LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA Title: Tuesday, March 21, 1972 2:30 p.m. [The House met at 2:30 p.m.] PRAYER S [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] head: INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS MR. GHITTER: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I have the distinct privilege and honour to introduce to you and through you to the members of this Legislative Assembly a group of Albertans and Calgarians who have come here this afternoon in a somewhat unusual way. Because of their large numbers, we have this afternoon two shifts that will be coming into our galleries from the Golden Age Club of the City of Calgary.

Sitting in the galleries this afternoon, at the present time, we have some 100 senior citizens of the Province of Alberta, and later this afternoon, an additional 62 will be here, Mr. Speaker, to see the proceedings of this Assembly. May I say to all of them - and I know I express the viewpoint of all members of this House, and certainly those of us who had the honour to have lunch with the members of the Golden Age Club from the City of Calgary, including the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor, the hon. Premier, the hon. Member for Calgary North Hill, and the hon.

Member for Calgary Millican; many of them live elsewhere than in the constituency of Calgary Buffalo, quite a number in the constituency of Calgary North Hill -- from our experience during the noon hour today, we can learn from all of you what vitality and what youth and expression really is. I congratulate each and every one of you for being here today, and I thank you on behalf of the members of this House for your attendance. MR. STROM: Mr.

Speaker, it's a great pleasure for me this afternoon to introduce to you and through you to the members of this House some 40 to 45 women representing the Social Credit Women's Auxiliary who are sitting in the public gallery. I would ask them to stand and please be recognized. MR. WILSON: Mr. Speaker, it's a real pleasure for me to introduce to you and through you to the members of this Legislature 55 bright-eyed and enthusiastic students from the Thomas B. Riley Junior High School in Calgary, in Calgary Bow, together with four of their teachers and their bus driver. The principal, Mr. Ken Hodgert is here, Mrs.

Cooper, Mr. Len Kwan, and Mr. Dick Petrunia, plus the driver Mr. Larry Clayden. I would like them now to stand and be recognized. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 717

14- 2 ALBERTA HANSARD March 21st 1972 FILING RETURNS AND TABLING REPORTS MR. MINIELY: Mr. Speaker, in response to the request expressed by many members of this Assembly in the first week, particularly during the question period, I would like to table for the information of all members of this Assembly the review of the financial position which was commissioned by our government, at September 30, 1971, by Touche, Ross & Company. I might also say that the front page of that report would be the Motion for a Return 110 requested under Orders of the Day. MR. YURKO: Mr.

Speaker, with your permission, I'd like to table Sessional Paper 108, which was ordered by this Assembly, and by way of explanation I would like to suggest that this involves the hearings held by the Environmental Conservation Authority on the Cooking and Hastings Lakes. I would like to suggest to the Assembly that there are five copies available of the transcript of the entire hearings only, at this time, but we do have a copy of the

summary of the hearings for all members of the Assembly. head: ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Federal-Provincial Relations MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Leader of the Opposition, followed by the hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview. MR. STROM: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct this question to the hon. Premier. Did I understand correctly the other day when he said that he would be prepared to table the submissions that they had made to the federal government? I thought that you mentioned something about tabling some submissions. MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, yes, we certainly will be prepared to do that.

It was my intention to table them during the course of the debate, in addition to the document that was attached to the Budget Speech, which I believe is Appendix B. There are further documents and they will be tabled either in the course of debate or in the normal way. Education Grants MR. NOTLEY: I'd like to direct this question to the hon. Minister of Education. Can the minister advise the House what the department is prepared to do with respect to the construction of St. Monica's School in Mill Woods? MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, I gather that this is the

article in today's newspaper concerning that school, which is with the Edmonton Separate School Board. Certainly there has been no discrimination in any way, shape or form by the department. At the moment the position is that the School Buildings Branch has asked for further information from the Separate School Board. After we receive which we will study it Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 718

March 21st 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 14- 3 with a view to carrying out the best possible arrangements for the board. MR. NOTLEY: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the government given any consideration to the brief prepared by the Alberta Catholic Schools Trustees' Association respecting the grant structure for the operation of separate high schools in Alberta? It's my understanding that according to the brief, the present grant structure discriminates against small rural separate high schools. They have made representation to your government. Have you, at this time, anything to report to the Legislature? MR.

HYNDMAN: Nothing specific to report at this time, Mr. Speaker. However, all of the situations which may have caused problems financially for school jurisdictions, as a result of the plan which began in 1970, are being reviewed with a view, in future, to mitigating or eliminating those when a new financial plan is devised for 1973. MR. NOTLEY: Another supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.

As you review the grant structure, can the hon. minister assure the House that specific consideration will be given in the per capita grants for building schools, to the fact that it is more costly to construct schools outside of the two major metropolitan areas, and that there should be some formula in the grant structure to take allowance for that increased cost? MR. HYNDMAN: Certainly, Mr.

Speaker, I think if it can be shown, with hard facts, that building costs are such as the hon. member describes and I wouldn't be prepared to accept it at this time, but there are variances -- without question we would try to do our best to take those into account, so that an equitable school construction financing arrangement would result. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for Calgary North Hill followed by the hon. Member for Pincher Creek-Crowsnest, and then the hon. Member for Calgary Mountain View. Medicare MR. FARRAN: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon.

Minister Without Portfolio responsible for the Alberta Health Insurance Commission. If the wife and family of a senior citizen are under 65, are they covered for health insurance premiums, and do they have to fill in an application form? MISS HUNLEY: Mr. Speaker, no, they do not have to fill in an application form. All dependents of a resident who is 65 are covered under the Alberta Health Care Insurance Plan. MR. FARRAN: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Does the option cover ambulance, and does their birthday have to be prior to January 1st, or prior to any specific date in the year?

Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 719

14- 4 ALBERTA HANSARD March 21st 1972 MISS HUNLEY: About their birthday, they are covered the first day of the month following their actual birthday. If their birthday is today, their premium would not be required after the first of April. What was the second part of your question? MR. FARRAN: Are they covered for ambulance? MISS HUNLEY: Yes. Ambulance is part of the optional service obtained through Blue Cross. There’s a limit on it of $100 per benefit year. And those who live in the city only get $15 per trip or $30 during the course of their treatment. Crown Lands MR. DRAIN: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. Premier a question. The policy of the former government was to maintain all Crown lands as the right of the people of Alberta, not sell the same. will this also be the present government's policy? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure that I thoroughly understand the question. Crown lands in the sense of Crown lands other than those that involve minerals rights, or are you referring to those that deal with mineral rights? MR. DRAIN: I'm referring, Mr. Speaker, to the forest areas of the province and the areas are rightfully watersheds and so on. MR. LOUGHEED: Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to refer a question to the hon. Minister of Lands and Forests. DR. WARRACK: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have the opportunity to respond to the important question raised by the hon. Member for Pincher Creek-Crowsnest. As you know, more than one-half of the land surface area in Alberta is provincial Crown land. In addition, a considerable amount of the land surface of Alberta is federal in the sense of being in national parks.

Our intention is to manage this particular resource in the best possible way, taking into account the various possible uses of the resource, including recreation in forest areas, as well as the possibilities of timber cutting, and wilderness and recreation parks. MR. DRAIN: Mr. Speaker, supplementary. My question, Sir, was, is there a plan to sell any of these lands? DR. WARRACK: Mr.

Speaker, specifically to the hon. gentleman's point, there is no particular plan to dispose of certain specific lands; however, there are instances when it's very useful to dispose of Crown lands for agricultural use purposes, and to exchange Crown lands for deeded Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 720

March 21st 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 14- 5 lands in order to help a rancher rationalize the economics of his ranching operation. MR. DRAIN: I take it, Mr. Speaker, that there will be no general change or marked shift in policy insofar as Crown lands are concerned. DR. WARRACK: Mr. Speaker, I certainly will not promise that. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary Mountain View, and then the hon. Member for Calgary West. Capital Works Projects MR. LUDWIG: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Public Works.

Will the hon. minister be submitting a more detailed supplement on capital works projects to the information set out in the estimates? DR. BACKUS: Mr. Speaker, yes of course. This has been the tradition for years, and I certainly intend to carry it on. MR. LUDWIG: Supplementary. Is this information available at the present time? DR. BACKUS: This information is in existence at the present time, and it will be released to the hon. members at the time we are discussing the estimates. MR. LUDWIG: Mr. Speaker, further supplementary.

Is there any other reason why that information, if it is available, cannot be released to the hon. members at the present time? Day Care Centres MR. GRUENWALD: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Health and Social Development. Are there now, in the province of Alberta, any government subsidized or government sponsored day-care centres? MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member's choice of language as between subsidy and sponsorship is important.

There are government subsidized day care centres in the province, subsidized through the tremendous social services program, but there are not, to my knowledge, any government sponsored day care centres. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 721

14- 6 ALBERTA HANSARD March 21st 1972 MR. GRUENWALD: Supplementary to that Mr. Speaker, I purposely used the word 'sponsored' because I wanted to make sure of that point. And there is another thing; do you intend to continue this as a matter of policy with the government? There have been applications made by people to the federal government under the Opportunities for Youth program to operate day care centres in the province which would give free day care centres to university students.

If this were to happen, or when it happens, will this government and your department authorize it, and would you feel that this is a good policy? Would they work through your department to do this type of a thing? MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, I think, as to the last part of the question, there are probably two matters to be considered. My first reaction with respect to federal type programs is that they tend to be short-term and not suitable for long-term adoption.

I think also that if there are financial implications in the sense of applications for grants being made to the federal government, as far as the government is concerned, the hon. Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs would be more likely to be involved than myself. However, I don't have too much faith in the federal government getting into this particular field.

As to the first part of your question, the continuation of the receiving of applications for day care centres in Alberta, I would expect that to go on, although policy changes could be contemplated, based on briefs that are submitted from time to time. The present program is working satisfactorily within existing budget limitations. MR. GRUENWALD: Just one supplementary. Just a clarification, Mr. Speaker. You got from my question regarding the federal thing that this would be an Opportunities for Youth program. This is the thing that was concerning me. You were aware of that, were you? MR. CRAWFORD: Well, Mr.

Speaker, that is my impression of one of the programs; I admit to not being too familiar with some of the Opportunities for Youth programs. It would be sort of a short term goal and a long term problem, and may well not be suitable for this area. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Whitecourt followed by the hon. Member for Calgary Bow. Paddle River MR. TRYNCHY: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the hon. Minister of the Environment. We were promised a survey of the Paddle River flats some years ago. Can you tell me when the survey was started? MR. YURKO: Mr.

Speaker, the Paddle River flooded nine different times in the last 27 years. A study was initiated in 1954 and subsequently some very minor work was done on this river, but this work wasn't very effective. The last major flood, of course, was in 1971 and as a result the government of the day considered it vital and necessary to undertake a fairly substantial program of widening out the river channel and undertaking additional studies in connection with managing the river in its total complexity. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 722

March 21st 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 14- 7 MR. TRYNCHY: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Can you tell us just what you have initiated and how long it will take for this program to be completed on the Paddle River? MR. YURKO: Perhaps the hon. member wants me to read the news release which I am prepared to do. Fine, Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to table it for the information of the hon. gentleman. Ombudsman MR. WILSON: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the hon. Premier. How many cases, if any, has the Ombudsman heard on a circuit court tour of Alberta? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr.

Speaker, the Ombudsman is an office of the Legislature not responsible directly to the government, so I don't think it's appropriate to answer questions of that nature. I believe in due course the Ombudsman's report will be made available; then, if members wish the Ombudsman to appear before the Legislature, that is certainly up to the initiative of members. MR. WILSON: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Premier, is it not your policy, or was it not your policy at one time, that in order to guarantee that citizens are not denied their right to a hearing that the Ombudsman would go on a circuit tour? MR.

LOUGHEED: Yes, Mr. Speaker, this is something that we do want to review with the Ombudsman in relationship to the estimates. I think when we reach the item on the estimates regarding the Ombudsman that would be a very good time to raise it and we will try to have the specific information from the Ombudsman's point of view with regard to the validity of that suggestion that I personally have made in the past. I do want to make it clear, however, that the government does not answer questions relating to the activity of the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman is an officer of the Legislature. MR. KING: On a point of order, Mr.

Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Order please! Would you state your point of order please. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, in the light of the first question asked and supplementary questions that have been put, I would like your ruling at this time on whether or not it is in order to ask questions of ministers of the Executive Council about programs or operations which are not their responsibility to report to this House. I would cite for you annotation 171. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 723

14- 8 ALBERTA HANSARD March 21st 1972 MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps it won't be necessary to rule on the point now, since we seem to have passed those questions. MR. WILSON: I had one supplementary question. I would like to know if the hon. Premier is satisfied that all parties wishing to have cases heard by the Ombudsman are being heard? MR. SPEAKER: I would suggest in view of the answer previously given by the hon. Premier that an apropriate time to deal with this question might be when the estimates with regard to the Ombudsman are under debate. MR. LOUGHEED: Mr.

Speaker, I would just like to add an additional comment to that; I think the line of questioning that the hon. member is pursuing is a very important one. There is a difficult question as to the proper procedure for raising and dealing with these matters. The only suggestion that I can make is that when we are at the estimates and are dealing with the item of the Ombudsman, perhaps, being in committee at that stage, it may be possible for us to get the information from the Ombudsman's point of view.

Having been alerted to the hon. member's question and interest, as well as my own on the subject, we certainly should be ready to try to provide that information at that time. Education Property Tax Exemption for Senior Citizens MR. HENDERSON: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the hon. Minister of Education? I wonder if the minister could inform the House whether, in light of the government's decision to remove the education property tax burden from senior citizens, they have any plans to restrict the prerogative of senior citizens to vote on school money by-laws or plebiscites? MR.

HYNDMAN: I don't follow the hon. gentleman's question, Mr. Speaker. Maybe the Minister of Municipal Affairs might wish to comment, but the whole question of the government’s future plans in this area is under consideration at this time. MR. HENDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I've heard the hon. minister speak about the question of plebiscites, but there is also just the general question of money by-laws. This is completely divorced from the question of plebiscites, and now that the senior citizens will not be paying education property tax, will they still be entitled to vote on school money by-laws? MR. HYNDMAN: Mr.

Speaker, I think the hon. member has raised an interesting point. It should be remembered, I think, that such citizens will still be paying that portion which represents the supplementary requisition, and so to that extent there would be an interest by them and a responsibility which they might feel in connection with the affairs of the school district. But I think the point is deserving of further attention and we will certainly give it that. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 724

March 21st 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 14- 9 Daylight Saving Time MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the hon. the Premier? Has the government received any representations from any farm areas requesting exemption from daylight saving time? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, I haven't, but I'll refer the matter to the Attorney General. Perhaps he might be able to shed a little light on the question. MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I can't and I haven't. MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. Would the government entertain any representations to exempt certain farm areas, if petitioned to do so by the said farm areas?

MR. SPEAKER: I must rule that question to be hypothetical in contrary to the provisions of 171 of Beauchesne. The hon. Member for Spirit River - Fairview, followed by the hon. Member for Mountain View. Gasoline Marketing MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the hon. Premier. Does the government intend to implement the recommendations of the MacKenzie Report on gasoline marketing tabled in this House in 1 969? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr.

Speaker, that broad question, of course, deals with the many aspects of the matter that have been raised, and I think the previous administrations to their credit, had some considerable progress with the regard to the MacKenzie Report. I personally spoke at a meeting of the Automobile Retailers Association of Alberta, I believe some year and a half ago, at which time I was given to understand that they felt they had made considerable progress with regard to the matters raised there.

If there are some specific items though that the hon. member wishes us to look into and assess -- I don't have a recollection of the number of recommendations but I do recall that there was a pretty large number. MR. NOTLEY: A supplementary question to the hon. Premier or to the Minister of Industry. Has the government given any consideration to the recommendation in the report calling for a Service Station Operators' Bill of Rights, as such? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr.

Speaker, I think the answer to that is that we haven't, and we haven't received any representation that I am aware of, since we Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 725

14- 10 ALBERTA HANSARD March 21st 1972 formed the government on September 10th. But we will look into the matter in case I am in error, or in case future representations are received. MR. NOTLEY: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the hon. Premier tell us whether any consideration has been given by the government to one of the proposals that wasn't one of the firm recommendations of the report, but it was one of the areas considered, dealing with efforts to inject some genuine price competition into the marketing of gasoline products in this province?

The proposal was that the government consider either aiding the cooperative movement or establishing a Crown sponsored company to compete with the five major oil companies in this province. MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, as far as the second half of the question is concerned I'm sure I can speak very quickly for my colleagues with a definitive "no". As for the other aspect of that question, though, I would have to look into it, make an assessment, and attempt to report back directly through one of the ministers. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Calgary Mountain View, I believe, was next in line, followed by the hon.

Member for Drumheller, and then the hon. Member for Sedgewick-Coronation. Government Aircraft MR. LUDWIG: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Lands and Forests. Have any aircraft been acquired by the department since September 10, 1971? DR. WARRACK: Mr. Speaker, yes. MR. LUDWIG: A further quesion, Mr. Speaker. Is the government giving any consideration to contracting some of its patrol responsibilities in that department to private enterprise? DR. WARRACK: Mr.

Speaker, a very considerable amount of the aircraft operations of the Department of Lands and Forests, which are basically the aircraft operations of the Government of Alberta, is done on a private contracting basis with the private sector. MR. LUDWIG: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Are the logs and flight plans of all flying done by aircraft of the Department of Lands and Forests filed with the hon. minister? DR. WARRACK: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of detail and if the hon. gentleman from Calgary Mountain View would like to place this on the Order Paper I would be most happy to get a detailed answer for him.

Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 726

March 21st 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 14- 11 MR. LUDWIG: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I didn't ask him -- MR. SPEAKER: On the same topic? Would the hon. member perhaps put the question in writing? This is perhaps the third or fourth supplementary on it. MR. LUDWIG: Mr. Speaker, I did request whether the hon. minister knows if these things are being filed with the department, not for the detailed information. If the hon. minister doesn't know he could just say so. DR. WARRACK: Mr. Speaker, that is not what he asked. MR. LUDWIG: Well, then, I would like to repeat my question. Are the -- MR.

SPEAKER: To prove the misunderstanding concerning the question, could it perhaps be put in writing? Is this a supplementary? The hon. Member for Drumheller is next on the floor. There is a supplementary here, I believe. MR. LUDWIG: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the Minister of Lands and Forests, please. I believe that the hon. minister expressed the view that he misunderstood my question. I would like to clarify the question, Mr. Speaker, if I may. MR. SPEAKER: I think we already referred to putting it on the Order Paper and perhaps we should do it that way to avoid misunderstanding. MR. FARRAN: Mr.

Speaker, a supplementary. HON. MEMBERS: Out of order! Out of order! MR. FARRAN: Out of order? MR. SPEAKER: The question is going on the Order Paper. If it's a new question the hon. Member for Drumheller has the floor. Daylight Saving Time (cont.) MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, a question to the hon. Attorney General. Does government policy provide for any exemptions for certain farm areas if petitioned to do so by the farm areas, from daylight saving time? Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 727

14 - 12 ALBERTA HANSARD March 21st 1972 Mr. Speaker, we do not have any policy on that question at the moment. There is nothing in the legislation that I can recall that deals with it. If there are any such requests that come in to us, then I think we would give them careful attention at that time and formulate a policy. Oiling and Dustproofinq Highways MS. SORENSON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Highways regarding the oiling or dustproofing of the highways. Is it proving successful and are you receiving any complaints? MR. COPITHORNE: Mr.

Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would state his question again. I didn't catch the first part of it. MR. SORENSON: Mr. Speaker, regarding the oiling and dustproofing of certain highways, especially Nos. 36, 41 and 12, I am wondering, is it proving successful, and are you receiving any complaints? MR. COPITHORNE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are finding that the dustproofing of the highways that have had no treatment before is working out very satisfactorily. In regard to the second question as to whether we have any complaints or not, they are always available. MR. DIXON: Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Education, or it could be the hon. Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. It concerns the serious situation on the Cold Lake Indian Reserve where many of the pupils have not been in school for many months. I was wondering if the hon. Minister of Education has offered his offices or offered any advice to try and break this deadlock, so that these Alberta students can get back to school? MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, I think the question might most appropriately be given to the hon. Minister Without Portfolio, Mr. Adair. MR. ADAIR: member, Mr.

Speaker, with regard to the question from the hon. late last fall, or actually early last fall, we were requested to go out and look over the situation, at which time we did. We have not had any further requests to enter into that particular problem. MR. DIXON: Supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder, because of the many months that have passed since that original visit, whether the hon. minister has any ideas or thoughts on following up with this suggestion? I think it's a serious situation, and these children should be in school. MR. LEITCH: Mr.

Speaker, we do not have any policy on that question at the moment. There is nothing in the legislation that I can recall that deals with it. If there are any such requests that come in to us, then I think we would give them careful attention at that time and formulate a policy. Oiling and Dustproofing Highways MS. SORENSON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Highways regarding the oiling or dustproofing of the highways. Is it proving successful and are you receiving any complaints? Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 728

March 21st 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 14- 13 MR. ADAIR: Mr. Speaker, we realize that it's a very serious problem, and we are keeping in touch with the people. We're almost in daily contact with what is going on out there, but until such time as the treaty people come to us requesting further assistance, we'll just keep our eye on that particular problem. Teachers' Right to Strike MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the hon.

Minister of Education, and ask if he can today inform the House whether the officials of the Department of Education did present draft legislation to the joint meeting of the trustees and teachers, which would have taken away from teachers the right to strike? MR. HYNDMAN: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'd have to say that the hon. gentleman's persistence is of a substantially higher degree than the time I had available to check out the answer, but I will have it within the next 48 hours. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, that's a promise, is it? Industrial Damage to the Environment MR. D. MILLER: Mr.

Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Minister of Environment again today. Is it the intention of future legislation that environment damage as it relates to industry be paid from business profits? MR. YURKO: Mr. Speaker, we have established some very definitive policies in this area. Some of them, I enumerated when I spoke two weeks ago. To summarize very quickly, we have said time and time again that those who pollute shall pay for the corrective measures required to restore the situation, or they shall pay for rectifying their pollution. Driver's License Medicals for Senior Citizens DR. BUCK: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the hon. minister responsible for the Medicare program. At present, I believe, when senior citizens take their driver's test, they have to pay the medical, is this correct? Will there be any change, hon. minister, to the rule in this regard so that the senior citizens will not have to pay for their medicals before they get their driver's licenses? MISS HUNLEY: Mr. Speaker, this is a project that I have near and dear to my heart because I would like to see a policy change.

We haven't brought it in at this particular time, though I personally endorse it and I feel that there is some merit to it. There is a considerable amount of expense, but it's one of the other changes that I would like to see looked at. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 729

14- 14 ALBERTA HANSARD March 21st 1972 Visiting Psychiatrist Program MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Health and welfare. Considerable concern has been expressed in the Peace River country by mental health groups there about the possible discontinuance of the visiting psychiatrist program to the Grande Prairie area and the Peace. Can the hon. minister advise the House whether the government has come to any specific decision on this matter? MR. CRAWFORD: I would have to say that I'm aware of the situation and had had some representations from the Peace River area.

I have been kept informed by the hon. Minister of Public Works who is close to the situation. I have nothing in the way of assurance or a firm answer to give in regard to the matter today, other than to say it is in a state of flux. We hope to see an improvement in the near future. MR. NOTLEY: A supplementary question. Can the hon. minister advise the House as to when we will have a definitive explanation of the government's position? MR. CRAWFORD: I believe the hon. member said as to when we will have a definitive explanation.

I could only hazard a guess it would be within the time that the House is still sitting. MR. NOTLEY: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the government given any consideration to an operating grant for the Peace Counselling Service which has made an application to Preventive Social Services? That application has been rejected. I believe they have made an application to the Department of Foreign Operating Grants. Is this under consideration at this time? MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, consideration had been given to the possibility of a grant to the Peace Counselling Service.

The present situation is that services of that type are being considered in conjunction with all of the possible alternatives. Old Banff Coach Road MR. FARRAN: Mr. Speaker, a question to the hon. Minister of Highways. Have you received any representation from the City of Calgary for the change of the name of what is known as the Old Banff Coach Road to the Bow Trail, and what was the response? MR. COPITHORNE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have had requests from the City of Calgary to change the Old Banff Coach Road's name to Bow Trail.

My response was this: it is the historical name of a trail that was used in the old days by the coach road communication system. I suggested to the City of Calgary that perhaps they should change the Bow Trail to the Banff Coach Road to keep some of our historic history tied to our... Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 730

March 21st 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 14- 15 MR. HO LEM: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Is the hon. minister aware that there is another Banff Trail in Calgary? MR. COPITHORNE: There may be a Banff Trail but there's only one Banff Coach Road. Seismic Exploration MR. BENOIT: Mr. Speaker, a question to the hon. Minister of Mines and Minerals. Is the hon. minister giving any consideration to changing the method and the types of seismic operations that are being carried on in southern Alberta? I have in mind, for instance, the use of the drilling and blasting method which upsets many water wells.

The other thing is that many companies come over the same area again and again. I think that one company might be able to do it. MR. DICKIE: Mr. Speaker, the concern that the hon. member brings to my attention has been brought to our attention before. We're presently investigating that. I think it's a real concern, and I think that in the future legislation is going to be introduced into this House which will deal with those aspects. Speed Limits in Residential Areas MR. DIXON: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Highways.

He is aware, I think, of the City of Calgary's desire to change certain speed limits within residential areas and I think they have some thousands of signs already printed. I wondered if he had given any thought to recommendations to the Legislature to allow the city to change the speed limit within residential areas in the city. MR. COPITHORNE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I assured the city last fall that we would make it possible so that this change could come about. When the new amendments to The Highway Traffic Act are introduced, that legislation will be included. Hudson's Bay Route Association MR. TAYLOR: Mr.

Speaker, may I direct a question to the hon. Minister of Industry. Has the government joined the Hudson's Bay Route Association? MR. PEACOCK: Mr. Speaker, yes. MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. Has the government made a contribution to the Hudson's Bay Route Association? MR. PEACOCK: Mr. Speaker, we have committed to a contribution. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 731

14- 16 ALBERTA HANSARD March 21st 1972 MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, one more supplementary. Is the government prepared to contribute towards the improvement of this inland port of Churchill? MR. PEACOCK: I don't quite understand the question, Mr. Speaker. MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I'll say it again, perhaps a little clearer. Is the government prepared to make a contribution towards the improvement of the inland port at Churchill? MR. PEACOCK: Mr. Speaker, I think we'd have to see the proposal and know what we're faced with before we can answer that question.

ORDERS OF THE DAY head: MINISTERIAL ANNOUNCEMENTS Milk Market Sharing DR. HORNER: Mr. Speaker, I have a short announcement I'd like to make today, in relation to the Alberta plan for milk market sharing. As most hon. members are aware, approximately 7,500 Alberta dairy producers have registered to vote in the plebiscite on milk market sharing. Up to 4:30 pm yesterday, approximately 5,000 had cast their ballots. This leaves about 2,500 producers that have not yet voted. For the ballot to be valid, it must comply with the voting requirements which have been sent to every registered producer.

A favourable vote will ensure a stable dairy industry for our Alberta producers, and I would just like to enunciate to the House the four main points that we would ask producers to consider. 1. The Alberta plan will guarantee our producers their fair share of the present and future Canadian dairy needs. 2. The Canadian Dairy Commission subsidy eligibility quotas which were lost from the province will be re-established as a provincial reserve to levels which were in effect on April 1, 1970.

This will mean approximately 3 million pounds of subsidy quota will come back to Alberta, representing approximately $1 million more income to Alberta producers. 3. Subsidy eligibility quotas will then be transferable between producers without the sale of cows. 4. Levies and over-quota hold-back penalties on subsidy quotas will be removed. The levies will be on the more generous market share quotas. Any producer who has registered and has his ballot should send in his vote immediately.

Closing date of the vote is March 27, and all ballots must be in the hands of the returning officer on or before 4:30 pm on Monday next. I make this announcement, Mr. Speaker, in the hope that the hon. members will encourage the producers in their areas to make sure that they vote. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 732

March 21st 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 14- 17 head: QUESTIONS MR. LUDWIG: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to move Question 134 standing in my name on the Order Paper. MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, I don't believe we move questions, but simply the person answering the question stands up and tables the answer. 134. Mr. Ludwig asked the government the following questions which were answered as indicated by the hon. Dr. Backus. 1. The Department of Public Works advertised for 25,000 square feet of office space in Calgary. What is the intended use of the space?

Answer: To provide space for the South Regional Office of the Social Development Branch of the Department of Health and Social Development. 2. Has the office space in the John J. Bowlen Building in Calgary been fully taken up by government departments? Answer: Yes, with room for normal expansion of the various government departments. 3. Has the government leased any office space in Edmonton since taking office September 10, 1971? Enumerate. Answer: Yes, six leases. 4. Is the government presently negotiating for additional office space in Edmonton? Enumerate. Answer: Yes, in six locations. 5.

Has the government served notice of termination of any leases of office space in the Province of Alberta? Enumerate. Answer: Yes, in three instances. 6. Has the government terminated any leases in Alberta since September 16, 1971? Enumerate. Answer: Yes, eleven. 135. Mr. Ludwig asked the government the following questions, which were answered as indicated by the hon. Dr. Backus. 1.

Is there any intention on the part of the government to change the method of payment for capital works projects provided for in the Budget for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1972 from payment from general revenue to payment by means of borrowing or financing? Answer: No. 2. Will the following projects for which funds were provided in the Budget for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1972, be constructed under the management and control of the Department of Public Works and paid through general revenue of the Province as provided for in Capital Appropriation 2682: (

a) Magistrates Court and Remand Centre, Calgary; Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 733

14- 18 ALBERTA HANSARD March 21st 1972 (

b) Magistrates Court and Remand Centre, Edmonton; (

c) Alberta School Hospital, Calgary (on Baker Memorial Sanatorium Site); and (

d) Alberta School Hospital, Edmonton. Answer: (

a) The Magistrates' Court and Remand Centre, Calgary (to be known as the Provincial Judges' Court and Remand Centre, Calgary) will be constructed under the management and control of the City of Calgary, and paid for from a bank account established from funds provided in Capital Appropriation 2682 in the fiscal year 1971-72, through the general revenue of the Province, all as provided in Order in Council No. 375/72, and the Agreement attached as an Appendix thereto. (b), (

c) and (

d) The Magistrates' Court and Remand Centre Edmonton (to be known as the Provincial Judges' Court and Remand Centre, Edmonton), and the proposed new developments at the Alberta School Hospitals, Edmonton and Calgary, as provided for in Capital Appropriation 2682 for 1971-72, under Job Numbers G188D, (Department of Attorney General), G046A, C and D and G035A, B, C and D (Department of Health and Social Development), are all held in abeyance pending policy decisions by the Departments concerned.

No funds have been provided for these projects for 1972-73, but if and when they proceed, it is assumed at this time that the projects will be constructed under the management and control of the Department of Public Works, and paid for through the general revenue of the Province as provided for in Capital Appropriation 2682. 138. Mr. Wilson asked the Government the following questions regarding the publication, "Vacation Alberta", and was answered as indicated by Hon. Mr. Dowling: 1. How many copies of "Vacation Alberta" were printed in English and how many in French? Answer: 400,000 English; 0 in French. 2.

Were tenders called? Answer: Yes. 3. Question as to the names of the respondents to the tender and their respective bids. Answer: Reliable Printing $ 137,000 Commercial Printers 111,469 Metropolitan Printing 97,760 4. Who was awarded the contract? Answer: Metropolitan Printing. 5. Please specify the written or verbal instructions given to the company awarded the contract, as to Alberta labour, Alberta products and whether or not they were a union shop.

Answer: There were no written or verbal instructions given to the company awarded the contract as to Alberta labour, Alberta products or whether or not they were a union shop. However, it is the policy of the Alberta Government Travel Bureau to produce all Travel Bureau literature in Alberta utilizing Alberta labour and talents as far as physically possible. The three companies who responded to the request for quotation were all union shops. A copy of the Purchase Order issued to all printers, as well as the specifications sent out, is attached (e.g.

Metropolitan), Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 734

March 21st 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 14- 19 as well as the replies from Metropolitan Printing, Commercial Printers and Reliable Printing. MR. SPEAKER: I wonder if hon. members might like to give consideration as to whether answers of these kinds should be read as well as tabled, so that they might appear in Hansard. It needn't be decided now, I will just leave it for your consideration. MR. BENOIT: Mr. Speaker, do the answers to these questions not appear in the paper on the following date, whether they are read or not? MR.

SPEAKER: They will appear in the Votes and Proceedings, but not in Hansard, is my understanding. MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, I would suggest that whether or not they're read, they should appear in Hansard, and we would look with favour on the answers being read. MR. SPEAKER: Would hon. members give some further consideration to the suggestion of the hon. member for Drumheller? I think we'll advert to this again at a later date. DR. HORNER: Mr. Speaker, on the point raised by the hon. member for Drumheller, I can see where, on certain occasions, it might be useful to have the answers read.

But on many occasions where the questions are asking for a detailed amount of figures, I want to suggest that the time of the House could be more profitably used if they were inserted in Hansard or as an appendix, rather than having to take the time of the House to read them. HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. DR. HOHOL: Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to accept Question 139 as an Order for a Return, and I will table the answer on Friday. head: MOTIONS FOR A RETURN MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I'd like to raise a question which the hon.

Member for Drumheller had on the Orders of the Day for last Thursday, and which I requested to stand over and appear on today's orders; I don't see it. MR. SPEAKER: I was going to refer to that Motion for Return No. 129 and to express regret that, inadvertently, this was omitted from the Order Paper today; it should appear on the Order Paper ahead of No. 136. For the convenience of the House, I have a copy of it here. I don't know whether it will be necessary to read it out or not. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 735

14- 20 ALBERTA HANSARD March 21st 1972 MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, may I suggest that it appear on Thursday's Order Paper, and then we can deal with it? MR. SPEAKER: I take it the hon. Member for Drumheller, the mover, agrees. And does the seconder, the hon. Member for Highwood agree that this appear on Thursday's Order Paper? 136. Mr. Benoit proposed the following motion to the Assembly, seconded by Mr. Taylor.

That an Order of the Assembly do issue for a Return showing: All correspondence, contracts, orders and advertisements pertaining to the preparation and construction of the secondary highway No. 940 traversing the federal forestry research station area south of Seebe, Alberta. [The motion was carried without debate.] MR. COPITHORNE: Mr. Speaker, I have the material requested by the hon. gentleman, and am prepared to table it. 137. 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) Would the hon. Minister of Public Works explain the delay in plans for commencement of construction of the Magistrates Court and Remand Centre, Calgary, and the Alberta School Hospital, Calgary.

(2) Would the hon. minister table all correspondence between his department and the City of Calgary with relation to the planned construction of the said Magistrates Court and Remand Centre and the Alberta School Hospital. MR. LUDWIG: I would like to make a few comments with regard to this motion. I believe that this information is required in the public interest, and a detailed explanation of the questions asked should be given, in view of the fact that this remand centre in Calgary, in particular, had been budgeted for in the last budget. A telegram was then received from the Mayor and Council — MR. FARRAN: Is a lengthy

preamble like this permitted under the Rules? MR. SPEAKER: This is a motion. The hon. member has moved it, and he is speaking in support of the motion. MR. LUDWIG: Yes, Mr. Speaker. A motion was passed by Calgary City Council and circulated to the media and to the government members, deploring this delay in the project, this was over a year ago last winter. In view of the fact that there appeared to be a certain amount of panic Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 736

March 21st 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 1 4- 21 MR. FARRAN: I rise again on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that the hon. Member for Mountain View can speak on the motion as to why it should be produced, but not on the issue involved. Surely he is going too far. MR. SPEAKER: I would suggest that it might be difficult to separate those two topics, and if the hon. member disagrees with what is being said, he may participate in the debate and try to refute what is being said. MR. LUDWIG: Mr.

Speaker, I am sure that the hon. member would not wish to deny that council passed a motion sending a telegram to everybody except myself on this issue, which indicates clearly why we have to treat some of their communications with a certain amount of reserve and perhaps suspicion. Now, with regard to the Alberta School Hospital in Calgary, this matter was also budgeted for in the last session. There was a certain amount of urgency in constructing the Alberta School Hospital. The site was approved, the architect was engaged to design this home.

There certainly could not be any less need for it now than there was a year ago. I would like the hon. minister, in some detail, to explain why the undue delay in it. project off the ground, when the public is clamouring for it. The motion also reguests that all correspondence concerning this issue received by the minister -- I stated from the city, but from any other interested parties — be tabled. I wish to point out that when this project was budgeted for, we had provided $3 1/2 million to $4 million dollars for this Remand Centre. Now we understand that it is going to be $5 1/2 million and the hon.

Minister of Public Works advises us that he has no further responsibility with regard to this project. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that this motion ought to be supported by all hon. members, and a full explanation ought to be given to the hon. members. Thank you Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Would the hon. member from Calgary North Hill, who I believe was on his feet first, please go ahead. concerning this project a year ago, I believe it would be in the public interest for the hon. Minister of Public Works to explain in detail what happened. Why was there such an urgency for creating employment on this issue last year?

And a year later they are quiet about this. I think it appears that they owe an explanation to the people of Calgary and to the hon. members here. Perhaps the hon. member who just interrupted me with a point of order, would realize that he was a member of the Council that sent the telegram deploring the undue delay of the Department of Public Works. I believe that since then, it has been established that the delay was constantly created by none other than our Mayor and Council of Calgary, and a year later we are advised by the hon. Minister of Public Works that the whole project has now been seriously delayed.

It is my opinion that we ought to know what is going to happen there. With regard to the Alberta School Hospital in Calgary, Mr. Speaker -- Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 737

14- 22 ALBERTA HANSARD March 21st 1972 MR. FARRAN: I want to speak to the motion. And in doing so, I plead with the hon. minister to put in every single detail concerning this Magistrate's Court and Remand Centre from the very beginning, which was about two years ago.

All the details of how in the beginning there was a controversy between the province and the City of Calgary over the insufficiency of parking; how the minister of that day didn't realize the importance of parking in a downtown core of a city; he didn't realize how parking was congested around City Hall, and really believed in and had agreed to a plan for a Magistrate's Court with people coming and going, witnesses, judges, policemen, guards, and only 50 parking stalls in the beginning.

And finally, at the end of the controversy I think they built it up to 75 and said: "look, if experience proves that we need more parking" (and we certainly will), "then we will contribute to a parking structure for the City of Calgary". Also, go into details of why an architect was hired for this particular job who had no direct acquaintance with the area and not the one who was the architect for the extension to the police building or the library building, with which this building was so closely affiliated.

They took away parking from the City of Calgary police in order to build this Remand Centre in the urban renewal area. Also go on to explain that the delay, the final delay, was not due to this administration. Our poor Minister of Public Works had nothing to do with it whatsoever. It was perhaps partly the fault of the previous administration, partly the fault of the City of Calgary. A final controversy was over 10 feet for a new library building. The architect for the Magistrate’s Court wanted the 10 feet and the architect for the library wanted the 10 feet and they couldn't get together.

So finally, this administration very wisely, has done the obvious thing. It said; "Look, get on with it, City of Calgary. You can solve your own problems. You build it." MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to this motion because, since September 10th, my department had something to do with some of the delays that occurred in the building of that Remand Centre. The delay occurred in this way. Shortly after coming into office we received representations that the parking for that building was inadequate and also that there was inadequate provision for future expansion of the building.

I met with some of the people concerned with that building on those two points. After reviewing them I felt there was merit to their submissions, that there was a lack of parking facility and there was also a lack of facility for expansion. We then entered into negotiations with the City of Calgary and arranged to acquire land adjacent to the building and that land will provide two things; first, additional parking and secondly, it will provide in the future adequate space into which we can expand those portions of the Remand Centre dealing with the courtrooms.

The delay, which was not of great duration, occurred for two very valid reasons: (1) we needed additional parking (2) we needed facilities for expansion. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? May the hon. member close debate? Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 738

March 21st 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 14- 23 MR. LUDWIG: Mr. Speaker, it's interesting to note now that the hon. Member for Calgary North Hill says it was the previous administration's fault for the delay. Then the hon. Attorney General says that they were very new causes; new needs and new factors arose which necessitated further delay. On that contradiction, Mr. Speaker, I would like to rest and let them hash it out among themselves. As far as the requests for additional land and parking, these were not submitted to the Department of Public Works when I was the minister.

It should be pointed out that the architects chosen to design this Remand Centre were certainly those approved of and perhaps recommended by the City of Calgary. I wish to reiterate that this delay now requires a full explanation. It will be shown rather adequately that the correspondence rather than supporting the hon. Member for Calgary North Hill negates what he said. I will agree that everything, right from the beginning till now, ought to be tabled so that hon. members can find out for themselves. Thank you Mr. Speaker. DR. HORNER: Mr.

Speaker, prior to you putting the question, I would like to rise on a point of order in relation to this motion, on a couple of points. Firstly, I agree with the submission that was made earlier by the hon. Member for Calgary North Hill in relation to the debate that can go on -- [Interjections] MR. SPEAKER: Please allow the hon. minister to state the point of order. DR. HORNER: The second point of order that I want to make, Mr. Speaker, is that I am rather surprised that some hon. members -- SOME HON. MEMBERS: He's debating on a point of order. He is out of order. The hon. minister is out of order. MR.

SPEAKER: Order please! Would hon. members please allow the hon. minister to complete stating the point of order. We cannot anticipate the point of order that is going to be stated by the hon. minister and it must be heard. DR. HORNER: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that. The point of order that I am going to make has to do with the structure of the resolution itself: I'm a little bit surprised that it should come from the hon. Member for Calgary Mountain View.

I think that it is something the House should resolve itself upon, because the question of whether or not you can issue a return to explain something or other in my view, is a debatable situation and should be handled in debate, rather than by asking for a return. This surely should be done on the estimates and in debate and is, in my view, not a proper motion for return in the present form. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 739

14- 24 ALBERTA HANSARD March 21st 1972 MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, the motion for return was accepted by you, and is therefore in order. It was not questioned prior to the debate, and I suggest that this is the wrong time to suggest that this is now out of order. DR. HORNER: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'll even allow this much - that inasmuch as the hon. Minister of Public Works was willing to agree to it and inasmuch as we didn't want not to allow the hon.

Member for Calgary Mountain View to have his say, I would suggest that this is something that the House has to consider for future motions for a return. MR. LUDWIG: Mr. Speaker, the hon. minister is debating the motion, and he is entirely out of order. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. We can perhaps take these remarks under consideration of the drafting of future motions for a return. [The motion was carried on a voice vote.] 140. Mr. J. Miller proposed the following motion to the Assembly, seconded by Mr. Fluker. Than an Order of the Assembly do issue for a Return showing:

(1) Area of the government ranch at Kinsella?

(2) Initial cost of the ranch?

(3) Cost of improvements up to August 30, 1971?

(4) What portion of this cost came from the horned cattle fund?

(5) How many cattle were on this ranch as of December 31st, 197 1?

(6) Is this ranch self-supporting and if not, how much is it subsidized by the Provincial Government? MR. RUSTE: Mr. Speaker, in order to provide the hon. members of this Assembly and the citizens of Alberta with still further information on this, I would like to move, seconded by Mr. Buckwell, that the motion be amended by adding the following:

(7) That copies of expenditures from the Cattle Commission relate to expenditures made at the Kinsella Ranch.

(8) Does the government plan to continue its operation? If so, where will all the funds come from for its operation? MR. SPEAKER: Are the hon. members clear as to the purport of the proposed amendment? Are you ready to vote on the amendment, or do you wish to have it restated? [The amendment was approved and the amended motion was carried without debate or dissent.] head: MOTIONS OTHER THAN G OVERNMENT MOTIONS Standardized School Design and Bulk Purchasing 1. Mr. Purdy proposed the following motion to the Assembly, seconded by Mr. Farran: Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 740

March 21st 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 14- 25 If the need requires X number of schools in Alberta, materials such as pre-stressed concrete and steel columns could be ordered, walls designed to fit these columns, doors and windows standardized, hallways utilized to full use. Each time a school is built a different scheme for electrification and heating is used. School buildings, if covering a large area, could be heated by central heating instead of using boilers for each addition. This is also true for air-conditioning. School community use has started in this province.

A good example of this school community use is in Spruce Grove. Slowly the school boards are beginning to realise that school doors should not be locked at 4:00 p.m. and opened the next day at 8:30 a.m. Let's utilize the high cost of these buildings 24 hours a day. Rural Alberta schools have gone too far in the decentralization direction. Bussing children 40 miles is not correct. The community that I came from, Rich Valley, had a new school built in 1967. I believe it was completed for facilities for Grade 12. Now the school operates to Grade 6. There are six rooms sitting empty and not being utilized.

I think it's time that we give consideration to bringing the teachers to the schools. Last week I had the opportunity to open a new school in Stony Plain. Now this is one of the better designs that I have seen in schools. It was for the junior high school grades and as I toured the school I took a good look at it and there were many, many aspects that we should look for in Alberta. But one obstacle that I ran into was in the boys' washrooms. The washroom facilities, basins and mirrors, are built for children in these grades, not for adults. So

Be it resolved that the Government of Alberta give consideration to establishing procedures that will result in greater standardization of school design and bulk purchase of school building materials to reduce construction and operating costs. MR. PURDY: At the present time, in both urban and rural Alberta, schools are built because of need. We have come to the idea that, each time a new school is required or added to, the design must change for the- sake of change. This change is costing the Alberta taxpayers unwarranted tax dollars.

I submit that consideration be given to developing school plans that will serve for a number of years ahead. in fact, we would be infringing on local autonomy. But I can reply to this that, with a standard design, it would be a saving to a local taxpayer. Under the Alberta School Regulation 173-70 for School Building Regulations, the board sets out pertinent rules that must be followed for new school buildings. At present the board may approve the actual cost of permanent type construction up to a maximum of $15.50 a square foot for elementary schools, and $16.25 for junior and senior high schools.

This figure may be fair when we look at a school outside of Edmonton, but the cost of moving construction materials to the site, would in fact increase the price beyond the figure required by the board. When this happens the contractor, not wanting to lose money, could use inferior materials and inferior workmanship. More communication between architects and educators about the education specifications should be incorporated into school buildings. I believe that the educator knows best.

Wasted efforts in design innovations should not be a burden to the taxpayer and I emphasise that the Department of Education and the local school boards should work closer together and have a say as to the component parts of the school. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 741

14- 26 ALBERTA HANSARD March 21st 1972 it would be an idea, if we are going to build more of these schools, to make these washroom facilities adequate for adult social functions in the school. I can see that my voice is giving out on me, but before closing and asking Mr. Farran to take over, I would hope that the hon. Minister of Education from the previous government, Mr. Clark, would also give his views on this aspect. MR. FARRAN: Mr.

Speaker, the standardization of school design is a proposal that's often heard at the grass roots level, where citizens are constantly chafing at the ever-rising cost of education. It is only one of the potential areas of cost saving that seem obvious to the man in the street, and one wonders why these suggestions have never been translated into action on a level where the law-makers sit. I don't think that anyone should take too lightly the significance of events throughout the province concerning school costs.

I believe that there is something very positive being indicated, or perhaps you might call it negative, but certainly something is being indicated by people from Bow Valley, Wainwright, Lamont, and throughout the province. It's getting to the point of the last straw breaking the camel's back in regard to escalating education costs. Perhaps politicians from senior governments are too remote from the scene, but with so many elected representatives formerly of local government now sitting in the Assembly, I hope there is new cause for faith that the message will finally get through.

I venture to say that one of the reasons for the defeat of the last government was that pleas for assistance from local government fell on deaf ears. Local councils had the impression that Edmonton was either not listening, or worse, had the sort of attitude of arrogance that led them to believe, that like father, they knew best. Every local council knows how the confidence trick was worked. In the name of local autonomy, all or part of every program was pushed onto the backs of local government.

Financing may have been by grants to supplement the local property tax, but the grants all had strings attached -- except one, which I'll talk about later. They could be cut off, or reduced at will. They didn't expand with rising costs, and the blame always rested with local government. Now while the province went around boasting that it was debt free, the municipal governments had among the highest debts and the highest property tax in Canada. Few new taxes were imposed at provincial level where the politicians were wallowing in the $3 billion in oil money that they'd had since 1947.

They even want a new tax such as the sharp increase in provincial income tax, which was recently introduced. Even when that came in they got away with it because the public attention was distracted by the much sharper increases in property taxes at local level. So as usual the local councils were the whipping boys. I, and hundreds of other municipal officials, haven't forgotten the reception we had from the last government when they arbitrarily froze the provincial share of oil royalties at $38 million.

The municipal assistance grants were the only unconditional grants without strings given to the municipalities, which provide most of the services for most of the people. They had been arranged by law at one-third of the royalties. The revenue from the sale of oil leases declined drastically, so without consultation or warning, the government froze the allotment to the municipalities. The money they had expected in their budgets was not forthcoming, and there was no notice. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 742

March 21st 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 14- 27 Hundreds of us flocked into Edmonton and we were faced by Mr. Fred Colborne, and Mr. Aalborg, and the hon. member from Olds- Didsbury (I don't know if he's listening) in the Chateau Lacombe. The matter was so serious that the City of Edmonton had laid on city buses to bring the delegates down here to the Legislature to plead with the Premier. Well, they received a blank "no" from the three ministers, without apology, without explanation, and it was repeated by the Premier of the day, now Leader of the Opposition. That day played a big

part in the eventual disaster at the polls for the Social Credit Party. This government has, I believe, a different attitude, and is committed to a new deal for local government next year, you may laugh, but next year is considerably better than 36 years -- we should accomplish in one year what you failed to accomplish in 36. This government has already demonstrated its goodwill by increasing the municipal assistance grants by 10 per cent, despite the general reduction in provincial revenue. There is hope in the cities that the former take it or leave it attitude of the provincial government is changed.

I'm taking the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, of this very reasonable motion for a comparatively minor measure to relieve education costs, to review the situation as I think it exists. In my city, the combined municipal and school debt is more than $350 million, which is as big as the new provincial debt on the present estimates which the hon. Leader of the Opposition is so worried about. Certainly, it is almost all guaranteed by the province. You know the merry-go-round that's been going on for quite a while.

Canada Pension Plan, which purports to be a social benefit scheme by the federal government, yields a fixed level of pension, and yet it's financed by 3.6 per cent of payroll; So, perhaps in large part, it is a payroll tax. The money builds up in Ottawa at 8 or 9 per cent per year, then they lend it back to the provinces when Canada buys provincial debentures at about 8 per cent; then everybody wonders why Canada suffers from inflation. The province rations their loan money out to the municipalities on a per capita basis through the Alberta Municipal Finance Corporation.

On current account in the cities, the situation is just as bad. Some 60% of the local mill rate goes to education. Here we have the peculiar device of the supplementary requisition. The municipalities contribute about $100 million per year to this central foundation fund, this central kitty, which is represented by 30 equalized mills on property tax. The province adds a little over $200 million and the money is then doled out under a complicated formula to the various school boards.

Every year a little "billet doux" has to be put in with the tax notice saying that in the opinion of the province that is enough to supply an adequate standard of education. However, few school boards find it really adequate and they have to charge their rate payers with another 18 or 20 mills to pay the bills. In hospitals, auxiliary hospitals, health units, senior citizens homes, the same manoeuver is practiced. The grants from the province fall short of covering costs, sometimes a little more, sometimes a little less, and the bills for the extras have to be paid by ever growing supplementary requisitions.

But this is local autonomy, the wise elders in Edmonton say. This is local autonomy, boys, and it's really democratic. If you want extra luxuries, you must pay for them yourselves. They never really examine these luxuries to see if they're essential or how many of them are essential. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 743

14- 28 ALBERTA HANSARD March 21st 1972 The cities have to collect the taxes and pay the bills for all these semi-autonomous boards. They are bewitched and bedazzled by their own little corners, these boards are, their own little empires, and they spend money without restraint. There is no appeal allowed for the tax collecting authority against these bills, the supplementary requisitions that come in from the semi-autonomous board. The bills have to be paid.

There's no real mechanism even for reviewing their budgets, or for cutting them, or talking with them about a possible restraint or postponement, if the council happens to think them extravagant. At one time there was a possibility of an appeal of an alleged extravagant budget to the arbitration of the local authorities board. But the last administration even removed that weak defense, the only defense the cities had. In effect, the school boards and the hospital boards have blank cheques.

Certainly school boards periodically face the electorate, but the main blame for increased taxes is always shouldered by the taxing authority, and the school boards shelter under the wing of this taxing authority. Yet fiscal responsiblity requires some control somewhere. If the province will not allow local councils to control supplementary requisitions, it must assume that responsibility itself. The whipping boys at local level are restive, and if people don't see that, they can't see the evidence all over the province, they're blind. Even a worm will turn.

I've analyzed many local budgets in my day, and in analyzing the one that was presented to us the other night, I think I detect a very practical and courageous approach from the hon. Minister of Education. I think he intends to run a tight ship. I hope so. Let's look into the crystal ball and visualize the situation next year. We carry out our promised exercise to relieve provinces of the burden of human resource programs. It can certainly be done. Although it's not as easy an exercise as some imagine, it will be accomplished. But that isn't the whole story.

We must also find ways and means to stop the vacuum thus created from being rapidly filled up by rising municipal costs and rising supplementary requisitions. If we don't do this, it's been an exercise in futility. This means that we must have comprehensive guidelines for both education and health. A manual with many chapters may have to be introduced by both the Department of Education and the Department of Health, and the Department of Labour must also play a part.

The current brake on education costs, the 6 per cent allowable increase with a flexibility factor -- for want of a better name I'll call it the Clark plan — was a stop gap, a band-aid. It was brought in in a hurry; it was crude. But it did, I believe, serve a large part of its purpose, anyway, for three years. But it was a brake whose linings were bound to wear out, and I'm afraid it couldn't be replaced under warranty. At the end of the three year period it was bound to break, and it's already showing signs of breaking.

Education and health are labour intensive industries where wages comprise as much as 70 per cent of the costs. A 6 per cent increase isn't enough, when you remember that employees have annual increments which may amount to as much as 4 per cent, so that what appears to be a 6 per cent increase is often 10 or 11 per cent. A replacement has to be found for the Clark plan which is now almost busted. There are still many people who are philosophically opposed to any control over wages and prices.

Even when a Republican president, like Richard Nixon in the United States, has been brave enough to show the way, there are all sorts of people who believe that wage and price controls are contrary to the free enterprise concept. But you can't have ground rules like this. They confuse free enterprise with Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 744

March 21st 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 14- 29 laisser-faire. They, like our friends on the other side of the House, should be back in the last century. During the election, I was asked what that billboard showing a dinosaur on roller-skates meant. It said "Travel Alberta". "Travel Alberta" was in very small letters, and I suppose it was a tribute to the hon. minister from Drumheller, but my reply was that it was Social Credit rolling into the 20th century.

Anyway, without such controls, without some sort of restraint on wages and prices, at least for a period, Canada is likely to run off the cliff into the sea, or become as extinct as that dinosaur, as it goes galloping off into the night with galloping inflation, to the point where you'd probably need a three ton truck to carry your small change, as they did in Germany in the '20s. In the jurisdictions to the west and east of us, in British Columbia and in Saskatchewan, the problem is similar, and those provincial governments have already taken some resolute action.

As long ago as 1969, B.C. applied a freeze to new school design and new school construction — at least the elements of design. They began to impose some standards on the buildings themselves. In that province, teachers are civil servants, and there is better control over bargaining. Recently a 6% ceiling has been imposed on salaries for all public servants in B.C. In Saskatchewan, a similar freeze has been imposed on total wage budgets for education. In B.C., they didn't single out teachers and in Saskatchewan, they did. This includes the increment.

Of course, the cost push doesn't only come from the teachers and the registered nurses. It probably starts with the multiplicity of civic unions in the cities, the police, the firemen, the electricians, the outside workers. And it's no good saying that we don't want to get into this sort of thing; let's stay out of this controversy; let's keep out of the heat; let's stay quiet and perhaps it'll go away. It won't go away. A teacher is just as conscious of the wages paid to a policeman as to another teacher, and there must be an end to the 8 per cent to 11 per cent year after year compounding.

People just can't pay it on the wages and salaries they earn in the private sector. The wages and returns in the public sector have got far, far and away ahead of those in the private sector. Those controls, so sadly lacking, must come from the provincial level. It's no use shucking off the responsibility in the name of local autonomy. That's an abdication of responsibility. These are the things I think we need. First of all, we need voluntary guide lines as a minimum for all public servants at all levels.

Secondly, we need comprehensive manuals from the Department of Education and the Department of Health to give direction to local trustees. The prevailing principle of those manuals must be a quality of opportunity for all Albertans. If this is considered an invasion of local autonomy, so be it. Local autonomy isn't worth the price if it's taken to mean local laisser-faire. We can't afford it. The manuals should include common standards for the entire province, after variations for the peculiarities of the local district.

They should cover not only the curriculum, but the question of supplies and textbooks, teacher pupil ratios, the number of floaters they should have, (like the non-teaching teachers, two of them to every school, now), guidance councillors, specialists. They should cover the amount to be spent on overhead, and how the overhead should be spent, on what type of people, the number and types of buses, direction on purchasing, (wherever possible, have central purchasing), and then coming to the specific subject of the resolution, they should have standardized school design for optimum efficiency. The hon.

Minister of Minicipal Affairs knows that I'm always kind to architects who are paid 8% of the end contract price, and I Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 745

14- 30 ALBERTA HANSARD March 21st 1972 intend to be kind today, as I have always been. But I don't think they can operate without tighter specifications. And perhaps they should keep their experimentation in architectural works of art for other less cost sensitive areas than education. Incidently, I believe the hon. Minister of Industry should take note of the huge amounts being spent in this province for education, and ask himself whether the Province of Alberta couldn't start printing its own school books.

This, at least, will give us a return in the nucleus of a sophisticated printing industry in Alberta, and give us something back for all the dollars we are spending. Like everyone else, I also believe we should get our fair share of the huge federal fiscal revenue, and shouldn't have to buy our share through the device of matching grants, any more than the city should from the province. But I must say that I prayed very hard that the voice of the Rt. Hon. John Diefenbaker would be heard the other day, when he moved in the House of Commons that federal aid should be given to secondary education.

And don't think that voice is not heard. Remember that he has never lost touch with the grass roots. And remember also, he was the one who introduced federal aid for technical and vocational training. Now, this problem of bringing education under control isn't peculiar to Alberta. It is a top issue now in the United States. In their present election campaign it may be of even more significance than the war in Viet Nam. So we must tackle it resolutely, too. I wonder if we shouldn't begin with a genuine evaluation of our product. Examinations are no longer in style.

The Board says, "You mustn't put those poor children down at a desk and tell them to write an examination paper. It might ruin their whole lives, even worse than hating their father or their mother." So you have to test them all on a graph, a curve, a normal curve, and then of course, the child is only competing against himself. Because he mustn't be taught to compete. Surely the old-fashioned school inspector hasn't also disappeared from the scene.

Couldn't we send an impartial body from some entirely different area (say, from New Zealand, which is supposed to have a very high standard of education at minimum cost). Alberta to evaluate the level of learning of our students at various grades. We are always talking about merit pay for teachers as though you have to examine the teacher. The ones to examine are the children, the products of the system, to see what they really have achieved, to see how their level of education at various ages compares with those in other jurisdictions in the western world.

There was a letter in the Calgary Herald the other day from a fellow who had been at the University of Calgary, and had then gone to that land of saints and martyrs where so much blood is flowing right now, the north of Ireland. He was at Queen's university in Belfast, and he wrote back and said that he didn't believe that any Grade XII graduate from a Calgary school could pass matriculation for a Northern Ireland universiy. Maybe they are not taught here to operate like the IRA, and maybe the curriculum is different, but at least somebody has put that question and said; is it true?

And if it is true and we are spending all this money, there is something wrong. Perhaps there has been too much emphasis on innovation and experiment, so we are not getting value for our dollars. I don't know if it is right or not. Perhaps we are not getting the value we think we are getting. I understand that Texas also has a very expensive school system, but there are critics who say the standard of education is low there. It isn't as high as in some areas where Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 746

March 21st 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 14- 31 the budgets are lower. So it is not axiomatic that the more you spend the more value you get. When they are talking about innovations, why don't they think of some innovations for reducing costs? When is an architect going to come up with a viable plan for a modular school? That is the sort of plan that could be well standardized across the province, where the classrooms could be moved from one site to another. I read in magazines that this concept is practised elsewhere; why can't it be done here?

In Calgary, we have older schools in the centre of the city with empty classrooms, and then we build new ones in the suburbs. There are two practical approaches to this. You might bus them, and in the United States they bus them for miles, city and rural, and in the rural areas of Alberta, as you all know, some kids spend an hour to an hour and a half on a bus every day. So why can't the city kids? But anyway, supposing there is a big resentment against busing, then why can't we build modular schools that can be moved according to the movement of the population?

At one time in Calgary the trustees said that it was utterly impossible to build a school for $16.50 a square foot, which was the allowable limit in the Foundation Plan. And I give the other side credit for the fact -- or perhaps it was just habit -- that they didn't listen and they didn't respond, and finally the school trustees discovered that they didn't have to pay $20.00 to $22.00 dollars a foot, that they could build these schools for $16.50 and there was a big reversal in building costs.

Suddenly, the architects began to build to the limit with a little bit of direction -- right, not the engineers, the architects. The engineers are just as bad! My contention is that there must be some direction. There has got to be direction, and it must come from the province. The province cannot abdicate its responsibilities; it must have guidelines; it must have a manual; it must give the trustees something to operate with. It is no good just taking these fellows off the street who are anxious to do a good job on promoting quality of education regardless of cost.

They are elected as trustees, and all they really want to do is educate their own children during their period in the school, but they don't really get an overall broad picture of what the people at large can afford. They probably don't know, except in a very amateurish sort of way, what they should be aiming at in terms of standards and guidelines. So I feel that the province has got to do this. The motion is a very simple one.

I shouldn't think that there is anybody in this House who doesn't agree with the wording of this motion: "Be it resolved that the Government of Alberta give consideration to establishing procedures that will result in greater standardization of school design" -- this is just an improvement on the present situation — "and bulk purchase of school building supplies to reduce construction and operating costs." I don't know about the second half, how feasible that's going to be.

With modular schools it would be completely feasible, but I believe the motion is in the right direction and that the Executive Council on this side of the House is well in touch with the situation. MR. GRUENWALD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the opportunity to bring forth a point of view on this business of the standardization of school design and bulk purchasing.

I think before the sponsors of this resolution start showering upon themselves congratulations for saving the province hundreds of thousands and maybe even millions of dollars, they should maybe take a look at some of the ramifications in the areas in which it probably wouldn't accomplish as much as they had hoped it would. Now the idea sounds just fine and dandy and I Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 747

14- 32 ALBERTA HANSARD March 21st 1972 don't argue with it. I congratulate the government for putting forth resolutions that would (if in fact they do) save the people of Alberta money. I think we all commend them for this and I think this is a great idea. But the fact is this. It will not accomplish in savings to the people of Alberta nearly so much as many people think. Maybe it would be a good idea if this motion were passed, Mr. Speaker, so that the people of Alberta would find out, maybe once and for all, that it is not as practical a solution to the problem as many people think.

There are so many things that come into play. For example, if we are talking about the utilization of school plans over and over again, I think we must remember that we will have the Alberta Association of Architects upon our backs in very quick order and probably rightly so. And I'm not so sure that a minimal saving by the total province should be carved out of the pockets of just a few. I have some reservations about that. Then we look at the practical aspects of uniform buildings themselves.

We must consider (and as trustees we have talked about this aspect for a good many years) the pros and cons, and we have come up with the answer that there isn't a big saving in this proposition. Every time a building is built in another location, you have many things to consider. You have the exposure, whether it's east, west, north or south and this does make a difference to the plans. You must consider the business of land elevation, the drop in the land, the services as they are in that particular location.

You must also consider the feasibilty and the possibility of additions to the school, which very often are affected by the type of building, and if they were all the same they wouldn't lend themselves to this type of thing. Not only that, but having been a school board member, I have a pretty good idea of how school boards and school administrators react to this type of thing, and also how department of education officials will react, because, you know, they don't agree with one another. So I would suggest that we would have real problems in trying to put this across and make it a practical thing.

Now in the area of bulk purchasing, I would suggest that bulk purchasing or volume buying can be effective. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, again I would say, in the province of Alberta most school districts, school divisions, or county school districts, have sufficient buying power of their own that suppliers have a healthy respect for their buying ability. I suggest that the very best way to get the best buy is to be a good tough buyer.

I think that if you start getting into real bulk buying, if you get into the situation where you have a central buying depot, the next thing that would happen is that you would be storing things up that may or may not be used in the near future. No object is a good buy just because it's cheap, unless you know you are going to use it in the very, very near future. So I can see us developing a sort of depot where things would be stored up because someone bought them at a good price. They wouldn't be used for a long time.

They would become obsolete and not only that, but you are down to the situation where people would feel compelled to buy through the unit. They wouldn't buy through a central buying agency because of the fact that they would have to do volume buying in order to be effective. Therefore it would not be utilized to a very great extent. I still maintain that the most effective buying is done by the consumer himself as directly as possible and being as tough a buyer as he can be. Now, that doesn't mean that there isn't some merit in this type of a resolution and so far it hasn't been brought forward.

I think that there are things that could be done to constitute a saving to the people of Alberta regarding school buildings. For example, I think more emphasis should be put on the flexibility and versatility of buildings. Many of us have been in large convention centres where an area that will accommodate 50 people can be converted to accommodate 250, 500, or 1,500 people within a few minutes. In other Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 748

March 21st 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 14- 33 words we need more removable and interchangeable partitions and this type of thing, so that a greater use can be made of school buildings. Let's make them versatile and flexible within themselves. I think this would be a very important and a very beneficial type of operation which would really make school buildings more versatile, flexible and useable, and would certainly cut down on this business of everyone having to have something different. The outside structure could be the same but inside -- let's make them very flexible. I think this would be the important thing.

Now there is another area that is a real bugbear, not only in school buildings but in all institutional buildings, and that's this business of uniform fire and safety regulations. I think that everyone in this room, if they have had any type of exposure to either municipal or school board regulations and buildings, will have found themselves caught in the conflict between fire and safety regulations that are different in all cities and the provinces themselves. I can speak from personal experience. We had a building almost completed, to the point where they were putting tile on the ceiling.

The merchandise had been ordered. Suddenly a little empire that had its own fire regulations said: "We have now changed our regulations. The type of tile that was originally suggested does not meet our requirements, and therefore you must put something else in." Now, Mr. Speaker, this is utter nonsense. This is where money is being wasted.

You can go to any school board in this province and you will see that through the years they have been faced with having to change their building — to make big changes amounting to thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars — to suit minor changes in the fire and safety regulations of various departments. This is an area in which we have to do something, because it just doesn't make any sense. I can give you an illustration that might seem a little comical, but it's very real. I know of an institutional building where it was necessary to build a boiler room.

The fire regulations insisted that the door into the boiler room should swing in. There was a reason for that; in the event of a fire or an explosion, the door would be forced shut and the fire would be contained in that confined area. Now this seemed to make a lot of sense to some people. All of a sudden somebody else came along, the boiler people, and they said, "How come that door is swinging in? This is ridiculous! We can't stand for that. This door has got to swing out because if there is an explosion we want the door to blow open so that people can get out of there and be safe." So what are you going to do?

Build two doors to the boiler room, one for fire safety regulations and one for boiler staff safety regulations? I mean this is the type of ridiculous situation in which we find ourselves. So I would say that if we can get to the root of this type of problem, Mr. Speaker, there may be some hope for saving, and something would make some sense as far as uniform fire and safety regulations are concerned for school buildings. In

summary I would say them, Mr. Speaker, let's do something about versatility. Let's do something about uniform fire and safety regulations. MR. HARLE: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to enter into the debate today. First of all I know very little about education and education financing, and for that reason, I took the opportunity to study the subject as best I could, because it is a very complicated matter. In fact, it's so complicated that most of us would prefer not to make the effort. However, because of the recent plebiscite situation at Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 749

14- 34 ALBERTA HANSARD March 21st 1972 Wainwright, I felt that all members should be cognizant of what is happening in education, so that when the foundation program expires at the end of 1973, what we replace it with, and I hope it will be replaced, will be with something which is going to work. The establishment of the school divisions after 1934 led to an intensive movement towards centralization. There are now, I believe, over 200 school boards, and there are some 400,000 odd students. So this is a pretty big concern, and it, of course, takes a large part of the provincial budget.

The creation of divisions coincided with important changes in the curriculum. There was, of course, an advantage in concentrating facilities in an attempt to provide adequate programs in a few centres, rather than mediocre programs in many. In order to centralize, there had to be an expansion of the transportation system. Centralization has, in fact, gone far at the high school level. And what about centralization in the junior and elementary grades? There are certain pressures that appear to carry school boards toward centralization.

There is a need to provide better education by supplying a varied program of instruction. Money is distributed through the foundation program for operating costs. Funds from the foundation program are used for supplying transportation, and also in the area of building of schools. I have no quarrel with the idea that we should be providing a better education system to our youngsters, but I wonder whether the need to provide a better education is directly influenced by the other pressures, so this becomes the excuse to justify further centralization.

The regulations under the school foundation program provide that payments depend on the number of classroom units administered by each board, and the classroom unit is defined by the number of pupils divided by 26. The formula is adjusted where an exact mathematical division cannot be made, and there is a multiplication factor which is used to increase the number of classroom units in the Grade VII to IX level and the Grade X to XII level, presumably because the costs of education are greater at the higher levels.

There is a fixed sum of money provided to each board for each classroom unit, and then there are further sums for support staffs per 1,000 pupils. The present foundation program is designed to cover a budget period of three years, so the school boards could, in fact, get into the area of long term budgeting. This will run until 1973. The previous administration determined the ratios of teachers to students, and of support staff to students, for a three year period.

The major purpose of the school foundation plan was to increase the degree of financial equality among the various school jurisdictions across the province. The distribution of funds was arrived at by certain judgments on the type of educational program that the province was prepared to support. These judgments were based on provincial averages from the information then available. The judgments were in the ratio of teachers to students and the number of support staff per 1,000 pupils. Therefore the amount of money that each board receives is dependent upon the number of students it has.

Once the school board gets the money it is free to spend the money as it sees fit, I presume within reason. But if it does not have the teacher pupil ratio of 26 to 1, it can in fact, employ more or fewer teachers. This is left up to each board. In rural areas, however, there’s been a decline in the number of pupils, and I mentioned the situation at Wainwright. The same situation exists at Stettler in the county system. Unfortunately I think bigness has become a necessity of school boards. They have to Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 750

March 21st 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 14- 35 get bigger, they have to have more students in order to operate. Therefore if the student population declines, in order to economize, they're forced to centralize. There's a third pressure, of course, on centralization and that is the transportation policy. Money is available from the foundation program to boards for pupils whom they must transport under the terras of the School Act. Dr.

Hanson, in his research monograph done for the Alberta Teachers' Association called "The School Foundation Program in the 1960's", states on page 43: "It appears that provisions in the Foundation Program have stimulated provision for transportation and centralization of schools." This means that while the cost of transportation and maintainance of pupils has increased (and in fact over the period from 1961 to 1969 it rose from $9.8 million to $19.1 million), this rate of increase was less than the rate of increase for total expenditures, and therefore the percentage of total costs attributable to transportation declined.

This I believe, encourages further centralization. It will be interesting to see the figures for the period 1970 to 1973 in order to compare them with the previous nine years. If a board is forced to centralize, the fund will in fact, cover the costs of transportation. But I would refer the members in this Assembly to the report of the minister's committee on school finance, which was distributed to the members of the Assembly in 1969.

On page 50 of that report there is the following statement, and I quote: "Actually, the Foundation Fund supports transportation, if not immediately, at least a year later up to the total amount expended by school boards. The fault with such a system of support rests in the fact that it does not provide any incentive for local jurisdictions to economize in the administration of their transportation systems." The day apparently is fast approaching when we may well see elementary pupils and pupils in the early grades having to ride school buses for 10, 20, 30 and 60 miles twice a day.

I raise the question as to whether this in fact is better education. If it is, then school boards will have to get into the dormitory type of facility, even for these young children. If it isn't, then the present foundation program must be changed. We must examine carefully the effect of the present foundation program on rural areas, because as a consequence of that program (which will result, I submit, in further centralization), we have the closure of schools in the rural areas. The existence of two levels of school administration at the provincial level and the municipal level, causes a great deal of problems.

To compare the revenue potential of the provincial government to that of the municipal government is like comparing two entirely different articles. There is a much more elastic revenue source available to the province. But the area of responsibility of school boards is related to the expenditure requirements, and there is a definite pressure towards providing a better education. During the 1960's we saw that the gap between local revenues and total expenditures widened year by year, with a consequent increase in supplementary requisitions.

On the expenditure side, there was a trend toward increasing centralization of schools, which was encouraged by the regulations of the 'then' program. This trend is developing again in the '70s with the new foundation program, introduced in 1970. Because economies of scale are not necessarily achieved, the large school districts add new, more expanded programs. The quality of education improves, but the gap between revenues and Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 751

14- 36 ALBERTA HANSARD March 21st 1972 expenses widens. As soon as more dollars are provided by the provincial government, there tends to be an effort by the Department of Education and by the taxpayers to control how those funds are spent. The main problem then is to what degree should there be provincial control, and to what degree should there be local control over education costs.

There's something Machiavellian in the present system, in which we give local government the tasks of administering the expenditures of education and of improving education, and retain for the provincial government the real revenue sources, leaving only the right to make supplemental requisitions on property owners as a safety valve, and plebiscites. What happens, I think, is what we probably have seen happen in Wainwright with the plebiscite. The question is, who promotes the plebiscite? The teacher, the school board, the parents, the taxpayer? Who promotes the 'yes' vote -- the teachers, the school board?

Who promotes the 'no' vote — the taxpayers? All that a plebiscite does is to focus the attention of the voters on an increase in taxes, and it's notable that in spite of that the vote at Wainwright was surprisingly close. I submit that the use of the plebiscite is not a real method of making school boards, shall we say, more responsible, because the public now knows that it is really the provincial government who must supply the majority of the funds.

I therefore speculate that, when the present foundation program comes to an end in 1973, a program which appears to be having similar growing pains as those which developed in the 1960's, the provincial government will take over all matters of education, only in turn to be taken over by the federal government, because a similar problem exists between these two levels of government as well.

The Human Resources Research Council of Alberta concludes in its report about the quality of life in Alberta that, and I quote: "The trend towards increased enrolments at all levels, which has continued over the past several years, has now turned the corner. A period of decline may be in the offing." I would have to say that due to the effect of the pill, birth rates must be dropping, and dropping faster in the rural areas because of the exodus of people to the city.

As our present foundation program is based on ratios, dependent on the number of students under the jurisdiction of each school board, it is likely that the present program will be under severe strain before the end of the foundation program in 1973. Therefore, with regard to the motion before us, I think we must first decide who is to be responsible for deciding whether or not there should be standardization. It is either a local matter, or a provincial matter. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take

part in the debate on Resolution No. 1 on the Order Paper today, at the outset let me congratulate the mover on putting forward what I think, at the very least, is a thought-provoking resolution, and certainly, I don't question the mover's sincerity in the resolution at all. Secondly, let me say, Mr. Speaker, that I recall rather well, in wrestling with this problem over the last two or three years, that the government commissioned a report by a private consulting firm, Reed, Crowther and Associates.

The people of the province spent $100,000 on a report looking at not all the matters involved in the resolution here, but certainly at some of the matters. I'd like to allude to that just a bit later. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 752

March 21st 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 14- 37 I must say that I found the comments by the hon. Member for Calgary North Hill, the hon. gentleman who used to be in the newspaper business, who perhaps most noteworthily is the chairman of the task force on the future of municipal government in Alberta -- I think that school boards, hospital boards, and likely some people in municipal government will find his comments today rather revealing, and I trust they don't really represent the feeling of the 'now' government.

One of the comments that I found perhaps most straightforward and a bit startling was something to the effect that, if the preparation of manuals by the Department of Education for curriculum and for school buildings and for staffing and so on infringe on local autonomy, so what? The hon. member referred, Mr. Speaker, to the march on the hotel last year, the Chateau Lacombe (it wasn't the Legislative Building) by the representatives of the municipalities across the province. And I suppose one might facetiously say that I am the only surviving one of the three ministers who went there.

But on a more serious note, let me say that the hon. Member for Calgary North Hill was as active that day as he has been in the Assembly. He and that other great Conservative from Calgary, John Kushner, were two of the people who were most active when it came to the presentation over at the Chateau Lacombe. Now, I want, for the benefit of the hon. members, to read into the record another Tory attitude with regard to this question of local responsibility. And it happens to be in the Daily Herald Tribune. It says: "Tory replies to letter." And the date is April 27, '71.

I think hon. members would find that that is some period of time following the march that my friend across the way referred to. And I quote the letter: It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that this is an attitude that I certainly wouldn't want to associate myself with. I think, frankly, one of the real cores in the question we are debating this afternoon, is a question the hon. Member for Stettler raised, "Who is going to control education?" That's one of the questions that all the hon. members of this Assembly, Mr. Speaker, are going to have to resolve in their own minds in the course of the next year or two.

In the next few months the Worth Report (or the report on the Commission on Educational Planning) will be coming in. It will become the responsibility of this Legislature and every member herein to come to grips with a new means of financing education in this province. And perhaps before we get involved in those kinds of issues, we had better go back to the real seat of the whole question, who is going to control education. Frankly, the comments made this afternoon by the hon.

Member for Calgary North Hill, who is a most delightful person, and very active in the House, on the question of who's going to control education and his allusion to local responsibility and so on, left me a tit cool. "I am delighted to read Mr. Colborne's letter (Reader Comment column, April 20th). I have a high regard for Mr. Colborne as an outstanding member of the government, and I am sure his figures are accurate. In reply to this follow-the-leader comment - are not the Conservatives fortunate having such an outstanding leader to follow? His second and fourth paragraphs conflict.

If the government is withholding money from the municipalities because it believes it knows how to spend it more wisely, whether it be on people's services or higher administrative costs, this surely credits the municipalities with less maturity and suggests that municipalities do not know how to take responsibility for their fiscal policies. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 753

14- 38 ALBERTA HANSARD March 21st 1972 If I cut down my mature son's allowance and tell him I will buy his clothes for him, am I showing him a greater or lesser regard for his maturity? That more than 40% of the provincial budget is used for assistance to municipalities, I do not deny. That it is given with a tight hand on the purse strings so that locally elected boards have little say on how it is spent is also true. The simile of the sugar daddy may be true, for most sugar daddies expect a full return for their gifts, but at least they are giving away their own money, not that of Alberta's taxpayers. Dr. W. 0.

Backus, Grande Prairie" Now it seems to me this indicates somewhat of a different view. I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that the member in the front bench rather represents the government's point of view and the member from Calgary represents his own point of view, when it comes to this matter of local responsibility and local autonomy. Mr. Speaker, I should move on from this question of local autonomy, which I emphasize once again as the real core issue in this resolution here today; but it is also the real core issue in the whole financing of the grade 1 to 12 system in this province.

I think that the hon. members are well aware that the costs of education aren't just simply those of the buildings: in fact the average cost of a school building will be eaten up in the operating costs in 3, 4, or 5 years. For members to feel that procedures such as are proposed here are really going to enable us to come to grips with the problems of increasing education costs, really that's wishful thinking. It isn't going to have a substantial bearing on the matter of rising education costs. It perhaps should be pointed out, Mr.

Speaker, that the Edmonton Public School Board over the course of the last few years, and perhaps the Calgary Public School Board, although I'm not sure about them, have utilized similar plans for two or three schools. They've used the same plans over again within, I believe, one year. In some areas, that experiment has been successful. But I ask the members to think of your own constituencies, and think in terms of designing a plan and designing procedures and having standardized school designs and bulk purchasing which will meet all the varying needs there are across the province.

You can go into the Rainbow Lake country in the far northern part of the province, where within the last year, they've needed to build one or two rooms, one of those being an activity area. You can go down to the very southern portion of the province, to a new elementary school at Cardston with something like 400 students. You can go west of Lacombe where they had a fire and burnt the school down not long ago. (Well, they didn't have a fire; a fire occurred, excuse me.

The result was the same, that the school wasn't there.) You can look at some of the large schools that have been built in Calgary, several large schools that have been built in Edmonton, and schools in the rural areas of the province. For us to say that we can think in terms of a few plans that are going to meet the needs of all these changing situations across the province -- maybe it would be nice to wish it would happen, but there is no way that this is going to be the answer to all of the problems there are in the field of school building.

I have no hesitation about supporting the resolution and there may well be some advances coming out of the proposal here. But I'd urge the hon. members not to think in terms of this proposal solving all the problems as far as school buildings are concerned. I'd really urge hon. members to think very seriously about this question Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 754

March 21st 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 14- 39 of who is going to control the education system. Because I seem to be able to read into this resolution that if we're going to be involved in the standardization of school designs and the bulk purchase of school materials, then the decision is already made that, in fact, the Department of Education is going to be controlling it. If this is the direction the members of the Legislature want to go, I'm certainly one who wants to opt out of that decision.

I don't think that's the right direction to go, and I hope we have a heck of a lot of opportunities in this Assembly to argue that one before any final decision is made. I trust that we will. But I do think the resolution here today is implicitly saying that the government or the Department of Education is going to be involved in the standardization of school designs and bulk purchasing.

Whether that's what the mover of the resolution really had in mind or not, I don't know, and I really would appreciate him commenting on that when he gets an opportunity to close the debate I think the second issue is the question of local autonomy, and who is really going to control education. The hon. Member for Lethbridge raised an excellent point on this matter of fire regulations. If, as a result of this resolution, this problem can be solved, it will be time jolly well spent. Changing fire regulations are most annoying to school boards across the province.

There is a sizeable cost involved in following the requirement of the Fire Commissioner's office and making such changes. So in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, let me say these things.

(1) Certainly I am agreeable to the motion as long as it doesn't mean the Department of Education will assume control for education in all aspects; I would oppose that.

(2) I would urge all members to think in terms of the question, where do we go in this question of local autonomy and local responsibility? And I'd urge members not to think that this is going to solve all the problems of educational finance in this province. As sincere and genuine as this resolution is, there is no way.

(3) I hope the chairman of the Conservative task force rethinks some of his thoughts on local autonomy. Thank you very much. MR. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, this topic has become more intriguing as the afternoon has worn on, so much so that my orginal intentions have changed considerably, and I now welcome the opportunity to speak to it, however briefly. The last speaker has stressed, at length, the matter of local autonomy as being the basic issue here. I would submit that this House might be better advised to consider the issue in terms of the opportunity for discretionary decision making.

In other words, I'm suggesting that we ought to consider that basically this House is responsible for education in the province of Alberta, as we are responsible for a number of other issues and public concerns. we are the ones who must make the initial decision as to what programs receive priority consideration, and how much of the public funds are going to be allocated to those specific areas. Having made those decisions, we then have to decide, within education for instance how we are going to administer the school system, and here is where considerable debate enters the picture.

I suggest to you that we go too far when we start bandying around terms like 'local autonomy'. I'm not so sure that there is such a thing as provincial autonomy, for instance. I think that we find ourselves Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 755

14- 40 ALBERTA HANSARD March 21st 1972 always operating within a whole series of constraints, and really what we should be looking at is what kinds of decisions should be made, at what operational level. I have some very strong personal opinions on this particular matter. They are basically that the further toward the scene of the operation decisions can be made, the better those decisions should be, because the more knowledgeable should be the people who are making those decisions should be. Perhaps I can illustrate one concern that I have by reference to the system for financing education.

We have had today an explanation by the hon. Member for Stettler about how the present system works. Well, the financing program which we had in this province, which preceded the present system, was of a different type. That particular program provided a direct incentive, a contingent or a tied grant for various items in the school operation. For instance, if one hired a teacher with one year of training there was a payment of a certain amount; if one hired a teacher with three years training there was a larger payment, and so a whole series of incentive grants were made available.

The result was, in many instances I fear, that in terms of making decisions as to what the proper priorities should have been on the local level, some local officials made decisions in terms of what money they could extract from the province. Now this to me completely distorted, thwarted, and even coerced local education officials. And I would submit that while we might have had local autonomy, we certainly subverted the opportunity for discretionary decisions at that level. And I think that we are treading in that area again here.

The question, I think, that does deserve considerable attention is how much pretesting needs to be done of building design. We have had, in some instances, a fair variety of school buildings introduced in this province. Some