Alberta Hansard — 15 May 1980, Afternoon sitting (14:30) (Legislature 19, Session 2)

19800515

Alberta — Debates (Hansard)

May 15, 1980 ALBERTA HANSARD 985 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA Title:Thursday, May 15, 1980 2:30 p.m. [The House met at 2:30 p.m.] PRAYERS [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] head: PRESENTING PETITIONS MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I wish to present to the Legislature a petition of some 15,308 Albertans, asking that rent controls be retained after June 30. head: INTRODUCTION OF BILLS Bill 53 The Mines and Minerals Amendment Act, 1980 (No. 2) MR. LE1TCH: Mr. Speaker, I request leave to introduce a Bill, The Mines and Minerals Amendment Act, 1980 (No. 2). Mr.

Speaker, this Bill is similar to a Bill introduced during the fall sitting, and permitted to die on the Order Paper. It has a number of purposes, but its prime purpose is to provide procedures for entering into major develop ment agreements with respect to mines and minerals. It also contains provisions enabling lending institutions other than chartered banks to take interests in Crown agreements as security.

In addition, it contains provi sions, wider than those contained in the current legisla tion, for dealing with metallic minerals. [Leave granted; Bill 53 read a first time] Bill 58 The Dependent Adults Amendment Act, 1980 DR. PAPROSKI: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce Bill 58, The Dependent Adults Amendment Act, 1980. Members will recall that The Dependent Adults Act was proclaimed in 1978 with the principle that the Bill was to establish means and procedures whereby a guardi an may be appointed to act on behalf of another adult who is incapable of making decisions on his or her behalf. Mr.

Speaker, the amendments in this Bill will follow that principle, which are all intended to improve the care and protection of the dependent adult, and in the best in terests of the dependent adult. Following these principles, Mr. Speaker, the Bill brings in amendments of compulsory confinement, where a de pendent adult presents a danger to himself, and proper safeguards for review, appeal, and guidelines. Also, it will bring in expanding and serving of documents to the dependent adult and the next nearest relative, and alloc ate costs, firstly to the Crown, for application of guar dianship.

The other principles of the Bill, again for the best interests of the dependent adult, are: permitting professional release of information and expansion of in formation to assist the dependent adult's application in proceedings, delegation of authority for public guardian ship, and other important matters regarding general health. Mr. Speaker, each of the amendments is intended not to harm the dependent adult, and should improve the care, recognizing the personal needs as well as the proper ty of the dependent adult. It's a privilege to be able to assist the dependent adult in this way.

Thank you. [Leave granted; Bill 58 read a first time] MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill No. 58, The Dependent Adults Amendment Act, 1980, be placed on the Order Paper under Government Bills and Orders. [Motion carried] head: TABLING RETURNS AND REPORTS MR. CHAMBERS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the response to Question No. 112. head: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS MR. WOLSTENHOLME: Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure today to introduce to you, and through you to the members of this Assembly, 30 grades 5 and 6 students from Percy Pegler school in Okotoks.

They came up by bus this morning, and I understand they intend to fly home this afternoon. They have their teacher Mrs. Elaine Knudston with them, and parents Mrs. Black, Mrs. Pave- lich, and Mrs. Gour. I would ask them to stand and be recognized by this Assembly. MRS. OSTERMAN: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce to you, and through you to the members of the Assembly, almost 90 grade 9 students from the Airdrie school. Attempting to shepherd these young people and keep them all together, I understand, is teacher Ray Brydon. Assisting him are chaperones Mrs. Assel, Mrs. O'Neil, Mr. Sorensen, Mr.

James, Mrs. Shuttleworth, Mr. McDougall, Mr. Van Aert, and Miss MacDougall. Would they all rise and receive the welcome of the House. head: ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Day Care MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct the first question to the Minister of Social Services and Commu nity Health, and ask him to explain to the Assembly why it will be necessary after August 1 for families who qualify for day care subsidy to apply for the subsidy at regional welfare offices. MR. BOGLE: Mr.

Speaker, first, there will be a transfer of existing family subsidy programs, and those individu als will not be required to do anything other than what they're doing at the present time. In the case of how new applicants might apply, as I'm sure the hon. member is aware, only 32 municipalities in the province are currently in the family subsidy program with the provincial government. As of August 1, people

986 ALBERTA HANSARD May 15, 1980 living in communities outside the 32 will be able to apply for the family subsidy program, a program now denied them. Therefore, the 42 regional offices across the prov ince will be the appropriate way in which individuals may make their applications. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, to the hon. minister. Why is it necessary to change the day care funds — take them out of the community services appropriation, Vote 10 in the minister's department, and move them over to Vote 2, public assistance?

It seems to me totally contrary to the whole concept of day care being a community- based program. MR. BOGLE: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would like to check Hansard, and also reflect on the answer I've just given as to the appropriateness: number one, in providing the service to a large number of Albertans, we do not wish to increase the civil service unduly; therefore, the appropriate way we will be providing the service will be through existing offices and using existing staff. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, to the hon. minister.

Has the minister received representation, especially from the two largest cities in the province, expressing concern about moving the day care concept from the community social services programs in the minister's department, ba sically the PSS area, really to the social allowance or public assistance area? Has the minister given very serious consideration to the implications of that move for the day care programs in the province? MR. BOGLE: Yes, Mr. Speaker. There has been some representation made to department officials by officials of a number of municipalities.

I do not believe that to this point in time any letters have been directed from mayors or councillors directly to my office, but I would like to say that the reaction has been varied. Some municipalities are concerned about the very point the hon. leader mentioned. Other municipalities have expressed great sat isfaction with the way we are moving. Individuals from municipalities not now in the day care program — where individuals have been denied the right to apply for a family subsidy and will have that right as of August 1 — have expressed some real gratitude for the move. MR. R. CLARK: Mr.

Speaker, to the minister. Can the minister indicate to the Assembly when this decision was made to move the funding for day care from community social services to social allowance? The budget the minis ter has presented to the House is inaccurate because, as of August 1, the funds will be coming not out of Vote 10, which the Legislature approved for that purpose, but out of the social allowance vote. MR. BOGLE: Mr. Speaker, it's accurate that at the present time the day care program and the family subsidy program are in Vote 10.

It is also accurate that it is our intention that as of August 1, funds for the family subsidy program will flow from a different vote. That's a decision made by government caucus within the past couple of months. I see no particular problem with it, Mr. Speaker. As the hon. member knows, there may not be sufficient funds in the vote. If that is the case — and I can't comment on that at this time — there may well be a surplus in that vote and we will not be required to ask for additional funding. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, to the hon. minister.

Has the hon. minister cleared with the Treasury Board and the Provincial Controller that a special warrant would be able to be drawn under Vote 2 to meet the gap after the August 1 shift? It is one thing to have some funds left in Vote 10, which is the community social services area, but will the minister be able to acquire a special warrant under a totally different vote from what the Legislature has approved for the funding of day care? MR. BOGLE: Mr. Speaker, it may or may not be neces sary to request a special warrant. It's certainly premature to make that suggestion at this point in time.

What I am indicating is that as of August 1, the funding for the family subsidy program will be provided by the depart ment through one of the votes — Vote 2, I believe it is —

whereas at the present time and until August 1, 1980, the family subsidy will come from a separate vote. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, to the hon. minister. After spending four or five days on the minister's esti mates, is the minister now telling the Assembly that we have money in Vote 2 to take over the operation of day care after August 1? The place to have honestly told us that was when we were doing those estimates, rather than to mislead the Legislature. MR. BOGLE: Mr. Speaker, I don't think anyone on this side has tried to mislead the Legislature.

Very clearly, the questions have been asked today, and I've answered them in a straightforward way. I'm indicating that the decision has been made to make a transfer within the department for obvious reasons. Now if the hon. member is suggest ing that we should have gone out and added staff members so that we could continue to provide money through Vote 10, and that staff members should have been charged with that one function and that one func tion only through 42 offices within the province, then I'd like the hon. member to say so clearly.

It is our intent to find ways to provide services to people at the least cost to the public purse. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, one further supplementa ry question to the hon. minister. The question isn't whether we're going to add staff or delete staff. The question is the development of the best possible day care program in the province of Alberta. My question to the minister, and I don't know how I can make it any clearer: are there funds in Vote 2 that will enable the department to meet the legitimate demands put forward by families across this province for subsidized day care after August 1?

Is there money in Vote 2 to do that? MR. BOGLE: Mr. Speaker, it's been the custom during estimates for ministers to respond to questions put for ward. I did respond to each and every question put forward by the hon. Leader of the Opposition and other members of this Assembly, not only on Vote 2 and Vote 10 but on all 11 votes of the department, including the Alberta Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Commission. What I have indicated is that there will be a transfer of respon sibility from one vote to another. Mr.

Speaker, as all members of the Assembly are aware, it is not possible to transfer money from one vote to another. If we find there is a shortfall — and keep in mind that a commitment exists with municipalities as to assistance which may be provided through day care. And we should not confuse the question of the day care unit

May 15, 1980 ALBERTA HANSARD 987 itself; it will stay in Vote 10. We're talking about the responsibility to provide the family subsidy program, and that will be shifted to another vote of the department. If we find that — because we did make some guesstimates' as to amounts of money that would be required — there are not sufficient funds, we have a couple of alternatives. One of them is a special warrant application. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, to the hon. minister.

Why, in the course of the estimates on Vote 2, did the minister not indicate to the Assembly that it was his intention to fund day care out of that vote? Why did the minister give the impression to the House that day care would continue to be funded out of Vote 10, and get the approval of the Assembly for that?. MR. BOGLE: Mr. Speaker, that's a hypothetical point on the hon. member's part. MR. R. CLARK: Hypothetical be darned. MR. BOGLE: I don't recall, and I'll be pleased to check Hansard, any questions raised on that specific point.

I did answer questions on matters, and I mention again that I do not recall one question put forward that was not answered in terms of a direct response to the hon. member, either verbally in this Assembly or the commit ment to provide some statistical information in a written form to the members. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, to the hon. minister, sir, in the form of another supplementary question. When the minister presents estimates to the House that list day care under Vote 10 . . . MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member is not asking a supplementary.

He is continuing a line of argument which is certainly testing the boundaries of the question period. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, can I put this question to the minister: did the minister know that the mandarins in his department had made the decision to fund day care out of Vote 2 rather than Vote 10? If the minister did, why didn't he level with the Assembly? MR. SPEAKER: There has to be some limit to the kind of innuendo which is now coming into the hon. leader's question.

I might add to that my misgiving about whether we are going to use the question period for supplementa ry questions which are dealt with at great length in committee. We don't want to turn the question period into a supplement to procedure in committee on the estimates. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to that point of order, sir, with the greatest of respect, this Assembly spent several days on the hon. minister's estimates.

Members of the Assembly should have been under the impression that day care would be funded out of Vote 10, because that is where day care is listed in the information the government presents to the Assembly. Had there been a change in that, the minister had a responsibility to tell the Assembly. We didn't find out about that until after the estimates had been approved. It was brought to our attention by municipal authorities in this province. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could put a supplementary question.

But before that, on the point of order, I would say to you, sir, with great respect, that any questions which come up as a result of information not supplied in the estimates must surely be appropriate, if they meet the other conditions of the question period. Whether or not the minister wishes to answer them is up to him, but surely we have the right to put them. So there's no misunderstanding, I would specifically ask the minister for clarification: when the estimates were being presented to this Assembly last week, did the minis ter know that in fact that change was going to be made? MR. BOGLE: Mr.

Speaker, in determining the best pos sible way to provide the service to residents of the prov ince, I worked with officials in the department on several options, and I presented some alternatives to government caucus. One of the key things I was concerned about is that we have a program in place that would provide the maximum benefit for minimum overhead cost.

During discussions which began taking place between officials in my department and various representatives from munici palities on the same day the ministerial announcement was made, which I believe was March 20, during that same afternoon information as to how we might — how we might — provide the assistance was clearly discussed with municipalities. Following input from various region al offices as well as from municipalities, that decision was firmed up. But the initial question was how we could best provide the service.

We received input both from our regional offices, as to their feelings of their ability to provide that service, as well as from municipalities across the province. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. minister. Was that decision firmed up prior to the opportunity of the minister, under the vote for the minister's office where he gave a

summary of the activities of the department — was that decision already firmed up so that the minister could have in fact duly reported it to committee before supply was granted? MR. BOGLE: I'll take that question as notice, Mr. Speaker, so that I can check my own records, because I recall our discussions on the estimates covered about a week, and I want to be sure that the information I'm providing is accurate. Therefore, I'll take that as notice. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, supplementary question to the hon. minister.

Is the minister in a position to advise the Assembly whether at the last opportunity, which was a week ago, the decision was in fact firmed up? If it wasn't firmed up when they began the estimates, was it firmed up when the final vote was taken? MR. BOGLE: I've answered that question, Mr. Speaker, by indicating that we spent approximately one week on my estimates, and I'll certainly check and provide this Assembly with that information. MR. NOTLEY: A supplementary question to the hon. minister.

Is the minister in a position to advise the Assembly what assessment the government has made of the client/staff ratio in regional offices as a result of the extra workload that taking the applications for the day care subsidy will put on personnel who have other re sponsibilities? In fact, is the government in a position to advise the Assembly that people who are already over worked will not be further overworked as a consequence of this decision?

988 ALBERTA HANSARD May 15, 1980 MR. BOGLE: Mr. Speaker, there will be some additional staff required, but very few in comparison with the number that would have been required had we provided the family subsidy program through Vote 10, having a completely separate staff to deliver that service. MR. MUSGREAVE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Could the hon. minister advise if, as it's alleged by some of the elected officials of the city of Calgary, day care service for people in Calgary will deteriorate after August 1 because provincial standards are allegedly lower than those of the city of Calgary? MR. BOGLE: Mr.

Speaker, two years ago when my predecessor offered to the two municipalities the option of licensing, one point was made abundantly clear: that the same set of standards must apply province-wide. One municipality, the city of Calgary, picked up that offer and provided the licensing through, I believe, three licensing officers, whose salaries were covered completely by the province.

But it is clear that over the past couple of years the standards have been raised in Calgary — not with the consent of the province — and therefore we were moving to a position where a different set of standards was being applied in Calgary than in other parts of the province. That was not acceptable to the overall policy. That's one of the reasons the licensing is being assumed in that municipality, as it is in all other municipalities in the province, so that there's consistency province-wide and a base set of standards. Mr.

Speaker, if a municipality wishes to redirect its savings — and the city of Calgary has in excess of $800,000 — if the city wishes to redirect those savings to its four municipally operated day care centres or to new day care centres, then they're certainly willing to do that. But minimum base standards will apply province-wide. MR. NOTLEY: A supplementary to the hon. minister. The minister indicated there will be some additional staff. Is the minister able to advise the Assembly, since it wasn't given to the committee, whether we have an estimate as to the number of additional staff?

And has there been any discussion with the Alberta Association of Social Work ers on the impact of the decision? MR. BOGLE: I'm not in a position to give estimates of staff. I think those figures are still being finalized. And there have been no discussions with the Alberta Associa tion of Social Workers on this particular matter. MR. OMAN: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. An elected official in Calgary who generally tends to overstate the situation has said that Alberta has the lowest standards of day care in Canada. Could the minister comment on that statement? MR.

SPEAKER: With great respect to the hon. member, we've gone considerably in the direction of unwarranted debate in the question period. If we now start to debate comparative standards, we'll go further in the wrong direction. Municipal Finances MR. R. CLARK: I'd like to address my second question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. It really relates to the kind of monitoring the province is doing with regard to the effects of the municipal debt reduction scheme.

I ask the question in light of reports emanating from the great city of Calgary which indicate that Calgary's munic ipal debt of $300 million may exceed $1 billion by '84 if the present capital works trend continues. My question to the minister is: what kind of ongoing monitoring has the department or the government in place to assess the effects of the municipal debt reduction plan and the maximum amount of debt the municipalities can take on? MR. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, I answered that question in part during the course of my estimates a few days ago.

I said that we had been monitoring in a rather informal way the mill rates currently being established by munici palities across the province, but that we did not have an accurate and complete update of what was occurring in that regard this year because many of them have not been finalized. Insofar as the debt reduction program is concerned, we do know there are many municipalities, particularly the rural ones, that have set a lot of the debt reduction money aside and have what might be referred to as their own heritage savings trust funds.

With respect to the two larger cities, as I recall, Calgary utilized all their reduc tion funds in the repayment of debt, while Edmonton, because of different circumstances relating to water and sewer distribution to other communities, had some $60 million left over after paying all their eligible debt. As I understand it, that has gone into their general revenue fund — but certainly is reflected in the fact that in Edmonton in particular, and I believe the case is similar in Calgary, there's probably no increase or at least no significant increase in the municipal mill rate in 1980. MR. R. CLARK: Mr.

Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister. What plans does the minister have to give further debt reduction or assistance to municipalities in the province which are forced into large debt programs by rapid growth? MR. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, first of all, municipal gov ernments in Alberta have been financed by this govern ment in a variety of programs to an extent unmatched anywhere else in Canada. That's a fact. Secondly, we have a situation where municipal councils in Alberta have at their disposal a municipal property tax base which is very extensive.

I know in certain cases with regard to some very large scale projects like transportation, the municipalities have indicated that the property tax base is not sufficient to pave the way for moving ahead with those programs. But for that reason, my colleague the Minister of Transportation has under his jurisdiction a very massive program of assistance in urban transporta tion. My colleague the Minister of Environment has a very massive program of assistance in water and sewer distribution and treatment facilities on both a municipal and regional basis. Now, Mr.

Speaker, I can go on and on about programs that have been put together by this government over the last 10 years, including the property tax reduction pro gram and a variety of others, to assist municipal govern ments. If the hon. Leader of the Opposition is asking me what we're going to do in 1982, '83, or '84, by expanding and elaborating on those programs, I can only say that that will have to await announcements that might come at those times.

May 15, 1980 ALBERTA HANSARD 989 MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, to the hon. minister. I take from that answer that municipalities, like the city of Calgary, really can't expect any additional help as far as municipal taxes are concerned until the next election. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh. MR. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is reading what I think might be termed speculative reports with respect to where the city of Calgary might be five years from now with respect to a mill rate.

It's useful for municipal governments to have their financial planning staff plan ahead in a long-range way and show them what the picture might be. After having considered all the things that might be done in Calgary, Edmonton, or any other municipality, I'm not alarmed that it does indicate some increase in municipal taxes will occur. Surely our ability as a government to respond, as we've done so often, to the cost of financing municipal services depends on those municipalities doing that kind of work.

I can only say I am pleased that they are looking far ahead in their financial projections and are doing proper planning. Housing Officials' Proposed Trip MR. NOTLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to direct this question to the hon. Minister of Housing and Public Works and ask if he plans to visit Europe this summer in his official capacity. MR. CHAMBERS: Mr. Speaker, yes, we are tentatively exploring that possibility. MR. NOTLEY: A supplementary question to the hon. minister.

Will it be the minister's intention to take any representatives from the province's building and devel opment industry along with him on this mission? MR. CHAMBERS: Mr. Speaker, in discussing the possi ble trip and its benefits, we decided that should we make the trip, it would be very useful to have industry repre sentatives along. My department has had discussions with HUDAC and UDI in terms of providing representation. They indicated a strong interest and, I believe, have had representatives meet with representatives of the depart ment to discuss the possibility. MR.

NOTLEY: A supplementary question to the hon. minister. Is the minister able to advise the Assembly whether any of the proposed representatives from either organization assisted the minister prior to the March 14 election, pursuant to either The Election Act or the elec tion finances contribution Act? MR. CHAMBERS: Well, in a general way, although I really don't know what the question has to do with the price of tea in Spirit River-Fairview. But yes, I believe two of the three industry representatives did participate. I might add, though, that the department requested the industry to nominate representatives.

These two repre sentatives are senior executives of their respective organi zations. Furthermore, in their typically independent way, the industry insisted right from the start that, should they be invited and should they be elected to participate, they would pay their own way. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister. Did the minister take

part in any of the discussions, or were these exclusively between the de partment and HUDAC and UDI? MR. CHAMBERS: The discussions and, in fact, evalua tions going on of the various communities and projects that might be visited have been carried on with the department and with the other people. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. minister. Is the minister in a position to advise when the mission will be and what countries will be visited? MR. CHAMBERS: Again, Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, the trip is tentative.

We're evaluating a number of areas, and innovative and northern types of housing proj ects. Countries in which projects have come to mind that are being evaluated are Finland, Sweden, Denmark, West Germany, England, and Scotland. But again, the depart ment is still in the process of evaluating these various projects and their potential, and assessing whether it's worth while for us to visit and examine any specific project. Until that time of course, we cannot really final- ze the project, the

schedule thereof, or even if we'll undertake it. But that evaluation is under way, and I would expect a decision within the next few weeks. Grain Terminals MR. MANDEVILLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question to the hon. Minister of Economic Development deals with inland terminals that the provincial govern ment purchased from the federal government. Who allo cates the space for grains in the elevators, the elevator companies or the government? MR. PLANCHE: Mr. Speaker, I can't answer that ques tion. I'd have to take that as notice. MR. MANDEVILLE: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.

Is there a set of by-laws or regulations to govern the use of the terminals? Who sets up these by-laws or regulations? MR. PLANCHE: Mr. Speaker, the terminals are set up as a private or independent company. Presently, their board of directors is government officials. That transition to the private sector will be taking place gradually, as these terminals are upgraded in electrics and cleaning. I really couldn't comment on the precise allocation of activ ities without taking that as notice also, unless the Minis ter of Agriculture would care to supplement that. Parole System MR. WEISS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the hon. Solicitor General. It has been brought to my attention by several of my constituents that a new parole system called temporary absence has been introduced in Alberta. Would the minister advise the Assembly if this is true? If so, was the policy implemented as a result of the recommendations of the Moyer report? MR. HARLE: Mr. Speaker, there's not a new program. The temporary absence program has been in place for some considerable time. There has been some more for malization of some of the release procedures related to persons who are qualified under the temporary absence

990 ALBERTA HANSARD May 15, 1980 program to be released shortly after they are received at a correctional institution. MR. WEISS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Do all convicted persons then automatically serve only one-sixth of their sentences imposed by the court? MR. HARLE: No, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I should first of all set out the criteria for all people who qualify for the temporary absence program. Inmates must be rated minimum security. There must be an absence of a pattern of violence.

There must be an absence of serious mental or physical deficiencies which would preclude successful participation in community-based programs. There must be an absence of extradition or deportation proceedings or a Crown appeal. There must be an absence of out standing charges of an equal or more serious nature than the current offence for which the inmate is incarcerated. The inmate must not be a suspended parolee, remandee, or awaiting transfer to a federal penitentiary. And the inmate must be not likely to abscond when released on temporary absence. In the past, Mr.

Speaker, the rule of thumb was that an inmate had to serve a third of his sentence. This created somewhat of a problem because there had been people released on temporary absence in very restricted instances prior to serving the one-third period of a sentence. Be cause of the rather ad hoc procedure for release, it was more structured a year ago. The present provisions that apply to an individual who might be released after serving one-sixth are as follows. There must be an absence of a criminal record involving offences of a violent nature.

It must be a situation where the continuation of confinement in a correctional institu tion will create undue hardship to the applicant or his or her immediate family. The deterrent effect of confinement must have been duly satisfied. The applicant's return to the community on a strictly controlled and conditional basis must not incur any serious objection by area resi dents or police authorities. I might add that the conditions and controls which must be accepted by an applicant for such a program are as follows.

At the end of each working day, for such periods as may be designated by the director, the individ ual must be prepared to return to the correctional institu tion, or to return to the institution for residence on weekends or for whatever periods may be deemed appro priate by the director, or to report in person to a correc tional institution or a police lock-up at such times as may be set out by the director. MR. WEISS: A further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Would persons from rural areas have to return on a weekly basis, or are they permitted to be away for a longer period of time? MR.

SPEAKER: I'm somewhat concerned about the length of answer which appears to be necessitated by these questions. I would respectfully draw hon. members' attention to the Standing Orders which provide, in effect, that where it is anticipated that an answer is going to be lengthy, the question should appear on the Order Paper. The answer, of course, would then be given in writing. MR. WEISS: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the minister would please clarify very briefly: does a person from a rural area have permission to be away from the correctional insti tute for more than one week at a time? MR.

HARLE: I would have to take that question as notice, Mr. Speaker. My understanding is it would not last that long, and in the vast majority of cases, after having served a sixth of the sentence, the individual must return to the correctional institution at night. MR. R. CLARK: A supplementary question to the minis ter. I appreciate the minister's outlining the criteria for eligibility.

My question to the minister is: in dealing with the criteria for eligibility in the program, is that informa tion made available to the member of the judiciary, really as pre-sentence information, prior to a judge's decision on how long a person should be incarcerated? MR. HARLE: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, yes. There were situations created where under the one-third rule, and notwithstanding the one-third rule, requests were made by judges who would like to have seen the particular individual appearing before them released prior to the lapse of the one-third period.

That was part of the reasoning that went on, to be able to have a program adaptable to individual circumstances. I might say that as of May 14, yesterday, some 2,118 inmates were in the various correctional facilities oper ated by the Solicitor General's Department. Of that number, 314 were out on temporary absences, of which some 53 or 2.5 per cent of the total were out after having served one-sixth of their sentence. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, just one further question of the hon. minister. Were discussions held with the Alberta Federation of Police Officers prior to the pro gram's initiation?

I ask the question in light of representa tion reaching my office and concern being expressed to me by this group about some aspects of the program. MR. HARLE: There has been a fair amount of dialogue with the various agencies involved in the judicial system, through the chief judge of what was the district court — now the Court of Queen's Bench — and with the various police agencies. Whether there was contact following the formalization of the rules I've just described, I can't confirm.

Certainly all people involved in and affected by the corrections system had been aware of the fact that it was possible to be released shortly after being incar cerated in a correctional institution. I think it is a program that has been successful in the eyes of most people, both police and members of the judiciary. In fact, there's a fairly good review of the program in the Moyer report. The Moyer report did contain the figure of one-sixth in suitable and tightly controlled cases, as I've described in the conditions which are applied. MR. GOGO: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, to the Solicitor General.

In addition to the criteria he's listed, could the minister advise the Assembly if the department consults with the police jurisdiction that re presents the area where the inmate was living prior to being incarcerated? I've had several representations that this criterion should be added to the present ones. If it's not, would the minister consider adding it? MR. HARLE: Mr. Speaker, that's a present requirement. Contact is made by the community corrections officials with the local police in the area the inmate is going back to.

I might say that the corrections statute provides that an inmate who is out on temporary absence is still in

May 15, 1980 ALBERTA HANSARD 991 custody and is still an inmate, and that everywhere he travels is within a correctional institution. School Attendance MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a ques tion to the Minister of Education, and I'm sure he'll be very brief in his answer. Not long ago the minister made comments with regard to compulsory education. The minister indicated that from his point of view, there were a number of children in the school system of the province for whom education should not be compulsory.

My question is: can the minister indicate to the Assem bly the broad number of children that the department or the minister sees presently in the school system in Alberta who should not be subject to compulsory attendance? MR. KING: I can be very brief, Mr. Speaker. I can't attach a number to that. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, a very brief supplementa ry. Is it the intention of the minister to move on the idea he put forward, or was the minister flying a kite? MR. KING: I was flying a kite, Mr.

Speaker. [laughter] The hon. leader obviously read the first part of my speech; had he continued to the end of it, he would have noticed my remarks that I personally did not believe in compulsory or mandatory education, but that I thought it was so much ingrained in the community that I could exhaust all my efforts over the next four years trying to change that as a feature of the law, not be successful at it, and not be able to do anything else. MR. R. CLARK: Agreed. MR.

KING: So the remark I made to the principals was that while I personally did not believe in it, it was not something to which I would be directing my attention. MR. R. CLARK: Agreed. Water Supply MR. MANDEVILLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the hon. Minister of Environment. Has the minister had any reports from officials of his department as to whether there will be a shortage of water for irriga tion in southern Alberta this year? MR. COOKSON: No, Mr. Speaker, nothing direct in the office as yet. MR. MANDEVILLE: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.

Has the minister had any reports of possible water shortages in Alberta towns and cities this year? MR. COOKSON: Mr. Speaker, there has been some correspondence with regard to several communities facing possible shortages of water. I can't recollect the specific areas. Veteran is probably one that's having possible water shortages. Forest Fires MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to some questions asked of me earlier in the House. The first, asked by the hon. Member for Camrose, was wheth er military personnel from the Primrose base were in volved in fire-fighting. Mr.

Speaker, I do not believe that their personnel were actually involved in fire-fighting, but we have had assist ance from the Department of National Defence in the sense that they've used their equipment to ferry personnel to assist in initial fire attacks and things of that nature. Natural Gas Pipeline Safety MR. LEITCH: Also, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to respond to some questions asked by the hon. Leader of the Opposition and the hon. Member for Edmonton Mill Woods about the work being done by the Energy Re sources Conservation Board in connection with the ex plosion in Mill Woods some time ago.

I think the first question was what progress had been made in respect of the recommendation that the possible relocation of the line be considered. Mr. Speaker, that matter is now in the hands of consultants. We've asked for an independent consultants' report, and the report has not yet reached my office. An additional question was: what progress has been made with respect to the board's comments about the depth of cover over the pipelines? The board has asked the companies having pipelines in the area to make a survey and submit the results of that survey to the board.

I would expect the surveys to be in the board's hands relatively shortly. I was also asked about the retroactive application of CSA standards to the pipeline. The board has been reviewing and considering the possibility of doing that, but has not yet completed its work. I think the final question was: what progress has been made with respect to the recommendation for the setback of pipelines? There have been numerous meetings be tween board staff, the interagency planning branch of Municipal Affairs, and municipal officials. Those meet ings are continuing, Mr. Speaker. MR. R.

CLARK: Might I ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources. Is the minister in a position to indicate to the Assembly when the consultants' reports will be in the hands of the minis ter on this rather major recommendation of the ERCB with regard to relocation? MR. LEITCH: I can't be definitive, Mr. Speaker. Actual ly that report was requested by the board, but I assume after the board has reviewed it, they will submit a report to me. I would expect it relatively soon, but I can't be more definitive than that. Parole System (continued) MR. HARLE: Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to supplement some answers I gave on temporary absence. I realize they were somewhat long, but I think it's important to add that the applicant must be gainfully occupied during absences. That means either seeking or maintaining suitable em ployment, or being enrolled in an acceptable vocational, educational, or any other legitimate training or treatment program.

992 ALBERTA HANSARD May 15, 1980 ORDERS OF THE DAY MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, I thought I would just add at this time a brief bit of information with regard to House business, in order that hon. members will have it early rather than late in the day. Dealing first with tomorrow, if I might, I believe I indicated that committee study and second readings of Bills would take place. At about 12 o'clock, leaving about an hour, we propose to bring forward The Individual's Rights Protection Amendment Act, 1980, in order that the Minister of Labour can place his views on the record.

Other hon. members who don't happen to speak during that hour would then be able to consider them over a day or so before taking

part in that debate. Coming back to the important business of this evening, Mr. Speaker, we believe second readings will certainly occupy all the time available tonight. I believe I indicated before that we would begin at 8 o'clock with Bill 50, The Mines and Minerals Amendment Act, 1980, and if there is time after that, with one or two exceptions — obvious ly The Individual's Rights Protection Amendment Act, 1980 — Bills on the Order Paper. MR. R.

CLARK: Might I ask the Government House Leader if it is the intention to call the question Friday afternoon on second reading of The Individual's Rights Protection Amendment Act, 1980, or simply to provide the minister an opportunity to speak to the House, then to adjourn debate in second reading? MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, by selecting the one- hour period, I thought it would be most likely that all hon. members wouldn't be heard, and the matter would still be available for second reading next week. MR. SPEAKER: May the hon.

Associate Minister of Public Lands and Wildlife revert to Introduction of Spe cial Guests? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. head: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS (reversion) MR. MILLER: Thanks very much, Mr. Speaker. It's my pleasure today to introduce to you, and through you to the Members of the Legislative Assembly, 21 grade 12 students from Lloydminster Comprehensive high school. They are accompanied by their teacher Mr. Abraham. He informs me this is an exceptionally good class, with some aspiring politicians in the group.

They are seated in the members gallery, and I would ask them to stand and be recognized by the Assembly. head: MOTIONS FOR RETURNS MR. HORSMAN: Mr. Speaker, I move that motions for returns 115 and 120 stand on the Order Paper. [Motion carried] 119 Mr. R.

Clark moved that an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing, with respect to every trip made outside of Canada by employees or other persons acting on behalf of a government of Alberta department, board, commission, or agency, which was paid for by public money during the fiscal year 1979-80: (1) the date of each trip, (2) the destination of each trip, (3) the purpose of each trip, (4) the name of each government employee or other person acting on behalf of the government who went on each trip, and (5) the total cost of each trip. MR. R.

CLARK: In moving the motion, I should say that the hon. minister has indicated a change with regard to dates, and I expect he will be making that amendment. MR. STEVENS: Mr. Speaker, I've consulted with my colleague the Associate Minister of Telephones, and we have the information with respect to Motion 120 readily available, if the House would accept deletion of the dates "March 31, 1979" and "March 31, 1980", and replace those with the dates "December 31, 1978" and "December 31, 1979". SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR.

SPEAKER: It was my understanding that the Assembly had ordered 120 to stand and retain its place, and that we were now dealing with 119. MR. R. CLARK: Didn't I move 119? MR. SPEAKER: I don't find the dates that are to be amended referred to in 119. Such a date is referred to in 120; 119 refers only to a year. Is it the intention that notwithstanding that 120 has been tabled, you might say, it's now to be amended while it's still on the table? MR. HORSMAN: Mr. Speaker, as a matter of clarifica tion.

It was the intention of the government to have Motions 115 and 120 stand and retain their places on the Order Paper for the time being, and that we would then proceed with debate on Motion 119 if necessary. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I move Motion for a Return 119. [Motion carried] head: MOTIONS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT MOTIONS 218. Moved by Mr. Notley:

Be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly urge the government to introduce legislation providing for a province-wide system of rent regulation to take effect on July 1, 1980. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, in rising to move this particular motion, I think there is some sense of urgency. The present rent regulation legislation will expire on June 30. Therefore this Legislature, in my view, should take the opportunity to formally assess the question of wheth er rent regulation should be continued beyond its expira tion on June 30. Mr. Speaker, in advancing the case for the motion before the Assembly this afternoon, obviously the place

May 15, 1980 ALBERTA HANSARD 993 to begin is to look at the question of vacancy rates. When vacancy rates are quite high, the market place will nor mally work out an equitable balance between the tenant on one hand and the landlord on the other. But when vacancy rates drop very sharply or when there's a very low vacancy rate, then the balance of power shifts rather dramatically from a situation where you have some de gree of equity to a position where the landlord has enormous power. Mr.

Speaker, when you look at the question of vacancy rates in the province, there are rather serious indications of what I would say is an inadequate vacancy rate in our larger centres. In Edmonton, for example, if we look at the vacancy rates in apartment structures of six units or over, we have a vacancy rate of 2.7 per cent. The most recent CMHC figures for the city of Calgary for April 1980 indicate a vacancy rate of 1.2 per cent. Mr. Speaker, I would underline that these are for apartment structures of six units and over.

When you look at the vacancy rate in some other places in Alberta — we don't have recent figures in Lloydminster or St. Albert, but we do have Alberta Housing and Public Works figures from August 1979. The vacancy rate in St. Albert at that time was 0.6 per cent; Lloydminster, 0.2 per cent; and Grande Prairie, 0.2 per cent. Mr.

Speaker, recently in the city of Grande Prairie, where as hon: members are well aware there has been substantial growth and development over the last number of years, and very speedy development over the last year, a study was conducted by that city's newspaper, the Grande Prairie Herald-Tribune. They don't pretend it's a totally comprehensive study. Unfortunately, we don't have any official form of monitoring in place, but the paper in a very public-spirited way did some work themselves.

In their survey, they took a number of apartment blocks in the city of Grande Prairie and dis covered that since August 1979 — we're talking about a period of nine months — single bedroom units in that city rose an average of 38 per cent, and double bedroom units rose an average of 46 per cent. Again, Mr. Speaker, hon. members can question what the increases are. But there is no doubt that as long as you have a low vacancy rate, you're going to have pres sure in the market place, and the market place cannot guarantee any kind of equity between landlords and tenants. Mr.

Speaker, what about the question of construction starts? Let me say that the announcement of programs by this government before the Legislature convened, as well as the announcement two weeks ago, will help in dealing with the question of increasing construction, no question about that. But, Mr. Speaker, it takes time to get apart ment blocks under way. We have no guarantee that some of the major problems that stand in the way of apartment starts — I would say that while high interest rates are coming down at the moment, we have no guarantee that they're going to continue to come down.

When we look at what has happened, Mr. Speaker, from the most recent CMHC figures we find that residential construction starts in the city of Edmonton are down 42 per cent from January to April 1979 to the corresponding period of this year. Apartment construction starts in this city are down 41 per cent in the same period. In Calgary, our neighbor ing city to the south, residential construction starts are down 34 per cent, and apartment construction starts are down 56 per cent.

In urban Alberta generally — and this is population centres of 10,000 people or more — residen tial construction starts are down 37 per cent in the same period of time, and apartment starts are also down. So, Mr. Speaker, we have on one hand falling con struction starts; on the other, continued entry to this province of many additional citizens. People have esti mated the inflow somewhere in the neighborhood of 5,000 per month. Mr.

Speaker, my contention is that the inevitable result, notwithstanding the efforts of this gov ernment to increase housing and apartment starts, is that we're going to see a continuation of the crunch, particu larly in our growth areas. Mr. Speaker, one of the concerns I have, frankly, and one reason I think this motion is required, is that beyond the CMHC's work, we don't even have any effective monitoring system in this province. This question has been raised in the Legislature a number of times.

For example, on March 31, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs said, ". . . we are not setting up a monitoring program with respect to rents . . ." On April 25, ". . . we would not be setting up a formal system to monitor rents." Mr. Speaker, unless we do that, it seems to me that we're really not in a position to seriously evaluate the impact of the tight housing market, particu larly in sections of the province where there is rapid growth.

Of course, Grande Prairie has been cited before, but there are other communities as well, where the tight market situation has become extreme and a problem of real concern. One point that I suppose needs to be made is that while certain initiatives have been undertaken by the govern ment, the question really is: what happens to low-income people when rent controls are removed? I've listened to the chairman of the rent decontrol board, the former mayor of Edmonton, indicate that only about 10 to 15 per cent of the units in this province are presently under rent regulation.

From the information I've been able to gather, I assume that information is correct. But, Mr. Speaker, just because 10 or 15 per cent of the units are under rent regulation, that should not lead us to the conclusion that we should cast aside rent regulation. Because the people who live in these units are, for the most part, those of our citizens who are least able to bargain effectively in the market place. By and large, they're senior citizens, students, native people, the work ing poor, single parents: in my view, people who need some reasonable protection by law.

It's one thing for those of us in society who have some bargaining position to be able to meet the challenge of a tight market place, whether we be in well-organized trade unions, professional organizations, members of the Legis lature, or whatever the case may be. But for the people in our province who are not as fortunate, it seems to me that we have to look very closely at what we do when we remove the remnants of rent regulation.

Because the very people who are going to be most affected by the removal of rent controls on June 30 will be those in our society who are not sufficiently organized to be able to fend for themselves. Mr. Speaker, there have been a number of government announcements.

I should just say as a matter of interest to members of the Assembly that when people indicated some interest in this rent control petition — the first one I introduced in the House a few weeks ago, and the peti tion I introduced today — I rather suspected, after the government's announcement two weeks ago, that we wouldn't find too many additional petition forms coming in. But quite the contrary. In the last two weeks since the government's announcement — and certainly the gov ernment did everything they could to make sure the announcement had massive punch. The announcement

994 ALBERTA HANSARD May 15, 1980 was on the day we were going to bring in the Social Services and Community Health estimates; I don't know if that had anything to do with it. Nevertheless, it got widespread coverage. Notwithstanding that widespread coverage, Mr. Speaker, by far the greater part of the petitions I introduced today came in after the govern ment's announcement. Mr. Speaker, I want to deal with the government's response. It leads me to the conclusion that we need some form of rent regulation.

Clearly, the government is mov ing on one of the two major aspects of the rental accommodation crunch; that is, the supply of units. No question about that. I think the other major part of that equation is the price of units. The programs that have been announced are useful as far as they go. But I submit, Mr. Speaker, that these programs in themselves are not going to solve the problem. For example, the Alberta municipal housing incentive program, replacing the fed eral municipal incentive grant program, will have some effect in certain rural communities.

But in my discussion with city authorities, frankly I don't think it's going to have any impact at all in Edmonton or Calgary. That doesn't mean it's not a good program in those areas where it will be helpful. But it's going to have minimal impact in our two major cities. The Alberta rental in vestment incentive program replaces, at a lower level of subsidy, the much talked about federal capital cost allow ance. While that's useful, at the same time, Mr. Speaker, I don't think we should jump to any conclusion that it's going to single-handedly solve our housing problem.

What about some of the other components of the government's program? We have the senior citizens' rent er assistance program, an increase from $500 a year to $1,000 a year. Mr. Speaker, that works out to an increase from $41.67 a month to $83.33 a month. Fine, as far as it goes. No question about that. But in the absence of any form of rent control, what guarantee is there that rents will not simply go up by the amount of that increase in the renter assistance program?

What guarantee is there that the recipients of this increased funding for senior citizens will not — the senior citizens will still be behind the eight ball after rent increases have occurred. The government will also point out the increase in the assured income program. We've debated that before. But again, Mr. Speaker, with some of the rent increases brought to my attention — well over $150 a month in the last year — that's going to take up more than the total increase in both these programs.

It seems to me that the area that requires underlining at this time is that while we are doing certain things for senior citizens — and I applaud that — and while there's a modest increase of $30 a month in the assured income for the severely handicapped, what about those people who might be described as the working poor, for want of a better expression.

Those people, who are not on assist ance, who are earning just enough to get by, yet not enough so they can save money to meet the conditions of some of the other government programs in place — which I'm sure in a few moments time we'll have regaled; and many of them are useful programs — are the people who are going to be caught without anything. Frankly, I was expecting we would have some kind of announce ment on this question of a renters' tax credit across the board, not just as it applies to senior citizens, but espe cially a program designed to help the working poor in our province. Mr.

Speaker, we don't really have that kind of program. Even if we did — and I realize there are two options here. One is a form of subsidy, so we can cushion the impact of rising rents on low-income groups. That's one option. The other, very clearly, is the continuation of some form of rent regulation with provision for pass- through of higher costs, and what have you. The problem I have always had with the route of subsidies is that if you have a tight market situation, there's really no way you can guarantee that rents won't go up by the total amount of the subsidy, or even more.

In fact, you're just using the group you claim to be helping as a conduit, if you like, to transfer money into the hands of landlords who are in a position, because of the rent market, to increase the rent beyond reasonable levels. As I look at the options and very carefully examine the alternative of some kind of subsidy program, I certainly feel it would be better than nothing at all. But I would argue, Mr. Speaker, that in the final analysis it really isn't a substitute for rent control itself. Mr.

Speaker, the major argument about rent controls, that we've gone over and over again, is that if the province continues a system of rent regulation, in actual fact we're going to dry up the construction industry as far as residential and apartment construction is concerned. Of course it's important to note — I hardly need remind members of this Assembly — that new construction has always been exempt from rent regulation. But sometimes in the debate that takes place in public, there is some confusion on that score. The suggestion has often been made that rent regulation would apply to all units.

Well that has never been the case. That was made very clear by the legislation this Assembly passed in 1975. For that matter, in the fall of 1975, when the then Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister indicated they wanted a form of rent regulation across the country, they very clearly exempted new construction. Mr. Speaker, during discussion of the budget, I looked at what happened when rent controls were imposed in this province. I don't think the statistics I intend to give the Assembly today lead me to the conclusion that rent controls are going to boost apartment construction.

But it does seem to me to go some distance to argue against the proposition that rent controls will totally destroy the construction of new rental accommodation. In 1976, the first full year of rent controls, Edmonton residential con struction was up 43 per cent; Edmonton apartment con struction, up 159 per cent; Calgary residential construc tion starts, up 44 per cent; Calgary apartment construc tion, up 138 per cent; urban Alberta residential construc tion, up 43 per cent; and urban Alberta apartment con struction, up 120 per cent. These figures are from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Mr.

Speaker, dur ing 1977 and 1978 — the decontrol period commenced July 1, 1977 — the province continued to enjoy some encouraging news, but at the time the rates of increase began to slip gradually. By the time we get into decon trols in 1979, we find that the direction is clearly the other way: Edmonton residential construction, down 28 per cent; Edmonton apartment construction, down 35 per cent; in Calgary, down 19.5 per cent, apartment construc tion, down 33 per cent. Mr. Speaker, no one is seriously going to suggest that rent controls will encourage development of rental ac commodation.

But from available evidence that I've been able to obtain from CMHC as well as other provinces, I don't think there's really any argument that rent controls seriously discourage investment in rental accommodation. It seems to me that when one looks at the facts, the major reason for the decline in rental accommodation was when the prime commercial lending rates hit 12 per cent in

May 15, 1980 ALBERTA HANSARD 995 1979. We then saw a precipitous drop. There's no ques tion that high interest rates are going to lead to a real slowdown in construction of residential accommodation. I think other factors aggravated the trend; for example, the cancellation of the federal capital cost allowance. No question about that. But the point should be made that the decline was already in progress.

So when people say to me that if we bring in rent controls we simply aren't going to get to first base and that we're going to seriously dry up the capital market, from the evidence I've seen at least, I just don't think that argument can be seriously defended. Mr. Speaker, what are other provinces doing? Let's take a look at what is occurring elsewhere in the country. I know that hon. members in this House like to see Alberta almost as an island unto itself, but let's take a look at what other provinces are doing. Only Newfound land and New Brunswick have no form of rent regulation at this time.

That's not surprising in the case of either province. I say this with a certain amount of regret, but the economies of both provinces are sluggish at the moment, although we hope that will change with respect to Newfoundland as a consequence of some of the oil discoveries off the Grand Banks. But at this stage of the game, it's certainly no secret that the economies of both provinces are in some difficulty.

And where you have a very, very low rate of population increase, or in some cases a decline, I suppose there's no need to get into a sophisticated, or even a reasonably unsophisticated form of rent regulation, because the market place will work. But that is not the situation in other parts of Canada, where we have urban growth at least. Ontario, for ex ample, has a form of rent regulation. Rent regulation is ongoing in Saskatchewan, but it's based on the vacancy rate concept, which in my view is good.

There are other types of rent regulation in other provinces, all designed to ensure at least some equity between tenants on one hand and landlords on the other. Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude my arguments in favor of this resolution by saying very clearly to members of the House this afternoon that most landlords in this province are reasonable people who are not extracting an unreasonable rent. In fairness, I think that has to be said.

When you don't have a situation in place where the market place itself can work effectively, you really don't have the balance required to preserve a degree of equity between the tenant on one hand and the landlord on the other. The net result is that you have some landlords who are able to increase rents by prohibitive amounts. I had a number of letters, and I'm sure all members have received letters.

I was going to quote some of the letters, but I think I really needn't do that, because I'm sure members have had representation from their own constituents about examples where increases have been downright scandalous, where landlords have taken advantage of the market situation. I underline, Mr. Speaker, that not every landlord does that. Probably the majority doesn't. But the fact is: when the market place can't work, surely we shouldn't leave it to the consciences of individuals to determine whether they're going to increase the rent beyond reasonable bounds.

I say to members of the Assembly that when one carefully reviews the options, a continuation of a form of rent regulation — albeit with provision, as this Legisla ture adopted in 1975, that legitimate cost increases could be passed through, with appeal provisions — is the only way we are going to be able to protect those Albertans who for the most part are today living in rental units now subject to rent regulation.

If we remove rent regulation, essentially we're going to be saying to thousands of Albertans who aren't in a position to fight very effectively for themselves, that this government really has no pro gram for the working poor — there's a program for other people, but no program for the working poor — and that we aren't going to be able to guarantee anything other than the hope that if your rent skyrockets in one place, maybe you can go across the street. Mr.

Speaker, when vacancy rates are as low as they in Grande Prairie at the moment, or in other growth centres in the province, or in Edmonton or Calgary — when the vacancy rate is 1.2 per cent in the city of Calgary, "across the street" is very difficult, and not really workable. That being the case, Mr. Speaker, I commend the resolution to hon. members of the Legislature for their consideration this afternoon. MR. MANDEVILLE: Mr. Speaker, on making . . . MR. SPEAKER: I believe the hon. minister caught the Chair's eye first. MR. KOZIAK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I did want to get into the debate on this motion, put to the Assembly's attention by the hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview as a follow-up, I would imagine, to Bill 211, The Temporary Rent Regulation Measures Amendment Act, 1980, which he introduced earlier in the session. Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to spend much time recalling to hon. members the 10-point program the gov ernment announced to assist in the provision of addition al accommodation in this province, and at the same time to assist those less fortunate amongst us in the payment of rents these individuals find they must pay.

I think it's important to remember that a number of excellent pro grams were announced by my colleagues the hon. Minis ter of Housing and Public Works, the Provincial Treas urer, the Minister of Social Services and Community Health, and the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

All of these lead towards encouragement, whether it be with the $1,000, $1,500, or $2,000 grant per unit encouragement to municipalities to move their planning process in a more favorable way, to have more units come on stream; whether it be the 5 per cent tax incentive announced by the Provincial Treasurer, to encourage developers to de velop; whether it be the additional programs available for senior citizens' housing; or whether it be additional pro grams for non-profit organizations, those of the working poor who might not otherwise be able to afford.

As a matter of fact, the comment made by the hon. member about the working poor was interesting. Through the chairman of the rent decontrol board, I obtained some statistics on vacancy rates, in Edmonton particularly, for the Edmonton Housing Authority, which provides accommodation for what you might call the working poor. In January 1979, the vacancy rate in Edmonton in these accommodations was 6 per cent, and at that time the maximum income level for entry into these premises was $12,500, plus $500 for each child. So at that point there was a vacancy rate of 6 per cent. Subsequently, Mr.

Speaker, the limit of $12,500 was in creased to $16,000. When that increase came into effect, the vacancy rate dropped. So when we talk about the working poor, let's keep in mind the income levels that now must be reached before one is excluded from this type of accommodation. Those

996 ALBERTA HANSARD May 15, 1980 income levels had to be increased substantially, because there just weren't sufficient numbers of working poor to take up the accommodation then provided. We've pro vided for 250 additional units each in Edmonton and Calgary, through a substantial program that my colleague announced. Mr. Speaker, all our programs are directed towards the increase in the number and variety of availa ble accommodations for Alberta citizens over the next number of years as the population continues to grow, although our expectations for growth may be dampened somewhat by present events in progress.

One of the interesting aspects of the programs an nounced — and this was one of the earlier ones, that involved over $0.5 billion to the Alberta Home Mortgage Corporation for 5,500 units under the Alberta family home purchase program and 4,500 units under the core housing incentive program.

For the 5,500 units under the Alberta family home purchase program, I was a little concerned that notwithstanding the fact that the program had been in existence for some time — and hon. members are aware that this program provides the opportunity for Albertans to purchase their own housing at a greatly subsidized interest rate. For the lowest level of income permissible, that interest rate can go as low as 6 per cent, which is a substantially lower interest rate, having regard to present market rates. I was concerned, Mr.

Speaker, that not enough attention was given to this program, and that people seemed to ignore completely that this pro gram existed and that we had enriched it substantially. At the time, I suggested there were other opportunities for tenants, and those opportunities included ownership. With the programs we have in place, tenants could in fact buy their own homes.

Notwithstanding my expression of concern and the fact that very little attention was found in the media with respect to these programs, I am heartened by advertise ments that now appear, showing the developers in this province building homes to meet those particular pur chasers. As a matter of fact, from time to time I receive at my home various documents from realtors. The Per manent real estate puts out a catalogue, their Edmonton home buyers' guide, spring 1980 edition. They advertise: in the west end, for $47,000, $2,350 down and as little as $226 a month mortgage payments. Mr.

Speaker, ownership is not out of reach of the citizens of Alberta, if they choose that particular method of providing for their own accommodation. We've done that with the programs in place. I'm sure hon. members will have seen ads like this: Nu-West offers renters oppor tunity to own, and afford it; subsidized ownership for as little as $2,743 down and payments as low as $320 a month; Why rent? $3,429 down; three-bedroom town- home with basement, $320 a month; three-bedroom tow- nhouses in Clareview, $286 a month. They go on and on.

These are recent newspaper advertisements that show there is the opportunity; there is the alternative to rent ing. That alternative of ownership is within the reach of the large majority of those Albertans who fall within the income categories the program is developed for. I'm sure other hon. members will want to speak to the value of the programs we've announced over the course of this spring session. I won't take much time there. However, in response to some of the remarks by the hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview, I'd like to indi cate my grave concern with the approach he's taking.

My concern hasn't diminished at all over the period of time since I assumed this responsibility. From the beginning, I advised that it was our intention to live with the legisla- tion we passed in the spring of 1977, The Rent Decontrol Act, which provided for the elimination of rent controls as of the end of June this year. I've been consistent in that for the entire time I've held this office. Mr. Speaker, my readings, the information I have re ceived, make me even stronger in the position I held at the outset. Rent controls should expire.

There does not seem to be any evidence anywhere that rent controls over an extended period of time are beneficial to anybody, including tenants. Studies, by a number of economists and learned people, of five countries that have had rent controls, in some cases up to 50 years — England, France, Austria, United States, and Sweden — have all concluded that rent controls are devastating. As one person said, rent controls may put a ceiling on your rents, but they won't put a roof over your head. Mr.

Speaker, this view contrary to rent controls is not held only by economists who might fall sort of into the centre or right-hand side of the political sphere.

That view is also held by economists who fall on the left of the political sphere, including Nobel prize winner Gunnar Myrdal: An important architect of the Swedish Labor Par ty's welfare state. [his feeling] was that "rent control has in certain Western countries constituted, maybe, the worst example of poor planning by governments lacking courage and vision." Fellow Swede and fel low socialist economist Assar Lindbeck's . . . .[feeling was] "in [most] cases rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city — except for bombing." MR.

SPEAKER: With great respect to the hon. minister, the distinguished Swedes he is quoting are not, as far as I know, members of this Assembly. MR. NOTLEY: I would welcome them. MR. SPEAKER: The authorities in this Assembly, as I've mentioned once before, are the members themselves. However, that would not raise any objection to any, perhaps, Swedish statistics the member might like to use. MR. KOZIAK: Mr. Speaker, I used those quotations only because — apart from their politics, which I do not agree with — I wanted to indicate that I fully agree with the comments of those two gentlemen.

They said it in words I could not, and I thought I'd choose theirs. But I recognize that the Speaker's ruling is in order. I won't question that. I listened to the hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview when he said the poorest people are the ones in the 10 per cent of suites that are controlled. Of course, he didn't provide us with a survey that concluded that. If he attempted such a survey, I'm sure he would find in those accommodations some who could least afford high rent. But he'd also find living in those accommodations many who can well afford the market rent.

I was surprised, by a remark I received from one official in the department, who attended a conference on this very topic in British Columbia early this month. They found that one economist earning $100,000 a year was living in a rent-controlled suite, paying $210 a month. I suppose that would be one of those the hon. member would like to protect in the extension of rent regulations; one of those $100,000 a year economists paying $210 a month, less than the market value of the premises. Mr. Speaker, the hon. member argues that rent con

May 15, 1980 ALBERTA HANSARD 997 trols in this province did not adversely affect construction of new premises. Taking that position, he suggests that an extension of rent controls, for however long, won't affect construction of new premises in this province. He seems to rely on certain statistics to support his position. I'm going to get back to that, Mr. Speaker, but I thought I read recently, and perhaps I heard it from the hon. member's lips, that we were to expect a petition in the third week of this month that would force the govern ment to its knees and have it reintroduce rent control in this province.

That petition was going to be one of the largest petitions ever put together in this province. A member of his party suggested — and this was after our announcements just two weeks ago — that at least 70,000 names would be presented in a petition to the Legislature. Today we received a petition of 15,308, about 20 per cent of what was promised. Mr.

Speaker, that's an indication of the politics the hon. member brings to this Assembly: promises that are not kept, promises that never materialize; That seems to be the difference between the politics that hon. member brings to this Assembly and those we bring to this Assembly. Mr. Speaker, our promises are kept. When we say that rent controls end June 30, 1980, the people of the province of Alberta can expect that promise to be kept. They will construct apartments, they will plan their de velopments, knowing those promises will be kept. That's why construction did not end.

They expected a temporary program, and they expected that temporary program to end. Let's take a look at what's happened in British Colum bia, where the party the hon. member represents in this Assembly introduced rent controls in 1972. That rent control system has continued with certain modifications and there are no expectations for its end,

whereas we have the end in sight within a month and a half. Since 1972, the population of British Columbia has grown from 2,185,000 to 2,587,000, an increase of 402,000 or 18.4 per cent. That's more than the Canadian average. In the same period, the population of Canada increased from 21,569,000 to 23,742,000, an increase of 2,173,000 or 10.1 per cent. So in that eight-year period, the British Colum bia population increased 18.4 per cent; the Canadian population increased 10.1 per cent. One would imagine that with that type of population growth, certain housing pressures would be put on that province.

But let's compare Alberta. In that same period, the population grew from 1,628,000 to 2,031,000, a 403,000 increase. In that eight-year span, the population of Alber ta increased by 1,000 more than British Columbia. On our base, that amounted to a 24.8 per cent increase, one-third higher than the population increase in British Columbia. What's happened with respect to vacancy rates, Mr. Speaker? Well, let's take a look at the vacancy rates; we've just got the recent CMHC figures. The Canadian vacancy rate: 2.8 per cent.

Now, one must keep in mind that you can produce vacancy rates of varying percent ages, depending on whether you include private and pub lic accommodation, whether you include or exclude dup lexes, whether you include premises that have been built within the last six months but not occupied. But in my comparisons I'm going to use statistics that are constant for Canada. This is for April, last month: Canada, 2.8 per cent; Edmonton, 3.6 per cent; Calgary, 1.9 per cent. But what's the vacancy rate in British Columbia, which has had eight years of rent controls and no indication of expiration?

In Victoria, it's 0.1 percent; in Vancouver, it's 0.2 per cent. [interjections] Mr. Speaker, the vacancy rate in Edmonton is 36 times the vacancy rate in Victoria and 18 times the vacancy rate in Vancouver. That's what rent controls do. Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is suggesting that we should bring in rent controls to lower the vacancy rate. [interjections] That's not what he said. He said, increase the vacancy rate. But that's what it will do; it will lower the vacancy rate. Then what kind of problem have we got on our hands? Yes, Mr.

Speaker, I too am concerned — and I've mentioned this — about the rights of tenants, the ability of tenants to pay for the accommodation they need. I, together with my colleagues in this Assembly, have re acted with that 10-point program. That program will be extremely effective in accomplishing what we must ac complish in this province over the next number of years. I have no doubt that our hearts are in the right place. The hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview's heart is in the right place.

But I don't know about the rest of his anatomy. [interjections] Other members will wish to speak more specifically to some of these programs. But I want to conclude by expressing a real concern with the concept the hon. member brings to this Assembly today. I have responsi bility for The Unfair Trade Practices Act, which was passed to establish conduct we expect to be adhered to by people doing business throughout the province of Alber ta. When we passed The Unfair Trade Practices Act in this Legislature, we wanted to develop a certain morality in business.

That morality included the concept that, under the Act, a supplier should not make representa tions to induce a consumer to enter into a consumer transaction when those representations are not correct. Now those words do not appear in that form in the Act, but that is the concept embodied in this legislation. We do not want the consumer to be encouraged to enter into a consumer transaction on the basis of presumptions, assumptions that consumer makes, having regard to re presentations the supplier makes. Mr. Speaker, we in the province of Alberta made cer tain representations to the people of this province.

Those representations were that rent controls would end on June 30, 1980. On the basis of those representations, people said, okay, we will in fact build apartments; we will take our money and invest it in apartments, because we know the government has set a course of action; they are going to decontrol, with rent regulations expiring on June 30. On that basis, they entered into a transaction; they made a decision. What the hon. member is suggesting here, which is extremely dangerous — he's not talking about maintain ing controls only on people who were controlled; he now wants to control everybody.

He wants to control all apartments in the province. That is the kind of banana republic thinking that creates problems for governments, not just next year or the year after that, but for decades. Because then the public cannot trust government; If we've reached the position where that's the kind of philosophy we're preaching, that the public cannot trust government, we're in deep trouble, because we can never expect to demand trust from business, labor, from people out there. That is my greatest concern with the resolution before us, Mr. Speaker, and I urge all hon. members to oppose it vigorously. MR.

MANDEVILLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Act III. [laughter]

998 ALBERTA HANSARD May 15, 1980 AN HON. MEMBER: It's a hard act to follow. MR. MANDEVILLE: Just a few comments on resolu tion 218. We supported rent controls when they came in, in 1975. They came in on a temporary basis to control inflation. I don't think they have served a purpose that's been really beneficial to the people of this province. Price and wage control also didn't serve a purpose. It was definitely a trial-and-error attempt to control inflation. Again, we supported rent decontrol when it came in, I believe in 1977.

I think we have to follow this Rent Decontrol Act, because at this point in time we've taken controls off some of our rental accommodations in the province. So I certainly can't say I want to continue with rent controls in the province. I think inflation is one of our big problems with accommodations. Inflation is growing at such a rapid pace. I appreciate, the 10-point program the government's come up with to increase our rental accommodations and housing in the province.

However, if we'd have made rent controls work, we should have brought in this 10-point program in 1975, and then we certainly would have solved the problem. Our vacancy rate would be in a position where supply and demand would take care of the rent increases. But I think that trial-and-error legislation to try to control certain areas or certain restrictions in the province or nation, is a fallacy. We're now trying to control inflation by increasing interest rates. Thank goodness, the people have come to grips. They've realized that we're not controlling infla tion. What we're doing is detrimental.

Increasing our interest rates is certainly detrimental to the housing in dustry. It has certainly unemployed a lot of our people in construction, across Canada and in the province of Al berta. I have talked to contractors who just can't operate with interest rates the way they are. Some of our contrac tors who are building homes and apartment buildings, are going into receivership and bankruptcy as a result of high interest rates. So this type of thing is slowing down our construction and not keeping our accommodations to where they belong.

So many times you will see where an applicant will apply for a mortgage, and they can't afford a home. Why can't they afford a home? Because the interest rates are too high; they can't make the payments. So they can't get into a home they would like to get into. So our interest rates are certainly causing a lot of our problems today as far as the entire economy is concerned, let alone accom modations for our rental people. As the minister has indicated, in 1975, when we brought in rent controls, there was less than 1 per cent vacancy in the province of Alberta.

Right now in Edmon ton, there's a vacancy rate of 3.6 per cent, and in Calgary, 1.9. So we have increased it to a degree, but I think we have to come up with a better vacancy rate than this, in order to make supply and demand work in this province. We have done some research in our office in regard to rent increases. We didn't find it as dramatic as in some of the news releases we read, where people were suffering from large increases. We surveyed 100 renters, 50 each in Edmonton and Calgary, and asked them if they had had increases in the past six months, and were expecting another increase in the near future.

Mr. Speaker, 85 per cent of them had increases of $30 or less; 85 per cent of future increases were expected to be $52 or less: Keep in mind that some of the landlords who increased rents were caught in a bind when rent controls came on, and weren't getting realistic returns on their investments at that point. Mr. Speaker, I'm not saying there aren't problems as far as high rents are concerned. There certainly are. There are undesirable areas where landlords are increasing rents, in some cases where they shouldn't be. I appreciate the programs the government's come up with. There's a program for senior citizens.

However, some low-income Albertans can't pay the rents they're faced with today. We have to come up with some assistance in that area. I'm saying that we have to increase the supply. We have to take methods of doing this. The capital cost allowance is a good step. The $0.5 billion that's been put into housing in the province of Alberta is great. I think one area that's going to help more than anything else is where the Minister of Housing and Public Works came up with the $10,000 renovation program for citizens who want to rent out their homes. They can fix up their basements and rent them out.

I think this will help alleviate some of the problems we're facing as far as rental accommodations are concerned. Another area that could certainly help as far as as sembling land is concerned, and in construction, is to work through some of the red tape we have when we're developing a project to develop rental accommodations as well as housing. It takes so long to get a development through. With interest rates the way they are now, it certainly stifles contractors and developers getting in volved in building accommodations in this province.

I hope there will be some way we can streamline the area and get through the red tape, so we can get our subdivi sions through at a far more rapid pace than at the present time. Another area that's just been announced is the front- end servicing. That's going to work. It's going to work, and it's going to help. It's going to help considerably if we can get some front-end servicing, especially in our smaller centres.

The province has come up with a good program in that area, so we can front-end service and get some land banking, so we have land available for our contrac tors so they can build accommodations for people of this province. They've got to be built at a fast pace, for we have immigration coming to Alberta at a rapid pace. Another small area I would like the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to look at is the 6 per cent that landlords are paying on deposits now. I think that's unfair. I think we should take a look at that. I realize it's a small item, but it's an area I think we should have a good look at.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say: Alber tans don't need rent controls; we need rental housing in the province. Let's help aid the free market, and not oppose it. Thank you. MR. OMAN: Mr. Speaker, lest all Swedes be thought to be on the left side of the spectrum, I want to give you some more Swedish wisdom from the right side, being of that origin. As the hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview was making his motion and his comments, I was reminded of a flashing sign that I think is on Jasper Avenue some where around 112th Street, which says, "Experience is a wonderful thing.

It enables you to recognize a mistake as soon as you've made it again." If we were to accept the motion of the hon. member, this is about what we would be doing: making the mistake again. Simply because other people are making mistakes never provides an adequate reason to go ahead and do the same thing. So because other provinces may be doing this, I don't think

May 15, 1980 ALBERTA HANSARD 999 we should do it as well. A number of points have been made, but it seems to me that the way to guarantee rent raises and low vacancy rates is simply to put into operation a continuation or extension of our rent controls. Investment money tends to flow to its area of best return. About two months ago, guess, my wife and I were visiting in Phoenix for a week. I met an acquaintance down there who used to live in Calgary, who is in the real estate business. He has gone down there because he has found a better place to invest his money.

One of the questions he asked me was: are you going to take off rent controls, or are you going to bow to political pressure and allow them to continue? Because, he said, as soon as you take them off, and you can persuade me of the matter, I'll be back in Alberta with investment money. In spite of our minister's sense of confidence, I think there is indeed a credibility factor involved here. As soon as people are convinced that we're going to do what we said we were going to do, they're going to be here in greater numbers with greater amounts of money.

You cannot, I think, ignore a law that has ruled over world business transactions, if you will, from time immemorial; that is, that the law of supply and demand really determines what's going to happen. It's like the Ten Commandments: you can tinker with them all you want, but inevitably you have to face up to the facts and the ultimate truths. I mention to the Assembly again — I've done it before — the experience of the city of New York. When I was finance chairman of the city of Calgary, we were very interested in what happened down there. I take it, Mr. Speaker, that the time is about finished.

May I have the agreement of the Assembly to very briefly finish my statement? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. OMAN: Back in the second World War, when housing was in very short supply in the city of New York, that city imposed rent controls and, to my knowledge, has never taken them off. I think what happened is a significant lesson, and perhaps backs up the statements of the so-called Swedish authority who said the best way to destroy a city is to impose rent controls. There was no incentive to keep those buildings in shape. As a result, they went downhill. The rents did not rise in comparison to the costs.

Today, many of those buildings have been abandoned, literally. They are not habitable. The result was that large portions of revenue-producing property, to both the investor and to the city, were cut off. Also, many of those places, that are being inhabited today, are rundown, rat-infested, and crime-ridden. They are areas where I think people wouldn't want to live. If they were in our cities, we'd shut them down. I think it is a very real example of what can happen when you impose rent controls in the first place, and then don't lift them when they should be lifted. Mr.

Speaker, I'll honor the time and end there. But I cannot see — while I don't impinge the hon. member's motives, I think his methods will actually destroy the possibility of the good he wants to impart to people. Therefore, I cannot support his motion. MRS. CHICHAK: I beg leave to adjourn debate, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The debate is of course automatically adjourned by operation of the rule. head: PUBLIC BILLS AND ORDERS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT BILLS AND ORDERS (Second Reading) Bill 204

An Act to Amend The Highway Traffic Act, 1975 MR. D. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I move second read ing of Bill 204. I would like to submit to this Assembly three reasons why this particular piece of legislation should be enacted. The first is to protect the children and youth of Alberta by making it mandatory for those under the age of 18 to wear a seat belt or child restraint device while travelling in a motor vehicle. The second is to supply an education al initiative through which individuals in our community, regardless of age, may be encouraged to use seat belts in coming years.

And the third, by implication, Mr. Speak er, is to allow individuals over the age of 18 to make their own decision with respect to the use of seat belts. If I may, I would like to take each of those points in the order in which I've outlined them. First, dealing with protection of the young, the children of our community, I would like to very briefly go over information respecting the general use of mandatory seat-belt legislation. In my opinion, there is indisputable evidence to suggest that in most cases the use of seat belts is beneficial to individuals on highways.

I can quote statistics which now result from mandatory legislation in Saskatchewan, British Colum bia, Ontario, and Quebec, or from European countries which have had that kind of legislation for a number of years. However, I think it would suffice to quote from an Alberta Medical Association bulletin dated April 6, 1978. A study conducted by the Alberta Transportation accident investigation team reported that of 58 high way deaths in Edmonton area in 1977, 21 (36%) would have been prevented had seat belts been used.

It further states there is strong evidence that 53 per cent — and I underline that — a little over half the deaths which result from automobile accidents in Canada could have been prevented if drivers and passengers wore a combination lap and shoulder harness. Mr. Speaker, I think that deals generally with the argument whether seat belts are beneficial. I think it is accepted by experts throughout the world that that is in fact the case at this point in our history. The other question which inevitably has to be dealt with in this situation is the enforceability of mandatory legislation.

I would have to say categorically that it's my personal opinion that generally speaking such legislation is not enforceable. In my opinion, police cannot, nor should they, sit on top of buildings with binoculars and try to catch unsuspecting motorists not wearing seat belts. Indeed, our police forces have much better things to do than that. A year ago, that concept of the lack of enforceability of this legislation would have led me to say: if not enforceable, then why legislate?

It's because of the accumulated evidence in the last number of years from jurisdictions which have enacted such legislation, which shows that despite the fact that police are not strongly enforcing legislation — in fact, in some provinces almost not at all — the usage of seat belts has increased dramat

1000 ALBERTA HANSARD May 15, 1980 ically. I quote from a government of Saskatchewan news release of August 13, 1979: The percentage of vehicle occupants wearing seat belts increased 10 per cent over [the previous] year's survey to 64 per cent [of the population]. Sixty-four per cent. With the exception of passengers on northern high ways compliance with the seat belt law has increased to [almost] 83 per cent. Mr. Speaker, that is a dramatically greater usage rate in the province of Saskatchewan than we have in the prov ince of Alberta.

With that, I would like to leave the general arguments regarding the use of seat belts in a mandatory sense and the benefit of those restraint devices, and answer the question: why is this Bill aimed primarily at children and youth? First, let me say that in 1975, the year for which I have statistics, almost 4,000 youths under the age of 18 were injured and 144 were killed in car accidents in the province of Alberta. To quote from a University of Calgary accident research unit report: Statistics show that of all the major health problems facing children today, motor vehicle accidents are the chief cause of death.

Motor vehicle accidents are responsible for more infant deaths than all other classical childhood diseases including cancer, con genital malformations, pneumonia, meningitis, heart disease, leukemia and cystic fibrosis. Mr. Speaker, experts indicate that during a collision, a child becomes almost a human projectile. The weight of the head in relation to the relatively small size of the body, combined with the fragile nature of the head, makes a child much more susceptible to harm than an adult, who has more natural protection, gathered over years.

This Bill clearly states that not only should seat belts be used, but also child restraint devices. That's clear ly because seat belts aren't practical for all age groups. But the technology necessary to determine what kind of device is required for what age of child, has developed to the point where we're now capable of supplying, at a reasonable cost and in a practical way, seat belts or child restraint devices as necessary through companies in our community.

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety says: The empirical evidence now available from several countries indicates that infants and children can be protected by seat belt restraint devices. Mr. Speaker, that basically outlines why this legislation is aimed at children, and therefore underscores the first point I'd like to make this afternoon; that is, the protec tion of youth in the Alberta community. The second major aspect I would like hon. members to consider today, when determining how they will vote on this particular piece of legislation, is the educational value of such legislation.

I've already suggested that mandatory legislation in other areas for most age groups, has re sulted in a usage rate far greater than our educational programs have been able to accomplish in the province of Alberta. I would further suggest that within a couple of years following introduction of such legislation, people of all ages would likely increase their usage of seat belts, in order that parents could show an example to children, who would be required to wear such seat belts, and because they'd make that a habit when getting into a car. An example in that area, Mr.

Speaker, is the introduc tion of helmet legislation among amateur hockey players. Once that took place, almost immediately people playing hockey in the professional leagues began wearing helmets voluntarily. A good percentage of the NHL are now protected in that way. I also believe that once we've gone through the process of requiring young people, especially youths of driving age, to wear a seat belt, that will become a habit easy to continue through adult life.

I, and I'm sure many members of this Assembly, do not find it natural to put on a seat belt, to have that kind of protec tion, because we weren't raised with that in mind. But through the years, I expect this would become just anoth er aspect of life in a voluntary sense for those people who are adults. Mr. Speaker, those are the first and second reasons: this legislation is designed to protect children and youths; and secondly, the educational initiative this Bill potentially can provide. By implication, the question that comes to mind imme diately is: why legislation just for people under the age of 18?

Is it not true that a person over the age of 18, someone who's 18 and three days old, has a life as valuable as a person 17 years old? Are not seat belts that are good for people under that age, good for people over that age? Of course the answer to those questions is inevitably yes. There's no doubt that the life of a person 18 years old is just as valuable as that of one 17 years old. Indeed it is true that seat belts have proven to be benefi cial for all age groups. The reason for the age limit in this particular piece of legislation lies with my personal belief in the role of government.

I'd like no one to make a mistake about that belief. I firmly believe that government does not have the right — and I emphasize the term "right" — to determine how a person in our community will act if his actions do not infringe on the rights of others. If we judge that that person is capable of making up his own mind, he should be allowed to do that, whether or not that particular action might inevitably be harmful to him as an individu al. It's a right that I believe we as government do not have.

In the same vein, however, it's equally true that we as a government in this province, and governments in most places, have taken as a primary responsibility — again, I emphasize "primary responsibility" — the obligation of protecting individuals we judge incapable of making deci sions for themselves. There is no doubt that 18 is not a magic age. No one automatically becomes mature enough and has accumulated enough wisdom to make decisions. Every person differs in the age they reach maturity.

However, that is the age we as a society have chosen in terms of alcohol legislation, which in my opinion is a perfect parallel to this legislation. We have chosen to protect people to that age from a commodity we know to be harmful, and after that point in time have left the decision as to whether or not people will use alcohol to their own choice. Of course there are many parallels, including those of enforceability. But that is perhaps the best example of where we've drawn that line.

We've also determined, rightly or wrongly, that at 18 a person accumulates the knowledge and ability to vote in our society, to help operate and run it. I suggest that this piece of legislation is totally consistent with those other forms of legislation. Mr. Speaker, I have outlined for hon. members the three reasons I think this piece of legislation should be enacted. Of course, the first deals with children suffering — thousands of injuries and hundreds of deaths — as a result of not having such protection. The second is the educational initiative this Bill can provide.

The third, again by implication, is clearly that individuals over the age of 18 should have the right to make up their own

May 15, 1980 ALBERTA HANSARD 1001 minds, to make their own choice, with respect to this legislation, in particular with respect to the use of seat belts. I respectfully submit those points to hon. members here today, and ask for support on second reading of this particular piece of legislation. MR. ZAOZ1RNY: Mr. Speaker, it would be almost trite to say that the hon. Member for Calgary Currie has placed before this Assembly an important question for debate.

For considerable time now, the question of mandatory seat-belt legislation has been a matter of keen and sometimes heated discussion among all members of the public and, I might add, members of this Legislature, although not in this Chamber until this date. The hon. Member for Calgary Currie has certainly added a new dimension to this debate, with his advocacy of mandatory seat-belt legislation for those under 18 but not those 18 or over. Mr.

Speaker, I think it's fair to say that virtually every Albertan, and certainly all members of this Assembly, are concerned about the number of people who die or are injured in motor vehicle mishaps across Alberta every year. As members of this Legislative Assembly, we have all received a wealth of statistics and data which suggest a significant reduction of deaths might occur if mandatory seat-belt legislation were enforced in this province. In the course of his argument for mandatory legislation, the hon. Member for Calgary Currie has recited some of those statistics.

While some subsequent speakers may choose to challenge the validity of the conclusions reach ed by that data or the statistics themselves, in the course of my remarks I do not intend to. For the purpose of debate, I will assume that on balance seat belts save lives. Mr. Speaker, that remark is subject to a small but very significant caveat: seat belts can take a life as well as save one. That point must be on the table in the course of this debate. The sometimes heated debate about mandatory seat- belt legislation takes on an even stronger emotional tenor when we start talking about our children.

To make my own viewpoint very clear on the desirability of parents voluntarily installing quality child restraint devices in cars for their children, I would simply say that our own family station wagon is equipped with a child restraint device for our 18-month-old son, and we use it religiously. Mr. Speaker, it is against that backdrop that I, as the Member for Calgary Forest Lawn, wish to put forward my views on the question of mandatory seat-belt legisla tion. I'd like to deal first with the proposal of the hon.

Member for Calgary Currie that we enact mandatory seat-belt legislation but limit it to persons under 18 years of age; secondly, with the broader question, that I feel we must face squarely, of mandatory seat-belt legislation regardless of age. While I commend the hon.

Member for Calgary Currie for a sincere attempt to find some sort of half-way house in this debate, and thereby resolve this debate about mandatory legislation, I must confess that I have some real difficulty with his position, in my mind being an argument that requires one to be both in favor of and opposed to mandatory seat-belt legislation at the same time. I believe the difficulties that legislators normally en counter when they apply in legislation an arbitrary age such as 18, would be compounded many times over if one attempted to apply such a concept to the question of seat-belt legislation. Mr.

Speaker, we would be saying in fact that one is old enough at age 16 to be charged with and granted the responsibility of handling what is essen tially a lethal weapon, which a car is, but not responsible enough to decide for oneself whether to wear a seat belt while driving that very car. We would be condoning as good, a law which would give rise to situations such as three young persons travelling in a car where the driver and one passenger are 18 and not required by law to wear a seat belt, but one passenger is 17 and required by such a law to do so. The hon.

Member for Calgary Currie might suggest that this requirement would encourage all to buckle up. With respect, I suggest it would encourage the 17-year-old to break the law. What we would be doing, Mr. Speaker, is asking our over-taxed police forces to enforce this law. The Member for Calgary Currie addressed this question of law en forcement. The problem of enforcement has often been cited as a reason against mandatory seat-belt legislation. A law limited to persons under 18 would surely com pound the enforcement problem many times over.

One can visualize the kinds of incredible situations we'd put our police officers in, trying to peek into vehicles through periscopes to determine if people are wearing seat belts, and then make some guess as to their age. We'd also be saying that any young person breaking such a law would, if apprehended, be sent to court and fined, not for an action but for an omission which would be perfectly legal for his mother or father, or any person 18 or over. What would we be saying about the concept of the family and of parental responsibility?

I believe that members of this Assembly have rather strong feelings about the importance of the family. I would say to all hon. members that if we really believe in that concept of the family, let us respect it, let us nurture it and not say to every mother and father in Alberta, we don't trust you to make a proper decision about the safety of your children. Mr; Speaker, there's also a rather practical problem with respect to child restraint devices.

We must be aware of this; it is authoritatively put forward in the recent Weeks and Innes study, prepared on behalf of the Cal gary hospital administrators, regarding motor vehicle ac cident injuries. This is a very current study, completed in March 1979. In it, the authors make clear that "seat belt legislation for the adult [should] include the mandatory use of child restraints of an acceptable standard". But they go on to say, "In order to achieve optimum use, parent education, together with considerable improve ment in design by the manufacturer, is necessary".

This excerpt makes clear that if the proposed legisla tion were adopted, we would be legislating in the one area where even the most fervent proponents of mandatory legislation realize they are on somewhat shaky ground. Even the Calgary Safety Council has recently been warn ing parents about the use of various types of child re straint devices, because clearly there are many on the market which are viewed as being more a hazard than a safety factor. Mr.

Speaker, suffice to say that none of the four provinces that have enacted mandatory legislation applies it to children under the age of 5, because there has been a recognition of the technical problems that do exist. While it may be fair to say that those technological problems can be overcome, I think it would be inappro priate for a Legislature to enact a law in advance of that technology being perfected and approved in the industry. Mr.

Speaker, for all these reasons I am led to the conclusion that this proposed resolution of the manda tory seat-belt issue, which appeared on the horizon at the behest of the hon. Member for Calgary Currie, really turns out to be nothing more than a mirage. We are

1002 ALBERTA HANSARD May 15, 1980 therefore forced again to look squarely at the issue of whether we as legislators are in favor of or opposed to a mandatory seat-belt use law regardless of age, a law which would effectively remove the individual choice of all Albertans from the decision about wearing seat belts. In addressing that question, Mr. Speaker, I reiterate that I am essentially persuaded that, on balance, the use of seat belts is desirable. I say "on balance" advisedly because, had we such a law in effect, this Legislature would be without the benefit of the participation of the hon.

Member for Edmonton Norwood. Had she been wearing a seat belt in a recent car accident, expert medical opinion indicates that the use of her belt might have led to her death. So I think we have to be well aware of the fact that while on balance seat belts are beneficial, there certainly are circumstances where such is just not the case. In that regard, I'd also mention that an Ontario coroner who investigated a multi-fatality mishap last May found that three persons killed near Woodstock, Ontario, died of massive abdominal injuries caused by their seat belts.

None the less, the conclusion that seat belts, on ba lance, save more lives than they take, means to some the end of the debate and causes them to say, what are you waiting for, legislators? Pass a law making it illegal not to wear one. I suggest this view is often held by people who, through their employment, have to deal with injuries resulting from motor vehicle accidents. In particular, I might mention people in the medical and law enforce ment fields.

They will dismiss rather quickly the individu al liberties argument advanced against mandatory legisla tion, on the basis that we have speed limits and other mandatory laws of the road, so why not mandatory seat-beat laws? They will also argue as a further justifica tion the cost to society of persons injured in auto acci dents who require extended, expensive medical care. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, it's understandable that persons who are exposed on a day to day basis to the results of accidents and the carnage on our streets, favor manda tory legislation.

I expect that some members of this Assembly with experience in these fields of endeavor may well take that position during this debate. But with greatest respect for that point of view, Mr. Speaker, this Assembly cannot simply pass laws for con venience's sake. As elected persons, I believe we have an obligation to direct our attention to all the major consid erations entailed by this issue. To those who would say, it's a simple matter, what's all the fuss about, I say, it's not that simple at all.

As legislators, we have the respon sibility to try to balance a very deep concern for public health and welfare with a recognition of individual rights and the inherent danger of passing laws that may not be obeyed, along with our assessment of the public will, what the people in this province want. Mr. Speaker, in that regard, I've made considerable effort to assess the public will and mood on this question in the constitutency of Calgary Forest Lawn, including a recent newspaper advertisement in our community week ly, inviting constitutents to call or write to me to express their point of view.

I would certainly not suggest that my modest efforts constitute a scientific survey, but I am satisfied from all of my efforts in this regard that a significant majority . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Hon. members are aware of the standing order with regard to passing between a speaking member and the Chair. MR. ZAOZIRNY: Mr. Speaker, from all my efforts I am satisfied that a significant majority of the constituents who elected me to represent them in this Assembly are in favor of seat-belt use, but are strongly opposed to manda tory seat-belt legislation.

I think it a basic tenet of our parliamentary system that, as an elected representative of that constituency, I advise this Assembly of what I believe is the prevailing view on this issue in my constituency. The majority of my constituents oppose mandatory legis lation, because they believe it infringes on their individual rights in circumstances where, in most cases, only the individual suffers as a result of the decision to wear or not wear a seat belt.

In my constituency, many profes sional truck drivers and others who are in and out of their vehicles in their work, oppose mandatory legislation because they know that the belts make it extremely diffi cult to carry out their work effectively. However, I must add that a minority favor mandatory legislation, because they believe lives will be saved as a result. Mr.

Speaker, the longer I have personally examined this very difficult question of mandatory legislation, the more I have become convinced that this focus on, should we or should we not pass a law to force everyone to wear a seat belt, has perhaps diverted our view from the real problem that gives rise to the injuries and deaths on our roads and highways. The problem is not the seat belts as much as it is the accidents. That might sound rather trite, but it is also very true.

Certainly, mandatory seat-belt legislation is nothing more than a band-aid approach to a very serious social problem on our streets and highways. They've become something like war zones, Mr. Speaker. At the root of that problem is driver attitude, which mandatory seat-belt legislation won't cure or correct, and yet is the primary factor in road accidents. In this member's opinion, what will start turning around driver attitude in this province, in addition to more and better driver education, is significantly stiffer penalties for driv ing offences. Mr. Speaker, I personally believe in the use of seat belts.

But I would have some real difficulty supporting mandatory legislation, because I believe such legislation would focus on the effect and not the cause of accidents, and could conceivably lead to even greater public apathy about safe driving. Mr. Speaker, I share the view that such legislation is an unjustified invasion of the ever-shrinking civil liberties of the individual; unjustified because it is clearly distin guishable from speed limit laws and other road laws where non-observance affects the safety of innocent third parties. That is not principally the case with seat-belt use. Mr.

Speaker, there is not unanimity of view about the value of seat belts in all cases. I find it unacceptable to pass a law which, under certain circumstances, might cause someone to lose their life, rather than save their life. I share the view that enforcement is virtually impossi ble, and suggest that the experience of the four Canadian provinces that have mandatory legislation confirms this. I believe very strongly that, as legislators, we should not pass laws that can't be enforced and may well be ignored by a majority of citizens.

If we do so, we breach a very solemn trust and duty to maintain integrity and respect for the laws of this province. I must disagree with my good friend and colleague the Member for Calgary Cur- rie, who suggests that it results in some increase in usage and that's sufficient. I view the passage of a law that is virtually unenforceable and will largely be disobeyed as a very serious and wrong move on the part of any government.

May 15, 1980 ALBERTA HANSARD 1003 Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the view that the societal cost of accidents entitles us to pass such laws. If this argument is accepted, it is a carte blanche for government to pass whatever laws it wishes about what we as private citizens can eat, drink, or otherwise consume, all on the basis of the social cost of our deemed bad habits. I believe that the way to really reduce the carnage on our streets is through tougher law enforcement, as well as more and better driver education. Mr.

Speaker, one need not pass mandatory legislation to achieve educational aims and have effective educational programs. It is true that tough law enforcement and increased education is the hard way. But, in the long run, it is the only way we're going to deal with this problem on our highways today. I believe the question of mandatory seat-bel

Document details

Collection	Alberta — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	19800515
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	L19 S2 19800515 1430 01 han.pdf
Language	en
Format	json
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	5cd9caa3c0887461f15044ac2b9dd0d9a5c06979

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