Alberta Hansard — 7 November 1977, Afternoon sitting (14:30) (Legislature 18, Session 3)

19771107

Alberta — Debates (Hansard)

November 7, 1977 ALBERTA HANSARD 1909 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA Title: Monday, November 7, 1977 2:30 p.m. [The House met at 2:30 p.m.] PRAYERS [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] head: INTRODUCTION OF BILLS Bill 99 The Statute Law Correction Act, 1977 MR. FOSTER: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce a bill, being The Statute Law Correction Act, 1977. As in past years, the purpose of this bill is to correct typographical errors, incorrect references, and draft ing omissions in a variety of statutes. [Leave granted; Bill 99 read a first time] head: TABLING RETURNS AND REPORTS MR. HYNDMAN: Mr.

Speaker, I wish to table four copies of the annual report of the Department of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs, effective the year ending March 31, 1976. Copies of this report will be made available to all members of the Assem bly within the next 10 days. As well, Mr. Speaker, I wish to file copies of corre spondence with the federal government concerning urban development on Indian reserves, bearing in mind the interest of a number of members in the subject, during the period December 3, 1974, to September 8, 1977. head: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS DR. BACKUS: Mr.

Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to introduce to you, and through you to the members of the Assembly, 12 students who are in the mem bers' gallery. They are unique in that this is their first visit to any seat of government. I don't know whether it speaks well for Alberta highways, but they come from Chetwynd, B.C. They've travelled 400 miles to visit our Legislature. They are accompanied by their teacher Mr. Calvin White. I'd ask them to stand and be recognized by this Assembly. MR. CHAMBERS: Mr.

Speaker, on behalf of my col league the Member for Edmonton Norwood, I'm pleased to introduce some 20 students from the Grant MacEwan adult development program. They're accompanied by their teacher Mr. Don Whelan. They're seated in the members' gallery, and I would ask that they stand and be recognized. MR. FOSTER: Mr. Speaker, there are 30 special guests in the members' gallery, grade 9 students from Eastview Junior High school in Red Deer. They're accompanied on this occasion by their teach er Mr. Johnson. I take pleasure, Mr.

Speaker, in introducing them to you and to the members of this Assembly, and would ask that they rise and receive the welcome of the House. head: MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Treasury MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, for many years school boards in this province have expressed concern about the cost of borrowing funds for those necessary oper ational expenditures incurred during the months of January, February, and March of each year, prior to receipt of grants under the school foundation pro gram fund.

This problem has been created mainly by the fact that the fiscal year for school boards is the calendar year, while the fiscal year for the provincial government commences on April 1 and ends on March 31. As a result, school boards must rely on their own resources, usually borrowed, during the months of January, February, and March of each year, until April when funds approved by the Legisla ture become available. A recent analysis conducted by the Department of Education revealed that in 1975 almost $3 million in interest was paid by school boards on loans for opera tional expenditures.

Concerns have been expressed that these funds could be put to better use in the provision of instruction for school children rather than in payment of interest. The Hon. Julian Koziak, Minister of Education, on behalf of the government of Alberta has assured school trustees that this matter would receive careful examination, and that alternative proposals for a practical and equitable solution would be considered. Mr. Speaker, for the first time in the modern history of our Legislature, I will today be introducing supple mentary estimates.

They will provide an additional $130 million to the school foundation program fund in the 1977-78 estimates of the Department of Edu cation. The $130 million will permit grants to be paid to school boards mid-January, mid-February, and mid-March from the school foundation program fund. Thereafter, monthly payments during the period April to March in each year can be made from the annual allocation of funds in the normal budgetary process.

The provision of these very substantial additional moneys on this one occasion will for 1978 and every year thereafter permit school foundation program fund grants to be paid to school boards monthly throughout each year. No longer will school boards be required to borrow and pay interest while waiting until April 15 to receive funds necessary for the first three months of the year. Substantial funds will be freed from this expenditure commitment to provide boards with the flexibility and additional resources to meet the needs of our common responsibility, the students of Alberta. Thank you. MR. CLARK: Mr.

Speaker, in responding to the an nouncement by the Provincial Treasurer today, might

1910 ALBERTA HANSARD November 7, 1977 I commend the Provincial Treasurer for the an nouncement the government has made. I think it's a very positive move forward. Once again I commend the government, because basically the $3 million that's been used to pay interest to the lending institu tions will end up either in additional instructional staff or materials that will enable us to do a better job in the educational system in this province. I'm also pleased that the government is now ac cepting the concept of supplementary estimates.

The Treasurer will recall, I believe it was last year, that we asked the government if they'd consider this approach. Now that the government has made this very forward step here, it seems to me a logical extension of that would be that we would have sup plementary estimates each year and, of course, that would cut down the need for the large number of special warrants. MR. SPEAKER: Before starting the Oral Question Period, may the hon. Member for Innisfail revert to Introduction of Special Guests? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. head: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS (reversion) MR. DOAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to introduce to you, and through you, 40 students from the Delburne central high school. I'm sorry I had no previous announcement of this. They are seated now in the public gallery, and I would like them to stand and be recognized. head: ORAL QUESTION PERIOD RCMP Contract MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct the first question to the Solicitor General. It's with regard to the agreement between the province of Alberta and the government of Canada, the topic being the RCMP contract.

My question to the Solicitor General: is the RCMP contract, signed between the government of Alberta and the government of Canada, public information? MR. FARRAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, in the sense that if a member requests that the agreement be tabled, I would be only too happy to table it. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Premier if it's the government's intention to come forward with a statement of policy with regard to public documents by ministers of the Crown.

I ask the question in light of a difficulty that not members of the Assembly but people outside the Assembly have had in getting copies of the agreement between the government of Canada and the government of Alberta regarding the RCMP contract. MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, in answer to that very broad question it seems to me that quite clearly, as we've discussed and have seen during the course of the Legislature under Motions for Returns, the mat ters can't be dealt with under any general, broad policy. There also has to be recognition in terms of the responsibility of the Legislature.

There may be documents which the government would provide by order of the Assembly that would not simply be distri buted to the public by way of public information. I think, for example, the Solicitor General was ref erring to the fact of a contract which is entered into between the government of Canada and the govern ment of Alberta relative to the RCMP, which was the hon. leader's initial question.

That document is a matter that should be made available through the Legislative Assembly, but because it is a contractual arrangement between the two governments involved, it seems to us much more appropriate that it be a request that would follow an order of the Assembly and made public on that basis. There are other documents — vast, vast multitudes of them — that do not necessarily involve intergovernmental contracts or things of that nature that in the normal course of business are made public. MR. CLARK: A supplementary question to the Minis ter of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs.

Has the government of Alberta made any representation to the federal government with regard to the RCMP liv ing up to the agreement that was entered into be tween the province of Alberta and the federal government? MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, the most recent agreement was signed just recently, and we haven't any feeling or indication at this time that there's any breach or alleged breach of the agreement by the federal government. Should that occur, there would be appropriate representations. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister.

Within the last three years, has the government of Alberta made representation to the government of Canada with regard to alleged breaches, to use the hon. minister's term, in the agreement between Alberta and Canada? MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, over the past number of months there have been negotiations involving both the Department of the Solicitor General and Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs concerning a new agreement, but I think that question might be more specifically and appropriately answered by the hon. Solicitor General. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, might I refer the question to the Solicitor General? MR.

FARRAN: Would the hon. member mind repeat ing the question? MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, the question is: has the Solicitor General, on behalf of the government of Alberta, made representation to the federal govern ment with regard to alleged breaches in the agree ment between the province of Alberta and the gov ernment of Canada on the question of the RCMP contract? MR. FARRAN: No, Mr. Speaker, not in the sense of alleged breaches. Lengthy and detailed negotiations

November 7, 1977 ALBERTA HANSARD 1911 with the federal government have been going on for the last 18 months, but the contract has now been executed. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, just one last supplementa ry question to the minister so there's no misunder standing. Has the Solicitor General made specific representation to the federal government with regard to certain areas of the contract entered into between Alberta and Canada, that the minister feels the RCMP have not lived up to the contract between Alberta and Ottawa? MR. FARRAN: Mr.

Speaker, no, it's the last rider that makes that question difficult to answer, because we have no complaints about breaches. But we do have a difference of opinion on

interpretation of one par ticular

section of the contract in regard to the right of the province of Alberta and its Attorney General to obtain information direct from the commissioner of the RCMP, as opposed to the commanding officer of K Division. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, a follow-up supplementary question to the minister. Has that difference in view point between Alberta and the federal government been resolved? MR. FARRAN: No, Mr. Speaker. We've signed the contract under protest. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, then the question back to the Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Af fairs.

What action is the government taking with regard to the fact that Alberta's Attorney General is not able to get information directly from the commis sioner of the RCMP? MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the attorneys general, maybe across the country, are dis cussing that matter. So it will be dealt with and reviewed appropriately as the months go by. MR. CLARK: But is Alberta taking no specific initiative directly to the federal government on the question? MR. HYNDMAN: Mr.

Speaker, it would have to be demonstrated to me that there is a finding by an independent tribunal of some alleged breach, or some information which would lead to an alleged breach. Perhaps the hon. Attorney General might have some thing useful to add with respect to the question. MR. FOSTER: Mr. Speaker, I wondered when this question would get around to me. Now that I see it has, I'll be happy to deal with it.

The previous agreement entered into between the province of Alberta and the federal government with respect to contract RCMP services in this province provided that, among other things, the commanding officer of K Division would supply certain information to the office of the Attorney General. I think that's in

Part 4 of the contract. Because of some of the evidence in the Laycraft commission concerning the availability of information in the hands of certain senior police officers outside Alberta that may touch upon Alberta citizens or Alber ta corporations, or at least certainly the administra tion of justice within the province, there was some question as to the availability of that information in the hands of senior police officers.

I felt it advisable that we approach the federal government to see whether they would be willing to amend the contract to provide not only that the commanding officer of K Division, as the contract party, must supply informa tion to the Attorney General or indeed to the Solicitor General, but the commissioner of the RCMP for Canada. I had some correspondence with my colleague the federal Solicitor General on this matter. We've left it in this state, Mr. Speaker: it will be the subject matter of further negotiation at the next round of contracts between the provinces and the federal government.

My federal colleague was not anxious, at this point, to open up all provincial contracts to include that provi sion, although I don't think he had any specific diffi culty with it. For my part at the moment, I've had a meeting with the new commissioner of the RCMP. I am extremely impressed with this gentleman. I am very confident that if there is any information in his possession that I feel I require to conduct my responsibilities in the administration of justice in this province, I will receive his complete co-operation. MR. CLARK: Mr.

Speaker, just one further supple mentary question to the Attorney General. To date, on any occasion that the present Attorney General has asked for information from the commissioner of the RCMP, has that information been forthcoming? MR. FOSTER: Mr. Speaker, that's not a statement I'd be prepared to make. Because the Laycraft inquiry is under way, and the full and complete response to that question will bear on that, I think I would like to respond to that specific point, perhaps at a later date. MR. CLARK: Might I rephrase the question to the Attorney General then.

With the exception of those matters referred to in the Laycraft inquiry, has the Attorney General for Alberta been able to get infor mation that he has requested from the commissioner? MR. FOSTER: I think that's accurate, Mr. Speaker. With the exception of the Laycraft, I think the answer to that is yes. I will search my memory carefully, but I think the answer is yes. MR. TAYLOR: A supplementary to the hon. Solicitor General. Do the Solicitor General and the Attorney General, or perhaps the government of Alberta, have full control over the RCMP who are under contract in this province? MR. FARRAN: Yes, Mr.

Speaker, we do. We think they're doing an admirable job. MR. TAYLOR: A supplementary. Does the Solicitor General of Canada have any veto of instructions given by the government of Alberta to the RCMP in Alberta who are under contract to Alberta? MR. FARRAN: No, Mr. Speaker, apart from certain fiscal reservations in the contract, mainly in the area of recruits, that if the province of Alberta asks for

1912 ALBERTA HANSARD November 7, 1977 certain recruits they will supply them if it is possible — I presume that means if it's fiscally possible, from a federal point of view. In actual fact we've had some difficulty in getting as many RCMP recruits as we'd like. MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, one further supplementa ry to the hon. Solicitor General. Do the RCMP who are under contract to the province of Alberta carry out criminal investigations for the federal government as well? MR. FARRAN: Mr. Speaker, there are two main areas where the RCMP are fully funded by the federal government.

They are narcotics and commercial crime, although there is some overlap. The details that enforce those particular federal statutes are funded entirely by the federal government. MR. FOSTER: Mr. Speaker, if I could supplement that and say that because of the recent decision in the Hauser case arising out of the Court of Appeal of Alberta, all criminal investigations in the province of Alberta are under the jurisdiction of the province and not the federal government. That includes criminal offences that may be found in federal statutes not in the Criminal Code. Mr.

Speaker, perhaps I could take a moment and explain that the criminal law of Canada is not found exclusively in the Criminal Code. For example, the Narcotic Control Act is generally regarded as criminal law, but that has been prosecuted until recently by the federal authorities. They are now prosecuting it with the concurrence of my office. So all criminal investigations of any kind in Alberta are conducted under the authority of the province and not the federal government. MR. TAYLOR: A supplementary to the hon. Attorney General.

Has the federal government given any indi cation that it is accepting that decision, or is it appeal ing it? MR. FOSTER: Mr. Speaker, there's a slight difference between accepting the decision and appealing it. It is accepting the decision because it's the law of Alberta. It is the law of the land that applies here at this moment. So to that extent it's being honored and accepted by all the law officers of the Crown, which ever Crown is involved. With respect to an appeal: yes, I am most anxious to have this matter appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

My information is that the federal officers are as well. I expect that if Chief Justice Laskin of the Supreme Court of Canada agrees to our application for an early date, it will go on the sittings in January or February next year. Postsecondary Quotas MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the second question either of the Premier or of the Minister of Advanced Education and Manpower. The question really flows from the recent speech the Premier made to The Canadian Education Association in Calgary. It deals with the question of quotas on certain universi ty faculties.

My question to either of the hon. gen tlemen is: what discussions have been held between the government of Alberta, the University of Alberta, and the University of Calgary specifically with regard to quotas in certain faculties? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, on a broad policy basis, as I think we have expressed in this House on a number of occasions, we feel that with regard to Alberta, the total postsecondary education system has to be evaluated.

The admissions therefore within the various universities, colleges, and technical schools have to be assessed in a total way by the Minister of Advanced Education and Manpower and his department. This, together with other reasons, has created an evaluation by the universities on their own that there should be quotas within the various universities to establish their own priorities within their budget limitations and physical capacities, and a recognition too of the size of universities relative to teaching effectiveness.

For that reason there is de veloping within Alberta what I think has perhaps been overdue: a recognition that there has to be some element of quota recognition, as there has been in the past, within the basic professional faculties, expanding somewhat into other faculties. The second part of the hon. leader's question dealt with discussions that had ensued. I'd be happy to refer that matter to the Minister of Advanced Educa tion and Manpower. DR. HOHOL: Mr. Speaker, the fact is that discussions are ongoing on all matters that deal with postsecond ary education.

In that context we've spoken of quo tas, particularly in perspective of growth enrolment plans, maximum plans for the numbers. Of all insti tutions within that particular number, the logistics of certain faculties, of certain schools, that are more open in the sense of not requiring highly intensive clinical or experimental equipment, have real signifi cance and implications for the numbers of students in each particular faculty or department. MR. CLARK: Supplementary question to the minister. What faculties at the University of Alberta will have quotas imposed on them, starting the next academic year? DR.

HOHOL: The next academic year is September 1978. I'm sure that's what the hon. member was asking for. In some schools and departments, there is an entry in January and an intersession later in spring. It is a kind of detail that I will simply have to search the files. Certain additional faculties have been added to the quota number of faculties that exist for this fiscal year. There will be additional ones next year. Those are, for the most part, not yet deter mined. When they are, I would be pleased to share those with the individual member or with the House entirely, Mr. Speaker. MR. CLARK: Mr.

Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister. Would it be possible for the minister to check with the universities and be in a position to indicate to the Assembly tomorrow what faculties are presently being considered for enrolment quotas to be implemented starting the first of next year? DR. HOHOL: It's very difficult to do that, Mr. Speaker, for two reasons. When you're talking about some

November 7, 1977 ALBERTA HANSARD 1913 thing like quotas, it's a process rather than a particu lar determination until in fact that judgment has been made. So there could be long-term discussion at the faculty council, at the student council, the board of governors. It's not the kind of thing I could undertake with the House sitting and bring back as information that was valid or reliable.

I wouldn't want to place the institutions in the kind of circumstance in which they would attempt to predict or make a statement on the subject which for good reason could in fact be different next September, and to be held to account for it. So while I might make a survey, it wouldn't be the kind of thing I would be prepared to put on record as something we would expect and hold the institu tions accountable for or, for that matter, the depart ment or the ministry of the government. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, an additional supplementa ry question to the minister.

I ask the question in light of a rather widely held feeling by some people at the universities that in fact we're moving into a situation of quotas being imposed on every faculty at the University of Alberta and the University of Calgary. My question to the minister is: is it government policy that in due course quotas will be imposed on every faculty at the University of Alberta? DR. HOHOL: Mr. Speaker, I think some care has to be exercised in the use of the term "imposing of quotas".

The results of certain circumstances — a whole number of them, maybe half a dozen — bring institu tions to that conclusion themselves. They're not imposed by government. They're not unaffected by government. But in terms of policy, certainly it's policy. I've stood in this place during estimates, and other times in the House, and said that one of the key factors in entrance to any institution is qualification beyond any question that a person can be predicted to be successful. If that's a statement of policy, then that is a statement of policy, and that will eliminate some students from certain institutions.

But I remind all hon. members that we have access to more institutions of a different sort — colleges, universities, technical institutes, Alberta vocational centres, and so on — [interjections] and more spaces and more money per student than any other province in Canada. So it's not a matter of imposing quotas on any institution. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. minister. Was the answer yes, there will be quotas imposed? [interjections] MR. CLARK: The answer is yes. Mental Health Facilities MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to direct my question to the Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care. It's with regard to the mental health facilities at the Lethbridge General and St. Michael's Hospital. I wonder if the minister is aware of any plans to transfer the present mental health services from these two hospitals to Claresholm? MR. MINIELY: Mr. Speaker, that matter is presently being studied jointly by the Minister of Social Serv ices and Community Health, her officials, and my officials. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the minister.

Are plans being considered to expand the facilities and service at Claresholm to take some of the facilities away from Lethbridge? MR. MINIELY: Mr. Speaker, I'm not in a position at the present time to indicate more than I have said, except that the whole matter is being reviewed jointly by the Department of Social Services and Community Health and officials in Hospitals and Medical Care. MR. R. SPEAKER: A supplementary to the minister. When can we expect a decision with regard to this matter? MR.

MINIELY: I'm sure once my colleague the Minis ter of Social Services and Community Health and I, and our respective officials, have analysed the situa tion and come to a joint conclusion of the balance of services as opposed to community and in-hospital, we'll be in a position to make that announcement. But at the current time, Mr. Speaker, I can't be defini tive about date. Vandalism in Schools MR. KUSHNER: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Solicitor General.

Since his depart ment has embarked on the security equipment that has been installed in co-operation with the three levels of government, I wonder if the Solicitor Gener al can report any failures or successes at this time. MR. FARRAN: Mr. Speaker, from the latest reports, I understand that the security system in the schools, which was partly financed by the province, has been successful in leading to the apprehension of some young vandals. But the incidence of vandalism gen erally, in this province and other provinces, continues to give cause for concern.

The large fires that have resulted very recently in certain schools in the Ed monton and Calgary areas have not been in the schools that have been wired with these silent alarm systems. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that some six months ago we announced a pilot project with 20 schools in Calgary, and I think a similar number in Edmonton, where the province put up the original capital funding for the equipment. Lamb Processing Plant MR. MANDEVILLE: Mr. Speaker, my question is a follow-up to the one I asked the hon. Minister of Agriculture last Monday in regard to the Innisfail lamb processing plant.

Could the minister indicate whether any conditions that would have to be met by a purchaser are set out for future operations of the plant? MR. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, yes I could. It would be a repeat of statements I made in this Legislature last spring, wherein I said on the taking over of the Innis fail lamb processors' plant by the government of Alberta that it would be our determination to find an operator or buyer for the plant who would make a

1914 ALBERTA HANSARD November 7, 1977 firm commitment to the continuation of lamb slaugh tering at Innisfail. MR. MANDEVILLE: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister indicate to the Assembly if the plant has operated at a profit since the govern ment took over? MR. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, very briefly I can say that the position of the plant has improved over the last few months.

I believe there was one period of a few weeks, when the heavy run of lambs was coming into the plant, when the plant did operate out of the red in terms of the day-to-day operational costs, without considering the capital investment. However, that varies from time to time, depending on the number of lambs coming into the plant. MR. MANDEVILLE: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister indicate if there is a firm in Red Deer that is ready to enter a contract to take over the plant? MR. MOORE: No. All that I can say, Mr.

Speaker, is that we have been having continuous discussions since about last April with four or five different companies, firms, or individuals who may or may not be interested in taking over the plant on a continuous basis. Those discussions are continuing, and if they're concluded while the legislative session is in, I would be pleased to make an announcement regard ing the details. MR. CLARK: A supplementary question to the minis ter. Is the government now negotiating with one par ticular firm in Red Deer with regard to finalizing a contract? MR. MOORE: All I can say once again, Mr.

Speaker, is that since last April we've been negotiating with every interested party we could find with respect to the continued operation of the plant. Those negotia tions will continue. When a decision has been made on the future operations of the plant, I would be pleased to make it public. School Financing MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the hon. Provincial Treasurer in regard to the statement he made today, which I view as one of the biggest advances in educational financing for many years.

Will the supplementary estimates be available to all school boards or only to those who have to borrow during the months of January, February, and March? MR. LEITCH: To all, Mr. Speaker. MR. TAYLOR: The sum of money in the estimates, then, will be in addition to any moneys already voted for the grant system in the school system? MR. LEITCH: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It increases the appropriation for those grants by $130 million. University Financing MR. GOGO: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the hon. Provincial Treasurer. It concerns the recently intro duced Bill 63.

I understand that the president of the University of Lethbridge has raised some concerns about the bill. Does the government plan to introduce amendments that will give the government new powers over finances at the University of Lethbridge, which is presently covered under The Universities Act? MR. LEITCH: Mr.

Speaker, it was not our intention in any material way to alter the position of universities, colleges, or hospital boards with Bill 63, The Financial Administration Act, because we had intended to introduce, following the passing of that legislation, regulations which in essence would have maintained the status quo for all those institutions.

However, since introducing the bill a number of my colleagues and I have received representations from university boards, colleges, and hospital boards point ing out that because of their special status with respect to autonomy, they ought to be exempted in the legislation rather than by regulation. After having considered those representations, Mr. Speaker, it seemed to me they were soundly based and ought to be responded to.

Accordingly it's my present inten tion to introduce at the committee stage of Bill 63 amendments which would remove hospital boards, universities, and colleges from all the provisions of Bill 63, apart from those which relate to long-term borrowing. MR. GOGO: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the Pro vincial Treasurer for confirmation. Amendments would be introduced, therefore, that would in no way diminish the role of authority of the board of gover nors of the University of Lethbridge? MR. LEITCH: That is the present intention, Mr. Speaker, subject to the comments I made about long- term borrowing.

School Buses DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the hon. Solicitor General. A short

preamble: last year I brought to the hon. minister's attention the fact that school buses loading passengers while stopped with flashing lights on were being passed by overtaking and meeting vehicles. Can the minister indicate if his department has undertaken to see that this practice ceases? MR. FARRAN: Mr. Speaker, after the hon. member drew the problem to my attention, I circulated all police forces and the highway patrol division to advise them to be on the alert for this kind of infraction. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, to the hon. Solicitor General.

Can the hon. minister indicate if he has received fewer complaints this year about this practice than he did previously? In other words, is the program work ing? I have had the same complaints voiced to me this year as I did last year. MR. FARRAN: Mr. Speaker, I think it probably has been working, because the complaint just voiced by the hon. member is the first I've heard since he raised the subject last spring.

November 7, 1977 ALBERTA HANSARD 1915 DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question of the hon. minister. Can the minister indi cate if he has given any consideration to using the highway patrol that the minister has in his depart ment to further beef up the enforcement of school buses being passed? MR. FARRAN: Yes, we are doing that now, Mr. Speaker. MR. TAYLOR: A supplementary to the hon. minister.

Has the hon. minister received any complaints about people who buy school buses and do not remove all the school bus signs, and consequently continue to operate as school buses, to the annoyance of the general public? MR. FARRAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I can tell that that's the voice of experience. It does happen. We do have such complaints, although I understand it is an offence to continue to operate a vehicle in the guise of a school bus. But from time to time everyone, from rock bands to mobile home-owners, seems to acquire school buses and disobey the regulation. MR. TAYLOR: A further supplementary.

Is any con sideration being given to the requirement to repaint school buses, at least to some degree, in order to avoid the appearance that it is a school bus? MR. FARRAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I'll look into that. It's my recollection — and I could be corrected — that that is already a requirement in the regulations. But I will look it up and communicate further with the hon. member. McMahon Stadium MR. PLANCHE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am wond ering if the Minister Without Portfolio responsible for Calgary affairs could comment on whether or not the government is prepared to assist the McMahon Sta dium Society in its expansion plan? MR. McCRAE: Mr. Speaker, the McMahon Stadium Society has proposed an expansion of the McMahon Stadium facility by the addition of substantial ama teur facilities and also some seats to house specta tors at football games. The proposal is that it would cost $3.9 million for these facilities.

The fund-raising aspect of it is that the city has agreed to put up $1 million, and the society is intending to go to the private sector in a fund-raising effort for another $1 million. They have come to the government and asked whether we would support them on a matching basis. I have the pleasure to announce that yes, we will support them, both in the volunteer segment and in the amateur facilities segment by agreeing to match dollar for dollar, up to a maximum of $2 million for the cost of the expanded facility. DR. BUCK: Does that mean only two storeys for Government House? MR. MUSGREAVE: A supplementary, Mr.

Speaker. I'd like to ask the minister if, in return for this contribution of provincial funds, he will ensure that prime time is being made available to the amateur groups in the use of this facility? MR. McCRAE: Mr. Speaker, that's a very good ques tion. I'd like to point out to the House that although the football club, the major fund-raising tenant of the facility, has a claim on certain time during the football season, the amateur groups — that is, high school football groups, the university football team, et cetera — have substantial claim on the facilities.

In fact over the past couple of years there have been upwards of 250 amateur usages per year. I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that might even be expanded, and the new facilities would lend themselves to an expansion in that area. DR. BUCK: It would be, if you'd put a cover on it. MR. McCRAE: Good recommendation. MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the hon. minister. Does Calgary expect to have a Grey Cup team next year? [laughter] MR. GOGO: Mr. Speaker, supplementary to the min ister. What is the name of the football club he is referring to? ORDERS OF THE DAY Speaker's Ruling MR.

SPEAKER: Last Monday, as reported in pages 1757 and 1758 of Hansard, the hon. Minister of Housing and Public Works raised, as a matter of privi lege, certain questions asked on the preceding Friday by the hon. Leader of the Opposition. The hon. minis ter specified the matter thus: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition attempted, through his line of questioning, to leave the impression in this House, with the media, and through the media with the public, that I as Minister of Housing and Public Works was guilty of impropriety . . . .

As has been said before, this House and other parliaments of our tradition impose on the Speaker the duty to decide whether prima facie, or on the face of it, there has been a breach of the privileges of the House or of its members. The reason, of course, for giving the Speaker the duty of making a preliminary examination and ruling is to protect the House against its time being taken up unnecessarily with alleged questions of privilege. Otherwise there could be serious disruptions of parliamentary work, because a matter of privilege takes precedence of all other items.

In electing a Speaker to serve the members and the province, hon. members have not given me the duty of rebuking any member, and I am not about to do so. Anyone who finds in these words any such rebuke is distorting my intent and meaning. There is no doubt of the seriousness of the matter. If a member loses his good name, he loses something which is priceless and invaluable. Hence it has always been recognized that allegations of improper conduct should not be made indirectly by way of

1916 ALBERTA HANSARD November 7, 1977 innuendo, but rather directly and openly so that the person making such charges assumes the burden of proof and the responsibility and consequences of fail ing to provide proof. One of the most important realities in a situation of this kind is that there are many who are always ready to believe the worst, whether on the basis of media reports or information received from other sources. They are negative; they revel in evil. To them, if it's good, it isn't news. If it's bad news, it's good news.

Persons in public life or in the public service are the most frequent victims of such a mentality. People with such an attitude seem to say to themselves: given the chance, that's what I would do; therefore, I assume that that is what a certain public servant has done. For such people, even the most innocent statements can be twisted into an accusation. This is one of the realities we have to bear in mind in what we say in this Assembly.

That being the case, is there any way at all to ask questions about possible wrongdoing or impropriety without leaving, in negative minds, the suggestion that wrong has actually been committed? Probably there is no way of asking such questions without giving rise to suspicions. Then we must ask ourselves whether the unfortu nate tendency of some to believe the worst should stop questions in a parliament, where such questions seek to find out whether there is a case of conflict of interest or any other alleged impropriety. Here there is a real difficulty.

When is a question a question, and when is it an accusation or a charge? It is a well-known parliamentary principle, and a rule of common sense, that no member may subject another to a vague charge whether in a motion or in a question. A charge may be made only by a motion on notice and must be very specific, with clear particu lars, so that the person charged may know exactly what the charge is. This common-sense principle is recognized in all parliaments of our tradition. Consequently a question used as a means to make an accusation is out of order. When does it go that far?

There is only a shadowy gray line between a bona fide question and an accusation. That poorly defined gray line is the area between, on the one hand, a member's right of free speech and his duty to make effective inquiry and, on the other hand, an abuse of the right of free speech and of the duty to inquire. Undoubtedly there is no member of this Assembly who would deny the right of any member, other than a minister, to ask questions concerning governmental or ministerial actions. Obviously this right has to extend to inquiring as to whether there may be a case of mistaken action or of impropriety.

It could be said that it is the duty of members to inquire into such matters. And if members, no matter where they sit, have such a duty, then certainly the Leader of the Opposition is most of all under such a duty. Suppose, however, that a member does cross the gray line, out of the gray and into the black, where he is making an out-and-out accusation or even an implied charge, whether in a question or in debate. Such a charge or allegation is, in effect, in the same category as using, against another member, the ex pression, "liar", "thief, or any number of other unparliamentary expressions.

Many examples of such expressions are given in Beauchesne in Citation 155, and in Sir Erskine May's nineteenth edition at page 445. It is, however, very clear from the texts that such expressions are breaches or points of order rather than of privilege. They include outright allega tions of a nature far more blatant than the matter which we have before us today. Some of the questions asked by the hon. Leader of the Opposition, and referred to by the hon. Minister of Housing and Public Works in raising this matter, did seem to be out of order and, as the record shows, the Chair did intervene.

The situation is well summed up by a recent distin guished Speaker of the House of Commons, the Hon. Lucien Lamoureux, when he was dealing with an allegation of breach of privilege arising out of ques tions asked of a minister. On December 5, 1974, at page 1965 of the House of Commons Debates, he says: The House is considering the question of privi lege raised by the Solicitor General concerning, as I understand it, some insinuations against him in respect of the carrying out of his duties. Cer tain questions raised by hon. members may involve insinuations.

However, all the questions, and I have listened carefully, have, in my opinion, been orderly questions concerning the inquiry into an important subject. In situations like this there are always insinuations of some sort con nected with questions. It seems to me that the questions asked have been to the point, as have been the answers. The situation is being clari fied as the questions and answers come forward.

It seems to me that this is good parliamentary exercise, but I cannot recognize in it the ingre dients of a question of privilege respecting the rights, conduct or the ability of a member to function as a member of the House of Commons. The question raised in this Assembly by the hon. minister is very similar to the one decided by Speaker Lamoureux. There is not here a matter which, on the face of it, is a question of privilege. It may be useful to refer to the rather long list of limitations on questions as set out in Citation 171 of Beauchesne. Under 171(

h) the author says that a question may not "contain inferences", and in 171(

i) he says that it may not "contain imputations". Then in 171(

n) he says that a question may not "reflect on or relate to character or conduct of persons other than in a public capacity". However, a question which offended against any of these restrictions would still not constitute a matter of privilege but rather one of order. To deal with the present situation more fully, reference should perhaps be made to an outright conflict as to fact between the hon. Leader of the Opposition and the hon. minister. At page 1738 of our Hansard, the hon. Leader of the Opposition says: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister.

Is this land in the Vegreville area the same land that the minister indicated publicly the government is going to annex, despite the rec ommendations of the Local Authorities Board? The minister, in the speech in which he took objec tion to the hon. leader's line of questioning, said, at page 1757 of our Hansard: The hon. Leader of the Opposition also asked me during the question period if I cared to indi cate to the Assembly whether I publicly stated

November 7, 1977 ALBERTA HANSARD 1917 over the Camrose radio station that the land adjacent to the Vegreville research station would be annexed to the town of Vegreville, despite the recommendations of the Local Authorities Board. The answer is no. There is, thus, a difference in allegations of fact. While the House may have the means directly or through a committee to investigate such facts, the Speaker has no such means and cannot be called upon to make an inquiry.

A difference as to facts, however, does not constitute a question of privilege, and it does not, even as has been held many times, support a point of order. MR. YURKO: Mr. Speaker, on a point or order, and without being disrespectful in any way to the Chair or to your office, I am left somewhat confused as to whether there is or isn't before this House a matter of privilege, or if in fact it's a case where you weren't able to decide. I wonder if you might be able to clarify that for me. MR. SPEAKER: I apologize to the hon. minister if I have failed to make the matter clear.

There is not a prima facie case of privilege. I did say as much, although I added two further points subsequently because I thought perhaps hon. members would expect me to deal with them. MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I have received certain messages from His Honour the Honourable the Lieutenant-Governor, which I now transmit to you. SERGEANT-AT-ARMS: Order! [Members of the House stood] MR.

SPEAKER: His Honour the Honourable the Lieutenant-Governor transmits supplementary esti mates of certain sums required for the service of the province for the 12 months ending March 31, 1978, and recommends the same to the Legislative Assembly. Please be seated. head: GOVERNMENT MOTIONS 4. Moved by Mr. Leitch:

Be it resolved that the messages of His Honour the Honourable Lieutenant-Governor, the Supplementary Estimate of Expenditure (A) 1977-78, and all matters connected therewith be referred to the Committee of Supply. [Motion carried] MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, I move you do now leave the Chair and the Assembly resolve itself into Committee of the Whole to consider bills on the Order Paper. MR. SPEAKER: Having heard the motion by the hon. Government House Leader, do you all agree? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. head: GOVERNMENT BILLS AND ORDERS (Committee of the Whole) [Dr. McCrimmon in the Chair] MR. CHAIRMAN: The Committee of the Whole As sembly will now come to order. Bill 15 The Planning Act, 1977

Section 73 MR. CHAIRMAN: We have some amendments to Sec tion

Section 73 is replaced. We have a motion by the hon. Member for Bow Valley with respect to an amendment. Do you have an amendment, Mr. Member? MR. MANDEVILLE: Mr. Chairman, I did present an amendment to the Legislature last Wednesday. There was some indication that the amendment I had made was covered in the amendments presently before us. As I read the amendments, I can't see where mine is covered here. I can't see that it's covered, allowing two dwellings on a piece of proper ty where it involves family dwellings.

Another area that I'm sure is not covered in here relates to where a partnership or a company wants to build more than one home on a particular piece of property. I don't see any provision where they can do this. For example, if there are two brothers who have a partnership and one of them could have a supple mentary position some place else but wants to live on the farm, they wouldn't qualify to build another home. I would just like the minister to comment, as it was indicated that my motion was redundant and was covered in the amendment. MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, in reviewing the amendment to

Section 73(3)(a), that

section now reads that the restrictions for the second dwelling do not apply where the second home is for anyone who's employed full time in agricultural pursuit. That sec tion now exists in the current legislation. If you can show prima facie that you're in the agricultural busi ness, you can build a second home. So I don't think there's any challenge to that. We have expressed the fear in the debate so far that if we continue to be infinitely flexible we would have an additional dwelling taking place in rural Al berta. But the intention of this amendment would be to increase that in my view.

Because it states: "[any] person who . . . has been employed full time . . . in an agricultural pursuit". To me, that would indicate that [if] he has been employed at it perhaps 30 or 40 years ago, he would still qualify to build that second dwell ing. I don't think that's the intention of the hon. member, as I understand his position, nor do I expect that would be the position of the government with respect to allowing the agricultural home for the hired man or son who shares the agricultural responsibilities. Mr.

Chairman, I don't believe the [amendment] real ly assists the section, nor do I think it addresses itself

1918 ALBERTA HANSARD November 7, 1977 to the principle of this particular

section of the legisla tion. I don't see any reason why an entity which owned the parcel of land could not allow a second dwelling, if it tried to move under the exemption

section — that is, the second dwelling on the 80-acre parcel — even though it was not employed full time in an agricultural pursuit. I can't see anything in the legislation which would restrict that, whether through corporate ownership or through a limited or other kind of partnership. So I'm suggesting there is a tone of redundancy here, Mr. Chairman. I think the amendment challenges the wrong section. I certainly would not encourage members to support that amendment. MR. CLARK: Mr. Chairman, I'm sure the point has been made before, whether it's this

section or some place else in the act: one of the most perplexing problems over the past year, at least in my own constituency, has been this question of parents want ing to be able to live, in a mobile home or otherwise, in the same yard as their sons or daughters. Maybe this isn't the

section to deal with this. But if this is the section, let's not pass it by. Let's try to cope with that particular problem. As I look at the legislation, and as it has been explained to me by some municipal people, if we throw out this amendment, the

section we're now passing doesn't give the kind of flexibility to allow people to have their parents or someone like that live in the farmyard. If you take this to an extreme it becomes a situation where, if they can't do that — and I had this situation in my own constituency. People ended up having to try to get into the senior citizens' accommodations in Sundre. A far more desirable situation would be for them to be able to live in the yard with their children. That's really what my colleague is trying to get at. If the amendment doesn't do that — I take it from your comments, Mr.

Minister, that you felt it was way too broad — can we have an amendment that will make that possible? MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the fact that the hon. Leader of the Opposition supports the concept of the waiver for the second home for compassionate arguments. That

section is spelled out in the amendments under 73(2), where it states that notwithstanding the restriction you can build the second dwelling for the compassionate arguments. So we're not amending that right at all. However, the amendment before the House right now deals with the agricultural home. That is not really being challenged by this legislation. At the same time, if we do not agree to this amendment, it would not in any way remove the flexibility the hon. Leader of the Opposition is recommending and would permit a second dwelling on that 80-acre parcel even if you cannot show agricultural attachment or need. So it meets the flexibility requirements. We're not offending this

section by denying this amendment. MR. TAYLOR: If I could just have another word from the minister in regard to that. Does that mean then that in Subsection (3) the six-months requirement each year is being waived? I'm having difficulty find ing in Subsection (3) the point that would cover a home for the parents of the son who is going to farm. DR. WALKER: Mr. Chairman, I think this bill was made for people; not for municipalities, planning boards, the city of Calgary, the city of Edmonton, or anybody else.

We've listened to a lot of semantics about different sections in the bill; whether it should be "shall" or "may". We've heard problems of acreage and number of houses, and a lot of legal mumbo jumbo about how many and where such houses should be built. But what was the real intent of the bill and its amendments? The intent is to allow a rational and logical planning of the countryside, to allow a retired farmer or his relatives to build another one or two homes for his family or hired help. At first the act appeared to be too restrictive. Now I think the amendments are probably getting too flexible.

In a way it's like an aging gentleman who finally got it all together and then couldn't remember where he put it. The point to all this is that a great deal of thought and legal consultation has been given in deciding the wording of the act and its amendments. For the life of me I cannot see how the new amendment will clarify anything at all. You know, if we took the Ten Commandments to court, I'm sure the judiciary could get ten different

interpretations out of them. I'd like to paraphrase a little on this: Thou shalt not build on thy neighbor's land. Thou shalt not bother another's farm. Thou shalt not build another house Unless the occupant is also thy spouse. Thou shalt not join with one another, For that will surely create a bother. For one who wishes to subdivide, He must get the planners to also decide. That what he does is good for the land, Though planning acts he can't understand. To build an outhouse on another section, Must surely meet with some rejection. But if we're talking of land dissection, Then clearly we go in another direction.

The Planning Act is here to stay, But in what form I couldn't say. For the province, it seems, must be built that way. So let's all with one accord Amend and change the written record. Then appease the minister with his just reward. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, municipal people have asked me to put my finger on the point that gives them the right to build a second home for the parents. When I look at the bill I have difficulty in doing that, other than Subsection (4) which says: "The Board may exempt from the operation of this

section any person or land". But that is the point that both the farmer and the municipalities want to avoid if possi ble. It seems like a lot of unnecessary red tape to have to go to the board every time you want a second home for parents who want to live on the same farm with their son and daughter. They've lived there all their lives and now want a second home so the son and daughter can continue the operation. But I un derstand it can be done under Subsection (4). It's always been there. That could be done before. When I look at (2)(a), it says: "a second or additional dwelling unit is permitted under subsection (3)". Then I look at Subsection (3), and it says, provided it's

November 7, 1977 ALBERTA HANSARD 1919 occupied "full time for at least six months each year". That wouldn't fill the bill. (

b) is contained in a building designed or divided into two or more dwelling units . . . They don't want the same building; it's a separate house. So that wouldn't fill the bill. (

c) is a mobile unit . . . If they're using a mobile home, I could understand that would probably qualify. But they want to build another house. They want to live there for many years. So if it's a mobile unit, it qualifies, otherwise it doesn't. (

d) is a building that is the subject of a condo minium plan registered in the land titles of fice . . . Again it wouldn't qualify. So it comes down to the same thing we have today: they have to get permission from the board. I don't really see why we want to put long-time Albertans to that trouble, or the board. Because invariably the board says yes. That's why I would like to see it set out a little more definitely, so that cases like this will know exactly where they stand. MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to call the hon. member's attention to

Section 73(2)(b). That

section specifies that no development officer will issue a permit unless it's for a second dwelling on 80 acres or more. Now that's the flexible provision that allows a second dwelling to be built on 80 acres or more.

Section 73(2)(

a) specifies that no home shall be built unless, as the hon. Member for Drumheller points out, it generally satisfies the agricultural requirements. So we've done two things. In

Section 72(

b) we've given the flexibility for the second home on the 80-acre parcel with no requirements to satisfy any body, including the provincial planning board, the municipal authority, or anybody else. You can build the house on 80 acres or more. So it's the second home concept. However, Subsection (3) goes on to list the restric tions to that general provision. Subsection (3), as the amendment is before us, deals with the agricultural home. I'm suggesting it should not be changed. Other subsections go on to indicate that if it's less than 80 acres, you can still make similar application to the provincial planning board to seek their waiver of this regulation. So (a), in

Section 73 we're providing for the second home very clearly, very specifically, on 80 acres or more; and (b), we're providing for the discretion; that is, agricultural needs or the waiver for land under 80 acres. So, in reaction to the hon. Leader of the Opposition and the Member for Drumheller, I don't think there's any confusion, nor do I believe the amendment is required. MR. TAYLOR: I'd like to thank the minister. That clears the point up. DR. BUCK: Mr. Chairman, I just want to say one or two words. I appreciate the

section where the hon. minister indicated that under 40 acres you cannot appeal on compassionate grounds . . . MR. JOHNSTON: Under 80. DR. BUCK: Under 80, yes, I'm sorry. Under 80, right. I know I've been involved in instances where the local authority gave that permission. Of course they also had a provision or mechanism whereby this could be renewed or not renewed year to year if the circum stances changed.

When I was making representation on behalf of this widow, I felt we should have that type of — "policing" is not a good word — mechanism that if the circum stances changed that second residence could be removed. Because we did ask in good faith and it was done that way. Not being a Philadelphia lawyer, like the hon. min ister seems to think he is, I think we have to have it clear, so people can understand that if they have a son moving on or a parent retiring, that provision can be very, very easily administered and understood.

The people who will be making these decisions do not want to have every case come before them and say, no, this one we can, the other one we can't. The greatest concerns brought to me by people in my area and across the province are in the instance where the parent, son, or son-in-law wants to put a second residence on there. Because there should still be sanctity of private property, that provision should be black and white so we know exactly that we can put these second residences on these farms. MR. JOHNSTON: Well, Mr. Chairman, I admit I'm not a lawyer. But as I read

Section 73(2)(b), it's very clear to me that the permission is there. It's not contingent upon approval by any municipality, therefore it's pro vincial legislation and no municipal by-law would hinge or turn on this particular section. I think it is very clear. It states the acreage and that you can build a second house on that acreage. MR. ZANDER: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the minis ter two questions. One that the municipalities are concerned with is under

Section 73(a), where inspec tions can be made by municipal authorities as to whether or not it qualifies as an agricultural pursuit. I think there's no doubt they're going to be overbur dened with it, to some extent. The second question: when Bill 15, The Planning Act, comes out, will it include in one bill all the amendments before us now — not Bill 15 as the former one, and as it is now amended? Will we have two distinct bills, or will we have the complete bill in one parcel? MR. JOHNSTON: Mr.

Chairman, I appreciate the hon. member's comment with respect to the further amount of time required by the municipality to per haps adjudicate some of the agricultural decisions; that is, whether or not a home satisfies an agricultur al need. But I think that's very similar to the kinds of problems they're now facing. They have not objected to it too vociferously. They recognize the problem and they recognize a certain amount of compliance is required there. On the second point: of course Bill 15 will be published in a planning act form, and all the amend ments will be reflected.

The various sections will be in an orderly form and the continuity of the amend ments will be reflected therein.

1920 ALBERTA HANSARD November 7, 1977 MR. KIDD: The minister has been very patient and clear in my former questions on this bill, particularly one with regard to taxation. I think it would be important for him to underline that there's no indica tion that separate title will be given for the additional home under 73(b). MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, the

section does not envision a subdivision as such. It states that a second home can be built on a parcel, and in this case a parcel is 80 acres or more. In my view this will not generate a rush of new development on 80-acre parcels because, of course, since the parcel is retained under similar ownership you'd have to construct that second home with an arrangement with the owner, obviously. Therefore, the compas sionate reasons really are the ones which will prevail.

You'll find that a close relationship will be needed before you could agree to that kind of commitment, because of course for mortgaging and ownership purposes you would require separate title. So the hon. member makes a very good point when he indi cates that subdivision is not envisioned in this section. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you ready for the question with respect to the amendment by the hon. Member for Bow Valley? [Motion lost] [Sections 73 through 76 as amended agreed to] [Sections 77 and 78 agreed to]

Section 79 MR. GHITTER: Mr. Chairman, I'm wondering if the hon. minister would consider an amendment to that section: where it refers to 30 days, that the days be increased to 40. The reduction of that period of time will present quite a hardship on the municipalities. What it means is that on the 30-day basis you're requiring the municipalities to have hearings every week,

whereas the way it has been and on the 40-day basis it would be every two weeks. It seems to me there's very little difference be tween the 30 and 40 days. But this section, by reducing it to 30 days, is placing a great imposition on municipalities that can get by with a development appeal board hearing every two weeks. This would require them to do it every week, which would be a strain on the planning procedures and matters. I think this submission was made to you by the city of Calgary.

I've discussed the matter with them, and I really believe that what they're saying is very impor tant from their point of view, in order to move these matters through. If the hon. minister would consider changing that from 30 to 40 days, where it was before, it would be a very meaningful and important step certainly from the point of view of the urban municipalities, and Edmonton and Calgary, if not elsewhere. MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, of course we have weighed carefully the recommendation by the city of Calgary.

To the Member for Calgary Buffalo: at this point I would probably attempt to expedite the deci sions of the development appeal board over a shorter period of time. While we are not fixed on that particu lar time limit I think we'd like to see it operate at 30 days for a while. Obviously most of these local authorities and most of these boards would like to have a longer period of time to deliberate, but to some extent that slows the process. However, as I said, I'd be more than willing, perhaps after we've tried this particular section, to entertain a review at that point. MR. MANDEVILLE: Mr.

Chairman, I would like the minister to indicate — it indicates here that the appeal would be going out to the registered owner and to those people affected by the order. There's some concern among some of our community organi zations or groups that are respected in the areas. Will they have any input as far as — I'm thinking of their concern about where recreational facilities are going, such as swimming pools or skating rinks. Would that be covered under

Section 79(3)(e): "such other persons as the development appeal board specifies". MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, I think both

Section 79(1) and

Section 79(3)(

e) are perhaps wide enough that most people would have the right to make a representation. For example, in 79(1), where it states, any other person affected by a decision or order of a development appeal board, to me this would be a pretty wide opportunity for most people affected by that decision to make a petition to the DAB upon appeal. [Sections 79 through 81 as amended agreed to] [Sections 82 through 84 agreed to] [Sections 85 through 87 as amended agreed to] [Section 88 agreed to] [Sections 89 through 91 as amended agreed to] [Section 92 agreed to] [Sections 93 through 95 as amended agreed to] MR.

TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, I don't know whether other members have any more amendments and so on from here on. If not, we could probably save a lot of time by doing it in bulk. It looks to me like we've covered all the points that were of vital concern and, if so, it seems like a waste of time to go through every section. HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. TAYLOR: Could we take the balance, and if any members have any particular points they could raise those points on . . . MR. CHAIRMAN: If that is agreeable to the committee. HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. [Section 95.1 agreed to]

Section 96 MR. MUSGREAVE: I'd like to ask the minister a ques tion on 96, Mr. Chairman. The city of Calgary again raised a point that I know the minister has probably looked at but I'd like him to respond to. They point out that the school board has power to appeal a

November 7, 1977 ALBERTA HANSARD 1921 planning commission decision; however, the city would not have the same opportunity. I wonder if the minister would like to comment on that. MR. JOHNSTON: The city of Calgary does have the right to appeal. Their position is incorrect. They have the right to appeal under

Section 99. [Section 96 as amended agreed to] [Sections 97 through 103 as amended agreed to] [Section 104 agreed to] [Sections 105 through 113 as amended agreed to] [Section 114 agreed to] [Sections 115 through 121 as amended agreed to]

Section 122 MR. MANDEVILLE: On

Section 122, it's going to be "shall"; they shall set up land use in a development by-law. As I said once before, Mr. Chairman, I had an example of a by-law. It wasn't really sent around to everyone; they had public meetings and so on. I think this

section does indicate that a letter will be going out to everyone as far as the by-law is concerned, but it would be useful if the by-law itself was distributed to everyone. This way they'd be able to study the by-law and certainly have much more knowledge as far as the by-law was concerned. Mr. Chairman, what I'd like to do is make an amendment to

Section 122(2): "The following shall be added after 'shall give written notice': 'and send a copy of each proposal of the by-law'". In other words, along with the letter send a copy of the by-law. MR. CHAIRMAN:

Section 122 is amended by the hon. Member for Bow Valley: "The following shall be added after 'shall give written notice': 'and send a copy of each proposed by-law'". Is there any discus sion with respect to the amendment by the hon. Member for Bow Valley? MR. JOHNSTON: I appreciate the attempt the hon. member is making here, whereby he wants to ensure that full and adequate notice is given to an affected landowner. I think that's really the intention of this amendment. We did consider very carefully that it would be preferable if we could send out the entire proposed land use by-law.

I guess the only difficulty we have with that is that these by-laws are couched in perhaps somewhat dif ficult terms — I think we've had a debate in this Assembly dealing with the legalese of some of the by-laws — and some people who receive them may not necessarily understand them. Recognizing that notice had to be given, we felt it would be better if we could give a

summary of that by-law; to set out its objectives, how it would be accomplished, and its general effects. That's why we have said in this

section that we agree that notice has to be given and the amendment has to be spelled out, but we said we would summarize the effects for all affected land owners. To me, this first of all makes the by-law more understandable and readable by everybody who receives it and, secondly, it will save on paper that would be generated by a municipality if it had to send out the entire by-law. In some cases we may send out the by-law, if it's short and narrow and very specific. But other cases, where it's extensive — and you'll notice that the entire

section of land use by-laws could be pretty comprehensive, and the by-law itself could be a very comprehensive document — to expedite understand ing, and to expedite the paper war, we thought we would deal only with the question of the

summary of its effect. Although the intention is good, I do not necessarily think the amendment is necessary, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any question with respect to the amendment by the hon. Member for Bow Valley? MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the thought of the hon. Member for Bow Valley too. But what I'm afraid of is that the ratepayers would line up at the next visit of the MLA and he'd be interpreting it for each of these people. Many get an ordinary letter from the municipality, and that's hard enough to understand.

I find that sometimes when I have my meetings for the convenience of the people, half the time is taken explaining to them what a letter from the municipality means. If they get a by-law, you can understand how much more difficult that's going to be. I really think a simple

summary of its effect would be far better. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Chairman, I think we wanted to bring notice to this particular area of the bill, in that we found that in some attempts of municipalities at the present time to introduce land use by-laws, the municipality would introduce it, it didn't get out to the public that such a by-law was being set, and all of a sudden someone would happen to find a copy. At that point in time there'd be quick scurry and discus sion around the communities and a lot of misinformation. We appreciate the part that says "summarize"; I think that's good.

When we rethought it this morning — these were prepared a week ago — we thought in terms of the urban type of by-law that may have to be introduced. You may have a 2- to 3-inch thick volume of eight and a half by 11 inch pages,

whereas rurally some of the land use by-laws I have reviewed have a reasonable number of pages. I think that was in our thinking when we developed the amendment as such. Maybe it's not necessary at this time, and we can reintroduce it later, but the only other suggestion I might leave for consideration would be something to the effect that if the municipality wishes to send out the total by-law, it can. I think the word "summarize" doesn't limit them in that particular area. MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, of course a by-law is an open, public document, and is available if anybody wants the document. MRS.

CHICHAK: I wonder if I could put a suggestion. Rather than have the members vote against the amendment, if the content of the amendment as it was first put is now sufficient to provide the informa tion the hon. Member for Bow Valley was concerned about, he may wish to withdraw his amendment. We agree with the principle, but I think this is accom plishing it. If he wishes to withdraw that amendment

1922 ALBERTA HANSARD November 7, 1977 MR. MANDEVILLE: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I'd be willing. Summarizing the by-law, and of course it is public knowledge . . . But we wanted to bring attention to it. As the hon. Member for Little Bow says, a lot of the time these by-laws come out and they're not made known to a lot of the people affected. Under these circumstances, Mr. Chairman, I'll withdraw the amendment. [Section 122 as amended agreed to] [Sections 123 through 126 agreed to] [Section 127 struck out, agreed to] [Section 128 agreed to] [Section 129 as amended agreed to] [Sections 130 and 131 agreed to]

Section 132 MR. R. SPEAKER: I wonder if the minister could again clarify for the Assembly the use of special planning areas. The minister is taking to himself quite a large amount of power. I was wondering if the minister would see some situations where that type of legisla tion is required and where it would be applied. Maybe this would clarify the

section for us. MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, in discussing the concept of the special planning area, I think we have before us at the present time examples of the need for special planning areas in Alberta. In the existing Planning Act, for example, we have provision for establishing airport vicinity regulations. These regu lations are done on a trilevel basis and provide for the drafting of noise curves around a municipality's air ports, and for the kinds of development that can take place within each one of these noise zones.

It will preclude, for example, vertical or high construction in some noise zones and the encroachment of urban development into the noise areas. So we already have the case where that is necessary. We also envision the use of this

section for estab lishment of particular planning restricted develop ment areas, for lack of a better term, because "special planning areas" is not being used. We have found that the intention to apply restricted development areas has been for planning purposes, and as all members realize we have had some difficulty with whether or not an RDA applied under The Depart ment of the Environment Act has been appropriate. To avoid misunderstanding we think that when the restricted development area is being applied for plan ning purposes, it should be brought back into this legislation.

In the case of some of the restricted development areas applied across the province we see that they would more properly be couched in this legislation; for example, the 5-mile RDA around the city of Calgary. We also envision the need to preserve some kinds of lands designed for utility corridors or for future location of utility corridors, because obviously you don't want those corridors located where they would affect or encroach upon urban development.

Another quick one, of course, would be where the province may wish to locate a new town, in which case they could establish a restricted development or special planning area to control that land until acqui sition, until the final details whereby the town is to be established have been outlined. We had a meeting on The Planning Act this morn ing with the mayor of Edmonton. His officials indi cated to me that they needed some other kind of zoning restriction to notify titles wherein houses and residents agreed to move into an area which was affected by traffic; "affected" in the sense of noise.

They have no provision now to assign a notification to that title to warn a subsequent owner that these people moved into that area with full understanding of the noise pollution. I can envision it being used, therefore, in the case of restricting urban develop ment around a major arterial roadway, for the obvious reason that although you get the arterial in place, urban development encroaches on it. Pretty soon the urban development is suggesting that the arterial road be closed because it's affecting their dwellings. So that's how we contemplate the use.

I think the debate in terms of the principles is behind us. We are using it in some cases now, and we think there is a need for it, particularly at the request of municipalities. MR. R. SPEAKER: In interpreting what you are saying, Mr. Minister, the special areas would be used for special types of purposes. I also see them as a sort of interface of regulations or restrictions into municipal or regional plans that would be the direct responsibili ty of the province rather than maybe the local gov ernment.

Or can the authority for these special plan ning regulations or rules as such be delegated to the local authority? The other thing: when a special development area is established, do you see the criteria spelled out very, very clearly so there are definite parameters as to what types of things are covered? One example you have used is with regard to a noise factor. MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, I don't contemplate transferring to the municipality the right to control development within that special zoning area.

The reason we have them is generally because it affects more than one municipality, and generally has province-wide requirement or necessity to have a higher zoning control. Therefore I don't think it could be delegated to the local authority. However, I do contemplate the special planning area being applied at the request of the municipality to allow them a period to determine future use for some land, particu larly where it has an environmental consequence, a noise consequence, or where it affects more than one municipality. Therefore I do see us acting on the request of a municipality.

On the criteria: I think I listed two of them. It's an intermunicipal kind of problem that requires a period of time whereby that land has to be zoned at a higher level so that no development can take place, but no change in the development will take place; and where the municipalities are in the process of developing a plan or scheme for the use, in case of utilities or in the case of new time development. I see those kinds of uses for this section. MR. GHITTER: Perhaps the minister would answer a question, to which I might have a further response.

If the minister determines that a special development area will be utilized for a permanent use — not a temporary use — is it the minister's understanding

November 7, 1977 ALBERTA HANSARD 1923 that there is then an obligation to proceed to expro priate under this legislation? MR. JOHNSTON: I don't think the need to expropriate is specifically spelled out. The hon. member is indi cating that. But I think there may well be a need for another department with a land acquisition potential to acquire some land in the restricted development or special planning area, depending on the name given to it. That need would be done by another department.

However, the question is: how far have the rights of the individual been interrupted if you are restricting some of his future use of that land? If you allow him to develop it to its potential, you could be interfering with this larger provincial interest. At that point I think the debate as to whether or not you've inter fered with his rights is real. I don't know how that's being applied with respect to restricted development areas, by regulation or by policy. But I do know that in some cases the land has been acquired from the individual. MR. GHITTER: I would just like to go on record, Mr.

Chairman, as suggesting that if in the public interest it is the intention of the government to deal on a permanent basis with someone's land and determine it as a special development area, I think it only reasonable that there also be some obligation upon government to acquire that land and pay compensa tion for depriving a person of his property rights, albeit in the public interest.

I would hope the minis ter would look into that matter to determine again the fairness of the balance between the public interest and taking away one's property rights and freezing his land by calling it a special development area. MR. JOHNSTON: I appreciate the hon. member's comments and that will be my undertaking. [Section 132 as amended agreed to] [Section 133 agreed to] [Section 134 as amended agreed to] [Section 135 agreed to]

Section 136 MR. MUSGREAVE: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a comment on

Section 136. I was quite im pressed with the minister's remarks and the strong defense of the RDA to protect the environment, and planning, and all the rest of it around our cities. I would like to suggest to the hon. minister it's equally important to give the municipalities the same power within their jurisdiction to control their environment, particularly where there are infractions of the land use by-law. If you're doing a $10,000 repair job, a $50 fine is really nothing. It's like a $2 or $3 parking ticket. If you're involved in a multimillion dollar proj ect, even $5,000 can be absorbed quite easily. Mr.

Chairman, I feel the government is doing a disservice to the cities if it takes the teeth out of this act, as I understand it is going to do by changing

Section 136 with this proposed amendment. I feel quite strongly on this particular point because of my experience at city hall. This has been one of the most frustrating problems facing the administration. It's difficult enough to get charges laid. If they are found guilty, it's a very disheartening process to have very minor fines levied. It indicates that perhaps the gov ernment isn't tuned in to the problems facing cities. I hope we wouldn't want to be faced with that accusation. MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, I'm sure many mem bers will make the case for the urban areas very clearly. We would introduce these amendments to

Section 136, a penalty section, because there has been a substantial reaction to this

section across the province — perhaps mostly rural, but nonetheless a reaction — suggesting that the fines and certainly the imprisonment sections may be too harsh for The Planning Act. In reaction to that request we have deleted that

section which specifically spells out fines and penal ties. However, I am quick to add, and my lawyer friends have advised me, that we still remain under the

summary convictions

section of the Criminal Code, which spells out pretty severe penalties for violation of this section, but I think falls short of imprisonment. I know the cities of Calgary and Edmonton are somewhat concerned about it. They find their con cern rests mostly with large developers who have the opportunity to waive the high cost, the fine, and very easily adjust to that. So they have agreed they're not exactly in favor of the amendment. They would like to see a higher penalty.

But recognizing the feelings in rural Alberta, recognizing that generally we're in a responsible area, and further that we have stepped up the "stop order" sections of this legislation to provide the municipalities with a pretty quick address to the problem, I think the amendment is a pretty fair balance between rural and urban in recognizing the need.

We do appreciate the views of the hon. member with respect to the special situation in Calgary and Edmonton. [Section 136 as amended agreed to] [Section 137 agreed to] [Sections 138 and 139 struck out, agreed to] [Sections 140 through 143 agreed to] [Section 144 as amended agreed to] [Sections 145 and 146 agreed to] [Section 147 as amended agreed to] [Section 148 agreed to] [Section 149 as amended agreed to] [Section 150 agreed to] [Section 151 as amended agreed to] [Section 152 as replaced by item 95 agreed to] [Section 153 as replaced by item 96 agreed to] [Sections 154 through 156 agreed to] [Title and

preamble agreed to] MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill 15, The Planning Act, 1977, be reported as amended. MR. R. SPEAKER: Did we go through title and

preamble? MR. CHAIRMAN: We went through title and

preamble.

1924 ALBERTA HANSARD November 7, 1977 MR. R. SPEAKER: I'm speaking on the motion then. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make just two points at this time. By the amendments and things placed before us, there have been some improvements: with regard to the penalty, and with regard to dwellings on land. I don't think we want to argue about that. However, two things which are a little more signifi cant are of concern to us, and at this point would lead to where I'm not prepared to accept what has been presented. I have made mention of both, in debate on second reading and at the present time.

The first is with regard to time. We indicated that possibly there should be some way of leaving discus sion of the bill until the spring session, because we have had nearly 100 amendments, ideas, placed before the bill. A member was concerned today about how we were going to compile those 100 amend ments into the bill proper. That is of concern to municipal councillors who have the responsibility of administering the act, and to relative planning bodies. I'm sure there are many people across the province who have the very same concern.

We feel that with that type of input and the reorganization of the bill that will take place after this review by the commit tee, there should have been more time for the public to have a second look. The government hasn't felt ready to do that, and we feel that is certainly a shortcoming. The second thing raised by my colleagues and myself is in the area of the land use by-law. The first argument we placed before the Assembly was with regard to "shall" and "may" — I've gone through this argument already — in making it permissible for the local municipality to accept or not accept that respon sibility.

In this Assembly the point has been partly made that if we don't impose it on them, the total planning concept will not work. Well if it won't work, imposing it on them doesn't say it's going to work either. If the plan and legislation are good, the local municipality will see the idea is good and will work in harmony with the total concept of planning envisaged by the minister, the department, and this Legislature. Most likely some good land use by-laws can come forward. But that basic principle, where it's imposed to bring about a plan, a planning concept across this province, I'm not ready to accept.

I think there are certainly more permissive ways of going about this type of thing. We can also be concerned about the implications of a land use by-law. The land use by-law affects people in various areas of the province. It affects the property rights of the farmer and the urban person. On that basis I think we must attempt to give every bit of protection we can to the landowner or the property owner, and the rights of individuals. We have raised the one concern we had with regard to making people aware of what the land use by-law was, and whether they should get concerned with regard to a relevant section.

We've discussed that. We've withdrawn the amendment we presented. At this point we're pre pared to take the minister's word that possibly that particular aspect can be worked out. We certainly hope that it does. On those two concerns, Mr. Chairman, I feel at this time that I'm not prepared to vote for The Planning Act to proceed. DR. BUCK: Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief.

I would like to say I will be opposing the bill, also on the grounds that when the amendments are as large as the original bill for any major piece of legislation, as I stated previously, there just has to be some reason this should be held for the four months. Surely when the hon. minister and the members of the select committee who reviewed this legislation said, we went through it clause by clause, word by word, and we still get this many amendments, I don't think we as legislators should be in such a big hurry to pass this act at this time. So I'll be voting against it on that basis. When the hon.

Member for Calgary Buffalo made his speech and said, we're opposing this on this side of the House because it sounds good out in the boondocks, I would like to say to that hon. member that I would like to present him with a small tractor so he really knows what farming is all about in this province. If the page would be so kind as to present this to the hon. Member for Calgary Buffalo, he will know that people in the rural areas are not really out in the boondocks. Their concerns are genuine. They are concerned about the intrusion into their basic rights to own property in this province.

That's why the people out in the area are concerned. The hon. Member for Calgary Buffalo had better find out that the people in the boondocks are concerned because it's their property rights that are being imposed upon. Mr. Chairman, there's the other argument. Many members supporting the bill have said, it was in the old act, what are you complaining about? Well when we're bringing in a new act, it is no defense to say it is in the old act, it's here, you shouldn't complain.

So because much of the opposition to this act has come in since the middle of August, the end of August and thereon, I feel the people of this province are still not conversant with what's going on, how they'll be los ing many of their basic property rights. On these grounds I will be voting against Bill 15. MR. GHITTER: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I'd like to thank the hon. member for this air-conditioned tractor. It's very nice. I would also like to say that he must have difficulty in understanding the terminology utilized in the House. I didn't say "boondocks".

It was "boomdocks", because of the energy and enthu siasm in rural Alberta. DR. BUCK: Mr. Chairman, to the hon. member. If it should ever happen — I hope never — that he's going to defend me in a murder case, I hope that kind of small defense will not save me. MR. GHITTER: You couldn't afford the retainer. MR. PURDY: Mr.

Chairman, I'd just like to say that I'm going to support the act, but I'd like to correct for the record of Hansard a misinterpretation that has been sent to me — a couple of letters, not from my constit uents but from people outside the constituency, where they said I had received no representation from the Stony Plain constituency regarding Bill 15. I'd like to say that I received a lot of representation from the Stony Plain constituency. After I sent a letter out explaining the act, the copies of the amendments we have just finished passing, the let ters I am now receiving are in support of the act. So

November 7, 1977 ALBERTA HANSARD 1925 on behalf of my constituents — I'm taking their view on it — I'm going to support the bill. MR. KIDD: Mr. Chairman, in listening to the com ments of the hon. members of the opposition, I'd like to point out that in the discussion it seemed to me the members of government were the ones who brought out the very important aspects in the amendments that needed clarification, and that the members of the opposition merely followed after we'd explained to them exactly what those amendments meant. I've had an opportunity to bring up my points.

I've had them clearly explained by the hon. minister. I think his explanations have been good. As to the other amendments, the members of the opposition didn't bring up one comment. I think most of them were minor. The really important amendments have been discussed very, very fully in this Legislature. I intend to support the act. MR. JAMISON: Mr. Chairman, for clarification, I would like to remind the Member for Clover Bar that I thought it was on

Section 41 that he was going to oppose this bill, on the basis of right of entry. If my memory serves me right, I think the hon. member wasn't in his seat last Tuesday night when

Section 41 was being discussed. I was quite surprised. For clarification, was the Member for Clover Bar going to oppose this bill because of not extending it another four months, or was it because of

Section 41? DR. BUCK: Mr. Chairman, if the hon. Member for St. Albert isn't aware, I wasn't in that evening. But if the member has a little difficulty hearing and understand ing — and the hon. Member for Banff — I am opposing the bill because if any bill was supposedly drafted by the best help we could get, by the best input we could get from the people of this province, and the government had the audacity to come in with amendments nearly as large as the bill, then they didn't do their homework.

I am basing my opposition on the fact that people in this province who are going to be basically affected have not had their opportunity for input after these amendments came in. If the hon. government members can't understand that, they can't understand very much, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Under title and

preamble, would all those in favour please say aye. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye. MR. CHAIRMAN: Those against please say no. SOME HON. MEMBERS: No. [Mr. Chairman declared the motion carried. Several members rose calling for a division.

The division bell was rung] [Three minutes having elapsed, the House divided] For the motion: Adair Hansen Musgreave Ashton Harle Paproski Backus Hohol Planche Batiuk Horner Purdy Bogle Horsman Russell Bradley Hunley Shaben Butler Hyland Stewart Chambers Hyndman Stromberg Chichak Jamison Taylor Cookson Johnston Tesolin Crawford Kidd Thompson Doan Kroeger Topolnisky Donnelly Kushner Trynchy Dowling Leitch Walker Farran Little Warrack Fluker Lougheed Webber Foster Lysons Wolstenholme Getty McCrae Young Ghitter Miller Zander Gogo Moore Against the motion: Buck Mandeville R.

Speaker Clark Totals: Ayes - 59 Noes - 4 [Title and

preamble agreed to] Bill 51 The Wildlife Amendment Act, 1977 MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any comments, questions, or amendments to be offered with respect to any sections of this bill? There is an amendment to the bill. Are you familiar with the amendment? MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to say a word or two on the bill in connection with the hunting aspect.

I continue to get letters from constituents and people in the province about those who hunt in a manner dangerous to the safety of other persons; who shoot from road allowances or across road allowances; who use their guns to put holes in farming machinery, vacant houses, and so on. I have a letter from one constituent who suggests things have got so bad that she would like to have a ban put on all hunting within a 50-mile radius of our major cities. She suggested 50 miles; I suppose that was a suggestion. But the danger to our people is getting greater and greater.

People are not using their guns with any degree of good sense. When people, in the name of sportsmanship, leave gates open, shoot at cattle, break windows of farmhouses, put .22 and shotgun shells through machines, it isn't very amusing for those who own property. I realize it's a difficult problem to try to control. But I think we may yet have to take some rigid steps to make people realize they just can't destroy other people's property and get away with it. The solution possibly lies to some degree in heavy penalties, in education, and in requiring people to have training before they're permitted to hunt.

It's really a shame, because hunting is a lot of fun. I've certainly enjoyed it in my lifetime, and still enjoy it. But the fact that some are using it to destroy other people's property is becoming very, very annoying to people in our areas. This is particularly so within a radius of cities where "hunters" go out and destroy property rather than try to shoot for the fun of shooting. I just bring this again to the attention of the hon. minister so the department can endeavor to take

1926 ALBERTA HANSARD November 7, 1977 every possible step to try to get this thing back on the level, and back to where people living on farms within areas reasonably close to large centres can feel a little bit of safety during hunting season. DR. BUCK: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to bring one or two matters to the minister's attention. First, the matter we raised previously about looking at releasing phea sants and some of the game birds in this part of the province.

The people I've talked to in the fish and game associations feel they have an excellent or better than average chance of surviving in light of the fact that people are now becoming more aware that if they feed and somehow help out they'll have a chance of surviving. The point raised about the use of big-game rifles in the settled areas is certainly a problem that has been brought to my attention. It comes up every fall at the opening of the season. I've never received a com plaint from a farmer in my constituency about deer causing any problems.

The farmers will say, sure, I know they get into a few of my bales, and so on. But they've never really complained directly that they want something done about the deer. I've had one or two problems around Elk Island Park, where elk have got out of the park gates. Somehow they seem to escape the hunters every fall, and the herd seems to be getting a little larger every year. I don't know if they go out when the foraging is good and find a hole in the fence to get back in when the shooting starts. But that matter has been brought to my attention.

The problem of big game hunting with rifles really is the major concern of the people — especially in my constituency. I'm sure the hon. members for St. Albert and Stony Plain and any of the outlying areas — as mentioned by the hon. Member for Drumheller — have that same concern. It is a real concern. And I just don't know how somebody up there has been looking after us so we haven't had some tragedies. We've had many, many near tragedies. For instance, a girl just east and south of my constituency was sitting home on a Sunday afternoon doing her home work.

In comes a rifle slug through the picture window, into the refrigerator, which missed the girl by a foot. So we've had many instances of near misses. Until it becomes a major problem, where the animals are causing a lot of damage, I would like to see these areas fully closed to hunting. I've talked to members and people in the depart ment — the minister is well aware of that. I don't think harvesting to keep the animals in control ap plies in this area, because the animals seems to accommodate very well. Apparently there are more deer in this area now than there were 50 years ago.

I'm sure, as the Member for Banff just indicated, that's a problem in his area. So I would beseech the minister to have a really in-depth study into this problem, because we're going to start having some people killed, and I don't think we want that. MR. PLANCHE: Mr. Chairman, maybe this is an op portunity to ask the minister if he would consider, through his department, segregating hunting with rifles and hunting with shotguns?

With the increased pressure on bird hunting, citizens roaming the coun try, and so on, I'm sure a lot of hunters who have their land posted really are more concerned about rifles than shotguns. Perhaps it would afford a lot of citizens from the city an opportunity to get out on flat country, where there really isn't any problem with a shotgun, to shoot on land that's presently posted. I'm wondering if that might be considered. MR. MILLER: Mr. Chairman, to the minister. We are concerned in our area about the balance of popula tion between male and female deer.

Just this last weekend it was brought to my attention that there are many more female deer and practically no male deer. They were wondering if they couldn't open the sea son for the females at the start of the season rather than at the end? MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could read into the record a letter I received that expresses the concern of many, many farmers: I am appealing to you with some hope that new laws will be made to protect the landowner and his property from the yearly invasion of "hunters".

Every fall for countless years, we have been bombarded by people wanting to hunt and with people who do not bother to ask permission, but go among the cattle with guns and dogs, drop bottles and cartons in the fields and when stopped simply give you the old dodge "I didn't see the sign" or "The sign wasn't black and white" etc. We have resorted to putting up tiller disc signs as wooden ones are riddled with holes or simply disappear. A week ago, a van came by the vacant set of buildings where we farm the land and shot out the window from the road right into the yard where the men were working.

The van then moved on and shots were fired out of the win dows into the field at random. We contacted the RCMP but with the many calls they can't be everywhere, though they have been helpful and co-operative when contacted. One hunter shot a rabbit right at the end of the driveway, and target practice in a grove of trees makes fencing in that area very hazardous. The last encounter concerned five hunters all with guns. Is one man safe to face those who have loaded guns and may be loaded themselves? We feel the time is long past due for the prohibiting of all hunting within a fifty mile radius of the city.

Something must be done before somebody is killed. It's bad enough to see young hawks lying dead along the road, and vacant houses are ransacked and shot into. When hun ters are charged the fine is so small as to be no deterrent. I think you know country people well enough to know they have worked hard to buy and maintain their property and surely deserve a little of the seclusion they desire. Then just visualize the consequences should 5 of us arrive on a city property with loaded guns.

I sincerely hope this concern of ours will meet with some understanding of the problem and steps must be taken to change the situation as it now exists. This comes right from the heart of a farmer experiencing these things. I thought I should put that

November 7, 1977 ALBERTA HANSARD 1927 on record so the hon. minister will know how serious the problem really is. MR. STROMBERG: Mr. Chairman, five or six years ago I had the opportunity in this Legislature to intro duce a private bill. After that private bill was pre sented here and after the Alberta Fish & Game Association got through with me, I said I would never speak again on hunters in general. But I would like to point out, Mr. Chairman, how times have changed. I believe the bill introduced five years ago concerned trespassing.

Perhaps shotguns, and the use of shot guns with slugs for deer hunting, instead of the high-powered rifle in the more populated rural area of Alberta is a very good suggestion. About 15 years ago, if I can recall, shotgun slugs were allowed in Alberta. The former government brought that in with the idea of getting away from these high-powered rifles flying around. The game wardens were concerned, because shotgun slugs have a tendency to wound more game than they probably kill. That's probably why it was dropped, but I think consideration should be given to that. Mr. Chairman, the other area is trespassing.

We have three trespassing laws now: one federal, one under the minister's department, and one provincial. None of these trespassing acts really amounts to a darn when being pursued in the courts — a $10 fine and a lecture from the judge. The problem of trying to enforce trespassing — our provincial act reads that you must have a two-wire fence, you must have your gate shut, you must have your gate and your four corners posted. The hunters have got around the trespassing part by saying, we're chasing wounded game.

To a farmer who wants to try to find a game warden — and there are far too few of them in the province; it's impossible for the game wardens to do an adequate job for the area they're given — his only alternative is to hope that he can contact the RCMP, who are pretty leery and very careful of coming out, or to make a citizen's arrest. That's not the easiest thing in the world to force a landowner to do. I think that if we tighten up in the area of trespas sing — that number one, no one shall go on your land without permission.

In my instance, if someone comes into my yard and asks for permission to hunt, I size up his car, his haircut, and his beard, and if he looks like a reasonable person I will tell him, yes you can hunt on this quarter but not this quarter where we have cattle or we have . . . DR. BUCK: Would Ashton pass? MR. STROMBERG: Well, we'd have to take a second look at him. You threw me off my speech. If we tighten up the trespassing act, allow big game in our part of Alberta to be shot with shotguns — and the third area is considerably more game wardens.

I would hope that we would follow what B.C. has done reasonably successfully. I've talked to the people in B.C. who are conducting that program, a training course for hunters the first time they're getting a licence. Mr. Chairman, going back to my friends in Alberta Fish & Game, I hope they have realized the problem of the hunter/farmer relationship. And I hope now that they will remove my name. At one time the only protection I had in Alberta from the Fish & Game Association was under the game laws. I hope now I'm not a prohibited species. MR. ADAIR: Mr. Chairman, just one comment. I would hope the hon.

Member for Camrose wasn't listed as an endangered species at that particular time. Now if I can be serious for a moment. Relative to the permission on lands, for example, it's very clear in the act that No person shall hunt any wildlife or discharge any firearm upon or over occupied lands or enter upon such lands for the purpose of doing so, without the consent of the owner or occupant thereof. That is in place, but obviously there are problems of enforcement in that particular capacity.

I think one of the most successful programs we have in place right now is the voluntary hunter-training program that has been conducted through the Fish & Game Asso ciation and a number of other organizations in the province. That's very effective indeed. I appreciate your comments relative to the proposal by the Fish & Game Association and some 15 other organizations, which have asked for hunter testing.

In hunter testing we're attempting to put in place a program that would provide the information and knowledge so that those people going out for the first time, particularly, would have some idea about the fact that they have to ask for permission to go on that land, that they have to use that firearm with some caution and some degree of responsibility. Certainly from the standpoint of some of the other points made, relative to the hon. Member for Clover Bar and the pheasant releases, I think we are certain ly aware of that.

One of the major concerns we've had is getting the production of pheasants up high enough so that we can expand that program into areas further north. I think that is the case. Habitat is obviously one of the key components of successful pheasant survival, if I can use that term, and I hope as we go along that will fit into place as the new hatchery comes on stream. I believe at the moment we're looking at 6,000 to 7,000 birds, not very many birds in the length and breadth of this province. But if we increase the first step to around 25,000 birds, we can begin to do some of those things you have pointed out.

I appreciate your comments on that very much. As for hunting near the city, whether it be any particular city or metropolitan area, I've had quite a number of discussions with my officials. Constantly under review is how we can watch the development as it moves out into the areas and ensure that the management units are adjusted. Obviously there will be some conflicts that have to be closely monitored as well as we go along. I think some points made by the hon. Member for Calgary Glenmore relative to the possible considera tion of some areas — maybe shotguns would be one we could consider.

I'd like to take a look at that and see what the possibilities are. I'm sure as you get into other areas closer to the urban populations, bow hunting may be one that could be used as well, from a safety standpoint. The hon. Member for Lloydminster talked about the female deer situation, and whether we could have the season at the start or the end. I would like to take

1928 ALBERTA HANSARD November 7, 1977 that under advisement. I can't really respond as to what it is, although there have been quite a number of doe seasons in place this year. There is the constant problem of management and balance in there. Obviously there are more females than males in the wildlife area. The buck services a great number more females than the other one. But certainly from the standpoint of recognizing the concerns relative to safety, the hon.

Member for Drumheller pointed out very, very clearly and suc cinctly the problems of indiscriminate shooting by whoever may be called in fact a hunter or just a "shooter", if I can use that term. One of the concerns we have had in the amendments . . . We've amended

Section 29 to say "No person shall hunt, take, or trap wildlife in a manner that is dangerous to the safety of other persons . . ." — which was not in there before — ". . . without due regard for the safety of other persons, or in a manner . . ." — and this is another one that goes just beyond that as well — ". . . that causes or is likely to cause damage to a crop, live stock, or other property." That covers not just the shooting aspect but the indiscriminate travelling or driving over crops in that particular person's field after he has permission to go on that.

I thank the hon. members very much for raising their concerns relative to the amendments to The Wildlife Act. There were some good points raised, and I'll certainly take them into consideration for future discussion relative to other amendments and other regulation changes in the act. [Title and

preamble agreed to] MR. ADAIR: Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill 51 as amended be reported. [Motion carried] MR. CHAIRMAN: May I have permission of the House to revert to Bill 15 for the minister to report. Mr. Minister. Bill 15 The Planning Act, 1977 (reversion) MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill 15, The Planning Act, 1977, as amended be reported. [Motion carried] Bill 62 The Auditor General Act MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any comments, questions, or amendments to be offered with respect to any sections of this bill? MR. LEITCH: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a few comments on

Section 24. I had been asked about

Section 24 in second reading and overlooked responding to those questions when I was closing debate. The question was why the reports of the Auditor General ought to be submitted to the audit committee before being presented to the chairman of the select standing committee as is called for by

Section 24. The response, Mr. Chairman, is simply this: first of all, that is the current practice with respect to the Provincial Auditor's reports, in the sense that they are given to the Provincial Treasurer who then must file them. The legislation requires that he file them within 15 days if the Assembly is in session or, alternatively, 15 days after it opens if it is not in session when the report is received. But simply because it is the current practice, it doesn't necessari ly follow that that practice should continue. There fore, Mr.

Chairman, I come to the essential reason for having that requirement there. I would anticipate that the Auditor General in his reports will from time to time be saying things about the financial control system of the government that ought to be corrected. He will be commenting on deficiencies. I think it would be a ludicrous situation if those reports were made public, and the govern ment was asked about them, and my response as Provincial Treasurer had to be, well, I've just heard of that now and I'll have to consider it and decide on it.

I think we should know about those things before they become public, so we can take the appropriate action, and in addition there may well be things in the report dealing with deficiencies. It would be wrong to have the weaknesses of the system made public before the government had the opportunity to correct those weaknesses. Those are the prime reasons, Mr. Chairman, for having

Section 24 in the bill. MR. CLARK: Mr. Chairman, my apologies to the Pro vincial Treasurer and the committee. It's a longer run up those stairs than I had given credit for. This deals with

Section 24. In discussions I had earlier with the Treasurer he indicated that's the common practice now; the government has the bene fit of that. My question then to the Provincial Treas urer: if that is the common practice now, why do we leave the situation of making it mandatory for the audit committee to have the information? Why can't we leave it to the good judgment of the auditor general, who I assume would in all likelihood con tinue the present practice?

If there is a situation where the auditor general would feel it wasn't in the best interest of his report, he would in fact have the flexibility to give it to the select committee before giving it to the audit committee if he felt that was in the best interest of the committee itself. MR. LEITCH: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that the hon. Leader of the Opposition didn't hear my opening comments, in which I commented on

Section 24. I would respond to his use of the phrase "common practice" by saying that it is not a matter of practice; it's the way the legislation now provides. The legisla tion provides that reports come to the Provincial Treasurer and then it spells out when the Provincial Treasurer is to file them, so it isn't a matter of practice but a matter of what is now in the legislation. I would go on to respond to his comments by saying I think it's fair to say that auditors general are a little sensitive about when they should and shouldn't be in contact with the government.

I think this is the kind of thing the auditor general would want to do and is common, and I think it is better to have it in the legislation so there is no question about the propriety of him doing just that. Now the hon. Leader of the Opposition says, well we can leave it to his discretion,

November 7, 1977 ALBERTA HANSARD 1929 and if he thinks there is some occasion on which it would be in the best interests of the public that his report not be seen by the government before being made public. I'd simply respond by saying we've not set a time limit in the section. So if that situation ever arose, the auditor general could of course do it virtually simultaneously, but I wouldn't expect that to be the practice by any means. I just say the way the legislation is now structured, there is no time ele ment on there.

It's just a matter of first — so it could be for practical purposes virtually simultaneous. MR. CLARK: Mr. Chairman, just following along with the suggestion made by the Provincial Treasurer. If it's the Provincial Treasurer's point of view that a simultaneous making available of the report to the audit committee and the legislative committee would fit within the spirit of

Section 24, I'd be quite pre pared to leave it there. We can see how it works, and it's something we'll ask the auditor general about after he's had some experience with the area. I was going to move an amendment that we take that por tion out, but in light of what the Treasurer said, I'm prepared to leave it and we'll see how it works. [Title and

preamble agreed to] MR. LEITCH: Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill 62, The Auditor General Act, be reported. [Motion carried] Bill 56 The Forest Development Research Trust Fund Amendment Act, 1977 MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any comments, questions or amendments to be offered with respect to any sections of this bill? [Title and

preamble agreed to] MR. BRADLEY: Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill 56, The Forest Development Research Trust Fund Amend ment Act, 1977, be reported. [Motion carried] Bill 57 The Forest and Prairie Protection Amendment Act, 1977 MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any comments, questions, or amendments to be offered with respect to any sections of this bill? [Title and

preamble agreed to] MR. SHABEN: Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill 57, The Forest and Prairie Protection Amendment Act, 1977, be reported. [Motion carried] Bill 84 The Statutes Repeal Act, 1977 MR. CHAIRMAN: There is an amendment to the act. Are you all familiar with the amendment? MR. DOAN: I move that Bill 84, The Statutes Repeal Act, 1977, as amended be reported. MR. CHAIRMAN: We're just a little ahead of our selves, hon. member. [Title and

preamble agreed to] MR. DOAN: As late as last Friday we had word that there's one person who will continue to receive the mothers' allowance under the 1958 act until March 1978. That is why the repeal of this act is to be postponed until April 1. So the bill will now read as amended:

Section 2 is struck out and the following is substituted: "This Act, except

Section 1(b), comes into force on the day upon which it is assented to, and

Section 1(

b) comes into force on April 1, 1978." MR. CHAIRMAN: I think we've passed the bill, hon. member. But I was requesting that you ask that the bill be reported. MR. DOAN: Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill 84, The Statutes Repeal Act, 1977, be reported as amended. [Motion carried] Bill 220 The Blind Persons' Guide Dogs Act MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any comments, questions, or amendments to be offered with respect to any sections of this bill? There is an amendment to the bill. Are you all familiar with the amendment? [Title and

preamble agreed to] MR. LITTLE: Mr. Chairman, I would request that Bill 220 be reported as amended. [Motion carried] MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise, report progress, and beg leave to sit again. [Motion carried] [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] DR. McCRIMMON: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole Assembly has had under consideration bills 15, 51, 84, and 220, and begs to report same with some amendments; bills 62, 56, and 57, begs to report same, and asks leave to sit again. MR. SPEAKER: Having heard the report and the re quest for leave to sit again, do you all agree? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR.

HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, tonight at 8 o'clock we will proceed to Committee of Supply for further

Document details

Collection	Alberta — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	19771107
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	L18 S3 19771107 1430 01 han.pdf
Language	en
Format	json
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	4f221b41066f0a9b5ffdc52db9e4cca06bbe2d89

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