LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA Title: Tuesday, May 30, 1972 2:30 p.m. [The House met at 2:30 pm.] PRAYERS [Mr. Speaker in the Chair.] head: NOTICES OF MOTION DR. HOHOL: Mr. Speaker, I should like to provide notice of motion to the extent that tomorrow, Wednesday, I intend to propose the following motion to this Assembly, seconded by the hon. Attorney General:

Be it resolved:

(1) That a Select Committee of this Assembly be established consisting of the following members: Hon. Len Werry Mr. Graham Harle Mr. Bill Diachuk Mr. David King Dr. Ken Paproski Mr. A.H. Cooper Mr. Charles Drain Mr. J.B. Anderson Chairman, Dr. A.E. Hohol with instructions: (

a) To receive representations and recommendations as to the operation of The Workmen's Compensation Act, and (

b) That the committee so appointed do meet for the purposes afore said at the call of the chairman at such times and such places as may, from time to time, be designated by him, and (

c) That the said committee do report to this Assembly at the next ensuing session of this Assembly, the substance of the representations and recommendations made to the committee together with such recommendations relating to the administration of the said act as to the committee seems proper.

(2) Members of the committee shall receive remuneration in accordance with

Section 59 of The Legislative Assembly Act.

(3) The reasonable disbursement by the committee made for clerical assistance, equipment, and supplies, advertising, rent, and other facilities required for the effective conduct of those responsibilities shall be paid subject to the approval of the chairman out of Appropriation No. 1902. head: INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS MR. HARLE: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure indeed to introduce to the hon. members of this Assembly a group of seven Grade V students from the Lynnwood School in your constituency, sir, the constituency of Edmonton Meadowlark.

They are seated in the members' gallery and are accompanied by their teacher Mr. Matan. I wonder if they would stand and be recognized by the Assembly. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3827

57-2 ALBERTA HANSARD May 30th 1972 DR. HORNER: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce to you and to the House the Grade X Social Studies class from Barrhead accompanied by their very accomplished teacher Mr. Parmar. I would ask them to stand and be recognized by the Assembly. MR. FARRAN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce to you and through you, a very prominent Alberta citizen, my neighbour, and the former employer of the Premier of Alberta, Mr. Fred Mannix, who is sitting in the members' gallery. Would he please stand and be recognized. head: ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Moir Report MR.

NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct this question to the hon. Minister of Advanced Education. Can the minister advise the House whether he has received the Moir report, and whether or not that report will be tabled before the end of the session? MR. FOSTER: Mr. Speaker, believe it or not, I have received the Moir report -- [Applause] -- even I'll clap for that! It, I believe, arrived this morning. It's in loose form, I don't know how many pages, and it's not bound. I'm having to have it put together, assembled, a number of copies made, bound, and then hopefully, I'll have a chance to read it.

I hope to do that within the course of the next two or three days. Until I read it I wouldn't want to comment any further. MR. NOTLEY: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In light of the fact that the minister has now received the entire report, will the government give any consideration to implementing the interim report which, as you will recall, Mr. Minister, dealt with what the committee alleged to be the unfair tax breaks given foreign academics and made a number of recommendations with respect to what the government should do about that.

My question to you is, are you prepared to act upon the interim report, now that you've received the report in total? MR. FOSTER: I don't know why, but Advanced Education -- I guess like every other department of government -- receives all sorts of reports. I just finished with one of them. I'm going to get myself into another one today, and I frankly would like a little time to assess this. I haven't looked in detail at the interim report of the Moir committee, nor have I even looked at the Moir report at all. I hope to do this within the course of the next two or three days.

It's extremely unlikely that any decisions in terms of action on any report, interim or otherwise, will be taken before this session is over however. But I say that without having seen either of them. MR. NOTLEY: One final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister advise the House why the report was so long in coming? It's been my understanding that perhaps the universities were not as co-operative in the preparation of this report as could be the case. Is this a fair assessment? Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3828

May 30th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 57-3 MR. FOSTER: Mr. Speaker, no. I don't really think, with great respect, that it is a fair assessment. I think that that was a consideration. The Moir committee has various reasons why it has taken them until now to have it. I certainly have been anxious, my office has been anxious, to have this report at an early date, and I know the hon. Member for Olds-Didsbury has been anxious to have it. I frankly don't know all the reasons why, and at this point it's perhaps a bit callous to say I don't care, but I'm not really concerned.

CLERK : Government Bills and Orders for Second Reading. MR. HYNDMAN: Orders of the Day are next, Mr. Speaker. ORDERS OF THE DAY head: MINISTERIAL ANNOUNCEMENTS MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise the House that the government has today, under the provisions of The Alberta Insurance Act, cancelled the license to sell insurance held by Rocky Mountain Life Insurance Company, and has appointed what is, in effect, an interim manager of the company's business. To explain why that action was taken, I need to review the recent history of the company.

During the past two or three years, it became apparent to both the company and the provincial government that Rocky Mountain Life Insurance Company would be in financial difficulty unless it could get additional equity capital. In an effort to find a solution, the company obtained, in August of 1971, approval from the Alberta Securities Commission to sell stock in Romoco International Associates Limited. Some of the money to be raised from the sale of that stock was to be used to purchase shares in Rocky Mountain Life Insurance Company, which would have provided it with the necessary equity capital.

That sale of stock was in process when we came into office in September of 1971. Had Romoco International Associates Limited been successful in raising the minimum subscription of $1 million, sufficient money would have been put into Rocky Mountain Life Insurance Company by the purchase of its shares to restore its financial position to where it would meet the requirements of The Alberta Insurance Act. Romoco International Associates Limited had until March 31, 1972, to raise that minimum subscription.

They were not able to do so, and thus on April 1, 1972, it was apparent that an alternative solution to Rocky Mountain Life Insurance Company's financial difficulties had to be found. Mr. Speaker, Rocky Mountain Life Insurance Company is one of only a few Alberta life insurance companies. It now has about 11,000 policyholders. Nearly all of them are Albertans. For this reason it was of vital importance to the government that a solution to the company's financial problem be found which would not leave in jeopardy the interests of those policyholders.

For some weeks, along with members of my department, I have been holding extensive meetings with the officers of Rocky Mountain Life Insurance Company, the reinsurers, the creditors of that company, and other insurance companies. Initially we endeavoured to find an insurance company which would purchase the business and assume all contractual liabilities to the policyholders. Despite the fact that the creditors were prepared to reduce their claims by hundreds of thousands of dollars, we were unable to find a company willing to Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3829

57-4 ALBERTA HANSARD May 30th 1972 purchase the business. Within the past week or so it became clear that if the government did not become involved, Rocky Mountain Life Insurance Company would undoubtedly go into bankruptcy or receivership, resulting in serious losses to the policyholders. The alternative was for the government to become involved in the administration of the company's life insurance business.

As a result of lengthy discussions with the creditors, which included the reinsurers of Rocky Mountain Life Insurance Company, a tentative agreement has been reached whereby the creditors will reduce their claims by hundreds of thousands of dollars, and in exchange the government will administer the policies and guarantee to the policyholders that they will receive all of the benefits they were entitled to receive by the terms of their contracts. I want to emphasize, Mr. Speaker, that such a guarantee would relate only to the policyholder's interests and not to the shareholders' interests.

While the agreement I have referred to is tentative, I have every reason to believe it will in a very short time be incorporated into formal documents, and will at that time become binding. Therefore, I am confident that we have found the solution which will fully protect the approximately 11,000 Albertans who have purchased policies from this company. Mr. Speaker, whether this arrangement will cost the government any money depends on how many policyholders cancel their policies.

That is so because the value of an insurance business is determined almost solely by the capacity to keep the policies in force for the normal term of the contract. Estimating the percentage of cancellations over the lifetime of the Rocky Mountain Life Insurance Company policies is fraught with great uncertainty. But based on what we feel are realistic estimates, we are hopeful that with the co-operation and understanding of the policyholders, there will be no loss to the government. Mr.

Speaker, in closing I would like to call for the co- operation and assistance of all members of the House in what is a difficult situation for a large number of people within our province. MR. FOSTER: Mr. Speaker, for the past several months the government has reviewed all capital projects initiated by the previous administration. This review has included an assessment of the plans for the proposed Athabasca University. The Athabasca University Governing Authority was established by Order in Council in June of 1970.

It was directed to bring into existence an innovative university stressing undergraduate programs in the arts and sciences. A major purpose of the province's fourth university was to provide an alternative to the University of Alberta, which under the pressure of rapidly escalating enrolments, was approaching a student population of 20,000. The original target date for the opening of Athabasca University's doors was set by the former government for September of 1973.

Since then, however, the university growth patterns typical of the sixties have changed, despite the continued increased size of the 18 to 24 year old age group. University enrolments have levelled off, for the time being at least. The fact that university attendance in the last two years has not kept pace with increasing population is complex and difficult to analyse. The government is very interested in and approves the academic plan developed by the governing authority of Athabasca University.

This plan stresses innovative instructional methods and use of Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3830

May 30th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 57-5 educational technology. Further, the academic plan calls for the development of cluster colleges which encourage close faculty-student interaction and small social groupings. When the need for a fourth provincial university becomes more clearly apparent, the government accepts that the Athabasca University plan will serve as a model. The Athabasca authority has completed the conceptual phase in the designing of physical space to accommodate the academic plan. The authority has, over the past several months, employed a consortium of architects and engineers in this project.

The termination of this phase brings physical planning to a point where certain decisions on site detail planning and construction activities are necessary. Accordingly, all physical planning is suspended indefinitely. The government is not prepared at this time to indicate a specific site for the fourth university. Nor is the government ready to make a commitment on the exact date for its opening. We prefer to wait and examine university enrolment trends for the next two or three years before making any such announcement.

On the other hand, the government recognizes that time is necessary to plan a university, particularly one which departs from traditional patterns to the extent contemplated in the Athabasca university model. The sixties saw many post-secondary institutions brought into existence under the pressure of crisis planning. With the pace of university growth brought temporarily to a halt, it should be possible to plan new universities more effectively and in greater detail during this decade.

Accordingly, we are approving in general the proposal of the Athabasca University Governing Authority to continue academic planning by undertaking a pilot project which would test in a practical setting various dimensions of the Athabasca University model. This pilot study would, in effect, be a research and development project in advanced education. The pilot project would extend for the next four to five years. The first two years would be spent in assembling the physical material and human resources necessary to undertake the developmental study. The final three years would constitute the study proper.

The project would involve a group of approximately 250 students, with the necessary academic and professional staff operating in temporary quarters. Five aspects of the Athabasca plan are to be tested, and they are; the effectiveness of an instructional resources centre for independent learning, the desirability of tutorial sessions, the feasibility of individual student programs, the possibility of developing communication skills as a basis for individual growth, and the cost-effectiveness of alternative instructional patterns.

The pilot project will also include the testing of community outreach programs similar to those being conducted by the British Open University. The details of the pilot project and its financial requirements will be referred to the Universities Commission for study and approval.

While the project will be subject to continuing scrutiny, the Department of Advanced Education sees it as a feasible and realistic development study and there are several advantages. 1) The pilot project will test the Athabasca University model through direct experience with its various dimensions in a manner not unlike the use of industrial pilot projects which assess the effectiveness of planning. 2) A pilot study of this type may provide information of value to other advanced education institutions within the provincial system and to the Department of Advanced Education.

Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3831

57-6 ALBERTA HANSARD May 30th 1972 3) A testing of new ideas in advanced education will keep Albertans informed of possible directions for change and improvement. 4) When the enrolment pressure in our university again increases, it should be possible to move from the pilot model to a full-fledged undergraduate university with reasonable speed. head: QUESTIONS 208. Mr. Taylor asked the government the following question:

(1) From whom did the government purchase the "King Air" 100 aircraft?

(2) How many hours had been logged on the "King Air" at the time of purchase?

(3) Did the government receive one or more independent appraisals of the aircraft prior to purchasing same? If so, could the appraisals be tabled? DR. WARRACK: Mr. Speaker, I move that question 208 be made a Motion for a Return, seconded by the hon. Minister of Public Works. [The motion was carried on a voice vote.] 209. Mr. Taylor asked the government the following question:

(1) With respect to primary highway construction, how many miles of: (

a) grading (

b) stabilized gravel base course (

c) soil cement base course (

d) asphalt surfacing (

e) seal coating were completed during the 1971 construction season?

(2) How many miles in each of the above were committed for but not completed during 1971 and what is the estimated value of the uncompleted work?

(3) Will the uncompleted work of 1971 have first priority in the 1972 program?

(4) How many miles of surface oiling were completed during the 1971 construction season? If this mileage includes oiling of any highway twice during the season, please specify the highway and number of miles involved in the second oiling. 210. Mr. Taylor asked the government the following question:

(1) With regard to Vote No. 1516, Special Contingencies, and Vote No. 1582, Secondary Roads Construction (1971 Estimates) how many miles of: (

a) grading (

b) base course (

c) surfacing were completed during the 1971 construction season? Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3832

May 30th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 57-7

(2) How many miles of road in each category that were committed for in 1971 were not completed, and what is the estimated cost of same?

(3) Will the uncompleted portions of the 1971 program have first priority in the 1972 program? MR. COPITHORNE: I move, seconded by my colleague the hon. Minister of Industry and Commerce that both Motion 209 and 210 be made an order for return. MR. SPEAKER: Having heard the motion do you all agree that Questions 209 and 210 be made Orders for Return? [The motion was carried on a voice vote.] head: MOTIONS FOR A RETURN 207. Mr. Clark proposed the following motion to the Assembly, seconded by Mr. Buckwell. That an Order of the Assembly do issue for a Return showing:

(1) A copy of the Report of the Commissioner on the Red Deer College dispute.

(2) Copies of the presentations made to the Commissioner in the course of the public hearings. MR. CLARK: I move Motion 207 on the Order Paper in my name. MR. FOSTER: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would consider subparagraph 2. The report of the Byrne inquiry has been tabled and frankly I'm just not anxious that copies of the presentations and tapes, etc., be made a public document. I would be happy to assist anyone with private information, but I am not prepared to recommend the release of all the presentations and tapes publicly. MR. CLARK: Mr.

Speaker, I would be asking the hon. minister a question hopefully not closing the debate if that is in any way possible. Really what we have in mind -- there is a copy of the written presentations and perhaps I should have included the word "written" in the phrasing of the Motion for a Return. MR. FOSTER: Mr. Speaker, my concern in responding to the question is that there were, of course, a great many written representations made to the commissioner. I'm under the impression that some of them were made in the hope that they would not be made public. They were for the commissioner to consider.

I'm not excited about making this information public -- not that there is anything to hide -- but I would be quite happy to discuss the hon. member's requirements for information with the commissioner, and I'm sure that some accommodation could be reached. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3833

57-8 ALBERTA HANSARD May 30th 1972 MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, in closing the debate, in light of the comments of the hon. minister, would it be agreeable if I were to withdraw my motion and ask that it stand on the Order Paper until Thursday? In the meantime I will discuss with the hon. minister my own particular requirements and deal with it in that manner. MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved by the hon. Member for Olds-Didsbury, seconded by the hon. Member for Macleod that Motion 207 stand over until Thursday.

Do you all agree? [The motion was carried on a voice vote.] head: GOVERNMENT BILLS AND ORDERS (Second Reading) Bill No. 59 The Hydro and Electric Energy Amendment Act, 1972 MR. WERRY: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Youth, Culture, and Recreation that Bill No. 59 do not be read a second time. As most hon. members are aware the amendments to The Hydro and Electric Energy Act are the first amendments to that act.

The Hydro and Electric Energy Act came into being last year when the old Power Commission was phased out and these additional functions were taken on by the new Energy Resources Conservation Board. I think it's important to note, Mr. Speaker, that the emphasis in the philosophy in this bill change or give more adequate consideration to the environmental aspects of hydro-electric development facilities and the construction of transmission lines. In general the amendments empower the Energy Conservation Boards to make regulations to control pollution and ensure environmental considerations are subject to the hon.

Minister of Environment. I think that the most important aspect of the amendments in here is the

section dealing with construction of hydro dams. As we have witnessed in the past two or three years in Canada, there have been a number of new dams that have been constructed with devastating effects to the ecology. I would like to point out Williston Lake, that backs up the W.A.C. Bennett Dam, and also the large controversy that is taking place in the Province of Quebec at this time with respect to the James Bay Hydro Electric. The new amendments in here state that when an applicant wishes to develop a hydro development first of all he must apply to the board.

The board then must conduct such studies as they deem necessary, and also hold public hearings. The board then must conduct such studies as they deem necessary, and also hold public hearings. I think this is a most important aspect in our society today that when a major hydro development is being considered the public be in on the process. Following those two steps, if it is then deemed advisable by the Energy Resources Conservation Board that the development of a hydro project be proceeded with, the application is then referred to the Executive Council and the Executive Council must prepare a bill.

That bill is then presented to the first session thereafter of the Legislative Assembly for full debate in that Legislature. So there Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3834

May 30th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 57-9 are adequate checks and balances here to ensure that any future hydro development that takes place in Alberta will have input, not only from the political level and the technical level, but also from the public with respect to the public hearings. Another change in this bill, Mr. Speaker, is that in future when any transmission lines are to be constructed by a utility firm in Alberta, application must be approved and conditions may be placed on it by both the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Lands and Forests.

One further change in the bill is that only the Executive Council itself can over-ride the conditions that are set out on any transmission lines by the Minister of Lands and Forests or the Minister of the Environment. The last point, Mr. Speaker, is that the new bill also provides for the Energy Resources Conservation Board to regulate a uniform system of accounts for all utilities in Alberta. [The motion was carried, Bill No. 59 was read a second time.] Bill No. 75 The Ombudsman Amendment Act, 1972 MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the, hon.

Minister of Manpower and Labour, second reading of Bill No. 75, The Ombudsman Amendment Act, 1972. Mr. Speaker, this act contains one and perhaps two matters of principle, and two matters of clarification of existing legislation. I propose to deal with them in the order in which they appear in the bill, Mr. Speaker. The first amendment deals with the salary of the Ombudsman and provides that effective as of January 1, 1971, his salary shall be $28,000 per year, and effective as of January 1, 1972, his salary shall be $30,000 per year. Mr.

Speaker, I should draw to the attention of the hon. members of the House that this is an increase from $20,000 per year, which is the sum provided for in the existing legislation. I should also mention that that legislation is now some five years old and he has not had a raise in the meantime. Mr. Speaker, I don't think any member of this House needs to be told of the tremendous importance to the people of Alberta of the office of the Ombudsman.

We have all had the opportunity of reviewing the report which he has filed with the Legislature this year and I recall that there were some 800, or thereabouts, complaints investigated by the Ombudsman during the last year and that, alone, is some indication of the importance of his office. I would also like to draw to the attention of the hon. members that this is a little lower than the other officer of the Legislature, the Auditor, whose salary is $34,000 per year. It is also somewhat higher than the senior deputy ministers within the government. Mr.

Speaker, in my submission, this is more than justified by the importance of the office. Turning now, Mr. Speaker, to the second amendment in the bill, this is really one of clarification. It provides for the Ombudsman to have the right to look at, and take away with him, documents from the departments of government. The need for that amendment arose because of a difference of opinion over the meaning of existing legislation.

And this amendment is to clarify that portion of the legislation, to put it beyond argument, that the Ombudsman has the right to take away from the department documents which he feels are necessary for the proper investigation that he may be conducting. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3835

57-10 ALBERTA HANSARD May 30th 1972 The next amendment, Mr. Speaker, deals with the matter of principle, and it provides that the government or the Executive Council cannot order any inquiry into what I may call the work of the Ombudsman, which includes his reports, investigations, and the work leading up to those reports and investigations. And I say, Mr.

Speaker, that this is a matter of principle because an occasion occurred in the past when an inquiry was ordered by the Executive Council into a matter being investigated by the Ombudsman, and out of which the Ombudsman has, in fact, made more than one report to the Legislature. In support of that change, Mr. Speaker, I would like to call to the attention of the members of the House that the Ombudsman is not an employee or officer or servant of the government; he is not an employee or officer or servant of the Executive Council; he is the servant, if you will, of the Legislative Assembly.

And in my submission, Mr. Speaker, it's quite wrong in principle to leave the Executive Council with the authority to order an inquiry into a matter that the Ombudsman is investigating in the course of his duties as a servant of the Legislature. Apart from it being wrong in principle, Mr. Speaker, it can give rise to very embarrassing circumstances to the Ombudsman, the Legislature, the Government, and anyone else involved with that investigation.

Because it seems to me that when the Ombudsman makes his report to the Legislature recommending a certain course of action, if there is then outstanding a decision by an inquiry, be it a judicial inquiry or otherwise, conflicting with that recommendation, then it tends to embarrass or hamper or interfere with the work of the Legislature in considering the report of the Ombudsman. Coupled with this change, Mr.

Speaker, there is a provision for the Legislature to order an inquiry, if it deems one is advisable, into the work that has been done by the Ombudsman, or into the reports or recommendations he makes to the Legislature. And that, Mr. Speaker, seems to me to be perfectly proper, because regardless of how high the office of Ombudsman may be, it is still filled by an individual who, like all individuals, is capable of making an error or doing something wrong. And in those circumstances, Mr.

Speaker, there needs to be a mechanism whereby the work he has done, or the reports he has made, may be reviewed by another body. And for that reason, Mr. Speaker, this bill provides that the Legislature can order inquiries of different kinds into matters affecting the Ombudsman. We then come, Mr. Speaker, to a further important point in connection with such inquiries on the office of the Ombudsman, and it's the question of what, if any, information should be disclosed, or be required to be disclosed, during the course of an inquiry ordered by the Legislature.

I think it is fundamental to the performance of the Ombudsman's duties that people be able to go to him in absolute confidence, that the things they tell him or the information he obtains, if that person desire it to be so, remain secret and confidential. On the other hand, if there is no such reason for the Ombudsman not to disclose information about what he has done and how he has done it, to the Legislature, there is no reason for him not to be required to do so.

For that reason, this bill provides that the Ombudsman and his staff, former and present, may be called and asked to give evidence on such an inquiry. But it also provides that the Ombudsman may, in his sole discretion, on his own behalf and on behalf of any other person of the staff, past or present, who may be called to give evidence, take the objection that the answer to any question asked of him would disclose matters of a secret or confidential nature and for that reason he is entitled to decline to answer. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3836

May 30th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 57-11 In my submission, Mr. Speaker, that amendment provides for the only body that ought to be ordering an inquiry to do so. It provides for the Ombudsman to give evidence before that inquiry, unless in his sole discretion, doing so would be disclosure of secret or confidential information. The last point dealt with in the bill, Mr. Speaker, is not one of new principle, because there are provisions covering it in the existing legislation.

Those provisions are somewhat in conflict and, for the purposes of clarity, an amendment has been added to make it clear that any report which the Ombudsman is going to make public and in which he comments adversely on anyone else, he gives to the person about whom he is going to say something adverse the opportunity to make representations to the Ombudsman affecting that comment. MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I want to deal with the first principle that the hon. Attorney General mentioned that in connection with the wages or salary. I understand that the contract expires on December 1, 1972 after five full years.

Is that correct? MR. LEITCH: My memory, Mr. Speaker, is that it is September 1st. MR. TAYLOR: September? MR. LEITCH: I think that is right. MR. TAYLOR: I wish to thank the hon. Attorney General for that information as I had understood it was December, but you say it is September 1, 1972. The things I have to say, Mr. Speaker, I want to say as pertaining to the office, with no reference whatsoever to the man who holds the office. I have the highest regard for the present Ombudsman. I consider him a personal friend and a tremendous Canadian.

I am discussing the matter of the position without reference to the person who holds that position. The Ombudsman's contract was for $20,000 per year for a year period. Consequently, I find it difficult to understand why the act is now making an increased salary over and above the $20,000, retroactive to a period within that five-year period. If it is September 1, 1972 that the contract expires, I can see no reason for revising the $20,000 per year during the fourth year or the fifth year.

This was part of the contract and making it retroactive I think is -- well, whether it is starting a dangerous principle or not, I think it is a principle that is wrong. I would strongly recommend that the government reconsider changing the salarfive-y during the first five-year period. Any increased salary should commence from the beginning of the second five-year term and is then set out for that term of office. The second point that I'd like to make in connection with salaries is the amount that is being recommended. Throughout the country, we ask people not to contribute towards inflation.

We ask labour unions and employers to keep wages down, and then ourselves here raise the salary, not by six per cent, or ten per cent, or thirty per cent, but by fifty per cent -- up to $30,000, commencing January 1, 1972. I have no objection to a new salary. I think that Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3837

57-12 ALBERTA HANSARD May 30th 1972 whatever the new salary is, it should commence on the beginning of the second five years, as I've already mentioned. But I now want to say a few words about the amount. When we are so anxious to keep inflation within control that we ask our low paid wage earners in this country to not ask for increases, and to keep their increases modest, then I think there is an example to follow the same line of action when we get to the top of the salary schedules.

I frankly can see no reason for an increase of 50 per cent, from $20,000 to $30,000, for the second five-year term of this office. I concede that an increase during the five-year period should be made. But if an increase is going to be made, in my view the maximum should be the six per cent that we have tried to encourage other people to stay below.

Right across this country we ask the people in the low wage brackets not to go above six per cent -- many of them have settled for two per cent, three per cent, four per cent, and up to six per cent -- then we throw everything to the winds and give a 50 per cent increase to people who happen to be in high office. I don't think this is right, I don't think it's sound, and I don't think it's necessary. A $20,000 salary is a very excellent salary, and if we want to give an increase, let's hold it to within the bounds that have been established pretty well across Canada, to the six per cent.

I haven't any serious objection to providing the six per cent each year. That, I think, is being very generous, making 30 per cent over the $20,000, which would give a $6,000 increase, raising it to $26,000 for the second five-year term of office. That, Mr. Speaker, is more than the hon. Premier of this province is receiving. I just don't follow the idea that the positions in our civil service are carrying as much responsibility as does the Premier of the province. I, for one, do not go along with the suggestion that we should have no bounds on these salaries for top civil servants.

Certainly they are splendid people, but it's the office that we are talking about, and the office carrying a salary for a second five-year term of $26,000 per year, I think, is a very, very fair salary, and should provide anyone with a very excellent standard of living. So, Mr. Speaker, in the principle of the bill that makes the salary retroactive, I have to disagree with this completely. And secondly with the principle of the bill that gives such a vast increase, I must disagree also.

I would suggest that the increases be kept within the same limits as the limits for university professors, and the limits for our wage earners, who are having a more difficult time to get by on $2,000 and $3,000 a year than any of us would have on getting by on $20,000 or $26,000. MR. GRUENWALD: Mr. Speaker, in speaking on Bill No. 75, I'd like to indicate right away that I am opposed to Bill No. 75 even in principle. Now I know that me standing up and opposing the whole concept of an Ombudsman is much like Poland trying to invade Russia, with the strength that I feel.

Nevertheless, it is better to have tried and lost than never to have tried at all. First of all, on the idea of the Ombudsman, I am not even convinced of the need of an ombudsman, actually. I think if you look at the definition of an ombudsman, it is to report grievances against the government.

But if he is a government official appointed to receive and report grievances against the government -- and I am reasonably convinced that if MLA's and all elected and appointed officials do the job they are supposed to do, and if the Bill of Rights which is now coming up -- Bills 1 and 2 -- if they really work, that again will make less cause to have an ombudsman. So, anything that would enhance the position of the ombudsman, I would have to say, shouldn't be done, because I am not convinced that we need him in the first place.

I know this flies in the face of almost Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3838

May 30th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 57-13 everybody who is here, but nevertheless, this is the way I feel about it. I was sorry I missed the motion where he got a five-year appointment, because I would have had to oppose that as well. I am also opposed to giving a five-year appointment or employing anyone past the age of 65. We can say that all of our civil servants have to retire at age 65.

But when we take them at 64, give them a five- year appointment, give an $8,000 retroactive pay increase, then give them a 50 per cent increase for the next five years, for the new appointment -- it seems to me to lend more importance to the Ombudsman than I can personally justify. Not only do we give him retroactive pay, we give him a 50 per cent increase, and we excuse him from paying many of the taxes in this province when he gets past the age of 65, namely education tax and also Medicare tax. That, coupled with his pension, will leave him a very rich man, excused from paying many taxes.

So there again, it gives me a real problem trying to go along with this bill. That, coupled with the fact that he is robbing younger people of this job, that if it is going to be a job, it might as well go to people who are more in need. I think our present Ombudsman -- and again I say, much like our hon.

Member for Drumheller, I don't even know the man personally, so I am not speaking against an individual, I am talking about the principle and the office itself -- I would like to see a man in this position who has done his job; he should be out utilizing our tourist and recreation and travel facilities, and creating some employment for some people, by keeping these sorts of things necessary. If we need an ombudsman, certainly we can find all kinds of people who are highly qualified, who could take the job who are under that age. So, in

summary, Mr. Speaker, I have to oppose the bill, and I make it clear that I will oppose it whether I am standing, or sitting, or writing a ballot, or whatever the case may be. I oppose it on the basis that we are not convinced of the need; I object to retroactive pay; a 50 per cent increase, a five-year appointment to someone who is 64 years old; I object to taking job opportunities from younger people. So, I would recommend, Mr. Speaker, that we give this bill a very respectful but speedy burial. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. HINMAN: Mr.

Speaker, I had my opportunity to speak when the Ombudsman was re-appointed, and I am not going into that. I would endorse what the hon. Member for Drumheller said about salary. When this was first brought to the Legislature, the function of the Ombudsman as discussed was simply that he would be one to whom the people could appeal when they thought the actions of government had been unfair, or that they had been unfairly treated by some department of government, and that he would make some report to the government or to the Legislature. I think we anticipated that he would make the reports on an individual basis.

In the very first act we went far beyond anything that I think the members had anticipated. They went along with it because it was one of these 'do-good' things that there are a few poor people who can't get any justice. Certainly there are injustices to which people are subjected. But out of this we have created something else. We have given somebody more authority than we give a judge. There is no appeal from this fellow's decision. Clause 3 says that nobody has a right automatically to be heard by this fellow.

So if somebody has a complaint and the Ombudsman says, "I don't want to hear you", he can't even get a hearing. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3839

57-14 ALBERTA HANSARD May 30th 1972 I think when this was mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, I made mention of the fact that actually there has never been any need for an ombudsman if the members of this House do their duty. I have had many complaints and I have never had any difficulty in getting a hearing on a matter, getting all the information I wanted, and I think in every case, justice was done. Now there are a few other things.

The matter of documents is another instance in which we are going to choose, I presume, to say the Ombudsman is more powerful than the people who run the Workmen's Compensation Act or the Department of Health or anybody else. He can take away their documents. Now we presume that they will be in safekeeping. But I fail to see that this was a necessary clause, and I think again, it is just handing to some individual an awful lot of authority that he can abuse if he so chooses. And in the nature of things, when one man has a lot of authority, he invariably does abuse it somewhere along the way.

This is something we may live to regret. Now in the matter of inquiries, here again I recognize that he is an employee of the Legislature. But I also recognize the difficulty of getting all the information before the Legislature. I've tried it. This is a pretty big body. We don't all have the same background, we don't all have the same interest in things. I don't care what you put before this House, you can be sure that fewer than a third of the members of this House will actually read it.

You see it in the bills, we read them very cursorily and then when somebody brings up a point we say, "my gosh, I didn't see that". And things do go through this House that many members don't understand. Now I agree that perhaps if there is to be an inquiry it ought to be at the instigation of the House, and I'm not too worried about it. But mention was made of the one inquiry that did occur. Now those of you who took time, or want to take time, to read the report of that inquiry will realize that the very dangers I am talking about were inherent in it.

Not anything to react too badly on this man, except to show you that you can't choose anybody who won't make some mistakes. The inquiries which this man makes are going to subject people outside to some inconvenience, and in this particular case, to quite a lot of inconvenience. It makes people outside look bad. And yet there was no way for them to be sure that he would hear all the witnesses he should have heard. This is a case where you are giving to somebody a great deal of authority.

In almost any other case somebody is the prosecution and somebody is the defendent and either one can call all the witnesses he wants and he can bring out all the information he wants, but not so with the Ombudsman. Little John Doe appears with his story. He may I suppose, bring a lawyer. He can try to tell his story, but because these are sort of private hearings, if he is turned down when he wants to get evidence in, if he wants a copy of a transcript of it, he can't get it. I simply feel that we have gone a long way too far in setting this Ombudsman up as the man who can save our citizens.

Surely as a Legislature we're not going to make that many mistakes. Surely as ministers of the Crown we can see that our officials do not do that much injustice. Surely if it is the fault of legislation we can consider it and do something about it. Now when it comes to the importance of the job, I can't recall -- and I was here at the time and I haven't found it since -- any qualifications that were required when this job was advertised. We didn't say how much education these people ought to have, we didn't stipulate that they must have legal training.

There were many applicants, any one of whom probably would have done as good a job as any other. We didn't make any use of what is available in the field of psychology, industrial psychology, to try to determine whether the man we chose actually had the qualifications that this job requires, because this is in a sense a judicial job. Consequently, when we set a salary of $20,000 we were being pretty generous. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3840

May 30th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 57-15 It is improper to offer to make wagers in the House, but I am convinced that if we had said $15,000 we would have still had very many well-qualified applicants, particularly if we were willing to take men over 65, who would have been very happy to take this job and who probably would have done the job just as well as anybody else. I have covered three of four things, particularly that there is no appeal, which I don't like; the fact that nobody by right has to be heard by the Ombudsman; that his salary is out of line. Now I want to touch a new principle.

We have more or less agreed on both sides of the House that in dealing with Ottawa we would like the privilege of opting out, and I would like the privilege of opting out for southern Alberta. Give us our share of the cost of the Ombudsman office and I will guarantee to settle every case that comes up to everybody's satisfaction, or to produce such a case for not doing so that you will realize the applicant had no right.

I know this isn't going to make any difference on the decision of the government, but I am very sure that this is not a bill that the people of southern Alberta would go for if somebody explained the whole situation. But when you simply say to them that the government in the the past has been negligent, poor fellow couldn't get a hearing; if injustices were done and he didn't have money he couldn't get justice; and if nobody tells them the other side of the story they will fall for it.

It's one of these cases of what we call democratic decision, where we simply talk them into voting for something they don't know anything about. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to those sections of the bill that do these things. I'm quite sure that it won't make any difference, but when I go home I think I can explain to the satisfaction of my people that I tried to opt out for their benefit. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I want to first of all to say that I fully support the principles contained in Bill No. 75. I want to compliment the government on introducing them.

I have a number of observations on this matter that cause me to take this position. First of all, Mr. Speaker, I am a little concerned when I hear the discussion of the Ombudsman's salary raised in the sense that it has been this afternoon. Frankly, I feel that we have an outstanding Ombudsman in Mr. McClellan. I wonder why we concern ourselves about his age. It seems to me that one of the most foolish things we can get ourselves into is this business that a young person -- just because he is young -- is somehow qualified to do a job. I don't care if a person is 85. If he can do the job then this is what we want.

I have to say this because when Mr. McClellan was appointed five or six years ago I was among those people who criticized his appointment. But as I look back over the last number of years I was quite clearly wrong. We have in Mr. McClellan a man who, in my view, just stands beyond any criticism in terms of the job he has done. We may find fault with individual reports that he has made, but in terms of his sense of public responsibility, in terms of his sense of duty, in my view, he has just been outstanding.

The question of the salary -- I am a little concerned when I hear the suggestion that perhaps we could have got an equally capable man for $15,000. With the greatest respect for the hon. Member for Cardston, I don't think we should get into an auction mart approach here to dealing with the salary for a person as important in this province as the Ombudsman. It's my view that we should pay that person a fair salary. I don't believe that $30,000 is an unfair salary.

When you consider the tremendous job that is being done, and the work that is being done by the Ombudsman's office in perhaps providing many of our low income people with a redress of grievances Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3841

57-16 ALBERTA HANSARD May 30th 1972 that they wouldn't otherwise find, in my view that $30,000 is money well spent. I also like the principle outlined in Bill No. 75, that if there is going to be an investigation launched, that investigation be launched by the Legislature. It's very important that we recognize that the Ombudsman is the servant of this Legislature, not the servant of the Cabinet, not the servant of any other group of people but the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Alberta.

If there is going to be any investigation or inquiry into his activities it should only be authorized by the Legislature itself. Frankly I think that when this is done -- if it's done -- it should be only on a very rare occasion, because if the Ombudsman is to fulfill his duties successfully, he must be in a position to be as independant as possible. He must be in a position, Mr. Speaker, to slap the knuckles of all of us on occasion, and I think that in the present occupant of the office, we have a person with that kind of courage. The principle enunciated by the hon.

Attorney General that in the case where criticism is being made by the Ombudsman that he should notify the individuals or the agencies being criticized so that they can make representations to him, is another thing that I think is reasonable, and can fully subscribe to, and will strengthen the general position of the Ombudsman in the province. May I close by just making one final observation. It has been said by some that if you have MLA's that are doing their job it's not necessary to have an ombudsman, or with the new Bill of Rights, Bills 1 and 2, that it won't be necessary to have an ombudsman.

Frankly, it seems to me that an ombudsman complements MLA's who are doing their job, and an ombudsman will complement the force and the effectiveness of Bills 1 and 2. I don't think that just because we will be dealing with these two bills at this session and passing them in the fail that we in any way undercut the need for an ombudsman. It's necessary when you consider, Mr.

Speaker, that government is growing rather large these days, and I fear this less than most of the hon. members in this House but, at the same time, I recognize that with big government it's necessary to have a citizans' defendant It's necessary to have someone who can speak out and investigate the many, many legitimate causes of grievances which our citizans suffer. In that sense, as I see it, an excellent job has been done by the present incumbent for the last five years.

I believe that the legislation that the government has presented will strengthen his position and allow him to do even a better job in the years ahead. MR. BENOIT: Mr. Speaker, I have just two things I want to say. The first one has to do with the comments made by the hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview with regard to the person of the Ombudsman. I think that those who spoke previously from this side made it very plain that they were not talking about the Ombudsman, they were talking about the office of the Ombudsman.

This needs to be made very clear because if I may reveal any secrets of caucus, nothing but the highest regard is held for Mr. McClellan as Ombudsman by any members on this side of the House that I know of, and I think that needs to be understood. The second point that I have to make is the one with regard to the salary. It is surprising what comes up if you take just a few moments to do a little figuring.

If the Ombudsman who was appointed, received the $20,000 salary for three years, and then $28,000 for the fourth year, $30,000 for the fifth year, and then $30,000 for the next five years, providing it stayed at $30,000 for the next five years, under the proposed arrangement he would receive a total of $266,000 over the ten years. If his $20,000 salary had been increased six per cent each year, for the ten years, it would come Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3842

May 30th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 57-17 out to $264,000 at the end of the ten years, which is approximately a difference of $2,000. Now this is something that I hadn't thought about until I was forced down to do a little thinking about it and so, overall, it comes out to about the same. Therefore, if we are looking at $20,000 as reasonable, and thinking in terms of the six per cent, maybe the suggested arrangement is not that far out. I just wanted to make those two comments, Mr.

Speaker, at this point, not saying anything for or against the principle of the bill as it sits here, but just to think of it from that standpoint. MR. LUDWIG: Mr. Speaker, I certainly wish to commend the hon. members on this side of the House for having expressed their various views on the issue of the Ombudsman. I believe this whole issue is above party politics and I don't believe that even the hon. members opposite are of one mind on it -- whether they will express themselves is their own privilege. I believe this is an issue that is not a political issue.

I think it is most democratic that anybody who has something to say on this, if it agrees with everybody or no one, certainly ought to be encouraged to express himself. I agree with the hon. Attorney General that the office is tremendously important and it's too late, anywhere in Canada, to try to reverse the acceptance of the principle. I believe that we have a job now to make the office even better than it was; that is how we will be serving the public, rather than, perhaps, just letting it mark time. I commend the hon. Attorney General for bringing in these amendments.

I always believed, when we brought in the act -- the original act -- The Ombudsman Act in Canada, that there would be a lot more difficulty than we experienced. It was a new field, we were breaking new ground, but part of the reason we had less trouble was because we got the right man. A good many famous ombudsmen, I believe, Dr. Hurwitz of Denmark, and the New Zealand Ombudsman, have expressed the view that the success of the office, notwithstanding that you may have good legislation, depends on the kind of man you have to be the Ombudsman. Sir Guy Powles, I believe, made that expression, and several others.

One more reason why we should commend the present Ombudsman is that he didn't have the opportunity of precedent. He had very little authority to fall back on. He could check with Sir Guy Powles of New Zealand or read some of the Ombudsman reports in the Scandinavian countries. But our situation was a bit different. So to that extent I feel that we ought to be proud of the fact that we got the right man to launch this tremendously important program in Canada, and I believe in North America. I don't wish to get into the matter of his pay.

I feel that it is all a matter of personal opinion, and the hon. members who expressed themselves, I believe quite firmly, spoke for themselves. I'm not at all interested in discussing whether his pay is too much or not. I had the belief in 1967, when our bill came in, that there ought to be some sort of a body set up as an advisory group to the Legislature to see if they could bring in some ideas for change and reform because the Ombudsman then needed guidelines rather badly, notwithstanding that he came through so well.

To have a group that is thoroughly informed on all the ramifications of this kind of an office -- it was an experiment -- and we can look back in retrospect and realize that the experiment came off rather well. I have always gone along with the fact that we have several channels of complaints for individuals, but as government grows bigger and more complex and busier, that additional channels of complaint, of grievances against government, are definitely Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3843

57-18 ALBERTA HANSARD May 30th 1972 necessary. I think the majority of people now accept the principle of ombudsman as being here to stay and the spread of the idea in North America is almost unbelievable. It is spreading very rapidly as politicians recognize the need for additional channels of complaint, and not to take anything away from aldermen, MLA's or MP's, the fact that so many complaints are handled and disposed of effectively is in itself proof that we need additional channels of complaint.

I believe that one of the problems we have with the ombudsman office, and I believe that is the only time the Ombudsman got into difficulty was on the matter of jurisdiction. I believe that the Ombudsman, when he dealt with the Filipchuk Case, had there been a court remedy provided under the circumstances, he might have avoided getting involved, but you have to admire his courage for tackling an issue that was complex in facts and in law.

And I read a remark from Sir Guy Poles on this issue, that he spends most of his time determining whether he should become involved in a matter when his jurisdiction is questionable. I think that is one complaint. I'd like to see The Ombudsman Act in the future, as we have the benefit of hindsight, I'd like to see the act try to define more strictly the Ombudsman's jurisdiction. This will need to be done as courts have had their jurisdiction very clearly defined in legislation.

One more point I would like to make is that the importance of the Ombudsman at the provincial level, and I was always disappointed that there was not a very serious move made to establish the office of Ombudsman at the federal level -- I couldn't get over the fact that I felt the civil service in Ottawa fought the issue, because you seldom meet a member of parliament who isn't in favour of the idea.

You might have a few, but by and large, I got the impression that the majority of the members of parliament favoured the ombudsman idea, but somehow notwithstanding that backbenchers presented bills, Art Smith, Robert Thompson, and others, that the idea was never implemented. And I think it's up to the people to request their members of parliament to implement the idea, and see whether we need it or not. I believe that you might find there would be a lot more people beating a path to his door than one might imagine.

And so from that I'd like to mention that I have a motion on the Order Paper at the present time which advocates the provincial legislation in the province to set up, provide for, the establishment of an office of Ombudsman to deal with local complaints against local authorities. This is not a new idea. It is also an idea that is getting hold. The same arguments are being raised when we introduced our Ombudsman in Alberta. I think that you will find, as time goes by, if the right people get behind the idea and propose an acceptable bill, that the public will support it.

I am not going to discuss it now because I still have my motion and I will have an opportunity at other times to discuss this matter. But I have done, I believe, what is a fair amount of research on this issue throughout Britain and the United States and the idea is very compatible and every bit as necessary for the provision of an Ombudsman to deal with complaints against local authorities as the idea that we need an Ombudsman provincially. So with those few remarks, Mr. Speaker, I wish to endorse the principle of this bill and the comments of the hon.

Attorney General with a comment that it is just as important in the future to determine whether we ought not to have an Ombudsman dealing with complaints against local authorities as we have dealing with complaints against the central government, for the simple reason that all the rights, powers, and authority that the local authorities have stem from this Legislature.

If we set up responsible groups to deal with matters of property and rights of people without affecting them directly, we ought to provide a channel of complaint over and above that which is available to residents of cities and municipalities at the present time. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3844

May 30th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 57-19 So I commend the hon. minister for his bill and his attitude towards improving this. I would like to see this same attitude prevail that we could make this an extremely important position, and if we can iron out a few of the small problems that do exist. I once again want to extend my personal congratulations to the Ombudsman for the splendid job he did in trail-blazing this important issue in North America. DR. PAPROSKI: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments. I will be very brief on this particular amendment, The Ombudsman Amendment Act, 1972.

Firstly, I want to make it quite clear that I support the post, the function, and the principle of this particular position and also the man specifically. However, with that in mind and clearly delineated for everybody's thinking, I severely object to item eight which is, of course, the change in salary grid for this particular post. It is not specifically for this post -- and I want to make that clear -- it is for all posts with respect to top-paid senior salaried administrators.

I find it very difficult to resolve in my mind, and certainly more difficult to resolve in the minds of my constituents and many other people across the province, how a government can claim on one hand to have a desire to control expenses, on the other hand raise salaries of top senior administrators. I am not discussing the lower level of the salary grid, because I think it is important to recognize and realize that a specific job requires adequate salary comensurate with responsibilities. But we are talking now at the top level senior administrative staff.

So therefore, on this basis, I know that we as a government -- and I'm sure that hon. members opposite would agreed with this too -- that it is important and relevant that we attract as many competent and able men to these posts, and the Ombudsman position is no exception to this. Surely there must be some other way that we can attract these men to this specific post besides the exorbitant salary, the materialism, and so forth. I suggest that maybe the post could be made more attractive by the other fringe benefits which are the back-up personnel and the challenge of the position per se.

If this is not enough, I submit that there is something wrong with our society. I say this again, to repeat it. It is not this particular salary grid for the Ombudsman per se, but all senior civil servants. We have to look at this and set a top level and say "$25,000, is this it, or $30,000?" and stick to it, because I can't possibly justify this to anybody outside of government and say that we have to pay these people $35,000, $40,000, $45,000, $50,000 and this includes the doctors too, incidentally. Thank you. MR. DIXON: Mr. Speaker, there is just one point in principle here, I'd like to speak on.

I mentioned it earlier, and the hon. Premier suggested that I speak on it during the bill, rather than at the particular time I chose. I was concerned, along with some of the public, that when the Ombudsman's report was made public, one or two people who were named in that report were quoted in the press as being a little alarmed at how he arrived at the decision that he did. They stated publically that it was contrary to the facts, as they knew them.

I have in mind particularly the warden at Fort Saskatchewan, where he claimed that the prisoner who said he was kept in confinement, and according to the Ombudsman he was, and then apparently the warden stated that the day following the Ombudsman's report that he had a letter from the prisoner stating it wasn't so. This is the thing that I think does harm to the Ombudsman's office. That's why I'm firmly convinced that anyone that's going to be named in the Ombudsman's report -- the Ombudsman should go out of his way to give him an opportunity to be heard.

In our courts of law, as has been pointed out here earlier today, everybody is given an opportunity, Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3845

57-20 ALBERTA HANSARD May 30th 1972 and their day in court, to be heard. I think this is one thing that should be kept uppermost in mind, particularly with this legislation. That is the one thing that I am a bit concerned about, because over the years, the complaint that I have had has been that people have not had the opportunity that they felt they should have had to be heard. I think this is the thing that the public is concerned about. They should be able to go home at night and feel that everybody has an opportunity to be heard in this province. This is why the legislature sets up the Ombudsman.

I had a man, as late as last Saturday, complaining that he could not get a hearing from anyone, including the Ombudsman. I think at least the Ombudsman should call him into his office and say, "What is your complaint?", or someone in the Ombudsman's department. Then at least you could say that they have heard your story. Whether they take any action on it or not, that's up to the Ombudsman or a person acting on his behalf. The other point that I'd like to touch on, and this is more of an administration principle with government.

I'm wondering if the time hasn't come when the government should give serious consideration to microfilming a lot of our documents that we have. I think the principle that we're after is that the Workman's Compensation Board files be made available to the Ombudsman. Those are very personal files. The other morning I had the opportunity, along with other members of this hHouse, led by the hon. Minister Without Portfolio, Miss Hunley, we went on an excellent tour of the Alberta Health Care Insurance centre.

They showed us there how documents could be made available very easily, and very readily, and yet, at the same time security and secrecy could be guaranteed. One of the things that they stressed -- and they handle over 1,600,000 individual documents on individuals throughout our province -- the thing that they insisted on was that those documents stay in the original place where they are stored in that building. It's half the size of this room. Those are all stored there and no one takes a document from that room. They say this is one of the things that they insist on as a must.

So, I can see where the Workman's Compensation Board feels just the same as the Alberta Health Care Insurance officials. They feel that their documents should not be lifted. But if the Ombudsman did want a document, under our modern technique, he could be given a microfilm copy of it, which would take care of the new sections that were touched on in this bill.

But over and above that, I feel that the time has come, especially now when so many documents that we have -- ordinary paper documents that we have, and letters -- I think that it's time that the government should give greater consideration to using more modern techniques in making copies of those documents, and then destroying the originals, because we're going to have difficulty finding space for the documents; and also it's a lot more inconvenient to look up individual documents when, as it was shown to us the other morning at the Alberta Health Care Insurance centre, how easily all documents -- every individual that has written to the Alberta Health Care Insurance centre, and they have over 30,000 a day coming in there -- can be microfilmed and made available much readily and very accurately.

So I think that if the government moves further into this field, I am sure there won't be the necessity of the amendment that we are asking for in this bill, although I not opposed to it in that sense. But I think we should insist -- and I know if I were head of the department I would insist -- that the original document stay within that department, otherwise you are going to get nothing but confusion. Mr. Speaker, I believe that is all I have to say on this bill. I happen to know the Ombudsman personally. It is not as an individual that I am arguing that he should hear every case.

I think we should make it mandatory a lot more than we do that he does hear a Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3846

May 30th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 57-21 lot of the complaints that people are saying throughout our province that they cannot get a hearing. In particular, these people who have been charged under The Mental Diseases Act, because the tendency for all of us is, if someone has had a problem with a mental disorder, the idea is to write them off, and sort of let it go in one ear and out the other. In some cases it is proved that they did have a case, and it should have been investigated. In any case, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak. MR.

SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question, or does the hon. minister wish to close the debate? DR. HOHOL: Mr. Speaker, not at all to prolong the discussion but at least in some measure -- and I am sure the hon. Attorney General will do this in a more full fashion -- but because I feel personally so strongly about the afternoon's discussion I must participate. In speaking about what does most damage to the office of the Ombudsman, Mr. Speaker, I would submit that this afternoon's discussion sounded to me as much about the person as the office.

When you talk about $15,000; when you talk about people coming out of university being able to do this kind of work, then I think you are also talking about the person. The frame of references in terms of whom he can see, or who can see him was set by the prior government. We will review this and if it needs expanding so be it. It could be that the municipal concept has some virtue also. What discourages me in particular is that maybe many of us in the Legislature have lost the practice of working with the very unfortunate. My experience has been of that kind.

Born and raised in the depression, and losing my father when I was a youngster during that same period, I became aware of what it was like to be poor. My life has been somewhat in dealing with people who are extremely unfortunate. Just to give you one example of the kind of work the Ombudsman does -- instead of arguing about whether he should get the wage that he does -- I think that wages should be commensurate with the kind of responsibility that he has. The precision, the time, the care, the responsibility that he brings to each case surely warrants a discussion that leaves out the matter of money.

I am not a spendthrift; it is not my background; it is not my experience; but I am prepared to recognize the awesome responsibility that he undertakes and carries to such a successful conclusion. To hear such a criticism and such a lengthy debate on money, and that anyone can do this kind of job by the then government that set up the office, has to be disappointing. The role of the MLA and the Ombudsman is not an effective kind of analogy. The Ombudsman is full-time, and is behind. He has an incredible lot of work that takes very precise, time-consuming and painstaking work.

In the case of the Workmen's Compensation Board, let me remind the Assembly, Mr. Speaker, that there is no appeal from the Workmen's Compensation Board. When you say there is no appeal from the Ombudsman -- there isn't any except -- MR. DIXON: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. May I ask the hon. minister a question?. Am I correct in assuming that there is no appeal, but the Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3847

57-22 ALBERTA HANSARD May 30th 1972 case is never closed, which is the key to the issue, that is, under Workmen's Compensation. It can always be re-opened on further medical evidence. DR. HOHOL: Mr. Speaker, once

Section 28 of The Workmen's Compensation Board Act has been effected and utilized the case is, in fact, closed. It is open only prior to the utilization of the appeal clause so that we have other cases from which there is no appeal. But the amendments provide hearings if this is required. I simply want to indicate my regrets that many of us who get well above $20,000 have some feel that this office should be a missionary kind of one. I feel very much that it should be commensurate with the profound and awesome responsibility of the Ombudsman.

The detail of what happened with respect to the salary will be reviewed by Mr. Leitch, but my recollection is that provision was made in the legislation for a raise in each of the last two years, certainly the last one, but that it wasn't followed through by the government. I have spent a good deal of time with the legislation here, and with the Ombudsman to review his work over the many years, and I find that it is an awesome responsibility.

Many people who are injured, for example, in the industrial accidents that would come before the Workmen's Compensation Board, maybe can't represent themselves or they can't have the support of a solicitor -- people, not generally, but in large measure, people without much education. It is people like this that in particular, the Ombudsman can assist, though, of course, here again I'm not generalizing because he can assist anyone who feels that he has a legitimate problem within the terms of reference. In seconding the motion of the Attorney General, I should like to make these comments. MR. STROM: Mr.

Speaker, I really hadn't intended to say anything on it, but there are two points I want to make. Number one, I want to say that I am prepared to support the principle of the bill and I thought the hon. the Attorney General gave a very good explanation of the principle that was involved in it. I was a little concerned, Mr. Speaker, when the hon. Minister of Labour rose in his place, and was a little disturbed because the Legislature, or some of the members in the Legislature, had seen fit to raise some questions about certain aspects of the Ombudsman's position.

I couldn't help but sit here and think that it would be a sad day indeed if the Legislature were to establish a position that we would in fact be afraid to criticize. DR. HOHOL: Oh, no! MR. STROM: Well now, Mr. Speaker, he says, "Oh, no!" But what he did do was to rise in his place and take to task, in a very nice way -- in a very nice way, let's be fair about it -- certain statements made by certain individuals. And all I am saying, Mr.

Speaker, is let's forget about this particular responsibility as far as debating it in a partisan manner, but let's remember that no position that we establish should be above the ability of anyone to mention anything about it that they want to in his place. And I for one, cannot see where it would, in any way, downgrade the position of the Ombudsman. I think that what has happened this afternoon is that there are a number of people who have risen in their place and have commended in Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3848

May 30th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 57-23 very eloquent terms the work that the Ombudsman has done. And I think that we can be rather proud in Alberta that we were the forerunners in the establishment of an Ombudsman position. I for one am prepared to support the government in anything that they may try to do that will upgrade the work of the Ombudsman in the future.

I would hope that when we go through the bill clause by clause we might be able to discuss it in a very free manner, if there are any points that we would have some questions about, and that we should not at any time then consider that just because we raised some questions that we are in fact then lowering the effectiveness of the Ombudsman's position. Because, Mr.

Speaker, I want to say just as clearly as I can that I know that the Ombudsman's position is here to stay, and that it will accomplish much good, and that in spite of our best efforts there are situations that will arise that can only be handled by someone who looks at it from a neutral point of view, which I am sure is the way the Ombudsman operates. But, Mr.

Speaker, again I hope that we will always exercise our right to express whatever views we have on an office that is responsible to the Legislature, but that we discuss it outside of partisan politics. [The motion was carried without further debate, and Bill No. 75 was read a second time.] Bill No. 82 The Franchises Amendment Act, 1972 MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Provincial Treasurer, second reading of Bill No. 82, The Franchises Amendment Act, 1972. Mr.

Speaker, there is in the amendment at least, or in Bill No. 82 very little principle to be discussed because it merely alters the date on which The Franchise Act, which was passed last year, will come into operation. I might say, Mr.

Speaker, that that occurred because while the act was passed last year -- and I believe the orginal intention was to proclaim it in force in the fall, with it being effective on February 2nd -- there had not been the anticipated preliminary contacts with the people affected by this legislation by September 10th, when we came into office, to sufficiently alert them to the fact that legislation would become effective on April 2nd, nor had there been arrangments made to provide a staff within the Securities Commission to do the work The Franchise Act called for. That, Mr.

Speaker, was the reason for the bill. [The motion was carried without debate, and Bill No. 82 was read s second time.] Bill No. 83 The Mental Health Act, 1972 MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs that Bill No. 83, The Mental Health Act, be read a second time. Mr. Speaker, I have something in mind at the moment that I think will contribute to the mental health of all hon. members in that I've made two promises, one to myself and one to the seconder, that I wouldn't speak too long on second reading.

This happens to be an area where I have had the ability, I think -- because of the Throne Speech debate and the budget debate -- to give quite a lot of time to, and have done so during the last couple of months. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3849

57-24 ALBERTA HANSARD May 30th 1972 The few brief things I did want to say about it would relate to the overall impact, the manner of gauging the impact of this bill, and the manner of giving due and full consideration to the response that the bill will receive from the public and from interested groups and hon. members. I am going to indicate that my intention is that once second reading has been completed that the matter will not be studied clause by clause until the fall.

The reason for that is the rather good one that in the event that changes are recommended by any of the groups that I have suggested over the period of study that will be available during the summer, then we really should come back to it at a clause by clause stage rather than at any more advanced stage than that. It is my hope, Mr. Speaker, that hon. members will -- as we have been invited from both sides of the House on various issues from time to time -- regard this bill in a non-partisan way.

When I say that suggestions are anticipated in regard to changes, they will, indeed, be forthcoming and that they will be forthcoming in the spirit that I know motivates hon. members more than any others, and that is the desire, really, to assist in serving the public to assist in the better carrying out of objectives that are the public’s and well subscribed-to objectives of all of us.

In an area such as mental health, where so much can be anticipated in treatment patterns over the years to come, I feel my request -- and that's what it is -- that reactions be provided to the bill over the summer, is even more significant than it could be in some other matters, even though many matters are, of course, of considerable importance. The bill is a pioneering bill. We already have had some early reaction from associations and professional societies to the extent that they accept not only the bill, but the fact that it will make changes in treatment patterns to come.

I think it should be emphasized that the bringing in of this bill is not a legislative exercise in any small way. It is, indeed, done with the deliberate intention that changes in the manner in which patients are treated, starting in the near future and throughout the years thereafter, will be brought into full accord with the times that we live in, and the vestiges of out-moded practices in mental health treatment will be consciously and deliberately eradicated to the extent possible and with all the speed possible.

I think it's worth remarking upon the fact -- hon. members will have had the bill in their hands for several weeks now and be familiar with the creation of the Therapists Licencing Boards as one of the potentially controversial items in the bill -- but apart from that, some other matters of significance that the bill brings to mind are the creation of the Provincial Mental Health Advisory Board and the Regional Mental Health Areas and Councils.

The sections that relate to the informing of relatives in regard to the admission of formal patients and the new procedures for informing a patient in clearly understandable language of his rights in regard to his detention and treatment. Further, the ban on censorship of patient communications and rights in regard to visitors. In addition, I think it's significant that the admission procedures themselves are being changed with particular reference to voluntary admission procedures.

Perhaps one of the more significant revisions relates to the period of detention and the automatic reviews that are provided for in regard to renewing the authority on a periodic and regular basis to require a patient to remain in a mental health facility. Mr. Speaker, those are the few remarks I wanted to make at this time. I reiterate my concern that when the bill reaches the committee study a full measure of response from all areas will have Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3850

May 30th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 57-25 been received and I reiterate, my invitation to hon. members present to approach that part of our proceedings, later in the year, with a conscious effort, of course, and a desire to assist in finalizing the bill in as non-partisan a way a possible. DR. PAPROSKI: Mr. Speaker and hon. members of this Assembly, I'd just like to make a few points first before I get into some of the items I see as possible qualifications that could be made.

I'm very pleased that the hon. minister has, in fact, indicated that the clause by clause study will be done in the fall and there will be ample opportunity for the public, in fact, to give additional input, and especially the hon. members here in the Assembly. I think it is quite well-known by hon. members that the fear- hate complex about mental illness has developed over many, many years, and it is with us today in modern times despite the fact that we have gone to the moon and back. This is hard to comprehend by most citizens who certainly think about this for any length of time.

The taboos, and the fears, prejudices, and so forth, not only hamper the therapy of mental illness, but also contribute to such an entity which I think is a mammoth problem in North America and around the world. Now we know very well that we can have a graph-like line between mental health and mental ill-health, and we know very well also that one to two out of ten people suffer from mental or emotional disorders to the extent that they require some professional attention sometime in their lives.

Nov the emotional disorders of children in school groups have been estimated from some 5 to 10 per cent and if you add the various other handicap problems, the physical handicap problems of visual, hearing and so forth, this increases up to 15 per cent, and I suggest to the hon. members this is a very, very large number when you consider the population of this province.

Now everybody becomes very upset and very alarmed when we have an epidemic of a physical problem, but yet we know very well that the mental hospitals on a day-to-day basis actually occupy more of the beds than all the public hospitals for other medical therapy put together. Knowing this and knowing the fact that mental retardation in children makes up three per cent of the population, and probably is the most important chronic disability of children today, I hail this bill.

I think it's very timely, and I certainly congratulate the hon. minister and the government for having brought it in because I think the intent and the way it's going to operate in the future, hopefully, is going to be a true test of this bill. But I remind the hon. members again, despite the fact that we have this bill here now, and hopefully it will be enacted in the fall, we have people that are suffering today and require urgent support. I wish the hon. Minister of Education was here. I'm specifically referring to the Evelyn Unger School for Children with Learning Disabilities.

Here is a woman in our province who is a non- professional, who has devoted her life and who is, in fact, taking care of some 100 children who have learning disabilities. These learning disabilities may be of a physical nature or a mild mental nature -- and she needs support desperately -- and I make this plea just to interject it in my discussion here today. She is taking care of 100 children now -- she is short of $40,000 for her program on an operational basis just for this year. And for next year she requires some $80,000 for the operation of her school and she wants to expand to a 200 pupil facility.

I suggest to the government -- again I make a public plea that this government act on this matter rapidly -- why? Because it's not only the 200 children, because there are another 10,000 children like this in the Province of Alberta, and I submit these 10,000 are Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3851

57-26 ALBERTA HANSARD May 30th 1972 probably here in Edmonton alone, because Edmonton makes up approximately one-third of the population of these types of problems. I can't over-emphasize this. I say it without any hesitation, and I know the government is sensitive to this area. I know the government on this side certainly has considered it, and in view of all the priorities have decided for the moment in time to postpone this.

I hope their decision will be reversed very rapidly because these children represent many, many families, and a delay, as I have stated ten if not twenty times, one year's delay means three years of loss. Two years is six years of loss, and in three years you may have lost that child forever, in fact. Now in 1918 the Canadian Mental Health Association showed the way by getting the interest of the public regarding mental health. They have developed community psychiatric interests and they emphasized the community aspect of mental health.

It's interesting to note because this goes back to 1918, and after all these years, finally we are coming around to what? Another report from Dr. Blair, which is excellent, there is no question about it, and I certainly commend him on this. We have now

an act, and even the Community Health Centres talked to the community centre services, not only for mental health, but for other services. So it's not really a new item, none of this is new. The point and the issue I want to make and stress here, hon. minister, and to the government, is this act will also fail like all acts fail if, in fact, it does not become operational. So it is all very nice to have this act and I certainly say again strongly and with complete support that it is a basic act.

It has the framework, it has the foundation, but it will only become functional if the community, as the hon. minister has stated many, many times, actually puts in the input, not only into the final rules and regulations of the act, but also participates in carrying out the functional aspect of this act. I know the minister has this in mind, but I only want to stress this because this is my concern, as I read most of these acts as a novice in this Legislature. With these thoughts in mind I say again that the intent of the bill is excellent.

It enables legislation to facilitate development of mental health programs at the community level equal to other health care delivery. In other words, what this mental health act is doing is admitting that health is total health. It is not physical health only. It is mental health and when you say mental health you might as well say social health, because that is exactly what it is. It is emphasizing and intending to diversify the large institutional types of mental health institutions like Oliver and Ponoka and so forth, down to the regional level or community level.

Both of these statements have been made in the Blair report and I think this, again, is to be commended. There is emphasis on team approach which is the thing for modern medicine. Anybody that denies this is in trouble, because I submit to you that modern medicine with all its complexities requires the team approach and not to have it segmented and fragmented. This team approach again then must have a mechanism. It is of no value to have team members, all hyper-specialized, in these various corners not communicating.

So you must have some kind of mechanism to bring this team together to, operate, to help, to provide the service for mental health or total health or community health, if you wish. Use whatever mechanism you want to. I suggest of course -- and I am very biased on this -- that community health centres can serve as the fulcrum for this type of service, not only for physical health and social services, but also for mental health, with the MD. And again I emphasize the MD can practise where he wants to be in his respective office, but co-ordinated together with the various centres.

Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3852

May 30th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 57-27 Now in defining the facilities, there will be "facilities". I think this should be expanded, of course, in thinking, and I hope and I know that you, in fact, intend to do this over the summer months before you bring in the final reading of this bill. But these facilities I would submit, Mr.

Minister, for your consideration, that they all be integrated as part of the hospital physical health services, as you have indicated before, and to emphasize this not be detracted from other suggestions -- in other words, what I am saying, a ward in an active hospital, integrated as part of that hospital, not necessarily a separate ward, but a separate ward if necessary for some special problems -- wards in auxiliary hospitals if you wish, wards in nursing homes, and a portion of a community health centre, if that ever comes to pass.

In other words, don't build more facilities -- and this is my recommendation -- until you have exhausted all the facilities that we, in fact, have. I submit a lot of these facilities are there and many people will say "well, the facilities are not there because we can't get our people in active hospitals, auxiliary hospitals, and so forth." Well I think the answer to that -- at least in part, because there is no concrete answer -- is to streamline the system.

In other words, what you want in a health system, in the health care delivery portion of our responsiblity, is some type of a system that is operational, a streamlined system that works. And when I say this you say "what are you talking about?" I mean, get the patient in the active hospital, auxiliary hospital, nursing home, in a circle into the community and back home again and keep him moving as much as possible, recognizing that we have chronic patients that will block this whole system.

However, there are a lot of patients that can be moved and I submit to you that possibly 25 per cent of these patients can be moved in and out of the system so that we always have a system of continuing care with always beds available. With respect to special care facilities, I recommend to you that, in fact, we should have special care facilities. What am I referring to here? Nursing-home type of facilities where chronic patients, moderately senile patients can, in fact, stay for the remaining years that they have to, rather than a large impersonal type of mental institution.

In other words, any facility that you do intend to build in the future whether it is an alcoholic centre, or a drug centre, the mental institution for the retarded that the old Misericordia hospital has now is excellent, providing it is a de- institutionalized type. It is personal and it is part of the total system.

You have indicated that you are going to increase the psychiatric units in general hospitals, the day hospital concept near hospitals, the out-patient departments including community health and social development centres, possibly increased use of guidance clinics, and may I recommend here one more item, that is a travelling team.

I think because of our wide expanse geographically that it's very valid and very important that we have travelling teams going out, not only screening our children for mental problems, but also offering various therapy, for instance, diagnosis, treatment and rehabilitation, and so forth. You have mentioned boarding homes, sheltered workshops, halfway houses -- again very good, but I emphasize again that they should be of the de-institutionalized type, the personal type. May I say in conclusion, hon. minister, that again there are four echelons that have been described by the Blair report.

These echelons are valid. The first echelon they talk about, in fact, is at the community level. Here again, this echelon at the community level is the fulcrum of activity. Here is where the medical doctor is, in his respective office, and here we need another fulcrum of activity for all of the whole system. That can be a community health centre, otherwise, you have many agencies and many boards. These are Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3853

57-28 ALBERTA HANSARD May 30th 1972 working together, and this is the first echelon and the most important one -- the non-hospital community facilities. In talking about the second echelon we have the active hospitals. Again, let's not build any more active hospitals unless we absolutely have to. We could maybe expand the wards for psychiatric care. Generally speaking, by and large, the second echelon seems to be quite in order.

The third echelon of having auxilliary hospitals and mental hospitals -- you have made your comments already, you have no intention of expanding the mental hospitals as they are now, but decreasing them to the optimal size so they are functional, and I think this is an excellent idea. But let's open up some of these wards in auxiliary hospitals and nursing homes. The fourth echelon is a new echelon, I feel, and 25 per cent of our mental problems, in fact, could be in these type of de- institutionalized institutions, if you wish, or facilities.

That is, centres for alcoholics, drug problems, senile, confused, and mentally retarded children -- the severe ones, I'm talking about, not the ones that we have possibly some degree of in the Evelyn Unger School. So we're speaking of the community level, where people can understand, where people can act and respond, where the voluntary groups will, in fact, learn and be educated about the mental problem and not be detached from it because it happens to be 30 or 40 miles away from the community, which you don't want to face. Thank you. MR. LOUGHEED: Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to say a word to the members with regard to the second reading of The Mental Health Act, 1972. I say it because I would hope that the members may recall, perhaps one year and perhaps two years from now, the remarks that I intend to make with regard to this subject. I think it's one thing to pass a piece of legislation with regard to mental health. We will welcome, as the minister has mentioned, over the course of the summer, the views of citizens, the views of the many people who are interested in this area, and of course, we'll welcome the views of the legislators on the bill as well.

The bill is only one aspect of our priority, with regard to mental health. I would like to put the members on both sides of the House on notice of what this really means. Because what it means in my opinion, in terms of budgetary commitment, is the park, the road, perhaps even the school; certainly the extra activity that you may want in your constituency is going to be judged and evaluated in relationship to this priority and this need. So this priority is not one that one can clearly pass over and quickly vote through. We mean it. We mean it in a very determined way. It's going to hurt in terms of priorities.

Because today, as we all know, we can't do all the things we want to do in all the areas we want to do them. So the ministers with their pet projects, the members with their constituency desires, justified as they might be, are going to have to weigh the public merit of those proposals against the need in this province to upgrade and reform the programs and the facilities and the attitudes in terms of mental health.

The second thing I'd like to say about this area is that we can spend money, we can develop programs, we can pass legislation; but one of the keys of implementation, as the hon. minister is aware, is the degree in which we are able to involve community at large in terms of participation. I think it's there. I think there is very fertile ground for it throughout all of Alberta. We have to assure that the climate, the conditions and the arrangements are such as to have that extensive community involvement. We again should judge our progress in this area in terms of the degree of public participation we receive.

Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3854

May 30th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 57-29 Third and finally, I would like to suggest to members on both sides of the House that our success in terms of public acceptance of this priority in terms of budget dollars, our success in involving citizens at large in this important issue, depends upon the way in which we as legislators respond to the issue; the degree in which we as members are prepared to back up the statements we make in this House about the need for mental health reform with our own actions and our own comments, and do what we can to assure that any stigma that has in the past been attached to mental health, is in fact, eradicated from the society here in Alberta.

I certainly pledge the office I hold to the maximum degree that I can do all I can to assure a greater and greater public acceptance of priority involvement by government and the people in reform in mental health. Thank you. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? Having heard the motion by the hon. Minister of Health and Social Development, seconded by the hon.

Minister Of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs, that Bill No. 83, The Mental Health Act be read a second time, would all those in favour please say 'aye'. [The motion was carried without dissent, and Bill No. 83 was read a second time.] Bill No. 84 The Child Welfare Amendment Act, 1972 DR. PAPROSKI: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill No. 84, being The Child Welfare Amendment Act, seconded by the hon. Member for Calgary McKnight.

The majority of the proposed amendments, as I have stated before, are to define more fully and adequately the rights of children in the province of Alberta, and the protection of those rights. Secondly, it provides a new

Part 5 for the service for mentally retarded children. I would ask the hon. members if they would be so kind as to get Bill No. 84 in front of them, so I can go over it on a point form basis. Maybe this will save time in Committee of the Whole. Point 1 in the amendment deals with special needs for children on probation. Here we are extending rehabilitation and care and appropriation of funds for the care of these children.

Amendment No. 2 increases the fine for breach of confidentiality -- and this is quite obvious here -- it increases from $100 to $500, and defines the term of imprisonment as 90 days instead of three months in lieu of the fine. This will go very quickly if members will follow this. Item No. 3 in

Section 16, which is the next amendment -- we add an amendment here that an apprehended child may be placed in a shelter or a foster home. Presently the act does not allow the child to be placed in a foster home, and this causes some difficulty in smaller communities where there is a foster home and you have to have this particular place approved as a shelter. This clarifies that matter, and in fact, will streamline the care of these children in some instances. The next amendment,

Section 26.1 deals with temporary and permanent wardship. Provisions have been made here for application to the juvenile court to enforce the amendments. This is to enforce maintenance and order, or the director of maintenance and recovery under The Maintenance and Recovery Act may make application to the juvenile court, and relate it to the juvenile court judge. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3855

57-30 ALBERTA HANSARD May 30th 1972 Presently, the juvenile court judge dismisses the application on the grounds that the juvenile court judge could not follow the principle outlined in

part 4 of The Maintenance and Recovery Act due to the fact that the judge in that

part is defined as a judge of a district court. In other words, a juvenile court judge can now recover support for the child. The next amendment, No. 5, which is

Section 35 on your bill, deals with the non-ward agreements, and is very similar to the one prior to the previous amendment.

Section 36.1, clarifies the duties of the director for wardship and allows for an order to surrender the child back to the director. Here the director of child welfare may apply to a judge of the district court for an order to have a ward child returned to the director of child welfare, rather than merely a warrant calling for the arrest of the party for refusing to return the child. This also applies now anywhere in Alberta (previously it applied only to the district where the district judge had jurisdiction) and as a matter of fact even applies and can be served outside of Alberta.

The second last amendment deals with non-ward adoption. The amendments here propose the limiting of a right to reapply for order of non-ward adoption for two years from the date of hearing on the previous adoption petition, or until the judge is satisfied that the reason for refusal or the previous petition no longer exists. This increases flexibility and particularly applies to so-called non-ward adoptions, and these are adoptions involving children who are non- wards of the Crown.

These children are children of divorced parents, where the parent having custody of the child has remarried and wishes to adopt the child with a new spouse. So there is increased flexibility in this area. Now the last

part is a new section. It is

Part 5, Services for Mentally Retarded Children, and here it proposes introduction of

Part 5 into The Child Welfare Act which would bring mentally retarded children within the ambit of The Child Welfare Act. Facilities would be designated by the Minister of Health and Social Development for the care of these mentally retarded children, and the mentally retarded children would be afforded the same protection of the Director of Services to the Handicapped. And Again, the important issue is not only the fact that it is within the ambit of The Child Welfare Act, but this is cost- shareable.

It is important to note that 21 years of age is indicated here because, in fact, under the Canada Assistance Plan, it is up to 21 years of age. It could have been lowered to 18 but, in fact, it was not because of a considerable amount of administrative difficulty at this time, and probably this should be changed at a later date. But the cost-sharing is the issue here and this will undoubtedly bring to the provincial coffers a few million dollars every year. [The motion was carried without further debate, and Bill No. 84 was read a second time.] Bill No. 85 The Off-Highway Vehicle Act MR. DOWLING: Mr.

Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister, Mr. Adair, second reading of Bill No. 85, The Off-Highway Vehicle Act. A background experience in regard to motorized vehicles that do not fall into the general category of the types of vehicle used on highway transport led to the consideration that there should be some form of legislation which might enable the government and administrators to deal with these vehicles. Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3856

May 30th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 57-31 The first step was to enact regulations under The Highway Traffic Act, which intended to regulate snow vehicles. The next step was the enactment of The Snow Vehicle Act in 1969 and in the meantime there was a rapid development of other types of vehicles different from snow vehicles as such, and yet not conforming to the standard motor vehicle. These were in such categories as all-terrain vehicles, amphibious vehicles, mini-motor vehicles, mini-bikes, and other vehicles of light nature.

The need for regulation of these types of vehicles was realized not only in this province but also in the United States and other provinces of Canada. The problem grew to such intensity in organizations such as the Canadian Conference on Motor Transport Authorities, and the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, who are concerned with this situation and were seeking some solution to deal with vehicles of this nature.

To deal with the problem in Alberta we drafted the proposed Off- Highway Vehicle Act which incorporates and absorbs the present Snow Vehicle Act and purports to take care of other vehicles that are not snow vehicles and which do not fit into the category of standard highway vehicles. The reason is the obvious fact that we now have something in the order of 30,000 snow vehicles and an estimated 60,000 that are not registered.

There are in the order of 50,000 vehicles other than snow vehicles which are off-highway vehicles and there must be some method, either with this act, or down the road, whereby these vehicles can be controlled. Another major problem is the growing number of deaths in Canada as a result of the use of the vehicles. In '67-'68 there were 35, and this total has grown to 1970-'71, 118 deaths in Canada alone.

There are approximately one million of these vehicles presently in existence in Canada, and the problem of the use of them from a recreational standpoint, and for other purposes, is something that has to be controlled. [The motion was carried, and Bill No. 85 was read a second time.] Bill No. 86 The Securities Amendment Act, 1972 MR. KOZIAK: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Member for St. Paul, second reading of Bill No. 86, being The Securities Amendment Act, 1972. Mr.

Speaker, the length of my presentation will in no way be connected to the thickness of the bill: I will just highlight a few particular points which may be of interest to the hon. gentlemen and ladies. First of all, the amendments to the 'definitions'

section provide for easier reading. The word "advisor" replaces two other

definitions. The word "dealer" replaces four other

definitions and makes for uniformity with other provinces which pursue uniformity in the area of securities legislation. Secondly, Mr. Speaker, the bill provides that the Securities Commission for the Province of Alberta is now entitled to recognize a stock exchange that operates outside the Province of Alberta. Mr. Speaker, such an amendment will permit the primary distribution of certain shares of certain companies to be made available to Alberta residents where there has to date been some impediment in this particular situation. I know of at least three Alberta companies, Mr.

Speaker, whose shares might have been available to residents of the Province had alberta had the commission of the Authority to recognize the stock exchange outside the province. These, of course, were not made available to the residents of the province because of Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3857

57-32 ALBERTA HANSARD May 30th 1972 the impediment which presently exists in the act, and which will be corrected by the amendment. There is a provision, Mr. Speaker, for an appeal from a decision of Calgary Stock Exchange to the commission. The amendments to the act would permit and provide for greater information to be given to shareholders on take-over bids. The amendments would provide, Mr. Speaker, that greater and more information would be given to share- holders in terms of financial disclosure, in terms of the information that is made available on financial statements. Generally, Mr.

Speaker, it up-dates certain aspects of the act so as to make the act uniform, as I said earlier, with other provinces which pursue uniformity in this legislation. [The motion was carried, and Bill No. 86 was read a second time.] Bill No. 88 The Department of Agriculture Amendment Act, 1972 DR. HORNER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to move, seconded by the hon. Minister of Federal Intergovernmental Affairs second reading of Bill No. 88 The Department of Agriculture Amendment Act, 1972. [The motion was carried without debate, and Bill No. 88 was read a second time.] Bill No. 92 The Clean Water Amendment Act, 1972 MR.

COOKSON: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to move, seconded by the hon. Member for Smoky River, the second reading of Bill No. 92, The Clean Water Amendment Act, 1972. As I said at the first reading, this particular bill clarifies the role of the Division of Standards and Approvals and the Division of Pollution Control, and makes it more readily possible to enforce the regulations within the act. There are some sections in the act that have been changed. They are minor changes. There is one

section that has been added which clarifies what is termed as a "deleterious substance" and it makes it possible to regulate the contaminant in water throughout Alberta. [The motion was carried, and Bill No. 92 was read a second time.] Bill No. 94 Marketing of Agricultural Products, Amendment Act, 1972 DR. HORNER: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of the Environment, second reading of Bill No. 94, The Marketing of Agricultural Products Amendment Act, 1972. [The motion was carried, and Bill No. 94 was read a second time.] Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3858

May 30th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 57-33 Bill No. 97 The School Amendment Act, 1972 MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Provincial Treasurer, second reading Bill No. 97, The School Amendment Act, 1972. [The motion was carried, and Bill No. 97 was read a second time.] Bill No. 99 The Legislative Assembly Amendment Act, 1972 DR. HORNER: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. Minister of the Environment, second reading of Bill No. 99, The Legislative Assembly Amendment Act, 1972. MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say a word or two in connection with Bill No. 99.

The bill provides for monthly payments of the indemnity and, in my view, this is the first step in weakening the long established principle of the payment for attendance at the Legislative session, or the indemnity for attendance at the session, and it starts to indicate that it is somewhat of a monthly payment, or wages or salary for work being done each month of the year. Everyone knows that since the beginning of the parliamentary system MLA's and MP's have worked for their constituents when the House is not in session.

But the idea of the indemnity was that you're indemnified for losses or for your work while at the session. I personally disagree with a monthly payment of an indemnity. I think it starts to weaken the structure of the indemnity, and it could well lead to other complications such as 'one job'. If it becomes interpreted that MLA's are receiving a monthly wage for being an MLA, then it may well be interpreted that the MLA shouldn't be doing any other work.

I don't think this was ever intended -- I think it's quite possible for MLA's to carry on their farm, their teaching, their law practice, their medical practice and so on; and they are entitled to indemnity during the session. Consequently I want to register objection to the payment of monthly indemnities, I think this is weakening the whole idea of indemnity for the session. There may well be complications in regard to the payment of the monthly indemnity also, if it's done in that way.

If it's going to be for every month following between the election and the session, or between one session and the next session of the Legislature, it may have some very great complications in regard to the payment of the sessional indemnity that is payable now at the end of a session. I have no objection to the splitting of the amount when the session is adjourned for a few weeks or a few months; I think that is a logical thing, but that is a different principle entirely from the monthly payment. DR. HORNER: Mr. Speaker, I -- MR. SPEAKER: I believe two other members still wish to speak on this.

Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3859

57-34 ALBERTA HANSARD May 30th 1972 MR. BENOIT: I just wanted to say very briefly, Mr. Speaker, that I agree with what the hon. Member for Drumheller has said. I’m not going to take the time of the House at this point, in anticipation of the fact that there will be other opportunities later in this session to discuss it in detail. But I think that if we change the idea from an indemnity to a salary, that it would not be in keeping with the general idea that was originally set forth.

And there is much more that would be said if we're going to spend a great deal more time, and it does become a salary, then this is a different picture altogether. But I don't agree with changing it from indemnity to salary, I don't think that is the idea that was intended, and certainly it was a sessional indemnity, it was for the time that was spent in the session, not the time that was spent outside.

If the whole principle is to be changed, then we have to take a good long look at it; but if it's just changing the indemnity from annual indemnity or sessional indemnity to a salary to be spread over a year month-by-month, I think it breaks down on the principle aspect of it. MR. DIXON: Mr.

Speaker, I'm pleased to see this bill before the House, and I just want to speak on one principle which I think this bill is going to take care of, and that is the case of an member who is elected, and he may serve from being elected, say in May of one year until January 15th of the following year, and unfortunately the hon. member passes on. There is no way that member can get one red cent for all the effort he has put in, and, of course, it's his family who suffer in the final analysis. So I'm glad the government has brought in this bill that will take care of this situation.

We've had the recent situation in the hon. member's constituency of Stettler, and not too many years ago in the constituency of Three Hills, and one or two others that I could mention We all realize, I think, when a new member comes in the House he probably works twice as hard as anyone else because he is so dedicated, and he is anxious, and he is looking forward to the session. I think in all fairness and honesty, he probably does more spadework than some of us who have been elected for a number of terms.

So I'm pleased to see that this bill is going to take care of that situation, because it has always bothered me somewhat to find out that the family -- it's the only place that I know of, where the family has no recourse to getting any of the money back for the effort -- and the honest effort -- that was expended by the member who passed on prior to entering the Legislature. MR. HARLE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member opposite for bringing that particular subject up.

I think it is a matter which has received considerable discussion by the government, and is one of the reasons for the principle enunciated in the bill. MR. STROM: Mr. Chairman, there was one point that the hon. Member for Drumheller didn't raise that I would like to raise. I certainly appreciate that the work of the MLA's has been increasing over the years. I think those that have been around for a while recognize this to be a fact and something that we cannot escape. But inasmuch as the government is setting up a special committee to review the salaries of the Cabinet Ministers, the Premier, the hon.

Leader of the Opposition, and other offices, it seems to me that this is one item that could have been referred to the committee and in my opinion should have been referred to the committee, so that they might have an opportunity of reviewing the method of pay and making recommendations to us. This is really the only additional Alternate page number, consecutive for the 17th Legislature, 1st Session: page 3860

May 30th 1972 ALBERTA HANSARD 57-35 point that I want to make and I wanted to rise and make it at this point in time. DR. HORNER: May I close the debate, Mr. Speaker? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. DR. HORNER: I appreciate very much the hon. Member for Calgary Millican, because, as the hon. Member for Stettler has mentioned, this is one of the things that has concerned me from the time I entered this Legislature. Certainly the House of Commons in Ottawa has been paying on a monthly basis for years and years