Alberta Hansard — 26 June 1979, Afternoon sitting (14:30) (Legislature 19, Session 1)

19790626

Alberta — Debates (Hansard)

June 26, 1979 ALBERTA HANSARD 549 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA Title: Tuesday, June 26, 1979 2:30 p.m. [The House met at 2:30 p.m.] PRAYERS [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] head: INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS MR. SPEAKER: I'm honored to have as a guest in the Speaker's gallery today the Hon. Kenneth Irving Wright, member for the northwestern province in the Parliament of Victoria, Melbourne, Australia. Mr. Wright was here during the war in the Royal Australian Air Force and earned his wings in the city of Calgary. Following that auspicious beginning, he went into politics and was elected in July 1973.

He serves in various capacities in the Parliament of his state, and is the official representative of Victoria in the Australian branch of the Commonwealth Parliamen tary Association. I would ask Mr. Wright if he would kindly stand and receive the acknowledgment of the Assembly. head: INTRODUCTION OF BILLS Bill 223

An Act to Amend The Blind Persons' Guide Dogs Act MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to intro duce Bill 223,

An Act to Amend The Blind Persons' Guide Dogs Act. This Bill would forbid discrimina tion in employment against any person on the grounds that he or she is a blind person accompanied by a guide dog. [Leave granted; Bill 223 read a first time] head: TABLING RETURNS AND REPORTS MR. KOZIAK: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to The Credit and Loan Agreements Act, I'm tabling the report of the supervisor of consumer credit. MR. HORSMAN: Mr. Speaker, I wish to file with the Assembly an exchange of telexes between the Hon.

Ron Atkey, Minister of Employment and Immigration, and me with respect to refugees from Indo-China. head: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased today to introduce to you and to other members of the Assembly over two dozen grade 6 students from St. Rose school in the Edmonton Glenora riding, in the members gallery accompanied by their teacher Mrs. Mary Krpan. They're happily enjoying their last few days of elementary school. I'd ask at this time that they stand and receive the welcome of the Alberta Legisla tive Assembly. MRS. OSTERMAN: Mr.

Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce 18 grade 8 students from the Torrington school in the Three Hills constituency. They're accompanied by Mr. Ed Lasiuta, their teacher and principal; three parents, Sharon Brown, Ruth Smith, and Sharon Ziegler; and their capable bus driv er Ted Vandenbor. Would they like to stand and receive the welcome of the House. MR. HIEBERT: Mr. Speaker, I wish to introduce 30 students from Forest Heights school, residents of the Edmonton Gold Bar and Edmonton Avonmore constit uencies. They are in the members gallery and the public gallery.

If they would stand, I would like the House to accord them the usual welcome. DR. C. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to introduce to you, and through you, 36 students from the grade 7 class at Vilna in the St. Paul constituency. They're accompanied by two teachers, Mrs. Lucy Ash and Mr. Keith Nixon; their bus driver George Keeper; and three parents, Mrs. Townsend, Mrs. Pierce, and Mrs. Lyster. I'd ask them to rise to receive the welcome of the House. MR. WOO: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce to you, and through you to members of this Assembly, Mrs.

Gabrielle Preston, a visitor from Auckland, New Zealand. Mrs. Preston is an occupational therapist deal ing in the area of physically handicapped children. She was a member of a two-person study group which recently completed a tour of Sweden, the United States, Britain, and Canada in a study of facilities related to the handicapped young. Mrs. Preston is seated in the members gallery. I would now ask her to rise and receive the very warm welcome of this Assembly. head: ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Metis Settlements MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct my first question to the Premier.

Following the question period yesterday, has the Premier refreshed his memory as to the directive he gave the Federation of Metis Settlements to channel all their requests through Mr. Cote, the solicitor retained by the Attorney General's Department? Will the Premier advise the House what instructions were given to Mr. Cote as to the handling of requests coming to him from the settlements? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, I'll refer the question to the hon. Attorney General. MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, I've been able to make at least a partial inquiry into the circumstances of 1977 that the hon. leader has asked about.

It's clear that some instructions went from the Attorney General to Mr. Cote in this connection. However, it's not clear that all of them were necessarily in writing. There may have been some conversations, although anything of full importance would have been in writing.

550 ALBERTA HANSARD June 26, 1979 The result was that Mr. Cote was placed in the position of a person whose duty it was to give opinions to a client with respect to certain matters. My understanding is that the matters were limited and primarily would have dealt with any concerns relating to subsurface rights or the surface rights of individu als on the Metis settlements. The reason is that the lawsuit related to that.

It came to the attention of the solicitors that if arrangements or proposals — in the sense of contracts or agreements that would involve subsurface rights or indeed surface rights — were being made, those agreements shouldn't be made while a lawsuit was in process without referring them to the chief counsel acting on the case. So on that basis matters went to Mr. Cote, and after giving his opinion it was his practice — and I'm sure it happened in all cases — simply to return the opinion along with the proposed transaction. As to people being in the position of having to present things to Mr.

Cote directly, as distinct from departmental people asking for legal opinions, I un derstand that that rarely happened. Perhaps on a casual basis, one of the two firms of solicitors acting at that time on behalf of the Metis settlements occasionally referred matters directly to Mr. Cote. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary ques tion to the Premier. Was Mr. Cote given authority either to deny any such requests or to withhold them from the appropriate government departments? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, as it was a matter of litigation, I would refer it to the Attorney General. MR. CRAWFORD: Mr.

Speaker, I believe I've given that information in part, at least, to the hon. member. I'm glad he asked his supplementary, though, because the substance of what he's asked is, to my understand ing, something that was never involved in this situation. Mr. Cote was not placed in the position of granting or refusing requests from anyone.

In fact he was look ing at proposed transactions that the departments which may have had dealings with the Metis settle ments would submit to him for legal opinions, and giving an opinion as to whether the matter should proceed, not based on any policy of administration of government but on the mere question of whether or not, in his opinion as the chief counsel in the case, the matter would impinge upon the same issues in the lawsuit that clearly were going to be before the courts. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, a further question to the Premier. Can the Premier now advise the Assembly if Mr.

Cote received a request from the Federation of Metis Settlements, proposing joint access to settlement files? If so, how did Mr. Cote handle that request? MR. LOUGHEED: Because of the litigation nature of the matter, Mr. Speaker, I'd again refer it to the Attorney General. MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that the two firms of solicitors had discussions, as would normally happen in the conduct of a lawsuit. Probably both understood that whatever documents were in the hands of one would be available to the other.

Now I might add that it's clearly a requirement in any lawsuit that the production of documents from the other side can be enforced by a party. After all, if it's a matter in issue, the other party is entitled to see it. In my understanding, the communications between the two firms amounted to discussing ways in which each could see the documents of the other, because of the large number of documents and their diverse loca tions. Nothing has come to my attention yet that would indicate there was an agreement or a clear offer to examine documents jointly.

In fairness to the question, I intend to pursue that matter further because of yesterday's question. On the particular point, if it goes beyond the area I've just described I have not yet been able to find that out. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary ques tion to the Premier. Earlier in the course of discussion on this issue, the Minister of Social Services and Community Health indicated that the collection of files followed a request from Mr. Cote. Did Mr.

Cote suggest the specific method to be followed in collect ing the files, or did he only suggest that the files be collected from the settlements by one means or another? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, I'd have no knowl edge of that, and I refer the question to the Minister of Social Services and Community Health or the Attorney General. MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to answer that, because I sought and obtained the same informa tion.

I might say that at this point I think some of the questions are matters that come directly into what is generally referred to as a solicitor/client relationship, and that information of that type is privileged and need never be divulged, whether in the Legislature or anywhere else. I think everyone knows that that is the case between solicitor and client, as it has been for hundreds of years. The privilege attaches to the client, however, and in this case the client is the government of Alberta. On that basis, I would be prepared to answer the question and not claim the privilege. Mr.

Cote did what lawyers virtually always do in such cases: he asked the client to produce documents he should see in the interests of his preparation of the lawsuit; nothing more. He did not advise the government on how that might be done. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, then a supplementary question to the Attorney General. Prior to the visit made a week ago last Monday, did the Attorney Gener al or any official of the government discuss with Mr. Cote the method that was used in acquiring the documents? MR. CRAWFORD: Mr.

Speaker, from the information that has come to me, I believe the answer is that no official of government discussed the method with him. I certainly did not. As a matter of fact, I have yet to discuss this case with Mr. Cote. It's an important enough case for me to have a discussion with him, but the spring session being what it is, I decided some time ago that I wouldn't brief myself on this large action until the more restful days of July, and did not meet or communicate with Mr. Cote in any way. That was merely a matter of my own scheduling of time.

I realize I'm repeating myself, but it is in answer to the hon. Leader of the Opposition. To my understand

June 26. 1979 ALBERTA HANSARD 551 ing, Mr. Cote did not have such a conversation with officials of the Attorney General's Department either. He merely asked that the documents he should see in relation to the lawsuit be provided for him to see. This was in preparation for his meeting the request of the other side to provide them with our documents, at which time or about the same time they would provide us with theirs. Both firms of solicitors fully understood that. Now the reason for the timing . . . I'm not speaking now of picking up the documents, the hon. gentle man's question.

The reason for the timing of the concern about exchange of documents — and there are a great many documents to review — was simply that the month of July had been chosen as a time when the parties would go into examinations for discovery. I need not say to the hon. Leader of the Opposition what that procedure is; but in

summary, primarily it's the time at which a witness of the other side is examined. The documents are normally present at that examina tion of the witness, although they need not be. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, a further supplementary question to the Attorney General. Recognizing his desire for the more leisurely days of July before such a meeting would take place, in all seriousness I say: in light of what happened a week ago Monday, has the Attorney General not yet met with Mr. Cote, who is the government's chief legal adviser in this area?

Am I to take from the Attorney General's answer that despite the questions raised in the House and the concerns expressed outside the House, in the eight days that have passed he has not met with Mr. Cote, the government's chief legal adviser in this area, and doesn't plan to until after the session is over? MR. SPEAKER: Surely the hon. leader is simply re peating the content of the hon. minister's answer, possibly for the purpose of provoking debate, which other members might like to enter if it were allowed in the question period.

It's clear to the Chair that the hon. leader is taking an answer, rephrasing it in his own way, and adding a question mark at the end of it. MR. R. CLARK: Well! MR. NOTLEY: A supplementary question to the hon. Attorney General, for clarification. In answer to ques tions yesterday and today from the Leader of the Opposition, the Attorney General indicated that Mr. Cote had requested that the documents be retrieved — I guess it's the best way of putting it in a way that doesn't incite debate. Just so there is no misunderstanding, Mr. Speaker: at the time Mr.

Cote made the request, was there any suggestion by that gentleman, as the solicitor for the government of Alberta, that there had been a proposal by the counsel for the Metis settlements that there be a joint review of the files so that we would not have had to get into this situation of last Monday? MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, that is the point upon which I felt it necessary to seek some further informa tion, and since yesterday I've managed to get the information about what happened that I've offered to hon. members.

But as to the existence of a specific offer prior to whatever date it was that the government's documents were brought to Edmonton from the various settlements, I'm just not sure enough to pro vide that answer today. I do want to make further inquiries, and will do so. MR. R. SPEAKER: A supplementary to the Attorney General, for clarification. The directives and the proce dures by which the documents were taken from the Metis settlement offices a week ago last Monday are the direct responsibility of the Minister of Social Services and Community Health and, in turn, certainly his staff. Is that correct? MR.

CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is asking me to interpret the result rather than to try to give him what I understand to be the facts of the case. All I can do is repeat that my understanding is that Mr. Cote asked for the documents in order that he could see them prior to the examinations for discovery; and having done that, officials of the Department of Social Services and Community Health procured them. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to pose another supplementary question to the Premier.

I raise the question in light of the answers given in the House today by the Attorney General, that in fact the operative portion of this letter of September 9, 1977, is not in effect, in keeping with what the Attorney General said today. My question to the Premier is: has a second letter or correspondence been sent to Mr. Cote redefining his role in keeping with what the Attorney General said this afternoon, and could a copy of the letter be tabled in the Assembly? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, the original letter was sent under the instructions of the Attorney General at the time.

If there are any subsequent instructions with regard to that matter, it would be only the Attorney General who could respond. So I'd refer it to him. MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. leader would refer to the transcript of the answers I've already given today, when available to him, I think what has transpired since the letter of September 9, 1977, is very, very consistent with what was outlined in the letter. The Attorney General did indeed instruct Mr. Cote, as mentioned in the Premier's letter of September 9, 1977.

I added, though, that some of the instructions may well have been either a conversation or a follow-up conversation to a written instruction, but that I was satisfied that any instruction of consequence would have been given in writing. But the important

part is that it was relating to the area I've described, where Mr. Cote in accordance with his responsibilities in the case would be bound to give, as he was asked by the Attorney General of the day to give, legal advice in regard to various proposals. The letter refers to requests, negotiations, and projects of the type I've described. I suppose one other thing might be said. I would acknowledge that it's possible — indeed, it may ap proach being likely — that the instructions Mr.

Cote acted under in the first instance encompassed a wider range than the subsequent eventualities showed; and that although he was consulted when necessary, any impression that he was consulted generally, or con

552 ALBERTA HANSARD June 26, 1979 sulted in regard to policy or administrative matters as distinct from legal opinions, wouldn't be accurate. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, one further question. I pose the question to the Premier and the Minister of Social Services and Community Health, and ask either of the hon. gentlemen if they've met with Mr. Cote since this matter was first raised in the Assembly last week. MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, I certainly would not be meeting with Mr. Cote as a solicitor under the instructions of the Attorney General.

I'd have to refer the question to the Minister of Social Services and Community Health. MR. BOGLE: As I indicated in the House yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I have not met with the solicitor, who is acting for the government through the Attorney General's Department. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Attor ney General a further supplementary question. Was there was any correspondence to the president of the Metis settlements association, after the letter by the Premier dated September 1977, which would clarify the position of Mr.

Cote, in view of the wording of the Premier's letter which is somewhat broader than the narrower definition the Attorney General put on the responsibilities of Mr. Cote this afternoon? My question is whether or not there was any formal correspondence with the settlements association subsequent to the letter from the Premier. MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, I would think it unusual if there hadn't been letters on specific items; for example, the type of proposed contract that was made the subject of a communication to Mr. Cote and to which he replied.

He may in some cases have replied, or Department of the Attorney General people may have replied, directly to the Metis settlement associa tion. But I am assuming that virtually all such communications would be made by solicitors of the Attorney General's Department and not by Mr. Cote. The hon. member's question included whether or not any subsequent communication was provided by way of further clarification. I'm not aware of any, but I think that some correspondence, which of course would be given the

interpretation that its words should have it be given, undoubtedly followed at some time. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a further supplementary question for clarification. The Attorney General has defined the responsibilities of Mr. Cote more narrowly than the Premier's letter of September 1977 implies. What steps did the government of Alberta take, either through legal counsel for the settlements association or directly to the president of the settlements associa tion, to clear the deck as far as the responsibilities of Mr. Cote are involved? The Attorney General talked about discussions that took place.

Were there any discussions with the presi dent of the settlements association, so that any misun derstanding he might have from the letter of Septem ber 1977 would be overcome? MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, discussions specifical ly for the purpose described in the hon. member's question — I don't know the answer. I'd be glad to take that as notice. I should say, though, that it would be remarkable if during this period the parties didn't talk to each other about the very items Mr. Cote was looking at.

Un doubtedly in the course of those discussions some clari fication was effected as to whether or not the issue was of a type that Mr. Cote had to see according to his instructions from my predecessor. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a further supplementary question to the hon. Attorney General. MR. SPEAKER: Followed by a final supplementary by the hon. Leader of the Opposition. MR. NOTLEY: My question really relates to the in structions of either the hon. Premier or the Attorney General, because it was the hon.

Premier who wrote the letter of September 1977, and if there was any ambigui ty in that letter it was really the responsibility of the political leadership of this province to clear up that ambiguity. My question relates not to the discussion between lawyers — although the hon. Attorney Gener al has answered that — but whether there was any follow-up by either the Attorney General at the time or the Premier. MR. CRAWFORD: Mr.

Speaker, I suggest that the passage of time is one of the features that should be looked at here, and that the original communication and the present situation are consistent in respect to Mr. Cote's role, in that undoubtedly some discussion and some minimum amount of correspondence would have taken place that would make it clear to both sides what Mr. Cote really should see, according to his instructions from the Attorney General.

To answer the hon. member's question, again I would think it most unlikely that a further communi cation went to the settlements in any other way than I've described: in occasional correspondence and discus sions on individual approaches. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, then I direct a question to the Premier. In keeping with that letter, are the Metis still expected to route their requests through Mr. Cote or through the hon. minister? Was he correct in saying that the approach should be through his de partment, as he indicated in his estimates last night? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr.

Speaker, I think the Minister of Social Services and Community Health and the Attor ney General have already given the answers to that question as to what the present situation pertains. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, to the Premier. Surely the Premier . . . Point of Order MR. SPEAKER: I regret interrupting the hon. Leader of the Opposition. I think it has been demonstrably clear that for more than a week past there has been most exceptionally broad latitude in regard to this topic. We have now had eight supplementary questions by the hon.

Leader of the Opposition and five other supplementaries, mak ing a total of 13 in addition to the original question.

June 26, 1979 ALBERTA HANSARD 553 Some nine other members are waiting to ask their first question, and the question period is just about half over. I must therefore ask the hon. Leader of the Opposi tion to make this the last supplementary. But of course if there's further time at the end of the question period when the other members have been recognized, we can come back to the topic. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, with the greatest re spect, sir, speaking on a point of order. We see this as a matter of extreme importance.

I would refer to the RCMP break-ins which took place and the discussion in the House of Commons from June 7 to July 11, 1977. On 17 of the 23 days that the federal House of Commons was in session at that time, some 44 different questions were asked. On June 20 the whole question period was taken; on the 21st, 22nd, and 23rd over half the question period was taken. With great respect, sir, on no occasion did the Speaker of the House of Commons attempt to stop the opposition from asking those questions. I raise that matter, Mr. Speaker, for your very serious and earnest consideration.

We view this as a matter of extreme importance. With great respect, sir, this isn't the first occasion on which you have attempted to have the question period move on. I would like you very seriously to look at the precedent in the House of Commons. It dealt with RCMP break-ins in both Montreal and Toronto. On those days the members of the opposition, as I've indicated, spent a great portion of the time — several days more than a third of the time, one day all the time — on the matter.

I think that's a comparable situation to this, sir. [interjections] It's for that reason that I think the situation should be allowed to continue. DR. HORNER: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is obviously trying to tie this to some RCMP break-ins . . . SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh. DR. HORNER: . . . and to create some sort of nonsens ical atmosphere, which is not correct. There is no similarity at all between the two. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. R. CLARK: With all due respect to the Deputy Premier, he's just drawing a red herring across this whole thing.

What we're talking about, Mr. Speaker, is the opportunity for members of the Assembly, and especially the opposition, to raise in question period the matters they feel important. [interjections] MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Spirit River- Fairview on the point of order, followed by the hon. Minister of Education and the hon. Member for Ed monton Gold Bar. Then, having regard to the pre cious time in the question period, I would hope to deal with the point of order. Sorry, Edmonton Whitemud. I hope that was neither a promotion nor a demotion. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, speaking on the point of order.

Clearly the issue is whether or not members of this Assembly have the right to ask questions even though those questions may be on one topic for a considerable period of time, providing those topics meet the rules of this Legislature and are in a form that meets the rules set out in Beauchesne. But it seems to me that the number of questions in a particular area is really up to the individuals who ask the questions, and that there shouldn't be any form of — let me use the word advisedly — censorship by the Chair. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order. MR. NOTLEY: Mr.

Speaker, it's a question of whether or not the questions posed are in order. In my judgment, it's not up to the Chair to decide how many questions in a given area are accepted. We have the precedent of the questions in the House of Commons concerning the RCMP. While the Deputy Premier may not like the analogy, that's not the point. Certain members of this Assembly feel that the actions taken by the government are of sufficient importance that the questions have to be raised in the House during Oral Question Period.

In your assessment of this matter, sir, I would also refer you to two occasions in the House: in the fall of 1974, when every question but one dealt with the government's acquisition of Pacific Western Airlines; and in January 1975, when the hon. Premier returned from the Winnipeg conference to discuss the creation of Syncrude. Virtually all the questions on that occa sion, too, dealt quite properly with the Premier's report. I would say that it is essentially the right of members to raise questions. Whether or not they are in order is up to whether they meet the standards set out in Beauchesne. MR. KING: Mr.

Speaker, if I could speak to — I'm not sure it's a point of order which has been raised by the hon. members opposite — their comments. I think it is clear that the hon. members do not appreciate the significance of Annotation 171 and others in Beauchesne. I think that for any hon. member to read 171 would demonstrate manifestly that the hon. members do not understand the purpose of the question period and the limitations placed upon it through history in this House and in others.

I would argue that the analogy to the recent situation in the House of Commons is not apt, and that the hon. members have proven that point conclusively by their own action or inaction. The purpose of question period is to raise a limited number of well thought-out questions in order to gain information which can be used during the busi ness sessions of the parliament or legislature. That is why Oral Question Period has no status in our Stand ing Orders or in our annotations.

If the hon. members opposite seriously believe this question is as important as they suggest, they could take the same course of action taken by members in the House of Commons in Ottawa. For example, they could move to adjourn in order to debate a matter of urgent public importance. They could put a resolution on the Order Paper in order to direct the government or the Assembly to take a certain action; for example, the creation of a royal commission. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that in eight days the members have not done anything definitive or

554 ALBERTA HANSARD June 26, 1979 distinctive with the information that has been provided to them in question period . . . [interjection] MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Order please. The hon. member is discussing a point of order. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, I say that he is not bringing up a point of order. MR. SPEAKER: If we're going to have points of order on points of order, in the well-known analogy of the fleas, we're not going to conclude this matter. MR. KING: Mr.

Speaker, the point is still that question period is an informal structure designed to provide information which, if viewed with sufficient impor tance, will be used in the formal structures of the Assembly. In six days before this House, the hon. members have not taken any of the information pro vided in question period to move to a formal part of our proceedings. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that that is conclusive proof that they are not interested in the issue itself, but rather in . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh. DR. BUCK: You better resign, King. MR.

SPEAKER: The hon. minister is not entitled to impute motives to the hon. members of the opposition. MR. KING: The Speaker is absolutely correct; I'm not entitled to impute motives. So I will not express to the House as a fact what others might take to be only firm opinion. I would like to conclude with this point, if I may.

To have used the question period in this way infringes on the privileges of other members interested in asking questions on other subjects, which when answered will provide them with information they can use in the formal proceedings of the House: estimates, debate on resolutions, debate on public bills, and debate on bills other than government bills. I suggest that all mem bers of the House, not only you yourself, Mr. Speaker, must be concerned that questions have been asked to no end, and by virtue of taking up the question period in that way have impinged on the privileges of all other members of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Under the circumstances, in view of what has already been said, might I respectfully ask that if the hon. Member for Edmonton Whitemud wishes to continue the discussion of the point of order, he might be somewhat brief. MR. KNAAK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think my point has been almost completely made. I believe I'm the only MLA speaking up for the group of MLAs on the government side not being asked questions. I think it's easy for the opposition to say, we the opposition are entitled.

They have to remember they're four people, and certainly a lot of us on the govern ment side would like to ask our questions. It's only been a custom of this House . . . DR. BUCK: That's what you have caucus for. MR. KNAAK: It's only been a custom of this House to permit the Leader of the Opposition two initial ques tions. Surely the purpose of the two initial questions is not to dominate the question period to the exclusion of the rest of us on the government side who also have questions to ask. MR.

SPEAKER: The references to the two occasions in the past when I believe the entire question period was devoted to one topic are really not in any way trouble some in connection with this incident, because as I recall there was obviously an indication by the House generally that it wished to pursue that line of ques tioning.

I haven't had an opportunity to read Hansard of those two occasions, but I believe I can remember that there were no instances of one member's asking one question, with eight supplementaries by that same member, and possibly five or more supplementaries by other members on precisely that same topic. There is a custom in this Assembly, for which I'm perhaps responsible — although it wasn't original; it was copied from another parliament — for the hon. Leader of the Opposition to receive the acknowledge ment of the Chair for his first two questions.

Certainly I must respect the hon. leader's views as to which topics he considers important. But the matter of devoting a whole question period to one topic that may be chosen by the hon. Leader of the Opposition, when other members may consider other topics important as well, is something else. With regard to the precedent in Ottawa, I am not able to say at the moment just how much unanimity there was on the part of the members for devoting the entire question period to one topic.

There is also an implication, which perhaps should be mentioned in passing, that the topic then dealt with breaches of the criminal law. I would be very hesitant, on the basis of the information that has been sought and given in the Assembly here on this topic, that this topic would have that kind of importance, howsoever important it may be to those involved and to the hon. members of the opposition. With regard to the submission by the hon.

Member for Spirit River-Fairview, I would respectfully recall to his memory a statement which I thought might be helpful when I made it the other day: that the number of supplementaries is always at the discretion of the Chair. I must say that I have been more troubled by the possibility of being unfair to those members who may not be reached or whose questions may not be dealt with, than I have been about the latitude which has been accorded in this topic.

I think it's quite without precedent, certainly in my memory in this Chair, and it has gone way beyond the extent that we normally have in effect here with regard to supplementaries. I must also say that if we have regard to Citation 171 of Beauchesne, which incidentally is repeated in the Fifth Edition, I have a notion that the author of that book may now be turning in his grave. Hospital Fees MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct to the hon. Premier a question with respect to statements at tributed to the hon. Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care concerning the possibility of a hospital users' fee

June 26, 1979 ALBERTA HANSARD 555 of $10 a day. Does this tax on the sick represent an official policy of the government of Alberta, or is it a kite being flown by the minister? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, it has not been dis cussed in Executive Council, but if the hon. Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care would care to respond or elaborate, I'm sure we'd all be interested in listening. MR. RUSSELL: I certainly welcome the question, Mr.

Speaker, because as a result of news coverage today I think the question deserves some elaboration on com ments raised during discussion of the department's es timates yesterday. I think all members in the House recall that during the exchange of questions and answers, we asked the rhetorical question as to the ongoing autonomy of local hospital boards, whether or not they ought to be elected, and whether some method of additional finan cial options ought to be made available to hospital boards throughout the province. It's an important question.

I concluded my remarks by suggesting there could be a return to the system of hospital boards levying a charge on the local property tax, a system removed some years ago by this government, or by going to the concept of a users' fee. Those remarks were made in the House, and I made them as rhetorical questions. In interviews with the press outside the House, a very charming reporter from the Edmonton Journal got me to give my opinion on what I thought was a reasonable daily charge. I suggested $10 per day, a figure that had been put to me by some members of some hospital boards throughout Alberta.

It's not a kite; it's a balloon that's been put up. [laughter] I think during the next year, when ideas, response, and reaction to that come back, it'll help all members in the House reach a wise conclusion to that problem in front of us, MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. minister. In view of the proposal of a users' fee of perhaps $10 a day, is it the government's assess ment that in fact there is overutilization of hospitals in this province, that Albertans are spending too much time in hospitals? MR. RUSSELL: Mr.

Speaker, that's another important aspect, because yesterday I also mentioned the formal conclusion to the matter of getting the utilization committee to work. I mentioned the appointment of the chairman, Mr. Dalby. He expects to commence work within a week and to report within a year. We will have a reliable answer to that very important question. Telecommunications — Shared Lines MR. D. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the hon. Associate Minister of Telephones.

It is with respect to a recent ruling by the Canadian Radio- television and Telecommunications Commission which allows a separate company to use the transmission lines of Bell Telephone. Can the hon. associate minister tell this House what the effects of that ruling would be on Alberta Government Telephones if the same company or another applied for the same privilege? DR. WEBBER: Mr. Speaker, the question the hon.

Member for Calgary Currie brings up was related to the CRTC decision of several weeks ago which allowed CN/CP, a competitor of the Bell system and of the TransCanada Telephone System and members thereof, to interconnect with the Bell system for the purpose of transmitting certain messages. The implications of that decision for AGT were made at the hearing by AGT and other telephone companies. At that time it was estimated there could be a loss of annual revenues of $5 million to $7 million, if I remember correctly.

However, in making their deci sion the CRTC indicated that they thought the re venue losses would be much less than that. In any case, AGT as well as all members of the TransCanada Telephone System have made representation to the fed eral cabinet for an appeal of the decision. MR. D. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. associate minister.

Is the minister informing this House that we could lose between $5 million and $7 million in revenue if CN/CP Telecom munications applies for that privilege, and that those costs would therefore be passed on to telephone users of the province of Alberta? DR. WEBBER: Mr. Speaker, it's very difficult to put a figure on possible losses of revenue. Previous ex perience in the United States has indicated this diffi culty. However, I think it can be said that when systems interconnection takes place, long-distance toll revenue is taken from the telephone system, which has to made up by local rates.

I think it would be fair to say that local subscribers could probably have rates increased. MR. D. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, a final supplemen tary question. Can the hon. associate minister indicate if CN/CP Telecommunications has in fact made any moves to move into this system? If so, what steps is the associate minister taking besides the joint approach to the CRTC? DR. WEBBER: The joint approach the hon. member is referring to is by members of the TransCanada Tele phone System. At the moment I'm not aware that any governments in the country have made any appeal to the federal cabinet or even to the courts.

We are assessing the situation in Alberta. In the next few days I'll be meeting representatives from CN/CP who've asked to meet with me. Also, I've just returned from a conference dealing with the question of mo nopoly and competition in telecommunications, and I met with different parties affected by the decision. At that meeting I indicated willingness to discuss the matter with anyone who wanted to discuss it. As a result, I'll be meeting with some CN/CP people this week. MR. SPEAKER: We've run out time for the question period, but I've already recognized the hon. Member for Vermilion-Viking.

If the House agrees perhaps we might . . . HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. Prince Rupert Terminal MR. LYSONS: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the

556 ALBERTA HANSARD June 26, 1979 Minister of Economic Development. It relates to grain transportation and grain handling; in particular, the port at Prince Rupert. I wonder if the minister has anything to advise the House as to how the consortium is making out with their project and what our chances are. DR. HORNER: Mr. Speaker, the consortium has now had an opportunity to meet with the new federal Minis ter of Transport. My reports on that meeting are very positive.

I've also written to the new Minister of Trans port in Ottawa outlining the stages, as we saw them, relative to the port of Prince Rupert and indicating to him that our offer of financing was still available, and that we would act quickly once the consortium and the federal government could agree on the infrastructure costs relative to the site at Prince Rupert. Point of Order (continued) MR. SPEAKER: Just before concluding the question period, I wanted to share a couple of thoughts with the Assembly, which I overlooked as I was speaking a moment ago and perhaps should mention.

One deals with the point raised by the hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview, that it isn't the member or two who happen to get in the first questions who determine the number of supplementaries which may be asked. That is a duty which falls squarely on the Chair, and of course should be exercised having re gard to fairness. The other point I had intended to make was that having recognized and followed the custom of the hon.

Leader of the Opposition asking the first two questions, it would seem to be extreme if, by the choice of one of those questions, the whole allocation of the 45-minute question period could be determined regard less of what other members in the House might think. ORDERS OF THE DAY head: WRITTEN QUESTIONS MR. HORSMAN: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise that Question [110] on the Order Paper is acceptable to the government. head: MOTIONS FOR RETURNS 108. Mr. R. Clark moved that an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing: (1) the annual remuneration received by W.S.

Layerty in the position of director, Pacific/Asia sector, trade development branch, business development division, Department of Business Development and Tourism (now development and trade divi sion, Department of Economic Development); (2) copies of all expense accounts approved in the above name for travel outside Alberta. [Motion carried] head: GOVERNMENT DESIGNATED BUSINESS head: GOVERNMENT MOTIONS 13. Moved by Mr. Crawford:

Be it resolved that (1) a select committee of this Assembly be established to carry out a review of the policies and legislation which guide and control the recreational and com mercial fishing industries in Alberta and in particu lar with instructions to: (

a) review ways of maximizing returns to Alber ta commercial fishermen, including changes in the licensing system; (

b) review the agreement between Alberta and Canada respecting the Freshwater Fish Mar keting Corporation, with a view to assessing the benefits to Alberta fishermen and recom mending alternatives to the agreement which would increase benefits; (

c) examine the potential market in the province for Alberta-produced freshwater fish and the extent to which this market is being satisfied by present marketing policies; (

d) review the recreational fishing demands in the province, the extent to which these de mands are being met, and recommend ways of improving recreational fishing, specifi cally in regard to: (

a) fish stocking (

b) fish habitat development and improvement (

c) fish hatcheries and rearing stations; (

e) examine the potential production of under utilized species such as suckers, burbot, and tullibee, and the prospect for harvesting and marketing those species for commercial fishermen; (

f) make such recommendations as necessary to realize the objectives of increasing benefits to both recreational and commercial fishermen; (2) the committee consist of the following members: G. Topolnisky, chairman; E. Isley, N. Weiss, S. Cripps, N. Pengelly, A. Hyland, and R. Speaker; (3) members of the committee receive remuneration in accordance with

Section 59(1) of The Legislative Assembly Act; and (4) reasonable disbursements by the committee for cler ical assistance, equipment and supplies, advertis ing, rent and other facilities required for the effec tive conduct of its responsibilities be paid, subject to the approval of the chairman. MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, I move Government Motion No. 13, calling for the selection of a select committee of the Assembly in regard to a review of policies and legislation with general reference to fish ing, both from recreational and commercial viewpoints. I want to be brief in speaking to this motion, Mr. Speaker.

I think some other members perhaps have a more direct input into the issue. I simply want to say that in my view it's a unique and valuable initiative by government at the present time to take a special look, which perhaps has not been taken before, in any event not recently, into an area so meaningful both to sport smen and to people in business, primarily in smaller communities in Alberta; and, at the same time, to be

June 26, 1979 ALBERTA HANSARD 557 able to look at opportunities for change in policy on the part of government in respect of those important issues. I would urge all hon. members not only to support the motion, but to take a real interest in the deliberations of the select committee chaired by the hon. Member for Redwater-Andrew. MR. MILLER: Mr. Speaker, I would urge all members to support this motion, because I feel that in Alberta we have a sleeping giant in the fishing industry that we've never paid proper attention to developing, both from commercial and from tourist standpoints.

We do have some hatching and brooding facilities. However, there is need for a greater supply of fish to stock our streams and dugouts and to promote the commercial industry, both marketing fresh fish and to see if we can't establish some sort of market for rough fish. We have an excellent committee of a broad

section of members of the Legislature, who I know will do an excellent job reviewing the fishing industry. I urge all members of the Legislature to support the estab lishment of this committee. MR. APPLEBY: Mr. Speaker, just a brief word about this motion. Certainly I'm in favor of this committee's being set up and placed in action. The hon. Associate Minister of Public Lands and Wildlife momentarily referred to

Section (e), about rough fish. I think there's a very great potential market for this type of industry. However, I would like to emphasize that I feel the commercial fishing industry in the province has been stifled over the last few years by the freshwater fish marketing board. I hope that as this committee is set up and investigates the various aspects of the commer cial fishing industry in the province of Alberta, it will give careful consideration to the alternatives to market ing our fish, without utilizing the freshwater fish marketing board. Thank you. DR. McCRIMMON: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to say a few words in support of this resolution, particularly with respect to commercial fish marketing in the prov ince of Alberta. With respect to my department, a good number of people involved in commercial fishing in the province are native people: the Metis and treaty Indians of the province. I think that only a portion of the commercial potential of fishing in this province has been utilized over the past number of years.

We seem to have been more or less hamstrung, due to the fact that a good many of the decisions with respect to commercial fishing in the province of Alberta come from Winnipeg and that export marketing has to be okayed by the Fish Marketing Corporation. We can't make our own arrangements and deals as to exporting our own fish, or even using them commercially in our Alberta market. Mr. Speaker, I feel it's high time the whole aspect was looked at thoroughly. I'm much in favor of the resolution and hope that all members will support it. MRS. CHICHAK: Mr. Speaker, if I may make just a few very brief comments.

I believe I recall that back in 1973 we had a debate in the Legislature covering the breadth of the need for a move on the development of and assistance for fish farming and for sport. I wel come the decision that I hope we will make today on appointing the committee, so that we might move rather quickly in the area of this whole future of fish marketing and sport. I would like to emphasize the comments the hon.

Member for Ponoka made on being able to market and make some decisions here in the province relative to our situation, rather than decisions being made by a board which perhaps has neither knowledge nor very much interest in what is happening or what the needs are in this province. So I certainly hope we will all support this motion. [Motion carried] MR. CRAWFORD: Mr.

Speaker, just before moving that you leave the Chair in order to consider Bills in committee, I would like to note that the sponsoring members would like to have some opportunity to amend three Bills, in each case in a very brief way, and would therefore have the need to take them back to committee from third reading, where they stand at the present time.

Asking for hon. members' consent in that regard, I move that Bill No. 18, The Local Authorities Board Amendment Act, amendment number two; Bill No. 20, The Department of Tourism and Small Busi ness Act; and Bill No. 9, The Public Lands Amendment Act, 1979, revert to Committee of the Whole. [Motion carried] [On motion, the Assembly resolved itself into Commit tee of the Whole] head: GOVERNMENT BILLS AND ORDERS (Committee of the Whole) [Mr. Appleby in the Chair] MR. CHAIRMAN: The Committee of the Whole As sembly will please come to order. Bill 6 The Fuel Oil Administration Amendment Act, 1979 MR.

GOGO: Further to second reading, Mr. Chair man, I'd like to make a couple of comments about how important Bill 6, The Fuel Oil Administration Amendment Act, 1979, is. In the budget speech, we heard the many positive steps being taken by the government to assist small business in Alberta.

I think this is another move which is extremely significant, when we consider that Alberta alone, of the four western provinces, has now removed all taxes on aviation fuel compared to Manitoba at 5 cents a gallon; Saskatchewan, which some members believe is the pacesetter for parts of Canada, is now the highest in Canada at 6 cents, British Columbia at 5 cents. Certainly it will . . . DR. BUCK: You need the money, John. MR. R. SPEAKER: We're going to have user fees, too. MR. GOGO: Certainly it will help those . . . DR. BUCK: Ten dollars a day for hospital beds, John.

558 ALBERTA HANSARD June 26, 1979 MR. GOGO: Certainly, Mr. Chairman . . . MR. R. SPEAKER: They'll take it out of one pocket and [inaudible]. AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, you guys, leave him alone. AN HON. MEMBER: Carry on John, carry on. MR. GOGO: You know, Mr. Chairman, I happen to represent a constituency that is home to Time Air. Other members here ride on it very frequently, and I don't think it would be out of line if they chose an opportunity during committee stage to make some comments in support of that air line. I think that would be in order. DR. BUCK: Talk to Horner in caucus. MR. GOGO: Mr.

Chairman, we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that although Time Air is the third largest commuter air line in the province, the other air lines such as Gateway, Eldorado, and Wapiti are extremely significant in transporting Albertans around the prov ince to connect with the major air lines. Comments were made the other day — I don't know how they crept in — that in some people's minds Pacific Western Airlines was serving to the detriment. I suggest they all fit together in the transporting of goods and services, as well as people, throughout Alberta and adjacent provinces. Mr.

Chairman, I would certainly urge members to support Bill No. 6. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Chairman, just a couple of com ments. First of all, as I mentioned in second reading, I intend to support this piece of legislation. It will be of some assistance. I think I mentioned in second reading that in talking to officials of Time Air, my understand ing is that the approximate benefit will be about $3,000 a month or $36,000 to Time Air, Mr. Member.

While that's helpful, and as a consequence certainly members should support it, I don't think we should be jumping up and down and concluding that we have solved all the problems of the third-level carriers. As a matter of fact, I suggest to the hon. Member for Lethbridge West, the sponsor of this Bill, that with the decision it made the other day concerning the applica tion of Pacific Western Airlines to service the Leth bridge market, perhaps the CTC has done a good deal more to ensure the continuation of Time Air.

Similarly, while one can't prejudge the decision with respect to Cold Lake, there's no doubt in my mind that if Gateway is going to continue operation, PWA cannot be allowed into that Cold Lake market. If PWA does, it's only a matter of time before a carrier is in very serious trouble. Mr.

Chairman, while the benefits of this particular Bill will be important, what would be even more useful to the third-level carriers probably would be a pretty clear indication of government policy to Pacific West ern Airlines, which after all is a completely Crown- owned air line, that we're going to get into the regional carrier business in a big way.

We've taken over Transair, we'll improve our routes to Regina, Saskatoon, and Winnipeg, and we'll attempt to com pete with Canadian Pacific on the Whitehorse run — I think that's a very important one for PWA to try to follow up — but we'll stay out of competition with Gateway on the run to Cold Lake. We will accept with good will the decision of the CTC, which was a very wise one, and will allow the continued operation and gradual expansion of Time Air which, I happen to agree with the hon.

Member for Lethbridge West, is an excellent air line which many of us travel on frequently, is doing a good job and, as a consequence of the CTC slapping down PWA, will continue to do an even better job in the future. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any further comments, questions, or amendments? DR. BUCK: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to say a few words on this Bill, in that it's an opportunity for the Provincial Treasurer to look at some of the areas that cause problems with purple fuel, the taxed fuel.

When the regulations were brought in, I'm sure we didn't expect to have problems with people getting fined for putting purple fuel in their lawn mowers and outboard motors, but that is what has happened. I would like to know if the Provincial Treasurer would look at getting rid of that nuisance tax. That's about all it is: a nuisance tax that causes a lot of people to get upset, and really very little revenue is generated.

I would like the Provincial Treasurer to look at that area and, secondly, to delineate clearly the people who are near-agricultural, those areas that are not really agri cultural but still are growing agricultural products. In one instance, are the people in the business of raising turf or instant lawn eligible to use marked fuels? I think it would save a lot of people a lot of anxiety if these two areas were clearly laid out. Those are the only comments I'd like to make in that section, Mr. Chairman. MR. R. SPEAKER: In speaking to the Bill, Mr.

Chairman, first of all I agree with the principle of the Bill and the process of enacting the policy behind the Bill. I've always said that in helping small business or industry in Alberta, we shouldn't go the route of subsidizing or giving large grants to the industry. If you subsidize them through a lower fuel cost, lower input costs, you do not create an artificial situation in the small business world or the private sector Certainly this Bill encompasses that type of philosophy, as I see it. On that basis, I support the Bill and certainly appreciate the government's bringing in this kind of legislation.

When we look at the specific effects of the Bill, I think the small air lines of Alberta will be assisted. Certainly I hope they continue to flourish across the province. In raising comments, my concern is the in fluence PWA, a government-owned air line, can have on the small, private air lines of Alberta. I have indicat ed in various ways to the member who introduced this Bill that it should be incumbent upon him, a repre sentative of the Lethbridge area where the Time Air head office is located, to be a strong supporter of a small air line. I wasn't sure just where the member sat on an issue such as this.

Does he want PWA to come in? Does he want Time Air to continue in Lethbridge? Should Time Air be relegated to a secondary place where profits may be low, but it picks up the loose ends to make PWA look good to come into Lethbridge? Those are the kinds of things that are raised in my

June 26, 1979 ALBERTA HANSARD 559 mind. I'd want the member to speak up and state his position as a member from Lethbridge. DR. BUCK: Right in the middle of the fence. MR. R. SPEAKER: I think I raised that in the Assem bly the other day. But there is no doubt about where I stand, Mr. Chairman. Time Air should be supported, and we should keep the government air lines out of Lethbridge. Because if we continue to support Time Air, maybe through growth Time Air will be able to meet the need for more luxurious service people in Lethbridge are asking for. We have to give it time to do just that thing.

Even in light of those comments, Mr. Chairman, I support the legislation. DR. C. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I rise to support this Bill. I hope we don't lose sight of the fact that this Bill doesn't apply only to Time Air. Not only will this Bill help them, it will help the private flier in Alberta. The government of Alberta has gone to an extensive program of airport development. Taking off this fuel tax will help to supplement that and to encourage the private aircraft industry and flier in our province.

This reduction in taxation on the fuel will increase the effi ciency of the use of aviation fuel in the province. I wholly support the Bill. Thank you. DR. BUCK: Mr. Chairman, speaking on the Bill and bringing another area of concern to the sponsor and the Provincial Treasurer; that is, the utilization of purple fuel in school buses. This is exactly the same parallel. If it's good enough for the air industry, it should be good enough for the school bus operators.

Some of the areas the school bus operators have to travel on — as the Minister of Education gets a little tighter with his purse strings, it becomes more diffi cult for school boards to pay higher rates for transpor tation. So, Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak on behalf of the private and the municipal school bus operators to see if this parallel type of legislation and amendment could not be brought in. If it's good for the small air lines and private airplanes, we should extend this to school buses. MR. KOZIAK: On that specific point, Mr. Chairman, the fuel tax on school buses was removed a year ago.

The matter the hon. member has raised has already been dealt with. MR. WEISS: Mr. Chairman, I would like to confirm what the hon. member just mentioned. If they were to incorporate such laws, it would cost the school bus operator more money. Because as it is now, they're eligible to apply for the 10 cent rebate, which is permissible. MR. BRADLEY: Mr. Chairman, the hon. Member for Clover Bar mentioned the removal of a nuisance tax. I wonder if he might just clarify that. Was he referring to the farm fuel allowance? MR. GOGO: Mr.

Chairman, if there are no more speakers, perhaps I could close debate by responding to the points raised by hon. members. First of all, with regard to the comments raised by the Member for Spirit River-Fairview, as one of the members from Lethbridge I certainly welcome his support of Time Air. He does make some comments relative to the enlightened decision of the CTC. I would simply comment that that happens to be his personal opinion and perhaps is not shared by others. He makes a comment about Pacific Western Airlines taking over control of Transair.

I think it should be pointed out, as has been mentioned before in this Assembly, that that was done at the request of the government of Canada to make western regional transportation a viability. I don't know whether the good judgment used by the CTC was good for the people of that community. The Member for Little Bow makes reference to the fact that any subsidy that helps small business is good. I would simply point out that no subsidy at all is involved in this matter; it's the removal of a tax. For some time there has been a 3 cent tax on aviation fuel, and that's being removed.

I wouldn't construe that as a subsidy. The member puts a question: do we want Time Air? Do we in this Legislature decide that, or do the people of Alberta decide that? What about the people of the Lethbridge community? Shouldn't they be deciding which air line? I would point out that the decision of the CTC, which I am happy with, is already being criticized for the absence of public hearings. I would suggest the Member for Little Bow would agree with me that our job is to do what the people want. In that light, I suppose it wouldn't be out of line for us to make a comment that there should be public hearings.

Perhaps the hon. member would want to comment about that. I think the Member for St. Paul made an extremely important point, the consideration of the removal of the tax for the small private operator. We as a govern ment have spent a considerable amount of money in putting airports throughout Alberta to assist Alber tans in getting around this province. I think remov ing this tax is another indication to perhaps justify some of the airport expansion. In closing debate, Mr. Chairman, I would hope I've answered all the questions, and again I would ask for members' support. [Title and

preamble agreed to] MR. GOGO: Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill 6, The Fuel Oil Administration Amendment Act, 1979, be reported. [Motion carried] Bill 11 The Alberta Income Tax Amendment Act, 1979 MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any questions, comments, or amendments? [Title and

preamble agreed to] MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Chairman, I move the Bill be reported. [Motion carried]

560 ALBERTA HANSARD June 26, 1979 Bill 13 The Workers' Compensation Amendment Act, 1979 MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any questions, comments, or amendments? [Title and

preamble agreed to] MR. DIACHUK: Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 13, The Workers' Compensation Amendment Act, 1979, be reported. [Motion carried] Bill 16 The Calgary-Canadian Pacific Transit Agreement Act MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any questions, comments, or amendments? [Title and

preamble agreed to] MR. LITTLE: Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 16, The Calgary-Canadian Pacific Transit Agreement Act, be reported. [Motion carried] Bill 21 The Municipal Debt Reduction Act MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any comments, questions, or amendments? MR. MOORE: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to say very briefly that our target outlined on second reading for payment of something in the order of $1 billion to municipalities is on schedule. Because of population counts we've had some difficulty in certain areas in determining the exact amount, but we think most of those are now resolved.

If the Legislature can approve this legislation prior to July 1, it remains our intention to provide the funds on August 1 of this year. In addition to the comments made earlier, Mr. Chairman, I can say that of the approximately $1 billion, something in the order of $350 million will be provided directly to municipalities for their own use. The balance of some $650 million, together with interest accumulated since April 1 of this year, will be provided by way of the Provincial Treas urer's office to repay outstanding debentures.

The municipalities will not actually see that money but, as I understand it, will receive notification that those deben tures have been fully repaid together with the accumu lated interest. I urge all hon. members to support this very impor tant piece of legislation, Mr. Chairman, and say to members as well that if members encounter any diffi culties in terms of their individual municipalities, feel free to contact my office with respect to any concerns they might have. I'm sure we can deal with those as expeditiously and quickly as you would like us to. Thank you. MRS. LeMESSURIER: Mr.

Chairman, may I revert to introductions? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. head: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS (reversion) MRS. LeMESSURIER: Mr. Chairman, it's my pleasure to introduce to you, and through you to the members of this Assembly, 47 members of Harmonic Calaxa Lavelle de Sorel, Quebec. They are here to help us celebrate Canada Week. They range in age from 16 to 65 and are seated in the public gallery. At this time I would ask them to rise and receive the welcome of this Assembly. head: GOVERNMENT BILLS AND ORDERS (Committee of the Whole) Bill 21 The Municipal Debt Reduction Act (continued) [Title and

preamble agreed to] MR. MOORE: Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 21, The Municipal Debt Reduction Act, be reported. [Motion carried] Bill 23 The Glenbow-Alberta Institute Amendment Act, 1979 MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any questions, comments, or amendments? MR. McCRAE: Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer a couple of words in support of this Bill. I think it is very timely to have a Bill drawing attention to the Glenbow museum. The incident I wanted to advert to, Mr.

Speaker, was the recent agreement between the provincial govern ment, the Glenbow institute, and the Devonian Foun dation for Glenbow's taking over the very important Devonian collection, which I believe has in excess of 100,000 paintings, artifacts, and other memorabilia that as it is merged into the Glenbow collection will become extremely important to the cultural community of all Alberta, particularly southern Alberta.

Members will recall that the Glenbow institute was first initiated some 12 or 15 years back by an agreement between the Harvie family and the then provincial government, where each put up $5 million whose in terest was to be used in displaying the Glenbow collec tion. Since that time there has been extremely rapid growth in the collection itself, in the costs, and in the public interest for the Glenbow institute. It is now housed in a building the province constructed a few years back and still owns.

The financial contribution by the province is sub stantially higher now than was anticipated, and of course with the merging of the two collections our commitment in the future is again much, much high er than would have been expected. I think it is a significant thing. It will expand our cultural oppor tunities in southern Alberta tremendously and is in fact a major acquisition for all Alberta.

June 26, 1979 ALBERTA HANSARD 561 I think in saying that I should pay a compliment to the Harvie family for their contribution to our life style, in terms of both cultural areas and the oil indus try, which is a first or second industry in this province. Of course their gifts have required us, the taxpayers and the government, to respond with a very generous contribution toward the operation of the museum, and our commitment will increase in the years ahead.

One of the components of their gift was the hope or the wish that we might be able to undertake a presentation or display of the material by what is termed a visible storage concept. That is extremely expensive, has minuses as well as pluses, and is under review by the Glenbow directors and staff at this time. If it goes ahead, it will be a tremendously costly thing for the government and needs a thorough evaluation before we commit to it. In indicating support for this very fine Bill, might I just pay my further respects and compliments to the volunteer board of the museum.

They are friends of all of us, have done a tremendous job in the past, and will have even greater responsibilities in the future to as sure not only public interest in the display but a greater display in terms of getting more of it out there on a rotational basis, so that more people will be encouraged to go and visit it. I think, Mr. Chairman, that the volunteer contribution, in terms of the direc torship at the museum, is reflected very, very much in the total Calgary community.

If I could take a moment, I would refer to the tremendous work being done by the volunteer sector in undertaking major private fund-raising for the per forming arts centre, which is to be matched by gov ernment dollars. Another good indication of the vol unteer efforts there, Mr. Chairman, is the Calgary Zoo. The oil industry has put up several million dollars toward a total restructuring of that tremendous facili ty. As I understand it, the new facility will exhibit a dinosaur park, which of course depicts and reflects the origin of oil, which is so important to our Alberta community.

Again, I simply want to salute the many, many volunteers in Calgary and in the total Alberta area for their contributions to our society. I hope all members will support this very fine Bill. [Title and

preamble agreed to] MRS. EMBURY: Mr. Chairman, I move that The Glenbow-Alberta Institute Amendment Act, 1979, be reported. [Motion carried] Bill 24 The Department of Economic Development Act MR. CHAIRMAN: There is an amendment. I believe all members have copies of it. Are there any comments, questions, or additions? DR. HORNER: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to indicate that the amendment strikes out a portion of a clause, allowing the clause to work better, according to my friends in the Treasury Department. They've asked for removal of that section. [Title and

preamble agreed to] DR. HORNER: Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill 24 as amended be reported. [Motion carried] Bill 25 The Landlord and Tenant Act, 1979 MR. CHAIRMAN: We also have an amendment for this Act. The amendment has been circulated to all hon. members. MR. KOZIAK: Mr. Chairman, if I could speak to the amendments, basically they are two. First, in the print ing of the Bill a phrase was left out which is necessary for proper understanding of that section. The second amendment corrects a reference to a

section number. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any further comments or questions on the amendment? Are you ready for the question on the amendment? MR. GOGO: Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask the minister if, since the introduction of Bill 25, he's had much response from either landlords or tenants in Alberta. MR. KOZIAK: Mr. Chairman, if I were to categorize the response I've received since the introduction of the Bill, I've had some response in terms of legal technical ities. But the majority of response has been from those you might categorize as landlords.

Probably about a dozen contacts were received at the office by telephone or mail. The concerns raised were with respect to the length of notice required to terminate a periodic tenancy: the change from the old system of one month to a three-month notice. However, their concerns were of course allayed when they were referred to other provisions of the Act which permitted a much shorter termination of a periodic tenancy in the event of sub stantial breach of a tenancy agreement. I gather the concerns were with respect to tenants who create problems for other tenants, tenants who do damage, things like that.

When the other

section was brought to their attention, I'd say their concerns were allayed in almost all cases. MR. GOGO: Mr. Chairman, another question. I think the minister said that the area they were concerned about would be, say, the security of tenure period: the time period to increase rent is 90 days, and the time to vacate premises is now also 90 days from 30. Is that substantially what the minister has just said? MR. KOZIAK: Except that I want to be perfectly clear in this respect: the 90 days is no longer 90 days with respect to termination of a tenancy. It's changed to three months.

That's one of the changes that took place between the 1978 Act and the 1979 Act, Bill 25, which we're discussing now. But yes, the major con cern was with respect to the length of security of tenure. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question on the amendment?

562 ALBERTA HANSARD June 26, 1979 MR. OMAN: Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure if I'm in order as far as the amendment is concerned. My ques tion to the minister, however, has to do with the length of time for condominium conversion, which I believe is 180 days. I wonder what the reason was behind the difference of notice of vacating in a regular rental and a condominium conversion situation. MR. KOZIAK: Mr. Chairman, a very interesting obser vation by the hon. member. First of all I should say that the Bill we are considering this afternoon is entitled The Landlord and Tenant Act, 1979.

It's neither the landlord Act nor the tenant Act. In those two positions you have conflicting and sometimes competing in terests. In this Bill we've attempted to handle those competing and conflicting interests and to provide as fair as possible a piece of legislation for consideration by this Legislature, and for dealing with relationships in the outside world between landlords and tenants. The security of tenure aspect was one of those that caused a great deal of interest and discussion in this Legislature, in caucus, and elsewhere.

The concern with respect to condominium conver sion, I gather, would be described in this fashion: when you're dealing with a solitary tenant the three- month period would be deemed appropriate. However, when you're dealing with an entire building, which may involve 60 or 90 or 100 suites, the disruption is such that it would probably be best for all concerned to have the longer period. Another aspect is that in a condominium conversion, I would think, the ultimate intention in most cases is sale by the landlord.

Tenants who have occupied prem ises for a considerable length of time may find them selves somewhat attached to the premises and, with the longer period of notice, might find themselves in a better position to be able to move to the next step of purchasing their unit. The longer period of notice provides that opportunity. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further questions or comments? [Title and

preamble agreed to] MR. KOZIAK: Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 25, The Landlord and Tenant Act, 1979, as amended be reported. [Motion carried] Bill 26 The Election Finances and Contributions Disclosure Amendment Act, 1979 MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any questions, comments, or amendments? [Title and

preamble agreed to] MR. McCRAE: Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill 26, The Election Finances and Contributions Disclosure Amendment Act, 1979, be reported. [Motion carried] Bill 27 The Research Council Amendment Act, 1979 MR. APPLEBY: Are there any comments, questions, or amendments? [Title and

preamble agreed to] DR. HORNER: Mr. Chairman, I move that The Re search Council Amendment Act, 1979, be reported. [Motion carried] Bill 28 The Assured Income for the Severely Handicapped Act MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any questions, comments, or amendments? MR. BOGLE: I just wanted to add some further infor mation, Mr. Chairman. In tabling the proposed regu lations yesterday, I indicated that Schedules 1 and 2 would not be ready to table in the House. However, I indicated that some additional information could be presented during the committee study, and I'm now prepared to do that.

As I indicated previously, there will not be an asset test, as there is with social allowance recipients. How ever, there will be an income test. Basically, Mr. Chairman, we're proposing that there be an exemption for a single person up to the first $1,200 of income earned during the year, and that any income above that be 25 per cent exempt. Therefore, the top cutoff level would be $6,978 for a single person. Looking at a couple, the base income figure would be $4,000, again going up to a total of $9,778. [Title and

preamble agreed to] MR. BOGLE: Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 28 be reported. [Motion carried] Bill 29 The Social Development Amendment Act, 1979 MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any questions, comments, or amendments? [Title and

preamble agreed to] MR. BOGLE: Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 29 be reported. [Motion carried] Bill 9 The Public Lands Amendment Act, 1979 MR. CHAIRMAN: There is an amendment to the original Bill, which passed through the committee before. Are there any questions or comments in connec tion with the amendment?

June 26, 1979 ALBERTA HANSARD 563 [Title and

preamble agreed to] MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, I would like to report Bill No. 9 as amended. [Motion carried] Bill 18 The Local Authorities Board Amendment Act, 1979 MR. CHAIRMAN: We have Bill No. 18 for reconsidera tion with two amendments. Is that correct? MR. MOORE: Mr. Chairman, just one amendment to Bill No. 18. I think it's before all hon. members. I'd like to provide a brief explanation. A

section in the existing Local Authorities Board Act has required for many years that a member on reaching the age of 65 cease to be a member of the board. I should say, Mr. Chairman, that it was an oversight to have left that clause in the Act when we brought in the original amendments. First of all, it is not necessary or desirable in this day and age, in my view, to require that someone retire at the age of 65 from a specific board of this nature. Those matters can be handled either under other legislation or, in the case of the Local Authorities Board, by terminating the appointment.

But in addition to that, I'd like to say that for the short duration of the Edmonton annexation hearings, we have under consideration a couple of individuals who in fact have attained the age of 65. It's necessary to provide this amendment so we might have freedom in selecting some pretty high-calibre people who may be beyond age 65. [Title and

preamble agreed to] MR. MOORE: Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 18, The Local Authorities Amendment Board Act, 1979, be reported as amended. [Motion carried] Bill 20 The Department of Tourism and Small Business Act MR. CHAIRMAN: We have back before us Bill No. 20, which also proceeded through committee, with an amendment. MR. ADAIR: Mr. Chairman, the amendment is exactly the same as the one we just put through a moment ago for Bill 24, The Department of Economic Devel opment Act. It relates to a clause that will make it consistent and will speed up the process relating to loan guarantees. [Title and

preamble agreed to] MR. ADAIR: Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill 20, The Department of Tourism and Small Business Act, be reported as amended. [Motion carried] MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Chairman, I move the commit tee rise, report progress, and beg leave to sit again. [Motion carried] [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] MR. APPLEBY: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole has had under consideration the following Bills and reports the following: nos. 6, 11, 13, 16, 21, 23, 26, 27, 28, and 29. The committee also reports the following Bills with some amendments: 24, 25, 9, 18, and 20. MR.

SPEAKER: Having heard the report, do you all agree? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. head: MOTIONS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT MOTIONS 207. Moved by Mr. Batiuk:

Be it resolved that this Assembly request the govern ment to consider the appropriation of money from the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund to finance water and sewage purification and distribution systems where present facilities are inadequate. MR. BATIUK: Mr. Speaker, this very important mo tion speaks very well for itself. However, I would like to stress several areas, because I believe water is one of the most important things. We cannot get along without it for any length of time. We must have a good supply of palatable water.

When our forefathers came to this country, before they built a home the very first thing they did was to find a well. When I look at the family farm I reside on, this is the third house in the last 77 years, but the well that was dug in 1902 is still there. It's still the same depth and still produces the same amount of water. As I mentioned, water is something you cannot go without for any length of time. You can probably get by without food for several days, but water is a must. It's true enough, as the old saying goes, that a camel can go for 12 days without water. But I'm sure nobody would care to be a camel.

Mr. Speaker, when we look at other sources, during my time I used wood and coal for burning and heat. Then we used fuel oil and propane. Now we have the opportunity of using natural gas. Water is different. It cannot be substituted by anything. You cannot put coal oil, propane, or fuel oil in the water lines. It has to be water. As I say, it's something we must have and must look forward to. A commitment of our political party in the early 1970s was that if we formed the government we would provide a trend to reverse the rural to urban shift.

I think I mentioned once before that I recall being a school board member back in '65. It was during the 1960s that the towns were getting smaller. Farm homes were being barred and people were leaving. I recall that in 1965 the Premier of that day said: nothing can be done; in 10 years 85 per cent of the population is going to be in the two metropolitan cities, and we have to accept it. However, I recall very well the Premier of today — at that time the Leader of

564 ALBERTA HANSARD June 26, 1979 the Opposition in 1970 — promised the people of Alberta that should his party form the government this trend would be reversed, and it was. When I look at communities throughout my constituency, every town and village has grown enormously. This is good. But along with growth there are problems. Sometimes we may consider them sweet problems. But they are prob lems of growth, and one is the lack of water.

When I look back 25 or 30 years, in every village and town there were three, four, or five wells in different places where people could go with their buckets and take a bucket or two. And that water would last them. But times have changed. For every glass of water you drink, I'm sure you let several gallons go down the sink to get fresh, clear water. Because of this, there is a necessity for much more water. It's the same in every village and town.

When we look at 136 towns and villages that provided water systems over the last eight years, there is no doubt that all these are going to be falling into the problem of water shortages. I don't want to dwell totally on the Vegreville con stituency, because this motion is to provide this system for all Alberta. But in my own constituency most communities have a water problem. Vegreville, one of our biggest communities, which has a population more than all the other towns and villages together, has its ups and downs.

I know hon. members remember that only five years ago the Vermilion River flooded its banks and caused millions of dollars' damage in the community of Vegreville. Many people had to be eva cuated from the hospital, the nursing home, the auxil iary hospital, and from their homes. The following two years they had a shortage of water because there wasn't much snow. The town of Vegreville had to pump water into the river from sloughs on the farms to be able to get water. I know the Department of Environment provided financial assistance to Vegre ville. It just shows that the Vermilion River cannot be relied on.

For those who don't know, the Vermilion River starts flowing 6 miles south of Holden. It was actually the first drainage ditch in the province, back in 1917. This is the water that forms the Vermilion River. People of the Holden area saw they had to do something because their land was flat and it used to flood. This drainage ditch started the Vermilion River. When we look at the present, on numerous occasions the town of Vegreville has suffered a shortage of water.

Now with its growth, with the environment centre saying they'll need at least one-third of the water the entire town is using, I can foresee a real problem. Also, a study of the Vermilion River was made several years ago. The study showed that at times the nitrate content in the water was 10 times more than was acceptable for human consumption. We go next to the town of Mundare, my home town. In the last 20 years I would say they have dug almost 20 wells within a radius of two or three miles of the town. True enough, the well water will suffice for a year or two.

Then the well goes dry, and they have to keep doing it. They have put a tremendous amount of money into finding wells. Go just a little further west. At one time the village of Chipman was a successful village. It had three garages, three implement agencies, a hardware, sever al grocery stores, and a bank. By 1970 there was only one store operating. There are no implement agencies. There was one garage, but fortunately there are two now. There still is no bank; there is a Treasury Branch. But the population of Chipman has doubled over the last four and a half years. It has reached 300 from 150.

The village is concerned, and has stopped development because they cannot produce water. They have been hauling water all the way from Bruderheim for almost a year. So they are in the worst condition of any. I must go on to mention the town of Lamont, which is not in my constituency. It's in the constituency of the hon. Member for Clover Bar. They too have a water problem, because the population of Lamont has dou bled in the last number of years. Fortunately, Bruder heim has a favorable amount of water at present. The quality is not the best.

But in a number of years they too, because of growth, will have to look forward to some water supplement. It's very worthy to note that Chipman and Lamont particularly get their water from Ross Creek, which runs for about two weeks in the spring. If it wasn't for the summer rains, Lamont would be without water. But they catch it through the creek that runs some 20 miles from Ross Creek. Mr. Speaker, the only benefit they have is that when the water reaches Lamont it's 'pasteurized'. It goes through 38 pastures. Hopefully the hon.

Member for Clover Bar will support this motion, even though a few days ago when he was questioning about the water in Cold Lake, I think I supplemented the question: whether he's ever asked about the water in Lamont, the town he represents. Because of conditions such as this, Mr. Speaker, on a number of occasions I asked the former Minister of Environment to consider the possibility of a pipeline distribution system. I think we were fortunate that he initiated a study which took a considerable amount of time, a good year and a half, but was successful.

Its recommendations showed that there is no alternative; within the next number of years, that will be the only source of water. I was sort of sorry to see the hon. Minister of Environment changed from one portfolio to another. I thought: he initiated a good program, let him have a chance to finish it. However, he was a good Minister of Municipal Affairs; he did a tremendous job. He did a tremendous job as Minister of Environment. His port folio requires a good man, and I'm sure he will do well there also.

I know time won't permit it, but I would like to mention a number of figures and items from the regional study. It says that even Fort Saskatchewan has experienced water shortages during peak demand. It requires water storage facilities in '79 and an addition al water line from Edmonton in 1980. The Edmonton Regional Utilities Study recommended connecting to a regional sewage treatment plant. Further down the line, Redwater receives its water from Edmonton too, but via Fort Saskatchewan. If Fort Saskatchewan has problems at times, Redwater is going to be the first to suffer.

It is down the line; it is going to be shut down without any water. It also mentions some problems. It says that the majority of municipalities do not have adequate local sources of water to accommodate projected growth. This is my biggest concern. As I said, towns and villages throughout the province have been growing, and this is holding back their future growth. As I mentioned, Chipman has stopped development because it cannot provide water. Hauling water is very

June 26, 1979 ALBERTA HANSARD 565 expensive. That study also shows that in Vegreville, Mundare, Chipman, Lamont, and Bruderheim, existing water supply sources will limit growth. If growth is not to be hampered, water supply from Edmonton via Fort Saskatchewan is the Edmonton Regional Utilities Study recommendation. As I mentioned, Mr. Speaker, there are alternatives. Each community can go on its own water system. But if it does there is nothing to guarantee it will have water a year or two or three from today. The cost would be $10,023,000, but a line from Edmonton would cost $14,866,000.

It would cost $4 million more, but it would assure these communities a plentiful supply of palatable water. Mr. Speaker, just a few years ago we initiated a system of distributing natural gas to rural Alberta. I was one of the members of this committee. We were anxious to find out the best way to go about it. We inquired throughout Canada, but there was no such system anyplace in Canada. We went south of the border and, again, there are no rural distribution lines for natural gas in the United States. I can see how successful this program has been.

As I mentioned ear lier, it's very good to have this clean fuel at moderate cost, but other things could substitute for natural gas. There is nothing to substitute for water, and I just can't see anything better than a distribution line from Edmonton, The study shows that at present Edmonton has facili ties to treat water for an additional 300,000 people. When we look at all the areas around Edmonton where the distribution lines would be initiated, there is a treatment plant ready that could serve these. However, the study also shows that Edmonton will stall because of annexation.

If this is so, I feel it is not necessary that Edmonton provide all Alberta with water. Another treatment plant can be put in by the Department of Environment. I think this motion deserves support. I can see no other choice in the future. We need a water line through many areas. Bon Accord, Thorsby, Calmar, Leduc, Gibbons, Redwater, Thorhild, and Egremont are almost all in the same position. Maybe some can hold on for another few years; some cannot. A couple in my constituency, particularly Chipman, are hauling water. With a commitment such as this, they would know in what direction to go.

I just can't see a community with some 300 people spending $800,000 for a treatment plant and maybe being told in two or three years that a water line must go by. I mentioned earlier that the cost for a water line would be approxi mately $14 million, and the study shows it is essential. The communities would spend $10 million now, and maybe that $14 million would be $20 million if we wait five, six, or seven years. I'm asking all hon. members to support this motion. I think it's very timely. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. DR. BUCK: On entering the debate, Mr.

Speaker, I support the resolution as such because, as the hon. Member for Vegreville stated, water is essential. It's essential to the development of our communities; it's an essential part of the life process. But I would like to know where this government has been for the last eight years, and I'd like to know where the hon. member has been for the last eight years. We hear this great furore about all the input the government backbenchers have in caucus.

Well, where has the hon. member been for the last eight years in caucus if we have to have before the Assembly a resolu tion requesting that the government consider use of the "Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund to finance water and sewage purification and distribution systems where present [facilities] are inadequate"? Right now we are going through a budget of $4.5 billion. I would like to refresh the memories of hon. members and the Member for Vegreville: the pipeline from Edmonton to Bremner to Fort Saskatchewan to Re dwater was built by the previous government.

It was the first regional pipeline in this province. What has this government done since that time? They have put in one major regional pipeline, as far as I know. So where have we been? Why are we bringing a resolu tion like this, as important as it is, to this Assembly? This should be government initiative. The govern ment should be doing this. We hear about the influence the backbenchers have in caucus. The hon. Member for Vegreville tells us about the commitment the government made. Well, if the government made a commitment, why doesn't it do something, hon. Member for Vegreville?

The problems are real and pressing. As the hon. member says, the people in his village of Chipman have been hauling water from Bruderheim. As the hon. member stated, fortunately the village of Bruderhiem struck an underground river, which helped solve their problem. There is just no way anybody could go against this resolution, because it is a motherhood resolution. Who can be against that? But I want to know where the government has been, what it has been doing and, most importantly, what the Minister of Environment, who is now leaving on this important issue — I think maybe he's going to come back . . . MR. R.

SPEAKER: The cat came back. DR. BUCK: . . . has as a long-range plan for regional water pipelines throughout this province. Maybe the hon. Minister of Environment is studying; he's wait ing for more reports on the Bow River. Well, Mr. Speaker, really. It's very interesting to look at the resolutions. The government has been promising these things. I ap preciate the fact that the backbenchers want to get a little publicity for the local newspaper back home; to say, look at what I am doing.

Then last week they had the audacity to turn down a resolution that had some merit, on bringing a legislative committee together to look at taxation in this province. So now we have this. For the benefit of members, I would like to indicate how the pipeline from Edmonton to Fort Saskatche wan, through Bremner, and to Redwater came into being. The funding available to us in the province was done under the previous government — and that pipeline, hon. member, was also extended through the Leduc area under the previous government. They didn't have all the answers.

They didn't have as much money as this government has now. We have $8 billion in the Heritage Savings Trust Fund and $4.5 billion in the present budget. So we have to tap the Heritage Savings Trust Fund. I can buy that. But the regional water board was set up in the area basically because we can all see the wisdom of water

566 ALBERTA HANSARD June 26, 1979 being processed in the major municipality, taken up stream from where we dump the sewage into the river and purified, and the economies and availability of water that comes off this pipeline. That's what hap pened, and I'm not going to make a long story out of what's basically a short story. But the fact remains that it was done many years ago, when money was tight. Now, when we have all the funding available under general revenue, we have no indication from the De partment of Environment. We have no commitment by this government to the people in the Cold Lake area. MR. R.

SPEAKER: The minister doesn't even care; he's gone. DR. BUCK: I wouldn't say the minister doesn't care, because I'm sure he cares. But his budget doesn't reflect it. We want a commitment to the people of this prov ince that we have some type of regional water pipeline policy in place. We have the study; we just commis sioned it. We spent many dollars on that study. Let's have some action by this now government.

It's too bad we had to put the Minister of Federal and Intergov ernmental Affairs into a retirement portfolio, because we could have used his ability in some of the front benches, if he had a major portfolio and something to do. Mr. Speaker, my plea to the members of the Assembly is that I support the resolution. How can you be against it? You can't be against it; everybody needs water. They need pipelines built. What I am saying is that there's been inaction by this government on this issue. Mr.

Speaker, with those few brief remarks I would say, number one, that the government has not shown the attention it should have been showing to this very pressing problem. Number two, has the government made a political commitment, as the hon. Member for Vegreville says? If so, are they going to live up to that commitment? Thirdly, I support the resolution. But, Mr. Speaker, what we want is not resolutions. The government has the mandate and the money, and we want some action. MR. PURDY: Mr.

Speaker, participating in the debate this afternoon on the regional water concept for the areas around Edmonton and Calgary and other areas of the province, as the hon. Member for Vegreville put it quite well, I don't understand what the Member for Clover Bar is getting at. In 1969 and '70 the people of rural Alberta were leaving these towns and coming into the city, because there was no outlook for them, so why was there any reason to go out and build water and sewer systems at that time?

I remember in 1970 and '71 the Parkland council — the councils of the towns of Stony Plain and Spruce Grove — were attempting to get a water line built from Edmonton to the two respective centres. They were having a difficult time getting the doors open to the Minister of Public Works and to the Treasury Department. It was only after our election in August 1971 that we got those doors open, constructed a line starting in '72, and were able to open the valve and give the people in these two towns some potable water.

I'd also like to point out to the Member for Clover Bar that about 105 new towns and villages in this province have been on water and sewer since 1971. We didn't have those before. I would also urge the Member for Clover Bar to read this report under study right now, the Edmonton Regional Utilities Study, which was completed in July 1978. It has some recommendations that the govern ment is starting to move toward. It's a 25-year study, and we'll have some concise information of what is required, especially in the areas outside the city of Edmonton, for regional utilities. DR. BUCK: Do something. MR.

PURDY: We are doing it, hon. member, and I'm quite pleased with the way we've moved regarding water and sewer assistance in the province. I look at the situation west of Edmonton. While I support the motion of the hon. Member for Vegreville, I question the aspect of using Alberta Heritage Sav ings Trust Fund money, when we may be using other methods of financing these lines. I'll share those with the members when I conclude my remarks. As indicated earlier, the Parkland water line was built and completed in 1972.

It supplies water to the county of Parkland, to the businesses along Highway 16, to Westview Village and Parkland Village, and to the towns of Spruce Grove and Stony Plain. I've discussed the problems with the members of town council. The Edmonton Regional Utilities Study reports that we have to have something done by 1984. If we don't get something done immediately, we're going to have a growth slowdown in the towns of Stony Plain and Spruce Grove. At the present time Stony Plain is sitting at a population of about 4,000; Spruce Grove at 9,000; and both sewage facilities are just about taxed to their limits.

So they are now working with the Department of Environment in an attempt to co-ordinate and upgrade this report so that by 1979-80 we can go for a sewage treatment facility to be located in St. Albert, and incorporate both towns into one area. I'm afraid that if we don't go with this report fairly soon, the growth is going to be slowed down or just about stopped in these two major areas in the constituency. We have another interesting aspect in the town of Stony Plain. At the present time, Daon Development has a permit from the Department of Environment to de-water 1 million gallons of water a day.

It goes down Adams Creek into the Sturgeon River and is lost forever. The Department of Environment has recently come back with a report asking the town of Stony Plain, Daon, and other interested people to try to utilize that water for commercial, industrial, residential, or fire-fighting purposes. Daon has been asking for a permanent de-watering licence. Through the Depart ment of Environment, we have said no. As soon as a use is found for this water, they will give them a per manent de-watering licence. But 1 million gallons a day is a substantial amount of water.

It can certainly be used to upgrade the water needs of the two towns. That will be an ongoing discussion, and hopefully by the end of this year a final decision will be made on how we should utilize that million gallons a day. In the Edmonton Regional Utilities Study, I found a lot of practical and useful information. I would just like to dwell this afternoon, with the members of this Assembly, on the organization and management of utilities systems, both water and sewage. Two organi-

June 26, 1979 ALBERTA HANSARD 567 zational principles, planning and engineering, are involved: The planning approach is often used by gov ernments as a means of controlling growth on a regional or sub-regional basis. Although water supply and sewerage services may constitute only a fraction of the total municipal budget, they are an important "leading edge" of development. Such services must normally be in place before any population or industrial development can begin.

I guess the real crux of the planning approach is that it requires a conscientious government policy regarding the manner in which development growth is to proceed. If orderly growth is to take place in that area, we have to have additional water and sewage facilities to make that a fact. The engineering approach is "relatively neutral with respect to policy implications". In other words, you have to have your policy first, and then go ahead, do your engineering, and get the thing in place. Previously, water and sewage disposal systems were a responsibility of local government.

This was the practice right across Canada, not only in Alberta. Then in the 1950s an evolution happened here in Alberta; things started to grow and related events made it change. Three related events were: rapid growth in urban population. An increased awareness of environmental and health issues. The establishment of metropolitan and regional forms of government. These three concepts came in and caused some real concerns for outlying municipalities and urban gov ernments, such as we have in Edmonton. What do you look at? Which way do you go?

Do you go to an original type of government where you include all the available services? Then you have the unitary system of utilities, owned and operated by local municipalities.

That's probably the most comprehen sive control organization: In the case of a unitary system operated by a city department, all aspects of the system can be directly controlled by the city council, Two-tiered board systems, such as in Vancouver, . . . are technically corporate bodies independent of any of the member municipalities to which they provide a wholesale service, they are closely asso ciated with . . . the same commissioner as well as virtually the same . . . boards, the water and sewage boards.

The ownership and con trol of water and sewage systems by regional munici palities is similar to unitary and two-tiered arrangements. The other question is the relationship of govern ment to the different types of controls you have through these various boards. You have the three levels of government: federal, provincial, and municipal. The federal government has an indirect responsibility for water supply. They have the Canadian drinking water standards, which have been adopted by munici pal governments across the country. Then we have provincial governments, where the major part of the funding comes from.

In most cases municipal levels of government are responsible for local supply of potable water and sewage disposal services while the Provincial government regulates the quality of the service. Alberta Environment . . . is empowered to set standards for the construction and operation of water supply and sewage treatment systems. The municipal government or the city-owned ones appear to be the most independent at the present time. They actually "require a high degree of co-ordination with other branches of city administration". That's the only problem with them.

The department [usually] responsible for water . . . and sewage disposal usually carries out . . . those functions required for physical operation of the system, such as, design, operations, and maintenance. I guess the question in the minds of everybody is financing. The financial viability of any water supply or sewage disposal system depends on two distinct, independent factors, capital financing of that particu lar structure and the rate structure in the end: Unitary systems require the largest amount of capital financing because of their greater scope of service.

All elements except distribution water lines and collector sewers within sub-divisions are financed by the system. In some cases, the developer may go in, put all the branch lines in, and do that work. In some cases, CMHC provides some money on a federal/provincial co-operation basis. The money allowed through the CMHC program is a capital forgiveness element which, I guess you could say, constitutes a subsidy to the provincial government. We don't have that many in place in this province, but a number of municipali ties have gone that route.

The main supply of financing in place for water and sewage systems is the Alberta Municipal Financing Corporation. It's debenture borrowing by the gov ernment. We have allowed them 8 per cent borrowing under these programs, and also the programs that I indicated earlier that were put in place to allow about 105 small municipalities and hamlets in this province [to have] water and sewage systems. The last point, Mr. Speaker, is the rate structure. When you put in a system, do you want that system to pay for itself, to generate sufficient revenue, or do you want it to run in the deficit position?

The traditional free-enterprise philosophy in Canada is that anytime you spend a dollar, you should make a dollar in return. This is the way the majority of our systems operate in this province, and I support this principle. The other thing in question, which the Member for Vegreville alluded to, is the annexation proposal in front of the Local Authorities Board at the present time. Are we as a government going to act on any financ ing and expansion of water and sewer lines until this annexation proposal has been completed?

I think they could do it for the area west of Edmonton, because the larger areas such as Spruce Grove or Stony Plain are not within the annexation area. But for St. Albert, Sherwood Park, and the areas east, I think it would probably put the provincial cabinet and the Minister of Environment in a difficult position to start to fund a system that may be annexed to the city of Edmonton.

I would just like to complete my comments by saying the question is: should we use Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund money to finance such an opera tion, or should we use the conventional sources of money now available through CMHC — which is a small amount — or the Municipal Financing Corpora tion or private developers in this province? We have used the latter, and they have worked to the satisfaction

568 ALBERTA HANSARD June 26, 1979 of the boards. We know it's going to be a tremendous expenditure to someone — the government or the municipalities. I would urge the Minister of Environment that we start working on this report now. Let's not wait until 1984 to have expanded services for the area west of Edmonton — I'm talking about my own constituency now — because the lines are highly taxed right now.

From the figures I have and the information I have sought, I don't think they are going to be able to proceed with any more development until we get adequate sewage lagoons, or a central sewage treat ment plant in St. Albert. MR. LYSONS: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to get into the debate on this resolution brought forth by the hon. Member for Vegreville. Before I do, though, I'd like to thank those people down at Holden who dug that ditch so that we can have the Vermilion River . . . John, pass that on to your people for me, would you? Mr.

Speaker, I think the way this resolution is worded could stand some dressing up. Though I support the resolution, I would like to suggest that the province look at financing out of general revenue or the municipal finance corporation rather than out of the heritage trust fund, other than for the oversize or extra valving and equipment that would be required. We could probably use Heritage Savings Trust Fund money there. We've heard so much about the water — and there's no use watering that down any more — but I think one of our biggest problems is sewage.

All smaller centres and a number of larger centres are finding it more and more difficult to collect and process effluent without infringing on somebody else's territory or bothering someone. If we could take a look at collect ing this and using a more efficient method than we're now using, we could gain a lot of friends by moving it in one general area rather than here and there all over the country.

But I like the idea of the water and sewage in a corridor concept; the idea that we have a network of highway systems through Alberta, and if we could use highway ditches and not go into farmers' fields and dig them all up and rattle up a lot of problems, we could probably save ourselves a great deal of time, energy, and money. In my constituency we have some very unusual situa tions. We have three river systems, so some of the areas aren't bothered by lack of water.

Yet we have other areas not even close to a river, like Minburn, where you can drive a sand point in the ground about 8 or 14 feet and you've got all the water you can use. Sedgewick is the same, yet between those two centres is Viking. As hard as they have tried, they can't get water with wells or conventional ways. Storage is difficult because it's quite alkaline there. They are really in a bind. I under stand that other towns up the line are having prob lems. Surely we can do something to help all these centres. When we look at water storage, effluent storage, or accessibility — we must look at storage.

We probably could use the basis of this resolution, using Heritage Savings Trust Fund moneys, to have emergency water storage built in these centres, if something happened to the pipeline, or you got an unusually hot time, or you had some pollution at the water source or some where in the pipeline, or for some other reason you had to shut it down. Maybe we could use funds from the Heritage Savings Trust Fund to finance these unusu ally big storage areas. In my home town we have water wells, and no problem at all getting water.

I think the last figure I heard was that, on test, one of our wells would produce water at 2,500 gallons a minute almost indefinitely. That's an awful lot of water, and it didn't drain down any water in the area. So we probably don't have the same types of problems as Vegreville, and certainly not the same problems as Viking, Stony Plain, or other places. Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to say to the hon. Member for Vegreville that I would very definitely support this, as I'm sure every member in this House would.

We will probably have to take the advice of the hon. member from Fort Saskatchewan and push a little harder in caucus to get this as a government Bill. Thank you. MR. TOPOLNISKY: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a few comments in support of Motion 207. Some seven or eight years ago we were certainly concerned about rural Alberta. All these little communities we're strug gling for survival. It was a real challenge for the new government in 1971. Gloom and doom and the demise of these little communities were evident everywhere. But times have changed, Mr. Speaker.

With the posi tive policies of decentralization and balanced growth throughout the province, we certainly see a lot of activ ity, development, and growth in nearly all these little communities. With some of the utilities — natural gas, electric power, and telephones — there are groups very anx ious to proceed with construction and go ahead with the profit motive. But with water and sewer it's dif ferent. The local people, the municipalities themselves, are responsible for the construction and operation of these two utilities. The shortage of water, Mr.

Speaker, certainly ham pers growth and reduces the number of building permits. I know that all the little communities in the Redwater-Andrew constituency — two towns, seven vil lages, and five hamlets — together with the rest of rural Alberta, have been struggling for their very existence. But in the last seven or eight years they have experienced some population growth, as much as 50 per cent. That really speaks well for the communities that want to help themselves. Then they come to government for further help.

But with the short supply and poor quality of water, I would like to outline at least one typical situation. The present water supply is from several wells. These wells are of low capacity, and the water contains an excessive amount of iron. Water is gathered at a treat ment plant and directed to storage tanks of up to 100,000 gallons. It is then pumped through the distri bution system, and hopefully the pressure is main tained. Often this system is unable to meet the water demand at times of peak consumption. Two of these communities have swimming pools, and they certainly experience water problems.

Just to give some idea of the cost to improve the supply and quality of water for a community of, say, 500 people who want to design a system for a popula tion of 1,000, we find that if surface water supply or shallow wells are used, the estimated costs are — and I want to throw these figures out, Mr. Speaker, to show

June 26, 1979 ALBERTA HANSARD 569 how massive they are and what these little communities have to face — the pump house, $32,000; storage, $295,000; treatment plant, $412,000; a 12-inch water supply pipeline, $175,000; engineering, $80,000. This brings the total figure to $994,000. Nearly $1 million. In this case the annual operation and maintenance would be: power, $3,000; chemicals, $3,300; heating, $1,000; repairs, $2,000; labor, $5,000. This brings the annual total to $14,300. Surface water is certainly not reliable, Mr. Speaker, and not the answer in the northeast part of the prov ince.

It seems much more reasonable to get a water supply from the Northeast Water Board line, now at Redwater, to be extended northward to the hamlet of Egremont, to the village of Thorhild, then to Radway and Waskatenau. In 1977 the cost would have been about $2.5 million. This is where all these communities need financial assistance to secure an adequate water supply of much improved quality. Mr. Speaker, headlines such as No Water for North east Board are certainly not encouraging, to say the least.

Therefore it seems much more reasonable for these communities to participate in the construction of the extended northeast water line, the only long-term assured and economical source of water for the munici palities of that entire region. Other villages and hamlets need water and sewer improvements, and that is where financial assistance is required. They include Clyde, Warspite, Andrew, Wil- lingdon, and certainly the hamlets of St. Michael and Bellis. In view of all the assistance that's required, Mr. Speaker, I support this motion. MRS. FYFE: Mr.

Speaker, I would also like to offer a few comments on this resolution. Though the motion refers generally to a policy that will affect the entire province, I am going to have to restrict most of my comments to the constituency of St. Albert. Edmonton Regional Planning Commission growth studies project a doubling of the present population in the Edmonton area within the next 25 years. I think the greatest challenge we face is to manage that growth in an orderly fashion, at the same time having regard to environmental concerns. Growth, like water, tends to follow the path of least resistance.

It relates to land costs, accessible transporta tion routes, utility servicing, community life style, and amenities, to identify only some of the factors. For communities accommodating the growth we antici pate, and have been experiencing over the last years, there is a great concern that existing residents do not subsidize new residents coming into the communities. If a community now has an adequate system, can they be expected to pay for increased costs for new water lines, new sewer lines, or new treatment facilities? In other words, our grant programs should support a user-pay policy.

Another great concern in a regional utility is: if capacity is used up, do we direct our programs to consider compensation so that existing residents are not paying for tomorrow's replacement costs of a ca pacity they presently have? Some growth areas are facing large increases under the new water and sewer treatment program. This applies directly to communities such as the town of Gibbons in the St. Albert constituency. They're play ing a bit of a chicken-and-egg game: new growth requires new facilities; new facilities cost money.

To accommodate growth, monthly utility charges will rise in some cases up to 300 per cent in two years. This is a problem the local government people are trying to face. Is this fair for the existing residents? The building of utility lines has not been an ob stacle in the provision of water services, as the hon. Member for Clover Bar has stated. I think the basic problem has been a refusal on the part of the supplier to service any additional communities. I think there is a very distinct difference. When I make this comment, I speak only of the Edmonton ar

Document details

Collection	Alberta — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	19790626
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	L19 S1 19790626 1430 01 han.pdf
Language	en
Format	json
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	498667ef419435914a7c18d63f73343a4bcbcda4

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