Alberta Hansard — 7 April 1983, Afternoon sitting (14:30) (Legislature 20, Session 1)

19830407

Alberta — Debates (Hansard)

April 7, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 405 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA Title: Thursday, April 7, 1983 2:30 p.m. [The House met at 2:30 p.m.] PRAYERS [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] head: PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SELECT COMMITTEES MR. STILES: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 83, I have taken under consideration the petitions for private Bills which have been received by the Assembly and wish to report that all those petitions have complied with Standing Order 77, with the exception of the follow ing petitions: (5) the Canadian Lutheran Bible Institute Amendment Act, 1983;

(10) Alexander Le Fleur Minerals Title Act;

(11) Edmonton Canadian Insurance Company Amendment Act, 1983;

(13) Koney Island Sporting Com pany (Limited) Continuation Act. Mr. Speaker, the Private Bills Committee has had under consideration the question of those petitions which did not comply with Standing Order 77 and recommends to the Assembly that the provisions of Standing Order 77 with respect to the deadline for the completion of adver tising be waived, to permit those Bills to be dealt with once the proper advertising has been completed.

In addition, the Private Bills Committee has taken under consideration the petitions that were not dealt with by the Legislative Assembly in 1982, solely on the grounds of the dissolution of the Legislature prior to the fall sitting. The committee recommends to the Assembly that the application fee provided for in Standing Order 78, paid by the following petitioners in 1982, be refunded to them: the Alberta Wheat Pool, the Canadian Lutheran Bible Institute, and Calgary Jewish Centre. I request the concurrence of the Assembly in these recommendations. MR. SPEAKER: Does the Assembly concur in the rec ommendations?

Do you wish to deal with the matter now or at another occasion? HON. MEMBERS: Now. MR. SPEAKER: Do you all agree? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. SPEAKER: It is so ordered. MR. STILES: Mr. Speaker, the Private Bills Committee has made a further recommendation, in which I do not presently seek the concurrence of the Assembly as it should probably be dealt with as a motion on notice.

Standing Order 77 be amended by striking out the words "commencing not earlier than eight weeks before the opening day of the session of the Legislature at which the petition is to be presented" and substituting "commencing not earlier than January 1 in the year which the petition is to be presented." head: TABLING RETURNS AND REPORTS MRS. OSTERMAN: Mr. Speaker, I'm tabling the annu al report of the Alberta Securities Commission for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1982. head: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS MR. COOK: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to introduce to you, and through to the members of the Assembly, 75 very bright and enthusiastic grade 8 students from St. Cecilia junior high school in my constituency. We had a good chat a little earlier this afternoon in the Carillon Room. They're here to see their Legislature and govern ment in action. I ask them to rise and receive the very warm traditional welcome of the House. MR. STEVENS: Mr. Speaker, I know that you and other members of the Assembly are very familiar with the work of the women's institutes throughout Alberta.

Today it's my privilege to introduce to you and to other members of the Assembly the Westbrook Women's Institute, a group of eight citizens from the area north of Cochrane. Their group leader is Ellen Buckler. Would they please rise and receive the warm welcome of the Assembly. MR. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, today it is my pleasure to introduce to you and to members of the Assembly 20 grade 6 students from the Youngstown elementary school, with their teacher Mr. Hetherington. Mr. Speak er, the students came well armed with questions for me, and one of those had to do with how many volumes are in the library.

They'll be closely watching the question period this afternoon. I ask that they rise and be given the usual welcome of the House. head: ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Court Decision MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct the first question to the hon. Attorney General. It's with respect to the administration of justice, and it concerns the well- publicized Neustaedter case. Can the Attorney General outline to the Assembly the policy of the government with respect to commenting on people who have been acquitted by various courts?

In particular, can the Attor ney General advise the Assembly why, in late December [last] year, the hon. minister referred to Mr. Neustaedter as a person who had committed an indictable offence, after acquittal from the Alberta Court of Appeal? MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, I don't recall the occa sion in respect of the reference made in December 1982. In response to the main part of the question, comments on matters that are or have been before the courts are always a matter of some delicacy, and there are several factors involved.

One is that there can be no lack of respect for the result as determined by the court. Another is that if the case is one that is in the process of appeal at the time . . . In my view, there is a period of time between a trial decision and an appeal decision when the matter is not before the court, so commenting on what has already occurred can be done within proper limits, and I don't think the limits are very restrictive. But once a matter is under appeal and is again before the courts, then I

406 ALBERTA HANSARD April 7, 1983 consider the matter to be one upon which only a very limited amount of comment should be made — perhaps the known grounds of appeal, perhaps the general thrust of an argument, but never what a court should or should not do. The references are also important if they involve indi viduals, of course, and that is raised by the hon. leader's question.

In commenting on individuals, I think the most important test would be to deal with findings of fact, which are available to the public and are reported in any event, and perhaps give some explanation of any legal principles that may be involved. Mr. Speaker, I should conclude what is really quite a general question by noting that it does vary in specific cases, the circumstances of a specific case. Indeed, al though we would that it were not so, sometimes the amount of public attention attracted by a case also, of necessity, affects the extent to which comment is made. MR. NOTLEY: Mr.

Speaker, I might just indicate to the hon. Attorney General that the letter I'm referring to is with respect to December 30. Out of courtesy to mem bers, I table with the Assembly three copies of some background material on this information. Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question to the hon. minister is a follow-up to the first, with respect to the general policy. Has the Attorney General issued officers of his department any instructions on the question of commenting unfavorably on decisions by the courts, spe cifically with respect to the Neustaedter case?

On January 26, 1982, we have the acting assistant deputy referring to Judge McDonald's decision as "ill considered". Does that fall within the guidelines set out by the minister? MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, there are guidelines of necessity. There's a certain amount of flexibility, and there are no guidelines in writing. There are the ordinary guidelines of prudence and common sense in respect of what should be said about matters involving the courts. I have mentioned the reasons for that in the answer to the first question, and I'm sure those reasons are fully and well respected.

I might add that I do know a considerable amount about the circumstances of the Neustaedter case. It was certainly a very controversial one. There were a number of issues, which were widely publicized. Numbers of re presentations were made to me, including representations from Members of Parliament and other interested parties as to what should be done in the Neustaedter case. In respect of the reference the hon. leader raised in both his first and second questions about a comment I made about a person having been convicted, I think it's perfect ly clear that in the Court of Queen's Bench, he was.

Of course, that was changed on appeal. So I think any remark that was made would have to be taken in that context. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Would the minister then correct the impression left in the letter of December 30 that I referred to in the first question, in view of the fact that Mr. Neustaedter was acquitted by the appellate court and then the Supreme Court of Canada upheld that innocence, and one now must presume that he is innocent? I refer specifically to the comment in the hon. minister's letter that he "com mitted the indictable offence". MR. CRAWFORD: Mr.

Speaker, I would be much as sisted by having the letter before me. In reading from it, I wonder if the hon. leader is actually quoting a portion of the charge that was laid in the original case, which may well have been quoted in some detail in my letter. That would be part of the court record, of course, and any person can quote that if he wishes. I will be glad to see the specific correspondence the hon. leader raised. I wrote many, many letters in respect of the Neustaedter case, and received many.

In one respect, I think the hon. leader may have overstated the case when referring to the role of the Supreme Court of Canada. My legal officers made an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, and that leave to appeal was denied. There is a suitable extent of discretion on the part of the Supreme Court of Canada as to which cases they do hear. There fore, they as a court did not consider the question of the circumstances of the particular case. They concluded only that it need not go beyond the Alberta Court of Appeal. MR. NOTLEY: Mr.

Speaker, a supplementary question, with respect to concern about what might appear to be unequal application of justice. Can the minister advise the Assembly why no decision was made to lay charges against what Judge McDonald as well as the Alberta Court of Appeal described as a vigilante group who, according to Judge McDonald's judgment, "committed in my opinion at least six criminal charges"? Why were no charges then laid by the Attorney General's Department against these people, given the fact that charges were laid against Mr. Neustaedter? MR. CRAWFORD: Mr.

Speaker, I believe the circum stances of the case require some elaboration. The number of people — a half dozen or eight, as I recall — who were involved in a disagreement with Mr. Neustaedter were involved in that disagreement because Mr. Neustaedter was an overholding tenant on the property of one of them and had not complied with a court order to leave. The people who supported the landowner in moving some furniture out of the house Mr. Neustaedter was overhold ing were unarmed. Mr. Neustaedter was armed, waving a loaded shotgun.

In those circumstances, we came to the conclusion that any charges laid against the other citizens would fail. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister. My question with respect to this issue is: what evaluation does the Attorney General's Department give an assertion of an honorable judge of the court as well as the Court of Appeal, in which the term "vigilante group" was used in both cases, and specifically, in the case of Judge McDonald's decision, the assertion that criminal offences had been committed?

What evaluation is given by the Attorney General's Department of what one can only describe as damning information, in the judgment of a judge? MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, the information avail able is what would become evidence in the case, and that is: what the circumstances are, who the witnesses are, and what the witnesses are likely to testify to.

I can assure the hon. leader that in all cases of criminal prosecutions and, the nature of the system being what it is, in the more serious ones, even greater attention is given to the time and investigation necessary to be sure that a matter is being properly made the subject of a charge before it goes

April 7, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 407 ahead. But it all really depends upon whether or not, in the interests of justice, any charge should be made. One of the interests of justice is whether or not a charge could ever succeed. It was the view of certainly more than one — in such a case, I would think that up to four senior legal counsel examined the evidence and the police inves tigation. In order that it will be dispassionate and assure the due administration of justice, the policy is very ri gorous and is very closely and conscientiously applied by the legal officers.

If it is our belief that a charge will surely fail, then despite other comments that may have been made, having regard to what we would know to be the evidence that could be presented, a charge should not be laid in circumstances where we know it could not possibly succeed. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. MR. SPEAKER: Might this be the final supplementary on this. MR.

NOTLEY: In addition to being able to confirm whether any investigation was undertaken of the com plaint that the RCMP in the area had been forewarned by the group referred to by the appellate court as vigi lantes and that the RCMP had also failed to respond to several calls for help from the Neustaedter family, is the Attorney General able to confirm whether he has any information relating to this complaint and whether or not it has been investigated by the department? MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, I do not have infor mation in respect of that particular complaint.

There have certainly been differences between some members of the RCMP in the area and Mr. Neustaedter, relating to matters which I cannot tell from the hon. leader's ques tion whether they really relate to the same thing. There is no difficulty ever about inquiring into the conduct of the police in any situation. I would be glad to look into that matter further. It is no doubt in respect of an event which occurred a number of months ago, and my guess would be that there would be an available report on it. Hospital User Fees MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, my second question is to the hon.

Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care. It's with respect to the subject of user fees and also with respect to reports that the minister had indicated that some Albertans are using Alberta hospitals as baby-care facilities, I believe. Having perused the hospital utiliza tion report and not finding that observation in it, is the minister in a position to advise the Assembly what con crete evidence the government has discovered to back that assertion? MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, I'd invite the hon. mem ber to visit some of the places I have and speak to the people involved.

I made those comments in response to some members of the media yesterday, who asked me to comment on examples of abuses of the hospital system. Hon. members can visit just about any nursing home in the province and find several examples of aged parents who have been put there by families because the families no longer wish to have the responsibility of looking after those people. The same thing applies in most of our active hospitals, where you'll find aged parents waiting to be discharged but no family members willing to take them.

I've also had cases reported to me by employees of hospitals, particularly in the smaller rural ones, where families will arrive with the kids on a weekend, ask for them to be admitted into emergency on Saturday night, and come back on Monday morning, after the party is over, to pick them up. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question.

In view of the revelations discovered by the minister, is the government in a position to outline to the Assembly why this information was not picked up by the Hospital Utilization Committee commissioned by the government to examine the utilization rates in Alberta hospitals? MR. RUSSELL: The commission dealt with utilization rates and profiles of physician practices, occupancy levels, et cetera. Mr. Speaker, I don't know to what extent they delved into the details as to why some beds may or may not have been occupied by patients who were there because of human interest or family reasons.

But in point of fact, the circumstances I have described are there, and I repeat that any hon. member of the Legislature can visit such places and talk to those people. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Beyond the personal visits the minister made, has any report been commissioned or any statistical evidence compiled, other than opinion, which the minister can share in this Legislature to back the assertions made outside the Legislature? MR. RUSSELL: No, Mr. Speaker, and the reason for that is obvious.

I've had telephone calls and visits in confidence by employees of various hospitals throughout the province, who have reported these circumstances to me. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. MR. SPEAKER: Might this be the last supplementary question on this topic. MR. NOTLEY: In examining the contingency plans of the government of Alberta, has the minister been in a position to ascertain the legal standing of Albertans, should the federal government insist that this province is in breach of the agreement?

I realize that's a hypothetical question, but what isn't a hypothetical question is wheth er or not the government has examined the options, undertaken a review of the risk, and whether the risk includes the possibility that should Ottawa say no, Alber tans would then have to pay full hospital fees in other provinces because of the portability of the agreement under the federal legislation? MR. RUSSELL: No, Mr. Speaker, the possibility of that happening is very remote. It just wouldn't happen. Young Offenders Legislation MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr.

Speaker, my question to the Solicitor General is with regard to the requirements under the Young Offenders Act for 16- and 17-year-olds. Could the minister indicate what plans are in place at the present time for the Alberta government to take the responsibility, and has the minister designated persons or

408 ALBERTA HANSARD April 7, 1983 a person to take care of the administration that will be required by the province of Alberta? MR. HARLE: Mr. Speaker, I expect to be making a statement on matters involving the Young Offenders Act, perhaps in a few days. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary ques tion to the hon. minister. Would that statement that will be made to the Assembly include an outline of the facili ties that will be required to house the 16- and 17-year- olds who may have to be housed for a period of up to three years? MR. HARLE: Mr. Speaker, not at this time. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr.

Speaker, a supplementary ques tion. Will the minister announce details with regard to the various programs that will be entailed in carrying on the Young Offenders Act in the province in Alberta, such as the pre-trial diversion programs? MR. HARLE: Mr. Speaker, there is a great amount of work yet to be done with regard to implementation of the federal legislation, and there are a number of people working on it. Obviously, a statement at this time could not go into those sorts of details. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the hon. minister.

Will the department or private groups in the province be doing studies with regard to implications of the Young Offenders Act? And would those studies, if any, be tabled in this Legislature? MR. HARLE: Mr. Speaker, I'm not aware of any studies at the present time. Over the last 10 years, of course, a number of studies have been done by groups that are interested in young offender problems. I'm sure a great amount of material is presently available. Municipal Services Legislation MR. PURDY: Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs when the cabinet plans to proclaim the Regional Municipal Services Act? MR. KOZIAK: Mr. Speaker, I was recently asked that same question at the meeting of the Alberta Association of Municipal Districts and Counties. I replied there that it is my intention to reach a conclusion that would be brought to the attention of my colleagues in cabinet by the end of June. A few meetings have been set up that I would like to conclude before reaching final decisions. MR. PURDY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the minister.

What growth figures were used when determin ing the viability of an Edmonton regional municipal serv ices commission? MR. SPEAKER: It would seem to me that unless the minister happens to have some general information on the topic, that would be something suitable for the Order Paper. MR. PURDY: Mr. Speaker, I'll go on to another sup plementary, then.

In light of the government's enunciated plan to limit the growth of the outlying communities to 25 per cent of the total growth area, does this mean that a member of the Edmonton regional municipal services commission might expect substantial increases in the cost of providing commission services? MR. KOZIAK: Mr. Speaker, I imagine I will be receiving comments along that line from the people who will be meeting with me. I'll be interested in hearing those comments, then analysing them. MR. PURDY: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Will the establishment of the Edmonton regional municipal serv ices commission force members to adhere to the regional development and growth patterns as set out in the gov ernment report dated June 8, which is a report and decision concerning the Edmonton annexation application? MR. KOZIAK: Mr. Speaker, I think what must be kept in mind is the split in population the hon. member refers to, 75:25, is in fact historic information. It reflects the growth of population within the Edmonton metropolitan area and is a carry-forward. I would be concerned if the approach to that type of concept were too ironclad.

I would hope the question posed in the House this afternoon wouldn't suggest, as some have suggested in their objection to the split, that actual noses would have to be counted in communities to make sure that there wasn't one more than provided for in the regional plan. There is no intention whatsoever of having that type of strict

interpretation on that guideline. MR. PURDY: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the Edmonton regional municipal services commission was actually established before the 75:25 concept through the annexation order of June 1981, is the minister considering scrapping the whole idea of a regional services commission? MR. KOZIAK: No I'm not, Mr. Speaker. Library Grants MR. FISCHER: Mr. Speaker, I would like clarification from the Minister of Culture, with regard to indexing library grants for the 1983-84 fiscal year. MRS. LeMESSURIER: Mr.

Speaker, at this time of restraint, there are sufficient dollars in our budget for libraries but insufficient dollars for indexing our library grants. MR. FISCHER: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister explain to the House why this policy is not being continued? MRS. LeMESSURIER: Mr. Speaker, this is not a poli cy; this has been a practice since 1978, when the financial picture in Alberta was quite different than it is today. MR. FISCHER: Mr. Speaker, I would also like clarifica tion from the Minister of Culture on the municipal finance report with regard to block funding. MRS. LeMESSURIER: Mr.

Speaker, I ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs if he'd like to comment on that question.

April 7, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 409 MR. KOZIAK: Mr. Speaker, we were having a little subcommittee meeting. [laughter] I caught the block funding aspect of the question but not the former part of it. Perhaps that could be amplified upon, and I could respond further. MR. FISCHER: Clarification from the Minister of Cul ture on the municipal finance report with regard to block funding. MR. KOZIAK: Mr. Speaker, that wasn't the block I was thinking of. As hon. members are aware, the report is public.

The Urban Municipalities Association and the Alberta Asso ciation of Municipal Districts and Counties, as well as the association of improvement districts, have this matter under consideration. I have taken the position that it would probably be better for me to await the final recommendations from those groups before comment. MR. FISCHER: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the libraries receive any other funding from the Department of Culture in the 1983-84 fiscal year? MRS. LeMESSURIER: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

The library branch has signed letters of agreement with 11 of the major libraries in the province of Alberta for information services, and in turn they will be paid for any services given to all the libraries throughout Alberta. Calgary Olympics — Ski Site DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the hon. Minister of Recreation and Parks. Can the minister indi cate if he has had any discussions with the Calgary Olympic committee and if the minister and that commit tee have had any discussions with the International Olympic Committee as to site selection for the Olympic games that will be coming to Alberta? MR.

TRYNCHY: Not recently, Mr. Speaker. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, can the minister indicate if any concern has been expressed by the International Olympic Committee as to the deadline for a site selection for the downhill being awfully close to being an irreversible condition? MR. TRYNCHY: No, Mr. Speaker, I haven't had any comments or discussions with the International Olympic Committee. My understanding is that the Olympic com mittee in Calgary has stated that if we proceed within the next year, there is still sufficient time to have all the facilities ready for the 1988 Olympics. DR. BUCK: Mr.

Speaker, a question to the hon. Pre mier. I am sure the Premier would like to answer this, because there have been some rumors around about the fact that there was some coercion used in the selection of Mount Allan as a possible site. Can the Premier indicate to the Assembly if there's been any directive by the Premier or any member of cabinet to "use Mount Allan or else"? Can the Premier enlarge upon that statement? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, I don't have to enlarge upon it; I can just advise the hon. member that that never occurred. DR. BUCK: Mr.

Speaker, a question to the minister responsible for — Don, what is yours? — Public Lands and Wildlife. Can the minister indicate what studies his department has done as to the alpine sheep at the Mount Allan site? MR. SPARROW: Mr. Speaker, the department has drawn up maps showing exactly where the habitat is: where they stay, where they winter. All that information has been given to the committee working on the project. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, a short supplementary.

Can the Minister of Recreation and Parks indicate if there has been any directive or any plans by the government to build an alpine village at the base of Mount Allan? MR. TRYNCHY: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker. I don't have any information on an alpine village at the base of Mount Allan. I know we have plans for an alpine village site at Ribbon Creek. That's been ongoing, and I've discussed that in my discussions with the House on Kananaskis County. That's the only site I'm aware of. Family and Community Support Services MR. LEE: Mr.

Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Social Services and Community Health. Would the min ister indicate if at present there are any guidelines estab lishing criteria to be met by groups funded through family and community support services that exclude ethn ic senior citizens' groups from receiving such funds? DR. WEBBER: Mr. Speaker, there are no guidelines that would exclude such groups of senior citizens. However, some weeks ago the hon. Member for Calgary Buffalo brought to my attention that there may be some confu sion on the parts of several senior citizens' groups in Calgary.

As a result of that, we are making some changes in the family and community support services handbook, and all holders of that handbook will be notified of the changes to remove any confusion that might exist. But really there is no intention of any exclusions whatsoever. MR. LEE: Another supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister have any intention to advise not only munic ipalities but those senior citizens' groups that have per ceived that they were excluded from application because of their membership, that they may now apply in the future? DR. WEBBER: Mr.

Speaker, the problem seems to be a local one in Calgary. Since the hon. Member for Calgary Buffalo has brought it to my attention, certainly the copy of Hansard could be submitted to those groups he's concerned about. If any concern exists elsewhere, howev er, we'd be happy to hear about it. If there is, we would let these groups know. Certainly all the holders of this handbook will receive copies of the amendments. Social Allowance — Senior Citizens MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct this ques tion to the Minister of Social Services and Community Health.

Could the minister indicate how many senior citi zens are affected by the recent decision to put through the offset for senior citizens when the federal guaranteed income supplement benefits are increased?

410 ALBERTA HANSARD April 7, 1983 MR. SPEAKER: With great respect to the hon. member, questions in Oral Question Period really should not deal with statistics. Those are ordinarily sought by questions on the Order Paper. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question, then. I'll ask it a different way. If I may help the minister out, the Edmonton Social Planning Council indicates that 3,500 senior citizens are receiving the allowance. [interjections] Settle down puppets, you'll get your chance again. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR. MARTIN: The minister's new policy calls for a personal review by social workers.

In view of the facts that the minister has said that they will have to do this and that we're cutting back in social services, how does he think the social workers will have the time to accomplish this? DR. WEBBER: Mr. Speaker, the new policy for the changes in social allowance as it would affect senior citi zens — the numbers that I recall are much fewer than the ones the member refers to. In fact, they're about one-fifth that number, if I recall correctly. As I previously pointed out in the House, the change is to remove an anomaly that arose a number of years ago.

The changes that are in place will correct that anomaly. Also, as I pointed out, the social workers will contact the individuals affected to reassess their needs, to make sure that there's no senior citizen who will be receiving bene fits less than what their needs may be. Certainly I recognize the heavy case load that many social allowance workers have. We have taken steps — and it's in the budget — to assist the social workers with increased assistance in terms of clerical and technical kinds of assistance. So I've no reason to think that they will not be able to carry out their responsibilities. MR.

MARTIN: A supplementary question. Can the min ister indicate whether he or the Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs have had any discussions with Madam Begin about the effect on them? Was there any discussion before they went ahead with this? DR. WEBBER: There were no discussions with the fed eral minister. As far as I can see, there was no need for any discussions with the federal minister on that particu lar point. The only change that required any communica tion with the federal minister was the one involving unemployment insurance changes or adjustments.

I have contacted the federal minister responsible, Mr. Axwor thy, and I've not heard back from him. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question. Is the minis ter saying there's no danger of any retaliation by the federal government with regard to this policy? DR. WEBBER: None that I'm aware of, Mr. Speaker. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question. Can the min ister outline why the provincial government will not only reduce payments to Alberta senior citizens as a way of cutting into the deficit but will be using federal increases in benefit payments as a way of reducing provincial expenditures?

Is this a deliberate government policy? MR. NOTLEY: Shame, shame. DR. WEBBER: I really don't follow the question the hon. member is asking. If he's referring to the specific adjustments and changes that have related to senior citi zens, I would like to point out once again that no changes will occur that will prevent any senior citizen from receiv ing benefits less than their needs. MR. GOGO: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Could the hon. Minister of Housing advise the House if he has experienced any unusual holdups with regard to the senior citizen home renovation program announced recently? MR.

SPEAKER: I have a little difficulty connecting the supplementary with the main question. MR. GOGO: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. Could the hon. Minister of Social Services and Community Health advise the House if he is prepared to proceed this spring with that exciting new Bill 26, the Widows' Pension Act? [interjections] DR. WEBBER: I agree with the hon. Member for Leth- bridge West that it is an exciting Bill. The intention is that the program would begin on May 1, 1983. School Year MR. JONSON: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Education.

In view of the continuing publicity surrounding certain statements pertaining to extending the school year and school day, I wonder if the minister could identify the sources of these particular proposals and what advantages, if any, are seen by the proposers in these proposals? MR. KING: To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, the suggestion originates with some members of the pub lic, of whom the hon. Member for Lethbridge West would be an excellent example, in that he recently asked me a question in the Legislature about the proposition.

To repeat my answer at that time, the proposition that the school year or school day should be lengthened is not under consideration by the Department of Education, and I am not the one who advocated it. In response to a question, I did say that if there was interest in that proposition among the public, then it would be one of the issues considered in the context of the review of the School Act. But the interest apparently comes from the public and, as servants of the public, we will of course respond to their interest. MR. JONSON: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.

Do these proposals have any relation to the possible need to accommodate the scheduling of possible future manda tory exams? MR. KING: In answer to a question that was earlier put to me by the media, I responded that that was a possibili ty. But again I'd have to say that the department had not considered lengthening the school year as a part of the evaluation program. If a reporter, or indeed any other member of the public, makes that suggestion to me, it's one I'm prepared to consider.

April 7, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 411 Court Decision (continued) MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct this ques tion to the hon. Attorney General. It's a follow-up to a question I asked earlier with respect to the Neustaedter case. The minister indicated that in laying charges, the government has to determine whether or not, in the view of the department, a conviction is possible.

However, my question is not with respect to the opinion of whether or not a conviction is possible by the department but the policy with respect to allowing an individual to swear an information, and specifically whether it is still the posi tion of the government of Alberta that the department would exercise its discretion to stay any proceedings should Mr. Neustaedter swear such an information. MR. SPEAKER: It really seems to me to be a very hypothetical question: if an information is laid, will the department stay the proceedings? MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, then I won't make it hypothetical at all.

My question is: is the outline of the government's position on this case, dated March 16, 1982, in which the regional agent indicates that a stay will be sought, still the position of the government? MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, I missed just a little part of the detail the hon. leader was giving in referring to a specific direction of one of the Crown agents in respect of a stay, but I can certainly answer as to the policy.

I will try not to do so at too great length, but it is a subject which is steeped in history and in the traditions of the administration of justice, something which has behind it centuries of tradition in the role of the Crown in regard to criminal prosecutions. The hon. leader asked, for example, whether the gov ernment made a determination in respect of a prosecu tion. The government never does that, Mr. Speaker. A prosecution is conducted by the Crown, a different entity from the government. There is not a role for the govern ment as such in respect of whether or not an individual should be prosecuted.

It's an historic role performed, perhaps in the abstract sense on behalf of Her Majesty but by law officers of the Crown. The principal law officer who has the responsibility is myself, and I make decisions in that role. I make them as holding the office in a government, but not because of any approach the government has to prosecution policy. As a matter of fact, prosecutions are never discussed among colleagues. I just add that; it should be obvious. In looking at the history of it, I think hon. members know that must be so. Otherwise criminal law becomes a political matter, and that can't be tolerated. Mr.

Speaker, that part of the answer is relevant to the second part of the question. What is an information, when sworn by an individual who doesn't happen to be a peace officer or some other person employed in the administration of justice? It is a document which comes to the Crown, alleging certain circumstances but not based upon a right that that individual has to pre-empt the Crown's rights in respect of prosecutions. So what ever the origin of it, whether it be from a peace officer or from a private citizen, that information is in effect the property of the Crown.

In the interests of the administra tion of justice — I say that with emphasis — that type of determination as to whether or not a matter should proceed has to be made with consistent guidelines being applied and the same rules of application in each case. There's only way to do that, and that is to give the responsibility to the Crown. I conclude simply by saying that those individual de terminations are normally made by Crown counsel, Mr. Speaker, not by me personally. The more serious and complicated the case, the more senior the Crown counsel who will make that determination.

Obviously some cases come to me, out of a quarter of a million cases a year, not all of them. MR. SPEAKER: Might this be the last supplementary. MR. NOTLEY: Then is the Attorney General saying that it is very rare, almost never, that an information can in fact be laid by an individual, which is then followed up by the Attorney General's Department in the name of the Crown, and that the staying is a process which invariably occurs? I want to be clear on the position of the Crown on this matter. MR. CRAWFORD: That's a very important question, Mr. Speaker, and I'm glad for the opportunity to clarify it.

The complaint or information filed by an individual may well proceed to prosecution, but it's the assessment of that and the evidence that is available in respect of it, no doubt after investigation — it's the proposed charge and the evidence available in respect of it that is assessed. What I'm underlining for hon. members is that a com pletely dispassionate view is taken of that, no matter what the source.

So given appropriate circumstances, a stay may be entered as well, no matter what the source, whether a person made a complaint originally in his own capacity or whether it originated with a peace officer or some other person associated with the minister of justice. Teachers' Retirement Fund MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, my one question to the Minister of Education regards a commitment the minister made last May, with regard to amending the Teachers' Retirement Fund Act to accommodate teachers who now have their pensions based on the years of service after age 30 rather than their total years of service.

I wonder if the minister intends to bring that amendment into this spring Legislature. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I don't believe an amendment to legislation is required in order to achieve the end that is suggested by the hon. member. I think a change in the regulations would be sufficient, and I have not at any time made any commitment that the regulations would be changed. I have made a commitment to the Retired Teachers' Association of the ATA that I would put forward a proposal to my colleagues, and that is in the course of being done at the present time.

I have advised the Retired Teachers' Association of the ATA that that is being done. At the same time, the member has to appreciate that what is being proposed is a retroactive change in a program and that this retroactive change, not available to many members of the retired public, would be made available to approximately 950. So while I believe it is worth putting forward, I think we should be aware that it contemplates a retroactive change in a program and that it contemplates a change which would benefit only a very small number of the retired citizens of the province. That

412 ALBERTA HANSARD April 7, 1983 puts some weight of responsibility on all of us to consider its implications carefully. ORDERS OF THE DAY head: WRITTEN QUESTIONS 129. Mr. Martin asked the government the following question:

(1) What is the present average case load serviced by on-line social workers employed by the Department of Social Services and Community Health at its district offices maintained under the department's social services branch?

(2) What is the present average case load serviced by on-line social workers employed by the Department of Social Services and Community Health, in each case, at the following district offices: Brooks, the average of the seven Calgary offices (excluding the family maintenance and court services office), Dray ton Valley, the average of the six Edmonton offices (excluding the family maintenance and court serv ices office), Fort McMurray, Grande Cache, Grande Prairie, Lethbridge, Medicine Hat, Red Deer, and Wetaskiwin? DR. WEBBER: Mr. Speaker, I propose that Question No. 129 be amended by replacing "social workers" with "

a) social allowance workers, and,

b) child welfare work ers" in both parts (1) and (2) of the question. I have copies of the amendment. MR. SPEAKER: I suppose the House, in its wisdom, may amend anything. But I'm somewhat unfamiliar with a process whereby a question may be amended by the House. It seems to me that we amend motions, but the question is not of the nature of a motion. Perhaps the matter could be dealt with more orthodoxally, if that's a good word, by having the minister suggest to the hon. member that if he'd like to amend his question in that way, the minister may answer it. MR. MARTIN: Mr.

Speaker, just on a point of clarifica tion, I agreed with the hon. minister on this matter before. MR. HORSMAN: On a point of order relative to this particular issue, if I may. There is some concern on the part of the government relative to the nature of the question in view of the fact that it may require a lengthy reply. That being the case, we have looked at the rules regarding the subject of questions. It may very well be that appropriate amendments to the rules may be in order, in order to properly deal with them in the future. The concern the government has relates to Standing Order 34.

If a question is of such a nature that, in the opinion of the minister who is to furnish the reply, such reply should be in the form of a return, and the minister states that there is no objection to laying such return upon the Table of the Assembly, the minister's statement shall, unless otherwise ordered by the Assembly, be deemed an Order of the Assem bly to that effect . . . What has occurred with regard to a number of questions is that they have been phrased in such a way that it is not possible to answer in exactly that way. From time to time, ministers have expressed concern about that.

The difficulty arises, not so much that there's no record in Hansard — there is a record in Hansard — but in Votes and Proceedings, the questions then appear by way of orders for returns. That's the difficulty we have been encountering. While Hansard says one thing, the Votes and Proceedings say another. I just wanted to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, and that of members of the Assembly, the reasons for suggesting amendments to questions until such time as we're able to clarify this matter and have it perhaps phrased more properly in Standing Orders in the future. MR.

SPEAKER: In other words, I take it that there is agreement of the Assembly that regardless of whether or not it may be unusual, we're going to adopt a custom, pending possible revision of Standing Orders, whereby a minister may move that a question be amended. On that footing, the hon. minister has made such a motion. [Motion carried] 152. Mr. R.

Speaker asked the government the following question: A full status report on development and operation of the Electric Energy Marketing Agency, showing: (1) progress in establishment of fair and equitable who lesale power rates for Albertans, (2) progress in assuring the most efficient use of power sources throughout Alberta, (3) progress in the reduction of the rate of increase to Alberta consumers in their electric energy costs, (4) progress in development of strategy for purchase of power from outside Alberta, (5) progress in development of strategy to allow the continued operation of utilities companies in the most efficient manner, (6) number of persons employed to administer and op erate the Electric Energy Marketing Agency, (7) total cost of development and operation of the Elec tric Energy Marketing Agency from its inception to February 28, 1983.

MR. BOGLE: Mr. Speaker, the government accepts Question No. 152. head: MOTIONS FOR RETURNS MR. HORSMAN: Mr. Speaker, I move that the follow ing motions for returns stand and retain their places on the Order Paper: 132, 133, 137, 138, 141, 142, 145, 148, 162, and 164. [Motion carried] 135. Mr. Notley moved that an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing:

(1) Copies of all ministerial orders issued pursuant to

section 4(

a) and

section 4(

b) of the Hazardous Chemicals Act (R.S.A. 1980, c. H-3) since January 1, 1981;

(2) Copies of all "chemical control orders" issued pur suant to

section 6(1) of the Hazardous Chemicals Act since January 1, 1981;

(3) Copies of all "emission control orders" issued pur suant to

section 13 of the Clean Air Act (R.S.A. 1980, c. C-12) since January 1, 1981;

April 7, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 413

(4) Copies of all "stop orders" issued pursuant to sec tion 14 of the Clean Air Act since January 1, 1981;

(5) Copies of all "water quality control orders" issued pursuant to

section 14 of the Clean Water Act (R.S.A. 1980, c. C-13) since January 1, 1981;

(6) Copies of all "stop orders" issued pursuant to sec tion 15 of the Clean Water Act since January 1, 1981;

(7) Copies of all "certificates of variance" issued pur suant to

section 11 of the Clean Air Act since January 1, 1981;

(8) Copies of all "certificates of variance" issued pur suant to

section 11 of the Clean Water Act since January 1, 1981;

(9) Copies of all "stop orders" issued pursuant to sec tion 17 of the Department of the Environment Act (R.S.A. 1980, c. D-19) since January 1, 1981;

(10) A list of all hazardous chemical spills reported to the Department of the Environment in 1981 and 1982, reported in the form employed in the return filed in response to Motion for a Return No. 132, Third Session, 19th Legislature (filed as Sessional Paper No. 132/81). MR. BRADLEY: Mr. Speaker, I propose to amend part (1) by changing

section 4(

a) to read

section 4(4)(

a) and by changing

section 4(

b) to read

section 4(4)(b), and also to amend part (10) by deleting everything following "1982". [Motion as amended carried] 140. Mr. Notley moved that an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing:

(1) All reports delivered to Executive Council by the Member of the Legislative Assembly appointed by the government to sit on the board of directors of Syncrude Canada Limited in the fiscal years 1979- 80, 1980-81, 1981-82, and 1982-83;

(2) A copy of all instructions, documents, reports, and other papers given by Executive Council to the Member of the Legislative Assembly appointed by the government to sit on the Syncrude Canada Limited board of directors for the purpose of deli very to the board in the fiscal years 1979-80, 1980- 81, 1981-82, and 1982-83. MR. ZAOZIRNY: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to Motion No. 140, I must indicate at the outset some measure of surprise at the motion having been placed on the Order Paper. While I know that the hon.

Leader of the Opposi tion, in whose name it stands, doesn't claim to be an authority on the rules of the Legislature of the magnitude of, say, the hon. Member for Edmonton Glengarry, non etheless I think it's clear to all that the specific wording entailed in Motion 140, which calls for documents deli vered to Executive Council and for documents provided by Executive Council to a Member of the Legislative Assembly, is clearly the most obvious breach of the well- established traditions of parliamentary procedure.

I'd like to refer members of the Assembly specifically to rule 390 of Beauchesne, which deals very clearly with the matter of cabinet documents. In encouraging members to defeat this motion, as it is fully unacceptable, I would simply say that it is in clear violation of parliamentary tradition. MR. SPEAKER: I realize that I have some responsibility for having accepted the motion for the Order Paper. I draw to the House's attention that this is not a communi cation between a member, as a member, and a minister or cabinet.

This is a communication by a member who holds a public position which is over and above or in addition to his responsibilities as a member. However the House is certainly at liberty to accept or reject the motion as it wishes. MR. HORSMAN: Mr. Speaker, if I may. In dealing with this issue, I think it is important that we look at this particular motion, because it has an impact on other motions on the Order Paper, which have been requested to stand over.

I think it is important to indicate that government is certainly prepared to provide information relative to stud ies, reports, and other documents which may have been provided to the government in one way or another.

It is still the intention of the government to rely upon general parliamentary procedure relative to matters which are provided to members of Executive Council, exchanged between Members of the Legislative Assembly, or ex changed between departments of the government, and in some cases as well, where such information is obtained outside of government which might otherwise have been obtained in government had it had the resources or expertise available to provide such information.

I'm speaking in support of the objection — not in support of the motion, but in support of the objections raised by my colleague the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources — to make it clear to members of the Assembly, members of the Official Opposition, and other members of the opposition that the government is quite prepared to file with members of the Assembly, and with the public, information which does not violate the rules which are laid out fairly clearly in Beauchesne.

While not totally exhaustive in terms of the type of information which might be used by ministers or Members of the Legislative Assembly for making decisions, we think those rules in Beauchesne are fairly applicable to the situation in Alberta.

While I am speaking, I might give notice therefore — I think there are eight additional motions on the Order Paper which call for the production of studies, reports, and other documents of one kind or another — that it would be the intention of the government to move an appropriate amendment to each of them, perhaps next Tuesday, when we find the right wording for such an amendment to properly reflect the normal parliamentary procedure which will be followed.

So I thought I might take this opportunity, giving notice to the House, that that would be the intention of the government with regard to at least eight of the remaining items on the Order Paper. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of no other member participating in the debate . . . MR. SPEAKER: May the hon. member conclude the debate? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, first of all I must say that I think I share with my legislative colleague the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources not quite the same grasp of the rules as our young friend from Glengarry.

As I read the citation, I think he must be quoting from a different edition of Beauchesne than I have in front of

414 ALBERTA HANSARD April 7, 1983 me. In any event, I want to make a few observations on the motion for a return that is before the House, and urge members to support it. As I see it, this is not an interde partmental memo; it is a request for a report, presumably prepared by a member of the Legislature undertaking certain responsibilities.

I recall very well in 1975, when this Legislature discussed at some length the whole busi ness of appointing backbenchers to various boards and commissions, how the government bent over backwards in an effort to say that this was a new form of accounta bility, that information would be made available, and that this particular procedure would not allow members of the government to by-pass the Legislature. As a matter fact as I recall, in the months subsequent to that debate in 1975 — members who were here at that time will remember that the debate over that issue took some days.

It was agreed that hon. members who had official capaci ties would in fact have to answer questions if they were posed in the Legislature. On a number of occasions, I recall directing questions to the representative on the Syncrude board. Those oral questions were found in order, because it was agreed that if an individual member of this Assembly was going to undertake these public responsibilities, then questions could be posed.

That the government now, in an effort to reduce public information, jumps through all kinds of procedural contortions in order to say: no, we can't possibly accommodate it — let them lay their cards on the table, Mr. Speaker. Let them say to the people of Alberta: we don't want to give you the information — more secretive government, more behind closed doors government. At least the public knows where things sit. But don't attempt to get Beauchesne to justify something which is a matter of the closed-door policy of a closed- door government. Mr. Speaker, as far as I'm concerned, I think the motion is in order.

Hon. members who are concerned about public access to public information — if we're going to have backbenchers preparing these reports, they should be answerable in the House, and the government should be accommodating. The hon. deputy House leader should be leaning over backward to show how enthusias tic he is about making this information available to the public. So, Mr. Speaker, unless there's something embarras sing — I wouldn't think there's anything embarrassing, unless there's no report at all. I certainly can't assume that, certainly not with what we pay the person on the Syncrude board.

But the fact of the matter is that it is a reasonable request for information. If this government wants to slam the door closed, then let them take the political flak for so doing. [Motion lost] MR. SPEAKER: In this regard I should perhaps mention to the House that where there may be a doubt as to whether a question or motion is in order to be placed on the Order Paper, I have always followed the practice — and intend to continue to follow that practice, unless there's some change in the Standing Orders — of resolv ing the doubt in favor of putting the motion or question on the Order Paper.

If on a future occasion, the govern ment disagrees with my view as to whether a question is appropriate for the Order Paper, by reason of reference to Beauchesne or otherwise, I think the matter might be raised as a point of order. 146. Mr. Martin moved that an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing a copy of the O'Connell report concerning the economic feasibility of the Tri-Media Stu dios development proposed for the Calgary area, and a statement of costs incurred by the government pursuant to the preparation of the report. MR. PLANCHE: Mr.

Speaker, in speaking to Motion 146, I'm afraid I'm going to have to give the opposition another opportunity to gust and bluster. Our department is a staff department, and because of a wide variety of initiatives that we have to consider, it's essential that we use consultants extensively. In a great many cases, the fact that that information from a consultant is going to be made public not only alters, or can alter, the candor of the advice that's received, it also tends to alter the inputs to the consultant on that advice.

I considered this particu lar report to be confidential advice to the minister, the very same as if I had received it from a senior official, provided I had a senior official who was qualified to give it to me. So, on behalf of the government, I'm forced to oppose the motion. MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, it's all very well and dandy that we're protecting certain firms, but surely it's public money that we're talking about. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Did the hon. member close the debate? MR.

SPEAKER: I was just about to put the question as to whether other members might wish to speak before the hon. member closes the debate. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, I think the principle here is a lot more serious than in the earlier one. I could buy the fact that if it was interdepartmental or between a MLA and cabinet, possibly there was some question as to whether documents could be produced, even though it's debatable. But I would not agree with this particular motion for a return being refused by the government.

We're talking about a copy of a report that is requesting information about a possible industry that can benefit the province of Alberta. We're talking about Tri-Media Stu dios development proposed for the Calgary area. You don't call that an industry? MR. PLANCHE: On a point of order, if I might respond to the question. It isn't a report on an industry; it's a report on a specific initiative. MR. R. SPEAKER: Well, it's use of words, Mr. Speaker. Initiative: it's certainly an initiative. When you start an industry, that's an initiative, whether it's agriculture, tour ism, media, or whatever. MR. PLANCHE: Mr.

Speaker, it's not the start of an industry. The industry is well under way here. It's a specific initiative within an industry. MR. R. SPEAKER: We're playing with words with that kind of definition, Mr. Speaker. But the point of the matter is that public funds are being spent on a report that is either going to produce some jobs, some economic activity of some kind in Alberta, hopefully by that initia tive, or it is a report that will say that this economic initiative should not take place because — and give some very good reasons why it shouldn't happen. Hopefully

April 7, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 415 those are the two choices the report has. But it is being paid for by public funds. I can see no reason why the government should want to hide that kind of information. If the evidence comes out supporting the position that the initiative should not take place, then the minister can say to the public: because of the report, it should not take place. If the report says that the initiative should take place, then the government has a reason for proceeding and supporting that kind of initi ative in this province.

It's public information, supposedly factual, objective, non-partisan in any way, and hopefully businesslike. I can't see any reason why a report such as that cannot be tabled in this Legislature. If we don't table it in this Legislature, it sets a precedent for ministers to hide any kind of report that may be negative to the government's political future or whatever. I don't even see that in this kind of report. I don't see any political ramifications in a report such as this. I know the minister has already spoken and can't clari fy that matter.

But if the report had some political ramifi cation, some embarrassment to it, had lack of objectivity, was covering the pros and cons of some special interest group such as, let's say, the group that's interested in stopping the missile in Alberta — even if it had a point of view like that. But I don't see that kind of material in the report: just no distraction from objectivity of any kind in this report that should say that we as taxpayers in Alberta should not have access to the report. Mr. Speak er, I'd certainly like the government to reconsider its position with regard to this matter. MR. HORSMAN: Mr.

Speaker, that's rather an interest ing representation just made by the hon. Member for Little Bow. What he is suggesting, unlike everything else he has said since I have been in this Assembly, is that every time information is sought for the advice of a minister, it must be done from within the public service; in other words, hire another member of the public service to provide the information. MR. R. SPEAKER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. minister is making a completely inaccurate statement. I am not in support of in-house studies at all times and hiring more civil servants.

That's what he's implying by that political statement of his. I've been a great supporter of hiring the private sector to do work and of letting that work be openly expressed to the public in general. MR. HORSMAN: Mr. Speaker, I'm glad to hear that restated, because the hon. Member for Little Bow . . . The implication of what he suggests, however, means that the government is not going to be able to obtain confi dential information or advice, particularly relating to matters of an economic feasibility study, if in fact all that information must be made public.

Information is not going to be provided by any consultant if such is the case. Although it is not the policy of this government at this stage, I refer the hon. member to legislation about third party information which has been adopted by the gov ernment of Canada in the freedom of information legisla tion. It is quite clear that ministers of the Crown shall not supply information to the public relative to matters which may relate to the "financial, commercial, scientific or technical information", and so on. MR. R. SPEAKER: That's different. MR. HORSMAN: No, it is not different. Mr. Speaker, the hon.

Member for Little Bow interjects. I listened as best I could to what he had to say, and I hope he will now do the same for me. This is clearly a case where the government, as the hon. minister has said, not having had in-house expertise to make an assessment of a particular economic venture in the province of Alberta, chose to seek out a consultant to make that information available to the minister. Referring specifically to

section 390(4)(

a) of Beauchesne:

(4) In the case of consultant studies, the following guidelines are to be applied: (

a) Consultant studies, the nature of which is identifiable and comparable to work that would be done within the Public Service, should be treated as such (the reports and also the terms of reference) when considera tion is being given to their release. Clearly, that is the situation at hand. This consultant study fits exactly into that category and therefore is being treated as such; that is to say, advice given to a minister of the Crown for the purpose of making certain decisions relative to the particular item under consideration.

There fore it is quite in order for the minister to decline to make that report or study a public document. Otherwise, Mr. Speaker, despite the protestations of the hon. Member for Little Bow, it would just be impossible to seek outside consultation or advice to government without retaining the individual or consultant as a member of the public service. I'm very pleased indeed to hear that the hon. Member for Little Bow supports government utilizing private sec tor consultants. On most occasions that information will probably be made public.

But there will be occasions when, as the rule says, the consultant study is of a nature comparable to work that would be done within the public service, and it should be treated as such when considera tion is being given to its release. There will be those cases, and the hon. Minister of Economic Development has identified this as one of those cases. Therefore the motion should be defeated. MR. NOTLEY: It's a pity the hon.

Attorney General isn't in the House, given his views that we don't need a freedom of information Act because we have such devices as motions for returns with which the public can obtain relevant information. We now find this new definition of what suits the government is now going to . . . MR. HORSMAN: Read Beauchesne. MR. NOTLEY: Yes, I'm going to come to that in a moment, Jim. [interjection] I've certainly been there, and we're going to come to that in a moment. Mr. Speaker, I think the point the hon. Member for Little Bow has made is an extremely useful one.

If we set a precedent by slamming the door shut on the release of this consulting report, then I think we are setting a very dangerous precedent. I look at Beauchesne, and I see that under 390 we have (4)(a). I suppose that in a narrower sense one could construe this study as being somewhat analogous to a request for advice from a deputy minister or a senior member of the public service. But, one could also see it fitting in with: (

b) Consultant studies, the nature of which is

416 ALBERTA HANSARD April 7, 1983 identifiable and comparable to the kind of investigation of public policy . . . Mr. Speaker, the minister himself talked about an ini tiative which involves public policy. It may well be that this is the kind of thing that would fit (b), and if there's any confusion between (

a) and (b), then (

c) comes into effect. Prior to engaging the services of a consult ant, Ministers are to decide in which catego ry the study belongs and, in cases of doubt, are to seek the advice of their colleagues. Mr. Speaker, if the minister, who told us that we should vote down this motion for a return, had stood in his place and said: Having carefully reviewed Beauchesne, I have decided that between (

a) and (b), in my judgment, it was (a); I went to my colleagues and we agreed collec tively it was (a) — then they at least would have been meeting the provisions of Beauchesne, because they would be complying with (c). He would have consulted his colleagues to determine under which category it went. They haven't done that. At least if they've done it, they haven't told us they've done it. And since these people all of a sudden are such experts on Beauchesne, one would have assumed that they would be glad to let us know. I have a sneaking suspicion, Mr.

Speaker — I wouldn't want to accuse them of it — that they didn't do that. I have a sneaking suspicion that in an effort to sort of slam the door shut, in the typical Tory closed-door govern ment approach, we suddenly have the Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs, in a tattered set of argu ments, attempting to justify more closed-door government. AN HON. MEMBER: In cases of doubt. MR. NOTLEY: In cases of doubt, the Legislature should demand information. And from a government that has the gall to run around the country saying, we don't need freedom of information — Gerald Baldwin, where are you now?

We need you back in this province. Mr. Speaker, Motion for a Return No. 146 should be complied with by this government. The effort on the part of the front bench to turn it down is a scandalous proposal which should be opposed by all members of the House. As far as I am concerned, we have not had one shred of evidence from the members of the front bench as to why Beauchesne would apply in this particular instance. MR YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, the first observation I would make is that the only place I'm aware of sneaking suspi cions is among the Leader of the Opposition who has kept referring to them.

On page 139 of the fifth edition of Beauchesne, (4)(

c) says "in cases of doubt". There has been absolutely no doubt expressed by the minister, therefore no need to consult. That should put an end to both the sneaking suspicions and any question of doubt the hon. leader may have had. Mr. Speaker, in my view, there is another flaw in this particular motion for a return. The flaw is this: if one examines the motion for a return, it is quite specifically referring to a private development, a private concern, and not an industry, even though the hon. Member for Little Bow, the leader of the Independents, tried to make that case.

It is a question of a single private firm and studies related to that particular development. If one examines Beauchesne again, reference to 390(2) (e), one notes that it exempts from production those: Papers containing information, the release of which could allow or result in direct personal financial gain or loss by a person or a group of persons. Mr. Speaker, in the case under discussion for this particu lar return, that may well be a factor. In combination with (2)(

e) and (4)(a), which is quite clear, it's a consultant report which could have been produced in house. I submit that this motion should be defeated. MR. SPEAKER: May the hon. Member for Edmonton Norwood now close the debate. HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. MARTIN: Again, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make the point that if we follow that type of logic, we'd really be saying that they don't use private consultants at all in the United States where they have a freedom of information Act. Of course they use them all the time, but people have access to that information.

It doesn't seem to slow them down in using private consultants. The key thing here is if there is ever an erring, we should err on the idea that public money should be controlled in the Legislature. Obviously it was a private company, but we are asking specifically about public money. In our understanding, it had to do with whether or not we are going to diversify the economy, which we've spent a lot of time debating in this Legislature. It had to do with government policies in regard to this company. Surely, where government money is being spent, we should have access to that to see if it was well spent or not.

Surely that's the role of the Legislature. If we followed what the government is saying, they could use Beauchesne and their narrow

interpretation to deny any information at all. They could do that any time they used a private consultant, any time there was public money. Eventually we wouldn't get any information at all. We're almost to that point now. Without belaboring the point, I think this is a very important position. If we're spending public money, surely the people of Alber ta, through the Legislature, have the right to know if that public money was spent wisely. That's all we're asking. I'm surprised it's created such a stir because we didn't know we'd create such a stir, we're just interested. Now we'll be more interested.

I think the people of Alberta will be more interested in what went in there. I call on all fair-minded members on this particular issue — it's really a non-partisan issue. It has to do with how we perceive the Assembly and what our role is. MR. NOTLEY: A free vote. MR. MARTIN: Let's have a free vote on it at this particular time, and I would say let's support the motion. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. [Motion lost] MR. SPEAKER: I didn't want to intervene in the debate because of the . . . MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. We wanted to have a standing vote if you had declared one way or the other. MR.

SPEAKER: [Not recorded] With respect to those members who have referred to Beauchesne, what is Cita

April 7, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 417 tion 390 in Beauchesne really? All it is is a set of guide lines adopted by a certain government in 1973. I do not perceive those guidelines as being binding on this Assem bly in any way. Beauchesne is useful to us in some instances where it is not based on the special nature of Standing Orders in the Canadian House of Commons. To the extent that it enunciates commonly accepted and fol lowed parliamentary practice, Beauchesne is useful, pos sibly more specific to our situation than Sir Erskine May's text.

But insofar as dealing with freedom of infor mation is concerned, or rules which were followed by a certain government since 1973 in releasing information, I do not perceive those as being binding on either myself or on the Assembly, except perhaps to the extent that they may reflect parliamentary practice that could perhaps be ascertained outside the four corners of Citation 390. With regard to Motion for a Return No. 146, I should mention further that it isn't for the Chair to make an assessment as to whether or not a report that has been commissioned is confidential.

That is a decision that has to be made by government. I have no way of knowing whether certain reports are confidential, so I have no choice but to put the motion on the Order Paper. Then if government says it's confidential, so be it. [Several members rose calling for a division. The division bell was rung] [Eight minutes having elapsed, the House divided] For the motion: Buck Martin Speaker, R.

Against the motion: Adair Hyland Paproski Alger Hyndman Pengelly Anderson Isley Planche Appleby Johnston Purdy Batiuk Jonson Reid Bogle King Shaben Bradley Koper Shrake Chambers Koziak Stevens Clark Kroeger Stiles Crawford LeMessurier Szwender Cripps Lysons Thompson Drobot McPherson Topolnisky Elliott Miller Trynchy Embury Moore, R. Webber Fjordbotten Musgreave Weiss Fyfe Musgrove Young Gogo Nelson Zaozirny Harle Osterman Zip Horsman Pahl Totals: Ayes – 3 Noes – 56 160. Dr. Buck moved that an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing:

(1) The dollar amount of bad debt accounts for loans made to farmers by the Agricultural Development Corporation declared in the fiscal year 1981-82.

(2) The budget amount for bad debt accounts for loans made to farmers by the ADC for the fiscal year 1982-83.

(3) The percentage of total "bad debt" that comes from loans made to beginning farmers for the two time periods mentioned above. MR. FJORDBOTTEN: Mr.

Speaker, I move that Mo tion 160 on today's Order Paper be amended as follows: number one, delete "bad debt accounts for loans made to farmers by the Agricultural Development Corporation declared in the fiscal year 1981-82", and add "Agricultur al Development Corporation direct farm loans that were not collectable in the fiscal year 1981-82"; number two, delete "The budget amount for bad debt accounts for loans made to farmers by the ADC for the fiscal year 1982-83", and add "The anticipated amount of uncollect- able direct farm loan accounts for 1982-83"; number three, delete "total 'bad debt' that comes from loans made to beginning farmers for the two time periods mentioned above", and add "the uncollectable accounts that can be attributed to beginning farmer loans in these two periods". [Motion as amended carried] MR.

SPEAKER: I should mention that so far, I guess, we haven't gotten into any real difficultly with regard to these amendments. But in getting an amendment with no notice whatsoever, it's next to impossible to form an opinion as to whether it's in order. It may even be diffi cult to form an opinion as to exactly what it means. If there were no substantial reasons to the contrary, need less to say the Chair would welcome the maximum possi ble or convenient notice of these amendments. DR. BUCK: On a point of order. If we have no problem, we don't have a problem.

So if the House agrees unani mously, then there is no problem. MR. SPEAKER: That remains to be seen. 163. Dr. Buck moved that an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing:

(1) The cost to the Department of Energy and Natural Resources for designing and printing the energy sav ing posters entitled "Thingumabob" and "Thingumadoodle".

(2) All places that either have received or will receive these posters, and the exact number of posters that have been or will be forwarded to each place.

(3) The projected cost of making additional copies of the same posters if this particular energy saving device is continued.

(4) Any other energy saving devices presently provided by the Department of Energy and Natural Re sources, as well as the cost associated with them. MR. ZAOZIRNY: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to Motion for a Return 163, I should mention at the outset that the subject matter raised in that motion falls squarely within the purview of my ministerial responsibilities. I should advise the Assembly that I have agonized over the motion because of the fact that, as mentioned earlier, as a government we do bend over backwards to try and accommodate requests for information from the hon. members of the opposition.

In this particular instance, Mr. Speaker, I think I have found a way. I would propose an amendment to Motion for a Return No. 163 as follows. Firstly, delete the words "The cost" from subparagraph (1) and replace them with the words "The direct cost". Secondly, delete the words "All places" from subparagraph (2) and replace them with the words "The categories of recipients". That renders the question answerable. Item number three, delete the words

418 ALBERTA HANSARD April 7, 1983 "forwarded to each place" from subparagraph (2) and replace them with the word "distributed", again to enable us to provide a specific answer. Finally, delete subpara graph (4). I would say, Mr. Speaker, that I would be pleased during a discussion of the estimates of the department to endeavor to provide as much information as possible with respect to the subject matter of subparagraph (4). I move that amendment. [Motion as amended carried] MR.

SPEAKER: With regard to the next order of busi ness, we're required to proceed to consideration of private members' public Bills at half past four. Does the Assem bly wish to proceed directly to call it half past four, or do you wish to start with the other order of business for the few minutes remaining? MR. HORSMAN: Mr. Speaker, I move we call it half past four. MR. SPEAKER: Does the Assembly agree? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. SPEAKER: It is now half past four. head: PUBLIC BILLS AND ORDERS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT BILLS AND ORDERS (Second Reading) Bill 201

An Act to Amend the Motor Vehicle Administration Act MRS. CRIPPS: Mr. Speaker, since it's half past four, I'd like to introduce Bill 201,

An Act to Amend the Motor Vehicle Administration Act. The purpose of this Bill is to provide a deterrent to impaired driving. It has been suggested that it's a Draconian proposal, although the person who told me that said that maybe it isn't as Draconian as he first thought. Before getting into the debate on whether the seizure of a vehicle is a more realistic penalty than imprisonment, let me go into the principles involved. The amendments to the Act would allow a judge to order the seizure of the licence plates and the vehicle being driven at the time of the impaired driving charge being laid.

This means that the driver would have to have a previous conviction under sections 234, 234.1, 235, or 236 of the Motor Vehicle Administration Act.* The Bill says that: . . . the judge hearing the case may order that the vehicle being driven by that person at the time . . . shall be seized and impounded for such time not exceeding I year as the judge may order . . . It also says that the judge "may order . . . that it shall be seized and sold". This is the area that the public seems to feel is a little Draconian. I have a number of letters, all — with the exception of two — in support of the Bill.

A number of them feel that the vehicle should not be sold. I'd just like to read some of the comments from some of my mail here, Mr. Speaker. First, one letter in opposition, believing mostly, I be lieve, that the family would be affected. I'll just take one paragraph: There are many reasons why I don't think they should pass this Bill. I don't think you should take away a person's car and sell it, because some people have worked a long time to get their cars. What happens when a person needs a car or truck to run his business then you take it away. He goes on to say, what happens if it's a truck driver?

In answer to that letter, Mr. Speaker, I suggested that a truck driver should have more sense than to drive while impaired. A number of young people, students from Drayton Valley, wrote to me. They are concerned, and their ideas are excellent. This one says: I feel that there are too many innocent people being killed each year in impaired driving accidents. I feel there should be a prison sentence for the second offender but I disagree with your idea of selling impounded cars. They should be kept for a specified amount of time then returned to the owner.

One young fellow felt that we should take the car but we shouldn't sell it, and offered an alternative. I'll just read the alternative: . . . might not it be more appropriate in setting a price for each day of impoundment than in selling the car. Another person suggested that at the end of the impoun dment, a penalty should be charged covering the cost of impoundment, rather than selling the car. A lady from Edmonton wrote that maybe we should follow the idea that Finland and Sweden have: The first offence they receive a 6 month jail term plus their licence is suspended for a year.

The second offence they lose their licence for life. In fact it doesn't matter who they are either, doctors, lawyers, [or politicians]. They don't even have a trial if the breathalyzer reads over [a specified amount]. The effect and the gravity of the situation is illustrated in this letter: [I] recently lost my younger sister . . . There is nothing I can do that will bring her back to us.

However, each time I express my opinions and add my voice to the growing public protest of the lenient law enforcement, inadequate sentencing and sympa thy of society toward the drunk driver, I help to save a life and [maybe] another family [won't suffer the grief] we endure. And from B.C.: The only reliable way to prevent crime is to adopt the diversionary system of criminal justice. In the instance of drinking drivers, simply confiscate their vehicles. Without their weapons, they become impotent. By the way, in that same letter they enclosed an

article where two men from B.C. had killed two Dall sheep, and the judge confiscated all their equipment, valued at over $10,000. He said he was doing this because of the "blatant disregard for the protection of wildlife". Sometimes the sentences meted out for wildlife offences are far more serious than the sentences handed down for criminal neg ligence and death on our highways. It also says there were 8,000 letters from the public which agreed with the idea of taking the driver's auto in the case of drunken driving. The last one I'd like to read points out the magnitude of the offences.

This letter is from Calgary. It says: I know a little about this scandalous record of drunken drivers since I have a male relative whose licence has been suspended 4 times and he is still *See page 424, right column, paragraph 10

April 7, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 419 driving! Those are just a few of the letters I have received on this issue, Mr. Speaker. A number of concerns have been raised, as I said, regarding the seizure of the vehicle, especially if it's not owned by the driver. If the driver does not have a valid driver's licence, he certainly does not have the legal right to drive any vehicle, his own or someone else's.

To ensure that there is not undue hardship on an innocent owner because of the Bill, we've put in a notwithstanding clause, item 4, that reads: Notwithstanding subsection (1), if the convicted person was not the registered owner or 1 of the joint owners of the motor vehicle at the time the offence was committed (

a) the registered owner may apply to the judge for the provision of subsections (1), (2) or (3) to be waived, and (

b) the the judge, if he is of the opinion that the registered owner's application is a proper case for relief and that the motor vehicle was not primarily provided for the private use of the convicted per son, may waive . . . subsections (1), (2) or (3). Mr. Speaker, this

section would provide the opportuni ty for a family member or another registered owner to have the car released in their care. Certainly if the seizure and impounding of the car was going to cause drastic hardship to family members, the spouse could possibly make representation to the judge to release it. Implicit in this release, I expect, would have to be an absolute understanding and honor-bound guarantee that the con victed impaired driver would at no time get behind the wheel of the vehicle as long as his or her licence was suspended. Mr. Speaker, this is not a new idea.

There are presently six Acts where the seizure of a vehicle may be the penalty for a crime. Under the Motor Vehicle Administration Act,

section 96, "Seizure of a motor vehicle" says that if

section 71 or 95 has been committed, they may seize and detain any motor vehicle. This is in respect to obtaining a registration without insurance. Under the Liquor Control Act,

section 117, a peace officer may, if in his opinion, liquor is unlawfully kept or kept for unlawful purposes in contravention of this Act or the regulations . . . immediately seize the liquor and the packages in which it is contained and the vehicle, watercraft, [et cetera] . . . And under (2)(b), it says the vehicle, watercraft or other conveyance so seized is forfeited to the Crown in the right of Alberta. Under the Wildlife Act,

section 98: When a game warden or a wildlife officer (

a) finds anywhere . . . any wildlife that he has reason to believe is illegal wildlife, or (

b) finds any vehicle . . . used for or in connection with the contravention of this Act . . . he may forthwith seize the wildlife, pelts or skins, or any parts thereof and the containers in which they were found or the vehicle . . . I understand that up toward Grande Cache recently, wild life officers seized a number of off-highway vehicles, 12 rifles, and numerous other equipment. None of it was returned to the owners. Under the Highway Traffic Act,

section 121 relates to speeding, careless driving, or obstructing a peace officer: "may seize and detain any motor vehicle". Under the Off-highway Vehicle Act, they "may seize and detain any off-highway vehicle" for contravention of that Act. Under the Motor Transport Act — and I believe this has to do with the illegal transportation of goods —

section 55 reads: A peace officer who has reason to believe that the public vehicle is being or has been operated in con travention of this Act or an order made under this Act may, without warrant, seize or detain the public vehicle and any goods carried in or on it. Under the Forests Act,

section 49: A forest officer may impound a vehicle or other property and take it to a place designated by the Minister if (

a) the vehicle or other property, in the opinion of a forest officer, interferes with the management or use of a forest recreation area . . . Mr. Speaker, all those Acts use the seizure of a vehicle as part of the deterrent aspect. In no case, in my estima tion, is the act as serious as the deliberate use of a motor vehicle which may cause the loss of life. Some hon. members seem to think I want the govern ment to go into the business of collecting cars. I don't. I'd like to see this Bill adopted and no cars seized because impaired drivers decided to adhere to the old idiom that if you drink, you don't drive.

Originally I had proposed the seizure of licence plates of the vehicle driven at the time of the liquor-related driving offence. In that case, it may be possible to seize the licence plates on a first offence for a period of, say, up to three months. Mr. Speaker, according to AADAC statistics, there were 21,442 licence suspensions in the first two-thirds of this year. I understand there were 30,000 suspensions in 1980-81 and only 13,000 of those people took the re quired AADAC courses. Are there 17,000 other drivers out there without a licence? Mr. Speaker, driving is a privilege, not a right.

You only have the right to drive as long as you do not abuse the privilege. The most common abuse of that privilege is getting behind the wheel while impaired. A car in the hands of the impaired driver is the most lethal weapon in Canada today. Three thousand people die each year in Canada in alcohol-related accidents. In the last six years, 18,000 people were killed in traffic accidents caused by impaired drivers. Compare that to the 17,682 Canadians killed in the Second World War, an equivalent six-year period. Mr.

Speaker, that means that by the end of the decade, by 1990, we can expect another 20,000 Canadians to die in accidents caused by impaired drivers. In Alberta 624 people died in traffic accidents last year, 50 per cent of these alcohol-related. Mr. Speaker, the worst thing about these statistics is that we condone them. We condone them mostly by the kinds of sentences handed out for drunken driving. Consider the man from Manitoba who was driving on the wrong side of the road and crashed into an oncoming car, killing the woman who was driving it. His blood alcohol was over the legal limit, and he pleaded guilty.

He got a $2,500 fine. A man drove northbound on a south bound freeway, and the inevitable crash killed a 34-year- old father of two children. In sentencing, the judge said he wanted to make an example of the drunk driver, so he gave him four years in jail. But, Mr. Speaker, the accused was out on bail on an impaired driving charge at the time of the accident. A small-town businessman fined for care less driving, convicted of three speeding offences, had his licence suspended. Less than two years later, he sped through a stop sign and killed two people. Citing the

420 ALBERTA HANSARD April 7, 1983 defendant's solid reputation and his remorse, the judge sentenced him to six months in prison. An appeal to a higher court gave him nine months, and he'll probably serve only two-thirds of that. Mr. Speaker, we simply take death on the road as a hazard of driving and don't stop to think for one minute that over 50 per cent of those deaths could be prevented if public attitude did not condone impaired driving. Driving while impaired is a real crime. Drunk drivers in other parts of the world are dealt with in a variety of ways.

Islamic punishment for the first offence is lashing and imprisonment. Drunk drivers are jailed for the first offence in Sweden, as well as in Norway, where the legal limit is .05. A subsequent viola tion results in permanent loss of licence. By the way, in Sweden it's socially acceptable and expected of a host to ask the guests, who will be driving and therefore will forego alcohol? Perhaps the most innovative countermea- sure can be found in Turkey, where the offender is forced to walk 40 kilometres under escort. Mr. Speaker, there's one unique one.

In Malaysia a first-time drunk driver is jailed, and if he's married, his wife is jailed with him. I'm not sure if that's part of the punishment or not. We haven't determined that. If my husband was jailed with me for drunk driving, it'd be part of the punishment. In El Salvador, there are only first offenders. The penalty is death. They've never had a second offender. The state of Maryland has taken an aggressive stand against drunk drivers. One of the penal ties is a 120-day confiscation of the licence plates. Public attitudes may be changing.

Down in California we have MADD, Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, and SADD, Students Against Drunk Drivers. In Alberta we have PAID, People Against Impaired Drivers. Judges are even speaking out. I have a recent clipping from the Toronto Globe and Mail which says: People convicted of impaired driving should have their car impounded in addition to facing fines and prison terms, says an Ontario provincial court judge. Judge Jack Climans says an offender's car or licence plates could be confiscated on conviction and im pounded for the same period his licence is suspended.

More and more people are speaking out against this apparently legalized illegal maiming, killing, and destruc tion on our roads. Few, if any, deterrent programs have long-term effects. There are three components to most deterrent programs: first, a crackdown on alcohol-impaired drivers, involving increased police detective activity and more severe penal ties for offenders; second, rehabilitation programs de signed to treat rather than punish offenders; and third, public education programs to discourage drinking and driving. These programs, Mr. Speaker, are all in place in Alber ta.

The only way they'll be effective is if public opinion is so strong that people simply will not drink and drive and if the penalties are seen to be stiff enough to fit the crime. There's a big difference between a first offender who misjudges his capacity by a drink and gets caught in a roadblock, and the chronic drunk who's had several pre vious convictions and kills one or two people. On the question of mandatory jail terms, it must be recognized that courts are reluctant to jail first offenders.

It would appear to me that the justice system is also reluctant to jail a family man, a businessman, a young man with no previous record, or a female. All the available evidence suggests that swift punish ment is a more effective deterrent than stiff punishment. Many of us remember a quick trip to the woodshed, where the severity of the punishment was soon forgotten but the swiftness of it was retained and often formed the basis for future judgment decisions. My father's up there, and I'm sure he can ascertain to that fact. A trip to the courthouse two months later, Mr. Speaker, is ineffective.

By that time the driver has convinced himself that he wasn't really that drunk, and may even believe it. This suggests that consideration should be given to some form of administrative, rather than judicial, licence revocation measures. If it were more acceptable for a police officer to suspend a driver's licence for 24 hours and also to confiscate the licence plates of the vehicle being driven until the owner appeared before a judge to either have them returned or have the vehicle impounded for a longer time, the consequences of the action of drinking and driving would be immediate.

The car owner could maintain the vehicle at his premises on a bailiffs undertaking if necessary. It is imperative that a police officer be able to adminis ter a breathalyzer test or request a blood alcohol test if the situation warrants. This could quite easily be done, Mr. Speaker. In order to have the privilege to drive, we first must obtain a valid driver's licence. There are a number of obligations that society dictates we must do to drive safely. We do them automatically without thinking.

We drive on the right-hand side of the road, we stop on a red light and go on a green, and we yield to the car on the right. We are obliged to do these things because we hold a valid operator's licence and chaos would result, and does result, when someone disregards this practical set of rules. Upon obtaining that licence, we're also obliged not to drive when incapable of doing so. Quite often somebody says, I'm too sick to drive home. We don't ever hear anybody say, I'm too impaired to drive home.

So to ensure that the police officer is able to do his job and the impaired driver does not have the case thrown out on some technicality — and that happens too often — an applicant for an operator's licence would sign an affida vit on the back, which simply says: in receiving and accepting this operator's licence, I do hearby give permis sion to be required to take a breathalyzer and/or blood test in the event of an accident, or at the request of a police officer who has reasonable grounds to suspect impairment.

The Saskatchewan highway minister has released a white paper outlining changes, and one of them is taking a mandatory sample at an accident. This immediately eliminates such cases as the one in Calgary where an impaired driver was so drunk he couldn't remember whether he had given permission to have the breathalyzer test, and it was thrown out of court by the judge. It's time that the innocent have their rights and limbs protected. It's not a simple problem. The judge has before him a repeat offender. He's been up on numerous occasions for speeding and careless driving, all impaired-related.

The sanctions have proved fruitless. The fellow is a family man, a good provider, a hard worker, an asset to the community — except that while impaired, he's a potential hazard on the highway when in control of a vehicle. If the judge sentences him to prison, the breadwinner is gone and the family may have to go on welfare. Society pays for his keep and his family's. In cases where the impaired driver has not been in an accident, is it really better to look at imprisonment rather seizure of the vehicle? A car is a status symbol; it's usually

April 7, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 421 the first possession a young person aspires to acquire. A man treasures his wife, or vice versa, his home, and his car — and not necessarily in that order. The seizure of the vehicle, being an item of pride, may be the deterrent we need. I realize that the penalty may seem harsh. However, a jail sentence or a fine might prove equally devastating to the family. A jail term could cause the loss of the princi pal wage earner or, in a few cases, the loss of a job. The purpose of this Bill, Mr.

Speaker, is to provide a deterrent which will make the impaired consider carefully the possible consequences of driving while under the in fluence of alcohol. It is important to note that it's only effective on the second or subsequent offence. In many cases the operator does not even have a valid operator's licence. If the citizen has lost his operator's licence, he's also lost his right to drive. The law states that the operator of a motor vehicle must not do so while im paired. Therefore an impaired person does not have the privilege of choosing whether he drives.

The solution to the problem lies in public attitude toward the impaired driver. The public is becoming in creasingly concerned. I believe they are looking for the government to pass legislation and enforce laws in keep ing with the seriousness of the offence. I would urge that the Attorney General and Solicitor General look carefully at this alternative, and I hope members will support the intent of the Bill. MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise to support the purpose of the Bill. It may well be the way to go specifically; I'm not sure.

As hon. members men tioned, in many places around the world they are much harsher than we are in terms of drunken driving. I think of places like Sweden. They have certainly been much more effective in cutting down drunken driving than we have at this particular time. But I think something has to be done in this whole area. Hopefully the Attorney General will be looking at this, because it came home to me specifically a few months ago, as I know it has with other hon. members in the House. It's always another statistic when it's somebody you don't know.

You read about it in the paper, and they mention that alcohol or drugs of some sort could have been involved. You say, isn't that interesting, and go on to the next part of the paper. A few months ago, when I was working in a high school, a colleague's aunt and another woman were on their way on holidays about eight o'clock Sunday morn ing and a young man in a car crossed over the median and wiped them out and killed them. As a colleague, of course, I saw what he went through. It brought home to me that we have a very serious problem, especially when you bring it to a personal level rather than the specifics.

The other point I would like to make has to do with costs. Of course the hon. Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care has brought in user fees and has complain ed specifically about the high costs of hospital care and medicare in the province. Certainly this is one of the areas where you can begin to cut down costs. The hospi tal utilization report that was given to the minister clearly indicated that the most significant, highest costs of hospi tal care are car accidents. We also know — and I think the hon. member brought this out — that the biggest cause of car accidents is drunken driving.

So if we were to make the laws stiffer — if it's a matter of impounding the car or some other method that the Attorney General looks at — and we were able to seriously cut down drunken driving, and people knew that we were serious about it, we would also be saving a lot of money in our medicare system because we'd be cutting down signifi cantly on car accidents. For this matter, I would generally support the Bill.

Although I'm not an expert to know if this would be the best way to go, I would agree with the hon. member that something has to be done, and done quickly, because we are losing a lot of lives and wasting a lot of money on drunken driving. So I would hope that from this — I know private members' Bills are sometimes used by the government as trial balloons — they would see there is support right across the province for something to be done to make it harsher on drunken drivers. I hope the government might be looking at bringing this in, in the fall. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. GOGO: Mr.

Speaker, rising to speak to Bill 201, I'm very encouraged that the Member for Drayton Valley has brought this forward, because I think it reflects attitudes of the public today. I think that in the perception of most Albertans, they see a lax police force, a lax system of administration of justice, or perhaps a lax government. I'd like to make some comments which I believe will dispute that. First of all, I noticed in today's Globe and Mail that a man was jailed on the 10th charge of impaired driving. It's very interesting: it took him 10 times to get into jail, and he had to kill somebody to do it.

He has a record of 10 convictions over almost 10 years — 1974. He was sent to jail for seven months and, as is prone to happen with any seven-month sentence of course, in five months he was out again. He was driving. He killed somebody. He has now been sentenced to a year and a half by an Ontario court judge. The comment made is, the only way we can seem to look after you is to lock you up. Mr. Speaker, I think that would reflect an attitude of many Albertans today that indeed in their frustrations as to what's going on they tend to lash out in anger and make accusations.

I think it might be timely to look at some of the facts, if that's not in some way going to confuse people. First of all, we should look at the fact that 92 per cent of all those who took the impaired drivers' program last year were males. That should indi cate that females are not really the problem. Secondly, 95 per cent of all those who participated lived in urban centres. So it would appear that our country cousins are not the impaired drivers. But you can make figures do anything.

Because 45 per cent of the participants were single, 30 per cent were married, and the remaining 25 per cent were either se parated, divorced, widowed, or lived common law, strong arguments could be made that if you adopted a certain life style obviously you wouldn't be convicted for im paired driving. I think that indicates that you can make almost anything out of statistics. What is important, though, is that fully two-thirds had no previous criminal experiences that resulted in convictions, including im paired driving charges.

Finally, only one in every 10 who was convicted of impaired driving had had counselling of any kind with regard to alcohol and driving. Mr. Speaker, the Member for Drayton Valley pointed out, in terms of statistics, that in the '80-81 fiscal year there were almost 31,000 Albertans convicted of impaired driving. If you talk to certain law enforcement officers in Alberta, they'll tell you that generally the track record is one in every five; that is, if five are charged, one would be

422 ALBERTA HANSARD April 7, 1983 convicted of impaired driving. One has to be careful how one interprets that, because invariably people are charged either with impaired driving, refusing to blow, or with a blood alcohol content in excess of 08. The fact remains that some 31,000 people were convicted in the 1980-81 fiscal year. In '81-82 that had dropped 20 per cent to 24,000. That's a pretty dramatic drop. What would account for that? Were the police not active? I submit that the police were very active.

I think what actually happened was that in 1981-82 we saw some very dramatic programs take place in the province, to make citizens aware that they have a responsibility not only for themselves but for others when they're drinking. To date this year we're seeing, on a projected annual basis, that the number of impaired driv ers is probably going to reach 27,000. So I submit, Mr. Speaker, that there has been some progress. The Member for Drayton Valley pointed out quite clearly that there have been more people killed as a result of impaired driving in the past six years than in the six years of World War II.

I think it's also interesting to note that each year in America there are more people killed on the highways than during the total period of the Vietnam war — perhaps the greatest war in history; certainly the most expensive war in the history of America. But what it doesn't tell us, Mr. Speaker, is the cost. The Member for Drayton Valley indicated what the damage was. As a result of accidents, we had some 600 deaths last year, as reported by the Minister of Transpor tation. Some 50 per cent of those involved alcohol.

When we view the fact that there were some 3 million patient- days in hospitals, that would tend to refute the argument made by the Member for Edmonton Norwood that there's an excessive cost element involved in our hospital system. Dealing with approximately 300 wouldn't be a significant factor — not nearly as many as are admitted to hospitals for alcohol problems. That's quite apart from traffic accidents involving drinking and driving. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the cost we're more directly concerned with is within the estimates of the hon. Attor ney General.

My information is that each conviction costs approximately $10,000. That would be involved with en forcement; administration of justice; legal aid, if applica ble; the appeal side; and mandatory treatment as spelled out by the statute that requires people to be tested through the impaired drivers' program before they drive. I think I should point out a fact that we are all well aware of but don't seem to spend much time on, and that is that there really wouldn't be much in the way of problems with impaired driving if there wasn't much drinking.

It might be interesting to review that, as tough as times are, the sales of alcohol in Alberta seem to be doing pretty well. They clearly exceed 50 million gallons. So when we start determining who does the drinking, we find — and I think this figure has been mentioned before — that every Albertan over 15 years of age drinks some 800 bottles of beer a year. We all know quite conclusive ly, I think, that that's on average. I don't know who drinks the Member for Lac La Biche-McMurray's share, which means that someone else would be drinking 1,600 bottles of beer.

But when we look at the number of people in terms of age groups, we find that a very signifi cant number, 70 per cent, are aged 20 to 39. So I think one would readily understand, or it would be a reasona ble assumption, that certain age groups tend to drink the most, and that is in direct proportion to the number of motor vehicle accidents which happen between 10 p.m. and 2 a.m., and the number of convictions. When we look at convictions, the largest number is within that age category. Mr. Speaker, reference is made in Bill 201 to taking away the automobile.

I don't think we should be naive; we should be practical and pragmatic. As we know, the hon. leader of the NDP in Canada represents an area that makes great claims that one in every seven Canadians is directly affected in that he wouldn't have a job if it weren't for the automobile. So I submit that if we inter pret Bill 201 in the very narrow sense, two things would occur. One, we would probably have the biggest parking lot in Alberta under government control, because pre sumably we could have some huge number of automo biles seized and impounded.

Secondly, there would be a dramatic decrease in automobile sales, which I guess would prompt a march on the Legislature by certain car dealers. Although that may sound somewhat facetious, Mr. Speaker, I think one has to be pragmatic in looking at the punishment as a mode of resolving the problem. The Member for Drayton Valley clearly points out that of the total number convicted, in the latest estimates there were some 4,200 who were repeat offenders.

The Criminal Code of Canada states very clearly that for second of fences for impaired driving there is "imprisonment for not more than one year and not less than fourteen days". Now it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that if there were 4,200 convictions in Alberta, there should have been a signifi cant number of those people doing at least 14 days in jail, if that's the Criminal Code. Yet in reading this — albeit it only covers a three-month period, as submitted by the Attorney General's Department — we had a total of 42 people charged with second offences in October '82, 41 in November, and 24 in December.

Multiplying those to gether we probably get a maximum of some 450 to 500, and yet we know, according to the records, that clearly over 4,000 were repeat offenders. So there seems to be some difficulty at the administra tion of justice level, as to whether or not those who are caught in terms of impaired driving are in fact appropri ately charged. I submit that if they were, and if the sentences were meted out in accordance with the mini mum according to the Criminal Code, then we would have resolved part of this problem long ago.

I don't want to be critical of the judges, because a judge can only judge what the Crown counsel puts in front of him. Claims have been made that we don't have enough jail cells in Alberta. If everybody who was guilty of a second offence were sentenced to prison, there wouldn't be room to hold them. I don't know. I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that we are doing many things now in the province to deal with this problem. It's interesting to look at a very responsible agency, the Insurance Bureau of Canada. Mr.

Lyndon, who is the president, was a deputy minister here in Consumer and Corporate Affairs, a well-known Alber tan. They point out in material mailed to all members that all the available evidence suggests that swift punish ment is one of the most effective ways of dealing with the problem. I think we have to look at the time lag between the time someone is apprehended, charged, and ultimate ly convicted, which may run anywhere to several months. Then if they are suspended for a period of six months. I submit the time of the offence is long forgotten by the time they are convicted.

I sometimes think we're dealing with a problem that, frankly, legislators can't deal with. I think it's a question of attitude. It's a question of us as individuals, as community people, as residents within a community to

April 7, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 423 take a stand and speak up, and not just as legislators. The Member for Drayton Valley has mentioned organizations which I think have become very affective. The People Against Impaired Drivers, alive and well in Alberta, has taken a very strong stand. Mothers Against Drunk Driv ers, which was featured on American television several weeks ago, now has a membership of some 200,000 people. One of the latest ones — and the acronym is somewhat appropriate — is SADD, which is Students Against Drunk Drivers. I'd like to comment briefly on how that works.

A U.S. organization, a group of some 8,000 school students, has got together and come up with a very interesting prevention device. It consists of parents and children signing a contract between them. The contract reads like this: I hereby declare and promise that if I'm out having a good time and have too much to drink, I will phone you, Dad or Mom — with the phone number — and you will come and get me; thereby I will not drive while drinking.

I would like to point out — and I know I have already qualified that statistics can be misleading — that, for example, on Long Island, New York, for the past five years there have been at least 20 teen-age deaths during the Christmas holidays. This program started last year; they went through the last whole Christmas period with not one death. Why? The people involved in this organi zation visited all the schools on Long Island, talked to the students in high schools, and presumably as a result of that they went through a complete festive period with not one fatality. That, Mr.

Speaker, is more meaningful than all the laws we can put on the books or attempt to enforce. I clearly think it's a matter of attitude. Although we as a government are subject to a fair amount of criti cism in that we are taking in, this year, in excess of a quarter billion dollars in profits from alcohol — clearly the price of alcohol is substantially less than in other jurisdictions — I point out that this government, through a Social Services and Community Health budget of some $1,050,000,000, recognizes that it's indeed cognizant of social problems and pays out substantial amounts of money.

So the criticism this government is taking as a result of alcohol revenue, some $270 million in projected incomes this year — indeed encouraging the problem — is clearly not accurate. The revenue that comes in is spent fourfold in social services alone. I would like to close, Mr. Speaker, with regard to what I think is being done in a very worth-while way now in the province of Alberta, and that is through the Alberta Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Commission.

In the past 10 years, the budget of AADAC has gone up from about $2 million to $20 million, clearly an indication that the government of Alberta is committed to doing something about alcohol and drug abuse. What's being done? I think one of the most exciting programs in North America is being carried out right under this legislative authority. The moderation cam paign, which in my view is the answer, is consistent, by the way, with a view expressed by the Insurance Bureau of Canada. They say that punishment, prohibition, ap pears to fail.

"Moderation is a far more saleable concept than abstinence." They endorse it. That's exactly what AADAC's attempting in this province. I think that's great for young people, for those who don't have the benefit through driver training which is offered through organi zations in Alberta. I think the treatment programs carried out by the Alberta Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Commis sion in terms of inpatient treatment programs — there's not a province in Canada that offers the same degree of programs. Certainly no province offers it at the same cost.

The involvement we have in youth throughout this province was epitomized just a week ago Tuesday here in Edmonton at the Chateau Lacombe hotel, when some 200 young people throughout Edmonton — these are high school students, grades 10, 11, and 12 — gathered and participated in workshops which indicated two things: that they believe they are not only responsible for their future and their behavior regarding their future, but they are prepared to take some action and do something about it.

Secondly, I would like to point out that although the number of those convicted of impaired driving does not seem to jibe with those who show up for impaired drivers' programs in Alberta, the indication, as mentioned by the Member for Drayton Valley, is that there are some 9,000 Albertans who are convicted who don't show up to take the course. The assumption is made that they are driving. I think a substantial number of those are driving.

That means that [if] we as a government or we as a state declare that whoever operates a motor vehicle must have certain insurances, then we clearly have an obligation to protect those against people who are driving without insurance. Whether it's 6,000, 7,000, 8,000, or 9,000, I don't know. But, indeed it is a significant number. I personally advocate that a short, snappy handling of an impaired driving charge would be more effective. My preference is for a 48-hour jail term.

That, incidentally, happens to coincide, I'm pleased to see, with two things: one is that President Reagan in America has appointed a special presidential commission on alcohol and drunken driving, and Mr. Volpe, who's chairman of that, has recommended 48 hours' incarceration. California, which was mentioned a few minutes ago by the Member for Drayton Valley, has an exciting new program. It has a 48-hour sentence on conviction. I know it's a little too early to comment on what the potential results might be, but indications are that there has been a dramatic decrease. So, Mr.

Speaker, I want to commend the Member for Drayton Valley for bringing this to the attention of not only our colleagues in the House but all Albertans. Very clearly it's an effort out of — "frustration" is not a good word — determined action by the member to respond to many concerns that Albertans have raised with her. I would have some difficulty, however, supporting the im plementation of the Bill whereby we would remove the automobile, primarily because those who are not involved with impaired driving would be forfeiting the use of the automobile. How times change.

Thirty, 40, or 50 years ago, if you lived in Cardston or Raymond you could get to Leth- bridge by train or bus. Today you cannot get there except by automobile. We replaced, it seems to me, a spiritual being in this province with an automobile, and I really don't think we can function without it. I think the more laws we put on the books that prohibit people from driving, the less effective they are going to be. So I strongly endorse the principle of the Bill; however. I withhold my support with regard to the implementation of removing the automobile. Thanks very much. MR. NELSON: Mr.

Speaker, it's indeed a pleasure to be able to speak to the initiatives taken by the

Document details

Collection	Alberta — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	19830407
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	L20 S1 19830407 1430 01 han.pdf
Language	en
Format	json
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	590980de365e148b947e012fae1b1b6969592133

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