN HON. MEMBER: Oh now. DR. BUCK: Oh now. Fine.

It was quite a trick of this government that when they wanted to make the balance state­ ment of PWA look good, they would sell a 707. You know, they've run out of selling 707s. They've run out of airplanes to sell. That used to be a favorite trick of the Minister of Transportation at that time, the hon. Dr. Horner. A great thing. Sell another airplane and make the balance statement look good. The same thing with the old heritage fund. It's not going to exist in this province in five more years at the present rate this government is squandering the fund.

If they were to balance the books or come someplace close, they'd have to take another $1 billion out of the Heritage Savings Trust Fund. So $2.2 billion times five comes to what the Heritage Savings Trust Fund is. That fund is not going to be there when we're talking about future Albertans. This government's record of providing jobs is not that good. So what is this government going to do? What are they going to do to stimulate the private sector? The Minister of Manpower well knows what certain stim­ ulations in certain areas can do for an economy.

I don't tell tales out of school, but this is one I can tell because I think it concerns us all. The hon. Minister of Culture, myself, and the hon. Member for Vegreville were down in the Maritimes. We saw that with judicious use of the taxpayer's dollar you can stimulate the economy. We saw three provincially funded golf courses, two in Prince Edward Island and one in New Bruns­ wick. They were in an area that stimulated tourist business. They were a stimulator in that part of the country to stimulate the economy.

If we had taken, as was brought up previously, $50 million out of some of the waste in Kananaskis, we could have had 50, $1 million golf courses in this province. The hon. Member for Edmonton Whitemud might even have been able to be a touring pro. He'd make more money than he would in his job as a member of the Assembly, I'll tell you that. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. DR. BUCK: This government has not spent the taxpayer's money wisely, to create jobs. You can do it that way. You don't have to get involved in the private sector, as we've done through PWA, Cardinal Coal, and AGT.

Why does this government not learn to stay out of the private sector? They're supposedly a free-enterprise government. I say "supposedly" because all the things they're doing lead me to believe they've forgotten some of their free-enterprise principles. Mr. Speaker, I just . . . [interjection] Not as much as I do. What socialism does that come from? I believe in the private sector. If I were a member of this caucus, I wouldn't be sitting back there with a muzzle on letting this government get involved in the private sector as much as it is. [interjections] That's right, and nobody would ever tell me.

I don't have to have puppet strings so I know what to say. Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that I believe the Assembly wishes to adjourn for the afternoon, I beg leave to adjourn the debate. MR. SPEAKER: Does the Assembly agree? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. SPEAKER: It is so ordered. MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, in order that the members can now attend the meeting of the Commonwealth Parliamen­ tary Association, I move that the Assembly adjourn until 8 p.m. this evening. MR. SPEAKER: Does the Assembly agree? HON.

MEMBERS: Agreed. [The House recessed at 4:16 p.m. and resumed at 8 p.m.] head: GOVERNMENT BILLS AND ORDERS (Second Reading) Bill 81 Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act, 1983 [Debate adjourned October 31] MR. SPEAKER: Before the Assembly resumes debate on this Bill, I should make reference to three matters with regard to an amendment to the motion proposed yesterday that the Bill be read a second time. The first was a point of order raised by the hon. Government House Leader concerning whether the

1566 ALBERTA HANSARD November 1, 1983 amendment was in order. Secondly, some members indicated privately that the hon. Member for Edmonton Norwood should have been recognized again after his motion to adjourn debate on the proposed amendment was rejected. Thirdly, we had a division, or recorded vote, which went beyond the time of adjournment. Concerning the first, it should be observed that the amend­ ment asked that the Bill be referred. It should have proposed that the subject matter of the Bill be referred. That may be a narrow, technical point, but it is supported by Beauchesne and Erskine May.

Debate on referring the Bill may well be rather indistinguishable from debate on referring the subject matter, but there is more substance to it than that. The debate on the amendment proposed yesterday was very wide ranging indeed. It referred repeatedly to the subject matter of the Bill, even though the amendment itself referred to the Bill.

Ordinarily, as all hon. members know, a Bill coming to a vote on a motion that it be read a second time would either be rejected in principle, and there would then be no further pro­ ceedings in regard to the Bill, or it would, if approved in principle, stand referred automatically to Committee of the Whole for examination of its text. As we all know, the Com­ mittee of the Whole could propose amendments to the text but not amendments to the principle as approved by the House on second reading.

The proposed amendment would have referred the Bill to a completely different and smaller committee, the Committee on Privileges and Elections, Standing Orders and Printing. That committee has no power to amend the text. Neither may that committee usurp the function of the House with regard to approval in principle, or even recommend that the House approve or not approve the Bill in principle. Approval in prin­ ciple is reserved solely to the House.

Hence, it is clear to see why, regardless of the similarity of debate, it is the subject matter and not the Bill itself which may be referred to a com­ mittee in such an amendment. Both Beauchesne's fifth edition at pages 225, 226, and 227, and Erskine May's 19th edition at pages 498 to 501 also support this rule concerning referral of the subject matter rather than referral of the Bill. Indeed, Beauchesne goes further in Citation 749 by saying that an amendment may not "defer second reading . . . until the sub­ ject-matter has been considered by a committee". It may not do that.

Without such a deferral, a motion to turn the Bill over to a committee would be impractical and perhaps impossible. Coming to the second matter — whether a member, having moved adjournment of debate, may be recognized again to re­ enter the debate once his motion to adjourn the debate has been defeated: clearly he may not. Some hon. members, again pri­ vately, referred to an occurrence here — I think it was on April 14, 1981 — when, after the budget speech had been read, the hon.

Leader of the Opposition, instead of following the usual custom of moving to adjourn debate, started his speech on the budget motion and later on asked for leave to adjourn the debate. That motion was rejected by the House. There was some indication by various members urging him to continue with the debate, and he did so, while the Speaker was, shall we say, fidgeting here and wondering whether this was in order and eventually deciding it wasn't. Thereupon there was a motion of the House passed unanimously giving the hon.

Leader of the Opposition leave to continue, notwithstanding the defeat of his motion to adjourn. In fact it almost went beyond giving him leave; I think it urged him to do that. In any case, it's clear that when a member has moved adjournment of the debate, he must then give up his possession of the floor. We say that a person speaking has the floor. A member who moves adjournment must give up the floor, because otherwise the question on the adjournment may not be put.

Once that happens, he has concluded speaking and in order to speak again would have to have unanimous permission to speak twice on the same motion, amendment, or subamend- ment. That also is clearly supported in Beauchesne. With regard to the third matter, we had a call for a recorded vote, and I went ahead with the recorded vote without first asking the House for leave to continue beyond the appointed time for adjournment. I'm sorry. Perhaps hon. members would like to take their places. [Mr.

Speaker sat while some hon. members entered the Cham­ ber] In any event, it was somewhat too informal, and on a future occasion, if we should happen to run into a situation where the taking of a recorded vote is going to take us beyond our normal adjournment hour, it would be my intention to ask the House to decide either to stop the clock or to defer the taking of the vote until debate on that particular item is called again. I thank hon. members for their attention. In view of what happened yesterday, it seemed that a statement like this might be necessary. MR.

MARTIN: I know we're all anxious for the question, but I think we'd like the debate on a very important Bill to continue. When we decide to dismantle democracy, we want to talk about it a little while. First of all, on a more technical point, before I get to the main matter, I too would like to make reference to 12, where the commission establishes the various urban ridings, and say to the minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, that it makes good sense to us that something be done with Fort McMurray, for the simple reason that if we look at the populations of Sherwood Park and St.

Albert, we find that they have roughly the same populations. That's one part of it. So it would seem that perhaps Fort McMurray is being short-changed. The other point about the Fort McMurray riding, for anybody that's organized — the hon. Member for Lac La Biche- McMurray is not here — but it is a huge geographical area besides. It includes and goes down south past Lac La Biche, which is a major town in the south end with a number of thousands of people, right up to the boundary. So besides a population that is approximately the same size as Sherwood Park and St.

Albert, which have city ridings, it is a huge geographical area that probably takes up a fifth of the popu­ lation, and would make it very, very difficult, I would think, for one member to service well. So I would make representation to the minister to see if they can look at that when the time occurs. Now, Mr. Speaker, I'll get back to the main point, the one that bothers us the most. Of course that's where we've decided that somehow — a new change — the opposition is not entitled to the same representation on this commission as the government members.

The reason, as I understood the minister when I listened, is that because we have now something like 95 per cent of the members, we'll knock down the seats. Bas­ ically, the opposition is smaller; therefore, we should take away their representation in terms of equal representation. That's a very interesting argument, and I heard it before. I heard it on the Members' Services Committee when the opposition budget was decimated, that somehow democracy is determined by how many people in one election get put into the opposition. I suppose we know what happened in the last election.

I'm well aware that the total opposition was elected by 1,500 votes. So

November 1, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 1567 I would take it then that if it was the total government — even though the popular vote, 38 per cent of the people, did not vote for the government — from thereon in there would be no opposition around, that we should just put government members on. I'm not sure that I understand the logic. I see the back­ benchers are pounding again, because they're not very fond of democracy anyhow.

Frankly, the logic escapes me, because as I pointed out yesterday — and I'm sure I'm now in order — when we go every place else in Canada, except for the two ad hoc committees, we are going to be the most political province around in setting our electoral boundaries. The government may feel that this is beneficial to them, Mr. Speaker, that somehow they can gerrymander a boundary here or a boundary there to make sure they have the same number of people elected as they have now.

The point is, though, if there's any hope left — and I know that this government, back in '69 talked, about ger­ rymandering from the old Social Credit government, but at least there was equal representation of the politicians on both sides there. I am suggesting that if this is now the way we determine democracy, by how many members you elect in each different election, then democracy in Alberta is in very sad shape.

I would say to hon. members, and especially to the minister, that if they were sitting over here on the opposition side and this Bill were brought in by, say, the former Social Credit government — if the Member for Little Bow was sitting in their position over there and he brought in this Bill — would they be happy with this Bill? But all of a sudden they say: oh, that makes eminent good sense, because we have the majority of people. Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the minister would be very upset if he were sitting on this side and saw a Bill like that.

I'm sure he'd be one of the first to rise to his feet to protest. I'm sure he'd be making a very similar speech to the one I'm making right now. The point that I really don't understand is, how do we deter­ mine this in the future? These electoral boundaries, in my understanding, will go for two elections. Let me throw out the hypothesis that next time, the Conservatives are the opposition. I know that's not a very nice proposition for the members. They may not realize it, but they're not here by divine right. The voters are going to kick them out; it may be the next election.

But let's say that they're sitting over here in the next election. Are they going to feel so good about this Bill when they have a new government sitting across there? I would say this to the government: think ahead to the future, because the next government would certainly have the right to keep the Bill that they brought in. When that Conservative government was in opposition, they'd feel pretty powerless with the new boundaries commission that they'd set up, and they wouldn't be able to talk about it very much either, as the next government could gerrymander them right out of existence.

While I know it seems to the government that they will be here for a long time, Mr. Speaker, when they're bringing in a Bill, if they're really interested in the democratic process, first of all they should honestly analyse if it as a fair Bill. I think the minister knows it's not. I think the minister is a very intel­ ligent man; he knows exactly what he's doing here. The other point that they should always remember is that in a democracy, even with gerrymandering, people eventually rebel, and they could be sitting over on this side. If they were sitting on this side, would they think this was a fair Bill?

I suggest that the reaction from this Conservative government, the people that were in opposition, the few that were left — they didn't think even the Social Credit Bill at the time was fair, and they were complaining about it. How would they feel now? I would just say to hon. members: think about what it would be like — if you would think it was a fair Bill — if you came over to this side. The other point, and I can come to no other conclusion, is that this is gerrymandering at its best.

I said, only half face­ tiously, that the minister will be known as the gerrymandering minister, because those reputations live with us, as we know from Quebec and other provinces. But the point that I really don't understand is — there they sit, elected in 75 out of 79 ridings; four of us squeaked in by 1,500 votes and all of a sudden we see that they're going to change the rules of the boundary commission, as if they're frightened that they're going to lose a few more seats. I don't understand this sort of overwhelming paranoia that's developing; I really do not under­ stand it.

I would think, when they get a mandate like that, people would be gracious and continue with the Electoral Boundary Commission that worked relatively well in the past. It certainly hasn't hurt the Conservatives in terms of the num­ bers of people they elected in the last election. But no, we see this big government, worried all the time, inward-looking, wor­ ried that the people may rebel against them. So they're going to turn all the rules around, even against a small opposition. It's when governments get like this that they really start to run into trouble with the voters. The voters are not stupid.

They wonder why the government had to do this. I've had calls already: why are they doing this; have they not enough seats; do they want all 79; are they so worried about a small opposition that they have to go around and make sure there is no opposition next time; are they that worried about democracy in action? Mr. Minister, you may be surprised. The mouths of some of the backbenchers work a little ahead of the brains. Some of them have actually told me — and they're quite proud about it — well, there goes Norwood; ha, ha, ha; and there goes Little Bow; ha, ha, ha. You should listen over there.

You're saying it's a fair Bill, and these people are saying exactly what you don't want to hear. They're calling it gerrymandering, and they're quite proud of it, Mr. Speaker. You should listen to the comments. I'm saying that maybe they know something we don't. Maybe you'd better tell the backbenchers to handle it in a public relations manner like the minister does. I think that the backbenchers are probably close to what the government is attempting to do.

In conclusion, the point that I try to make is this: governments have tried to gerrymander so obviously in the past, but there is a point when people get angry enough at the government that they're not going to be able to gerrymander all the bound­ aries, because everybody's going to be mad at them. When they do silly little Bills like this that are unnecessary, it just makes people madder and madder. They can gerrymander all they want, but when the time has come for a tired old government that pulls tricks like this, the people will speak, no matter where the boundaries are.

That's something they had better remember, because there have been examples in the past of governments that have tried to gerrymander and got thrown right out in the next election. I hope they keep that in mind. The point that I'm trying to make is that I believe that if this government had any decency at all, they would be with the small opposition saying, we'll at least keep it even. But no, they've got to cut the opposition down because it's smaller.

It would be better if there were two, better if there was one, better if there was nothing, because then we could just go through and pass our Bills with no hassle at all. I believe that this Bill is fundamental to democracy in the future. It may be, as I pointed out, that after the Conservatives are in opposition, they'll wish this Bill wasn't there. The government of the day

1568 ALBERTA HANSARD November 1, 1983 is not going to be so generous, because they'll know who brought it in. So I would say that if there is any time at all for them, if they care about democracy, if they care about the future, they should go back and take a look at this. So far we haven't been able to get them to do that. Because of this, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to bring in an amend­ ment, that I'm sure is totally in order.

I move that the motion for second reading of Bill 81, Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act, 1983, be amended as follows: by striking all the words after the word "That" and by substituting therefor the following: "this Assembly declines to give a second reading to Bill 81, Electoral Boundaries Commission Amend­ ment Act, 1983, because the Bill is, in principle, inconsistent with the previously accepted democratic norms established by this Assembly for the purpose of reviewing electoral boundaries." Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. NOTLEY: Mr.

Speaker, rising to address a few comments on the reasoned amendment which is presented to the House tonight — and I would just note that if any of the backbenchers are interested they might check Beauchesne. The reasoned amendment deals with the basic question of the principle and suggests that the principle is totally "inconsistent with the previously accepted democratic norms established by this Assembly for the purpose of reviewing electoral boundaries". Mr. Speaker, members on this side of the House have asked: what is the government afraid of; why do they have to change the rules?

Members in this House have had an opportunity to look back on the history of the process — a gradual process, I might add — of moving toward an equitable method of redis­ tributing constituencies in this province. What we see in this Bill today is an effort to turn back the clock. That is wrong if you accept the democratic principles that I think most of us believe and all of us profess to support. One of the members today, in a jocular way, made reference to Grenada.

I am wondering how far removed we are from the shameful state of affairs in some of these countries where dem­ ocratic rights are taken away from people. One of the issues that led to the revolution in 1979 was the shabby redrawing of boundaries by the Gairy regime and the practice of gerryman­ dering. Mr. Speaker, the question is, what are we going to be doing in Alberta? I'll tell you what we're going to be doing in Alberta. Instead of moving further along the road to an acceptable dem­ ocratic method of redrawing boundaries, we are taking a step back.

We're not only taking a step back, we're taking a giant step back. We are going back to the worst kind of precedent one can find in Canadian history; a precedent where the government uses its legislative majority to so dominate the committee redrawing the boundaries that, in fact, we're going to have not only all kinds of charges of partisanship but there is going to be at least some danger of the reality of partisanship. Members in the opposition have made reference to some of the catcalls. Some of the members may think they're rather funny.

But when they make references about what they are going to do to this riding or that riding, the final solution to the little opposition — perhaps I borrow a phrase that has sort of ugly connotations — one sees in that a change in a practice which was developed and which seemed to work. The Member for Little Bow quite properly raises the point: if you have something that works, why change it? Mr. Speaker, as a member of the boundary commission seven years ago, a boundary commission that worked . . . MRS. FYFE: Oh. MR. NOTLEY: Somebody says, "oh". Why change a bound­ ary commission that worked? Mr.

Speaker, if hon. members wish to make observations now about the report of the boundary commission, fair enough. I don't seem to recall those kinds of statements being made in the House in 1977 when the report was tabled and the Bill was presented. But if there had been eleventh-hour conversions on the road to Damascus about the report in 1977, I would be very interested in hearing observations about that particular report in this debate. DR. BUCK: The puppets are mute. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, if some of those observations have been made in caucus, they should also be made in this House.

What we have is an effort to stack the deck, to manip­ ulate, and to play around with the rules. In the process, we are striking at the heart of our democratic system of government. That is what this recent amendment says in pure, blunt terms, that we are striking at the democratic tradition. Mr. Speaker, I would say to members of the government caucus that if we're going to move from parity between government and opposition . . . My colleague is absolutely correct: when this idea was first raised in the House, one should have heard the irate Tory opposition.

I don't know why, because there was at least parity between government and oppo­ sition. But all one has to do is read the news reports of the time, and one gets a very clear picture of their opposition to that legislation. Nevertheless, it provided for parity between government and opposition. Mr. Speaker, in 1969 the then government didn't have to — if they had used the same sort of logic as our minister advanced in presenting this Bill, there wouldn't have been parity between the opposition and government, because at that time there were six Conservatives, three Liberals, and 56 Social Credit members.

So they would have said: oh, no, no, no; we'll have a 3:1 ratio, a 4:1 ratio, whatever it works out. But they didn't, Mr. Speaker. They recognized that if you are going to bring politicians into the process of redrawing the boundaries, there has to be parity between government and opposition. Let me tell you that that took a certain amount of courage. The government didn't have to do that, but they chose to do it. It was one of those things that has always made me an admirer, even though I totally differ with former Premier Strom's phil­ osophical position.

He was a man who had an understanding and a respect for democracy, decency, and fairness that few people in this province really understand enough. So under the leadership of Mr. Strom, we had legislation advanced in 1969 that was fair and equitable. Now, without any arguments being presented by this government, we're changing the rules of the game. Mr. Speaker, the onus is on those people who want to change the rules of the game to articulate the reasons a change must be made. But we haven't had any reasons advanced.

The hon. minister from Calgary is an articulate man, but we had one of the fuzziest speeches I've ever heard. Very well spoken, but let me tell you that in terms of presenting logical argument, there was none at all. During the course of this debate — we have all these backbenchers; one would have thought that they would have stood up one by one. If some of them had quarrels with the redistribution commission in 1976 and '77, they would have told us why it didn't work then; why we have to make changes; why the hon. Member for Little Bow and I were so impossible to deal with that they had to reduce our represen­

November 1, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 1569 tation. I don't think they would find the learned judge or any of the other members on the commission agreeing with that position, but there has to be some reason we have this move to slash opposition representation. But none of the humpty- dumpties on the wall are prepared to say anything on this issue — just slavishly follow the position that I have no doubt at all swept past caucus; probably came up five minutes before every­ body wanted to adjourn for lunch; nobody thought about it. MR.

SPEAKER: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. leader, but it would see to me that humpty-dumpties on the wall is getting pretty close to the line. I wonder if he might think of something more flattering. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I won't make any other reference other than it would have been unflattering if they had fallen off the wall, but I certainly wouldn't want to refer to them as humpty-dumpties. I was probably . . . [interjections] MRS. CRIPPS: We just consider where it comes from. MR. NOTLEY: Mr.

Speaker, the fact of the matter is that there is no doubt in my mind that we had an eleventh-hour discussion in caucus just before adjournment, and this thing swept by. I cannot imagine that members of this government caucus would agree to such an unfair Bill. What they do in caucus is their private preserve; God knows that. But what they do in this House is the affair of the people of Alberta. I would challenge some of these people to stand up, if they support this Bill, and tell us why we had to make the change. The only way in which they've said it is the catcalls in the back or in private conver­ sations.

None of them has stood in their place so their con­ stituents can say: oh, yes, this is where the Member for Edmonton Belmont sits; that's his position; he has an interesting sense of fairness. DR. BUCK: He just steals nominations. MR. NOTLEY: It seems that he's sinking in his seat at the moment, but that's interesting. Where do these people stand? Mr.

Speaker, what we have is just an unacceptable change without a single plausible reason being presented to this House as to why we should change from parity — parity which wasn't even acceptable to the Tories in '69 — to a position where it is three to one in favor of the government. I don't know how members of this caucus are going to be able to justify this kind of Bill. I want to add just two or three other points. In Canada today, and throughout the western world, there is a dangerous amount of cynicism — and I'll set aside the rhetoric for a moment — about the functioning of democratic government. Mr.

Speaker, all of us, regardless of the political differences — whether we are left, right, centre, or wherever the case may be — are custodians of a much more precious heritage than our particular ideology. And that precious heritage is the democratic system of government. There are certain fundamental assumptions on which the democratic system of government is based, and any­ time you try to change those assumptions, you are seriously eroding the basis of public support for democratic government. Today, Mr.

Speaker, when I listened to the reports of various delegates to our parliamentary association meeting, it was inter­ esting that the issue of the role of politicians arose. When one sees public opinion polls taken, it's rather frightening that the only people who are probably less respected than politicians are lawyers. I can certainly understand that. But apart from our low esteem, there are dangers inherent in that.

If people are cynical about political leadership, if they're cynical about the process of politics, if they're cynical about the operation of democracy, then they become easy victims for those who come along, particularly in difficult times, and say: I've got the answer; forget about all the fooferaw in the Legislature — first, second, and third readings; committee stage; Speaker's rulings; opposition challenges; what have you — let's just sweep it all aside and have a government that will make the trains run on time.

We've seen that sort of practice, that sort of ideology, cause democratic governments to be supplanted in many parts of the world in the last 30 years. So when we talk about democracy, it is not a vague abstrac­ tion. It is something that each of us as individuals has an obligation to defend. Mr. Speaker, let me bring that right back to this Bill. If we're talking about the assumptions on which people respect the democratic system, one of the assumptions is that there will be fairness in the way in which we draw up the boundaries.

That's basic, because you can't have repre­ sentative government unless you have fairness in the method by which we draw the boundaries. That's not a new revelation. My heavens; that is a position that has developed and is fun­ damental to the system of democratic government. That's why we remember — not with pride — Boss Tweed in the United States, the Governor Gerrys, or why even Conservatives look back on the shenanigans of Sir John A. Macdonald, or the black days of Maurice Duplessis. Regardless of where we stand politically, we say: we don't want that kind of practice to happen again.

Because if we're going defend democracy, we must also make it clear that the method by which we set the rules of the game is fair and equitable, honest and straightfor­ ward. Mr. Speaker, what we have in this legislation tonight is not an equitable, straightforward approach.

We have a government that's stacking the deck, without even showing the courtesy to the people of Alberta, through their elected members, of telling us why they're doing it, or without those elected members standing in their places and defending it so that their constit­ uents can make a judgment about the sense of fairness their elected members bring to this Chamber.

Before we go any further down the path to regimentation — not big government so much as secretive government controlled by a tiny little group of people who meet in government caucus with the major decisions not even made by them — before we assign to a tiny minority the ability to make decisions that affect us all, before we throw away so many progressive developments that have taken place right across this country and step back 50 years, let us consider why.

I would challenge members of the government caucus: we will have time tonight, with this amendment specifically being a reasoned amendment, to hear from the government members as to what input they had and why they have to make this change. Mr. Speaker, I say to the government members in particular that unless they can demonstrate with more con­ vincing arguments than have been advanced to date, they may win the battle in this House 74 to four, but in terms of the minds of Albertans, they will lose an important war. They will be seen as being unfair.

They will be seen as being so concerned about monopolizing their own power that they even have to rig the rules of redistribution in order to achieve that goal. Mr. Speaker, I say to you and to members of House: before we go down that road, let the government think about what it's doing. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Question. AN HON. MEMBER: The gutless wonders, where are they?

1570 ALBERTA HANSARD November 1, 1983 MR. R. SPEAKER: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think we've got to look at what we're doing. That was the remark of one of the early founders of the Conservative Party. All the members on that side of the House wouldn't recall that. But I recall that back in 1969 when the man that became Deputy Premier of this province sat on this side of the Legislature and rose in his chair with that roaring introduction: well, . . . And he did that time after time in this Legislature. He rose in that manner because he was often concerned about things.

We look back to 1969 with regard to this specific topic of discussion. Dr. Horner addressed that topic of discussion, along with his col­ leagues that sat over here with the names Lougheed, Russell, Hyndman, Getty, Werry. What did they do when they looked at the presentation of the Social Credit government at that time? What did they do? Did they look at some formula that was unfair? Did they come up with an adjustment of the committee recommendation? DR. BUCK: Just amend the Bill, Neil, and we can go home. Be fair. MR. R. SPEAKER: Did they look at any adjustments?

They made no suggestions, not one suggestion at all, with regard to the recommendation of the Social Credit government at that time. The record shows, Mr. Speaker, that the Conservative oppo­ sition — the government of the day — approved the Bill in principle at that time by a voice vote, approved a committee that had two from the opposition and two from government. There wasn't any standing vote because there wasn't a contro­ versy with regard to that matter. There wasn't any intensive discussion with regard to the composition of the committee. They knew that it was fair and just, and was accepted by Albertans.

That's the historic record, the precedent that was established at that time: a committee structured as such that has gone through the elections of 1971, 1975, 1979, 1982 and, as I said yesterday, set up boundaries in this province that were accepted by the people and set up a mechanism that worked. A voice vote, Mr. Speaker — because the Conservative found­ ing fathers knew that it was an accepted organizational mech­ anism to do the job.

But here we have the up and comers, this new breed, the new opportunists in the Conservative Party, coming into this Legislature, trying to enhance their position of power — not enhancing democracy; not putting forward legislation that's fair for all sides of the Legislature, fair for the people of Alberta — worrying about their position of power, about their own personal self-indulgence over the needs of others, over the needs of democracy in this province.

As I said in my remarks yesterday — and I do not withdraw any of those remarks — the mover and presenter of this Bill has the total maximum responsibility resting in his court. It rests there because that person is the sponsor, the mover, the backer of a principle which is unfair, inequitable, and unac­ ceptable as far as I'm concerned. On that basis, I certainly accept the amendment put forward by the hon.

Member for Edmonton Norwood that we should decline the second reading of Bill 81 because, in principle, the Bill is inconsistent with the previously accepted democratic norms established by this Assembly; established, as I've said, by the founding fathers of the Conservative Party in Alberta, who brought it from a party that was out in the wilderness — that really didn't exist in Alberta — to a party that has some 75 out of 79 seats in this Legislature. The founding fathers wanted to have some equity, some fairness. I really regret that the hon. Dr. Horner is not present in this Legislature this evening.

This kind of nonsense would not be allowed. It would not even have passed the caucus. When Dr. Horner became a cabinet minister and Deputy Premier, he took that "well" out of his remarks. He became the diplomat, the leader; he was a man with a lot of dignity who showed a lot of responsibility. I was proud of that change. It was like a transformation occurred on this side of the House. I raised it with him one day, and said: Doc, that's great stuff; you played that role of opposition, moved to the government's side, now you're playing the role of a minister. And he did a great job.

I'll tell you that if someone writes the history of that particular member of this Legislature — he made more things move, made more decisions happen in this Legislature, in this prov­ ince, than anybody else because he wasn't afraid. He knew what was fair and just, and he also knew what was wanted by the people of Alberta in many cases. He boldly strode ahead. Now there were some ministers who picked up the pieces after Dr. Homer and were concerned about the fact that there were maybe some dollars wasted here, some programs shouldn't have been implemented.

We got embarrassed here because we lost some $40 million in terms of cattle programs. But the fact of the matter was, on net balance, there was a leader that was able to do something, that could stand up for some very basic principles. And one of those was fairness. I know that if he were in the caucus at the present time, there would be no question about this Bill; we wouldn't even be debating it.

The Bill wouldn't have passed this Legislature without even discussion, because it wouldn't have come to this neurotic position; a government, a group of backbenchers that are afraid they're going to lose because they need the jobs. That's why lots of them are here, because they need the jobs — with the exclusion of the hon. Member for Edmonton Whi- temud. I appreciate that he can stand in a very independent position within this Assembly room.

It's unfortunate that we have such a situation where a Bill has been presented that has principles of unfairness, that's inequitable in its application, but the government seems to think it's great. I only want to add this: whether they're sitting in the front bench, the back bench, or whether they're the Minister of Recreation and Parks, the government members have not stood in their places to defend this principle. I don't because I don't think there is an argument. I challenge the Minister of Recreation and Parks to stand up and say, there's a principle here that I can support. He hasn't done it. MR.

TRYNCHY: Watch me vote. MR. R. SPEAKER: The only way that he can really say that he supports it is by a voice vote. We're going to call for a standi