Alberta Hansard — 9 May 1978, Afternoon sitting (14:30) (Legislature 18, Session 4)

19780509

Alberta — Debates (Hansard)

May 9, 1978 ALBERTA HANSARD 1115 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA Title: Tuesday, May 9, 1978 2:30 p.m. [The House met at 2:30 p.m.] PRAYERS [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] head: INTRODUCTION OF BILLS Bill 254 The Plant Protection Act MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce Bill No. 254, The Plant Protection Act.

The purpose of the act is to set out preventive measures to control plant disease, including the regular inspection and annual licensing of nurseries and other premises regularly selling nursing stock in the province of Alberta. [Leave granted; Bill 254 read a first time] Bill 39 The Mines and Minerals Amendment Act, 1978 MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce Bill No. 39, The Mines and Minerals Amendment Act, 1978. In 1976, Mr.

Speaker, the Legislature passed amendments to The Mines and Minerals Act that put into place an overhaul of our petroleum and natural gas leases and introduced a new lease tenure system intended to accelerate the evaluation of Crown petro leum and natural gas leases. It also allowed for split ting of leases by zones, as well as providing legisla tive authority for changes to coal leases. The bill I'm introducing today is a result of two years' experience with the new system and has changes that should make it more efficient. This bill also completes the overhaul of The Mines and Minerals Act.

It amends our oil sands and bitu minous sands legislation to make that legislation similar to normal petroleum and natural gas leases, in that leases can be issued by separate zone and have no royalty ceiling. The bill also provides for changes to allow better co-ordination with other leg islation of exploration activity on petroleum and natural gas leases. [Leave granted; Bill 39 read a first time] head: TABLING RETURNS AND REPORTS MR. DOWLING: Mr. Speaker, I would like to file with the Legislature Library two copies of the survey Chemical Consumption in Alberta, completed recently by our department.

The purpose of this survey is to make available statistical data for potential entrepre neurs who want to establish chemical plants in Alberta. head: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS MR. SCHMIDT: Mr. Speaker, it's my privilege this afternoon to introduce to you, and through you to the members of the Legislature, 17 students from the Leduc senior high. They are accompanied by their teacher Mr. Head. They're seated in the members gallery, and I would ask them to rise at this time and receive the welcome of this Assembly. MR. PLANCHE: Mr.

Speaker, it is my privilege today to introduce to you, and through you to members of the Legislature, some 40 young ladies and gentlemen from Henry Wise Wood in Calgary Glenmore. They are seated in the members gallery. Some are from Mr. Pat O'Brien's Social Studies 10 class, and the remainder are with their teacher Mr. Tim Buehner and their counsellor Mr. Ron Flaterud. I would ask them, please, to stand and receive the welcome of the House. MR. PURDY: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to introduce to you and to members of the Assembly 31 grade 5 students from the Queen Street school in Spruce Grove.

They are accompanied by their teach er Mr. Ibsen and parents Mrs. Ibsen and Mrs. Sharpe. They are in the public gallery, and I would ask them to rise and receive the welcome of the House. head: MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Department of Education MR. KOZIAK: Mr. Speaker, the Commonwealth Games are providing a significant focus for study in Alberta schools this year. Student interest in Com monwealth countries has been high. A number of excellent essays on the Games were among the high lights of Education Week, which was observed during the first week of March this year.

The special curricu lum publication, Physical Education, A Sports Festival Curriculum Guide, has added to this interest and promises to maintain it between the completion of the Games this summer and the next Games in 1982. It is my pleasure, Mr. Speaker, in co-operation with The XI Commonwealth Games Foundation, to an nounce a program to assist junior high school classes from all parts of Alberta to attend four of the events: competitions in athletics, boxing, badminton, and the demonstration competitions in lacrosse. Mr.

Speaker, the government of Alberta is purchas ing approximately 105,000 tickets at a reduced cost of $317,000 for these events, for distribution, through the Department of Education, to Alberta schools. These tickets will be made available first to all junior high school classes in the province. For classes having to travel more than 200 miles to Edmonton, temporary overnight accommodation will be arranged in school gymnasia through the co operation of the Edmonton public and separate school boards. Custodial and other necessary extra costs for making gymnasia available will be borne by the gov ernment.

Transportation and supervision of classes

1116 ALBERTA HANSARD May 9, 1978 will remain the responsibility of participating schools and systems. Details and application forms are being sent imme diately to school boards, superintendents, and princi pals. The cut-off date for system applications will be June 9. After June 9 any remaining tickets will be available to students over 12 years of age on a first- come, first-served basis. Mr. Speaker, we will be distributing 63,000 tickets for athletics — that is, track and field — to be held in the Commonwealth Stadium on Sunday, August 6 and Tuesday, August 8.

We will also have between 4,000 and 5,000 tickets for the boxing events at the Edmonton Gardens on Friday, August 4 to Tuesday, August 8, inclusive, for a total of 21,000 tickets. There will be up to 2,000 tickets for badminton at the University of Alberta arena on each of August 4, 5, 8, and 9, for a total of 6,800 tickets. There will be 7,000 tickets for demonstration competitions of lacrosse in the Edmonton Coliseum on each of Thursday, August 10, and Friday, August 11.

All students attending events will have the oppor tunity to tour the Commonwealth Stadium and to join other visitors at the many cultural events that will be taking place in various centres in Edmonton. Mr. Speaker, I wish to extend publicly to The XI Com monwealth Games Foundation our appreciation for their support in this joint project by making tickets available at a reduced price. Mr. Speaker, through this program we expect to increase substantially the opportunity for Alberta stu dents from all parts of the province to attend the Commonwealth Games and share the experience and Commonwealth fellowship.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. head: ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Japanese Tourists MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct the first question to the Minister of Business Development and Tourism. It flows from information that's now available with regard to the number of Japanese people who come to Canada as tourists. What effort is being made by the Alberta government to attract Japanese tourists to the province of Alberta? MR. DOWLING: Mr. Speaker, we do very little in the Japanese market. As the hon. Leader of the Opposi tion knows, we do have a government office there with minimal staff.

With his support people, this staff member undertakes primarily industry-related activi ties. Our position on the Japanese market is that they are coming without too much promotion, the private sector doing the bulk of the promotion. Our fear is that we could overpromote a very lucrative area into Alberta at a time when we haven't the facili ties to accommodate them. So we maintain a watch ing brief on the Japanese market, and we maintain a presence there, although minimal. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister.

In light of the change that's going on in the Japanese life style today, and having regard for the fact that British Columbia attracts some 45,000 tourists from Japan, Ontario some 41,000, and we less than 5,000, has the government seriously con sidered the idea of stepping up its promotional work in Japan for the areas outside the national parks in Alberta? MR. DOWLING: Most assuredly, Mr. Speaker, we have considered that at length. You should know too that the bulk of our promotional activities take place in areas outside the national parks.

We believe the 255,000 square miles of Alberta should participate as equally as possible. With the British Columbia gov ernment, the Yukon, and the Northwest Territories, we do undertake a number of Canada West promo tions, the Japan market being one of those. But as I say, we do this on a minimal basis, because our major market areas are of course our own country first of all; secondly, the United States; and thirdly, the United Kingdom and central Europe. Those are the easiest to promote. By that I mean there are people who are already interested in com ing.

They have reasons to come other than just visit ing the province. From the United Kingdom, in par ticular, they come for VFR reasons — that's "visit friends and relations". So we feel that we have taken the right approach with regard to promotional activi ties outside our own country. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, to the minister. Is the minister's department aware of the most recent pro jections from Japan that the number of tourists com ing to Canada from Japan in all likelihood will more than double within the next five years?

Has the government taken that into consideration in really opting out of this Japanese market and leaving it to British Columbia and Ontario? MR. DOWLING: Mr. Speaker, most assuredly not. We are not opting out of any market that has potential. But what we do not want is for the visitor to Alberta to be disappointed because he cannot be accommo dated properly. Our view is that our first priority should be to develop new destination areas through out the province of Alberta. That is being undertaken. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, to the minister.

What steps does the minister plan to take, in co-operation with the tourist association of the province, so that in fact Alberta doesn't lose out on this very lucrative market? In light of the projected increases and the fact that some 45,000 go to British Columbia and some 41,000 to Ontario, which is much farther from Japan than we are, what action does the minister plan to take? MR. DOWLING: Mr. Speaker, what the hon. Leader of the Opposition does not understand is the tourist business. A great deal of it is business that is brought here because of industrial relations with a country as well.

A great number of people come to our country because they have reasons other than just to visit. [interjections] They come to invest and a number of things of this kind. We still believe, and it's factually documented, that our major market and the easiest, least expensive market area to promote is the United States; second ly, the United Kingdom; thirdly, central Europe; and fourthly, of course, Japan, which we have not neg lected in any way. But if we're going to promote in

May 9, 1978 ALBERTA HANSARD 1117 any market, we have to be very sure that when people come to visit us we can accommodate them properly, and that they will enjoy their experience here. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I'll go on to my second question, after the minister has just opted out as far as letting the tourists go to Ontario. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Consultants' Contracts MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct the second question to the Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care.

My question centres on the services of Jackson Willis, in light of the fact that, according to page 3 of the agreement signed between the government and Rune Associates for Mr. Willis' services, it's indicated that Mr. Willis would serve in an advisory capacity or work with the financial policy adviser to the minister. My concern deals with that area of financial policy adviser to the minister, in light of the fact that more than 36 hospitals have now appealed their . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR. CLARK: Has the minister terminated the agree ment with Mr. Willis? MR. MINIELY: No, Mr. Speaker.

Motion for a Return No. 169 clearly illustrated the projects on which Mr. Willis has been used as special adviser under the contract. I think the hon. leader is confusing the function with that of the special financial policy adviser, Mr. Maruca, whose contract was terminated. Mr. Willis will continue to advise and work with the new Deputy Minister Mr. Chatfield and me in the areas delineated in Motion for a Return No. 169. The contract is due to expire on October 31, 1978. MR. CLARK: Mr.

Speaker, a supplementary question, having regard to the government's financial restraints and the increases that hospital boards get. When you look at Mr. Willis' contract, it's over $6,000 a month, when you consider overhead and clerical . . . MR. SPEAKER: Is the hon. leader going to be asking a question? MR. CLARK: Is it the minister's intention to extend this idiotic contract? MR. MINIELY: Mr. Speaker, the hon. leader chose a word.

In my seven years in government, I would say I have found instances where money has been wasted, by former governments or this government, far more than the quality of services and the hours that have been put in under the contract, as indicated in Motion for a Return No. 169. The hon. Leader of the Opposi tion is perfectly free to make his own judgments on that. But as far as I'm concerned, I am perfectly satisfied with both the quantity and quality of services as indicated in Motion for a Return 169.

I might say that the new deputy minister has assessed that as well and agrees that the services have been more than worth the amount that's been paid under the contract. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, let me reput the question to the minister. In light of the fact that the contract runs from November 1, 1976, to October 31, 1978, and having regard for the fact that we're paying this individual over $6,000 a month when you consider the clerical overhead, does the minister have, in the budget he's presented to the House, money to extend this contract past the end of October 1978? MR. MINIELY: Mr.

Speaker, I answered that question earlier. There is money in the budget to pay out the contract to its expiration on October 31. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, to the minister. Does the minister have any intention to extend this contract or to enter into another contract with Rune Associates, or by any other mechanism to rehire Jackson Willis? MR. MINIELY: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that that question is hypothetical. The contract as it sits now is due to expire on October 31, 1978. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, it may be hypothetical, but I can put the question to the minister this way then.

In light of the fact that the minister has entered into this agreement with Mr. Willis, paying him from the first of the month rather than the end of the month after those services have been provided at some $6,000 a month, does the minister plan to enter into any more contracts where he pays to Mr. Willis or anyone else $6,000 a month prior to getting the services? MR. MINIELY: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care Mr. Chatfield is assessing all consulting contracts, not just Mr. Willis'. Mr.

Wil lis' continues until October 31 as a special adviser on contract to the minister, as I indicated in Motion for a Return 169. There are other consulting contracts which were directly with the minister by members of the medical profession, some of them international experts in the area of heart disease. Mr. Chatfield is assessing all those contracts and will either be assigning them to the department, concurrent with the organization of the department, or terminating them, depending on whether or not he feels they're worth while to continue beyond their contract period. Flour Mill MR. HYLAND: Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Agriculture. Mr. Minister, are you aware that in southern Alberta Robin Hood mills has almost totally cut off the contracting of soft white wheat? I know for sure that at one elevator they've totally cut out their contracting. MR. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, no, I was not aware of that. MR. HYLAND: Has the minister any information or could he supply to the House any information on where the wheat might be coming from that would make up that portion of the contract?

This is one of the crops in the irrigated area of southern Alberta that has a pretty fair cash turnover, and one is able to make a few bucks on it.

1118 ALBERTA HANSARD May 9, 1978 MR. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, after having heard the representations of the hon. member, I will check into the matter to see if I can understand the problem and how it might be resolved. Rural Power Lines MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Agriculture. In an earlier session the minister indicated that there would be support for moving power lines off irrigated lands, and that there was a possibility of this money coming from the heritage fund. Could the minister indicate whether that policy is presently in effect or still under consideration? MR. MOORE: Mr.

Speaker, during the last couple of years the matter has been discussed a number of times with Calgary Power, which of course is the major utility power company involved in the irrigated areas. Insofar as my office is concerned, we were not able to come to an agreement with Calgary Power and with the individual REAs with respect to the movement of existing power lines from irrigated land. I do know, however, that since that time the Minis ter of Utilities and Telephones has had considerable discussions with Calgary Power and the REAs, and he may want to comment further. DR. WARRACK: I would, Mr.

Speaker, not in relation to the heritage fund, because there has been no contemplation as of the present time with respect to that as a source of financial capacity and assistance. However, we have established a committee that is now involved in work between the Department of Util ities and Telephones, the departments of the Envi ronment and of Agriculture, and the Energy Resources Conservation Board to look at what ration alization might make sense as the irrigation expan sion and rehabilitation take place. I think its status, Mr.

Speaker, would be that work has to go on for some time to conclude whether a major restructuring is in order. If so, we would then come to the question of how it might best be financed. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, supplementary to the Minister of Utilities and Telephones. Would the min ister foresee a possible announcement with regard to a program in 1978 or early 1979? And is the minister looking at some type of financial arrangement, a program of low-interest loans or longer term loans made available to the farmer, similar to loans that were made to established power lines? DR.

WARRACK: I think it would be premature, Mr. Speaker, to speculate on the outcome in terms of the result of the analysis I described, which includes the question of how financial arrangements might be struck. Basically the situation is this: we have a number of overhead lines that traverse irrigation areas. In the expansion and rehabilitation that will be undertaken in the irrigation system areas, there is the choice of moving some of these facilities to go corner ing around land areas or, alternatively, continuing to traverse the fields, but in an underground fashion.

The comparisons involved there are pretty detailed and complex, and require considerable assessment and review. I might say that there is some experience in the United States with underground rural electric sys tems. These are experiences we'd like to share. Moreover, in recent years a pilot project was estab lished near Olds by Calgary Power, and more recently a pilot underground project by Alberta Power, although for the moment I've forgotten the exact loca tion. We're at a preliminary stage in that kind of assessment, but I think it's important work. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr.

Speaker, a final supplementary to the Minister of Utilities and Telephones. I've advised some of the farmers to hold position at the present time. Would the minister advise at this time that no type of program will be made available during 1978, and that I should accordingly advise the farm ers not to expect any type of announcement? DR. WARRACK: I think it would be too early to lead them to expect a program in this area by the end of 1978. It's not impossible, depending on how the analysis presently under way proves out. But I do stress that it's at an early stage.

If someone had urgent work that needed to be done, I would think they would need to proceed with it, as I'm not able to give assurance that it would be concluded by the end of this calendar year. Housing Prices MR. NOTLEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to ask a question of the hon. Minister of Housing and Public Works. It flows from the rather astonish ing news this morning that the average price of houses sold last month in the city of Calgary was slightly in excess of $80,000; albeit that included a number of more expensive homes.

Is the minister in a position to outline to the Assembly what system the department is presently using to monitor house prices in the province? MR. CHAMBERS: Frankly, Mr. Speaker, no. I'm sure we have one, but I'm not aware of the details. Like the Member for Spirit River-Fairview, I read the arti cle in the paper before I came in here. The comment there was that that average or number may not have been really representative, in that one $250,000 house purchase, as I recall, was included in the total. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. minister.

As a result of information gathered by the department, is the minister in a posi tion to advise the Assembly whether or not the infor mation contained by the MLS listings, Royal Trust, and last weekend's Canadian Homes magazine that Edmonton and Calgary house prices are the highest in the country — has the minister been able . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The hon. member well knows that it's not within the official duties of the minister to monitor all and sundry publications and then to provide during the question period easy comments on whatever they might say. MR. NOTLEY: Mr.

Speaker, then a supplementary question to the hon. minister. In view of the very

May 9, 1978 ALBERTA HANSARD 1119 substantial increase in home prices, and at least the considerable evidence to indicate . . . MR. SPEAKER: Would the hon. member please come directly to the question. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, in light of the increased prices for homes in the province, the question is: what specific steps does the government consider appropriate at this stage to bring down the price of lots in the province of Alberta? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member, repeating his representation for the third time, is now outright asking the hon. minister for an expression of opinion.

He well knows this is not the place for that. The parliamentary practice simply doesn't allow for it in the question period, even though it quite often gets past the Speaker. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary ques tion. Is the government of Alberta considering any specific measures at this point in time which will deal with the very high-cost lots in the province of Alberta as outlined in the . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR. NOTLEY: . . . Alberta/Montana study? MR. CHAMBERS: Mr. Speaker, at some future period of time, perhaps in estimates, I'd be happy to review all the programs we have.

I've had great pleasure in reviewing them myself in the last couple of weeks. One of the outstanding programs we have, for example, is in Mill Woods. Many people, generally young people, are involved in building co-ops, making use of our starter home ownership program, our direct lending program, and putting in sweat equity. They're able to obtain very affordable housing. I think that's an excellent program. It's making affordable housing available to those young people who are will ing to make that extra effort. Frankly, I'm very pleased and proud of that program.

I'd be happy to provide the booklet we have on the starter home ownership program — this isn't it; I think it has a green cover — the direct lending program, and so forth. But we have many programs to assist home ownership in Alberta. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. minister. During the course of the minis ter's assessment of his department, is he giving any consideration at this time to the recommendation of the Land Use Forum that some form of speculation tax be imposed by the government of Alberta? MR. CHAMBERS: I'm considering many things at this time, Mr. Speaker.

I would be happy to accept that as a suggestion from the hon. member. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, bearing in mind that the announcement of Mill Woods was I believe in 1970, what measures does the Department of Housing and Public Works have at this stage to undertake future land banking in the province? MR. CHAMBERS: Mr. Speaker, I'm trying to go from memory here. I think we have some $23 million in our budget for this coming fiscal year for land banking all over the province. I've got the right booklet in hand, coincidentally. Priorities are enumerated, but there is a substantial program of land banking.

In terms of Mill Woods, as I'm sure the hon. member knows, 50 per cent of the lots are allowed to be sold as in any land-banking program. We have some 43 of these presently in operation across the province. Fifty per cent of the lots are allowed to be sold at a reasonable price — market value, if you like, that the municipality decides is a reasonable price.

The municipality — Edmonton, of course, in the case of Mill Woods — can realize a substantial profit there from, which I would like to see them plough back into future city land banking and continue to provide the affordable housing that we have initiated through Alberta Housing in the Mill Woods program. MR. GHITTER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the hon. minister. I wonder if the minister could advise the House whether any other province in Canada had anywhere near 36,000 housing starts, either last year or anticipated this year, without the necessity . . . MR.

SPEAKER: Order please. [interjections] The hon. member is going to make it necessary for us to have a Guinness Book of Records in the question period. MR. GHITTER: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. MR. GOGO: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs. MR. SPEAKER: Would the hon. Member for Leth- bridge West please allow the hon. Member for Cal gary Buffalo to state his point of order. MR. GHITTER: Mr.

Speaker, on the point you just raised with respect to the Guinness Book of Records, I'm pleased the Speaker has taken judicial notice, then, of the fact that we've had so many housing starts in the province of Alberta. MR. GOGO: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Could the minister in dicate to the Assembly the approximate number of people arriving in Alberta from the other jurisdictions in Canada, which may indicate the reason for the high price of housing? [interjections] MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I could merely add to the comment of the hon.

Minister of Housing and Public Works that in fact the population of Alberta is growing very rapidly. Of course, with that goes a very substantial demand. DR. BUCK: Tell us about the prime rates while you're at it. MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, while I'm on my feet I might just supplement the answer to indicate that municipalities also have the right to borrow money from the Alberta Municipal Financing Corporation for land banking. Of course those loans are subsidized at 8 per cent interest.

1120 ALBERTA HANSARD May 9, 1978 MR. SPEAKER: I believe the hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview was trying to raise a point of order with regard to the minister's giving a statement of opinion. But my understanding of the question was that he was asking the minister whether he had information concerning the number of people coming into the province. Land Assembly Agreements MR. MANDEVILLE: Mr. Speaker, my question is also to the hon. Minister of Housing and Public Works. It pertains to the land assembly agreement between Alberta Housing Corporation and participating munic ipalities.

The minister partly answered the question, but does the agreement between AHC and municipal ities specify that 50 per cent of the houses built on land assembled must be for low-income applicants? MR. CHAMBERS: Yes, it does, Mr. Speaker. In the 43 agreements I've mentioned, there is a requirement that 50 per cent of the lots marketed are to be sold within the guidelines of the lending programs of the Alberta Home Mortgage Corporation. The other 50 per cent can be sold at market value or at values that are considered reasonable. MR. MANDEVILLE: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.

Did the land assembly program, as original ly designed, have this 50 per cent low-income hous ing requirement? MR. CHAMBERS: No, Mr. Speaker. And I would like to take this opportunity to thank the hon. Member for Bow Valley for giving me quick notice of this ques tion. I was able to scan the file on the particular item before I came here. Therefore, hopefully I can give him an answer. The original agreements had no such provision in them. MR. MANDEVILLE: Could the minister indicate when the 50 per cent requirement became a condition of the land assembly agreement? MR. CHAMBERS: Mr.

Speaker, I wasn't able to put my finger on a specific day; however, it was in late 1975. At that time all the agreements were amended, with the exception of one. The municipali ties then signed, in effect, an amended or new agreement which provided for the 50 per cent rule. MR. MANDEVILLE: One final supplementary ques tion, Mr. Speaker. With specific reference to the town of Peace River, was the town council aware of this 50 per cent requirement prior to entering into the land assembly agreement with the Alberta Housing Corporation? MR. CHAMBERS: Peace River was the one town that . . .

Well, there was one other, but that's since been settled. Peace River, for a reason I wasn't able to ascertain, did not sign the amending agreement. As to awareness, there was a lot of discussion with the town of Peace River on the amending agreement, and a letter agreement was finally signed. There were two main provisions of that agreement. One was that the price of the purchase was to be in accordance with the original agreement signed in 1974.

The second key feature was that the town of Peace River would endeavor to ensure that the 50 per cent rule would pertain: 50 per cent of the lots would be sold to low- and middle-income applicants. Native Women's Programs DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the hon. Premier. It deals with the closing of the headquarters of the Voice of Alberta Native Women in Fort McMur- ray because of lack of funds.

Can the Premier indi cate if he or his office has received a representation or communication from the president of the Voice of Alberta Native Women with respect to the closing of the headquarters in Fort McMurray? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, I'm not able to confirm the nature of the various representations that flow through my office, so I would refer the question to the hon. minister responsible. MR. BOGLE: Mr.

Speaker, in the last several days correspondence has been submitted to a number of the members of the Assembly from officials of the Voice of Alberta Native Women — I believe from Calgary, not from the president, Bertha Clark. I will respond by indicating that I have written the presi dent of the Voice of Alberta Native Women; I believe the date was March 8.

At that time I indicated that consideration could be given to further funding — interim funding, I might add — to the Voice in lieu of the shortfall from the federal department of the Secretary of State, but that before any funding could be initiated from the province, an audit of the books would have to be done to determine past public funds granted to that organization. I'm currently awaiting a response from the presi dent of the Voice of Alberta Native Women.

Once that has been received, we are prepared to request a private auditing firm to move in and do the audit very quickly, and we'll respond to the request at that time. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the Minister Without Portfolio responsible for Native Affairs. Can the minister indicate if it is government policy to allow groups such as the Voice of Alberta Native Women and the isolated communities group to become inactive through the withdrawal of funds and putting them in through the Native Secretariat? MR. BOGLE: Mr.

Speaker, it is government policy that all public funds are accountable, and used by the various organizations, whether native or non-native, to the best of that organization's ability. DR. BUCK: A supplementary question to the Minister of Social Services and Community Health. In light of the fact that the Voice of Alberta Native Women lacks funding, can the minister indicate if the foster home program will be affected by the withdrawal of funds? MISS HUNLEY: I can't answer that specifically. I was under the impression that that was nearly complete, Mr. Speaker.

I would have to check and find out its status at the present time. I know that one initial report was received. Some additional moneys were left unexpended in the contract, so we entered into

May 9, 1978 ALBERTA HANSARD 1121 an extension, as I recall the details. But I'd have to look into the present status. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, can the hon. minister indi cate if the information will be made available to us in the Assembly? MISS HUNLEY: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Correctional Institutions MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question to the hon. Solicitor General is in connection with the return he provided so promptly in connection with correctional institutions.

Averaging the numbers of prisoners and guards, I find that Peace River has three prisoners to one guard, Calgary Correctional has 20 to one guard, and Lethbridge and Fort Sas katchewan have 10 to one guard. Realizing that averaging may give a very false picture, I wonder what the criteria are in providing the number of prisoners to each guard in the correctional institu tions of Alberta. MR. FARRAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that's very easily answered. In Fort Saskatchewan, unfortunately, we have economies of scale, because it's overcrowded and a closed institution.

But basically speaking, the more activity you have the more staff you need. If a prisoner is in a cell, you can get by with minimum staff. If he's in a work camp in the forest, you require more surveillance. Our highest teacher/pupil ratio, so to speak, is at Nordegg where we have small groups of young of fenders carrying out wilderness challenge exercises with adventure leaders. They go in groups of six and seven up and down the mountains, paddling canoes in white water, and so on. In Peace River our main effort is in teaching trades in conjunction with Grande Prairie college.

So there is more activity in the Peace River area than there would be directly in Fort Saskatchewan, which I re gret to say is, under present circumstances until the remand centre is opened in Edmonton, something of a holding unit, although we have Belmont as a sort of safety valve for training in prerelease and so on, and facilitating a smooth re-entry into society at the end of a sentence. MR. TAYLOR: A supplementary to the hon. minister. Is there a follow-up of the prisoners, say in Nordegg camp, to ascertain whether a greater percentage do not return because of that type of experience? MR. FARRAN: Mr.

Speaker, in our budget this year we have funds for a project called COMIS, which is to give us instant inmate profiles which will point out the number of recidivists, repeaters, and so on. I think it's too early to say whether or not Nordegg is a success in terms of rehabilitation. I just have to caution hon. members that there is no magic wand in this field. The so-called leading expert in the world, an American called Martinson, now has the nickname "Nothing Works Martinson" because he says that the repeater rate remains constant whether you take a hard or a soft line.

We don't take that as an excuse for not trying. If we could reduce the 60 per cent average recidivism rate across North America by only 5 per cent, the benefits to society would be enormous, because the same people com mit offences over and over again. DR. BUCK: A supplementary question to the minister.

Referring to the first question the hon. member put to the minister — that is, where the ratio is higher in some institutions than in others — can the minister indicate the criteria for transferring people from one institution to the other, in light of the representation I made to the minister where a boy was taken out of Fort Saskatchewan, where his family was supporting him, and transferred to another institution? Can the minister indicate the criteria for transfer from one area and one institution to another? MR. FARRAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The hon.

Member for Clover Bar drew this particular case to my atten tion. The criteria are twofold. Fort Saskatchewan is terribly overcrowded. As everybody knows, earlier in the century it was built basically as an institution to hold 200 inmates. It has had as many as 800 in recent times. Despite all our remodelling, the kitchen itself is basically designed for only 200. So we have a constant stream of people going to or from meals. Therefore if there are vacancies in Peace River, with the particular case the hon. Member for Clover Bar drew to my attention, naturally we'll ship some of the inmates to Peace River.

We do this not on the basis of where they come from but on the length of sentence and the availability of facilities. I'm afraid these institutions are not built for the convenience of the inmates, who may well want to be where they can have family visits. I have to deploy the inmates according to the space I have available in our facilities. MR. GOGO: Mr. Speaker, to the Solicitor General, on the same subject.

I wonder if the minister could indicate to the Assembly how the new principle in The Corrections Act introduced two years ago, the meaningful work program under the direction of the director of the institution, is working out. MR. FARRAN: Mr. Speaker, I hope and believe it's working out. In the budget we have a provision to increase the number of work camps from seven to 14. From the institutions themselves, a great deal of work is taking place. During the last year we did change the incentive pay from a maximum of $2 a day to a maximum of $5 a day for those who work a little harder at more meaningful jobs.

Firestone Plant Closure MR. KUSHNER: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Labour. Would the hon. minister inform this Assembly of the progress that has been made to date with the employees and management of the Firestone plant? Or was his department involved at all? MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, over the course of the difficulties involved in the closure of that plant, the Department of Labour officials have been primarily involved in making sure the standards are complied with in the sense of compensation for employees who will be leaving their employment. As to the balance

1122 ALBERTA HANSARD May 9, 1978 of the discussions that have been held, primarily in regard to what options, if any, the company might still have, I believe my colleague the hon. Minister of Business Development and Tourism has been much closer to those discussions. MR. KUSHNER: A supplementary question to either minister. At this point in time, is it at the stage that the plant may be back in operation or under other management or something? MR. DOWLING: Mr.

Speaker, our conclusion is that to operate the plant as a tire manufacturing concern is rather out of the question, bearing in mind the statis tics and information we have at hand. Energy Development MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources. It really flows from comments from the east this morn ing with regard to comments by the federal Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources on Alberta's slowing down — I think the terms were much-needed energy projects in Canada.

Is it the position of the Alberta government that that really is fodder for the next federal election? Or is the Alberta government in fact dragging its feet with regard to negotiations with the federal government, especially PetroCan? MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, I'm not familiar with the comments the hon. Leader of the Opposition is refer ring to. I don't know how the Alberta government can be holding up any plants when all the projects pres ently being discussed haven't proceeded through the Energy Resources Conservation Board application and approval process. Japanese Tourists (continued) MR. DOWLING: Mr.

Speaker, if I might supplement an answer I gave earlier to the Leader of the Opposi tion. In conjunction with the Canadian government office of tourism, from which we receive a great number of statistics, it is estimated that 100,000 Japanese visited Canada last year. Of that total, approximately 45,000 to 50,000 visited Alberta — assuming that a great number of them arrived at Vancouver by aircraft or whatever. The suggested increase for 1977 is between 15 and 20 per cent, which would make the total 55,000 to 60,000 Japanese visiting Alberta. Mobile Telephones DR. WARRACK: Mr.

Speaker, last Friday I was asked a question by the hon. Member for Drumheller relat ing to mobile telephone services available through AGT. I indicated that I would need to check what I said, and I have now had an opportunity to do so. AGT leases mobile radio equipment for use on general mobile radio networks. However, customers may also use their own equipment for connection to this network. There is an $8 per month charge for connection to the network, whether or not the radio unit is customer-owned or leased from AGT. Japanese Tourists (continued) MR. CLARK: Mr.

Speaker, in light of the answer of the Minister of Business Development and Tourism, I'd like to direct a further supplementary to the minis ter. Using the figures from the same federal agency, is the minister in a position to explain to the Assem bly why some 45,000 of the Japanese people who come to Canada select British Columbia as their prime area of touring, as opposed to some 3,000 for the province of Alberta and some 41,000 for the province of Ontario? MR. DOWLING: Mr. Speaker, the hon.

Leader of the Opposition does not know that Roypac Tours, which is a Japanese-operated firm, makes its home base in British Columbia and operates out of Alberta. We suspect that the statistics compiled by the Canadian government office of tourism take into account not only travel for sightseeing but business travel. I account for it simply that we receive the bulk of the Japanese travelling in western Canada, and in Alber ta particularly, because of the business interests involved between Japanese and Canadian entrepre neurs in partnership arrangements.

And of course the fact that Alberta is one of the best places in Canada to visit. ORDERS OF THE DAY head: MOTIONS FOR RETURNS MR. FOSTER: Mr. Speaker, I move that Motion for a Return 135 stand. [Motion carried] MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order and to provide some continuity for business this after noon, I would now ask for unanimous leave of the Assembly to continue with Government Bills and Orders following the designated hour until 5:30, not withstanding temporary order 8. MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Government House Leader have the requested unanimous consent? HON.

MEMBERS: Agreed. head: GOVERNMENT BILLS AND ORDERS (Second Reading) Bill 7 The Surface Rights Amendment Act, 1978 MR. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the hon. Member for Hanna-Oyen, I move second reading of Bill 7, The Surface Rights Amendment Act, 1978. Mr. Speaker, members should be aware of two important aspects of this bill. In the first instance, the bill will amend the

section of the act which presently provides that the Surface Rights Board shall consist of some seven members. The purpose in amending

May 9, 1978 ALBERTA HANSARD 1123 that

section is that the number of members compris ing the board, as determined by the Executive Coun cil, is to increase to nine. As members would probably be aware, the increased activity in the oil exploration business in Alberta in the course of the last three years has about doubled the workload of the Surface Rights Board in terms of ensuring that individuals who are owners of the surface are dealt with fairly, and adequately compensated with respect to surface leases obtained by those who are owners of minerals.

It would be my intention, shortly after proclamation of this act, to appoint two new members to the Surface Rights Board, bringing the total number to nine. I would hopefully anticipate that number will suffice for some years to come, and that the board will be able to catch up on some backlog which developed over the course of last fall. Mr. Speaker, a second important aspect of the leg islation has to do with the ability of an individual landowner to serve notice on a company, or vice versa, that they wish to have their surface lease upgraded after the expiry of a five-year term.

As hon. members know, we brought in legislation in 1972 to provide that after January 1, 1972, an individual would be able to seek an upgrading or renewal of his surface lease in five-year intervals. The legislation at that time indicated that the individual must make application in writing during the last three-month period before the end of the five-year lease. In other words, for a lease that was entered into on January 1, 1972, it was essential that the individual serve notice of his intention to seek renewal of that surface lease agreement during the last three months of [1976]. I have to precede, Mr.

Speaker, that many of those who are farming in the rural part of this country, including myself and some others in this Legislature, don't have a secretary with a follow-up file. It's four years and nine months since the lease was written, and we forget to bring it forward during that three- month period. According to the present legislation, you're then out of luck until another five years go by. The amendments basically provide a situation where an individual has one full year, 12 months, to apply for a renewal before the expiry of that five-year lease.

There may be cases, and undoubtedly there will be, where the individual doesn't make that specif ic written request during that 12-month period. So we further provided in the new legislation that any time after the fifth year an individual may make an application, may serve notice of intention to ask that the surface lease be upgraded.

However, if in fact the individual doesn't take that advantage during the last year of the five-year lease agreement and waits until after January 1 of the year in which the lease expires, then any new payments, any new agreement with respect to his surface lease, would not come into place until the following January 1. That is simply to avoid the situation where an individual may let his lease run for 10 or 15 years and then decide he wants it renewed and go back 10 years. We don't think it is proper to provide legislation where that may be allowed. So in short, Mr.

Speaker, I hope we've resolved the problem which was raised with me in the Legislature by the hon. Member for Drumheller some weeks ago, and raised privately by a good number of other members here with regard to this business of re questing a renewal on upgrading the surface lease. Mr. Speaker, with that I would like to suggest to all hon. members that that aspect of the bill, plus the increase I talked about in the number of board members, would receive the support of the Assembly. MR. MANDEVILLE: Mr. Speaker, a few comments on Bill 7.

I'm certainly going to lend my support to the bill, because I think it is good and has some good amendments. As the minister indicated, the one important portion of the bill is that they're extending time from 90 days to one year for application of notice on increasing leases. In the past I think the problem has been that too many of our surface leaseholders, or people who are renting out leases or leasing to oil companies, didn't appreciate that they could apply in the last 90 days. If we could get it out and get it advertised, I think it would [save] a lot of confusion.

I want to commend many of our oil companies which have increased their rates on leases, since it's only that they did it voluntarily. However, some oil companies — and I have one down in my constitu ency — are still causing problems; they haven't upgraded their leases. I appreciate that it is volun tary. I was just talking to some of my constituents, and North Canadian Oils Limited still has leases there and they pay $100 a year. I'd certainly like to see them bring their leases in line with what most of the oil companies have done throughout the province.

In this particular case a pipeline is going through at the present time, and I really can't understand why they're putting it through when they're not paying anything for the right of way on the Crown land. I can't see how they can be entitled to go onto land without paying anything as far as pipelines are concerned. But as I say, Mr. Speaker, I'm going to lend my support to this bill. It is a good bill. MR. McCRAE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to indicate my support for this bill. It's a very good and forward one.

I think the first amendment, increasing the number of members on the Surface Rights Board, is indicative of the tremendous activity taking place in the oil and gas sector in this province, which is so important to us all. Of course a large part of that dramatic increase in activity results from the planning we did a few years back, at the time of the differences of viewpoint between the provincial and federal governments, as to the right to manage the resources of the province when we had double taxation. Our response to that was the implementation of an incentive policy.

Because of that incentive policy the private sector has made several new discoveries in the province, which have seen a resulting increase in the need for surface rights. And it has increased the responsibilities of the membership of the Surface Rights Board to the extent that they apparently need increased membership. Mr. Speaker, while we're on the subject, I'd also like to comment on what I think is the very proper attitude of the oil exploration and development com panies in renegotiating their surface rights commit ments to landowners.

The member opposite com mented about a situation where there was a particu lar company with a very modest payment because of an old agreement. In my past experience with the oil

1124 ALBERTA HANSARD May 9, 1978 sector through the Canadian Petroleum Association, the landmen's association, and the individual compa nies, many of the companies were persuaded to review voluntarily, unilaterally, their commitments to the surface rights owners. I believe about 90 per cent of them have voluntarily agreed to upgrade their commitment, their annual payment to the surface rights owner. The other part of the bill I think is important is the flexibility aspect for the five-year review.

As the hon. sponsor said, all landowners don't keep their calen dars marked as to the five-year anniversary of the lease term, and would sometimes miss out on the opportunity of applying for a review. It is important that today we've introduced this measure which will give them the opportunity of applying for a review period, the new financial arrangement to have effect from the date of the application for review. Mr. Speaker, I think they are very important amendments. I'm happy to say I believe they have the full support of the oil industry, at least those I'm in contact with.

I urge all members to support the bill. MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words on the bill. First of all, I'd like to thank the hon. minister for looking at the

section I brought to his attention at the request of some of the farmers in my Standard area. The minister has gone far beyond what we asked. This will be appreciated by our farmers. As the hon. minister mentioned, in many cases farmers don't have secretaries, bring-forward files, and so on. They can very easily forget some thing that doesn't have to be renewed except once every five years. I think the amendment does the trick, and it will be appreciated by our farming popula tion generally.

We're still having some difficulties in this province with a few companies who are refusing or at least not putting a renewal clause in the new contracts. Again, it was my pleasure to bring one case to the attention of the hon. minister. I appreciate the type of letter he sent to that company. I hope the company will be sensible enough to realize the minister is going out of his way to try to co-operate and to persuade companies in a nice, decent way that they are expected to provide five-year renewal contracts. If they absolutely refuse, I suppose the only alterna tive is legislation.

But as the minister pointed out in his letter, it would be a shame to have to do that when so many companies have been so co-operative in this respect. I think the renewal clause in a five-year contract is absolutely essential. Conditions change tremendous ly in a five-year period. Taxes, costs, oil companies' revenues, and so on go up. Or costs and revenues go down, which might be the experience in the future. At the present time they're all up. The increases provided by some companies are away lower than the taxes alone on the said pieces of land.

The other point I would like to mention is a growing resentment in the province against some of the oil companies. Some are excellent, but some just don't seem to realize the farmer has rights. I say to the farmers I have the honor of representing that the farmer has rights; he owns the surface. The oil company has rights; they own the minerals under neath the surface. There has to be some type of legislation, some legal way of getting the minerals from under the ground that belong to the farmer. The farmers recognize this, but I think they have a pretty logical complaint.

The oil companies refuse to give anything in writing; they do everything by telephone. There are no records. This is becoming nauseating to some of the farm ers, certainly in my constituency. They tell the Sur face Rights Board and the Energy Resources Conser vation Board they have negotiated. In many cases it has all been done over the phone. The farmer wants to meet on the land. Many oil companies don't bother doing that, at least until they're forced to do it.

I would like to say that I personally, as a represent ative of the people, do not appreciate the arrogant attitude now displayed by some of the landmen of some of the oil companies. I emphasize "some". Many of them are excellent. They go out of their way to give everything; to talk to the farmer a second, third, and a fourth time if necessary; to give what they agree on in writing to the farmer so he has a record of it. They're businesslike. I know another company that just doesn't do that at all.

They seem to think the farmer is a nuisance and that they can get anything they want from the Surface Rights Board anyway. I don't appreciate that attitude. I think the oil companies and the heads of those companies should start making it very evident to their land buyers and landmen that the farmer has rights. He owns the surface and should be dealt with in a businesslike way, if possible resolving his difficulties. Certainly the farmer is entitled to have these things in writing, and should not be expected to do business over the telephone, of which there is no record.

I'm hoping the coming year will see a better feeling created by the few oil companies that today don't recognize the farmer's rights, that are trying to gyp the farmer out of what should properly come to him in light of today's costs. These companies are doing an injustice to the whole oil and gas industry. I think the industry itself should realize that. There might be the odd farmer who is unreasonable too. Mostly I find that if the companies will come and talk to the farmers in a businesslike way and not look down their noses at them as if they're inferior people, the farm ers will respond and co-operate.

I hope the new Surface Rights Board, with increased members, will make it a point to remember that it is the Surface Rights Board. I think they have a definite responsibility to be very fair to the people who want the minerals, but to be very fair also to the owners of the surface. MR. MILLER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words in support of Bill No. 7, and to reiterate what the Member for Drumheller has said. There are prob lems in the rural areas with some of the oil compa nies and the way they deal with farmers. Concerns have been expressed to me the same as they have to the hon. member opposite.

I would like to express two or three concerns at this time, Mr. Speaker. The first is the concern of those companies which have not seen fit to upgrade their leases on a volun tary basis. I would like the minister, if at all possible, to contact those companies and reiterate how impor tant it is that they give consideration to upgrading and making their surface lease awards more favorable.

May 9, 1978 ALBERTA HANSARD 1125 I also have a concern about the terms of reference of the Surface Rights Board. On occasion I have heard where they haven't, in my opinion, arrived at a true value of the land. With land prices escalating quite rapidly in the last few years, in many cases they possibly haven't been taking the true market value, particularly when you're dealing with a small portion. It would be different if they were leasing the whole quarter. But in effect they're just leasing a small portion thereof, possibly an acre or two or, at the most, four or five acres.

I also have a concern about the inflation factor. The farmer signs a lease for five years. During that five years we see his costs and the value of his land increase, yet no inflation factor is built into the initial award he signs. I also feel that in many cases, particularly with farmers who have gone to larger tractors, field implements, and sprayers, the increased costs of put ting on sprays and fertilizers and having to overlap because of the roadways that split the quarter should be given further consideration. I support the amendment, Mr.

Speaker, but I hope that some of these concerns would be brought to the attention of the Surface Rights Board. MR. HORSMAN: Mr. Speaker, I want to add a couple of words on this bill. I support the legislation. I want to ask the minister if either in closing remarks or in committee he could outline the current status of the leases and board orders which have not yet been renegotiated by those companies which constitute approximately 10 per cent.

I wonder if we could have a clarification whether or not the 10 per cent figure that has been mentioned relates to 10 per cent of the companies or 10 per cent of the outstanding leases and board orders. I think there could be a great deal of difference in the two items. I would like to add my concerns as well to those expressed by the hon. Member for Lloydminster, with regard to the terms of reference of the Surface Rights Board. While it is not part of the legislation now before us, I would ask that the minister take it under serious consideration in future consideration of this surface rights legislation.

I regret that the hon. Member for Spirit River- Fairview is not with us at the moment. I wanted to thank him for the efforts he made in making repre sentations to the government of Saskatchewan on the control exercised by that government through Sask. Power and through to Many Islands Pipe Lines. They have now renegotiated their long-outstanding leases, and of course it is not for any other reason than that I raised it in this Legislative Assembly while I was sitting, I think, where the hon. Member for Grande Prairie now sits.

I'm very grateful that the socialist government of Saskatchewan has finally seen fit to treat the landowners in Alberta in a fair and equitable manner. [Motion carried; Bill 7 read a second time] Bill 4 The Alberta Municipal Financing Corporation Amendment Act, 1978 MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill No. 4, The Alberta Municipal Financing Corpora tion Amendment Act, 1978. The purpose of this bill is to increase from $2.2 billion to $2.8 billion the sum a corporation may borrow.

The reason for the increase is to enable the corporation to meet the anticipated requests for loans that will be made of it during the coming fiscal period. [Motion carried; Bill 4 read a second time] Bill 35 The Pension Statutes Amendment Act, 1978 MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill No. 35, The Pension Statutes Amendment Act, 1978. This bill proposes to amend The Public Service Management Pension Act and The Public Service Pension Act in two ways. The first, Mr. Speaker, is to correct an error that occurred during the amendment recently passed and effective January 1, 1978.

In that amendment we provided that common-law spouses would be entitled to certain pension benefits. In an effort to be consist ent in the provincial legislation dealing with that subject, we endeavored to follow as closely as possi ble the wording in The Workers' Compensation Act. That wording is tied to the question of dependency. But in so doing, we inadvertently eliminated a legal spouse's right to a pension if she were not depend ent. The amendment is proposed to correct that, effective January 1, 1978. The other amendment, Mr.

Speaker, provides for payment of interest on contributions that have been made and withdrawn within a period of one year. This is one of those occasions where the computer has finally struck a blow for the little man. We had initially put in the provision in the expectation that it would be administratively simpler not to pay the inter est on those accounts. We've now found that it costs more to withhold the interest than to pay it. So we're now proposing that we pay the interest on those contributions when they're withdrawn. Those are the two matters dealt with in the bill, Mr.

Speaker. [Motion carried; Bill 35 read a second time] Bill 36 The Universities Academic Pension Act MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill No. 36, The Universities Academic Pension Act. This is an important bill. It provides for pensions for the academic staff of the universities in Alberta in very much the same way as we provide pensions under The Local Authorities Pension Act. Essentially the staff and boards of universities will contribute to the cost of the pensions by contributing 13 per cent of pay roll: 7 per cent by the employer and 6 per cent by the employee.

I'm advised by our actuaries that that would result in a positive cash flow for a period of 30 years into the future. The province will provide the administration of the plan and is bearing that cost. As part of the proposed plan, the province will take over pension funds that are now in academic pension plans and of course will assume the obligation to pay pensions as they're set

1126 ALBERTA HANSARD May 9, 1978 out in the legislation. Mr. Speaker, this is the fulfilment of discussions and negotiations that for a number of years have been going on between the academic staffs and boards at the universities and the provincial govern ment. I expect it will be welcomed not only by the staffs but the boards of the universities as well. [Motion carried; Bill 36 read a second time] MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, I move you do now leave the Chair and the Assembly resolve itself into Committee of the Whole to consider certain bills on the Order Paper. MR. SPEAKER: Having heard the motion by the hon.

Government House Leader, do you all agree? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. head: GOVERNMENT BILLS AND ORDERS (Committee of the Whole) [Dr. McCrimmon in the Chair] MR. CHAIRMAN: The Committee of the Whole As sembly will come to order. Bill 22 The Election Statutes Amendment Act, 1978 MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any comments, questions, or amendments to be offered with respect to any sections of this bill? [Title and

preamble agreed to] MR. McCRAE: Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill 22, The Election Statutes Amendment Act, 1978, be reported. [Motion carried] Bill 4 The Alberta Municipal Financing Corporation Amendment Act, 1978 MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any comments, questions, or amendments to be offered with respect to any sections of this bill? [Title and

preamble agreed to] MR. LEITCH: Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 4 be reported. [Motion carried] Bill 35 The Pension Statutes Amendment Act, 1978 MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any comments, questions, or amendments to be offered with respect to any sections of this bill? [Title and

preamble agreed to] MR. LEITCH: Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 35 be reported. [Motion carried] Bill 36 The Universities Academic Pension Act MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any comments, questions, or amendments to be offered with respect to any sections of this bill? There is one amendment to the bill. Are you all familiar with the amendment? [Title and

preamble agreed to] MR. LEITCH: Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill 36 be reported as amended. [Motion carried] Bill 26 The Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 1978 MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any comments, questions, or amendments to be offered with respect to any sections of this bill? [Title and

preamble agreed to] MR. FOSTER: Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill 26 be reported. [Motion carried] Bill 21 The Workers' Compensation Amendment Act, 1978 MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any comments, questions, or amendments to be offered with respect to any sections of this bill? There is an amendment to Bill 21. Are you all familiar with the amendment? I can read the amendment. The bill is amended as follows: A The following is added after

Section 10: 10.1

Section 39(1) is amended by adding "or" at the end of clause (b.1) and adding the following after clause (b.1): (b.2) $95 per month, where the death or remarriage occurs on or after July 1, 1978, B

Section 11(

a) is amended (

a) in the proposed

Section 40(1) by striking out "or any predecessor of this Act in respect of an accident that occurred" and substituting "in respect of an accident that occurred on or after January 1, 1974 but", and (

b) by adding the following after the proposed

Section 40(1):

May 9, 1978 ALBERTA HANSARD 1127

(2) A dependent widow or widower or a foster-parent receiving compensation under any predecessor of this Act in re spect of an accident that occurred prior to January 1, 1974 shall be granted an addi tional payment of compensation sufficient to increase the monthly payment to the dependent widow or widower or to the foster-parent, as the case may be, to $463 per month. C

Section 19 is amended in the proposed Sec tion 66(1) by striking out "to be in an indus try" and substituting "to be in the industry of the employer". Is there any further question with respect to the amendment? MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister would indicate the significance of the amendment, not on the remarrying but on widows' pensions. MR. CRAWFORD: If the hon. member is referring to

Section B of the amendment where

Section 40 has added to it a Subsection (2), that is the

section that actually brings in the minimum of $463 per month for those prior to January 1, 1974. That is the reason for that. MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Chairman, it doesn't affect the principle of creating parity among the widows at all? MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Chairman, the issue of parity ties to the minimums in each case being equated. Pre-1974 widows received dependants' allowances normally in the sum of $95 per month per child, if they have dependent children.

Post-1974 widows fell into the new classification of the payment going to the family as a whole; in other words, trying to replace the worker's income and directing it to what remained of his family unit with him gone. Therefore separate children's allowances, so long as they're in the home, weren't paid any more after January 1, 1974. The board would send a single larger cheque. The way this works is: the pre-1974 widow, tied to the $463 minimum as is the one after, is in the same position.

In fact, because the new policy of the single cheque was instituted, there would be cases where that amount was more or less than the one before, dependent only on the question of dependent chil dren. When this has been brought in this way, the only anomaly we've been able to discover in perhaps a few of these 1,000 cases is that because of an extraordinary number of dependants in a few cases prior to 1974, those widows with their additional $95 a month, times the number of children, could actually receive more than a post-1974 widow, but minimally. It's just a very slight possible variation.

But I say again, the important

part is that the minimum for each is now established as the same. [Title and

preamble agreed to] MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill 21 be reported as amended. [Motion carried] MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise, report progress, and beg leave to sit again. [Motion carried] [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] DR. McCRIMMON: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole has had under consideration the following bills and reports the same: bills 22, 4, 35, and 26. The Committee of the Whole has had under con sideration the following bills and reports the same with some amendments: bills 36 and 21. MR. SPEAKER: Having heard the report, do you all agree? HON.

MEMBERS: Agreed. head: GOVERNMENT BILLS AND ORDERS (Second Reading) (continued) Bill 13 The Collection Practices Act MR. TESOLIN: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 13, The Collection Practices Act. The proposed act will go a long way to providing the administrator with more clearly defined tools to ensure that the business of collecting debts is done in a proper manner, as well as providing the necessary guide lines to ensure that trust funds are handled correctly in a clearly defined manner.

It will assure those individuals collecting debts of a clearly defined set of standards by which they can operate without inter ference in their business. [Motion carried; Bill 13 read a second time] Bill 30 The Agricultural Chemicals Amendment Act, 1978 MR. MILLER: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill No. 30, being The Agricultural Chemicals Amendment Act, 1978. This bill will replace the orig inal bill that was introduced in 1970. Amendments were needed because of the increased use of chemi cals and pesticides in the agricultural industry.

It deals with not only the application but also the trans portation and sale of the chemicals. The Crown is also covered under this act. It prohibits the dumping of chemicals and allows for the protection of munici pal and domestic water supplies. This bill is extreme ly important because of the varied uses of chemicals in the agricultural industry. I would ask for the members' support. [Motion carried; Bill 30 read a second time] MR. HYNDMAN: Mr.

Speaker, the government is ready to proceed on second reading of Bill 38, but yesterday the Leader of the Opposition asked that we not proceed with second reading at this time. So we will not proceed with that today. Mr. Speaker, I move you do now leave the Chair

1128 ALBERTA HANSARD May 9, 1978 and the Assembly resolve itself into Committee of the Whole to study bills. MR. SPEAKER: Having heard the motion by the hon. Government House Leader, do you all agree? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. head: GOVERNMENT BILLS AND ORDERS (Committee of the Whole) (continued) [Dr. McCrimmon in the Chair] MR. CHAIRMAN: The Committee of the Whole As sembly will now come to order. Bill 13 The Collection Practices Act MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any comments, questions, or amendments to be offered with respect to any sections of this bill? There is an amendment to this bill. Are you all familiar with the amendment? MR. MANDEVILLE: Mr. Chairman,

Section 21 of this bill is very similar to Bill No. 10, The Agricultural Societies Amendment Act, where the director had so many powers, and the Minister of Agriculture did bring in an amendment to that. In

Section 21 on page 13 the administrator seems to have many powers; he can go in to a collector and pick up, examine, or remove any documents he has. I would like the minister to look at possibly making an amendment to this, so that the administrator gets permission from someone before he is able to go in to someone's business without a court order or without police officers or anybody with him. It seems like

Section 21 of this bill has pretty sweeping powers for the administrator. I would like the minister to com ment on that. MR. HARLE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to take that under advisement and get back to the House later. The chairman advises me there are some amendments that might affect the comments that. . . MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you care for me to read the amendment?

Section 21(1) is amended by adding "whom he believes to be" after "the business prem ises of the person". MR. TAYLOR: Have the amendments been distri buted? I don't have these amendments, and it's rath er difficult to start dealing with amendments when you haven't even read them. MR. HYNDMAN: Mr.

Chairman, insofar as there's some question as to the adequacy of opportunity to review the bill and amendments, perhaps I could move adjournment of debate on this bill in committee and we could move on to the next bill, Bill No. 30, giving everyone an opportunity to consider this one further. [Motion carried] Bill 30 The Agricultural Chemicals Amendment Act, 1978 MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any comments, questions, or amendments to be offered with respect to any sections of this bill? DR. PAPROSKI: Mr. Chairman, just very briefly. I'm rising to compliment the member who introduced the bill.

I've raised the concern about agricultural chemi cals and pesticides and their use in Alberta a number of times in this House, and I know this is a concern across North America. I feel this bill truly improves that control of the use of chemicals and pesticides in our environment in the agricultural field. I hope the member who introduced the bill will follow this close ly and bring in other amendments if necessary to improve the situation even further if the case war rants it in the future, because this area regarding chemicals and pesticides is a rapidly changing one. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [Title and

preamble agreed to] MR. MILLER: I move that Bill 30 be reported. [Motion carried] MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise, report progress, and beg leave to sit again. [Motion carried] [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] DR. McCRIMMON: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole Assembly has had under consideration Bill 30 and reports the same. MR. SPEAKER: Having heard the report, do you all agree? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, I move that we call it 5:30 and the Assembly resolve itself into Committee of Supply. [Motion carried] MR. SPEAKER: The Assembly . . .

I'm just wondering how to announce the amendment of the clock. [laughter] The Assembly stands adjourned until the Committee of Supply rises and reports. [The House recessed at 4:18 p.m.] [The Committee of Supply met at 8 p.m.]

May 9, 1978 ALBERTA HANSARD 1129 head: GOVERNMENT MOTIONS (Committee of Supply) [Dr. McCrimmon in the Chair] MR. CHAIRMAN: The Committee of Supply will come to order. Department of Hospitals and Medical Care MR. CHAIRMAN: We will continue with the estimates of Hospitals and Medical Care. Do you wish to con tinue with the list I had last night? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. KROEGER: Mr. Chairman, last night when you put my name on that list, things were pretty warm. For me to start in the same mood or the same frame of mind I might have been in last night is just a bit difficult. In fact you surprised me.

I didn't realize we were going to carry on where you left off last night. In any event, Mr. Chairman, my remarks are going to be aimed at looking at the future. I think we've covered a lot of the past. I'm not too interested in that, simply because the future is what we're con cerned with, and I think the future holds some good things for us. Having made the decision to departmentalize, we have to accept the fact that it's going to take some time to get on track.

One of the reasons I say that is that last spring the minister invited me to do some work in the nursing home area that, compared to the department, was relatively simple. Having said that, I discovered after three and a half months of commit tee work in the nursing home field alone, which would represent about 6 per cent of the budget of the department, that it takes a long time with a new group, with new people, to get a feel for an organiza tion like this. So I can appreciate why we can't move any faster than we are. The other thing I would like to say is that I have confidence in looking ahead.

One of the reasons I can say that is because of the kinds of people involved in the future development of the department. I'm talking about the two deputy ministers, both of whom I've come to know pretty well. I think they can add a lot of strength and give us a lot of confidence. They also have some people with many years of background whom I've met and worked with as a former member of the Hospital Services Commission. So I don't feel depressed; I don't feel let down; I don't feel worried. I think we should not be looking back, Mr. Chairman. I think we should be looking ahead. Thank you very much. MR.

CLARK: Mr. Chairman, with regard to the rather general discussion we've had, I'd like to go right at the question of comparison of the

summary of estim ate expenditures. My colleague, the Member for Lit tle Bow, last night raised the question that for most estimates the government goes from this year's fore cast and then makes an estimate from there. But for some strange reason, the Department of Hospitals and Medical Care is not allowing hospital boards to take the estimates of what they spent last year and then take the 6.5 per cent increase from there. They're going back to the estimates of last year and adding the 6.5 per cent or whatever it is on top of that. Mr. Chairman, it just happens that's the way we've done a breakdown or

summary of the estimated expenditures for the province. If you look at the Department of Hospitals and Medical Care as far as their total increase is concerned, estimates of last year to estimates of this year, we get an 8.1 per cent increase in that department. But if we look at the overall government increase from the estimates last year to those of this year, Mr. Minister, we have a 14.6 per cent increase in the overall government and only an 8.1 per cent increase in your own department. Mr.

Minister, any way you cut it, this means that there are going to be cutbacks, and a lessening in the amount of services which can be provided by hospi tals across this province. We're not keeping pace with overall government growth. Hospitals and Med ical Care has to accept the problems of new people coming into the province, yet in this department, one of the most important, we have an 8.1 per cent increase in estimates this year. In the government itself, when you add up all the departments including the salary contingency, there's a 14.6 per cent increase.

So we're clearly falling behind; hospitals are falling almost 6 per cent behind what the rest of the government departments are doing. If we look at manpower costs themselves, in the past I've heard the minister wax eloquent in the House about what a high portion of the cost of hospitals is made up of manpower costs. As far as the department is concerned, manpower costs for this year are going up 12 per cent. What are they doing as far as the government is concerned? 15.4 per cent. Clearly, Mr. Minister, you haven't been able to convince your colleagues of the importance of health care.

Clearly that's what's happened. Let's go on to the area of supplies and services. This year's increase as far as hospitals are con cerned, 18.6 per cent, sounds very impressive. Yet we go to the total overall governmental increase in supplies and services, and we see a 30 per cent increase. Mr. Minister, here's the problem. Once the speeches by various members are finished and you've had a chance to respond, we want to get involved in a question and answer kind of situation as far as a whole variety of hospitals are concerned, what's hap pening in regionalization and so on. But in my initial remarks, Mr.

Minister, I want to point out to you that there's an 18.6 per cent increase in your department this year as far as supplies and services are con cerned, lumping the whole works together. As far as the government is concerned, there's a 30 per cent increase in supplies and services. Mr. Minister, not once — not in the areas of manpower costs or supplies and services, nor in the total budget — does this department that deals with the health care of the people of Alberta live up to the comparisons or meet the average of all the other government departments put together. Not once. Mr.

Minister, when you became the minister in the department, you made the point that hospital and medicare costs in Alberta were running away. That's the excuse you used again last year with regard to

1130 ALBERTA HANSARD May 9, 1978 the freeze placed on rural hospital construction across the province. I'm sure you've had consultants look at the percentage of the provincial budget that goes into Hospitals and Medical Care. In 1972-73, when you were Provincial Treasurer, 18.7 per cent of the budget went to Hospitals and Medical Care. In 1976-77, 19 per cent of the total budget went to Hospitals and Medical Care. In 1977-78, 19.7 per cent of the provincial budget went to Hospitals and Medical Care. This year, 18.5 per cent of the provin cial budget goes to Hospitals and Medical Care.

If we look at those figures and had seen that over the past six or seven years Hospitals and Medical Care had taken a much bigger portion of the provin cial budget, I could have some sympathy for the way in which you've treated hospital boards across this province. We now see 36 hospital boards appealing their budgets. But here we have a situation: last year 19.7 per cent of the provincial budget went to Hospi tals and Medical Care; this year, 18.5 — clearly a reduction of 1.2 per cent of the total provincial budg et. A cutback in this area, Mr. Minister.

Several times in this House you've said we've been unfair in talking about cutbacks. But when you look at the percentage of the provincial budget, the facts are we've had a cutback of 1.2 per cent of the provincial budget this year as far as Hospitals and Medical Care is concerned. Now I simply say to you that I can't understand you as the minister, or the government as far as that goes, choosing this time to cut back in this area of hospitals and medicare. Mr.

Minister, try as we might on this side of the House, we simply have not been able to understand the comment the minister has made over the past three to four years of this happening. We simply have to have some sort of explanation here before we get involved in the detailed questions of what's happening, for example, at Drayton Valley and all sorts of other hospitals across the province. MR. BATIUK: Mr. Chairman, I too would like to ex press a few concerns.

Since this spring session there has been a lot of criticism about what is happening with the Department of Hospitals and Medical Care, and it may be easy to criticize. Sometimes there may be a reason. If a minister or elected member was not criticized, it would mean there is really nothing much more to do. However, before I would want to criticize the department and the minister in any way, I would like to say that five elected persons in this Legislature may have helped a great deal to put the costs of hospitals and medical care in the condition they are today.

In 1971, after the election, a provincial/municipal finance task force was selected and the members were the hon. Solicitor General, at that time the hon. Member for Calgary North Hill, the hon. Members for Ponoka, Drayton Valley, Innisfail, and myself. We spent 23 days meeting to see what we could do so the government would absorb more of the costs for social services. I think we went a far way to reduce the tax on homeowners' property. We also felt maybe the government should pick up the last dollar for hospital costs. At that time we thought it was the right thing.

We saw prosperity for this province even though we didn't yet have a sitting of the Legislature. Our recommendation of this task force was to take in the entire costs of hospitals, and I think that was one of the biggest mistakes we made. From then on, the costs of hospitals had to go up. Many hospitals were employing more and more people. Since the government is paying the shot, why not? As I say, even at that time, we really intended to recommend that the government pick up the entire costs of deficits for senior citizens' lodges. I think that was a good thing we didn't go into that.

When I look at the financial statement of senior citizens' lodges throughout the province and see where only two or three have a little surplus and the rest have deficits from $5,000 to $80,000, I think management is very responsible. I think we were wise not to recommend that. However, when we go back to the entire hospital costs, I was a member of the Hospital Visitors Com mittee. We were to travel the entire province to visit all hospitals, nursing homes, auxiliary hospitals, and senior citizens' lodges.

For the couple of years I was on this committee, I noticed there were more workers than patients in some hospitals. It was clear there was mismanagement. I knew at once that taking the entire hospital costs had created this. So, as I say, when we saw the hospitals 1970-71 budget of $125 million jump to $750 million this year, I could see there was a necessity for a freeze, and I think we will have to take a good look at it. I have already noticed some hospitals have been reducing their staff, and they seem to be doing all right. Mr. Minister, I do have a few concerns, and this may be a good time to bring them.

When I think back, in 1970 the fire commissioner inspected the hospital in Mundare and made recommendations for some renovations and fixing, or he would condemn the place. At that time the Hospital Services Commission felt it was not worth spending $200,000 in a 50-year- old hospital, and that it was time to look at a new hospital. There have been studies, plans, and so forth, for a good number of years. Even two years ago, I know $1.5 million was in the budget for a new hospital. So far nothing has materialized.

Here again the Hospital Services Commission spent a lot of time going round and round, whether they were trying to protect their jobs, so they would have something to do for longer or what. But I thought that was delayed much longer than necessary. In your remarks yesterday, Mr. Min ister, I was glad to hear you say an approval has been given for tendering. I have waited long, but I have always believed patience is a virtue. As I say, I'm very glad. Mr.

Minister, in this House you and I have noticed over the past number of months that the Leader of the Opposition is very much concerned about the conditions of the Vegreville Hospital. He has remarked several times that there is no physiothera py. I looked into it a number of times. As you had mentioned, Mr. Minister, there is a global budget. They have their priorities and may use them for what they see fit. Now if this is right, I accept it. However, there have been statements that there was a physio therapist in Vegreville at one time, but he left.

By the time they were able to find somebody else, the Hospi tal Services Commission felt it was a new opening and could not be approved. I would like to ask the minister to look into whether or not this is right. I was quite perturbed over the last little while over

May 9, 1978 ALBERTA HANSARD 1131 the crying about Foothills Hospital. With a global budget increase of $2 million, I just can't see anybody crying that there is a cutback. There is no reason for it. Again I think we'll have to look strongly at that, to see whether management is performing the way it should. Mr. Minister, I know you have a hard portfolio. The demands are various, whether it is the nursing homes, the auxiliaries. Because of our government's programs, people are going to live longer. The life expectancy of a person has gone up considerably over the last number of years.

There are going to be more old people, more people who need the services of senior citizens' lodges, nursing homes, auxiliary hos pitals, active treatment hospitals. There is no doubt in my mind that the demands are going to be greater every year. Mr. Minister, as I say many times, maybe we should take some of the fault on ourselves rather than putting it off on one person and trying to make political mileage. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. LYSONS: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to address a few brief remarks to the minister.

This evening I checked with the three hospitals in my constituency as to how they were coming along with their budget allocations. Although one couldn't give a firm statement, the other two were very happy. Although they're going to have to squeeze the lemon a little harder, they can get by. There is no problem there. I would like to compliment the minister on his reorganization of his department. In the last few weeks I have found it is much easier to talk to my hospital boards and people regarding the response they get from the department. I think this is a major step forward.

I have one hospital that has some concern. It is a very small hospital, and the concern is on budgeting. Because they had some extraor dinary illness, sick leave, and overtime last year, they will probably be looking at some additional money. But from my past experience in dealing with these types of issues, it will receive favorable consideration. I couldn't help but be envious, though, of the one new hospital we have, where the lawn around it is probably big enough to pasture two or three cows and calves for the summer.

I wonder whether or not some of the extra expenditures on some of these hospitals aren't for things that probably should be dealt with by the municipality rather than the hospi tal. I know we need a certain amount of trim around these facilities to make the patients feel more com fortable, but I believe that when municipalities get these hospitals with no tax dollars involved — wheth er or not they shouldn't be looking after some of these extra things. I couldn't help but feel a little sorry for the hon.

Member for Little Bow last evening when he was howling about cutbacks and all the problems, the phone calls he has been getting, the sleep he has been losing, and so on. I've had one phone call in three years about a patient not being able to get into a hospital, the Lloydminster hospital. I understand that hospital is under the jurisdiction of the Sas katchewan government. One phone call not even from Alberta, although the resident was in Alberta. Mr. Minister, in dealing with hospitals, we have two new ones coming up in the constituency.

I believe we're going to have to be very, very careful and take a hard look at the planning and the costs as far as utilities and so on are concerned. Having the experience of one new hospital where the utility costs just went out of sight, I think we must take a much firmer look at utility costs and the way we design hospitals in that regard. Of the three hospitals in the constituency, I believe all have had additions within 25 years.

Now when we hear the opposition complaining about our budget ing and the money allocated for hospitals, in my mind I just simply cannot accept how we can put additions onto hospitals that 25 years later are so obsolete and out of date — and they really are. How can the opposition possibly criticize this government when they went ahead and built these very, very temporary facilities 25 years ago? I just wonder what they had in mind when they were building these hospitals. I find it very difficult.

On behalf of at least two of the hospitals I talked to tonight, I would like to thank the minister for special consideration given in the past. They've asked me to pass that along. With the amount of building and so on that is going to be done on hospitals in the future, I think we'll all have to work together a little more, including the opposition members. If they want hos pitals and services, I think they're going to have to realize that they have to help a little in this process. With that, Mr.

Minister, on behalf of the constitu ency of Vermilion-Viking I would like to thank you very, very much for the consideration you have given me and my constituency. MR. ZANDER: Mr. Chairman, after reading the hospi tals report based on 1976-77 figures, I wish to correct some of the figures I gave last night. On page 27, the average active beds per 1,000 in the province is 6.43. I was quoting a '74-75 figure, which was 9.99. If we take the nursing home beds per 1,000, on page 34 of the report, the figure given there, and I assume it to be correct, is 3.74.

With 1.55 auxiliary beds, page 31, we come up with an average bed capacity for active, nursing home, and auxiliary beds, of 11.72. I wish to thank the minister that we've come to an understanding in both meetings. I would like to quote the figures though, so they are correct. Based on those figures, Mr. Minister, with a population based on the same figures as '76-77, the average bed capacity in the Drayton Valley constituency is some thing like 3,718 people for one bed. I wish to correct that figure. Mr.

Minister, if you recall our meeting at Breton, I believe in 1975, at that time we were thinking of some consideration being given to that area because of the relatively high population of senior citizens. I'm thinking of the three areas of Winfield, Warburg, and Breton. There is a total of some 1,200 senior citizens in that general area. Has any further consid eration been given? They were asking for an addition of about 10 or 20 beds to that hospital, so they could possibly utilize these beds for extended health care purposes. I don't know what has transpired since that time.

I know we've been working in two direc tions. I'm glad we have one problem solved. But I think there will be a problem looming ahead in a year or two in that general area. I wonder if the minister can make a comment on that later.

1132 ALBERTA HANSARD May 9, 1978 MR. STEWART: Mr. Chairman, in listening to the discussion that has gone on relative to this particular portfolio, I think I have to express my feelings relative to the hospital situation in my own particular constituency. Under the administration previous to the one the minister is now looking after, the Wainwright area was recognized as needing additional extended care bed facilities. This process has gone on, to my knowledge, since about 1971, or even prior to that.

The Hospital Services Commission led the people in the Wainwright area to believe they were in a posi tion to get 25 additional extended care beds in their auxiliary hospital. This was a compromise; the people of the area felt they were in need of 50 beds. Mr. Chairman, I've had a hard time reconciling how the policy of our department that looks after hospitals and medical care has arrived at the conclusion that active treatment hospital beds and extended care beds are to be handled.

Last spring I was led to believe that when a holding pattern was put on active treatment beds, we were going to recognize the fact that extended care beds were not going to be under this holding pattern. Mr. Chairman, last July the people of Wainwright were told that they were to proceed with developing the functional plan for the addition to their auxiliary hospital facility in Wainwright. I realize that in revamping his department the minister has had a lot of changes to make.

But the people of my area took at face value the statement made by the chairman of the Hospital Services Commission and the minister himself, in July last year, that 25 additional beds were going to be brought on stream at the Wain wright hospital. This is not the case now, Mr. Chairman, and I've yet to have a satisfactory explanation by the minister, recognizing the fact that in revamping the department a complete assessment was being made of the whole operation.

But it's awfully hard for me to satisfy the people in my constituency that, when it was recog nized they were on stream for an addition to their auxiliary hospital, somehow this spring, after a year's delay, they're not to be recognized. I'm of the opinion that when we make a commitment, recognizing the need is there, the revamping of the department is hardly a justification for a complete change of policy. The people of my area are not very happy about this.

I'm having a hard time justifying the minister's viewpoint on this particular matter, and I feel that extended care beds for our senior citizens are a priori ty with this government. We recognize that active treatment hospital beds were completely out of con trol as far as the cost of construction was concerned, and I agree with the philosophy that we needed to stop and take a good look at construction costs. I've no quarrel with that. But we have a program of nursing homes that do not need sophisticated engi neering to bring on stream.

If we follow the policy that we are going to provide a reasonable amount of accommodation for our senior citizens, I believe there really should be no delay in our bringing auxiliary hospital facilities on stream. With the active treatment hospitals in the province, there's no doubt that our construction costs got com pletely out of control from 1971 to 1975.

But I do not believe this is any justification for us to be withhold ing auxiliary or nursing home facilities that do not require the engineering and have not created the same construction problems that our active treatment hospitals have in the last four years. Mr. Chairman, I am putting this on the table. I hope the minister will recognize the seriousness of the situation in Wainwright and the fact that extended care bed facilities for senior citizens have not been a problem in construction costs in the past and should not be lumped together in the same program as our active treatment construction program.

As we look around our province, there isn't any doubt in my mind that we have as many hospital beds — some of them are old; some need to be replaced. I recognize it's a very complex department to handle. I think the minister is striving to accomplish our phi losophy that there should not be open-ended funding as far as construction of active treatment hospital beds is concerned. We have a few glaring examples around the province of where this took place, and I certainly support him in his endeavors to bring this under control.

I think we're dealing with apples and oranges if we're going to group our nursing home facilities with our active treatment hospitals and try to bring them all under one program. I hope the minister, with the people he's brought around him in his department, will be able to get control of the construction costs and bring a greater number of beds on stream in our active treatment hospitals, where they are required. It's not a problem of active treatment beds in my particular constitu ency, but it certainly is as far as extended care beds are concerned.

I hope the minister will take this into consideration and possibly comment on it later on in this discussion. DR. PAPROSKI: Mr. Chairman, to hear some of the comments from the hon. members from the opposi tion, especially the Member for Little Bow, the NDP member, and the Member for Olds-Didsbury, you would think we haven't done a thing in hospitals and medical care in this province. That is exactly the impression one gets. I've been here two evenings, and I haven't heard one compliment about the money we've spent in hospitals and medical care relative to other provinces.

Relative to other provinces, we're so far ahead it's just unbelievable — and not one comment from the hon. members. Mr. Chairman, I could appreciate the hon. NDP member and the Member for Little Bow making those comments, but when the Leader of the Opposition — the hon. leader of the loyal opposition — gets up and makes these kinds of comments, I just wonder where the credibility and responsibility lie.

Instead of being supportive, instead of adding constructive sugges tions regarding the new direction the minister has taken, regarding some new innovative ideas and directions — which we haven't heard from that sec tion of the House for so long I just can't believe it — they all stand there and criticize and criticize. More important, their criticism is not even founded on facts. That's the thing that's really distressing. I've sat here for seven years, but I've never heard such a display of irresponsibility. I say that with sincerity. Maybe it's not intended. Maybe they don't have the facts, Mr. Chairman.

Maybe they should go over the information they have in front of them again. Maybe they should consult with the department heads, because they're available. I know the minister

May 9, 1978 ALBERTA HANSARD 1133 will quickly agree that the department heads are available on a day to day basis to each MLA here to clarify, to indicate why a direction is taken and why it is not taken. Mr. Chairman, they've fallen into a mud pool, and they're all negative. It's a difficult proposition to get somebody who's got into that situation — it's almost the opposite of saying: hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. They obviously hear problems, see problems, and speak problems and problems and problems.

Not one compliment; not one thing has been done well in hospital services and medical care according to these three. [interjection] Now we're going to hear from the hon. Member for Clover Bar. Maybe he's got some thing positive, because, honestly, he's in the medical care field. As a dentist, I would hope that at least maybe he can see the light, because his sensitivity should be higher. But so far I haven't heard it. DR. BUCK: You'll hear it. DR.

PAPROSKI: We've spent a large amount of dol lars in hospitals, quantitatively and qualitatively the highest in Canada, on active hospitals, auxiliary hos pitals, and nursing homes. But the more important issue here we're discussing with this new depart ment, the redirection, is the responsibility and ac countability the minister has taken upon himself, to do something now, not to wait any longer. He's given the Alberta Hospital Services Commission an oppor tunity. Mr.

Chairman, with respect, they've done the job as well as they could under the circumstances and with the direction they were given by that pre vious, old government. But the Alberta Hospital Serv ices Commission also did not respond every time for every case. If they did respond, sometimes they responded in a 'maldirection' also. Who could they turn to at that time?

Every member of the House knows very well they could not turn to anybody, because they were not elected, and the elected minis ter, unfortunately, was in a relatively incapacitated position because direction and assurance was given to the Hospital Services Commission not to interfere to that extent. DR. BUCK: What was Crawford doing? DR. PAPROSKI: Mr. Chairman, like all commissions, when we set up the Hospital Services Commission as a government body, we assumed that they, under their ambit of activity, would carry it out in an appro priate manner. [interjections] Now sure, elected members can dispose of them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. DR. PAPROSKI: Mr. Chairman, they can't stand it. They can't stand it when they hear the facts. They did respond; nobody denies that the Alberta Hospital Services Commission did respond. They did a good job. I'll underline that again, so there is no misunderstanding. But also, they did not respond in many directions that we as elected officials feel they should have responded. The responsibility, the response, and a direction was to non-elected people. Having said that, Mr.

Chairman, it's been stated already — and I think it should be underlined again, because the opposition members don't get the mes sage — that the hospital and medical budget is 18.5 per cent of the total budget, a 67.60 per cent increase since 1975-76 for hospitals in budget at that time. He didn't speak of that. I haven't heard him say anything about that increase. He mentions one given year.

He did not speak of the number of beds we have in auxiliary hospitals, nursing homes, and the fact that in rural hospital construction, building has been the highest in the history of this province, and the increased number of beds in auxiliary hospitals, nursing homes, and active hospitals. Being a medical doctor — I hate to switch into that area for just a minute — I have not heard complaints from medical doctors about admissions. If I've heard complaints, Mr. Chairman, the complaints have been the usual fare. It's always going to be a problem.

At any given moment no doctor can get in every patient he wishes to. But any emergency case, any case that has to be admitted, whether for a relative emergency or an emergency, will be and can be admitted in this city or anywhere in this province. I am confident of that, because even if there are zero beds in a given hospital a patient can always be discharged early. I can tell you that the waiting list the hon. Member for Little Bow articulated the other day — I believe it was he — is out of line. I could have a waiting list of 1,000 patients. They're elective cases, Mr. Chairman.

They can wait, because they are elective. There's no emergency. But I can also bring anyone right to the forefront and get him in immediately. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me the hon. Member for Little Bow made very shallow points in his comments. On one hand he complains, and I've heard this from all the opposition members. They complain of the excessive amount of government expenditure: don't spend too much, because government is getting too big; hold on to the reins.

At the same time, when the minister takes hold in a responsible way and tries to get hold of why the construction costs are so high and why there isn't a proper accountability of this, they complain that this is inappropriate. You can't have it both ways. At least give him an opportunity for a year or two or even three, if that's the case. The millions of dollars and the type of sensitivity involved here require a lot of evaluation and proper planning. Mr. Chairman, they did not offer any direction for good management. I suppose they would like to stay where we were before. We're not going to go over that again.

But obviously they didn't give any direc tions then, and they were complaining about increased hospital costs. Now when we go back in a new direction, they're complaining about not enough expenditure. They don't recognize the fact that rural needs are being met. Construction in that area is the highest ever. Certainly, we didn't hear once from them, Mr. Chairman, that the disparity in the per square footage was so wide-ranging it was unexplainable. Why don't they comment on that? Why don't they rise and say: Mr.

Minister, when the disparity per square foot age for the same type of hospital ranges from $50 to $200 a square foot, surely there has to be an explanation, and surely something must be done about it. Those figures are not exact, Mr. Chairman. The minister could clarify them if he wants to, but the range was really wide, and there's no way you could buy that. Mr. Chairman, I'm glad the minister has the forti

1134 ALBERTA HANSARD May 9, 1978 tude to take hold of the department under a lot of flak. He's getting a lot less flak from the public than he is from the opposition here. The opposition obviously don't want to understand, or else they're closing their eyes. Take hold of the department, redirect it, evalu ate it, and then act in a very calculated, deliberate way. At the same time, there is no suffering going on in this province. Underscoring that, we have more hospital beds per capita than any province in Canada. We're spending more money again this year than any province in Canada.

We don't want him to be gutless. We don't want him to pass on the responsibility. We want him to stand there and say: I've got it here; I'm the elected official, and I'm responsible enough to stand in my place and say, I will take the flak that's necessary to account for the expenditure of the dollars. Then we hear from the hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview, who gets up and implies he would spend it all. He would spend it all, Mr. Chairman. There's no doubt in my mind because . . . He's waving his hands now. There's a very clear memory in my mind.

The hon. members in this House will recall what happened in British Columbia. The cof fers were bulging when they took office. In a few short years, the coffers were dry. Do we want that? I suggest not, Mr. Chairman. Regarding the appeal, Mr. Chairman, what more honorable thing can a minister or any government department offer than an appeal if any hospital feels an appeal is necessary because the expenditure may be too high, or they miscalculated, or the hospital didn't present their case clearly enough? So the minister has offered an appeal. He will hear the cases. And rightly so; he should.

And let's not assume for one minute, hon. opposi tion members, that because a hospital is appealing there is going to be an automatic grant of dollars. I would hope not. If that is the intention, there is no necessity to have an appeal; we might as well just hand them the money. MR. MINIELY: Exactly. DR. PAPROSKI: It is exactly that, the minister says. Those appeals should be justifiable, to justify that those needs are there over and above the basic needs and basic good quality care provided in hospitals in this province. To say that 124 beds have been reduced because of not enough dollars, Mr.

Chairman — it's not cut back; it is just not enough, according to some of the hospi tal boards in this province. It is not a criticism of the hospital boards. Including the last dollar, they have had the dollars flowing. They don't actually have to go down to the taxpayers and ask for it. Maybe it is partly this government's fault too for allowing that to happen. That creates a situation where obviously you're going to ask for the last dollar. But I'm really asking the hospital boards . . . I'm a medical doctor. I've been in hospitals, and I see what is going on too.

A lot of this has been articulated by some of the members. Some of the activities that go on and the expenditures — non-medical, not health care — I wonder if they couldn't be cut down rather than closing beds. If they choose to close beds within their local sphere of hospital activity, that is their choice. As a matter of fact, as somebody said, during the summer holidays it is not uncommon to have six operating rooms cut to three, because people are on holidays. Nobody suffers, nobody dies because of that. [inter jections] And in the elective beds too. So, Mr. Chairman, where are we going from here?

I think it is very clear, but the opposition members again are in a mud pool. They just can't see it. Costs have to be accountable; they have to be accountable to an elected official. They're not unlimited. There is no doubt about it: they are not unlimited. It would be very easy and very irresponsible for this government just to open up that bank and let the money flow out when other provinces are maintaining health care quality also, with a lot fewer dollars on a per capita basis. The quality and quantity of health care has been assured by the minister.

I can assure you that the minister not only has assured this House, Mr. Chair man, but every MLA on the government side won't let him budge from that quality and quantity of care we have already established. Let's be sure the next direction we take is accountable to elected officials, as it should be. The short-term difficulties are going to be obvious. Any time there is a change, there is some discomfort. In an area such as health care, it's obvious we're going to have more discomfort than usual because of the sensitivity and emotionalism involved.

But let's not kid ourselves; people are not going to die, they're not suffering as a result of this redirection. As a matter of fact, our health care system in this province, again I underline, is the best in Canada, if not the world. Mr. Chairman, I'm confident that where there are growth areas the emphasis on rural hospital care has been augmented and will continue to be augmented. The senior citizen extended care and out patient care is already being carried out, which is so important. Somebody mentioned the last dollar funding was a concern, and now it is an even greater concern.

Maybe we should revert to local responsibility for that last dollar. So far I haven't heard that as a suggestion from the opposition members in this debate. Maybe they should get up and — let's hear, what do you suggest? DR. BUCK: You did it, Ken. DR. PAPROSKI: Good. Then let's hear it again, put it on the record. If we all agree, maybe we should bring that back. Mr. Chairman, the need for quality and quantitative evaluation co-ordinated with the community is obviously a necessity, and that is what the minister is doing.

He's co-operating with the Minister of Social Services and Community Health, and it's vital that he continues to do that. I know the Minister of Social Services and Community Health is co-operating with him in turn. Hopefully we'll bring up a delivery system second to none in Canada. When I brought in the resolution for community health and social service centres, hon. members op posite will recall that the central theme was to deflect from institutions to the community. Mr. Chairman, a lot has been done in that direction, and I'm really pleased and proud it has happened.

Think of the home care program, which is taking care of people in the home and the community, where people under

May 9, 1978 ALBERTA HANSARD 1135 stand and people want to be; the day care program; the home adaptation program for wheel chair handi capped; the handicapped programs, and so forth; senior citizen support, no medical premiums for them; removing medical premiums for lower income groups. Mr. Chairman, all these things are part of a health care package, whether it's housing, senior citizens' support, day care support, home care, home adapta tion, handicapped care, removing the medical pre miums for lower income groups or senior citizens, or support for those on social assistance.

Of course, the hon. members in the opposition wouldn't recall the debate when I indicated that health is not physical health only. There's a physical, mental, and social aspect to it. When we deflect some of the dollars to these areas to encompass the physical, mental, and social aspects, the total health of our society, the members don't recognize that. They think there's a cutback, when in fact there is restraint across the board and redirection where it should be. Mr. Chairman, I'm going to say one final thing.

I haven't heard anything about the southern Alberta cancer hospital, the children's hospital, the cardiac program, and cancer research. Three out of four have spoken already, and we haven't heard one compli ment. I find that not only amazing but almost unbelievable. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. DR. BUCK: I intended saving a few remarks for a little later in the debate, but after that barrage of verbal diarrhea, I think I should get my oar in. First of all, Mr. Chairman, I think we have to remind the hon. government members that they have been the government in this province for seven years.

I think we have to start from that basic premise and remind the hon. government members that they had a Minister of Health, the hon. Mr. Crawford. What was going on in the four years under that ministry? MR. NOTLEY: But he let the commissions bamboozle him, Walt. DR. BUCK: That's right. We're blaming everything on the commissions. MR. NOTLEY: Four years asleep at the switch. DR. BUCK: The budgets that were passed for Hospi tals and Medical Care in this Legislature were under the auspices of that hon. minister, and we're blaming everything on the commission. Well, I'll get back to the commission a little later.

I'd like to say a little about the hon. Member for Drayton Valley, who was a tiger outside the House and now he's turned into a pussycat. MR. ZANDER: Mr. Chairman, a point of order. DR. BUCK: Mr. Chairman, I have the floor, and I will not surrender the floor, because the hon. member does not have a point of order. AN HON. MEMBER: How do you know? MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member for Drayton Valley, do you have a point of order? MR. ZANDER: Yes. My point of order is if that hon. member wishes to come outside, I'll find out what kind of pussycat it is. [laughter] DR.

BUCK: Outside the House and in the media the hon. member was telling us all the things he was going to bring up, what he was going to do for his constituency. All of a sudden somebody — presuma bly the Premier, because I'm sure it wouldn't be the minister — must have taken him back behind the woodpile and laid the facts of life before the hon. member. We expected the member to come in here and act on behalf of his constituents. I say he has not done that. AN HON. MEMBER: He got his hospital. DR. BUCK: He got his hospital.

Nothing has been done in the town of Drayton Valley since 1971, which was the completion of a project promised by the previous government. Now, Mr. Speaker, that community deserves a new hospital, some new extended care facilities. They can use the old facility as a nursing home. Why doesn't the member say that? I mean if he said that, maybe they'd offer that he could sit over here. Well, we'd accept him. MR. NOTLEY: Sure. DR. BUCK: At least he'd be standing up and speaking for his constituents. That's what we're here for. And to hear the hon.

Member for Edmonton Kings- way give us the platitudes that we are not responsible by questioning the incompetence of what's been going on in the department. MR. R. SPEAKER: Hear, hear. DR. BUCK: Well, that is utter nonsense, utter nonsense. MR. MINIELY: Demonstrate it with the facts. DR. BUCK: Demonstrate it with the facts. MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. DR. BUCK: You've been bamboozling around here for three years, hon. minister, doing absolutely nothing for the health care of the people of this province, showing no new initiatives. All we've been hearing from the hon. minister is holding patterns.

The gov ernment has been doing nothing but stall for time. They've been stalling for time so they can get by the

Document details

Collection	Alberta — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	19780509
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	L18 S4 19780509 1430 01 han.pdf
Language	en
Format	json
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	621fcc404e67b7dbfc907db38153bc086f78381d

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