Alberta Hansard — 22 November 1983, Afternoon sitting (14:30) (Legislature 20, Session 1)

19831122

Alberta — Debates (Hansard)

November 22, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 1763 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA Title: Tuesday, November 22, 1983 2:30 p.m. [The House met at 2:30 p.m.] PRAYERS [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] head: INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS MR. SPEAKER: May I draw the attention of the House to the presence in the Speaker's gallery of a distinguished delegation from the Legislative Assembly of the province of New Bruns wick. The members and minister who are here are commis sioners of internal economy of the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick. I am pleased that we have here the Hon.

James Tucker, Speaker of the New Brunswick Parliament; the Hon. John Bax ter, the Minister of Finance and Housing of New Brunswick; Mr. Gérald Clavette, the Member for Madawaska Centre; Mr. Alan Graham, the Member for Kent Centre; Mr. Beverley Harrison, the Member for Saint John-Fundy; and Mr. Hazen Myers, the Member for Kings East. Would the delegation kindly stand and receive the welcome of the Assembly. head: INTRODUCTION OF BILLS Bill 113 Young Offenders Act MR. HIEBERT: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce Bill 113, Young Offenders Act.

The present Juvenile Delinquents Act combines both federal and provincial offences. The new federal Young Offenders Act, which is expected to be introduced in April 1984, differentiates between federal and provincial jurisdiction. This has provided an opportunity for Alberta to put in place its own young offenders procedures to be handled by the youth court, a divi sion of the Provincial Court of Alberta. Mr. Speaker, the overall purpose of Bill 113 is to remove any ambiguities dealing with provincial and municipal offences committed by young offenders after the federal Act is pro claimed.

Bill 113 is being introduced this fall session, and it will be allowed to die on the Order Paper so that interested parties may study the Bill and make representation thereto before introducing it for the spring sittings. [Leave granted; Bill 113 read a first time] Bill 114 Public Service Employee Relations Amendment Act, 1983 MR. SHRAKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce the Public Service Employee Relations Amendment Act, 1983. This Act consists of changes to five sections: 3, 9, 22, 29, and 49. Most of these changes were requested by the board, and they are minor in nature.

I guess we'd call this a house keeping Act. MR. HYLAND: It's a bad term. MR. SHRAKE: Oh, sorry. I was just informed that this is a bad term to use. [laughter] I will try again.

Section 3 would be amended to allow for up to two alternate chairmen. The present Act only allows one chairman. The reason for this is fairly simple. With the number of meetings they are having and the difficulty with their scheduling and so on, they felt it would be an advantage to have two alternate chairmen.

Section 9 is fairly straightforward. This re-enacts a clause that was inadvertently left out when we passed Bill 44 last spring. It is a beneficial Act. So this just places this back. This was in place prior to Bill

Section 22 is fairly straightforward also. This allows us to include in this Act not only members but members who are in training.

Section 29, again, is fairly straightforward. In case you have more than one trade union, this allows the board to determine which union would represent these people. Of course, it is done by a majority vote, which is straightforward. MR. SPEAKER: I don't know how many sections there are in the Bill; I haven't read it yet. Perhaps we could summarize by saying that the Bill is straightforward. [laughter] MR. NOTLEY: That's a matter of opinion. [Leave granted; Bill 114 read a first time] MR. CRAWFORD: Mr.

Speaker, I move that Bills 113 and 114 be placed on the Order Paper under Government Bills and Orders. [Motion carried] head: TABLING RETURNS AND REPORTS MR. FJORDBOTTEN: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to table the 1983 progress report of Farming for the Future. MR. SHABEN: Mr. Speaker, I wish to file with the library three copies of the program manual, as well as three copies of the instructors' manual, for the co-operative housing action program. Earlier in the question period, this information was requested by the Member for Edmonton Norwood. [interjec tions] MR. BOGLE: Mr.

Speaker, I wish to file with the Legislative Assembly four copies of a study managed by the Electric Utility Planning Council, entitled Dunvegan Hydroelectric Study, Low Level Reservoir. MR. DIACHUK: Mr. Speaker, I wish to file with the Legis lature Library four copies of the first report of the occupational health and safety heritage grant program for 1981 to 1983. Copies will be distributed to each member of the Assembly. MR. KING: Mr.

Speaker, I wish to table with the Legislative Assembly information which was ordered by the Assembly this past spring, with respect to the printing and distribution of the report of the Task Force on Gifted and Talented Pupils.

1764 ALBERTA HANSARD November 22, 1983 head: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS MR. ZAOZIRNY: Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure today to intro duce to you, and through you to members of the Assembly, some 45 grade 8 students from Ian Bazalgette junior high school in the constituency of Calgary Forest Lawn. This is the third group of that number to travel to the Legislature from Ian Bazalgette in the last six days. I want to assure you that it is not the same group being introduced for the third time. We're delighted to have them here with us today. They are joined by Diane Blakelock and Mr. Jim Toews.

I would ask them all to rise and be welcomed by the Assembly. MR. McPHERSON: Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure and a privilege for me today to introduce to you and to hon. members 14 brand- new Canadians who are enrolled in the advanced course of English as a Second Language at Red Deer College. These ladies and gentlemen come from a wide range of countries and cover a wide range of occupations, including a medical doctor, a veterinarian, a social worker, agricultural engineers, and many others. They are accompanied today by their instructor, Lorna Brownlee, and they are seated in the public gallery.

I would ask that they now rise and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. MR. COOK: Mr. Speaker, I'm saving the best till last. I'd like to assure the Assembly that the two groups I'm introducing do not have any teachers in them. I'm delighted to introduce two groups, the first being a group in your gallery, Mr. Speaker. They are here to see Laura Yakiwchuk, our very good page in the Assembly, doing a tremendous job for us. Her mom, Bar bara Yakiwchuk, and her friend Samantha Langton are in in your gallery. Her grandparents, Albert and Muriel Brown, are here to see their granddaughter working in the Chamber.

I'd like to ask them now to receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. The second group, Mr. Speaker, gives me as much pleasure. They are 45 terrific and well-behaved students from the grade 8 class at Dickinsfield junior high. Dickinsfield was named after Punch Dickins, who was a pioneer aviator in northern Alberta. I think these students give us as much confidence for the future as Punch Dickins gave us confidence in our past. They are accompanied in the gallery by their teacher and their student teacher. I'd like them to rise now and receive the very warm welcome of the House. MR. NOTLEY: Mr.

Speaker, I take pleasure in introducing to you, and through you to members of the Assembly, four mem bers of the Committee of the Unemployed: Alan Smith, Mike Legge, Derrick Tremblett, and John O'Reilly. They are seated in the members gallery, and I would ask that they stand and be acknowledged by members of the House. head: ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Water Quality — Lac Ste. Anne MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct the first question to the hon. Minister of the Environment, and ask whether the department has been aware that raw sewage has been draining into Lac Ste.

Anne, a very popular swimming lake adjacent to Edmonton, and that there have been serious pollution problems recorded in swimming areas as a consequence. MR. BRADLEY: Not that I'm aware of, Mr. Speaker. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Could the minister advise the Assembly whether any information has been brought to the attention of the government, concerning the sewage lagoon in the summer village of West Cove and the inadequacy of that particular lagoon? MR. BRADLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'd have to take that question under advisement. MR. NOTLEY: Lots of questions under advisement. Mr.

Speaker, a supplementary question. Could the minister tell the House what the reasons were for the department author izing the dumping of overflow sewage onto a farm across the road from the old lagoon a week and a half ago, thus in effect creating a number of new, open lagoons? MR. BRADLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'd have to take the matter under advisement. MR. NOTLEY: Fair enough. Well, we're going to have quite a report when the minister gets back to us, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister advise the Assembly what the policy is with respect to posting signs where there has been danger to swimming?

I make particular reference to the concerns expressed — if the minister checks his memory, I'm sure he will be aware of these. Nevertheless, is there any overall policy on posting warning signs with respect to water that may be polluted, thereby making it unsafe to swim in? MR. BRADLEY: Mr.

Speaker, with regard to that specific, the policy of the government has been that in conjunction with the local health authority in an area which has been a known swimming area, if there are concerns with regard to swimming in a particular area because of certain health effects that may be because of the type of problems the hon. member has alluded to, then the area would be posted. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. minister.

Has the government developed any overall policy with respect to the treatment of sewage and sewage lagoons adjacent to swimming areas in the province, again using Lac Ste. Anne as an example, but there are other areas in the province as well. MR. BRADLEY: With regard to that, Mr. Speaker, I could only reiterate that if there are known swimming areas in the province that have become contaminated for one reason or another, they would be posted. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question.

Could the hon. minister then advise the Assembly what the policy is with respect to the department communicating information — my understanding is that it has been brought to the attention of the department by local officials. What is the policy with respect to the communication of that information to the min ister, in view of the thousands of people in northern Alberta who use Lac Ste. Anne as a swimming area? MR. BRADLEY: Mr. Speaker, if there was a specific concern, the matter would be brought to my attention. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question.

Could the minister identify what particular policy guidelines are in place to ensure that the concerns of local people, which have obviously been brought to the attention of the department, are in fact communicated to the minister? Is there a ministerial

November 22, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 1765 directive in place? Is there an overall policy? How is it handled, in view of the fact that the minister doesn't appear to be aware of information that has been brought to the attention of the department by local people? MR. BRADLEY: Mr. Speaker, I've already advised that I would check into the specific. With regard to an overall policy, the department has a 24- hour emergency line, and there is the Pollution Emergency Response Team. I am advised on a daily basis, in a

summary form, as to the nature of the matters which are brought forward to the 24-hour emergency number and the matters which the Pollution Emergency Response Team are dealing with. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, we'll await with interest the minister's report back. Postsecondary Education Financing MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct the second question to the hon. Minister of Advanced Education. It's with respect to the rather penetrating and thoughtful speech of the president of the University of Alberta, Myer Horowitz, at the convocation on Saturday.

Could the minister advise the Assem bly what the position of the government is with respect to the emergency request for extra funding submitted in late Septem ber? When will the minister be announcing a decision on this urgent request? MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I think the Leader of the Opposition should be more specific as to what kind of funding he's talking about. MR. NOTLEY: I'm talking about the additional funding with respect to increased enrolment. MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, that's a little less than an emergency.

None the less, I think I replied to that question when the Leader of the Opposition raised it some weeks ago. I said that as soon as we had good information as to the enrol ment numbers, because they tend to change after September 1, we would be looking at that, in terms of our decision, within the next couple of weeks. I should note that at the current time, there is enrolment money flowing to the universities, and that is a decision which this Legislature made historically early in 1983. That money is now passing through to the universities on a month-to-month basis. MR. NOTLEY: Mr.

Speaker, a supplementary question. Given the president's remarks — I don't know if the minister has had an opportunity to read them or not — can the minister assure the House that an announcement will be made by the government before the end of the calendar year? MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, the kinds of assurance I nor mally give are that I will give conscientious and clear con sideration to the requests from universities and colleges, as to the issue.

As to announcing any kind of decision, that is of course subject to the decision my colleagues will make with respect to the allocation of resources, and that's normally the way this process operates. MR. NOTLEY: Heaven help the universities. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, the government's beyond help. The universities may have some hope. Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Could I ask the minister to tell the House whether the government has had an opportunity to discuss with Dr.

Horowitz the decision of the university to impose a hiring freeze on all academic staff, especially in light of a 2,000-person increase in enrolment this year? MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, it is of course common knowl edge among those people in responsible university governance positions that decisions made by the board of governors are their decisions. We don't involve ourselves in the way in which they allocate their internal resources, and that is the position they have requested that we take. So naturally, following that guideline, we will accept their advice as to how to manage that institution.

Our commitment has been, beyond measure, one of the best commitments made by any province across Canada to advanced education: the largest amount of money; the most specific kinds of programs; in fact, the best kinds of facilities available to our students. We'll continue with that commitment. DR. BUCK: That's the same speech the Socreds made in [inau dible]. MR. NOTLEY: A good leadership-potential speech, hon. min ister.

Let me follow that up a little more, however, and ask the minister if he could identify for the House whether the government, through its exhaustive research and analysis, has been able to determine the impact on the quality of instruction at universities, given the options the boards are now considering and the board of governors at the U of A having had to impose a hiring freeze notwithstanding a very substantial increase in student enrolment? MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, the question as to the mode of instruction is one which I'm sure we could debate at some time.

It's interesting to note that the current trends in education are that we're moving away from the traditional ways in which education is provided to students. For example, the unique and novel way in which the province of Alberta, by Athabasca University, has adjusted to the technology age is one clear example where traditional modes are changing. There is open debate as to whether or not classroom size and the relative ratio of staff to student numbers affect the insti tutional instruction ability.

But I think it's safe to say that in the case of universities across the province of Alberta, the ratio is not out of line with what it might be considered to be, and putting us in a difficult circumstance, so that there are some questions about the quality of education. We believe that this is a very important investment. We believe that at some point, however, we may have to say to some of these universities that the size of universities is now full, and that traditionally has been done on the advice of the boards of governors; quota faculties have been established for that very reason.

So we see that this question is debated. It's largely a com bination of decisions made by academics and by boards of governors, but I think it's a bit far to conclude at this point that the quality of education in Alberta is under any kind of jeopardy simply because the student numbers are up. Frankly, what is happening is that the institutions are adapting by more creative ways, by different ways of providing information, and by hiring sessional instructors. MR. NOTLEY: And by freezing staff.

1766 ALBERTA HANSARD November 22, 1983 Mr. Speaker, could I ask the hon. minister whether the department has done an appraisal of the overall funding of postsecondary educational institutions in the province, in light of the huge . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The lights aren't necessary. The question is plain. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, to be fair to the hon. minis ter . . . MR. SPEAKER: The question is plain, and there is no need for any embellishment. Let's let the minister answer. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, the question relates to the increased enrolment.

I'm not asking for an increase in funding, outside of a specific question. There is an increase in enrolment. My question is, has there been an appraisal of that increase in enrolment? That's the question. MR. JOHNSTON: Yes, Mr. Speaker. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, to the hon. minister. What has that appraisal been? MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated before, I could give more details about the history of education financing at the advanced educational level in the province of Alberta.

I think it would be fair for me to note that over the period 1974 to 1979, when population numbers at advanced educational institutions were decreasing, the province of Alberta, contrary to any other province in Canada, continued to expand its assist ance on an increasing basis. Two things happened. More money went to the universities and colleges, and fewer students were showing up at the doors.

When we found in 1981-82 that student numbers were back to about the 1974-75 levels, we not only increased the expenditure to the universities on an annual basis but factored in an additional amount of money for student increases; a double increase for the student numbers, on top of very elaborate and substantial systems which were in place at the facility level. So I think we've given very careful consideration to the problems of financing advanced education across this province, Mr. Speaker.

It's not to say that we won't give it more con sideration because, as part of my responsibility, I will be look ing at alternative ways — and perhaps more creative ways — in which we can finance these institutions. But I think it's safe to say at this point that we've been more than generous and more than adaptive in the way in which we've dealt with advanced educational institutions. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question.

What consideration has the minister given to the request of the pres idents of the four universities that the special grants to reflect enrolment increases given last year be incorporated as part of the base budget of the universities, instead of being granted on a year-to-year basis? MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I think I made that point very clear. It is my view that the people of Alberta want us to be very careful with the financial responsibility we accepted a year ago, in terms of managing this economy.

Part of that respon sibility is that when student numbers decrease, the sum-certain money, which is enrolment money, will decrease as well. The base budget will continue, but any special money which goes as a result of an increase in students, which is the additional money I referred to, will not go into the base budget. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister. No one is suggesting that, when there's a decrease in enrolment. MR. JOHNSTON: That's exactly what's happened. MR.

NOTLEY: However, my question is: with projections of increased enrolment down the road, is the minister now ruling out the request of the four university presidents on this issue? MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, that is the quintessence of speculation. If you can tell me what will happen with student numbers in 1990, then I can give you a more specific answer. Our base budget will continue to be expanded at the same basis as historically we have done. If student numbers decrease, don't show up at the doors, or reduce, we will not provide the mar ginal money.

That is as clear an answer as I can give, given the facts I have before me. MR. COOK: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the Minister of Advanced Education could also give us a report on private-sector funding for universities, in particular the endowment fund for the '80s. MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, a very significant event took place when my colleagues introduced the '80s endowment fund. We found that this would be an ample opportunity for us to match assistance provided to universities on capital proj ects.

We underestimated the response in the private sector and, frankly, that money has been used up so quickly that I'm now allocating money — mostly without my colleagues' consent — in about 1987-88. So we've been very successful. We've had to put into neutral the sum of the specific requests. But generally response has been dramatic from the private sector, and we want to continue that. MR. COOK: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.

Is it the department's view that universities should re-emphasize the commitment to looking for sources of funding from the private sector and becoming more accountable to the community at large? MR. SPEAKER: I have a little problem with that, because it may be a matter of opinion or debate what the department's view is. But if it can be related to departmental policy, I suppose the question is in order. MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, it's interesting that just yes terday I received a communication from the president of the University of Calgary, wherein he showed me a list of about 500 Canadian corporations.

The unique thing about these Canadian corporations was that when dollars are provided to universities by employees or directors of these corporations, they are matched by the corporations. So anyone can obviously conclude that if you want to make a donation to a university and you work for one of these organizations, it's very powerful in the case of Alberta, because that money is matched one more time. It is unique to Canada; the only province that has this opportunity to participate with the private sector. And as I indicated before, we want to find ways to expand that partic ipation by the private sector. MR.

COOK: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would it be departmental policy for universities to look at

November 22, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 1767 exploring other innovative ways to deliver education; for exam ple, the creation of a downtown campus where students might continue their education at night, not at the University of Alberta or at Calgary campus but in a place where there is vacant office space. MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, again part of the review which is now under way by a variety of sources, including the uni versities themselves, deals with the future situations which universities or colleges will have to face.

Modes of instruction, location of instruction, and quality of instruction are all parts of that very complex formula which we're examining. But certainly the traditional view of having a campus in one location is one of the options we're facing and, of course, any other choice of location is a clear choice as well. MR. STROMBERG: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister give consideration to treating private col leges the same as universities, where private funding is coming in and you're matching dollar for dollar but the colleges are left high and dry? MR. JOHNSTON: Mr.

Speaker, I can assure you that the hon. Member for Camrose always has sticky questions. In dealing with the capital side of assistance to private col leges, it's my view, in counsel with the presidents and chairmen of the private colleges themselves, that they would prefer to have the independence of seeking assistance in capital from their own membership. That has been the way in which we've dealt with them to this point. It should be noted that in terms of assistance in operations, of course, private colleges do receive assistance from the prov ince.

Moreover, as a result of the very important piece of legislation which the hon. Member for Camrose introduced, one particular college will be able to grant degrees in divinity, effective in 1984. MR. PAPROSKI: A supplementary to the Minister of Advanced Education, Mr. Speaker. It deals with the University of Alberta and the quality of education at that university. Has the minister received from the University of Alberta any in- depth report regarding the quality of education at the university? MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, not any in-depth report.

I believe, though, that all the universities are considering ways to improve the quality of education within their institutions, with a more effective allocation of resources and frankly with a greater strategic plan in mind. But I have not received a specific report which deals with the measurement or the quality of education at any of these institutions. MR. PAPROSKI: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Due to the importance of this issue, would the minister consider asking the University of Alberta for an in-depth report on this area? MR. NOTLEY: They can't afford it. MR. JOHNSTON: Mr.

Speaker, as a result of the suggestion by the hon. member, it's one of the areas I'm sure I will be taking up with the Universities Co-ordinating Council. MR. PAPROSKI: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Might this be the final supplementary on this topic. MR. PAPROSKI: Would the minister consider asking the University of Alberta to perhaps prepare a report regarding limiting enrolment at the University of Alberta, due to their increased figures? MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I believe the university has already examined the size of the institution it can now properly manage.

But if the member is asking for information, I'll be glad to provide that to him. MR. PAPROSKI: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps we could come back. I have a little difficulty when two final supplementaries are tied for last place. Oil Sands Development MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources. Could the minister indicate whether the government has any plans to encourage Petro- Canada to develop or build a tar sands plant in the Fort McMurray area? MR. ZAOZIRNY: Mr.

Speaker, there have been no discussions with Petro-Canada initiated by me, nor any request by Petro- Canada for a meeting with either me as minister or represen tatives of the department, in respect of any oil sands project or any other project that Petro-Canada may be considering. As I've indicated on other occasions, the door is open to proponents of particular projects.

With respect to our oil sands resource, given the clearly diminished costs of putting in place oil sands projects in 1983 and given the fact that the resource is there and does not have to be sought out at massive cost, we take the view that timely development of the oil sands should and will occur. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. In terms of the government policy of developing the tar sands, could the minister indicate whether there is any flexibility with regard to concessions in terms of royalties or other taxes? MR. ZAOZIRNY: Mr.

Speaker, obviously the subject of spe cific fiscal arrangements would be most appropriate with a particular proponent of a specific project. But it is fair to say that in 1983, the government has shown its recognition of the intensive capital costs, front-end costs, of such oil sands devel opments, in the Cold Lake project that Esso has sponsored and that is now proceeding and in the BP project at Wolf Lake that has been approved and is now proceeding.

Clearly there is that recognition of the capital-intensive nature of those costs, and that same attitude and recognition would be carried into any subsequent negotiations that might take place. Education User Fees MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct my question to the Minister of Education. Can the minister indicate if it is the policy of this government that schools, particularly those in rural areas, should be charging user fees? MR. KING: The hon. member would have to expand on what he means by the term "user fees". MR. MARTIN: Let me be more specific.

The minister knows full well what I'm talking about.

1768 ALBERTA HANSARD November 22, 1983 MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR. MARTIN: Can the minister indicate what action he intends to take to alleviate the plight of parents in the St. Paul school district who are being taken to small claims court for non payment of fees of up to $100 per student? MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that anybody in St. Paul is being taken to small claims court by the school juris diction. Perhaps the hon. member would care to base his ques tions on primary sources of information rather than the media. MR. MARTIN: We will; we've been talking to them, Mr. Minister.

Can the minister indicate what action his department intends to take to alleviate the plight of school districts that are forced to institute user fees in order to keep up with increased costs, particularly in the areas of supplies and utilities? MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, it is the oft-stated position of the government that no school board in this province is forced to turn to other sources of revenue for the operation of their school system. MR. NOTLEY: You've got to be kidding. MR.

KING: I would like to make it clear that over the last decade, grant increases provided by the provincial government have exceeded the rate of inflation. Secondly, I would like to make it clear that on a per-pupil basis, the government of Alberta is a more generous funder of basic education than any other province in Canada. Thirdly, I would like to make it clear that it is the position of this government that we enjoy the finest quality of basic education that is to be found in any public system in North America. [interjections] Mr.

Speaker, since the establishment of the public school system in North America, it has been common practice that students have purchased their pencils, paper, and textbooks. In my view, it is an improvement on that practice that school boards have begun to rent textbooks rather than sell them to parents. The annual rental averages 30 to 40 per cent of the retail cost of the textbook. If someone is suggesting to me that parents would be better off buying a new textbook every year rather than renting it, frankly the argument surprises me. MR. NOTLEY: That really wasn't the question, Dave. MR. SPEAKER: Order please.

I was expecting that the hon. minister would momentarily relate what he was saying to the question, and along with one or two other members of the Assembly, I share a slight degree of disappointment. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I would like to allay your disap pointment. On the basis of media reports, which we have not yet been able to substantiate, the Department of Education has been asked to do a survey of school districts throughout the province, to ascertain the practice with respect to incidental charges made in association with the provision of educational services. MR.

MARTIN: After that speech, I take it he now knows what user fees are, by his answer to the question. A supplementary question. Can the minister indicate if he anticipates any expansion in the use of user fees by schools, particularly in light of the indications by the Provincial Treas urer that departmental allocations will be frozen next year? MR. KING: Of course, Mr. Speaker, we wouldn't want to spend much time on hypothetical questions. I can say that I don't expect the use of rental charges or equipment purchase charges to increase beyond the present level. MR.

MARTIN: That still didn't answer my question about user fees. Because of the long distances school buses must travel, does the minister anticipate that the use of user fees may be extended in some rural areas, to cover increased transportation costs? MR. SPEAKER: I think we're clearly getting into the realm of opinion, if not prophecy. I'm not sure that the minister's anticipations are that relevant to the question period. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I continue to have a problem with the use of the term "user fees".

I thought that was a Pavlovian term, invented by the NDP and the Liberals to excite debate about medicare. I don't understand its relevance to education. MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, there's also a saying that b.s. baffles brains any day. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order. MR. NOTLEY: Not at all. You just got little bit thrown back at you. Take it in good stead. MR. MARTIN: How does the minister reconcile the use of user fees with this government's commitment to the provision of universally accessible education, of a roughly equivalent nature, to all in this province, regardless of income or location? MR.

SPEAKER: That certainly is a debating question. But since it's been asked, there's no way I can ask the minister to refrain from debating it. AN HON. MEMBER: Carte blanche. MR. KING: Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, I will limit the debate by being strictly objective. [interjections] Pending the outcome of the review which I mentioned earlier, I think the question has to be treated as strictly hypothetical and, in its nature, meant to cause debate. I would invite the hon. member to wait until the review is completed.

I will provide the results of that review to all interested members of the House — and I presume for a moment that he will be as interested next week as he is this week — and then he can ask the question if he would like to. Solicitor General Appointment DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Premier has to do with the Solicitor General. Can the Premier indicate to the Assembly when the new Solicitor General will be appointed? MR. LOUGHEED: No I can't, Mr. Speaker. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question.

In light of the fact that the government is proposing that we cut back on expenditures, is any consideration being given to consoli dating two departments, rather than appointing a new Solicitor General, saving the taxpayer some money? MR. LOUGHEED: No there hasn't been, Mr. Speaker.

November 22, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 1769 MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the Pre mier. Will that be a matter under consideration between now and the date of appointment? MR. LOUGHEED: Under consideration, but not likely. Mortgage Interest Reduction Program MR. SHRAKE: Mr. Speaker, could the Minister of Housing please advise the Assembly if there are any plans or thoughts to eliminate the Alberta mortgage interest reduction plan prior to its expiry date of August 31, 1984? MR. SHABEN: Mr. Speaker, the mortgage interest reduction program was announced on September 7, 1982, by the Premier.

At that time, it was announced that the program would extend to August 31, 1984. There are no plans to terminate the program in advance of that date. MR. SHRAKE: A supplementary question. Are there any plans to extend the program beyond that date? MR. SHABEN: Mr. Speaker, there are no plans to extend the program beyond August 31, 1984. MRS. EMBURY: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister please advise the Assembly if the recipients of this program were notified at any time, when they applied for it, regarding how long the program would last? MR. SHABEN: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

The program details have been made available to all the applicants and those who are receiving the benefits of the program. In addition, we have periodically provided recipients of the program with reminder information on the fact that the program will terminate on August 31, 1984. MRS. EMBURY: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister again be reminding the recipients, possibly early in 1984, that the program will likely be terminated in August 1984? MR. SHABEN: Mr.

Speaker, within the last few weeks we undertook a mailing to recipients of the program, particularly those who had interest rates at the higher levels, and provided them with information and brochures that had been prepared by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to assist in financing. We also provide information on our mortgage renegotiation option that is available to recipients of the pro gram. I haven't yet decided whether or not further notices will go out in 1984. MR. GOGO: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. minister.

Does this in any way affect the current subsidy program in place for those who require assistance, those low income Albertans who are purchasing their first home? MR. SHABEN: Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure of the hon. mem ber's question. MR. GOGO: Mr. Speaker, I had several calls on the past weekend. Apparently there has been some confusion. Two calls were from people purchasing their first home under the home purchase program and receiving a subsidy. My question to the minister is: does the statement he has just made, about the expiry in August 1984, in any way affect that subsidy program? MR. SHABEN: Mr.

Speaker, no. The hon. Member for Leth- bridge West is referring to the Alberta family home purchase program, and the two programs are not related. ORDERS OF THE DAY head: MOTIONS FOR RETURNS MR. HORSMAN: Mr. Speaker, with respect to motions for returns on the Order Paper, I move that motions for returns 216, 218, 219, and 220 stand and retain their places on the Order Paper. [Motion carried] 214. Mr.

Notley moved that an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing: Details of all travel, paid by public funds, for Members of the Alberta Legislative Assembly, members of Executive Council, and ministerial assistants, for the period April 1, 1983, to Octo ber 31, 1983, inclusive, showing (1) dates of departure and return for each trip; (2) destinations; (3) type of transportation used — e.g., commercial carrier, charter plane, car, etc.; (4) total cost for each journey, including transportation, accommodation, and entertainment; (5) list of persons accompanying principal traveller. MR. CRAWFORD: Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to propose an amend ment to Motion 214. As I move it, I'd like to give the reasons for it. It seemed to me that if travel, in the sense of ordinary automobile travel to and from constituencies and within con stituencies, had to be reported on, it would be extremely dif ficult for all members, without exception. The way it is phrased, the question would require that.

It doesn't require much imagination to note that as at April 1, 1983, hon. members would have to have known what the mile age was on the odometers of their cars and would have to have recorded every trip after that, to know what was done on public service in serving constituents, the government, or the Assem bly, and which trips were in some other classification. I'm sure members have not been doing that, nor would they normally expect to. Mr. Speaker, I think it would also be useful to do two other things.

One is to have the purpose of the travel involved in the response to this Motion for a Return, when it's made; and secondly, to backdate it from April to February, in light of the similar question raised by Motion for a Return No. 217, which uses the February date and basically asks for the same material. The amendment has now been distributed. In essence, it makes the classifications the same as they are in the motion, with the one addition of number (6), which I have mentioned. But under number (3), it refers only to "transportation used, if it was commercial or charter aircraft, train or bus".

I move the amendment, Mr. Speaker. [Motion as amended carried] 215. Mr. R. Speaker moved that an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing: A list of all expenditures approved by Treasury Board with respect to hospitality and entertainment expenses paid during

1770 ALBERTA HANSARD November 22, 1983 the period January 1 to March 31, 1983, itemizing for each event: (1) the meal, reception, or other entertainment provided; (2) the number of persons attending; (3) the names of those attending, where known; (4) the offices of those attending, where known; (5) the names of groups attending or represented by attendees, where known; (6) the number of bottles of spirits, wine, and beer served at each event; (7) the brand names of all the spirits, wine, and beer served at each event and the cost per bottle. MR. HYNDMAN: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to move a short amendment to this question. The amendment would add the words "where known" at the end of the first paragraph, which would have the result of applying those two words to each of the seven paragraphs, rather than three of them which are in the motion itself; that is, paragraphs (3), (4), and (5). The purpose for the amendment is that

whereas in the original motion, the mover has indicated by inserting the words "where known" that it may be that the names of those attending are not in all cases known and that the offices of those attending may not in all cases be known. That situation obtains as well to the information requested in paragraphs (1), (2), (6), and (7). The effect of the amendment would be to provide the information where it is known and where it is available. MR. SPEAKER: I'm not sure that I've got the proposed amend ment fully in mind. Might I ask the hon.

Provincial Treasurer whether it is part of the amendment to drop the words "where known" from items (3), (4), and (5), since it will now be at the beginning and apply to all items anyway? MR. HYNDMAN: Yes it was, Mr. Speaker. I'm sorry I didn't mention it. [Motion as amended carried] 217. Mr. R.

Speaker moved that an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing: Details of all travel paid by public funds for Members of the Alberta Legislative Assembly, members of Executive Council and Executive Council staff, staff of the office of the Premier, and the personal staff of all ministers, for the period February 1, 1983, to October 31, 1983, inclusive, showing for each trip: (1) the itinerary and dates of departure and return for each trip; (2) list of persons accompanying principal traveller at public expense; (3) total cost of each trip, including transportation, meals, accommodation, and entertainment; (4) the mode of transportation and class of ticket; (5) the hotel or other accommodation used and the per diem rate; (6) the cost of and description of all entertainment paid for by Alberta public funds.

MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, in my view, everything of substance in Motion for a Return No. 217 is now dealt with in the amended Motion for a Return No. 214. Perhaps with a few minor nuances, it would be repetitious to pass that. I would suggest one of three courses: one, the motion could be defeated; secondly, the hon. member may wish to withdraw it; or thirdly, if he wanted to let it stand while he considers what I've just said, that could be agreed to. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, in making remarks to the motion, I'd like to have the motion stand and will consider that.

If it is repetitious, most likely I'd have the motion removed from the Order Paper at the appropriate time. MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps the table staff would like to know how long it's to be carried forward on the Order Paper. Is there any idea about that? MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, on your point of order, it would be my intent to remove it as quickly as possible. Motions for returns come up again on Thursday, and on that day I'd be prepared to remove it if necessary. MR. SPEAKER: Does the Assembly agree, then, that No. 217 will stand until Thursday of this week? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR.

SPEAKER: It is so ordered. head: GOVERNMENT DESIGNATED BUSINESS MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to rise on a point of order before the hon. Member for Clover Bar begins his dis cussion of Bill 98. It's with respect to what I think was an observation — and I hope not a ruling — yesterday, on page 41 of the Blues, in which the issue of repeating an argument that had been made in a previous debate was raised. Mr. Speaker, the reason I raise it as a point of order is that I would like you to take your observations under advisement before making a ruling.

In my judgment, it is one of the most important issues before this Assembly, in terms of the right of a member to debate. I observe in the Blues that you make reference to Standing Order No. 22, and we would obviously be dealing with

section (c), which says: "persists in needless repetition or raises matters which have been decided during the current session". Mr. Speaker, as members are aware, our standing rules apply, except where there is some uncertainty; then we go to Beauchesne; then we go from Beauchesne to Erskine May. I don't think there's any doubt that if we're dealing with a sep arate motion before the House, there cannot be needless rep etition. In other words, if a member is raising an issue on user fees or a given item in the debate, he's not able to come back and simply rehash arguments in that debate.

There is, however, a distinction between a given debate, a given question which has been properly moved and is properly the property of the House, and another question. It seems to me that one has to apply the rule of repetition within the context of the question that is before the House. Therefore, as I look at Standing Order 22, I would say that we're going to have to move to Beauchesne in order to have some additional information, if you like. Here again, I think Citation 299 is relevant. It deals with relevance and repetition:

(1) Relevancy is not easy to define. In borderline cases the Member should be given the benefit of the doubt. Number two is directly relevant to our discussion:

(2) The rule against repetition is difficult to enforce as the various stages of the bill's progress give ample oppor tunity and even encouragement for repetition. In practice, wide discretion is used by the Speaker and the rule is not rigidly enforced. Mr. Speaker, the submission that I make to you — and I hope you will consider it carefully — is that our very process

November 22, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 1771 of deliberation necessitates repeating arguments from one stage to another. We have the stages of debate on a Bill. Those stages include first reading, second reading, Committee of the Whole, and third reading. During those stages, as Citation 299 observes, it is difficult to enforce repetition, because the various stages encourage repetition. Why do they do that? They do that because our system is based upon the assumption that when one makes an argument, that argument isn't simply made for the sake of hearing oneself talk.

It is made to make a point, and perhaps as a result of that debate, people will evaluate the merits of it. While it is not appropriate to make the same argument within the same question that is before the House, it is surely consistent with everything our parliamentary system is based upon to be able to bring back an argument from a previous question. Other wise, Mr. Speaker, there would be no point in having separate stages in legislative debate. We would simply have dispensed with three readings and committee stage in years past and had a simple motion which could be presented and debated.

But the reason we have the process is that when one makes an argument it is hoped that in the process of that debate, people will evaluate, review, and reconsider. Mr. Speaker, that's why I ask you, with great respect, to review the Journals carefully with respect to your observations yesterday. At the moment, I presume that we're dealing with observations, not a ruling. Once you make a ruling, the House is bound by it. But I would simply observe that as I read the Journals, it's my submission that simply repeating an argument from another stage of a Bill, as opposed to a motion under question, would be in order.

Repeating a matter which has already been raised by that member in a discussion of the question would not, and would be needless repetition as defined by Standing Order 22. That being the case, Mr. Speaker, I raise it now. I was not in the House when the matter came up yesterday. I think it would be dereliction of my duty as a member and as Leader of the Opposition not to draw to your attention my strongly felt view that your observation yesterday might well be given some further deliberation by yourself before a ruling is made which binds us all. MR.

SPEAKER: I am certainly going to take into consideration what the hon. Leader of the Opposition has just mentioned, but perhaps I might make two preliminary observations. The first is that we don't have recourse to Beauchesne or Sir Erskine May's book except in cases where our Standing Orders are either silent or perhaps not totally clear or specific. I find that the language of Standing Order 22 and clause (

c) of that stand ing order are quite clear and specific. I don't see any doubt there that needs to be resolved by reference to Beauchesne or Sir Erskine May. I have considerable difficulty with regard to repeating, on an amendment or a subamendment, arguments that have been made on a main motion. There is no question that probably the most difficult thing a Speaker has to deal with is the question of relevance and repetition, and that's perhaps why they deal with it rather seldom. Yet the Speaker has a duty to the House and to the province that elects it to save it from wasting time to the extent that he can.

It would seem to me that if we were to say that arguments made at one stage of a motion, that is to say the main motion, could be repeated on a amendment and then repeated again on a subamendment — and of course there's particular difficulty on a subamendment, because once you get that far you've really narrowed the field very considerably — that would mean that a member could prepare one speech and give the speech three times.

While that may be going fairly far, and I'm not sug gesting a member would do that, I think it clearly illustrates what the potential is for adopting a practice that the same thing could be repeated three times with regard to the same motion because the motion happened to become subject to a proposed amendment or subamendment. I could see the situation being quite different with regard to the stages of a Bill. The motion for second reading is obviously not the same as the motion for third reading. I could perhaps see that there might be some reason there for relaxing a stricture on repetition.

But at the moment, I have difficulty accepting the proposition that the identical thing could be said at all three stages: a motion, an amendment, and a subamendment. It just doesn't seem to coincide with common sense and, whether or not common sense has anything to do with it, it certainly doesn't square in my mind with 22(

c) of our Standing Orders. How ever, I'm going to give the matter some further consideration. But I certainly intend to apply the rule of relevance insofar as motions, amendments, and subamendments are concerned. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, if I could just add a couple of comments, and maybe other members would like to address it as well. I think the concern you express about simply repeating arguments and preparing one speech is much more theoretical than practical. When amendments are put, it's certainly your obligation as chairman of the House to make sure the debate is relevant to the amendment.

To be relevant, an amendment must in fact confine the debate. Therefore, with amendments you have a certain confining of the debate. No one is arguing that arguments that don't relate to the more narrowed focus of the debate as a result of the amendment — that that has to be applied by the Speaker. Similarly, subamendments represent an even further narrowing of the debate. So I think the concern that you're simply going to have a rehashing of arguments is not really one that is going to be a practical problem.

However, if an argument, even if it has been said before on a different question, is relevant to the newly focussed debate as a consequence of an amendment or a suba mendment, providing that it is relevant to the amendment, then it seems to me to be in order. It certainly would not be in order to bring in a whole series of comments that aren't related to the amendment. No one is suggesting that, Mr. Speaker. I think you clearly have a duty to make sure that a debate is on whatever the focussed subject matter of the amendment or subamendment is.

If a matter that has been raised before is relevant to that debate, then it seems to me, as I look at 22(c), that would be permissible, particularly as 22(

c) would be further expanded by Citation 299. I leave those comments with you for your consideration. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to reinforce, in a sense, the comments that were just made. Historically, and also in reviewing

section 22(c), my understanding has been that repetition within debate of the item before us or on the agenda should be brought to our attention and discontinued. It would be the job of your position to do just that. But where a former debate on a subamendment or an amendment has occurred — maybe it has or has not been dispensed with — and that argument is used again in another debate, I think that would be acceptable, because each item on our agenda is inde pendent unto itself. You say that in terms of common sense, we shouldn't use the same arguments on a series of amendments and suba mendments. I could see the same arguments used in each case but maybe with a narrower

interpretation, and be applicable to a situation such as that. If we followed the ruling that I saw

1772 ALBERTA HANSARD November 22, 1983 in the Blues of Monday, November 21, and also your comments today, our debate would be very restricted. We in this Assembly would find ourselves checking back to former debates, to the amendment and to the original motion to see what the debate was. We would find great restrictions in the debate of the Assembly, and I don't think that is really what is interpreted. In terms of

section 22, I think your office should have a ruling that the debate at hand — if it's on a subamendment, then that debate should come under the rules of whether or not repetition occurs. That would be the parameter of that decision. When we dispense with that item of business and go on to, say, another subamendment, then the rule applies to the debate under that subamendment. Again, I think that would be your parameter to make the decision as to whether or not an argument is being repeated too many times by the member or by other members in this Assembly. MR. MARTIN: Mr.

Speaker, I will not give my same argu ments as yesterday, because I wouldn't want to repeat myself. MR. SPEAKER: Are you on the point of order? MR. MARTIN: Yes. As you are aware, I made some of the same arguments yesterday. There are just a couple of new points that might be useful, in terms of research. They have to do with the procedural paper, which I am sure the Speaker is aware of, that was recently published by the table research branch of the House of Commons. I think there are a couple of useful references in there that the Speaker may want to take a look at. First, it notes that . . . MR.

SPEAKER: Is this the one on relevance and repetition? MR. MARTIN: Yes it is. MR. SPEAKER: There is no need to take the time of the House. I have read it, and I will be glad to look at it again. MR. MARTIN: Thank you very much. MR. SPEAKER: With regard to what has just been said by the hon. leader of the Independents, I am not sure that I understood the direction of what he was saying. If he was saying that repetition should be in order where two different motions are being debated on two perhaps different subjects although there may be arguments common to both subjects, I would have to agree with him.

My problem is with regard to debate on a motion which is subject to a proposed amendment and then a proposed subamendment. My problem is having the same argu ments repeated at all three stages. That is a difficulty which is still lingering in my mind. head: GOVERNMENT BILLS AND ORDERS (Second Reading) Bill 98 Hospitals and Medical Care Statutes Amendment Act, 1983 [Debate adjourned November 21: Dr. Buck speaking] DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the subamendment, I will review it for members of the Assembly who were maybe not here yesterday.

The subamendment says: and that the Committee be instructed to hold public hear ings on the subject matter of the Bill. Mr. Speaker, when we are talking about how narrowly we restrict debate, I am utterly confused. I am not sure if we should be talking about debating "Committee" or "instructed", or talking about "hold", or "public" as opposed to private hear ings, or if we should be debating "hearings". What I am trying to indicate to the Assembly is that the subject matter of user fees be referred to the Committee on Public Affairs and that in that committee, we hold public hearings.

When we hold public hearings Albertans can come to this committee, to this Assembly sitting in committee, and express their views in lay men's language. We would not be encumbered by legalese and parliamentary terms. We would give citizens the opportunity to come and tell this committee why Bill 98 should not be passed at this time. If we are really going to serve the needs of the people — and we've had quite a broad-ranging discussion on what the people out there are saying about user fees. We've been told by our constituents what their opinions are, and we are speaking for those constituents.

But we feel — and quite obviously it seems that the feeling is limited to the four opposition members — that the public should be given an opportunity to come to this Assembly to state their views. That is what we are asking for when we ask for public hearings on the subject matter of Bill 98. Mr. Speaker, if the committee is going to do its job with diligence and have all the information before it that the citizens of Alberta would bring to this committee, that is the information the committee should hear. That committee can then report back to the Legislature and to the government, and make a decision.

But that's not the way it has worked before. I have been involved in the parliamentary process for a number of years. Governments seem to think they have all the knowledge, especially when they have an overwhelming majority as we have here. What I am saying is, let's have public input; let the man on the street come to this Assembly and express his views. Because right now this Assembly, this government, is not lis tening to the views of the people of Alberta.

You can take any poll — a grass poll, a walking-down-the-street poll, or a sophis ticated poll — and you will find out that the people in this province do not want user fees. That is why we should ask the public. Why do we set up legislative committees? It gives us that second line of defence: if we make a bad decision, we can correct it. Mr. Speaker, I have been in this Assembly a number of years, and I know the way the process works. I know that I have seen legislation amended in this Assembly on third reading.

After it has gone through many caucus meetings, through the government caucus, through sub-caucuses, it has come to the Assembly and has gone through first reading, second reading, committee, third reading. And an amendment is brought in at that stage. So the system is not so foolproof. The government is not so foolproof that it doesn't make mis takes. Mr. Speaker, what we are trying to do on this side of the House is give Albertans one more chance to give some direct input to the committee, through public hearings. There have been many precedents for public hearings in this Assembly.

Back in the days of the Social Credit government, we had public hearings in this Assembly on the Bighorn dam issue. We have welcomed this government to have public hear ings on many, many issues. The government has never given the people of the province that opportunity except once. After they had changed the royalty rates, then we had the window dressing of so-called public hearings in this Assembly, which really didn't do anything except pat the oil industry on the head

November 22, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 1773 and say: boys, we've done it; nice you could come and say a few pleasant words to us and express your concern. So this government has had public hearings in this committee and the Committee on Public Affairs. There has been that opportunity before. It is not a precedent to have public hearings. That is really what participatory democracy is all about: giving people the opportunity to come to their elected people, to be in front of us and express their views in their own language, their own feelings on the issue, and why we should or should not do it.

That is participatory democracy. But it seems to be that once we have these referendums every four years in this province, when you vote either yes or no, the government doesn't think it should listen to people in public meetings and public committees. The opportunity should always be there. We must never be so arrogant, so high-handed and think we have all the knowledge, that we shouldn't welcome people to come to this Assembly and express their views. As practising politicians, we try to communicate with our constituents.

We try to communicate with them through the brochures we send out, pre-sessionally and post-sessionally. We do it through the ads we put in papers, through our con stituency offices, communicating with our constituents. But we must always leave open that opportunity to have the people of this province come to this Assembly and directly tell all the elected members of this Assembly how they feel on a certain issue. Mr. Speaker, this is an issue that affects every Albertan. But most important it affects the poorer people of this province.

I know that my learned friend, the right-wing Member for Edmonton Whitemud . . . DR. REID: He's to my left. DR. BUCK: To your left? He's to the right of Attila the Hun. But even though they are right-wing people in the hon. mem ber's constituency, there are some poor people in this province, other than the ones that the member wouldn't know about. Mr. Speaker, if we really believe in grass-roots democracy — and every politician must never forget about the grass roots. He must always remember who is serving whom; that we are serving the people, not the other way around.

The opportunity must always be there for the people to come to this Assembly and express their views. Some of the public hearings that have been held in this Assembly — I so well remember a gentleman from St. Albert, standing in this place, in this Assembly, defying the government of the day to indicate to him why they should build the Bighorn dam. Mr. Speaker, I admired that man.

It took a lot of courage to stand in this Assembly, in front of a large group of law makers, and express his views, stick to his guns, and not back off when a minister or a civil servant had a go at trying to discredit his opinions and his beliefs. That man stood in his place in this Chamber and defied the government to prove to him why the project should go ahead, because all the infor mation he had as a member of that St. Albert Fish & Game Association indicated that the dam should not go there. But at least the government of the day showed the courtesy to Alber¬ tans to have this Assembly open to its people.

Mr. Speaker, we have asked many times to make use of the public affairs forum in this Assembly, to have public hearings on many issues. For some of the new members, the Bighorn dam was an issue in the Socred government. The Dickson dam was an issue that should have been brought before this Assem bly, to the Public Affairs Committee. To this day there are many Albertans who did not have the opportunity to express their opinions in this Assembly, directly to the government and directly to the Legislature, who don't know to this day why the Dickson dam went in that location. The mechanism is there, Mr. Speaker.

The mechanism must always remain there so that the ordinary Albertan can stand in this Assembly and express his views. [interjection] It's fine for the gentlemen to play Mickey Mouse games back there. We would much more appreciate if they would stand in their place and say something for or against, not wait for instructions to come from who knows where, telling them what to say, when to say it, how to say it. What a lack of political commitment. Mr. Speaker, public hearings have a definite role to play in this Assembly. It has been exhibited before.

When this government changes in eight years — and I hope some of the rookies heard that; eight years, that's all; and that's four years more than we really need — I want that new government to make a promise to the people of Alberta to use public hearings in the Public Affairs Committee. And I want the veteran back benchers, the veteran frontbenchers, and some of the rookies in the back benches to remember that. That is a promise that the new government should make to the people of this province: that we will have public hearings on contentious issues in the Committee on Public Affairs. So, Mr.

Speaker, with those few remarks, I would welcome the backbenchers — unless they've been told not to get into the debate, and of course they always do what they're told to do. I welcome their remarks about why they support or do not support the use of public hearings in the Public Affairs Com mittee. Or have they received their message yet, Deputy House Leader? Have they been told to speak in this debate, or have they been told just to use the old rubber stamp and raise the hand? Mr.

Speaker, with those few remarks, I welcome debate on the subamendment that this committee be instructed to hold public hearings on Bill 98, the Hospitals and Medical Care Statutes Amendment Act, 1983, as it relates to user fees and other related matters. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. COOK: I'd like to make a brief contribution. I'd like to observe that I've received no phone calls on this issue, no letters on this issue from any of my constituents. The impor tance of the hon. member's contribution to the debate is best indicated, I think, by the number of people in the galleries — there being virtually none.

That is the proof of the pudding. The hon. member's debating performance in this contribution is probably one of his best ever, which doesn't say very much. MR. STROMBERG: Mr. Speaker, I was listening with con siderable interest to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Clover Bar making reference to us members staying quiet. He mentions the years that he has served in this Assembly. I would like to point back about eight years ago when I stood in the Assembly and argued the case for a number of people in my constituency and in the member's constituency of Clover Bar.

This was with regard to a coal mining project called Dodds- Round Hill. [interjections] MR. SPEAKER: Order please. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, that's not the truth, and the hon. Member for Camrose . . . [interjections] MR. SPEAKER: Order please. It's a very well-known principle that a disagreement between members as to a matter of fact or alleged fact is not a point of order. The hon. member may be distressed about it, but he doesn't have a point of order.

1774 ALBERTA HANSARD November 22, 1983 MR. STROMBERG: I certainly agree with you, Mr. Speaker, that that is a sort of settlement he and I can settle outside. I believe the town of Tofield is in the Clover Bar constitu ency, which is served by the hon. member. I would like to point out that Tofield and the surrounding farmers had quite a stake if that development went ahead. I spoke in the Legislature and argued against it. But the Member for Clover Bar must have had lockjaw, because I didn't hear one word from him. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is a liar. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. DR. BUCK: Mr.

Speaker, the hon. member is a liar, because I was at all the public hearings . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Would the hon. member . . . DR. BUCK: I will not sit down, because he is lying. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Sit down. DR. BUCK: I will not. MR. SPEAKER: Would the hon. member . . . DR. BUCK: The member well knows that I was at all the public hearings, the same as he was. Therefore I am accusing the member of misleading this House and the people of this province. I will not retract that statement. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member may be mistaken in his memory, as may be the hon.

Member for Clover Bar, without either hon. member being a liar. Even if either hon. member were a liar, there is no right to call another member a liar. The hon. member knows . . . DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, there is a right to be called a liar when the man is not telling the truth. That's why I called him a liar. [interjections] MR. SPEAKER: Order please. I doubt very much whether there has ever been a point of privilege, which is what this is . . . DR. BUCK: That's right. MR.

SPEAKER: . . . in a parliament where one member has called another a liar — and it does happen that members lose their temper and use that word once in a while. From the reading I have done, when an accusation like that is made, usually with some considerable heat, it nearly always happens that the mem ber says he simply can't let that go by, he must label it a lie, and so on. The fact of the matter is that there is a way for hon. members to disagree. It's possible to point out to a member that what he has said is mistaken.

But regardless of the prov ocation, it is not permitted in any parliament that I am aware of for one member to call another member a liar. I think that the principle I mentioned a while ago — that a difference of opinion between members as to fact, a difference of belief, a recollection as to fact, or whatever, does not constitute a point of order — certainly fits in with the strictures against one member calling another member a liar. I don't want to rehash old territory — I'm afraid that's a mixed metaphor; I guess old territory has to be reploughed.

But in any case, the fact of the matter is that we are here because we were chosen by constituents — and that applies to me as well as to the rest of the members — and that we respect the choices of those constituents. That's part of the democratic process. We don't bump each other off; we come here to debate. When constituents have chosen members to serve in this Assembly, we must respect them, and that also applies to me. Not only must we respect the members; we must also respect the constituents. That's one reason why I think the Speaker should give really careful consideration to a situation of this kind.

The hon. Member for Camrose was elected by some con stituents. They have heard another member, elected by his constituents, call him a liar. I think that is disrespectful to both the hon. member and his constituents. I would respectfully suggest to the hon. Member for Clover Bar that his constituents — and I realize that he is responsible for them more than I am, but I must respect them nevertheless. I've got to respect all the constituents who have elected all the members in the province. Partly out of respect for the constituents of the hon.

Member for Clover Bar who have sent him here to the Assembly, as they have sent the rest of us, to debate issues and not to throw certain kinds of remarks at other members — that's not the purpose of the election process. Having regard to all of those things, I would very respectfully and earnestly ask the hon. Member for Clover Bar to deal further with what he has just said. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order that's being discussed and the rules as such, I'd like to refer to the intent of the subamendment, and that is the merits and demerits of public hearings. MR.

MARTIN: What did that have to do with Camrose? MR. R. SPEAKER: As well, Mr. Speaker, I'd like you to apply the rule of relevance to the discussion that's going on, because the hon. Member for Camrose was not on subject. He was talking not about public hearings but about another mem ber's debate in this Legislature . . . MR. NOTLEY: Completely out of order. MR. R. SPEAKER: . . . and in doing that was carrying on a vendetta of his own to personally attack an hon. member with debate that was out of order.

So if we are asking someone to withdraw remarks, I think the remarks that should be withdrawn first should be those of the hon. Member for Camrose that initiated accusations, which shouldn't be allowed in the House, under debate that was not relevant to the subject at hand. If that rule had been applied, the hon. Member for Camrose would not have been allowed to say what he did say and provoke the response from my hon. colleague here in this Assembly. MR. SPEAKER: The question doesn't depend on the adequacy or inadequacy of the provocation.

The fact of the matter is that regardless of the provocation, parliamentarians do not make that sort of judgment and condemnation of each other. I have to acknowledge that I had some doubt about the relevance of what the hon. Member for Camrose was saying. However, I had not yet listened as long to determine his direc tion as I did yesterday when the hon. Member for Clover Bar was saying things of which I couldn't understand the relevance. I listened a lot longer before I intervened on that occasion. It's not up to me to dream up ways for making out to be relevant what the hon.

Member for Camrose was saying, and I don't want to be suggesting things that he might say if he

November 22, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 1775 continues the debate. But in view of the way the matter has been raised by the hon. leader of the Independents, quite frankly my expectation was that the hon. Member for Camrose was about to say that on a certain other occasion the hon. Member for Clover Bar had not asked for public hearings and on this occasion he did. I thought he might be saying that. I don't even know whether it's true. But that's what I thought he might be saying, and I thought he was presently about to become rele vant.

On many, many occasions — I'm sure hon. members may remember some of them better than I — I have sat here and listened to things that appeared to be irrelevant, because I was expecting that shortly the member would show the con nection between what he or she was saying with the matter under debate. So to come back to what I said a moment ago, I appreciate the intervention of the hon. leader of the Independents.

But the adequacy or inadequacy of the provocation is not something that I am entitled to take into consideration under the circum stances, because it is a clear rule and a clearly established practice that no provocation that may occur in a parliament justifies it. MR. ALEXANDER: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order made by the member and your comment about what is at stake, if I may I might just make two remarks while you're considering the matters of relevancy and consideration of other members and their constituents. You quite rightly observed that yesterday we heard the hon.

Member for Clover Bar in his best Elmer Gantry mode, in which he berates those of us in the back benches. I guess I was unable to find . . . MR. SPEAKER: I suppose that comes short of Attila the Hun, so I won't say anything about it. MR. ALEXANDER: Thank you for appreciating that fine dis tinction. I had a little difficulty sitting here. I'm not sure how one can measure the degree of insult, but yesterday, and I quote from the Blues: . . . the hon.

Member for Edmonton Whitemud stands at a Tory rally or convention [and says] we have to stop people who are stealing from welfare; we have to get rid of these welfare bums; [and do such] great right-wing things. I sat here and listened passively to that. I don't know whether that's a greater or lesser insult than the member has just been dealt but, Mr. Speaker, observed in the last day or so that if one has a long needle, one should have some patience.

While the point is being made about both relevancy and respect for other people and for their constituents, a point just raised which I think is also relevant, I might add that the hon. member went on to describe members of my constituency roll ing up to a convention in "gold-plated Cadillacs and Toronados and . . . Cieras", which I don't consider to be respectful. I add that for your consideration, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: I don't recall hearing those remarks, and perhaps I wasn't in the Chair at the time. I'm almost sure I wasn't in the Chair at the time.

But I'm sure that it could have been drawn to the attention of the person who was presiding. In any case, we're not really dealing with that event of yes terday. [interjections] Order please. We're dealing with something that is more recent than that, which unfortunately I have the duty to deal with. I'd like just to sit here and say nothing and let things fly, but that's not what I'm put here for. So again, I would say to the hon.

Member for Clover Bar that I'm sure, with all his long years of service and the many things he's read about parliaments, that he has never yet discovered in the Journals or Hansard of any par liament a situation where this kind of remark has been condoned or has been accepted as being in any way parliamentary. MR. HORSMAN: On behalf of the government, I respectfully ask the hon. Member for Clover Bar to comply with the request of the Speaker to withdraw the particular term which has been termed unparliamentary on a number of occasions.

Obviously there is a major disagreement on the matter of some previous occasion between the hon. members in the Assembly. The hon. Member for Clover Bar has been in the Assembly for many years now, much longer than I have. He is a delightful speaker, and on many occasions has effectively twitted the government members — frontbench, backbench, whatever. I suggest that he can find a much more delicate term to use to describe the disagreement between him and the hon. Member for Camrose.

In order to give him some time to think of that, perhaps we might withdraw that particular word and get on with the busi ness of the day. I appeal to the hon. Member for Clover Bar to do just that. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, I don't need any coaching from the Deputy Government House Leader. I was about to rise in my place and make a retraction. But I will make a retraction on one condition: that the hon.

Member for Camrose has the intes tinal political fortitude to stand in his place and tell this Assem bly and people of this province that I was at the public hearings in Round Hill just as many times as he was at them. When the member spoke in his place in this Assembly, certainly I did not speak at that time. But the hon. member also should have the intestinal fortitude to stand in his place and not distort the truth. [interjections] It's not the same as being a liar, or maybe it is the same as being a liar. I was raised on a farm, and a liar is a liar. Mr.

Speaker, I am pleased to withdraw the fact that I called the hon. Member for Camrose a liar. But I am also asking him to stand in his place and publicly say that I supported those people in the Round Hill-Dodds area just as much as he did. MR. NOTLEY: And do it within the grounds of relevancy, Gordon. MR. SPEAKER: I have really no authority to order a member to say anything, and I didn't realize — perhaps I missed some thing — that the reference was to public hearings at Dodds- Round Hill. I thought the reference was to something that happened in the Assembly.

However, that's something between the two members that I should probably not become involved in. I believe the hon. Member for Camrose — I don't know if he remembers — still has the floor. MR. STROMBERG: Oh, this is rather interesting. In order to clear the air, I think I'll have my research intern go through the Hansards of that debate on the proposed power dam, and then I will go through my files and research again. I've never been able to find any letters of support from the Member for Clover Bar to the farmers in the Dodds-Riley-Tofield-Round Hill area.

But if he has documentation that he has written to them giving support, I would surely appreciate a copy of it. MR. SPEAKER: I don't really see the relevance, either to this subamendment or otherwise, of a request to the hon. Member for Clover Bar to provide documentation which will show the hon. Member for Camrose whether he's right or wrong. It

1776 ALBERTA HANSARD November 22, 1983 seems to me he has to get his own documentation. Has the hon. Member for Camrose concluded his remarks? Are you ready for the question on the subamendment? MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, first of all I'd like to thank the hon. Member for Camrose, because he certainly assisted this afternoon in helping the people of Alberta delay for yet another day this terrible Bill. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. That's not called for, and it's totally irrelevant to the subamendment.

If the hon. leader is as interested in saving time as he says, may I suggest that he drop the asides and get to the topic of the subamendment. MR. NOTLEY: Quite true — quite irrelevant to the Bill, but from time to time these things do occur. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to deal with the amendment for a few minutes. MR. SPEAKER: The subamendment. MR. NOTLEY: The subamendment before the House deals with the question of whether we should have public hearings.

I don't think there's any doubt that the process of public hear ings, held in conjunction with the Legislature, is well estab lished as part of our parliamentary tradition. Unfortunately it has somewhat fallen into disuse by this government, but that doesn't alter the proper precedent that has been established in the past of holding public hearings when they are merited. We've had some examples cited of public hearings in this province. I think members who recall the public hearings will admit they contributed to a better understanding of the issue at hand.

I was not here in the House when public hearings were held on the Bighorn dam in 1967, or perhaps 1968, but I was active enough in the political arena to recognize the time that was spent by the House. Submissions came from a number of people, and I think the government was better able to evaluate its final position. I think it's also worth noting, Mr. Speaker — you weren't in the House at that time, but you too were active in your particular party — that the then Conservative opposition in the House was very much in favor of public hearings.

The then leader of the opposition was in the forefront in calling for public hearings, and he was correct in calling for public hearings on the Bighorn dam. But while building a dam is important, a Bill which is going to fundamentally alter the right of Albertans to proper health service is, in my submission, a good deal more important. If a party can support public hearings in 1968 on building a dam, then I find it difficult to understand why we have some members reluctant to support this subamendment calling for public hearings on something as fundamental to the rights of Albertans as the right to health. Mr.

Speaker, I note that several government members have contributed to this debate. I think it is worth noting several of their observations. The Member for Edmonton Glengarry, for example, says that we don't need to debate public hearings because he indicated he hadn't received any phone calls or letters. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I'm surprised at that. I must confess that I'm very surprised. I don't know what kind of communication system the hon. Member for Edmonton Glen garry has.

If he's on top of his constituency situation at all, I'd be astounded if he has not had representation to him on the basis of people being concerned about user fees. I have certainly had all kinds of representation made to me about the advisa bility, or otherwise, of user fees. Last night, when I couldn't be in the House and was back at my constituency, at an annual meeting of a group of senior citizens, over and over again I had people come up and say: we are opposed to the introduction of user fees. Mr. Speaker, these are the kinds of people who have a right to make their views formally known in the House.

It's not just a case of being able to call their MLA, in this case the MLA for Spirit River-Fairview, and have me communicate these views. I will certainly do that. But on an issue as important as the health care services we provide in this province, they have a right to make representation to the Standing Committee on Public Affairs. Mr.

Speaker, I find it extremely hard to follow why the government caucus has decided that in contrast to the open approach of the 1960s when they were seeking office, now that they're in public office we suddenly have a blank memory on all the arguments advanced in the '60s for participation, for involving the people of Alberta in major decisions which affect them. The hon. Member for Clover Bar pointed out, again quite correctly, that in [1972] — and these were a set of public hearings that I happened to be able to participate in — we held public hearings on the rate of royalties. Mr.

Speaker, I certainly think that it was prudent for the government to hold public hearings on what the royalty rates should be. But I would say to you and others that however much right the public of Alberta had to consider the royalty issue, is that a more important issue than the health system? I don't really think it is. I would say that both are important issues. If we can have public hearings on oil royalties in 1972, then what is wrong with the proposition of holding public hearings on the entire subject matter of Bill 98? Mr.

Speaker, the only arguments that I could discern — they haven't been put, by the way, because none of the government members has bothered to give us the credit of debating this amendment. We don't know why they're opposed to it, because nobody said anything. MR. COOK: It's irrelevant. MR. NOTLEY: Someone says it's irrelevant. How can public hearings be irrelevant? MR. MARTIN: The only thing irrelevant is the Member for Edmonton Glengarry. MR. NOTLEY: That is an incredible statement the hon. Mem ber for Edmonton Glengarry has made.

I certainly hope that's there in Hansard so it can be sent to people in his constituency. Public hearings are irrelevant. Well, isn't that interesting. Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that we haven't heard why the government seems bound and determined to vote down this subamendment.

The only plausible argument that I could fathom as to why a government might be opposed, unless they don't accept the principle of public hearings, unless they have a penchant for a secretive, behind-closed-doors decision-mak ing process, unless they have that sort of 1984 overtone to their political strategy — I can't understand why they'd be opposed to public hearings unless there were some practical reason.

If the practical reason was that we had a time commitment we had to make with another government, that there was some obvious reason to move this fall because we had to meet with the federal minister and synchronize our legislation with federal legislation — if that were the reason, if there were some prac tical limitation, then I could understand the government rising and saying they're not going to accept the proposition of public hearings.

November 22, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 1777 But you know, Mr. Speaker, there is no practical limitation other than the unwillingness of this government to listen to the public. That's the only limitation — nothing to do with any agreement with the federal government. As a matter of fact, the federal government would probably welcome public hear ings on user fees, because it would show that the vast majority of people in this province are not in favor of what this government is trying to inflict upon Albertans. No, Mr.

Speaker, there hasn't been any plausible argument presented against an approach of involving the public in an important issue, which apparently, some years ago, was so important. Frankly, as I recollect, I think it was one of those guideposts that the now Premier presented when he first became leader — not even Leader of the Opposition, but leader of the Conservative Party. We had these guideposts, and we were going to have open government and involve the people. What a farce that is, as we look back over the last number of years.

This government's retreat from open government would make Napoleon's retreat from Moscow look like a very modest effort indeed. And all the backbenchers retreating with them. Well, Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the amendment we have today would recognize that the people who are the ultimate users of the system should have some right to make represen tation to this Legislature. MR. MARTIN: It certainly wasn't part of the election cam paign. MR. NOTLEY: I would say, Mr.

Speaker, that the government might well consider the merits of having Albertans who under stand the value of this health system, come before this House. For that matter, there are certain Albertans who totally oppose the health care system. I suspect that they have the hearts if not the public support of some of the members of this government. But perhaps Dr. Dawrant — isn't it? — the phy sicians who don't like medicare. Perhaps he could come. I'm sure he would if we held public hearings on this issue, and rightly so. Come in; tell us what's wrong with the health care system.

I'm sure he'd be glad to do that, and he has every right to do that. I don't agree with his position, but that's irrelevant. Whether I as an individual member agree with the kind of submissions we're going to get if we hold public hear ings, is quite beside the point. Before we make a change in something as important as the health care system, Mr. Speaker, we have a right and an obli gation — we as members have the right to listen, but more important than that, we have the obligation to listen.

I cited one example of a group that may very well say: we're right behind the government's approach; we like what Bill 98 fore casts because we think this is the first step along the road to dismantling the entire system. That's fair enough. They have the right to make that position known in the House. On the other hand, there would be other groups. The Friends of Med icare, for example, is another group that is totally opposed to everything in Bill 98 and would present arguments why they oppose it. Mr.

Speaker, I mentioned last night that I had an opportunity to speak to a group of senior citizens in my constituency, and this issue came up. It probably is a much more compelling issue among our senior citizens and older people in this province than it is with people like the hon. Member for Edmonton Glengarry, who is young, who is almost a postmedicare mem ber.

For some of the people who had to go through the experi ence of trying to meet their medicare bills or not having proper medical attention, or the difficulties of paying the bills which lingered through years and the embarrassment of always having that doctor bill which isn't paid, you will realize just how strongly they feel about the health care system we have in place and how worried they are about any system of user fees. I know that hon. members in the government caucus could say, of course we have exemptions. You have exemptions, Mr.

Speaker, but the fact of the matter is that many of the people who really haven't got a lot of disposable income are just above the exemption level and they are worried. Senior citizens have a tremendous amount of pride, and one of the most important things about the health care system is that it allowed people to be able to go to a doctor or be put in a hospital and retain some element of pride so they don't have to ask for charity. The doctor doesn't have to give charity and the patients don't have to request charity. MR.

SPEAKER: I must confess that the hon. member is going into the merits of health care rather than dealing with the merits of public hearings. As he himself said earlier today, very fairly and correctly I thought, an amendment certainly narrows the scope of debate. I suppose everything that has already been said in the debate could now be repeated under the guise of saying that this is the sort of thing we'll hear in the public hearings, but I would say that's not relevant. MR. NOTLEY: Mr.

Speaker, without prolonging the debate on the point of order you've raised, which I note with interest, I believe we have probably passed the one-hour time. If you would check your clock, we are probably into private members' business. Rather than trespass on private members' business, I will beg leave to adjourn debate unless you can advise me what time is left. MR. SPEAKER: Four forty-three. MR. NOTLEY: Fair enough. MR. COOK: Question. MR. MARTIN: There's the Glengarry question again. Rollie Question. MR. NOTLEY: Is the hon. Member for Edmonton Glengarry wanting to have the question called?

Isn't that surprising. Mr. Speaker, I want to move on to discuss why I think it is important that we hold public hearings. I believe very strongly that one of the major advantages of public hearings is that you can improve the legislation. There isn't much point in doing anything unless we can improve the legislation. As a matter of fact, what's the point of even having a Legislature unless, in the process of deliberation, we can make changes and adjust ments? Sometimes those changes and adjustments come a little later. I guess that's one of the roles of the opposition.

Governments never like to accept amendments from the oppo sition. But if public opinion is aroused, then changes can be made. However, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that before we rush through this particular Bill, we have to ask ourselves: would it be improved as a result of public hearings? Without any hesitation at all, I say it would be substantially improved by the advice of Albertans. A moment ago I was talking about senior citizens. Without getting into the concerns, I think it's fair to say that the senior citizens of this province have a concern and a commitment to the health care system which is unusual.

The point I want to make, partly in defence of the point of order but partly because I think it's completely relevant to the argument, is that we would have better legislation if we took the time to listen to some of the people who did not have the

1778 ALBERTA HANSARD November 22, 1983 health care system before it came into effect and who feel that the principles contained in Bill 98 are going to wreck the health care system. You may not agree with that, Mr. Speaker, and the hon. Provincial Treasurer and the hon. Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care may not agree with it. But if people feel that . . . MR. SPEAKER: I don't think the hon. member is entitled to put opinions into the Speaker's mouth unless the Speaker is entitled to take

part in the debate. He knows what that situation is. MR. NOTLEY: I would never want to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that you take

part in the debate. The burden of the argument I was presenting is that regardless of what people in this House may think, the fact of the matter is that there are individuals in this province who believe that this Bill is going to seriously jeopardize the health care system they value. The value of public opinion is something that every member of this House must respect, regardless of where they sit. The subamendment the hon. Member for Edmonton Nor wood has presented to my initial amendment would be to man date this House to hold public hearings.

I think there could be no possible argument against public hearings. I've mentioned certain groups that I think would come. I would just add that in addition to some of the groups I've identified that would be valuable on the question of user fees, there are other elements of this Bill that would also benefit from public hearings. You'll note, Mr. Speaker, that the amendment I moved was that the subject matter of Bill 98 would be referred to the Standing Committee on Public Affairs. My colleague has moved that we have a set of public hearings.

The reason I asked that the subject matter of Bill 98 be referred and that this is now changed to include public hearings is that in addition to user fees, there are other elements that I think would benefit from public hearings as well; for example, the kind of centralization of power that we mentioned the other day. I'd like to know not what the minister but what hospital boards in this province think about it. It's fine to say that we're now going to authorize hospital boards to bring in user fees, but I'd like to know from representative hospital boards, coming before this House, what they think about it.

Do they think it's a reasonable approach, or would they be happier if the Pro vincial Treasurer loosened up and some more funds were made available through the general taxation system so they wouldn't have to bring in user fees? I'd like to know how they feel about the administration of user fees. It's fine for members like the Member for Edmonton Glengarry, the Member for Camrose, the provincial minister, or myself to stand up in this House. The fact of the matter is that we don't administer hospitals, Mr. Speaker. Nobody in this House has the foggiest idea of how this system is going to be administered.

If you're going to be passing legislation as important as this, I would say to you and to other members of the House: what is wrong with providing an opportunity for the people who are going to have to administer the scheme, whose practical advice would be of some benefit? How are we going to chase down people who haven't paid their user fees? Today my colleague raised the question of user fees in the education system. We're taking people to small debts court. Are we going to be doing that with this Bill? Who's going to be doing that? Is it going to be the hospital boards?

If it's going to be the hospital boards, let them come to this House and tell us. Let them come to the House and say: is this a good idea, or how could it be amended? Perhaps we would get a lot of practical information from these people as to the kinds of changes that should be made in Bill 98, totally setting aside whether one likes or doesn't like user fees. No Bill can be separated in total from its administration. One of the aspects of any piece of legislation that has to be thoroughly evaluated is how it could be administered.

I just find it hard to understand why we wouldn't make it possible for the hospital association in this province to come before the Assembly. But that's the administrative side of dealing with Bill 98. In addition to hearing the Alberta Hospital Association tell us the details of who is going to collect this money, I'd be interested in hearing from the United Nurses of Alberta how this kind of Bill is going to affect morale in our hospitals.

Because again, you can't pass sweeping legislation of this nature and say, well, it doesn't make any difference what's going to happen to morale, it doesn't make any difference who collects the money — we've made a decision in caucus, behind closed doors, so caucus or perhaps the minister made the deci sion — and ignore the implications. In discussions I've had with people in the health services field, there is no question at all that this Bill is going to have a devastating impact on the morale of workers. If that's the case, then is there not an unimpeachable argument for holding public hearings . . . MR.

COOK: No. MR. NOTLEY: The Member for Edmonton Glengarry again says no. That doesn't surprise me at all. But is there not an unimpeachable case for public hearings so people can come before the House before the government rams this Bill through the Legislative Assembly? I just don't fathom at all how there could be any possible argument. The other point I want to make on the value of public hearings is a little more complicated, but important.

Because the government of Alberta is riding off into the sunset with a six- gun approach to fighting Ottawa — a sort of Gary Cooper approach, or might I say Ronald Reagan — the fact of the matter is that with any common sense at all, it should be obvious to even the Member for Edmonton Glengarry that public opin ion should be behind the government before it gets into a major confrontation with Ottawa. I have to confess a certain amount of respect for the sagacity of our Premier on oil questions.

Before we got into our major battles, he always knew which way public opinion was going, so he was able to take the Sir John A. Macdonald approach — finding out which way public opinion was going and stepping in front of it. In this case, Mr. Speaker, it's my own respectful submission that there's no doubt at all that public opinion is not only opposed to the government but substantially opposed to the government. MR. SPEAKER: The time has elapsed for this particular order of business. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to adjourn debate. MR. COOK: Mr.

Speaker, I ask for unanimous consent for the House to continue the debate so we can listen to the balance of the leader's remarks. Because unless he's being merely obstructionist, unless he's simply trying to delay, he would want the opportunity to present his ideas to the House for the balance of . . . MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps we could deal with the request for unanimous leave without becoming too analytical of the mind of the Leader of the Opposition.

November 22, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 1779 There's been a request for unanimous leave that we continue on this order of business. It's open-ended; I'm not sure what length of time the hon. member had in mind. Did he intend it to be for the rest of the afternoon? MR. COOK: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I'm sure we would enjoy listening to the Leader of the Opposition carry on until 5:30. MR. SPEAKER: Is there unanimous leave? SOME HON. MEMBERS: No. MR. SPEAKER: No, there isn't unanimous leave. head: MOTIONS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT MOTIONS 201. Moved by Mr. Lee:

Be it resolved that the Assembly urge the government to review its current financial support for urban transportation and give consideration to funding two-thirds of the capital cost of any arterial roadway project, transit project, or land purchase for future transportation right of way which is to be undertaken by a municipality and which has been approved by the Minister of Transportation. [Adjourned debate April 19: Mr. Anderson] MR. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to note that the opposition members were waiting with such bated breath for my words that they didn't want to finish their own speech.

I appreciate that. However, I hate to disappoint them. I believe I made the bulk of my remarks during the first series of debates on this particular motion, and only very briefly want to wrap up those remarks before other members consider this motion.

Indeed, as I mentioned in initial comments in the spring, in my opinion the motion is one that should be considered by the Assembly from [the standpoint of] a city such as Calgary, which for some years faced difficult transportation problems as a result of rapid growth that could not be assessed prior and now, all of a sudden, is faced with a situation where that growth, planned for for some years, has stopped and in fact there has been a negative increase for some time. There is no question about the need for transportation planning in the urban communities.

As well, I think members of city councils in both cities have indicated that need, and that's another good reason to discuss this motion. Over the summer, since we last had an opportunity to discuss this topic, I think we've also become more and more aware of the difficult financial situation we're in, the need for restraint, the need for proper long-term planning. In that regard, I think this particular motion, though one that should still be consid ered, has to be looked at in terms of its cost and what plans there are for the two cities in Alberta with a population base over 500,000.

I know that other members who have contributed to the debate, and who possibly may yet wish to speak, have talked and will talk as well about the need in rural areas regarding transportation funding, perhaps a formula which would deal with all aspects of transportation in the province. I'm not sure that is totally practical. I think there are differences, but trans portation in all parts of the province eventually benefits all citizens in our province.

Indeed, if we don't have proper trans portation facilities, the roadways and highways in the rural parts of our province, the products we need to keep our cities operating properly, movement and communication within our province cannot take place the way it should. I believe the same is true in the two urban areas, although it may be less obvious to people who aren't living in them. It is also crucial that we have proper transportation planning.

The speed at which people and goods move about those two centres, in most cases dealing with products that have been developed in our rural communities, is also essential. The fact that we allow for the efficient utilization of human resources there benefits the province in total, in all respects, in the long term. I personally hope and believe that there should not be a rural/ urban argument with respect to transportation. Obviously all constituencies have varying priority levels. None the less I personally recognize the need in the rural areas, and I hope rural members will recognize the need in urban areas.

Mr. Speaker, I will end by saying again that in this time of economic restraint I believe we have to deal with long-term planning. I would like to consider this motion further in light of the needs that the two urban centres, Calgary and Edmonton, are projecting for the coming years, given the rapid change in the population growth question. With those few words, I would like to again congratulate the Member for Calgary Buffalo for bringing this motion to the Assembly. I will sit down and allow other members to debate. MR. STILES: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to rise and address this motion today.

I too would like to thank the Member for Calgary Buffalo for bringing this to the attention of the Assembly and making it possible for us to debate the issue. The Member for Calgary Currie has dealt somewhat with the approach to this motion that I was going to take. It is a concern to me that we are dealing with a motion that addresses urban transportation, and there is no mention at all with respect to the needs and desires of the people in the rural parts of this province in this regard. In that light, I had in mind speaking somewhat in defense of the rural sector of the province in this area. Mr.

Speaker, the gist of this motion is a matter of trans portation funding. I guess it is a question of where we divide the wealth of the province. If we are going to increase the funding for transportation, obviously we are going to have to either take more money from the people of the province or spend less money in some other area. I think that's fundamental and obvious.

By the same token, if we are not going to increase the funding for transportation generally but are going to increase the amount of funding that is devoted to urban transportation, obviously we have to reduce the amount of funds available for transportation development in the rural parts of the province. That also is obvious. So that's what this motion really comes down to: where are we going to spend the resources of the province? I think it might be reasonable to have a look at where the bulk of transportation funds are now being spent.

Using the figures for 1981-82, which are the figures we know of at the moment from public accounts that have been published to this point in time, approximately $335 million is spent annually on primary and secondary highways in the province. With respect to financial assistance to either urban or rural municipalities, it appears that approximately $44 million of the transportation budget goes to the rural municipalities; that is to say, the munic ipal districts, counties, towns, and villages in the province.

Approximately $155 million goes to the cities in the way of financial assistance for transportation development. MR. COOK: That's reasonable.

1780 ALBERTA HANSARD November 22, 1983 MR. STILES: My colleague from Edmonton Glengarry said that's reasonable. The division is that approximately 3.5 times goes to the cities as goes to the rural areas of the province, Mr. Speaker. I would suggest that is not entirely reasonable. I take issue with some of the arguments that have been put forward in this regard. There is an assumption that the province somehow benefits from improved urban transportation. I would suggest that the province will benefit from improved transpor tation generally, but we can't confine that to urban transpor tation alone.

I think it's fairly elementary: if we didn't have a rural transportation infrastructure, people in the cities would likely starve in a short time. Also it is a fundamental error to assume that everything spent outside the cities is necessarily spent for the benefit of people in the rural part of the province. The province of Alberta is set up in such a way that we have two major population centres approximately 200 miles apart, and in between we have a fairly densely populated corridor, the Edmonton-Calgary corridor, linking those two cities.

In addition, we have the transconti nental highway system that spans the province. All these high ways serve the total population. They don't serve the urban or the rural population. They don't favor either of the two groups. I would say that roughly they serve both equally. So I don't believe dollars spent on primary and secondary highways should be segregated as either urban or rural dollars. They serve the whole province.

There is also an assumption in arguments that have been put forward on this motion that there has been a growth in the cities of the province and, for this reason, there should be an increase in the funding provided to the cities for transportation, perhaps by omission, to the exclusion of increases in other areas of the province. In actual fact, Mr. Speaker, there has been substantial growth in the populations of the towns and villages of this province.

Speaking for urban municipalities in the constituency of Olds-Didsbury, I am aware of a growth of over 100 per cent in some of those municipalities over the last 10 years. That is substantial growth and certainly isn't any less than the experience of the two major cities. Accordingly, these towns and villages have transportation costs attached to their budgets. They would have a great deal of difficulty, if it weren't for the assistance of the provincial government, in funding their paving and street-building programs. Therefore they can't be ignored. They have experienced the same kind of growth.

Beyond that, there is an inference that the bulk of industrial development has occurred in the cities. I would like to negate that too, because the towns of this province have all recognized the importance of developing their industrial base. Many of the towns in the province, and certainly in the constituency I rep resent, have put in industrial parks and have seen the devel opment of industries within their boundaries. So the suggestion that industrial growth is limited to the cities and therefore jus tifies increased spending on transportation in the cities isn't really a valid one either.

What we are dealing with here is really a question of munic ipal/provincial cost sharing. Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that we are dealing with the same people when we talk about cost sharing at that level. With respect to federal/pro vincial cost sharing, we are dealing with the people of Canada. If we can get a bigger per capita share of the pie, the contri butions to which come from across Canada, I guess we would have an advantage. We don't have the population base out here in the west, any more than they do in the Atlantic regions, that contributes to that federal pot.

But in the province of Alberta we are dealing with a population represented by both municipal and provincial representatives. The money comes from the same sources. It's the same people who are providing that money, and sharing that money unequally in terms of trans portation costs would hardly be fair. As a means of paying for some of these transportation facil ities, some of the major arteries, I would suggest that perhaps we should consider the idea of a toll payment, as has been used in other provinces. I'm thinking primarily of B.C.

Where they have put in fairly expensive bridges over their major waterways, tolls have been set up to charge the users of those bridges, and they have paid for the capital costs of them over a period of years. After they're paid for, the toll gates come out and people use them toll-free. But during the period when they were being paid for, the users were in fact paying the capital cost.

Perhaps that's something we could look at as a means of paying for some major construction projects such as the Deer- foot Trail in Calgary and other freeway projects we've had in Edmonton and Calgary, as opposed to attempting to get a bigger share of the provincial pie for that purpose. Obviously the same would apply to major arteries like the Trans-Canada Highway or the cost of extending to four lanes from two lanes Highway No. 1 in Banff park. I'm suggesting that's a means of paying for something. The user-pay system is the fairest system of paying for anything, and perhaps we should have a look at that.

In rural municipalities, Mr. Speaker, when we find that we have a reduction of revenues or finances to deal with some of these things, one of the answers to that is to reduce expectations. There's no question that people living in the rural areas of the province would like to have all their roads paved, but I think we all recognize that that is simply beyond our ability to pay. We simply don't have the funds to pave all the rural roads, much as we would like to. So we put up with gravel roads and drive on them and put in the occasional windshield as a result. But that's one way of dealing with the problem.

I'm not sug gesting that the city should go without roads or without devel oping their freeway systems, but perhaps they could slow down development to match the pocketbook. There is some suggestion that rapid transit or LRT is part of this motion.

Coming from a constituency that straddles the Edmonton-Calgary corridor, I would like to point out that there is substantial interest outside the cities of Edmonton and Calgary in having a system of rapid transit to accommodate the large number of people who have migrated out of our cities and are now living in the rural communities, to assist those people in travelling in and out of the city to their jobs. As an example, for people who travel Highway No. 2, you may be surprised to know that there seems to be almost an equal number of people leaving the city to go to work each day as there is going into the city.

It's certainly been a surprise to me in the last few years to notice the flow of traffic both in and out of Calgary early in the morning. I think an LRT system, or some system of rapid transit up and down that Edmonton-Calgary corridor, is long overdue. Just to touch on that briefly, I've lived in the area for 23 years and I notice we're still using the same rail cars. VIA Rail still has the same bud cars running up and down that track as they had 23 years ago. The cars are antiquated. The system is antiquated.

Before VIA Rail took over, one of the things the CPR did in terms of discouraging people from using the pas senger facilities on that Edmonton-Calgary line was to arrange the time table in such a way that nobody would want to travel on it because the times that the trains were running were totally inconvenient. They were then able to go to the Canadian Trans port Commission and ask to be able to discontinue passenger traffic on that line, because of course they do carry a substantial tonnage of freight over the line. That's something like the fellow who was convicted of murdering his mother and father

November 22, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 1781 and threw himself on the mercy of the court on the grounds that he was an orphan. The VIA Rail people haven't done much better. They run the trains on about the same kind of time

schedule as the CPR used to, the result of which is that very few people are using those trains. But that is not to say that there wouldn't be large numbers of people who would use the trains if they were avail able. If they ran at a proper time that would be suitable for commuter traffic, I'm sure they would be full in both directions every day. Of course the other aspect of this is that within the Edmonton- Calgary corridor, one of the major obstacles to doing anything, and obviously something that would mean a great deal of cost, is the number of level crossings up and down that line.

They are a constant source of danger. We're all aware of various accidents and the loss of life that has resulted at level crossings up and down the Edmonton-Calgary rail line. That is something that each one of the towns that are situated — and of course the towns in between Edmonton and Calgary were all situated on that railway line because the railway's engineers laid out the town sites in each case. In almost every case they managed to straddle the town site on the railway line.

So each one of those towns now has a level crossing problem or more than one level crossing problem inside its town boundary that it would like to deal with. Certainly the cost of rectifying that problem is going to be tremendous, and it's something we simply won't be able to do all at one time. It is also a substantial obstacle to instituting any kind of high-speed passenger trans portation system on that rail line. I don't want

Document details

Collection	Alberta — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	19831122
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	L20 S1 19831122 1430 01 han.pdf
Language	en
Format	json
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	3b6855ef48c3c0e9e9bfd148ab43e911bcd63c04

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