LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA Title: Tuesday, April 18, 1972 2:30 p.m. [The House met at 2:30 pm.] PRAYERS [Mr. Speaker in the Chair.] head: MR. SPEAKER'S RULING ON A QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE MR. SPEAKER: Referring to the motion of privilege which was tentatively placed before the House for consideration last Friday, I should say that it has attracted some attention and in view of this and of the importance of a point of privilege I am anxious to make very clear to the House the reasons for the conclusions which I have reached. On page 95 of Beauchesne, the function of the Speaker in this regard is referred to.

The Speaker must be satisfied firstly, that there is indeed a prima facie case of privilege, and secondly that the matter is being raised at the first opportunity. Since all rules arise out of practical considerations, it must be assumed that the reason for giving these duties to the Speaker is to save the House time which might be lost by debating an invalid allegation of a breach of privilege.

Beauchesne makes it clear, further, that if the Speaker finds that there is indeed a prima facie case of privilege, then the final decision as to whether or not there is such a breach, and if there is what should be done, is for the Assembly and the Assembly only, and not, in any event, a matter for the Speaker. Shorn of its

preamble, the point of privilege alleged in this case says simply that the hon. Premier appointed, or signed an order in council appointing three more members to a committee than the number referred to in our rules. It is necessary to state the matter as clearly as that, since no member of this House should run the risk of being accused by means of anything but the clearest statement of the alleged point of privilege. Referring to rule 52, it is clear that this rule refers to a special Committee, and moreover it refers of necessity to a special Committee of this Assembly.

It is abundantly clear in the implications in our rules, as well as in Beauchesne and in Erskine May's authoritative work, that the rules apply to a Committee of the Assembly and that a Committee of Assembly is, and can be, only one that has been appointed by the Assembly or by its authority. For example, the mere fact that several MLA's might constitute a panel for some kind of discussion does not make that panel a Committee of this Assembly, even though all the panel members are MLA's. Now referring to

section 14 of The Legislative Assembly Act, this does not support the alleged point of privilege in any way. It merely permits members of the Assembly to receive, without disqualification, reimbursement of expenses in case they are appointed to certain committees, not necessarily Legislative committees, by order in council or by the Assembly. It may be of more than passing importance that, in fact, this committee was not Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1839

31-2 ALBERTA HANSARD April 18th 1972 appointed by the Premier, as originally intimated, nor was the Order in Council passed by the Premier as alleged in the statement referred to me. The Order in Council obviously was passed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. In fact, it is actually impossible for a point of privilege to arise under rule 52. By rule 52, the Assembly limits itself in regard to committees which the Assembly may appoint. Since it is a self-made rule, it is quite unreasonable to say that the Assembly may act in contempt of itself, or in breach of its own privileges.

The Order in Council was passed on February 16th of this year, and the House has been in session for possibly 28 or 29 sitting days thus far, at least up until last Friday when the point was raised. Now the Order in Council was passed on February 16th of this year and the House has been in session for possibly 28 or 29 sitting days thus far, at least up till last Friday when the point was raised. It cannot, therefore, in fairness be said that the point was raised at anything like the earliest opportunity.

There are, therefore, not less than three non-technical, clear and practical reasons why on its very face the proposed motion shows that it does not raise a point of privilege. Any one of these three reasons would be fatal in itself. Consequently, it is my duty to rule, as also happened in an alleged point of privilege some two weeks ago, that there is not here a matter for referral to the House for debate on a question of privilege. In fact, it would appear that genuine questions of privilege are very rare in Canadian Parliaments and Assemblies. head: READING AND RECEIVING PETITIONS MR. ASHTON: Mr.

Speaker, I beg to move that the following petitions be now read and received. First, Alfred Bond, Fred Drysdale, William Hogue, Donald Hocks and Brian Tink, for

an Act to incorporate the Grande Prairie Racing Association. Second, the Historical Society of Alberta, for

an Act to amend

an Act to incorporate the Historical Society of Alberta. Third, Sister Juliette LaRose, Sister Ellen Brunt, Sister Rachael Maynard, and Sister Laura Murphy, for an

an Act to incorporate the Sisters of Charity of Providence of Calgary. Fourth, Les Soeurs de Charite de la Providence des Territoires du Nord Ouest, for

an Act to amend an Ordinance to incorporate Les Soeurs de Charite de la Providence des Territoires du Nord Ouest. Fifth, the Society of Industrial Accountants of Alberta, for

an act, being the Society of Industrial Accountants of Alberta Act, 1972. Sixth, the Canadian Junior College, for

an Act to amend

an Act to incorporate Canadian Junior College. Seventh, Thelma Thompson Baxter for

an Act to provide for an Extension of Time for Commencing an Action Beyond the Period Allowed by The Limitation of Actions Act. And eighth, Ralph A. Sebring, Douglas Clark, R.J. Barrett, J.C. Gibbons, Ursula Melych, Peter Husing and Mrs. Greta Bennett for

an Act to incorporate the Institute of Accredited Public Accountants of Alberta. [The motion was carried without debate or dissent.] Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1840

April 18th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 31-3 head: INTRODUCTION OF BILLS MR. FARRAN: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce a bill, being

an Act to incorporate The Sisters of Charity of Providence of Calgary. Mr. Speaker, I also beg leave to introduce a bill, being

an Act to amend an Ordinance to incorporate Les Soeurs de Charite de la Providence des Territoires du Nord Ouest. I also, Mr. Speaker, beg leave to introduce a bill being

an Act to provide for an Extension of Time for Commencing an Action beyond the Period Allowed by The Limitation of Actions Act. MR. KING: The intention of the act is to, first of all, broaden the purposes of The Historical Society of Alberta, and secondly, to give The Historical Society of Alberta greater latitude in the timing of their public annual meeting. [These requests for leave and others being granted, the following bills were introduced by the members indicated and read a first time: Pr. 1

An Act to incorporate the Grande Prairie Racing Association -- Mr. Jamison. Pr. 2

An Act to amend

An Act to incorporate the Historical Society of Alberta -- Mr. King. Pr. 3

An Act to incorporate The Sisters of Charity of Providence of Calgary -- Mr. Farran. Pr. 4

An Act to amend an Ordinance to incorporate Les Soeurs de Charite de la Providence des Territoires du Nord Ouest Mr. Farran. Pr. 5 The Society of Industrial Accountants of Alberta Act, 1972 -- Mr. Jamieson. Pr. 6

An Act to amend

an Act to incorporate Canadian Junior College -- Mr. Cookson. Pr. 8

An Act to provide for an Extension of Time for Commencing an Action Beyond the Period Allowed by The Limitation of Actions Act -- Mr. Farran. Pr. 9

An Act to incorporate the Institute of Accredited Public Accountants of Alberta -- Mr. Ghitter.] head: INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, I’m delighted today to be able to introduce to you and to all members of the Assembly some 60 bright-eyed and enthusiastic Grade IV and V students from Crestwood School in the constituency of Edmonton Glenora. They are accompanied today by their teachers, Miss Oberg and Mr. Foster. They are in the members gallery and I ask that they now stand and be welcomed. MR. APPLEBY: Mr.

Speaker, it is my privilege and pleasure this afternoon to introduce to the members of this Assembly a group of students from your constituency of Edmonton Meadowlark. These are a group of 25 Grade VI students from Sherwood School. They are accompanied by their teacher Mr. Roy Dahlstedt. They are seated in the members' Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1841

31-4 ALBERTA HANSARD April 18th 1972 gallery and I will now ask them to rise and be recognized by this House. MR. COPITHORNE: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure today to introduce to you and through you to the members of the Assembly 28 high school students from the historically-named school of George McDougall in Airdrie, and their instructor Mr. Lyles. They are sitting in the public gallery, and I would ask that they rise and be recognized by the House. head: FILING RETURNS AND TABLING REPORTS MR. YURKO: Mr.

Speaker, I beg leave to table a report on the environmental impact of oil and gas exploration and pipeline operations in Alberta commissioned by the Environment Conservation Authority. The report is qualitative in nature rather than quantitative, but it is rather interesting in indicating the extent of concern in this area and the possibility of new directions to be taken in the future. DR. WARRACK: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to file Notice of Return Motion No. 165 as requested one week ago today. MR. COPITHORNE: I am pleased to table Return No. 174 requested by Mr. Benoit. MR.

SPEAKER: As recorded by Statute I have the honour to table the report of the Ombudsman for the period from November 1st, 1970 to October 31, 1971. head: ORAL QUESTION PERIOD The Communal Properties Act MR. DIXON: I have a question for the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs regarding The Communal Properties Act. Does the government intend to appoint a new Communal Properties Board in the near future? MR. RUSSELL: No, Mr. Speaker, we don't.

I would recommend to Executive Council and through them to this Legislature that no appointments be considered until the Legislature has received the report of the special committee that is being appointed and asked to review the situation. MR. DIXON: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. minister. How then can the prospective Hutterite Colony purchasers proceed with the application to purchase in this intervening time? MR. RUSSELL: There is no way they can proceed, Mr. Speaker, and I think I have communicated that moratorium effect fairly well.

I have spoken and written to solicitors and real estate agents acting on behalf of Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1842

April 18th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 31-5 some of the colonies and I had some of the Brethren in my office themselves and did communicate that to them. I realize that there must be a reasonable limitation to the moratorium period that we could expect people to live with, but those affected by it seem to have accepted this fall's tentative deadline. MR. DIXON: A further supplementary question. I have had representation where there is a proposed deal going on in the very near future, and so my next question then is, does this mean that the government does not intend to enforce the act as it presently stands? MR.

RUSSELL: Well, there are two kinds of activities which should be separated here, Mr. Speaker. First, there are the requirements of the act which is the law of the Province of Alberta right now, not affected by the Communal Properties Board, and secondly there are those activities in the act that are affected by the board. Those that are affected by the board are affected by this moratorium period that I mentioned, because there is no board. It is our intention to enforce the other requirements of the act. MR. DIXON: My final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, in order that there should be an answer to this.

In the meantime, could a group appeal to the court? Because I don't think the hon. minister himself can suspend the act in its present form, so I was wondering what legal ramifications - and I'm not asking this as a legal question without a board, I'm asking it regarding the act. How would they go about getting this because the board is the only one that can reverse the decision and there is no board? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member is, in fact, asking a question of legal opinion. MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, under what authority does the government make

an act of the Province of Alberta inoperative, by refusing to appoint a board? MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, I thought I had pointed out fairly clearly that the act is not inoperative. There is a period of a few months whereby no colonies can expand, or no new colonies could be acquired because there is no board to receive the applications. It's my understanding that that message had been clearly transmitted to most of the interested parties in Alberta. If some hon. members know of persons who are not aware of that I wish they would bring it to my attention. MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. I would still like to know under what authority the government makes

an act inoperative, even for a few months by refusing to appoint a board? MR. RUSSELL: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think the authority is vested through the people who elected us. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1843

31-6 ALBERTA HANSARD April 18th 1972 MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton Kingsway and the hon. Member for Calgary Bow. Oil Leases MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct this question to the hon. Minister of Mines and Minerals. Has any member of the government at any time during the last two months had discussions with officials of large oil companies or their legal departments, with regard to the lease restrictions announced yesterday, and what was the outcome of those talks? MR. DICKIE: Mr.

Speaker, I certainly welcome answering all questions dealing with the review that was tabled yesterday. However, I have some reservation in that there may be a series of questions, and I would ask the indulgence of the House to consider them when the government brings down its position paper on natural resources revenue. Questions could be asked after that time and we could then deal with them. MR. NOTLEY: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, again to the hon. minister. In the paper tabled yesterday the figures on the leases were outlined.

However, I would ask the hon. minister whether the government will supply us with an estimate of the reserves that are held under these restricted leases? The point -- just for clarification for the hon. minister's benefit -- that concerns a lot of Albertans is, just what percentage of our reserves are tied up in leases where there is a ceiling of 16 2/3%? MR. DICKIE: Mr. Speaker, that may be a little difficult question to get the information for the hon. member.

I am wondering if the hon. member would put that on the Order Paper and be a little more specific, and we'll endeavour to have that information available for him at the time we commence discussions on our position paper. MR. NOTLEY: A supplementary question. Just by way of reply, I certainly will put that on the Order Paper in the form of a Motion for Return.

I wonder, as a supplementary question, whether the government is giving any consideration to imposing either a selective sales tax, introducing a mineral leases renegotiation act, or perhaps considering the suggestion of the Committee of Independent Canada for an expert tax? MR. DICKIE: Well, Mr. Speaker, again this is the point that I was raising about a series of questions that will certainly be required to be dealt with, and I had asked that these questions be withheld until we bring down the government's position paper on natural resource revenue. MR. NOTLEY: A supplementary question to the hon. minister.

Re the question of the reserves which are held. Has the government given any consideration to the allowable production rates in these leases where there is a ceiling of 16 2/3%? Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1844

April 18th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 31-7 MR. DICKIE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise again and say I would like to answer that question, but I think it is tied in with the other questions. I would again request that we would like to deal with them but we would like to deal with them after the government has brought down its position paper on natural resource revenue. MR. TAYLOR: Supplementary, in view of the hon. Premier's statement yesterday, is it the intention of the hon. minister to bring The Mines and Minerals Act before the Legislature and eliminate the maximum and increase the 16 2/3%? MR. DICKIE: Mr.

Speaker, it is the intention of the government to bring amendments to The Mines and Minerals Act, and I would again suggest that you wait until that time and then we will review the contents of those proposed amendments. Civil Service Retirement Pay DR. PAPROSKI: A question to the hon. Minister of Labour. Is there any intention of this government or your department to decrease the amount of monthly payments paid to civil servants upon retirement through any new formula, directly or indirectly, because there has been a lot of concern expressed about this via phone calls? DR. HOHOL: Mr.

Speaker, the answer is unequivocally no, that is not the case at all. Without anticipating what may happen in the future I can say two things; that won't happen -- there may be an increase but this is something we will be looking at later on. Supersonic Aircraft Over Alberta MR. WILSON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the hon. Premier. Has the Alberta Government established a policy on whether or not they are in favour of allowing the supersonic Concorde aircraft to cross Alberta? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, I am looking around to find out who I should direct the question to. Mr.

Speaker, I am going to direct it to the hon. Minister of Industry and Commerce who has been checking into the matter of transportation so far as the province is concerned. MR. PEACOCK: Mr. Speaker, through you can I thank the hon. Premier? MR. SPEAKER: As a matter of fact I believe the question is out of order since it deals with Dominion jurisdiction. MR. PEACOCK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1845

31-8 ALBERTA HANSARD April 18th 1972 MR. WILSON: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Because the impact of the supersonic aircraft is felt by people on the ground, I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Industry and Commerce if the government is aware that the British Aircraft Corporation and Sud Aviation would like to see the Concorde used in a Canadian cross-country corridor, flying over the prairies to reach the U.S. Pacific northwest? MR. PEACOCK: Mr. Speaker, I think in answer to the hon. member's question it is a federal matter and I think we would have to consult them first. MR. WILSON: Supplementary, Mr.

Speaker. I would like to ask the hon. minister then, in light of his statement, if he would consider asking for a report from the three-man Canadian Transport Department delegation, who met with the Concorde manufacturers at Bristol last Thursday and Friday, where the possible air corridor was discussed? MR. PEACOCK: Mr. Speaker, we'll ask for that report. MR. WILSON: A final supplementary. Mr. Speaker. What other steps would the hon. minister take both for and against this possible corridor to assure that Albertans are adequately protected? MR.

PEACOCK: If the hon. member will put it on the Order Paper as a Motion for a Return? Safety Test Centres MR. FARRAN: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to ask one of the hon. ministers what steps they take for and against something. Can I go now? Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the hon. Minister of Highways and Transport. Two or three years ago the provincial government built a safety test centre at great expense, in the Manchester area of Calgary -- perhaps more correctly, they bought a building for that purpose in the City of Calgary.

What does the province intend to do with this building which has been vacant for some time? MR. COPITHORNE: Mr. Speaker, there were two test centres built, one in Calgary and one in Edmonton. The one in Calgary was built by the Department of ... AN. HON. MEMBER: By the City of Calgary. MR. COPITHORNE: The City of Calgary owns the Edmonton one and the one in Calgary was built by the Department of Public Works. Perhaps the hon. member, Dr. Backus, could enlarge on the cost of the one in Calgary. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1846

April 18th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 31-9 MR. SPEAKER: For the sake of the Hansard Report, did the hon. minister intend to say that the City of Calgary owned the Edmonton one? MR. COPITHORNE: Mr. Speaker, the City of Edmonton owns the Edmonton one and the Department of Public Works owns the Calgary one. MR. FARRAN: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker, because I didn’t quite get it. What does the province intend to do with it? Are you aware from the files that the City of Calgary last year requested the provincial government to perhaps reinstitute the operation for second-hand cars before sale? MR. COPITHORNE: Well, Mr.

Speaker, the Calgary one, we have equipment still stored in that facility and it isn’t actually a functional operation for the City of Calgary for any purpose -- and particularly for the purpose of car testing -- because it was not well designed functionally and operatively. Peace River Bloc and DREE Program MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs, and ask him if the government has made any representations to the federal government asking for the Peace River bloc to be included in the federal designated area program? MR. GETTY: No, Mr.

Speaker, we have not made any official representations to that effect. I recall though in the files that there have been some discussions at the official level about potential areas that might be considered for future DREE areas in the province, but this government has not -- my department has not -- made any official representation to have the Peace River bloc included or any part of it. MR. CLARKE: Mr. Speaker, has the hon. minister received representation from municipalities and interested organizations in the Peace River bloc asking that this representation be made to the federal government? MR.

GETTY: No, the minister has not. There was one meeting with a group in which they requested that something be done to allow a rapeseed plant that was going into either High Prairie or McLennan to be moved outside of that area that those two towns are in, but other than that, no -- there have been no representations. MR. NOTLEY: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. minister. Is the minister aware that the British Columbia government has backed the proposal of people in the B.C. bloc of British Columbia that they be included under the DREE program?

Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1847

31-10 ALBERTA HANSARD April 18th 1972 MR. GETTY: I b elieve, Mr. Speaker, that I have heard of that representation, yes. However, we believe that there are other ways of handling the matter which are much more advantageous to the people of Alberta than in the manner which the B.C. government is using. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, supplementary. Would the hon. minister elaborate on the other ways of handling the problem so that the people in the Peace River can compete? MR. GETTY: We're back to a problem that we've had in the House before, Mr. Speaker.

We are negotiating this matter with the Department of Regional and Economic Expansion, Mr. Marchand's office, and we hope that we will be able to give all of the members the information in that regard as quickly as possible and we intend to, but not while the negotiations are going on. MR. MOORE: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. minister. Is the minister aware that certain Chambers of Commerce, Unifarm locals, and NFU locals in the Peace River country are opposed to the efforts being made by certain persons to relocate the plant in another part of the Peace River country, near High Prairie or McLennan? MR.

GETTY: Yes, I think, Mr. Speaker, in answer to that question it's quite clear that opinions are divided as to whether certain industrial projects should receive federal assistance inside and outside of the areas, because as you know, when there is an area established, it becomes then an artificial method of directing the location of industry in this province. Sherwood Park Representation DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs and I have two supplementaries which will save a lot of genuflection if I can get those in that order.

The first question hon. minister is, in allowing Sherwood Park to have increased representation, number one, will this be by ministerial order? MR. RUSSELL: Yes, Mr. Speaker. DR. BUCK: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In setting the dates of the election for the increased representation, will this also be by ministerial order? MR. RUSSELL: No, Mr. Speaker. The existing council themselves have to set a date for the election.

In my letter to them I suggested that the decision having been made to grant increased representation, in my mind it seemed desirable to have the by-election at the earliest possible date, preferably before the school summer holiday reaches us, but that decision rests with the existing council. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1848

April 18th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 31-11 DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker and Mr. Minister, this has been done before the feasibility study came in on a possibility of Sherwood Park incorporation. Is this true? MR. RUSSELL: If he means the decision was taken before the report having been received, that is correct. Mr. Speaker, I can only emphasize that this problem has been festering for years. We finally acted on it. It is that simple. MR. SPEAKER: Is this a supplementary? DR. BUCK: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Mr.

Speaker, the last supplementary, just to help me with my elementary arithmetic, I am having a little trouble with the figure of two representatives, Mr. Minister. Just for the information of the hon. members of the House, there are 17,000 people in Sherwood Park and 10,000 people in the remainder of the county. I am wondering how you arrived at the magic figure of two, Sir? MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, I answered that question, I believe it was last week. MR. SPEAKER: The self-same question was asked and answered. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, Sir, it wasn’t answered to my satisfaction. . . MR.

SPEAKER: The hon. minister isn't required to answer it at all, and since it was put before and answered, I must submit that it should not be put again. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, if the situation has changed, cannot a similar question be asked? I want to know how. . . MR. SPEAKER: If there is a certain change in the situation and it is a new situation I suppose the question is in order again. DR. BUCK: For the point of clarification of the hon. members and the people of this province, Mr. Speaker, I would like to know how he arrived at the number of two, when it is not representation by population.

When there are 17,000 people in the hamlet and 10,000 in the rest of the county, I want to know how the hon. minister arrived at the number of two? MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, I still fail to see what new conditions there are. I gave quite a detailed explanation of that last week. I would be Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1849

31-12 ALBERTA HANSARD April 18th 1972 pleased to add one plus two equals three for the hon. member’s benefit again if he is having difficulty comprehending that. I will go over it again out of the House. The Communal Properties Act (cont.) While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Drumheller earlier had asked me by what authority we were literally suspending a portion of the act. My answer was by the authority vested to the citizens of Alberta. I since had the act passed to me.

Section 4 of The Communal Properties Act stipulates that the Executive Council (presumably getting its authority back from whoever elected them there) may appoint a board but it does not say that they have to. Further on in the act it says that applications for the formation or addition of new colonies shall go before a board. So it is kind of a screwy act but we do have that choice. MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, the government's action was a little screwy too, wasn't it? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview followed by the -- sorry. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon.

Minister of Municipal Affairs. He mentioned that he had consultation with the Hutterite Brethren. Could he advise the House who he consulted with? Did he consult with all the colonies in Alberta, or representatives of them, and who these representatives were? MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, I talked, by letter, by phone, and in person with a variety of solicitors who were acting for various colonies, also with some real estate agents. There were also two brethren in my office. It was, several months ago, and I would have to check my appointment book to get their names and what colony they represent. MR.

DIXON: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. minister. Getting back to my original question, maybe now you have clarified it a bit. The act, according to the way I see it, is inoperative without a board. That is the reason why I think you should either announce that you are going to have a board or bring before the Legislature action to do away with the act completely. MR. SPEAKER: Is the hon. member asking a question? MR. DIXON: I think you should clarify the point. MR. RUSSELL: Mr.

Speaker, I don't know how plain I can make these answers because I have said many times in this House, for a period of several months -- probably until November, the portion of legislation that goes through the Board will be inoperative, and as far as I know, the people who are directly concerned by that decision seem to have accepted it. I haven't had any request to do otherwise. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1850

April 18th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 31-13 MR. TAYLOR: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. If the purchaser wants to sell and a buyer wants to buy, are they thereby losing their rights as citizens during this nine or ten month period. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member is asking a legal question. The hon. Member for Olds-Didsbury, followed by the hon. Member for Edmonton Kingsway. Edmonton Whitemud Developments MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Public Works.

Some time ago I asked him at what stage plans were for the development of a major sporting complex in the constituency of Edmonton Whitemud. I'd like to know if the minister can now report to the House on the stage of those developments, and when we might expect money in the estimates for them. MR. BACKUS: Mr. Speaker, as far as I know, we don't have any plans for construction of a sporting facility in Edmonton Whitemud, but I'd be happy to check in on that and see. And therefore, as far as I know it isn't in the estimates, either. MR. KING: A supplementary question to the hon.

Minister of Public Works or to the hon. Minister of Lands and Forests. Could they advise me about the state of preparedness of the plans in either department for an urban provincial park in Edmonton Whitemud, as of last September 10, and whether or not there has been any further planning done on this urban provincial park, as I understood had been proposed? DR. WARRACK: Mr. Speaker, that proposal was made by the loser of that election, and this is not in our estimates. MR. STROM: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. Minister of Lands and Forests. Was that a government proposal? DR.

WARRACK: No, the government, gentlemen, running in that election, won. MR. STROM: Mr. Speaker, may I ask another supplementary question? Was it a government member making a proposal on behalf of the government? DR. WARRACK: Mr. Speaker, no it wasn't. NAIT Expansion DR. PAPROSKI: Mr. Speaker, a question to the hon. Minister of Advanced Education. Given the enrolment at the Northern Alberta Institute of Technology, and given the emphasis on practical relevant Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1851

31-14 ALBERTA HANSARD April 18th 1972 technological training in our technologica1 society, what is the state of expansion now with respect to NAIT? MR. FOSTER: Mr. Speaker, if I might just take a minute to answer this and provide the House with some interesting information which has come to my attention. At the present tine at NAIT, Mr. Speaker, there are slightly over 200 students there enrolled in programs, who were previously at the University of Alberta.

I discovered a short while ago that there are currently enrolled in NAIT for next year's term over 300 students who are presently at the University of Alberta. This is further evidence, I think, of a shift of emphasis, at least in one sector, and will give us cause for reconsidering our priorities in capital construction in the non-university field and I think that that states it. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister. At what stage are negotiations with the federal government for the Department of National Defence land directly to the east of NAIT? MR. FOSTER: Mr.

Speaker, I'm not a part of those negotiations, although I'm aware of that consideration as a possible area for expansion for NAIT. If the hon. member is interested in the detail of it, and to the extent it's available, I could recover it. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Wainwright, followed by the hon. Member for Calgary McKnight. MR. RUSTE: Mr. Speaker, I would like.... MR. SPEAKER: Sorry, supplementary on the other side of the House. MR. LEE: I wonder if the minister has similar information regarding the Southern Alberta Institute of Technology and the situation there in relation to the university? MR.

FOSTER: I don't happen to have that particular information immediately available. I just discovered these other statistics from having been at NAIT one evening and talking with the president. I'm sure, though, that information is available, and it is something I'm sure we'll fellow up on. Hog Processing and Marketing MR. RUSTE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Agriculture. Has the minister received any word from the federal authorities regarding the proposed multimillion dollar hog-processing plant in southern Alberta, in addition to the earlier questions?

Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1852

April 18th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 31-15 DR. HORNER: I said in the House, either yesterday or the day before, Mr. Speaker, to our knowledge, no application has been made to DREE to date, in regard to the processing plant. MR. RUSTE: A supplementary question to the minister. Does he agree with the caution expressed by the federal Minister of Agriculture, in which he cautioned anybody to make any capital investment that would be solely dependant on the plant going forward? This is a press clipping I have. DR. HORNER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we told the federal minister to be cautious about going forward. MR.

SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Sedgewick-Coronation, followed by the hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview, and the hon. Member for Olds- Didsbury. Quality of Seed MR. SORENSON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Agriculture. My question is regarding weed seeds showing up in certified seed, especially rape. What are the regulations governing seed suppliers in this respect, and are present regulations adequate? My question stems from a letter to the editor in this week's Community Press, signed by Dennis Bussey. I will just read a short portion.

"I have bought certified rapeseed for this year, with very disappointing results. After bringing it home I examined one bag, only to find many weed seeds. I then decided to send a sample to be analysed. The result showed that there were four weed seed per ounce. This does not sound like much, but it is 64 to the lb., and if you seed seven lbs. to the acre, this is 448 weed plants per acre. To my way of thinking, this is outrageous." DR. HORNER: Mr. Speaker, first of all, as the hon. member knows, we are trying to upgrade the Weed Control Act of Alberta.

On the other hand, the question of certified seed and the content of extraneous material including weed seeds, is regulated by the federal government under the seed act. I am not sure of the official name of the act, but it is under federal legislation which covers the seed grains of all types right across Canada. For pretty obvious reasons this has to be a federal act. If the hon. member will bring it to my attention, we will be willing to take up the matter with whomever provided that kind of seed, and to also take up the matter with the Alberta Seed Growers' Association to prevent a recurrence. MR. RUSTE: Mr.

Speaker, supplementary question to that. Has the hon. minister given any representation to the federal government for amendments to The Canada Seed Act? I understand there was some work done on it earlier. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1853

31-16 ALBERTA HANSARD April 18th 1972 DR. HORNER: Not as yet, Mr. Speaker. There has been a great deal of input, not only the question of improving the standards under The Canada Seed Act, but also the question of copyright or ownership of variety of changes in Canada; and the question of whether or not this should be considered under The Canada Seed Act, is one of the things that is being considered by the federal government at this time. As I said, we didn't make any representations as yet, to the federal government, in that area. Japanese Investment in Feedlots MR. NOTLEY: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Agriculture. Is the hon. minister aware of a report from Tokyo that the largest compound feed maker in Japan, in conjunction with some Canadian interests, is planning a giant feed lot operation in Alberta? DR. HORNER: I am not aware of any specific one. I am aware of the interests that have been expressed by a number of feed lots in Alberta tying up with Japanese interests in relation to processing and supplying the Japanese market with wheat. We have made some substantial headway in looking into the market for beef in Japan.

This has been because of a joint effort on behalf of the industry itself through the Alberta Cattle Commission, and individual feeders. There have been a number of inquiries in regard to the question of Japanese capital being involved in joint operations of processing units in Alberta. NAIT Expansion (cont) MR. CLARK: I would like to follow up the answer I got from the hon. Minister of Advanced education, by asking the hon. Minister of Public Works at what stage negotiations are between his department on behalf of the government, and the Department of National Defense regarding the expansion to the east at NAIT?

DR. BACKUS: Mr. Speaker, there was a proposal made some time ago by the Department of National Defense, that the housing area to the east of NAIT would be transferred to the Alberta Government, provided we would build a similar housing estate for them out in the country. The cost of doing this was considered at that time unsatisfactory, and right at the moment there is no negotiation except that we have an agreement with the federal government and the Department of National Defence that should they decide to dispose of these lots, that we will have first option on them. MR. CLARK: One supplementary question, Mr.

Speaker. Have there been any negotiations between the Department and the federal government and also Northwest Industries with regard to their facilities to the west of NAIT? DR. BACKUS: Mr. Speaker, no. We aren't looking in that direction at the moment and there is some negotiating going on, but it is, at the moment, in a fairly contemplative stage, and therefore, I would rather not make it public at this moment. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1854

April 18th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 31-17 Japanese Investment in Feedlots (cont.) MR. NOTLEY: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, to the question I directed several moments ago to the Minister of Agriculture. Just by way of explanation, information I raised in my question, sir, comes from the March issue of the Canadian-Japanese Trade newsletter.

And my supplementary question to you, is that because this report suggests that they are going into the production not just the supplying of the Japanese market, but production here in Alberta, my question to you is will you look into this and report back to the House on it? DR. HORNER: I will certainly look into it, Mr. Speaker. I have some knowledge as I said, of certain people who have operations in Alberta to develop sustained markets in Japan and have been negotiating with the Japanese on it. And this is feedlot processing to the Japanese market. I will look into the market and report to you.

Steel Plant for Alberta MR. YOUNG: I have a question for the Minister of Industry and Commerce. There is a press report to the effect that there may be a major steel development in the Province of Alberta. Could the minister indicate whether this is in fact, going ahead, whether there have been discussions and is the matter now certain? MR. PEACOCK: Mr.

Speaker, it just happened to be a set of circumstances, in order to explain this situation, in which I had reported to the House that one of the basic industries that we were looking at in Alberta was a steel industry and now is the time and that we would pursue this with our expediency, and all effort. At the same time there happened to be an annual meeting in Toronto in which the president of a national steel company made a statement that he was looking at an integrated steel development for the Province of Alberta in the future.

And in some place or some way, the two reports got inter- mixed and it was then assumed that this is what I was talking about, and that it was a fait accompli that there would be a steel plant in Alberta. I just want, for the information of the House, to advise them that the two reports are unrelated and that we know of no definite move for such a plant taking place in Alberta at this time. MR. WILSON: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Is there any firm negotiating with the government at the present time for a steel plant in Alberta? MR. PEACOCK: Mr.

Speaker, we are carrying on conversations with a number of firms regarding steel and locating an integrated steel plant for Alberta. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1855

31-18 ALBERTA HANSARD April 18th 1972 Margarine Sales Tax MR. RUSTE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct another question to the Minister of Agriculture. In light of the recent statement by the vice-president of the Western Canada Seed Processors in which he said, "Right now, margarine is the only edible product that carries a big sales tax". Have you made any representations to those responsible for that sales tax? DR. HORNER: Not as yet, Mr. Speaker.

We seem to be quite busy in trying to look after the affairs of the Province of Alberta in relation to some very important matters, our policies that we are trying to implement. I will assure the hon. member that we will be making the necessary representations to the federal government in relation to this tax and other taxes, and might I also say, that because of representations in another area of agriculture, we feel that the federal government has changed its mind and the question of semen sales are now going to be treated differently to the advantage of the farmer of Alberta. MR.

RUSTE: A supplementary question to the hon. minister. I understood that there was a reduction in the tax on margarine last summer in the federal budget. Is this a different one than the one mentioned at that time? DR. HORNER: I'm not aware if it is, Mr. Speaker, but we can look into that matter. The Irrigation Act MR. BUCKWELL: Mr. Speaker a question to the hon. Minister of Environment. Could he advise the House, are there any amendments to The Irrigation Act that will be coming down at this session? MR. YURKO: No, Mr. Speaker, as far as I know there are not. Perhaps the hon.

Minister of Agriculture might want to expand on the thing. DR. HORNER: Mr. Speaker, if I might inform the House, at the spring session of the Legislature there will be no amendments to The Irrigation Act. Hopefully we can conclude negotiations with the federal government so that then amendments brought down will be better able to assess the necessary amendments that will be required. Coal Royalties MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, a question to the hon. Minister of Mines and Minerals. Is it the intention of the government to raise the royalty on coal at this session? MR. DICKIE: Mr.

Speaker, that's a question I would like to answer but it does involve the review that we have completed on the natural Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1856

April 18th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 31-19 resources revenue and will be dealt with when we table the position paper. MR. TAYLOR: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In view of the precarious condition of the coal industry, would the hon. minister and the government consider including representations at the proposed hearings in regard to the royalty on coal? MR. DICKIE: Mr.

Speaker, in answer to that question about the proposed hearings, that will be dealt with by the standing committee themselves to decide the consideration of representations, and it will certainly be in order for organizations to make submissions to the committee if they so desire. Works Incentive Program MR. DIXON: I would like to direct a question, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs. Reports out of Ottawa regarding the Works Incentive Program show labour on the job received a rebate of 75% as far as the provincial government and municipalities were concerned. Who used those advances or loans?

I was wondering why we didn't use this assistance to the fullest. I understand that it's about $1 million to $1.5 million short of the amount allowed for projects. MR. RUSSELL: I would like to thank the hon. members for advance notice, Mr. Speaker. It gave me an opportunity to check this with officials of my department and the news item that the hon. member showed, I believe, is incorrect. Alberta had an allotment of $8.5 million for that program and it was distributed 100% to the municipalities of Alberta.

The last available data we have is that all but $117,000 of that $8.5 million will be used and you can recognize that this involved many municipalities throughout the province, making application, getting their projects in order, having them approved, getting federal approval and getting on with the job.

Some municipalities found it necessary to withdraw and in that case we tried to come back and find other municipalities who had projects of an equal value that might be substituted, so I really believe that in view of the very late date at which the program was announced and because it involved all the municipal governments of Alberta, that our record is really very good when you consider that at this time there's only $117,000 uncommitted. MR. RUSTE: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the hon. minister.

He mentioned some of them had to withdraw; were there any specific reasons for that or were they just particular to their own financial funds? MR. RUSSELL: I think it was all based on the local situations, Mr. Speaker. Camrose for instance had a plebiscite on their project and their voters turned it down, so there was a case of a substitution. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1857

31-20 ALBERTA HANSARD April 18th 1972 Oil Field Maps MR. BARTON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Mines and Minerals. Have all oil fields been covered in this -- ? MR. DICKIE: Mr. Speaker, the document that's referred to is the review prepared by our table. The maps are in the back -- the coloured maps -- and I believe that is what the hon. member refers to. That's just representative of a number of fields.

We didn't feel it was advantageous to have the maps for every field in the province put into that, so what we tried to do was to convey a cross-section of various fields and the effect of the various types of leases on those fields. MR. BARTON: A supplementary then. I have five oil fields in my area and they are not covered at all, and I was wondering if you were going to implement a supplementary to this to clarify it? MR. DICKIE: No, Mr.

Speaker, but I think it's a very good idea placed by the hon. member and if any hon. member has a particular field that he wishes to have a map of, our department would be glad to accommodate him and get the map of the area and show him the leases that are on there, as well as the date that those leases expire. Handicapped Persons in Public Buildings MR. WILSON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Public Works.

What is your government's policy in regard to accommodating handicapped persons in public buildings so that they may live and move around as nearly as possible as do physically normal people? DR. BACKUS: Mr. Speaker, there is an amendment to the National Building Code which lays down certain regulations designed to incorporate into the design of buildings facilities for handicapped people. I believe this is called

Section No. 5 and we now normally add into all of our contracts we are putting out with specifications, that buildings of a public nature will be built in accordance with this amendment. MR. WILSON: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Are you planning to alter any existing public buildings so there is easy access for people in wheelchairs, and here I have in mind buildings which may have ramps now but they have inadequate maneuvering areas for people in wheelchairs to open doors? DR. BACKUS: Mr.

Speaker, I have been in contact with the association concerned about this and, certainly, if there are any public buildings of this type that we do have control over, if our attention is drawn to the fact that they are unsatisfactory, we certainly will be happy to look into it. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1858

April 18th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 31-21 MR. WILSON: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Do you have a representative from any handicapped or disabled organization on your building design approval committee? DR. BACKUS: No, Mr. Speaker, I don't believe we have but I could certainly check that out. DR. PAPROSKI: I will direct this to the hon. Minister of Health and Social Development. Is it not the intention of the department to review this area so, in fact, we can keep people at home by modifying architectural design, not only in public buildings but also in homes? MR.

CRAWFORD: The question of home care does raise a very useful alternative in the accommodation of handicapped people. I think, though, otherwise the answer given by the hon. Minister of Public Works -- in respect to the public buildings -- is one that I am glad to be able to take the opportunity to assure the original questioner has also had a good deal of attention by myself in regard to what may be possible in the future in that regard. Programs for the Handicapped MR. WILSON: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. Minister of Culture, Youth and Recreation.

Does your department have or sponsor any programs specifically geared to the handicapped or disabled? MR. SCHMID: Mr. Speaker, yes, we have several. One of the set programs, for instance, is geared especially to the senior citizens lodges where we hope to engage them in some kind of recreation program. We also are supporting the Summer Festival for the Handicapped in Edmonton, which is under the auspices of the Association for the Mentally Retarded and we have several other programs which we do support. Even a programming, for support of the mentally and physically handicapped, as well as the senior citizens. MR.

SPEAKER: The time for the question period expired a few moments ago. ORDERS OF THE DAY head: MINISTERIAL ANNOUNCEMENTS Fort Vermilion MR. RUSSELL: On Thursday last the hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview raised the question concerning the matter of some public housing units in the town of Fort Vermilion. I was hoping for a lull in the Question Period when I could report back, but because of the nature of the question I would like to report back to the House at the earliest possible date. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1859

31-22 ALBERTA HANSARD April 18th 1972 First of all, Mr. Speaker, I thought I recognized the situation when the hon. member brought it to our attention last Thursday; it was almost verbatim from a news story covered in the Edmonton Journal on February 24th of this year. So at least I know how current the hon. member is with his newspaper clipping file. The woman he referred to, a Mrs. Lorna Ferguson, was a member of the Community Action Committee that had been formed as a result of the specific housing problem in the Town of Fort Vermilion.

Some of the members present will recall the situation of the squatters who were present on land which was called the Rosenberger land outside of Fort Vermilion, and the problem involved in finding housing accommodation for those squatters when they were asked to move by Mr. Rosenberger.

After a great deal of difficulty, the government was able to obtain some land and get a small residential sub-division plotted, and it was sometime during that period that the Community Action Committee was formed representing the native population, the town, the provincial government -- I think there were about 15 members on the committee, but I could be wrong insofar as the members are concerned.

After a great deal of difficulty in arriving at a plan that was acceptable for the housing units to all the parties involved, the units were not tendered in that tenders were ready to be called last fall just at the time of the Winter Works Program, and the program of employment priorities was being launched; so the corporation, on instruction from its board of directors, asked that a reputable contractor who had previous satisfactory experience with the corporation try to go into Fort Vermilion and, on a basis of hiring as many local people as possible, build the housing units.

He did this, and I think we'd all agree it was an experiment in trying to involve local labour and a great deal was involved, not as much as we had hoped, but a substantial portion. There aren't any bathrooms in the houses because there are presently no water or sewage facilities, but there are empty rooms built which can easily be used for bathrooms at such time as the utilities are installed, and those can be used as extra storerooms or whatever. But they are there.

The water connection is being put into the kitchens because it is the intention of the government to go ahead with the installation of a water service utility line for the sub-division and also overcome a local problem in the Town of Fort Vermilion. Insofar as footings being poured on frozen concrete. While they were poured during the months of January and February, they were heated and hoarded over and covered in the usual manner, and I can assure the hon. member that the foundations at this point are entirely satisfactory and have passed inspections. Insofar as the matter of oil versus propane being used.

It is my understanding again that the school division is switching to propane and people are using propane wherever they get the opportunity. They are looking ahead to the day when natural gas might be available and it was a majority decision to use propane. Just as a matter of coincidence, Mr.

Speaker, on the day when the hon. member asked the question, I received a letter from the President of the Fort Vermilion Board of Trade, commenting on the substantial improvement in the housing lot of the persons involved and the general improvement of the community of Fort Vermilion, so I don't think the lady's charges about an instant ghetto being improperly built are really justifiable at this time, but I wanted to respond to them because of the seriousness of them.

I have fairly detailed information regarding the building drawings, the status of the program, the percentage of native labour that was used -- information of that type. If the hon. member would Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1860

April 18th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 31-23 like it, he can get it directly from my office, or from the Alberta Housing Corporation office. Grants to Exhibition Associations DR. HORNER: Mr. Speaker, I have just a short announcement to make on Order of the Day. It has to do with the grants that are made by my department to the exhibitions associations, the major exhibition associations in Alberta.

To inform the House that the grants of $100,000 to each of Calgary and Edmonton will be made as they have in the past, and that an increase of $25,000 has been made to the exhibition associations in Lethbridge, Red Deer and Medicine Hat. I wanted to clear up that point that the Lethbridge and Red Deer exhibition associations will then receive $75,000 apiece, and the Medicine Hat exhibition association will be receiving $55,000 as a grant this year. head: WRITTEN QUESTIONS MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, I propose to make a motion in a moment that Question 175 be made an Order for Return. I wondered if the hon.

Member for Spirit River-Fairview had anything to convey to the House prior to my doing so as to whether or not he had received the consent of the person named in the question in regard to the release of any information that may be confidential? MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I believe I filed with the Clerk's office a letter of consent from the individual in question, indeed a letter asking me to solicit this information. MR. CRAWFORD: With that information, then, Mr. Speaker, I would move, seconded by the hon.

Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs that the matter be made a motion for return. [The motion was carried without further debate or dissent.] 175. An Order of the Assembly was therefore issued for a Return showing: 1. Why did the appeal hearing of Dr. John Jenkins, suspended as a psychiatrist at the Oliver Hospital last March, 1971, last more than 8 months, and why was it never completed? 2. Why was Dr. Jenkins not allowed to testify? 3. Was he forced to accept a government settlement because of the long delay during which he could not collect his salary? 4.

Is he now being evicted from his home by the Alberta Housing Corporation, and if so, why? 5. Have any other appeals before the Grievance Appeal Board exceeded 8 months duration, and if so, how many? 6. What does the government plan to do in the future to ensure speedy appeals to guarantee employees are not forced to accept settlements because of financial problems that result from lengthy suspension? Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1861

31-24 ALBERTA HANSARD April 18th 1972 MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member wish to move the motion -- is there a reply to Question 180? I overheard someone say it was agreed to. MR. MINIELY: Mr. Speaker, pardon me. I would like to have until Thursday to give the reply, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would agree. MR. SPEAKER: Does the House agree that the matter go over until Thursday? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. head: MOTIONS FOR A RETURN MR. PURDY: Mr. Speaker, I move Motion No. 169 standing on the Order Paper in my name, seconded by Mr. Ashton. MR. RUSTE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to move an amendment, seconded by Mr.

R. Speaker that the motion be amended by adding the following: 8. What private consulting firms were used to determine the site of the hatchery? 9. What sites throughout Alberta were examined to determine the best location? 10. What facilities outside of Alberta were investigated prior to deciding on the type of hatchery? DR. WARRACK: Mr. Speaker, is it appropriate for me to respond at this point? MR. SPEAKER: Does the mover of the amendment wish to speak on the amendment? MR. RUSTE: Mr.

Speaker, the only reason for moving this was that there are several new members in this Legislature, and I felt that with the additional information provided here, it would give a fuller picture of the whole operation. DR. WARRACK: The reason for my immediate response, Mr. Speaker, is that I am prepared to file the answer to the question as stated in Motion for Return No. 169. I have gone into some considerable detail on it, including some, perhaps all, of the matters brought forward by the hon. Member for Wainwright.

He might wish to take notice of this additional detail and see if he would still like to have an amendment or perhaps file a follow-up Motion for Return. There is some of the additional information that you mentioned contained in my return. DR. HORNER: Mr. Speaker, if I might suggest it, the amendment should be withdrawn until such time as hon. members have had a chance to peruse Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1862

April 18th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 31-25 the material that the hon. minister is going to table today. Then he can very readily put out another Motion for Return. In my view, that would be the fair way to do it. I appreciate that he continues to try and still prove that his was the best government and he is still fighting the election back on August 30th. MR. RUSTE: On a point of order. I think the hon. minister is inferring that we have ulterior motives in this. If it is getting under his skin, well so may it be. I was just asking for information from an open government and, Mr. Speaker, I ask that this stand. MR.

HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, speaking to the amendment, if the hon. member opposite wants information, the answers to questions one to seven are now ready and the hon. Minister of Lands and Forests has them all available, I gather in some considerable detail. However, if there is an amendment passed, of course, it might be some days before he would get the answer, so it does seem to me that if the amendment were withdrawn he would get full and detailed information to questions one to seven, and then if he wishes further information, I'm sure the hon. minister on this side would be happy to provide it. MR. TAYLOR: Mr.

Speaker, on the point of order, is there any reason why the answer can't be deposited and another answer tabled when it is ready? MR. SPEAKER: I believe this is the suggestion that is being made. DR. WARRACK: I stand on a point of order, or whatever it takes.

This particular question has been on the Order Paper for some considerable period of time, because it was on as a question, and later moved for return and I honestly think it's not particularly fair to bring forward an amendment at this point, but I would certainly, in the light of this, suggest that the rather detailed answer that I'm tabling today be examined and should additional detail be desired, I'd be most happy to respond. MR. CLARK: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order... MR. SPEAKER: Actually, I don't know if there is a point of order before the House. I think we're debating an amendment. The hon.

Member for Wainwright declined to withdraw his amendment. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, then in talking about the amendment, in the same fashion the hon. Minister of Lands and Forests did. I would simply point out to the House that this is the first opportunity that the hon. Member for Wainwright has had to make an amendment to the Motion for a Return. If I recall correctly, it was a question initially on the Order Paper, and last week, I believe, the Member for Wainwright stood in his place and asked if this was the place to make some amendment as far as a question was concerned.

He was told, no it wasn't and he should bring it back today and do it now. So, in fairness, it seems to me that if we agree to the amendment, the Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1863

31-26 ALBERTA HANSARD April 18th 1972 minister can still go ahead and table the information he has and the additional information that might be necessary. DR. HORNER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Wainwright has had since March 2nd to put his own Motion for a Return on the Order Paper, and in my view should have done so. MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister of Agriculture argued the very reverse last night. MR. SPEAKER: I believe we're debating an amendment now, and I think perhaps we should confine ourselves to one appearance each . . . The amendment moved by the hon.

Member for Wainwright and seconded by the hon. Member for Macleod, I believe. MR. RUSTE: No, by the hon. Member for Little Bow. MR. SPEAKER: Oh, the hon. Member for Little Bow -- is that motion No. 169 be amended by the addition of clauses 8, 9, and 10, as follows: 8. What private consulting firm was used to determine the site of the hatchery? 9. What sites throughout Alberta were examined to determine the best location? 10. What facilities outside Alberta were investigated, prior to deciding on the type of hatchery? All those in favour of the amendment, please say aye. And those opposed, please say no.

I'm unable to weigh the respective volumes, and I would ask the members -- this is not a division -- in favour of the amendment, would they kindly stand. The difference is more readily apparent! Would the members opposed to the amendment kindly stand. I declare the amendment carried and now that the motion is amended, perhaps could be taken as having been read. [The amended motion was carried without further debate.] 169. An Order of the Assembly was therefore issued for a Return showing: 1. What will be the total cost of the fish hatchery in Calgary now under construction? 2.

What date will the hatchery go into production? 3. What will be the capacity of this plant per year? 4. Will this meet the total requirements of the province and if so, for how long? 5. Will the fish be available to private enterprise? Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1864

April 18th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 31-27 6. Why was the hatchery built in the City of Calgary? 7. Has Alberta any other ideal location for such a plant without great expense to Albertans? 8. What private consulting firm was used to determine site of hatchery? 9. What sites throughout Alberta were examined to determine the test location? 10. What facilities outside of Alberta were investigated prior to deciding on type of hatchery? 176. Mr. Henderson. MR. CLARK: In view of the absence of the hon. Mr.

Henderson, who is confined to his home because of illness, I’d ask that this Motion for a Return stand until Thursday...[Interjection ]...It’s not his voice! MR. SPEAKER: Does the House agree that Motion No. 176 stay on the Order Paper? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. 177. Mr. Ludwig proposed the following motion to this Assembly, seconded by Mr. Ho Lem. That an Order of the Assembly do issue for a Return showing: 1. A list showing the property owned by the government in total, and by individual departments, as follows: (a) (

i) All real property owned by the Alberta government as of April 15, 1972. Please classify; i.e., Treasury Branches, vacant land, provincial buildings, office buildings, warehouses, etc. (ii) The cost of acquisition of such property. (iii) The location of said property; i.e. city, municipality or I.D., or as the case may be. (b) (

i) All property leased by the provincial government in Alberta and elsewhere. Please give terms of lease; i.e., date, duration, number of square feet leased, cost per square foot, department which occupies the leased space, name of lessee department, and name of lessor, as of September 10, 1971 and as of April 15, 1972. (ii) Please furnish same information for property leased by Crown Corporations and Crown Agencies. 2. Which departments o f government or crown corporations or government agencies are involved in management and/or maintenance and/or caretaking of premises occupied by them? Please enumerate. 3.

How many persons are employed in maintenance and caretaking of government owned or leased property, including property owned or leased by crown corporations or government agencies? Please Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1865

31-28 ALBERTA HANSARD April 18th 1972 provide the number of employees so employed for each department, crown corporation and government agency. (

a) How many contracts with private individuals or firms have been entered into by the government for maintenance and/or caretaking services for government owned or leased premises as of April 15, 1972? Please give details of contracts entered into: i.e., parties, terms, duration and date of contract. (

b) Please furnish same information for crown corporations and government agencies, including Treasury Branches. DR. BACKUS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make an amendment to Motion No. 177, moved by myself, seconded by the hon. Mr. Russell, that we add at the end: 5. The cost to the department in providing the information required in this question. To speak to the amendment, the reason for adding this on, is this question is a very extensive one requiring considerable time and effort on the part of the department.

Such phrases as "provincial buildings, office buildings, warehouses, etc." and the fact that they have asked for all the real property owned by the Alberta government. This presumably would include crown land, and I think it is necessary to draw to the attention of this House and the public that considerable cost is involved in trying to answer questions of this type. Therefore, I recommend this amendment. MR. LUDWIG: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will not disagree with the proposed amendment.

It should be brought to the attention of the hon. members, though, that when a question is given -- and I think it is in the public interest to have this information -- that a department is obliged to answer in the future. There have been answers tabled in this House at the request of hon. members who are now in the government, that required a couple of wheelbarrows to -- I am speaking to the amendment -- bring in the information that was available. The hon. members were certainly not concerned about the cost, but all of a sudden -- particularly in this case -- there is a concern about the cost.

I appreciate that there is a cost in providing these answers. I would also like to point out to the hon. Minister of Public Works that a lot of this information is ready and available and compiled in the Department of Public Works, so the cost should not be all that much, Mr. Speaker. But I agree with the amendment if he wishes to put it on. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. MOORE: Mr.

Speaker, on the motion and the amendment, it seems to me that the Motions for Returns in this Assembly have the purpose of providing hon. members with reasonable information that could be obtained without the kind of cost that is involved here. Many of the questions here are so unclear, and I refer to (a) (1), where all real property owned by the Alberta government as of April 15, 1972. Is the hon. member who submitted the motion aware that that will include something like 6,900 and some odd homestead sales and some Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1866

April 18th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 31-29 leases and a number of other things? You can see the Department of lands and Forests can spend several thousands of dollars answering that questionnaire. Under (b) (i), "All property leased by the provincial government," does that mean, leased by the provincial government to someone else, or from someone else to the provincial government? That is another area that is difficult to determine in my estimation.

The hon. member has a little more responsibility to his constituents, and to the province as a whole, in listing questions which answers can be found for much less cost than what these questions are. If the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, has some pertinent information he would like to obtain, why doesn't he list the question for that department or that vehicle, or whatever he is after? But, that kind of a question is using government funds. The hon. Member for Drumheller for one, and a lot of the other hon. members in the front row, have been very concerned about using government funds for such things as this.

In my opinion, the question should be withdrawn and rephrased in a manner that is acceptable to the hon. minister. MR. BENOIT: Mr. Speaker, I am speaking to the amendment. I don't think we would have to put some Motions for Return on the Order Paper if we could get some answers back from the hon. ministers. My experience hasn't been so good up to this point, so far as even getting Motions for Return replied to. I am not really happy with that. For a government that claims to be an open government, we should be able to have more ready access.

I don't intend to ask questions in the legislature unless it is necessary, and I don't intend to put on motions for return, Mr. Speaker, unless it is necessary. But if we don't get the answers, there has to be some way we have to be able to reach them, and that for this reason, I'm not necessarily justifying this particular motion, but I want to make a statement of fact in this regard so far as the overall picture is concerned.

It hasn't been all that satisfactory to this point this year so far as I am concerned, and I think that we are going to have to be more pertinent to get a little tougher, as the man says, or else we won't get the type of information that we need. MR. MINIELY: Mr. Speaker, it is all very well for the member to stand up and say that they are unsatisfactory.

If we would like to state the case in the motions for return that he is not getting the answer for that is fine, but I would point out that some of the questions, particularly when they get extremely detailed, can take a considerable amount of time and a considerable amount of effort. There is no consideration on the part of our government that the answer should not be provided.

We are merely saying that with respect to, as well as other government information, where the members on the other side certainly want to know what something costs, it is an extensive answer and requires an extensive amount of time and effort on behalf of the department. The minister's amendment is simply to show in this type of question that there is also a cost, and it can be a major cost, and certainly nothing else. MR. DIXON: Mr. Speaker . . . MR. YURKO: Oh, I'm sorry. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1867

31-30 ALBERTA HANSARD April 18th 1972 MR. DIXON: No, go ahead. MR. YURKO: Mr. Speaker, I believe that I would like to say something in connection with this motion for return for the simple reason that I am very well aware of what has been tabled in the House in the last couple years. But I do want to suggest that what in fact has been tabled in the House in the last couple of years has been material in connection with the very specific requests for a specific piece of information. Information that was requested was readily identifiable.

It was a document released, an approval released, by the provincial government. This particular Motion for Return has no end of ambiguity associated with it, and I am not sure across how many departments information is, in fact, required. Are we required, for example, to enumerate all our water leases which in fact, is property, water rights that we have given out in connection with numerous properties in this province? This type of a request is so ambiguous that it leaves me in a fog as to what in fact . . . MR. SPEAKER: Is the hon. minister debating the motion or the amendment?

I think the debate must now be specifically the amendment. MR. DIXON: Mr. Speaker, I just wonder if we aren't going to run into a great deal of trouble if we accept this type of amendment. Hon. members on this side or that side of the House can ask for the cost of a certain document or information that the member requested five years ago. Unless you have some sort of guideline, I think we are going to be in trouble here, and I can understand that what the hon. minister who moved the amendment is attempting to do, is to show the cost to the public of this. We were concerned when we were in government, at the cost.

Mr. Speaker, the reason I am on my feet is that this type of amendment can cause nothing but trouble down the line because it will be used as a political move at every opportunity. [Interjections] If the hon. Minister of Agriculture would stand on his feet and talk after I am through it is fine, but anyway, I wonder if we would give some serious consideration -- I can't see too much wrong with it in one sense, but in the other sense, I am thinking if it is going to be used as a general practice for the future or for the past, we are going to be going on forever.

It is going to be just as expensive to find out in the long run what it costs for some of the material that the hon. Minister of the Environment was talking about, and we have wheeled it in here by the cartload. It is up to the hon. members to attempt to have their Motions for Return spelled out clearly so it is fairly easy and convenient for the minister or the department to come up with the answers.

And as has been said here about the motion which I am not speaking on at the present time, the only reason I am touching on it is because I think that if we go forward with this amendment, we are going to get ourselves in the position where we are going to be spending more time on what the costs were, than the time and costs to find out what the actual answers to the motion for return hon. member is requesting. MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I support the amendment. Public funds are involved and whenever public funds are involved the information should certainly be made available to everybody.

I see nothing wrong with this at all, the government is fully justified in Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1868

April 18th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 31-31 indicating to the public what these things are costing. With this and with everything - this is public money - it’s not our money: we are trustees for this money and I see nothing at all wrong in giving a report to the directors of this corporation -- the people of Alberta -- what their business is costing them. MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member wish to speak on the amendment? MR. GHITTER: No, I'll speak on the motion then, after the question, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Ponoka. Did you wish to speak on the amendment or on the motion?

Then if there is no further discussion on the amendment -- it has been moved by the hon. Minister of Public Works, seconded by the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs, that the motion be amended by adding: 5. The cost to the department in providing the information required in this question. [The amendment was carried without further debate] MR. GHITTER: Mr. Speaker, if I might just speak for one moment with respect to the motion. MR. LUDWIG: Mr. Speaker, I believe that as mover of the motion I should be permitted to speak first on the motion. MR.

SPEAKER: The time for speaking to the motion I believe, is when it is moved and that was before the amendment. The motion is no longer before the House, the motion as amended is before the House. MR. GHITTER: Mr. Speaker, if I just might make one brief comment with respect to this motion and not in any way to detract from the right of the members of the opposition to obtain as much information as possible, and every way possible to them. Aside from the fact that I am somewhat concerned over the impreciseness of the motion and the onus that it puts upon the hon.

Minister of Public Works in reply, and as surprised as I am that the hon. member who moved this motion is a lawyer and would allow such impreciseness to occur in the motion, it seems to me that the citizens of the Province of Alberta are being put to this great expense, and I think it is a high expense, for what I would regard to be political motives within this question. I think the key to the question that is put before this House .... MR. LUDWIG: A point of order, the hon. member could not impute political motives to any other member of the House, and he's out of order.

Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1869

31-32 ALBERTA HANSARD April 18th 1972 MR. SPEAKER: It has to be demonstrated, I believe, that political motives are evil. MR. GHITTER: Political motives are evil, Mr. Speaker, if they cause a great deal of expense to the citizens of the province, in this House. I think the key in this motion and the one that surprises me, Mr. Speaker, is the reference within the motion to the key date of September 10, 1971.

Surely the hon. mover of the motion, who was the minister in charge of this department up to that date should well know all of this information and why should I then suggest he should be so concerned with the comparison of September 10,1971 to April 5, 1972, which is mentioned throughout the course of this motion.

I would suggest that, with respect to the use of these motions, that although the opposition is fully entitled to all information that they can receive, that it is indeed a shame to put the citizens of this province to this expense for a motion which I regard to have political motivations and one which would be, in the end result, of little use in the debate in this House by the hon. member. MR. FARRAN: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think it's very presumptuous of the hon. Member for Calgary Buffalo to assume that the hon. Member for Calgary Mountain View did know what was going on before. MR.

SPEAKER: In any event, presumption is not contrary to the rules. The hon. Member for Ponoka. DR. McCRIMMON: Mr. Speaker, looking at this motion as amended, this motion requires almost an inventory of government materials. This would keep a staff or a

section of the department occupied for weeks. I see no reason why there should be this waste of time, material, effort, and staff when they could be occupied doing something useful. I have listened to this hon. member’s questions before and read them on the Order Papers. The next line of questioning he will be asking will be how many bricks are in the new Calgary Court House or how many fire hydrants are there in the province of Alberta. This waste of time and talent of our civil service is ridiculous in my estimation. MR. SPEAKER: May the hon. member close the debate? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. LUDWIG: Mr.

Speaker, with regard to the question, it appears that the hon. minister who undertook to answer the question did not feel that the questions were ambiguous. As far as the political motive is concerned, I don't think we need to go into that. I think the Conservative government has very clearly displayed its attitude towards politics and motives by appointing rather costly caucus committees to be running up and down retrieving information. Why not put them on this and get them to do something while they are at it? And I think that the hon. member spoke about the cost of this.

I am well aware of what information the department has, but I am entitled to have it tabled so that I can have it at my disposal and a lot of this information is available and tabulated and ready now. The cry Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1870

April 18th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 31-33 that it is going to cost -- certainly it costs -- every motion that is printed on the Paper costs money. I will submit the hon. Minister of Public Works hasn't got even a remote clue as to what this will cost but he is raising the spectre that this is going to be tremendously expensive but he doesn't know why. As far as the hon. Minister Without Responsibility, the hon. Member for Calgary North Hill, I believe that his reputation of not knowing what went on in previous governments and in the government he is associated with is well established. I would say ... Mr.

Speaker I have got the floor. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary North Hill was on his feet with a point of order. MR. FARRAN: Mr. Speaker, is it irresponsible for a member to call another member the Minister of Irresponsibility? AN. HON. MEMBER: Just consider where it came from. MR. LUDWIG: Mr. Speaker, if it's true, it isn't irresponsible. DR. BACKUS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member said I probably hadn't a clue. The estimated cost, including salaries and overheads, to collect the data in response to Mr.

Ludwig's question No. 177 and No. 178, regarding the Government Motor Vehicles and the Government Real Estate, is estimated at S6,400 roughly. MR. LUDWIG: Mr. Speaker, I question that figure entirely. I don't think it is based on any research, I think it is an estimate and it's only . . . and I question the validity of that statement. . . [Interjections] . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please! The hon. Minister of the Environment has a point of order. MR. YURKO: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, by way of clarification.

I would like to have the hon. minister advise whether or not he feels this is applied to the Department of Public Works only, or is this information being requested across all departments of government? Because there is an enormous amount of property classified as property that doesn't necessarily reside with the Department of Public Works, and I would like this by way of clarification. MR. GETTY: Mr.

Speaker, if we are getting into requests for clarification I would like also -- so that the hon. member who is closing the debate can give the House this information to make a value judgment as to whether or not we want to vote for this and have the expenditure whether he would, in fact, tell the House why he wants the Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1871

31-34 ALBERTA HANSARD April 18th 1972 information. Therefore we can assess the importance of it and decide to cause the people of Alberta this rather significant expenditure. MR. LUDWIG: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying before I was interrupted by several speakers, and I was dealing with the hon. Minister Without Responsibility, and that's the hon. Member for Calgary North Hill, that I can only ... MR. FARRAN: Mr. Speaker, can he go on doing this? I mean he is the former Minister of Irresponsibility -- this is obvious from the question but can he go on calling me names? MR.

LUDWIG: That is not a point of order at all. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member certainly has the right to object to the use of this expression if he wishes to. Undoubtedly it was allowed to go by on a humorous basis in the first instance, and perhaps the hon. Member for Calgary Mountain View would consider leaving it aside in his future remarks. MR. LUDWIG: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I must admit that I can only speculate as to hon. member's ignorance, but only his friends know how deeply profound it is. Now, with regard to the hon.

Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs' question as to why I need this information, it is absolutely necessary to establish a base from which I am entitled to question the government in its expenses, expenditures, in the budget in the future. I believe it is in the public interest that the opposition keep a close watch on this operation, and I think that that is sufficient and I don't feel we have to establish a particular need. Generally speaking, it's information that I need, that I want, and if the open government feels that it does not wish to give it, they are entitled to turn the motion down.

So far as not being clear, I'm prepared to clarify any point that any minister wishes to raise with regard to this question. AN HON. MEMBER: I did, I did . . . MR. LUDWIG: Now just a second, Mr. Speaker, I've got the floor. I know that when you ask a question of the hon. Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs, that you have to draw pictures for him because he never did display very much brilliance of understanding, and I can understand his problem. But with regard to the other ministers, they have not raised a particular item of ambiguity. If they do, I will answer the question. [Interjections.] MR.

YURKO: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, may I rephrase my question so that the hon. member might answer my question? Apparently he doesn't recognize what, in fact, I asked, but it's a matter of real concern Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1872

April 18th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 31-35 to my department because I suggest that as far as my department is concerned, that the costs can almost equal the costs suggested by the hon. Minister of Public Works. I ask the hon. member if, in fact, his motion for return was limited to the Department of Public works and the matter of properties handled by the Department of Public Works, or if, in fact, as it stated, it covers all departments of government, which would include my department also. And perhaps the hon. member might indicate to the House what, in fact, his intentions are.

Does he require this type of information from all departments? Or only one specific department, being the Department of Public Works? MR. LUDWIG: Mr. Speaker, reply to the question, No. 1. A list showing the property owned by the government in total, and by individual departments. And then I set out specifics: "All real property owned by Alberta Government as of April 15, 1972, please classify; Treasury Branches, (these are just examples), vacant land, provincial buildings, office buildings, warehouses, etc." Now if there is any doubt as to whether I want a list of all the crown lands . . . AN HON.

MEMBER: Oh, oh, that’s pretty vague . . . MR. LUDWIG: It should not be vague because in most instances the Crown lands were not acquired by purchase. And therefore there should be no doubt as to what the question means -- if there is any ambiguity . . AN HON. MEMBER: Aw, come off it . . . MR. LUDWIG: Most of them were not . . . DR. HORNER: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member doesn’t know what he's talking about... HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. DR.

HORNER: The amount of Crown land that the previous government bought, as a matter of fact, over the past five years, would enter into some $10 million worth, and some several thousand parcels. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the more I look at this motion, I think that it's completely out of order. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member has already spoken. The hon. member has closed the debate and the motion as amended is before the House in its present form, and in passing I must accept responsibility for having Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1873

31-36 ALBERTA HANSARD April 18th 1972 overlooked the word, "etc." in it. But in any event it is before the House in its present form and the hon. member who moved the motion has closed the debate. I would, therefore, ask all those who are in favour of the motion as amended and taking it as read, would you please say aye. [The motion was defeated on a voice vote] 178. Mr. Ludwig proposed the following motion to the Assembly, seconded by Mr. Ho Lem. That an Order of the Assembly do issue for a Return showing:

(1) The total number of motor vehicles owned by the Provincia l Government, including Crown Corporations and Crown Agencies on September 10, 1972 and April 15, 1972. Enumerate please; i.e., cars, trucks, tractors, tracked vehicles, etc. Please specify as to number of said vehicles owned by each Department, Crown Corporation or Crown Agency.

(2) Which department service government owned motor Please give location of each service centre and vehicles? department providing service.

(3) How many persons employed in providing services to government owned motor vehicles? Please break down by departments. MR. LUDWIG: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to move motion No. 178 standing in my name on the Order Paper. I hope that this one doesn't get the same kind of open treatment that the previous one did. . .[interjections] . . .Yes it is interesting when the hon. members don't want to answer a question that they can vote it down and that is a precedent that is rather new in this government, in any previous governments. I will be -- if I may say so -- rephrasing that question.

With regard to motor vehicles owned by the government, I believe that it is in the public interest that this information be tabled. Something else that the opposition has a responsibility of keeping an eye on, and I urge the hon. members to support that motion. DR. HORNER: Mr. Speaker, because the hon.

Member for Calgary Mountain View has chosen to make some innuendoes about not getting information, I think we should make it perfectly clear that if the hon. member will take a little bit of time and use some of the legal training that he is supposed to have, to set out in a clear and precise matter the information that he wants, that we will provide it for him. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, even this motion that we are now discussing is ambiguous. I would like to know what kind of a motor vehicle an "etc." is, for instance, and I believe that that "etc." should be taken out of the motion because nobody can answer that.

If the hon. member will take some pains with these things and not just scribble out a thing and ask his secretary to type it up and throw it on, he will get the proper answers, but it became pretty obvious that in the other motion he didn't know what he wanted and didn't even know what he had asked for. That becomes pretty bad and is a measure of the kind of irresponsibility he was talking about earlier in this House. It should reflect upon himself rather than anybody else. MR. FARRAN: Would the hon. Member for Calgary Mountain View permit a question, Mr. Speaker?

Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1874

April 18th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 31-37 MR. LUDWIG: Yes, I would, Mr. Speaker. MR. FARRAN: In the long list of vehicles of which you want just a broad number, will you be including all the. . . MR. LUDWIG: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Will the hon. member speak up? I can’t follow what he is saying. I would like to hear. . . MR. FARRAN: I wondered if the vehicles in the antique category in the Glenbow Foundation are meant to be included in the broad numbers? DR. BACKUS: Mr.

Speaker, in view of what has gone on and in pointing out to the hon. member that we are not denying them the right to ask questions, and, in fact, even in the previous one we have turned that one down, because in the view of those on this side of the House it was not properly clarified. However, in question No. 178, I think it is much more reasonable provided that we make an amendment to strike out the word "etc." in paragraph one, because this permits everything right down to lawnmowers. But apart from that, I would agree too. MR. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as I am. . . MR.

SPEAKER: Is there a seconder for the amendment, or do the mover and seconder of the motion wish to accept that change without a formal amendment? MR. LUDWIG: Mr. Speaker, I would accept it but I would want to speak to the amendment -- well, he is proposing an amendment. DR. BACKUS: This was seconded by the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs. MR. LUDWIG: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the amendment, the reason that that "etc." was put down is that I didn't want to be in the same position with the hon. minister as I had been with the hon. Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs.

He wants to have everything specific, and I set it out so that they don't say, well, a jeep or some kind of another vehicle is not a motor vehicle in the true sense of the word, so that all motor vehicles that are known as motor vehicles. I made it clear, I am not interested in lawnmowers because I don't think that is defined as a motor vehicle, at least I haven't heard it being defined as such. So that word "etc." has no hidden meaning; I just wanted to have an inventory of all the motor vehicles of all descriptions -- trucks, tractors, etc. -- in the department.

If it created any confusion in the mind of the hon. minister, I am quite in agreement to have that word "etc." struck out. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1875

31-38 ALBERTA HANSARD April 18th 1972 MR. SPEAKER: Does the mover of the motion agree that the word "etc." may be expunged? SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. SPEAKER: And does the House agree? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. SPEAKER: Then, without formal amendment, we now have the motion before us without the word "etc." MR. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, I've been asked, or at least this House has been asked, and I am a member of this House, to vote for a motion which requests what is basically an inventory at a certain point in time. Now, Mr.

Speaker, I am at a total loss how this information of that very general nature may be used. I wonder, in fact, if we are to go on supplying this kind of information, what the function of this House is, when we are on public accounts? What is the function of members of this House when we are in the estimates? It would seem to me that this is a proper time to explore questions of cost, of function. The information requested here will not enable anyone to decide whether the government should or should not have these vehicles, these other items that are requested.

Without a proper understanding of the function and the need and the policy -- without relating them to some overall idea, some overall concept of the role that these vehicles will play, it is useless information. Now, I have yet to be satisfied by the hon. member opposite that there is any valid point in requesting this information. If the hon. member really wants this information, then I think it is his responsibility to me, so that I can acquit my responsibility to my constituents, to identify for me a precise reason why this information can be useful. Otherwise, Mr.

Speaker, I'm afraid that I have to regard the question or the Motion for a Return as frivolous, vexatious, and... AN HON. MEMBER: Irresponsible. MR. YOUNG: ...not very well considered. DR. PAPROSKI: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to speak on this motion. I support this kind of a request. I think it is valid and I think it is the duty of the opposition members to ask this kind of question.

However, it had been stated on the previous motion that details have to be spelled out, and have to be spelled out clearly, so that the minister in charge can, in fact, obtain this information without any great difficulty and without any great expenditure. And therefore, on this particular motion, I must support it. I think it is the responsibility of the opposition to have a baseline for whatever Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1876

April 18th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 21-39 reason he may use it in the future, and I would think that a baseline, gathering all this information about the trucks, cars, and so forth, will give him a very good idea what the expenditures will be henceforth. If he chooses to use it politically, fine, but I think we can defend ourselves very well. Thank you. MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a word or two in connection with the motion. It is the prerogative of every hon. member to decide whether or not the information should be made available and vote accordingly when the motion is before us.

I, however, question the right of the government or government members or opposition members as to the purpose for which any member wants information. That is his business, and if my constituents want me to secure certain information, there's certainly no reason why I should outline that to my Leader, or to the Premier, or to the House. I'm entitled to the information. If the House doesn't want to give it, that's the prerogative of the House.

Now, cost has to be a factor when we are considering these items, but cost was a factor also when the government decided to hire Touche, Ross for $20,000 to secure information which was available already in the estimates and it didn't have to be spent at all. That is our view. The government decided otherwise and decided to spend $20,000 on it.

The cost has to be a factor and I think we have to leave ourselves open at any time when we are spending public money to decide whether or not we think it is a proper expenditure or an improper expenditure and finally, we’ll answer to our people who sent us here whether our judgment was right or wrong. But I want to emphasize again that because one member can't understand the reason why another member wants the information, and because a member does not give the reasons why he wants the information, is not a valid reason for turning down a request. I think it has to be on a broader basis than that.

With those two points, I simply wanted to say that each member will have to decide himself whether he thinks the information should be supplied or otherwise. MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, one of the things I think the House should be aware of when you are dealing with matters like this, is the fact that the business of the Assembly is important; the Order Paper is important; and Motions for Return and written questions are important. Because once they have been decided upon by the Assembly, the government has no choice; they must answer in the manner determined by the Assembly.

Therefore, the people of Alberta must pay in order to have the information gathered. But, I can see no reason why the people o f Alberta should be required to pay for the sloppiness of a member in the House, who is preparing a Motion for a Return, and not doing it well. I think if we achieve nothing else in this debate, we will have brought to focus that a member who has some record of ill-conceived questions and returns, should pay more attention to them. Certainly, any member of the opposition has a right and responsibility to ask for information.

But that same right carries with it additional responsibility, to make sure that he is asking for it in the right manner. I submit that the people of Alberta cannot be asked by this House to pay additional money for sloppiness on the part of members. HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1877

31-40 ALBERTA HANSARD April 18th 1972 MR. LUDWIG: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. minister a question. In what particular manner is he criticizing this motion before the House now, as to either sloppiness or ambiguity? He could be specific since he made the allegation. MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, we had a sloppy one just the time before. MR. LUDWIG: Mr. Speaker, I am dealing with this question. The hon. minister is getting a bit smart. He should answer my question. He made an allegation; if he has an answer, he should answer it. MR. GETTY: I am trying to, Mr. Speaker, because I said he had a record.

The ore just before; I have had to reply to a question which he put on the Order Paper, asking about a Finance Ministers' meeting in Jasper in the fall of 1971. There was no such meeting in Jasper in the fall of 1971. Nevertheless, without checking into the facts, he was asking for information. So he has got a record; he has done it twice. And for all I know, we have to go through it with a fine- tooth comb because it is probably in there in this one, too.

There is no record about it; the question is there, and therefore, I think all the ones he is submitting should be looked at very carefully, so the people, again, do not have to pay for that sloppiness. HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear. MR. RUSTE: Mr. Speaker, on a point with reference to what the hon. minister just referred to. Quoting from Hansard, it refers to the heading, 'Finance Ministers' Conference.' The question by Mr. Ludwig: "Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs. Did he attend the Finance Ministers' Conference in Jasper?" and Mr.

Getty's reply: "Yes, Mr. Speaker." MR. GETTY: He doesn't know either, Mr. Speaker. There was a Finance Ministers' meeting in Jasper. I answered the question when he said it. Then, he comes in with the question saying, 'in the fall of 1971?' There was not one in the fall of 1971. That was the question he asked. So now they have compounded the error on the other side. MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, are we discussing No. 178 or several others? MR. SPEAKER: The point of order is well taken, actually. Each question must stand on its merits, and may not be judged by the personal record of the questioner.

MR. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, with respect to Question No. 178, paragraph 3, "How many persons employed in providing services to government-owned motor vehicles?" I would presume that the word 'are' should have been inserted between 'persons' and 'employed'. But that in fact, asks Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1878

April 18th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 31-41 for a determination of how many persons may be employed in servicing government-owned vehicles. It could, in fact, entail looking into the operations of every service station in this province, and garage, body shop and everyone else who might supply services to government- owned vehicles. Finally, it says, "Please break down by departments." Break down the number of government-owned vehicles by departments? Break down the number of people servicing government-owned vehicles by departments?

This motion is no different than a lot of the rest that have been submitted by the hon. member opposite. MR. DIXON: Mr. Speaker, speaking to Motion No. 178 on the Order Paper, I think this is a good question. We can all argue back and forth, hon. members, as to how it is worded, but I don't know what the hon. member who moved the motion had in mind . . . [Interjections] . . . I have put motions on the Order Paper and so have members opposite, and they have gone ahead, and this is their prerogative to put them on. And I have certain reasons for putting them on and they may not agree with all the reasons.

But anyway, getting back to Motion No. 178, Mr. Speaker, I think it is a good motion because I am always interested in people giving the facts as they actually are, and if I am going to debate the point for example, as whether the government should either lease their cars rather than buy them, or whether they should give free enterprise an opportunity to service them rather than their own departments, we are in a changing world and the purchasing of vehicles and the servicing of vehicles have changed.

And if I was going to stand on my feet in the House and argue that the government should realistically look at this situation and maybe have their cars leased rather than bought, then I would have the actual information before me given by the government, who I may be criticizing. I would sooner be criticizing with the facts than criticizing with the guesswork. And I think this is the reason that this is a legitimate question to ask. Because there are many things that we can bring up.

As I mentioned we are talking about vehicles here, motor vehicles, and the time may come when we should look at the operation that we have as far as the government is concerned -- maybe we should be leasing the cars rather than buying them. Once I received the information I could go forward and be in a much better position to debate, as all hon. members would be, if they had the actual information before they debated the issue. Mr. Speaker, I think that this question is a good question, and can be used for the purposes of information, not only for the hon. members, but for the constituents as well. MR.

MINIELY: Mr. Speaker, just speaking to the question, no one is questioning the question in itself. We are saying that the question is specific in basically what it wants. This is an example in No. 178, and the intent of the hon. Member for Calgary Mountain View in requesting No. 178 is not in question by the government. What is in question is actually what he wants, and I think there is a responsibility on him to be specific. I refer to clause (3) on question 178.

The question reads "How many persons employed in providing services to government owned motor vehicles?" Well, we don't want to provide incorrect answers to the hon. member's question. I assume that he means employed by the provincial government, but it doesn't state there what he means. I assume that he means employed by the provincial government, not persons contracted or otherwise. But that kind of thing should be specified in the question. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1879

31-42 ALBERTA HANSARD April 18th 1972 MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, commenting on the debate we have had this afternoon, I think we might almost call it provincial "be nice" day to the member from Calgary Mountain View. I suspect if all of us go back over some of the comments we make in the House, to some of the questions members in the past have asked and members of the present have asked, we can find some statements that wouldn't stand some of the scrutiny that is being hoisted upon some of them here this afternoon. For example, if the purpose of a Motion for Return is really to get information -- and the hon.

Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs has made the point about a mistake that the member made as far as the Finance Minister's conference is concerned -- if the purpose of the House is really to get information, when the Motion for Return was posed, the minister could have said: "are you referring to the meeting that was held in January or February?" But you know, it is a matter of how you look at the thing, and where you sit, perhaps. [Interjections] No, now just -- but you know if one's attitude is the way the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is trying to portray to us, well that might have been the sporting thing to do.

On the other hand, the members will recall yesterday in the House when one hon. member asked the Minister of Labour if the chairman of the Workmen's Compensation Board has resigned, and the answer was no, he hadn't. But upon a little more questioning we found out through the Premier that the chairman of the Workmen's Compensation Board has indicated to the hon. the Premier that he wants to step down right away. And so you get to a pretty narrow line here.

And thirdly, there has been a custom for several years -- and the Minister of Labour can shake his head all he wants -- there has been a custom for several years in this House that when a minister isn't satisfied with the question, he brings in an amendment to it. And some ministers have done this already this session. And so we could have handled it that way. Well, we can argue all afternoon and perhaps all I have done is stir up the water so we argue some more, but I suggest that there might be things that we could better spend our time on than spending all afternoon arguing about Motions for Return. HON.

MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. SPEAKER: May the hon. member close the debate? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. LUDWIG: Mr. Speaker, in dealing with this motion I am obliged to comment on the remarks made by the h o n . Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs. I doubt very much whether in light of what has transpired previously, that anyone with even a Grade II education would have had any doubt as to what the question meant, and the only mistake I made - and it was very sloppy on my part - was that I gave the hon. minister credit for more intelligence than he has displayed since.

As far as Motion No. 178 is concerned, Mr. Speaker, there are several reasons why that motion is on the Order Paper. I might want to determine what is happening and maybe make recommendations for changes. It's my responsibility, and I believe that no one can quarrel with the context of the questions. I am Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1880

April 18th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 31-43 rather amused at the fact that one hon. member located a typographical error and made an issue out of it, and that just goes to show you the level of things we ought to expect. I believe that there is a responsibility to be specific, but there is also a responsibility on the part of a minister who has any responsibility, that if he is in doubt to not let a motion go through, let it be printed, let it go on and on and then say; "I'm sorry, but I wasn't bright enough to know what it meant and the answer is no." That's what happened.

I think that was synonymous with sheer irresponsibility and the hon. Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is the last man to point his finger at anybody on grounds of irresponsibility, because his was the finest example of irresponsibility witnessed in this House. Mr. Speaker, I submit that this is a proper question and I urge the hon. members to support the motion. MR. SPEAKER: Having heard Motion No. 178 on the Order Paper would all those in favour of the motion please say "aye", and these opposed please say "no". The motion is carried. 179. Mr.

Clark proposed the following motion to the Assembly: Seconded by Mr. Benoit. That an Order of the Assembly do issue for a Return showing: Copy of the text of the address made by Mr. James W. Clarke, Director of the Economics Division of the Alberta Department of Agriculture dealing with Government policy, at the Dairymen's Conference held earlier this year in Edmonton. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, it's with some fear and trepidation that I rise and move Motion No. 179.

But I trust that it's quite straightforward and I might simply say that the reason I want information is because some people who were at this particular convention have asked if I could acquire copies of the gentleman's speech and that's why I'm asking the question. DR. HORNER: We are very pleased to accept the motion, Mr. Speaker, and to table the answer. [Motion No. 179 was carried without debate or dissent.] head: MOTIONS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT MOTIONS Mr. Lee proposed the following motion to the Assembly, seconded by Mr. Appleby.

Be it resolved that the government of Alberta consider methods by which early childhood education programs may be implemented in this province. MR. LEE: I just can't believe that I'm actually standing in my place. In order not to hinder debate too much I hope that I can keep my remarks reasonably brief.

But at the outset, in introducing this resolution, I would like to repeat that statement that I made in my maiden speech in which I first presented my position on this topic and I quote: "Early childhood learning experiences have become a major educational development, especially in urban areas, to the extent that these families and those communities which cannot Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 1881

31-44 ALBERTA HANSARD April 18th 1972 provide this service are finding their children at a learning disadvantage upon entry to the school setting. Because of this new society emphasis I urge our government to move in extending educational services to the age five level, perhaps exercisable at local option, but provided for in the general foundation program." In saying this I am echoing the words of a number of people, and most recently those of Dr. Walter Worth, who is the chairman of the Commission on Educational Planning.

In 1966, speaking at the 60th annual convention of Alberta School Trustees' Association, he stated and supported the view that Alberta needs publicly supported kindergartens. And I see no indication that this statement made in 1966, after an extensive study of the whole area of early childhood education will change now in June when Dr. Worth presents his commission report to this Assembly.

In fact, the message will probably be more emphatically stated, backed up by more current researches, stating that the weakest point of the Alberta educational system is at the early childhood education level, where Alberta's record is one of the poorest in Canada. I want to examine with you the Alberta record in early childhood education. But before I do, let's clarify just what we mean by this term and determine what areas and what alternatives we are referring to.

Basically, I see early childhood education as those learning experiences provided for children prior to their entry into what is now the formal elementary school system, usually at a universal age of five and a half or six years. Now, children every day do learn simply by playing with their peers and playmates. But when we place an instructor in this process we formalize the instruction to a certain extent, then we do have what we call a learning experience, in this case an early childhood educational experience.

Although we generally identify kindergarten as being congruent with this area there are other initiatives which we must identify and examine in order to determine just what would be our thrust in this very crucial area. So I want to examine with you early childhood education by discussing activities which we might present to children from the ages of three to six.

First of all, starting at the age of six, there are many pre- school activities which must be provided for those children who are unable to advance and who are unable to cope with regular Grade I learning experiences, and these are provided within the formal educational system. There are two main initiatives which I might point out in this area. First of all we have what we call 'readiness classes' and those of you who are acquainted with the Separate School system here in Edmonton will probably be aware of an excellent readiness program which is being conducted by this school board.

But this is for students who are unable to learn within the regular class at Grade I and are provided at this time with a pre-school preparation prior to their entry into the formal learning experience. This thus allows them to benefit from the formalized curriculum a few months later on. Now congruent to this, and secondly, we also have an emerging emphasis in what we now call Level 1 and Level 2, in those jurisdictions that have appli