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

19830530

Alberta — Debates (Hansard)

May 30, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 1211 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA Title: Monday, May 30, 1983 2:30 p.m. [The House met at 2:30 p.m.] PRAYERS [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] head: INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS MR. SHABEN: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today are visitors from our sister province of Saskatchewan. I'd like them each to rise as I introduce them. First, I'd like to introduce the Hon. Neal Hardy, Minister of the Envi ronment for the province of Saskatchewan, who also has responsibility for the Saskatchewan Housing Corpora tion. Mr.

Hardy is here to have meetings with our Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Hous ing. I look forward to those meetings. Accompanying Mr. Hardy are special assistants Darryl Binkley and Fay Brunning. Thank you very much. head: INTRODUCTION OF BILLS Bill 67 Legislative Assembly Act MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to intro duce Bill No. 67, the Legislative Assembly Act. This being a money Bill, His Honour the Honourable the Lieutenant-Governor, having been informed of the con tents of this Bill, recommends the same to the Assembly.

What is being proposed in this new legislation is in fact a recasting and rewriting of the entire Act: all the legisla tion respecting the Assembly, its privileges, and the members of the Assembly. I may be permitted to say that hon. members will be relatively familiar with the contents of this particular Bill, because of the recent proceedings of the privileges and elections committee. Changes that were discussed in committee have been taken into ac count in preparing the Bill that is being presented today. Mr.

Speaker, perhaps I might also be allowed to say that since I think all of us look upon the Bill as one that belongs to all members, rather than as a government Bill — certainly speaking as one member of the Assembly who appreciated the proceedings of that committee — all members will therefore be aware of the changes that would be made in respect of the statutory grounds for disqualification of members and the clarification that has occurred in the way in which various formal and pre viously, perhaps to some extent, confusing matters have been revised in this Bill. Mr.

Speaker, it's also important that as to members' indemnities and salaries — and I refer there as well to the expense allowance — on the whole, no changes are being proposed. But there are some exceptions to that, in the way in which allowances for temporary residence will be dealt with — temporary residence in Edmonton for members who normally reside elsewhere — allowances and expenses for committee work. And the salaries of the hon. Speaker, the Deputy Speaker, and the Deputy Chairman of Committees are the only ones that have been addressed and revised.

Another change in respect of members' services which I think is important enough to mention at the time of introduction, Mr. Speaker, is that in order to enable members of certain northern constituencies to serve con stituents better, for the first time there is a new proposal with respect to air transportation for members in remote constituencies. [Leave granted; Bill 67 read a first time] Bill 66 Electoral Divisions Act MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to intro duce Bill No. 66, the Electoral Divisions Act.

Under the Legislative Assembly Act, which is the law of the province at the present time, the constituency boundaries all appear by way of a

schedule to that Act. What is proposed is that with the passing of the new Legislative Assembly Act, that

schedule be re-enacted as a separate Act. The Electoral Divisions Act would be that Act. [Leave granted; Bill 66 read a first time] head: TABLING RETURNS AND REPORTS MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the general report and audited financial statements of the Alberta Resources Railway Corporation for the calender year ended December 31, 1982. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the govern ment's response to Question No. 128. head: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS MR. ALGER: Mr.

Speaker, it's my pleasure this after noon to introduce to you, and through you to all members of the Assembly, two very highly esteemed citi zens of the constituency of Highwood: Mr. and Mrs. Ken and Ruth McCallum. They are seated in your gallery, and I ask them to rise now and accept the warm response of the Assembly. MRS. FYFE: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I'd like to introduce to you and to members of the Assembly four students from the St. Albert constituency.

These students attend the Primeau high school in the town of Morinville, and they are accompanied by their teacher Jeannette Lucas and bus driver Lyle Johnson. I ask them to stand and be recognized by the Assembly. MR. ALEXANDER: Mr. Speaker, I have the honor of introducing to you, and through you to members of the Assembly, 43 grade 6 students from the Steinhauer community school in the constituency of Edmonton Whitemud. They are accompanied today by group leaders Mr. R. Rix and Dianne Linden.

I'd like to add that Steinhauer school is one of the outstanding community schools in the province of Alber ta, to which I had the honor of presenting a plaque and a flag at the beginning of the year for their outstanding role

1212 ALBERTA HANSARD May 30, 1983 of opening the school to the community and making maximum utilization. I compliment the members of Steinhauer school for coming here to study how the government works and for their activity in the commu nity. I'd invite them to rise at this point and be welcomed by the House. Statement by the Speaker MR. SPEAKER: Some days ago I mentioned making a statement today to clear up some apparently persistent misunderstandings about question periods. It is well known that most of the time in parliaments the world over is taken up with making decisions on topics that have been debated.

In regard to our ordinary work of debating and deciding, we have, of course, cer tain rules. The first of these rules is that notice has to be given of any subject, other than a mere procedural point, that is to be debated, regardless of whether the topic is in the form of a Bill or a motion. Notice of debate is of course essential for fairness and good debate. It gives members a chance to prepare. The second requirement for fairness is that, subject to practical time limits, every member who thinks he should, will have an equal chance to take

part in the debate. A member may be asked by another member to clarify something said in debate, but there is no question period during debating periods. The opposite is equally true: there is no debate during question periods. The difference between debating time and question time is so clear that explaining it seems like stating the obvious. Apparently, for some it is not obvious. The difference becomes even plainer when we consider the real nature of our oral question periods. Firstly, no notice is given beforehand of the questions to be asked.

The person asking the questions can, and often does, prepare them beforehand, along with supplementaries; nothing wrong with that. But the person to whom the question is directed has no notice, as must be given in the case of debate. Secondly, other members of the House not only have no notice, but they aren't even permitted to debate either the question or the answer. Opposition members may strongly disagree with some debating points that get past the Speaker and seem to praise the government in either a question or an answer. Yet they cannot debate the matter at all during the question period.

Likewise, government members may strongly disagree with debating points that get past the Speaker and that are made in questions asked by opposi tion members. No matter how strongly any member disa grees, he must simply bite his tongue, close his lips, and remain silent. To turn question periods back into debating time sim ply means cancelling the question period. There has been a suggestion that debate in question periods would be quite welcome.

If that's a serious suggestion, let's have an amendment to the Standing Orders and cancel the ques tion period and use the time as additional debating time, and let's be fair and require notice of what is to be debated and give all members a chance to take

part in the debate. The obvious unfairness of turning question periods into debating time, without proper debating rules, has resulted in certain practical rules being made which are special to the question period. Let us remember that in the earlier days of parliaments of our tradition, there were no oral question periods. They developed gradually, by taking time away from debate and making an exception for questions. In a moment, as I refer to the practical rules of fairness for the question period, it will become clear that we have gone very far indeed in this House in "stretching" those rules.

There has been very, very wide latitude indeed. There are some who say we haven't gone as far as one or more other parliaments, or that we haven't gone far enough in disregarding the rules. I respectfully disagree. The best and most recent

summary of rules for oral question periods is to be found in Beauchesne's Parlia mentary Rules and Forms, fifth edition. This seems to be the most widely used Canadian text on parliamentary procedure. It is only right that we go to a Canadian text, because the oral question period, as we know it, is very much a Canadian thing. In the United Kingdom, in the Mother of Parliaments, there are no oral questions as we have them. All questions are in writing, and notice must be given.

Only supplementaries are asked without notice, but of course even they have to relate to the original question of which notice in writing has been given. Moreover, very few supplementaries are allowed there. Referring to Canadian practice, here are some rules from pages 132 and 133 of Beauchesne, the textbook mentioned above. I have given these quotations new numbers in this statement, in case those numbers may provide for easy reference later on. In some cases, the quotations are followed by some added comments.

One, on page 132 of Beauchesne, we find this: A brief question seeking information about an im portant matter of some urgency which falls within the administrative responsibility of the government or of the specific Minister to whom it is addressed, is in order. It must be a question, not an expression of opinion, representation, argumentation, nor debate. It will immediately become apparent that countless ques tions are being asked in this House where an expression of opinion is included, either of the member asking the question or an opinion expressed in some report or newspaper or elsewhere. [Dr.

Buck entered the Chamber] I hesitate about the arrival of the hon. Member for Clover Bar. I'll just interrupt for a moment. [Mr. Speaker sat down and waited for Dr. Buck to be seated] DR. BUCK: Were you afraid I might miss something? MR. SPEAKER: Two, Beauchesne goes on to say: The question must be brief. A

preamble need not exceed one carefully drawn sentence. A long pre amble on a long question takes an unfair share of time and provokes the same sort of reply. A supple mentary question should need no

preamble. There is no member of this House who will have any difficulty in remembering or finding in Hansard hundreds of questions that have been asked with long

preambles. They may be in carefully drawn sentences, but they often combine enough matter for many sentences, and pre ambles are being sandwiched in parts throughout the text of the question. Three, the next quotation from the same book reads as follows: The question ought to seek information and, there fore, cannot be based upon a hypothesis, cannot seek

May 30, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 1213 an opinion, either legal or otherwise, and must not suggest its own answer, be argumentative or make representations. Again, many, many dozens of questions are being asked in this Assembly where information is being given by referring to newspaper or other reports under the guise of identifying the subject matter of the question. Four, on the same page, the next rule is stated as follows: It ought to be on an important matter, and not be frivolous. Obviously, what is important and what is frivolous is a matter of opinion.

Five, next we find this rule: The matter ought to be of some urgency. There must be some present value in seeking the information during the Question Period rather than through the Order Paper or through correspondence with the Minister or the department. In this Assembly, there has been such latitude that very many questions are being asked by members on both sides which could be asked in discussions or correspond ence with ministers or departments, or by being placed in writing on the Order Paper.

The further rules found on page 132 of Beauchesne, with the manner of numbering them slightly changed, are as follows. Six: A question must be within the administrative compe tence of the Government. The Minister to whom the question is directed is responsible to the House for his present Ministry and not for any decisions taken in a previous portfolio. Seven: A question must adhere to the proprieties of the House, in terms of inferences, imputing motives or casting aspersions upon persons within the House or out of it. Eight: A question that has previously been answered ought not to be asked again.

Nine: A question cannot deal with a matter that is before a court. Now this last is too strict a statement of this rule, sometimes called the sub judice convention, but Beau chesne states it better in citations 335 to 339, which are too lengthy to quote here. There is more on this rule in Sir Erskine May's 19th edition. Ten: A question ought not to refer to a statement made outside the House by a Minister. Eleven: A question which seeks an opinion about govern ment policy is probably out of order in that it asks for an opinion and not information.

A question asking for a general statement of government policy may be out of order in that it requires a long answer that should be made on motion or in debate. Other questions inevitably deal with government policy and the general restrictions regarding such questions have never been applied. Twelve: Questions should not anticipate a debate scheduled for the day, but should be reserved for the debate. The following quotations from page 133 of Beauchesne are all relevant, except the reference to two Houses of Parliament, because of course each of our provinces has only one House or Assembly.

Again, I have changed the number. Thirteen: Some further limitations seem to be generally under stood. A question may not: (1) ask a solution of a legal question, such as the

interpretation of a statute. (2) seek information about matters which are in their nature secret, such as decisions or pro ceedings of Cabinet or advice given to the Crown by the Law Officers. (3) seek information about proceedings in a com mittee which has not yet made its report to the House. (4) criticize decisions of the House. (5) reflect on the character or conduct of the Speaker or other occupants of the Chair, Members of either House of Parliament and members of the judiciary. (6) relate to communications alleged to have passed between a Member and a Minister.

Fourteen, there are rules about replies too. They are much more briefly stated in Beauchesne, probably be cause answers are expected to relate to the questions. Clearly, question period is not a time for ministerial announcements. The privilege of making such an nouncements is also said to be, like the question period, a comparatively recent development in the 700-year history of parliament. But, as we know, another time is provided for ministerial statements in our daily routine, outside the question period. Fifteen, on page 133 of the fifth edition, Beauchesne has this to say about replies to questions:

(1) A Minister may decline to answer a question without stating the reason for his refusal, and insis tence on an answer is out of order, with no debate being allowed. A refusal to answer cannot be raised as a question of privilege, nor is it regular to comment on such a refusal. A Member may put a question but has no right to insist upon an answer.

(2) An answer to a question cannot be insisted upon, if the answer be refused by the Minister on the ground of the public interest; nor can the question be replaced on the [Order] Paper. The refusal of a Minister to answer on this ground cannot be raised as a matter of privilege. Sixteen, it has been held, and I agree, that refusal of an answer, even without stating any reason, does not give rise to a question of privilege. I know of no case in which such a refusal has been held to be even a prima facie case of privilege worth referring to a committee on privileges.

Seventeen, there is a statement about answers which is not mentioned in the fifth edition of Beauchesne but is found on page 153 of the fourth edition. It reads: Questions must be answered briefly and distinctly, and be limited to the necessary explanations, though a certain latitude is permitted to Ministers of the Crown whenever they find it necessary to extend their remarks with the view of clearly explaining the matter in question.

The fourth edition of Beauchesne goes on to refer to expunging from Hansard gratuitous references in an swers, but this need not be a matter of concern because there appears to be only one case in which that ever happened, and that was in the House of Commons on April 6, 1925. Eighteen, there remains the matter of supplementary questions. On page 134 in the fifth edition, Beauchesne states the practice as follows: Although there may be no debate on an answer,

1214 ALBERTA HANSARD May 30, 1983 further questions, as may be necessary for the eluci dation of the answers that have been given, within due limits, may be addressed to a Minister. The extent to which supplementary questions may be asked is in the discretion of the Speaker. Many of our supplementaries have not been supplemen taries in the true sense, seeking, in the above words of Beauchesne, "elucidation of the answers that have been given". Instead, many of our supplementaries are further main questions on the same or a somewhat related topic.

Members asking supplementaries in Alberta's parlia ment have some substantial advantages. We have a 45- minute question period for a House of 79 members. In our federal House of Commons, there are 40 minutes for a House of 282 members. Moreover, there only two or three supplementaries are allowed. In our Assembly, on the other hand, members sometimes ask five or six or more supplementaries and, when there has been time, there have been as many as a dozen or more.

There seems to be an impression that the fewer non government members the voters elect to a parliament, the more those members should be allowed to disregard rules and ask questions which are not in keeping with the practical rules that distinguish a question period from debating time. An opinion that that is in order does not require comments. It is obvious that apart from special functions in the House, all members, once elected, are equal and are, including the Speaker, required to respect established practical rules. The principles mentioned above are substantially those in effect for many years.

Most of them are stated in the fourth edition of Beauchesne, which was published in 1958. Presumably all members, including myself, know what kind of parliament they agreed to be elected to, and came here either to change the rules by parliamentary means or to respect them as they are. From time to time, questions or answers which are out of order get past the Speaker. Such examples do not establish good precedents and ought not to be followed.

The quotations I have just read, and a reading of our Hansard for the past several years, will make it abundant ly clear that there has indeed been a great deal of latitude in our question periods. However, that may not be gener ally recognized by those outside the Assembly who have not had a chance to learn what are the basic underlying principles of the question period. I thank members for their attention, and hope that the time taken by this statement will be more than offset by time saved in question periods.

I'll be tabling two copies, and all hon. members will be receiving copies. head: ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Court Decision MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct the first question to the Attorney General. Is the Attorney Gener al in a position to confirm that, subject to the release of Mr. Neustaedter's phone record by my colleague in the Legislature several weeks ago, the RCMP have reopened their investigation into the activities of the Gleichen deta chment of the RCMP around the Neustaedter incident? MR. CRAWFORD: Mr.

Speaker, I think I indicated before that if at any time there would be proceedings taken, as has since happened in this case, then that would give rise to a study of those charges as presented, and that brings with it further examination of all the available evidence. I don't think I'm in a position now to indicate to the hon. member what he asks for, in terms of confirm ing whether or not a specific investigation of that deta chment has been undertaken. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question.

Could the minister advise the Assembly whether there have been any discussions with the federal Solicitor General on this particular matter, and whether it's at the initiative of the Attorney General or the federal Solicitor General that this matter is being pursued? MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, I've had no discussion with the Solicitor General of Canada on this point. What has occurred is what I indicated earlier; that is, when the circumstances have been reintroduced, of all the events, which we discussed in the Assembly before, surrounding Mr.

Neustaedter's case of a couple of years ago, every thing that should be done in respect of gathering and assessing evidence is done. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Bearing that answer in mind, is the Attorney General in the position to bring the House up to date on the response of the Crown to the information sworn at Glei chen in mid-April by Mr. Neustaedter, which I take it would be additional information the Crown is now reviewing? MR. CRAWFORD: Mr.

Speaker, I don't want to ap proach the matter in the way of sort of giving a blow-by- blow update on what might be developing in respect of any investigation or any assessment of existing or new evidence. I can only assure the Assembly that the matter is being dealt with and that as far as the informations that have been sworn are concerned, we are certainly treating them seriously. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Could the minister tell the House why the Crown twice requested postponement of the court hearing, originally scheduled for May 18, of Mr. Neustaedter's concerns? MR. CRAWFORD: Mr.

Speaker, all that would have been involved there was a first date that had appeared on the first summons issued. I was aware of one postpone ment; the hon. leader refers to another one, which I was not aware of. The decision for taking that sort of step is normally made by the Crown agent who is present. He may indeed consult with his superiors, but there is noth ing unusual about a deferment of such a case. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a final supplementary question. Is the minister in a position to give the House some indication, then, as to when the Crown will be able to pursue this matter?

Since there has been a deferment, do we have some indication as to what the next step will be? MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, I don't have in mind the date as to when the matter is scheduled to be back before the courts, but it would be within the next few weeks. At that point, given the fact that it's had to be deferred on the previous occasion, I would assume all the parties would be ready to deal with it.

May 30, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 1215 National Security Service MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct the second question to the hon. Attorney General also. It's with respect to the communique issued by provincial attorneys general as a result of their meeting last week on the Canadian security intelligence service. Could the minister first of all advise the Assembly of the position of the government of Alberta with respect to the concerns un derlined in the communique by other provincial attorneys general? MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, I have not had an opportunity to review a copy of the communique as such.

I have seen newspaper reports relating to it. A couple of things come to mind. One is that, as the hon. leader would know and expect, the view of this government is that we're always willing to look at the views of others and discuss and examine them. MR. NOTLEY: You'd better wink when you say that. MR. CRAWFORD: My first impression of what was done in the new federal legislation is that there had been a follow-up of earlier commitments by the federal gov ernment to legislate.

We all know what a difficult area national security is and how pre-eminently it is the jurisdictional purview of the federal government to deal with it. That does not mean that provincial ministers responsible for the admin istration of justice would not have concerns. But my view, expressed earlier, is that what is needed is the beginning of the implementation of what is now proposed, given the unsatisfactory nature of much of what had occurred over a preceding number of years, as shown in the course of the McDonald commission of inquiry. Perhaps, Mr.

Speaker, without going on too long, those concerns were ones that the police forces themselves and the government of Canada had to address and try to resolve. My view is that the legislation which has now been proposed to Parliament is something that we should look at a little bit more, before reacting too violently to it. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. MR. SPEAKER: I'm just somewhat concerned about the answer, because the hon. minister, on two or three occa sions, expressed his own view.

Now, if hon. ministers are going to express their personal opinions in the question period, obviously that's going to lay the basis for being asked about those opinions by hon. members. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I wouldn't suggest that the minister did that. Perhaps I could ask a supplementary question, then. Is the minister telling the Assembly that the position of the government of Alberta is that his provincial colleagues jumped the gun with their criticism last week of the new Bill? MR.

SPEAKER: That clearly would have to be a matter of opinion, on which I'm sure the hon. leader's opinion would be equally as valid as that of any other member of the House. MR. NOTLEY: I have no doubt it would be equally valid, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to put the supplementary question to the hon. Attorney General, and ask what steps are now being taken by this government to review the federal legislation, in light of its introduction and also the concerns of the minister's provincial counterparts. MR. CRAWFORD: Mr.

Speaker, I certainly want an opportunity to discuss those concerns with other attor neys general, and I think that opportunity will arise within the next number of weeks. In the meantime, my staff is doing an entire survey of what is proposed and an examination of the legislation. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. MR. SPEAKER: Might this be the final supplementary on this topic. MR.

NOTLEY: Given the findings of the Laycraft com mission of 1978, citing lack of communication between the RCMP and the Attorney General as a major prob lem, what steps will the minister take to ensure that the new federal legislation will promote a relationship be tween the Canadian security intelligence service and the Attorney General in those areas identified by Mr. Justice Laycraft? MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, I think the steps that have been taken since 1978, both by my predecessor and myself, have resolved what were referred to as concerns at that time.

I have not recently reviewed the findings of the Laycraft inquiry, it being some five years old now. The circumstances have developed and changed over the years, and I have found the relationships with the RCMP as a whole to be excellent. Naturally, the relationship with the security service is a slightly different matter. Data Processing Study MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Economic Development is with regard to a recent study completed on the survey of the data proces sing community.

Could I ask the minister whether this is the first such study done by the department, the reason it was not done at an earlier stage, and what the main purpose of that study was? MR. PLANCHE: I'm not sure I understand the question well, Mr. Speaker.

To go over the purpose of the study: the difficulty with assisting a growing high-technology industry such as computer software is identifying who the people are that are involved, not only because it's interest ing to get a consensus from them as to what kind of assistance might be valuable, but it's also useful when people who want to invest or co-invest come from out of the province; we can identify who is available in that sector. I'm afraid I didn't understand the rest of the question. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, I think the first part of the question was with regard to the significance.

Was this the first major study undertaken by the department, or were earlier studies relative to this matter undertaken by the department? MR. PLANCHE: I'd have to take that as notice and check it, Mr. Speaker.

1216 ALBERTA HANSARD May 30, 1983 Northern Alberta Children's Hospital MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct my ques tion to the Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care. Can the minister advise if he was invited to participate in the pediatric research centre telethon on the weekend, and can he outline the considerations which led to his not participating in an official capacity in that telethon? MR. SPEAKER: I have grave doubt about the propriety of that question. Are we going to have ministers explain ing in the House every time they refuse an appointment? MR. MARTIN: Mr.

Speaker, it was a major event, and it had to do with . . . Well, I'll go on to the next question rather than debate it here. MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. member was trying to make a point that the minister wasn't there, he's made it. MR. MARTIN: Okay, thank you. Were you there, Dave? I wasn't sure. I understand that over $250,000 was raised on this telethon. My question to the minister is, will the govern ment undertake to match the funds raised from the pri vate sector for this project? MR. RUSSELL: Mr.

Speaker, I believe the government's position with respect to a children's hospital in Edmonton in the near future is quite clear. It's not on the horizon, and I know of no existing program whereby funds could be matched. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question to the minis ter. This had to do with the research centre rather than the hospital as such. My question would be about the research centre. Will the province match the grants raised in the telethon last night for the research centre? MR. RUSSELL: No, I don't know of any such commit ment, Mr. Speaker.

As far as a pediatric research centre, I think it's always been presented as phase one of a northern Alberta children's hospital. In any presentation made to me, that's the way it's been presented. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question to the minis ter, Mr. Speaker. In making the decision to postpone the children's hospital, what assessment was made of the report of the Edmonton Pediatric Society, which pointed out that Edmonton lags far behind the rest of the country as far as numbers of pediatric surgeons and, I believe, pediatric research ability are concerned? MR. RUSSELL: Mr.

Speaker, I can say that that piece of information and those opinions were one element that did go into our decision-making, along with others. The special report we commissioned was tabled in this House. I've reported on the meetings I have had with representa tives of the Northern Alberta Children's Hospital Foun dation, and I believe they understand why it will be very difficult for us to proceed with yet another hospital capi tal facility in Edmonton in the near future.

Notwithstand ing that, they're committed to going out and drumming up public support and a financial contribution toward the cost of a facility, so that support and those dollars will be there at such time as the facility may proceed. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I'm almost tempted to come back to my first question after that answer, but I'll proceed. Has the minister had an opportunity to review the quality of the children's cardiac surgery facilities this year, subsequent to the departure of specialists earlier this year, I believe, and one in December last year?

I guess the general question is, what initiatives does the government plan to improve children's cardiac care here in the future? MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, like any other program, hopefully that will be a matter of ongoing improvement. At the present time the board of the University hospital is seeing if they can't move ahead in their scheduling with the intensive care unit attached to the pediatric facility that is there. Insofar as specialists leaving, I'm told that one them has changed his mind and is still here. So it's not all bad news.

There are many provinces that wish they could do half as well as we're doing. MR. MARTIN: Well, that brings me to another supple mentary. I'm sure they'd be interested. Would the minis ter confirm that Edmonton — it's from this report — has 15 times fewer pediatric beds than the average in those cities which have a children's . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. That is clearly a matter of private research. I've had increasing concern about the number of times ministers are being asked to confirm things which may be used as a basis for subsequent argument.

It's not within any minister's public duties to confirm private research done by any of the members. MR. MARTIN: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The minister made the statement that other places were look ing to Alberta as having an acceptable amount. I was trying to confirm, from a report he knows about . . . MR. SPEAKER: I realize there was some possible basis for that supplementary in what the minister had said. But let's remember this: that reply was evoked by a very argumentative question, which was intended to put the minister in a bad light. Consequently, it's not surprising that he went that far.

But someplace it has to stop; otherwise, we're into a fullfledged debate between the member and the minister. Government Ownership — Private Sector DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, my question to the hon. Premier has to do with the

section of Hansard where the hon. Premier said that he would attempt to convince any new federal Tory leader to clean house in Ottawa of public service personnel who have socialistic leanings. In light of the fact that the provincial government owns Pacific Western Airlines, can the Premier indicate if the person or persons responsible for the advice given to the Alberta government to buy that air line will be fired, or have they been terminated? In light of the fact that we want to get rid of the socialists in Ottawa, are we going to do the same in Alberta? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr.

Speaker, that would be some what difficult, because the advice given to the government was given from the leader of government and that would have some difficulty for him. [laughter]

May 30, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 1217 DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, can the hon. Premier indicate to the Assembly how the sale of Pacific Western Airlines is going? Is the government going to divest itself of that company or not? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, it is an important ques tion. I'd prefer to take notice of it, though, because it is being handled under the responsibility of the Minister of Transportation, who is unable to be in the House today. I'll pass notice of the hon. Member for Clover Bar's question on to him, so he can respond. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question.

Can the Premier indicate if the person who gave the advice to buy IPSCO is still in the employ of the provin cial government, to find out if we're going to get rid of these undesirable socialist people? MR. SPEAKER: Order please. DR. BUCK: They're the Premier's own words, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: There are many words spoken by the Premier which may be fine in a speech but not in a question asked by the hon. member. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, it's in Hansard, if you wish to read Hansard. Mr.

Speaker, to the Premier: will the services of the person who gave the provincial government advice to purchase shares of IPSCO be terminated by this government? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, the circumstance is the same as the first question, and again I have some diffi culty with it. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, then maybe the Premier can indicate to the Assembly if the services of the person who gave the advice to get involved in Simpson Timber will be terminated by this provincial government. MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, that advice came from the then Deputy Premier, who is no longer part of government. DR. BUCK: Mr.

Speaker, my final supplementary. Can the Premier indicate if socialism in Ottawa is different from socialism in Alberta? [interjections] MR. SPEAKER: Order please. ORDERS OF THE DAY head: GOVERNMENT BILLS AND ORDERS (Second Reading) Bill 44 Labour Statutes Amendment Act, 1983 [Adjourned debate May 27: Mr. Szwender] MR. SZWENDER: Mr. Speaker, I rise to continue de bate on second reading of Bill 44, the Labour Statutes Amendment Act, 1983. On Friday I concluded on a somewhat charitable note, by praising the members of the Official Opposition.

Today being the start of a new and beautiful week — and I might add that I'm feeling somewhat better myself — I thought I would continue to offer solace to our misguided friends. First of all, I would like to offer some of my time to the Member for Edmonton Norwood on how to use a dic tionary. On Friday he became quite excitable when I used the word "delude" to describe his empty rhetoric. I can well understand the confusion I must have created in his mind with a word of that complexity, since his vocabu lary is normally limited to monosyllables or four-letter words.

So I am sure he would accept my generosity as a teacher to help him expand his vocabulary. By the way, Ray, that's spelled d-e-l-u-d-e. I'll end my remarks about the Member for Edmonton Norwood by referring to him as a rodomontade, which should leave the member thoroughly uncertain as to what he really is. [interjection] MR. SPEAKER: Order please. It also makes the Speaker uncertain as to whether the expression is parliamentary. MR. SZWENDER: I assure you that it is, Mr. Speaker.

Still feeling very charitable, I would like to extend some much-needed advice to the Leader of the Opposi tion, the Member for Spirit River-Fairview. On Friday I began to warn the member of the dangers that await governments or even official oppositions that prostitute themselves to the union bosses, Quebec being the prime example. [interjection] I can see the Member for Edmon ton Norwood has had his Cheerios this morning. MR. MARTIN: What about Imperial Oil? MR.

SZWENDER: Although I somewhat grudgingly have to admit a certain admiration for the hon. member, even at the risk of upsetting members of caucus who would be considered to be politically to my right — that is, both of them — I must admit that I even like the Member for Spirit River-Fairview. He is a hard worker and a conscientious parliamentarian, Mr. Speaker, and that is why I am worried about him. I don't really think the member believes the balderdash that he poured over us on Friday. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. I have some difficulty.

Surely once in a while a member tosses a barb at another member, and it's probably done in good sport. But I'm having some difficulty as to how these remarks are rele vant to the Bill. MR. SZWENDER: I respect that ruling, Mr. Speaker, and I promise not to pout and stomp out of the House. [interjections] But I realize that the Leader of the Opposition . . . MR. NOTLEY: Try to speak on the Bill, Walter. MR. SZWENDER: Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that this is all very well connected.

I know that the Leader of the Opposition was under surveillance on Friday, and probably still is, and must appear to get his dander up over the issue. We know there are young lions waiting impatiently in the wings for his job, and the problem is that they perceive the member

1218 ALBERTA HANSARD May 30, 1983 of the opposition as a fat-cat social democrat. Mr. Speaker, it would be useful to put on record at this time that the Member for Spirit River-Fairview is the second highest paid member of this government. I am getting to my point, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member seems to have a long way to go. MR. SZWENDER: Well, if that

preamble is too long, Mr. Speaker, I shall go directly to the issue which, through no fault of my own, I was sidetracked from on Friday. Returning to the main issue, I would like to review just briefly what has happened in Quebec, where the provin cial government sold itself and the taxpayers of the province to union demands. Nobody is saying that public-sector employees do not deserve fair wage settle ments, but when a government sells its soul to specific interest groups, they can hardly expect anything different from what occurred in Quebec.

It is so ironic that the very people who, for selfish reasons, elected the Parti Québecois are the ones rebelling most vehemently. Bill 111 in Quebec need never have happened and should provide us the lessons to prevent it from ever occurring in Alberta. What was Bill 111? The Quebec provincial government promised the unions making up the common front, which is a coalition of teachers, public service employees, and professionals — all funded by taxpayers' money — an open house on the Treasury.

Their demands were unend ing, to the point that the Quebec government now has a deficit of $3 billion and an annual public-sector payroll of $10.1 billion. This is 20 to 30 per cent higher than any other province's costs. Is that responsible management? Of course it isn't, simply because the government there is in no position to pay those types of salaries. So the PQ government had no way out. It had to introduce a series of Bills to reduce the provincial deficit. This was done in a series of steps. Last June it began with Bill 70, with wage rollbacks.

As pointed out, this created a dishonest relationship, but the government had to im plement wage rollbacks against the very people who elected them. The next step the government had to impose was a series of new contracts to replace previous ones. This was done through Bill 105. The government's aim was to slash $521 million from the public payroll over the next three years. We know the natural and expected reaction from the unions, but what can a gov ernment lacking a fiscal policy do when 52 per cent of its $19.5 billion budget goes out in salary and wage pay ments?

When times were better, these promises were made with some degree of expectation, but they can no longer be irresponsibly made in either Quebec or Alberta with any public-sector employees' union. The final and most drastic step was Bill 111, a Bill necessary to restore public order in that province. Cer tainly that Bill was drastic. It would impose severe penal ties on violators who refused to comply with the law. Not only were there widespread disruptions in the province, particularly in the schools, but the whole social fabric of that province was weakened.

A lack of trust exists there, and no government can be effective if it does not have the trust of its people. But that's the situation there. The people of that prov ince are paying dearly. Taxes are 24 per cent higher than in Ontario and 30 per cent higher than in Alberta. So the evidence is clearly before us, Mr. Speaker. We must set out guidelines through clear fiscal policies, and that is our responsibility. On a final note, Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate, for the record, statements made by a couple of groups that will be affected by Bill 44.

The first was made at the hearings on Wednesday, April 27, by Mr. Mitchell of the Alberta Hospital Employees Union No. 41. If Bill 44 goes through, I can assure you that it will not be respected by our union. The other example I would like to cite is this copy of the April issue of the United Nurses of Alberta News Bulletin. May I quote? MR. NOTLEY: But don't read it, Walter. MR. SPEAKER: If the text of a quotation is in issue, surely an hon. member should be able to quote it. MR. SZWENDER: Thank you for that ruling, Mr. Speaker. It's very brief.

Bill 44 appears to be an indication of the immaturity and inexperience of the Lougheed government in that it needs to toy with state controls over union members. The Lougheed government had best be prepared for great resistance from the people of Alberta and the even tual backlash against any government that uses fas cist techniques to subdue members of the population. What a pitiful threat of utter nonsense, Mr. Speaker. This was brought to me by two nurses from my constituency who were ashamed and embarrassed to be associated with these statements from their union executive.

These are honest, hardworking individuals with families, and they want no part of strikes or any illegal actions proposed by their manipulative union henchmen. These are just two very small examples, but they reflect the feelings of the great majority of citizens. In this province, the law will be respected, as it is in any civilized society. Mr. Speaker, Bill 44 is not only necessary, but it is right. I support the Bill wholly, and urge all members in the Assembly to add their support. MR. ALEXANDER: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to rise to debate Bill 44 as well, suggesting at the beginning that I haven't had nearly as stimulating a weekend as the Member for Edmonton Belmont and have eaten no raw meat. I trust that my comments will be directly to the point, particularly having to do with the fiscal policy aspect of the discussion, and perhaps just a few comments about what kind of employer we are and ought to be. In his comments last Friday, the hon.

Leader of the Opposition described some backbenchers as pushing and pulling the minister toward this unfair piece of legislation, which I am sure is highly amusing to the minister. He commented further that some of us have no appreciation of "the delicacy of collective bargaining". I freely confess at the outset that I am one of those who has not been able to detect much "delicacy in collective bargaining", especially not much delicacy in the comments of those people who appeared before our committee or who have appeared in their roles as union leaders either on televi sion or in the public press.

I personally am under no delusions about Bill 44. I don't believe it seeks or purports to achieve some Utopian condition; it seeks to serve the public interest, including the interests of a large number of faithful and diligent public employees who, in my view, are not being particu

May 30, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 1219 larly well served by the remarks of their leaders. It is not our job to fail the public interest in this matter, even in the face of the pounding drums of labor leaders and their political brothers. My interest is the public interest. In that regard, I think it's interesting to note that the statistical evidence points out that this government and other governments in Canada are not just good employ ers, we have become the best employers in the economy.

While the logic of the prevailing wage principle implies that the public sector should take its lead from private- sector compensation packages, in recent years Canada has seen the reversal of this principle, so that private- sector employees are now pointing to gains made in the public sector to justify their bargaining demands. Fur ther, the pay advantage now enjoyed by public-sector employees arose simultaneously with the rise of public- sector unionism.

It is interesting to compare with the United States and the United Kingdom, after whose labor legislation Cana da's is modelled, and the developments in the last 20 years represent a radical departure. In the United States, federal and most state government employees are prohib ited from striking and are not permitted to bargain over wages. Canadian policy contrasts sharply with labor legis lation in Britain, where wages in the public sector are not normally determined by bargaining but rather by strict adherence to private-sector comparability guidelines.

Professor Penny Christianson of Simon Fraser says that if we could fashion a new public-sector labor policy, we would advocate a system in which overall compensa tion levels were not negotiable. The overall level of compensation for each job type would be determined in each jurisdiction by independent continuing wage boards, whose decisions would be based on strict private-sector comparability guidelines. It is my suggestion that our arbitration process seeks to approximate just such a comparison. It is the situation in Alberta, as far as we can determine and, in the public interest, it should be.

Public- sector employees should receive no more and no less than comparable private-sector employees. I said my main concern in this debate is fiscal policy as a guideline to our arbitrators. I think to myself: how could these guidelines to arbitrators have been published without fiscal policy? I don't know how that oversight happened, and it doesn't matter. It needs to be put back in the Act. Objections, however, are raised, and such objections. Comments have been made that this is wage control through indirect and devious means, without the accom panying political flak — what objections. Mr.

Speaker, I request permission to read from Han sard some of the remarks that have been made by people who objected to this policy. Mr. Kostiuk, speaking on behalf of the AFL, pointed to the insertion of the

section in the Labour Relations Act and the Public Service Employee Relations Act of that which deals with fiscal policies of the government as requiring an arbitrator to take into account government fiscal policy and thereby . . . impose a system of informal wage restraint. I respectfully point out that a guideline doesn't impose anything. He goes on to say: To the extent that an arbitrator is bound by govern ment fiscal policy, he will have ceased to be an independent and impartial judge of an appropriate level of wages and working conditions.

Instead, he will have become a mere instrument to implement the government's policy of wage restraint. The provi sion requires a supposedly impartial tribunal to make a finding which implements the bargaining position of one of the parties to the dispute. An arbitrator acting under the statutory criteria set out in Bill 44 is not free to be impartial. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to go on and examine how he can be impartial under the present circumstances. Mr. Kos tiuk does go on, however, to invoke the prescriptions of the Freedom of Association Committee of the Governing Body of the ILO for such circumstances.

It says that when such restrictions, such as no strike, are imposed, they should be "accompanied by adequate, impartial and speedy conciliation and arbitration procedures . . .". There is emphasis here on the matter of impartiality. Mr. Kostiuk says: It is clear that the Bill is designed to make arbitra tors partial to government fiscal policy. It is there fore in violation of [the ILO] . . . It is dishonorable for the government to withdraw the right to strike and then impose a system of binding arbitration that is not even apparently impartial.

And that is certain ly the effect of the imposition of the criteria . . . of government imposition in Bill 44. He is joined by the presentation of the Alberta Union of Public Employees, who asked counsel Mr. Christian to comment. Mr. Christian's comments are: . . . that the particular requirement that an arbitrator take into account the fiscal policy of the government will have no effect . . . But there's a second view, Mr.

Chairman, and that is that these criteria are inserted for some purpose; that particularly the criterion which requires an arbi trator to take into account government fiscal policy, is inserted precisely because it is the intention of the government that an arbitrator shall not impartially determine a dispute between the parties but shall, in fact, be bound by the government's fiscal policies . . . I think the point is that it is fundamentally unfair for this government to ask an . . . neutral arbitrator to give overriding consideration to the statement of economic policy of one of the parties to the dispute.

He fails to distinguish here between fiscal and economic policy, which is unfortunate. In my submission, what it is really designed to do is have an ostensibly impartial adjudication which in fact is not impartial . . . but an adjudication in which the arbitrator is bound to give overriding importance to the government's own statement of economic policy. I emphasize again that there is obviously a concern among public-sector unions about impartiality. Then on what information, in front of the arbitrators, could this treasured impartiality be based? It's important to keep in mind all the parties in the process.

Arbitrators themselves have remarked that their legislation fails to identify which factors are important and that it does not give them adequate guidance on fiscal policy of the government. They seem, in the process, to be looking for somewhat more clarity and direction. Some arbitrators, of course, are not. What fiscal policy direction have the arbitrators had? Has it in fact been considered by the arbitrators? Strange ly enough, it has indeed. It has been conveyed to them by the union's representatives. Let us have a look at their version of government fiscal policy.

For those members who have had the required rock-ribbed endurance to wade through some of the submissions presented to us before the Bill 44 hearings, if you got as far as the

1220 ALBERTA HANSARD May 30, 1983 submissions for divisions 4 and 11 of AUPE, you might have found some rather interesting impressions of this government's fiscal policy. I take some examples from the submission made under Division 4, February 14 and 15, 1983, by Mr. Ed McCrae, union representative. Mr. McRae rejects the suggestion that pay restraint of the type proposed in this arbitration has become a fiscal necessity for the govern ment of Alberta. Thus perhaps there isn't quite as much mystery about fiscal policy as people would have liked to have conveyed to us.

Similar concerns have most often been expressed by spokesmen for financially-troubled corporations or government jurisdictions who have sought lower labour costs as a means of retaining solvency or balancing their budgets. Imagine considering those things to retain your solvency. This Government is not at all in the same financial position as, for example, General Motors of Canada, the Government of Canada, or the City of Windsor. Should we be?

He goes on to point out that the $700 million deficit, actually from early '82 might appear to provide a possible basis for pay restraint were it not for several considerations . . . What are those considerations? They're fiscal policy con siderations. The first one he points to is: labour costs have not risen disproportionately as a percentage of total expenditure. Are they supposed to? If this government undertakes a large capital expenditure program, are we to keep wages proportionate? That may be their view of fiscal policy but, in the public interest, it certainly couldn't be mine.

His second point is that revenues would have been projected to increase even more rapidly in 1982-83 were it not for certain nega tive factors . . . The negative factors he cites are lower projected corporate income tax, projected to decrease from $407 million . . . to $359 million . . . a decrease of 11.8%. An awareness of an important factor is shown there. Making matters even worse, another sharp reduction in corporate-based provincial tax revenue, was brought about by the announcement in May, 1982 of the Economic Resurgence Program.

A program combining royalty-forgiveness with a variety of other incentives to the oil industry projected to cost $5.4 billion over three years . . . With this, the projected . . . budgetary deficit jumped to $2.5 billion . . . This type of corporate giveaway directed toward the oil industry, added as it was to the generous grants and tax reduction programs . . . Just as an aside, Mr. Speaker, I'm sure the oil industry will be interested to discover that Mr. McRae feels that the PGRT and 10RT are tax-reduction programs.

None the less, he quotes them, saying that they are already in place and have helped substantially reduce the Alberta Governments ability to generate re venues, and if nothing else, makes any proposals for spending restraint grossly out-of-place. Anyone else reading that would have been forgiven for coming to precisely the opposite conclusion. It seems to say that spending in deficit is not a reason not to spend more. Mr. McRae further cites the lower transfer payments MR. SPEAKER: Order please.

I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member, but I'm becoming increasingly uneasy about the kind of precedent we may be establishing if hon. members quote at length from statements made by people who are not members. There are certain quota tions which are totally in order, such as statements in volving a lot of detail which it's hard to remember, especially statistics.

But it has often been said that in this Assembly members are expected to debate on the basis of their own thoughts and that people who are not elected to this Assembly are not entitled to debate in the Assembly, even through the means of elected members. Of course, some of that is in order, but we're getting a lot of debate, some for and some against, read into the proceedings this afternoon. It would seem to me that if points against are paraphrased, that would be adequate; they could then be countered.

As far as points in favor of the member's point of view are concerned, I would re spectfully suggest that they could be expressed in his own words just as authoritatively, and maybe more so, than points made in textbooks on political science or whatever. MR. ALEXANDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think I've made the error here of interspersing some of my own comments with briefer comments of Mr. McRae, that I have read. I apologize for that. I'll try to be short on what he says and a little longer on what I say.

However, I would point out, not so much as a point of order but perhaps for background, that what I am read ing is from the appearance of this particular group before our select committee. These are quotations from Hansard, and they deal with fiscal policy, which has been made one of the crucial distinctions in Bill 44 by members of the opposition and the whole labor movement since the hear ings.

Thus my concern was to be as accurate as possible with what the people who are opposing the imposition, as they call it, or introduction of these fiscal policy matters before arbitrators — I will certainly refrain from quoting at length and try to make clear which remarks are Mr. McRae's and which are mine. I want to use one more quote here as shortly as I can. In his presentation before this House, Mr.

McRae said: The final consideration which [must] be taken into account in analyzing the estimated Provincial deficit are the sharply increased capital cost estimates which are provided [by the] Provincial Treasurer . . . Here I will lapse into my own figures, Mr. Speaker. The point was made that in last year's budget, some $2.143 billion was devoted to capital works projects.

Whether or not these are efficacious measures as matters of stimulation in our economy, the comment was made that this matter of generosity to the construction industry is clearly in consistent with the restraints that are proposed for government employees. As an aside, Mr. Speaker, I thought it was interesting that one of the hon. members recently said that nothing has done anything to unite the trade union movement quite as much as Bill 44. I wonder whether some members of the building trades have read these submis sions.

I'm not so sure that people working in the con struction industry would be all that gratified to learn that their public employee brethren had suggested that the capital works by the government, which kept them work ing, was constituted as generosity to the construction industry. They might be further interested to refer to this year's

May 30, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 1221 budget. Because in that same budget, capital works has been reduced to $1.9 billion. Mr. Speaker, that represents about a $200 million transfer from capital works into the public accounts of the province of Alberta, by far the largest part, of course, going to pay salaries and wages of the union of public employees. The representative of the union further represented before the arbitrators such matters as the hiring and compensation of management personnel.

He called this House inconsistent because the members of our Legisla tive Assembly had voted themselves a pay increase of 47 per cent. What he failed to mention, of course, was that there was no term or details attached, that this pay raise in fact came out of a 1979 Miller commission, and that that raise was dated from 1975. It was considered in 1979, went in place in 1980 and, subsequent to that point in time, members had been reimbursed at the lower of infla tion or 5 per cent, whichever may be the case. However, there's no sense mentioning before arbitrators what doesn't help your case.

It criticized the contracting out of work to consultants, massive commitments to huge capital projects such as Kananaskis park, the Legislature Grounds, the Walter C. Mackenzie hospital, Universiade '83, and Capital City Park as not indicating ways in which a government would employ a restraint policy. One might reasonably have thought that all of these projects were started many years ago and simply had to be finished.

The representative went on to decry the government's offer for economic stimulation of the $14 billion Alsands consortium, saying that this kind of economic stimulation is decidedly inflationary, never mind the number of jobs it supplies or employment for other sectors of the econo my. They also quote numerous examples of waste and profligacy as evidence to counter the claim that our government has any general program of restraint. Com ing from the union of public employees, one might count this as a case of true confessions. Mr.

Speaker, by all these remarks from the presenta tions made by the union of public employees who, along with all their brethren and members of the opposition, are so vehemently objecting that such dire straits as fiscal policy should not be imposed on arbitrators, I simply want to make the point — well, I wonder how they could possibly argue that, having themselves done such a thoroughgoing hatchet job on our fiscal policy before the arbitrators. It strikes me as being extremely inconsistent. The truth of the matter, as far as I can see it, is that it reduces what the real interest is.

The real interest is that into this distorted economy, collective bargaining comes as a countervailing power. Mr. Speaker, I find it refresh ing that this union representative put it on the table, albeit only in one sentence. But that's what it's all about: countervailing power. I'd like to ask, countervailing what? Countervailing elected representatives and their representing the public interest, that's what. No such countervailing power can rationally exist with the public interest. We're elected to make the rules. I suggest to any union leaders who want countervailing power that they run in the next election.

I would like to suggest that the submission does not suggest to me at all the solidarity of the union movement. In fact, it may not be forever, as the song says, at least not if certain members of the building trades council decide to take time to read some of these submissions. Some of the submissions are very illustrative of the frac tured viewpoints that I presented.

It says that the propo sition that a group of government employees should somehow feel compelled to exercise self-sacrifice and re straint as a way to assist less fortunate members of the labor force and other sectors is ludicrous, especially in the absence of evidence that workers will get the benefits. There are a lot of construction workers out there who would like to get the benefits that certain members of other unions, namely the Alberta union of public em ployees, have been granted.

If this Bill has united the trade union movement as never before, I can't say much for the unity of the trade union movement. I would like to know from those building trades people whether they could confirm that remark. But that really isn't the point. It's clear from the . . . MR. MARTIN: On a point of order. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The hon. Member for Edmonton Norwood has risen on a point of order. MR. MARTIN: The hon. Member for Edmonton Whitemud was quoting Mr. McRae, and he explained it to you. But I wonder if he could explain to me where he got that reference he was talking about before. MR.

SPEAKER: With respect, that's really a question; it's not a point of order. But of course it is in order to ask questions of a member who is speaking, and it's up to the member then to decide whether he wants to deal with it. MR. ALEXANDER: Yes, I'd be glad to give it to him, Mr. Speaker. It's in the Division 4 submission, the green book provided to us all by the Alberta union of public employees. The page number is C17. MR. MARTIN: I have a supplementary on that. I believe you said something to the Speaker about Hansard. That's what confused me, and I went back to look. MR. ALEXANDER: Mr.

Speaker, that particular point is not in Hansard. It's in Divison 4 on page C17 of the submission. Mr. Speaker, I just want to conclude by saying that it's clear from this extensive presentation, which I have quoted from with some difficulty to you, to me, and obviously to some other members, that the matter of fiscal policy is already being represented before arbitra tors — I suggest being misrepresented to some extent — and that it is necessary to redress that balance.

If the ILO terms which have been so frequently quoted to us by other members in this House are relevant and the ILO says that impartiality is a value, pray tell, how can an arbitrator be impartial with the union presenting its view of government's fiscal policy but the government not? The need for balance here, in my view, would be apparent to any impartial observer. In the public interest, we in this House cannot transfer effective taxing authority, such as arbitrators now have, without comprehensive direction. That comprehensive direction must include fiscal policy. That's a matter of fiscal responsibility.

That's why I'm elected for, and that's what I'm committed to. Mr. Speaker, the fiscal policy clause in Bill 44 may be late in coming, but it is certainly not too early. There is nothing to gain by prolonging the issue, by moving it ahead six months. Bill 44 must be passed as soon as possible. MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to enter this debate and speak primarily to the principle in the Bill

1222 ALBERTA HANSARD May 30, 1983 that deals with the matter of hospital workers and the opportunity to strike. Before I start, I want to say that I've waited many years to stand in this place and make these remarks. I believe very sincerely that what we are doing in this Bill is clearly the right thing to do on behalf of our constituents. Today I had a very interesting discussion over lunch at the Medic Canada exhibition at the new Edmonton Convention Centre. I was speaking with one of the out- of-province visitors about current events in Canada and North America.

He made what I thought was an extreme ly interesting observation when he spoke of the way events and circumstances relentlessly but surely swing from one extreme to the other but the pendulums of history are self-balancing. I believe we're at the point today in the labor union area where perhaps, in some instances, the pendulum has swung too far one way and it's time to bring it back the other way. I say that because I look at the three strikes that occurred in the hospital field in Alberta between 1978 and 1982 and the incredibly needless misery, incon venience, and anxiety those strikes brought about.

In considering those circumstances, I had to say to myself, as well as to many of the workers involved in those work stoppages: surely there's a better way of solving this kind of dispute. I think all members in this House are aware of the growth of the labor union movement, the unfairness on the side of owners and managers in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and the great strides made by some outstanding labor union leaders on behalf of workers who were being unfairly treated. The opportunity to withdraw services was an important and hard-won tool that rested in the hands of the unions.

But to be absolute ly fair, that opportunity to withdraw services on the part of the workers always had to be balanced by the right of management to impose a lockout. Could anybody in this House tell me how the Alberta Hospital Association could conceivably bring about a lockout in the 1980s in Alberta? They couldn't. In a textbook sense, perhaps they could. But in a realistic sense, there's no way that the managers and directors of the hospitals in Alberta could impose a lockout in order to balance the right of workers to withdraw services.

So those work stoppages in that essential service were really a very one-sided armament or tool. Secondly, those strikes were not real strikes. The whole system didn't close down, and they couldn't have gone on for one day unless thousands of beds were kept in opera tion by way of the Crown hospitals and out-of-scope workers keeping some emergency beds open in a very high-tension situation. So they weren't real strikes be cause there wasn't total withdrawal of services. A large segment of the system never was out on strike but was simply left on the sidelines waiting to see what would happen.

Because of the nature of that situation, it wasn't a strike that could resolve itself. Both sides knew that there had to be a term to it and that if they hung on long enough, some third party — usually the government — would step in and end the strike. So they weren't real strikes, because everybody wasn't involved, it wasn't bal anced by a lockout on behalf of management, and it had a finite term. When you look at that and the fact that you know such a situation can only end in one way — and that is by binding, third-party arbitration — one has to ask the question: what's it all about?

Is it worth having this strike in the first place if you know what the end is going to be? Why put all those innocent third parties to such incon venience, misery, and suffering? If you ask yourself that question, I think you have to do some real soul-searching, and you come up with some interesting answers. The major thing I want to mention in these remarks, Mr. Speaker, is that those strikes hurt the very people we say we'll help when we seek election to this Assembly; that is, our constituents. We go around every four years seeking their support, knocking on their doors, saying, vote me and I'll help you.

Yet, with that in mind, we still permit these hospital strikes to occur. There are some elements that would say that the workers in those institu tions have the right to strike. I would rather use the term "opportunity" to strike. I believe it's well accepted today that in essential services, with the potential to hurt thou sands of innocent, third parties, you can't use the term "right"; it is an opportunity. Frankly, Mr.

Speaker, I found it exceptionally offen sive to sit here and listen to the representatives sit at that table and say that the only people inconvenienced by a strike were administrative people who had to get their hands dusty and get a bit warm by going down into a boiler room. I think that's probably one of the most offensive statements I've heard any citizen of Alberta present to this Legislature. Those spokesmen are obvious ly out of touch with the members of the unions they're supposed to be representing.

Those strikes were extremely damaging and worrisome to our constituents, and it doesn't matter which constituency we represent. Let us look at what happens in a hospital strike. First of all, there is the gearing down, which has to start at least two weeks before a strike commences. You have to start decanting all the hospitals, stop allowing new admis sions, because you don't know what services are going to be available. You have to start transporting those in chronic situations, along with the attached equipment, and find other places for them to stay.

Particularly for the aged who are ill and in a chronic situation, that's a very distressing situation. In both of the last strikes, in 1980 and '82, on the first day of the strike, one of the first phone calls I received was from survivors of elderly citi zens who had been moved and who had died at home on the first day of the strike. Those people didn't say the strike caused their relatives' deaths, but they did ask the question: would the death have occurred had that transfer and distress not been imposed upon that person? It's a question I couldn't answer and probably nobody in this room could.

But it's the kind of situation that developed in two successive strikes. There is obviously discomfort and distress. Emergency cases have to be dealt with by hospitals that are trying to keep some kind of emergency service going, usually under high-stress situations involving out-of-scope workers, probably working 12- and 16-hour shifts, seven days at a stretch, trying to keep the system going; from time to time taking the offer of the union, going out to the picket line, and asking a worker to come in and help — that has happened.

You can imagine the tensions and distress that causes people who are in cases of emergency. For those who are not in cases of emergency but are waiting for the system to get going again, it's an extreme ly distressing and painful situation. As the strike goes on, they look for alternatives: whether or not to travel to other provinces to seek medical attention, considering how much longer they should try to get along with home care for their mother who has a dislocated hip. The cancer patients who are waiting for biopsies and other kinds of non-emergent services are undergoing all kinds

May 30, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 1223 of stress and anxiety. Mr. Speaker, I submit that in the 1980s in Alberta, we should find a more civilized way of dealing with that kind of situation than the traditional strike or work stoppage. Aside from the circumstances I've described that are going on in the hospital system, there's the back-up outside. I mentioned earlier that you have to stop admis sions, and of course these stack up, day after day, in a relentless fashion. At some point you have to ask your self: is the health and safety of Alberta citizens being damaged by this work stoppage?

In the last two strikes, we've asked experts in the field, the College of Physicians and Surgeons, to give us that assessment. They did that by getting reports everyday from the chiefs of medical staffs of hospitals throughout the province. So all those doctors reported on a daily basis what they believed was the medical situation in their hospital communities.

Based on that collective information, which was put together by the college on a daily basis, advice was given to the government: yes, we think the strike could possibly go on another week; you should try to make every effort to get the strike ended by this next weekend; we're starting to get some unfortunate incidents, staff is working under undue stress, et cetera. For those of you who perhaps had the time to visit hospitals in your own constituency that were in a strike bound situation, it's a pretty scary situation.

One of the scenes I'll never forget is the intensive care unit for newborns at the Foothills hospital in Calgary, which was running at about 120 per cent capacity: a one-on-one nursing situation; all these little babies, most under the weight of two or three pounds, in incubators with a registered nurse beside them, plus the attached equip ment; the overcrowding and tension in that room; those nurses trying to make sure that IC unit could cope with that situation building up increasingly like a dam.

For those of us who are in government, it's a very difficult situation to meet around the cabinet table everyday, as sess the situation, and say, yes, it can go on another day or, no, we think it's reached a limit, because at some point you know something unfortunate is going to hap pen; that's just a fact. Those two strikes that occurred during my term as minister of the department and the earlier one, when I wasn't the minister but was involved in Executive Council, were probably the hardest days I've had as a member of government. I'm glad we're taking legislative steps to put an end to it. Furthermore, Mr.

Speaker, I believe the majority of workers involved in those situations are glad we're taking that step too. Since Bill 44 was introduced, I haven't heard any comment, pro or con, directly or indirectly, from one nurse, other than Mrs. Ethier, about the with drawal of the opportunity to strike for hospital workers. I certainly have had many comments from my constituents. They say two things: you're doing the right thing by putting an end to those strikes, but you have to find a way to treat those workers fairly, a way that recognizes the economic facts of life in Alberta.

That's why I'm pleased to get up and speak in support of this Bill. I think it's necessary, and I think it's humane. MR. SPEAKER: May the hon. minister conclude the debate? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. YOUNG: In concluding the debate, Mr. Speaker, first of all I'd like to express appreciation to those who have spoken in support of Bill 44. It is a very challenging kind of decision being made here. I want to thank those who have expressed the various viewpoints, particularly on the difficult issues of the capacity to strike and fiscal policy.

If I could sort of enumerate or summarize, I would say this about the question of fiscal policy and the directions or criteria which the Bill contains for arbitrators: we are in a search for equity between employees working for government and those who are not working for govern ment. In much debate, we have gone into the differences between the private and the public sectors as far as collec tive bargaining is concerned, and there are very substan tial differences. As a matter of fact, the comparison cannot be fairly made in almost any respect.

There is also on this Assembly and on government the responsibility to provide leadership in a fiscal sense. That, too, is an objective of Bill 44. In short, with respect to that particular aspect of the Bill, I think we have now come to realize — and the Bill tries to do this — that we are searching for both equity and fiscal leadership and responsibility in combination.

As I mentioned last day, our failure to achieve that objective will lead us to wage controls or some other variety of government intervention, as has happened in other provinces and at the federal level, which is even more changing in its impact on collective bargaining, because wage controls effectively wipe out collective bargaining. Mr.

Speaker, in terms of the removal of the capacity to strike, I want to say that my colleague the Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care, who has just spoken, has put very eloquently the difficult decisions he in particular went through — and I with him on two occasions — in terms of the advice we were called upon to give to Executive Council. It's not very comfortable knowing that at any time an unpredictable difficulty could develop and it might later be said that that difficulty caused someone's life to be lost.

In terms of the public hearings, I was very pleased that a number of the representations made to us reflected the responsibility that I think is inherent in and must be a part of collective bargaining. In his report of the Royal Commission Inquiry into Labour Disputes in Ontario, Justice Rand stated: Our society is built within a structure of interwoven trust, credit and obligation; good faith and reliability are essential to its mode of living; and when these obligations are repudiated confusion may be the harbinger of social disintegration. Mr.

Speaker, during our hearings, the Alberta Associa tion of Registered Nursing Assistants made one statement which I call to the memory of hon. members. Our philosophy in Labour Relations is to demon strate union responsibility as well as rights. We did not stretch the system to its limit. We would not leave the bedside of our patients to further our economic standing in life.

And the firefighters, in their submission before the Assembly, went on to say: Firefighters and police officers are perhaps in a unique situation, in the sense that historically they have accepted that given the critical nature of the type of services they provide and the disastrous con sequences should they exercise the economic sanc tion of a strike, it is a necessary corollary to the type of employment they engage in that they not exercise the right to strike. Historically, firefighters in this

1224 ALBERTA HANSARD May 30, 1983 province have not exercised the right to strike, even prior to the time when it became a matter of law that they were prohibited from doing so. I believe those two statements by two strong unions and their leadership illustrate well the acceptance of re sponsibility that some union leaders and many union members have. It is a tribute to them that they would come here to make those statements, which are not shared by all union leaders.

It is a tribute to them that in their collective bargaining, they have conducted them selves in a manner which has demonstrated throughout time their recognition of those special responsibilities that go with their particular kind of employment. I wish to reflect upon another element which needs to be discussed briefly. The Alberta Hospital Association made a representation on an earlier occasion to the Assembly and to all members that they would have at one time preferred an essential position designation. Mr.

Speaker, I think I should express the evaluation I made of that suggestion after a number of discussions with the Alberta Hospital Association. I came to the conclusion that their suggestion would have effectively created a second type of dispute. The second dispute would have surrounded who would have been designated essential. It was critical to their proposal that the question of essential position be such as to provide for all the unforeseeable but potential needs of the hospital system.

If one could do that and have a strike at the same time, it would seem to me that there would be a considerable amount of dispute over what was truly an essential position. In our evaluation, that proposal was found to be faulted on two points: first, it might lead to a second type of dispute, quite apart from the substantive element that should be at issue, which would be the wage package and the working conditions; and, secondly, it may very well prolong a dispute.

So even with the hospitals operating, they might well be operating at less than full capacity, and they certainly would be operating in an employment relationship mode that would be counterproductive and that could not in any way lead to a positive relationship. Finally, on that particular suggestion, it's well for us to note that through court decisions, at the request of the federal government, the air traffic controllers, who had a somewhat similar type of designation possibility, have since lost any ability to have a strike.

I think that in itself is a major watershed for the notion that we have had put before us. I would like to comment, as well, on the question of collective bargaining for the police. The police representa tives made a very eloquent and well-reasoned presenta tion to us on the occasion of the public hearings, and as well as have had several meetings since that time. It was the decision to recommend that they not be included in Bill 44 but have their own particular legislation which we would look forward to enacting in the fall of 1983.

I make these particular distinctions as far as the police are concerned in contrast to other employees. First of all, police are not allowed to join a union, and they have never been allowed to call themselves a union or to affili ate with a union. They function through an association. When sworn in as police officers, they acquire a very distinctive responsibility as peace officers, and they have a very special and unique role in company with others in maintaining all laws and court orders.

Thirdly, when they are on and off duty, their actions are subject to a very special rigorous code of discipline which is unlike that required or exacted of any other type of employee. Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could touch briefly on one of the proposed amendments to Bill 44 relating to firefight ers, which will provide firefighters with a continuation of their special recognition of the bargaining unit; that is, that all firefighters except the chief and deputy chief remain within the bargaining unit.

However, it will bring them completely within the Labour Relations Act and, in so doing, makes available to them in all other respects all of the provisions of the Labour Relations Act. In some meetings with them, I have had confirmed that that is one of the objectives they were seeking. Mr. Speaker, I have found the debate both interesting and informative and, in concluding second reading, commend Bill 44 to the support of all members. [Motion carried; Bill 44 read a second time] Bill 6 Architects Amendment Act, 1983 MR. CHAMBERS: Mr.

Speaker, I move second reading of Bill No. 6, the Architects Amendment Act, 1983. This Act provides for a continuing refinement of the government's policy on future legislation governing the professions and occupations. Amendments will be made providing for the dismissal of a complaint if there is insufficient evidence to substantiate the complaint. The Act will also retain the right of a complainant to appeal the decision to dismiss the complaint.

Because of the costs involved in recording all disciplinary proceedings, amendments will provide that a transcript of disciplinary proceedings only be produced when an appeal to the court is made. The Architects Act originally provided for a dual ap peal by an investigated person, either to the Court of Queen's Bench or to the Court of Appeal. Amendments will improve the appeal process and provide greater cer tainty by giving an investigated person the right of appeal directly to the Court of Appeal.

Amendments will also permit the Court of Appeal to make a decision on the matter, refer it to the association, or order that a rehear ing be held before the Court of Queen's Bench. Mr. Speaker, other amendments are of a minor nature im proving the drafting. [Motion carried; Bill 6 read a second time] Bill 48 Universities Amendment Act, 1983 MR. STROMBERG: Mr. Speaker, on April 25 I intro duced Bill No. 48, the Universities Amendment Act, 1983. At that time I stated the general purpose of this Bill. I'd like to repeat it.

It is to provide a mechanism whereby a private college which has met certain criteria, could ob tain the right to grant an academic degree. The Bill establishes the private college's accreditation board as a non-incorporated body whose membership is appointed by the Minister of Advanced Education. The accredita tion board is empowered to inquire into any matters relating to the approval of programs of study leading to an academic degree which might be granted by a private college. Mr.

Speaker, I might add that this amendment has a rather interesting history and some very major implica tions for the city of Camrose and the province. The Bill provides for and will allow the Camrose Lutheran Col lege and other private colleges within the province to become degree-granting universities, if they meet certain

May 30, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 1225 criteria. The concept of this amendment started some years ago with the board of regents of CLC. Their presi dent, Rev. Glen Johnson, first approached me and the Minister of Advanced Education with a proposal for a university at Camrose, eventually. There was really no problem with the minister or his department, Mr. Speak er, but to get the senate of the University of Alberta and other universities in the province to agree was like trying to halter-break a wild cow. As to who shall grant baccalaureates, the universities guard their autonomy very jealously, and rightfully so.

They were especially concerned that a degree granted by a private college would be as good as or better than those currently offered at universities in Alberta. There were numerous meetings among the senate, CLC, and Dr. Henry Anderson of the Department of Advanced Educa tion. Henry was former president of Grande Prairie Col lege, a former teacher in the county of Camrose, and was also born and took his schooling in New Norway. Mr. Anderson was responsible for drafting the Universities Amendment Act, 1983, which, by the way, took some thing like eight drafts before it was presented.

For clarification, it should be noted that Bill 48 does not include any budgetary expenditures for capital re quirements, such as library and new buildings, to CLC or any other such college. However, speaking in considera tion of CLC in Camrose, this college is well along the way to raising $12 million from private subscriptions for new buildings, et cetera. If funding is in place, the college could offer third- and fourth-year courses toward a de gree in arts and science this fall.

The plans of the CLC board of regents are that the college will soon be granting degrees to an eventual enrolment of 1,000 students. The granting of degree-granting status to colleges, particularly to the Camrose Lutheran College, will be a great asset to east-central Alberta. Mr. Speaker, I would like to move second reading of Bill 48. MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to rise on this particular Bill and say that generally I agree with it. I know the institutions that will be affected quite well: Camrose, in the hon. member's riding, and Concordia.

My understanding is that King's College will fall into this realm too. Generally I agree with it. I think they're excel lent institutions and, from what I've seen in them, the quality of education is certainly the equivalent of a uni versity and, in some cases, even better. I'm sure the hon. member is aware of the concerns expressed by Dr. Horowitz, president of the University of Alberta. I don't know whether we want to deal with this here or in committee; I just put in a notice.

It's my understanding that while he agrees with the basic concept of what's happening here, he is somewhat concerned about the extra members, basically members of the pub lic, that were added to this since he talked about it. I guess I will proceed and ask the hon. member if any discussions with President Horowitz have occurred, be cause there was some publicity about it.

I believe his concern is that while there are excellent standards in these institutions now, if you do not have academic people basically setting the curriculum and making sure it is rigorous enough for university work, eventually it could be watered down and we'd get into what happened in the United States: colleges, junior colleges, and universities issuing degrees worth about the paper they're printed on. I believe his worry is that if you take away the voting from academic staff, there could be some concerns with this in the future.

I would not want to say he was in sinuating that the government would just elect Conserva tives to the board or anything like that, Mr. Speaker, but I think he does have some legitimate concerns. I ask the hon. Member for Camrose first of all to tell us, in Committee of Supply or at this time, what's happened in terms of discussions with Dr. Horowitz and, if there haven't been any, how he answers the specific criticisms from the president. MR.

SPEAKER: With regard to the matter the hon. member was just suggesting he might ask of the hon. member sponsoring the Bill, I would respectfully suggest that a question to a member in second reading debate is intended to ask a member to clarify something he has said rather than to add to his speech, and I would suggest that perhaps the question might be asked at committee stage. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I would hope, however, that when the hon.

Member for Camrose concludes de bate, he will take into account in the normal way the concerns that have been raised during the course of debate on second reading and will respond to them. Otherwise there's not much point in having the right to conclude the debate. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to say at the outset that I share my colleague's willingness to support the principle of Bill 48.

I want to make it clear that I for one have a great deal of respect for the work of Camrose Lutheran College particularly, having had the opportunity to be there on a number of occasions and having had an opportunity over the years to know and, in a different capacity, work with one of the most distinguished Albertans, a former princi pal of Camrose Lutheran College, Dr. Chester Ronning. I certainly value the contribution of that institution to the educational advancement of this province. MR. MARTIN: He's one of those dangerous socialists they're worried about. MR.

NOTLEY: Yes, one of those dangerous socialists they're trying to root out, but a distinguished Canadian in the process, I might say. I suspect the hon. Member for Camrose would be the first to agree. Not all Tories are quite as paranoid as the hon. Member for Edmonton Belmont. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to deal with the concern that has been brought to our attention about the membership of this board which is going to be deciding which of these institutions will have accreditation as far as granting degrees.

I don't think any member of this House would want us to attempt to have the same situation you find in parts of the United States where a number of institutions are only vaguely related to an acceptable set of academic standards. The United States has some of the finest universities in the world, and it has institutions that are a sham, a complete discredit to the name "college" or "uni versity". I don't want to see us get into that kind of situation in Alberta. In saying that, I want to make it clear that the very example the hon.

Member for Cam- rose raised is an exception to any suggestion that it is anything other than a college of the highest possible standards. Mr. Speaker, when we pass legislation it not only will affect Camrose Lutheran College, Concordia, or several other institutions that have some reputation — I've had an opportunity, for example, to go through Union Col

1226 ALBERTA HANSARD May 30, 1983 lege in Lacombe. We're not only setting standards for that type of institution; we're setting standards across the board for other institutions which may apply for accredi tation down the road. The concern Dr. Horowitz has brought forward, as I understand it, is that the board that determines accreditation must not water down in any way the professional standards, curriculum standards, library standards — the whole array, the potpourri of qualities necessary in an institution that is going to have the right to confer a degree. Mr.

Speaker, quite frankly one of the concerns I had about this Bill is not the four academic staff of universi ties nominated by the Universities Co-ordinating Council — I know that these people will be in favor of strong professional standards — nor the four academic staff of higher colleges. If we get some of the representatives from places like Camrose Lutheran, they're going to be just as concerned as their colleagues from the universities, if not more so, especially when we get this concept started. But how are we going to choose the four members of the public?

On what criteria are we going to choose those four members? It seems to me that before we pass legisla tion of this nature, we should have some idea. Is the Minister of Advanced Education going to be plucking these names from the Conservative membership roster? It always delights me to hear this government talk about the members of the public, and then I end up seeing these names cropping up on membership lists, delegate lists, campaign manager lists. Then we have the new director of industrial development, who's chosen without competition. Mr. Speaker, I see the hon.

Mem ber for Edmonton Glengarry is pounding his desk with enthusiasm as a person who someday hopes for this type of job . . . MR. MARTIN: After the next election. MR. NOTLEY: . . . after the next election. I can well appreciate his interest. Mr. Speaker, we're talking about a board which is going to have a very significant responsibility.

While it is easy enough for the board to look at some of the institu tions that will be applying and say, no problem at all; right now in this province we have certain institutions that could apply for the accreditation under this Bill, and I would have to say honestly, because I question the value of the educational programs certain institutions in this province are providing, that I'd be very concerned if they had the right to grant degrees. MR. COOK: Fairview College. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, Fairview College has not applied for the right to grant degrees.

If you know anything about Fairview College, you will know that it would not be appropriate for them to ask, and they wouldn't choose to. But there are other colleges that very well might. If the hon. member is interested in informa tion and if he read the report of the Advanced Education Department this year, he'd know it is a public college and not a private college. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, I just don't have the time to try to educate the hon. Member for Edmonton Glengarry.

I want to make it clear that in terms of this board, there are going to be some tricky choices and tricky decisions to make on who has accreditation and who doesn't. I say with the greatest respect to the hon. Member for Camrose that the composition of the board and the way we select the board is one of the things we have to evaluate in second reading of this particular piece of legislation. Mr.

Speaker, we have seen a government in Alberta that, as far as the public school system is con cerned, has turned the other way on the issue of Category 4 schools which don't have qualified instructors — wink, wink — because there are no public funds. And so we have this special category instead of asking for a legal

interpretation of the implications of the human rights Act and the Alberta School Act — we chose not to do that. It is that kind of precedent in the public school system that has a lot of people worried about what may be in store in the area of advanced education.

If this government had been clearer and more consist ent in its defence of the public school system, or even where you're looking at schools that are primarily not only religious schools in a traditional sense, excepting the public requirements, but the specialized types of schools we saw, for example, in Linden and other parts of the province — had we a clear policy on the part of the government on that issue, then I would say to hon. members who are heckling in the background that there would be less concern on the part of educators about what is proposed in the area of giving colleges and insti tutions the right to grant a degree.

Mr. Speaker, we should not take lightly the right of an institution to grant a degree. If we're serious about the standing these institutions have in the public mind and the standing our entire system of advanced education has in the country, we have to ensure that those institutions be evaluated objectively. In concluding my observations, I certainly would con cur in the observations of the Member for Camrose. He is laudatory in his comments about Camrose Lutheran Col lege. Obviously it is an institution that should have degree-granting privileges.

Others have been named that frankly I would have no difficulty with at all. But before we pass legislation of this magnitude — and it is not the kind of Bill we should sort of shuffle aside; it is one of the more important Bills presented in the spring session of the House. For the first time, we are taking a slightly different route in the whole area of degree-granting insti tutions.

That being the case, I would simply say to the members of government that a very important responsi bility is to clearly delineate how these other members of this all-important college accreditation board will be cho sen, what the yardstick is, what the criteria will be. That, I think, is an important enough concern that I would invite the hon. Member for Camrose to be fairly specific in his response. MR. SPEAKER: May the hon. member conclude the debate? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. STROMBERG: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that I have had no discussions with the president of the U of A.

I have had correspondence though. The Member for Spirit River-Fairview requested that I be a little specific. Perhaps if he looked at the Bill quite close ly, he would notice that the intent and object of the amendment is to amend

section 53 to allow a private college, which has met certain criteria, to grant an academic degree. I underline the words "which has met certain criteria". That's

section 53 of the Act. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take time to explain the criteria. In order to begin a designation for a college to

May 30, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 1227 become degree granting, the college has to go through about six steps. Number one, a private college must be incorporated under its own private Act of the Legislature. This excludes private colleges incorporated under general status, such as the Societies Act or the Business Corpora tions Act, and also excludes all private colleges. So first — the safety step, if you would — a college has to come before this Legislature to be approved by this Legislature with its own Act before it could ever ask to become degree granting.

Two, a private college must submit each program of study in which it intends to grant a degree to the scrutiny and the approval of the private colleges accreditation board established under this Act. So every course they are going to offer has to go before this accreditation board. Three, the accreditation board must recommend to the minister that the college be granted the power to grant a baccalaureate. That's another safety step. They make the recommendation to the minister, and the minis ter has the authority to approve or disapprove.

Four, the program of study then proceeds in accord ance with Advanced Education program co-ordination policy, and to obtain ministerial approval. Five, if the minister approves, he recommends to the Lieutenant Governor in Council that, by order, the private college is designated as an institution that may grant a baccalaure ate in respect of an approved program of study. I under line "approved program of study". Finally, degree- granting status applies to each program of study separate ly, with the order in council designating the program.

There were some questions raised by two members of the opposition as to the make-up of the private colleges accreditation board. This board is established as a non- corporated body receiving its administrative support from the Department of Advanced Education. Its membership, including the chairman, is appointed by the minister. A member of the department staff may be designated as an observer and is entitled to attend all meetings.

Four members are nominated by the Universities Co ordinating Council; four members by the private colleges, which have at least one or two years or an affiliate agreement with a university, or have been designated to grant a baccalaureate; and [there are] four public mem bers in addition to the chairman. So you have four outsiders, in a sense. Powers: if you check through the Act, the accreditation board has the right to inquire into any matter that relates to a program of study. It prescribes minimum conditions for the approval of a program of study.

Periodically it evaluates any approved program of study which has been previously designated, and it can withdraw its approval and recommend to the minister that the designation be removed. So it's an all-powerful board. In other words, it can recommend that a college lose its university status. I would like to point out what private colleges have to offer to the citizens of Alberta. In the CLC in Camrose, 65 per cent of the full-time faculty have their PhDs. I believe that's a higher percentage than at the U of A or the U of C. I would just like to mention that their total staff is 100. Mr.

Speaker, if I am so fortunate that my two children graduate from high school and want to continue a career at the university level — perhaps they will graduate at seventeen and a half years of age. At that time, if their only avenue is to hit the big time across the river here, on a campus of 20,000 students, I believe I'd be very concerned that for the first couple of years perhaps my two children — I'm not speaking of all the students in Alberta — would not be mature enough to hit that scene. However, they would have the opportunity to spend two, three, or four years at Camrose.

They could be home on weekends and every evening. I think it's very unfair to the students in the far north, such as Fairview, who do not have the opportunity to have a university of the north and have to come down as far as the U of C or the U of A. In my tour of Fairview College, I was quite impressed with it. It would make a great university someday. I suppose what is really bugging the opposition is who appoints the four members at large to this accreditation board. Fortunately the opposition does not appoint them. The minister appoints them.

I can assure them that the minister will appoint very capable, able-bodied men or women, just as the minister and the cabinet at one time appointed an outstanding Albertan, a former secretary of the Alberta Federation of Labour, as chairman of the Workers' Compensation Board. They did not appoint him because he had run once or twice as an NDP candidate and got whipped quite substantially. They ap pointed him because of his ability. Mr.

Speaker, I think the minister will use the same good judgment and appoint outstanding Albertans to these positions. [Motion carried; Bill 48 read a second time] Bill 37 Department of Public Works, Supply and Services Act MR. CHAMBERS: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill No. 37, the Department of Public Works, Supply and Services Act.

This legislation will combine the provisions of the Department of Public Works Act and the Department of Government Services Act in order to define the role and responsibilities of the newly created Department of Pub lic Works, Supply and Services. [Motion carried; Bill 37 read a second time] Bill 62 Land Surface Conservation and Reclamation Amendment Act, 1983 MR. BRADLEY: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 62, the Land Surface Conservation and Reclamation Amendment Act, 1983. This Bill provides for a number of changes.

First, the Bill adds the definition of "contamination" to the mean ing of "surface disturbance" with regard to the legislation. Another amendment in the Bill provides for further addi tions to those types of operations which may be designat ed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council as regulated surface operations, particularly in the construction, oper ation, or abandonment of a plant. It lists a number of different industrial operations which could be included in this definition of a regulated surface operation in the legislation.

Also, with regard to reclamation orders which may be issued by the Land Conservation and Reclamation Coun cil, the Act provides for the addition two sections: with regard to the removal and conservation of topsoil, a recommendation of the select committee on surface rights report; and provides for the prevention, containment, control, removal, or remedy of any contamination, deg radation, or deterioration of the surface of land. This is another important amendment with regard to reclama

1228 ALBERTA HANSARD May 30, 1983 tion orders which the council may issue. There are other amendments which are basically administrative in nature, Mr. Speaker. [Motion carried; Bill 62 read a second time] Bill 51 Occupational Health and Safety Amendment Act, 1983 MR. DIACHUK: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 51, the Occupational Health and Safety Amendment Act, 1983. The Occupational Health and Safety Act was passed in this House in [1976]. It came about following the recom mendations of the Gale commission that a single govern ment body be responsible for Alberta's occupational health and safety.

Under the Hon. Neil Crawford, then Minister of Labour, most of the legislative provisions within Alberta dealing with industrial safety and health were consolidated under the Occupational Health and Safety Act. Under this Act, a large number of safety regulations previously administered by the Workers' Compensation Board became a responsibility of the oc cupational health and safety division.

In the late '70s, in keeping with the Gale commission recommendation, the administration of the Coal Mines Safety Act and the Quarries Regulation Act was trans ferred to the occupational health and safety division from the Energy Resources Conservation Board. These two statutes will soon become a new regulation under the Occupational Health and Safety Act. This will virtually complete the consolidation process. In order for legislation and regulations to continue to be meaningful, they must be under constant scrutiny and review. They must continue to be relevant to today.

The changes being presented in the House are primarily directed toward ensuring that the provisions of the Coal Mines Safety Act and the Quarries Regulation Act will become new regulations under the existing Occupational Health and Safety Act. However, a number of additional amendments are being presented. These will both clarify the intent of the legislation and continue to safeguard the health and safety of Alberta workers. Mr. Speaker, in presenting these amendments, I'm con fident that despite what the hon.

Member for Edmonton Norwood might believe, current legislation safeguarding the health and safety of Alberta workers will be greatly improved. In amending the Occupational Health and Safety Act, greater flexibility in achieving the objective of occupational health and safety is being introduced. Pro posed amendments to the Act will allow employers to propose acceptable alternatives for equipment, work pro cesses, or industrial safety codes which offer equal or greater protection for workers than those prescribed in the regulations.

This would complement the use of per formance standards being developed in the new safety regulations. Mr. Speaker, amendments will also provide guidance to both employers and employees with regard to refusal of unsafe work. Under the present Act, workers are required to refuse unsafe work assignments. However, the Act does not clearly address what action should follow a refusal. Changes to

section 27 of the Act will clarify the intention of this important provision. The changes will also provide practical guidance on how to proceed under the legislation. This guidance is necessary for both work ers who refuse unsafe work and their employers or super visors. This amendment will make it an obligation of the worker to refuse to carry out work he believes would place him or fellow workers in imminent danger. The

section 27 amendment goes on to outline the procedure to follow if work is refused under this

section of the Act. The refusal might be reported by the worker to his supervisor; the worker may then be reassigned to other duties without loss of pay while corrective action is taken. The provisions of the Act that protect persons from unfair disciplinary action will also be expanded. This will ensure that an appropriate mechanism is in place to provide an unfairly dismissed worker with some means of restitution. The proposed mechanism, based upon clear legislative authority through changes to

section 7 and a new

section 28(1), would see an occupational health and safety officer (

a) investigate a complaint, (

b) submit his report to his director, the employer, and the worker, and (

c) write an appropriate order if necessary. As with other orders, a person who receives an order may appeal it to the Occupational Health and Safety Council under

section 11 of the Act. In this way, an impartial tribunal will be able to evaluate the circum stances which led to the complaint and provide a suitable forum for a full hearing. I would like to add, Mr. Speaker, that the phrasing used throughout the revised

section will be in keeping with recognized international standards for refusing unsafe work assignments and their resolution. These proposed changes are fully supported by the Labour Relations Board and the Alberta Labour employment standards branch. It is our feeling that clari fication of these sections of the Act should bring major benefits to labor, industry, and government through a saving of time and money.

Reviewing other amendments, principal contractors or employers designated by regulation will be required under the Act to prepare safety policies and procedures, inform their workers of them, and implement the procedures. This will be a new provision in the Act.

After six years' experience in administering and enforcing the Occupa tional Health and Safety Act, it has become clear that companies with successful occupational health and safety programs have been effective largely because they have clearly demonstrated their commitment to industrial health and safety by preparing management occupational health and safety policies and bringing these policies and procedures to the attention of their workers. This new section, Mr.

Speaker, will be used to identify by regulation those worksites where such information would assist both workers and employers in achieving a higher level of responsibility in preventing health and safety problems. The division will prepare a guideline for those designated employers and principal contractors who will be required to prepare these statements. We feel the benefit to industry and labor alike will be a clearer assignment of responsibility for, and a greater under standing of, health and safety within the employer's or ganization.

The result we hope to see is improved injury prevention initiatives and associated savings in workers' compensation and other costs. Generally we see many of the proposed changes in the legislation as necessary for clarification of intent. In many instances, during our own review and from input outside the government, we have found both ambiguity and unnecessary duplication. These areas are being addressed in Bill 51.

Amendments before you will clarify certain items such as early notification by contractors of large, hazardous projects; licensing of workers using explosives and involved in certain underground mining operations;

May 30, 1983 ALBERTA HANSARD 1229 workers' awareness of their duties and responsibilities; the reporting systems for serious injuries or accidents; and, last, ensuring the confidentiality of workers' medical records. Mr. Speaker, I'm also pleased to announce expansion of the process of appeal to the Occupational Health and Safety Council. This will ensure that there's a higher authority to which workers may appeal if they have had their licences suspended or cancelled in accordance with regulations under the Act. The current requirements under

section 26 of the Act for preparing codes of practice will be supplemented to include their production through the provision of certain specific regulations. Codes of practice are prepared by employers and provide practical guidance to workers and their supervisors with respect to safe work practices and procedures. For the most part, codes will be required in the mine safety regulation and industrial explosive regula tion, which are now in the development stage. This change is in keeping with the government's policy of eliminating unnecessary regulations and encouraging self- regulation by industry.

The development of these codes will reduce the need for volumes of detailed regulatory provisions in particular industries, most notably mining and construction. Officers of the division may refer to these codes in formulating an opinion regarding unheal thy or unsafe conditions in exercising their authority under sections 7 and 8 of the Act. Under the existing Occupational Health and Safety Act, there are a number of provisions which allow for preparation of regulations. Changes to

section 31 of the Act ensure that sufficient regulation-making authority will be provided. Although it may seem like a paradox, many of these amendments will reduce the requirement for volumes of detailed regulation. This reduction in regu lation will be accomplished through the introduction of codes of practice and the use of performance standards. Changes to

section 31 will ensure there is sufficient authority to consolidate five current safety regulations into the proposed general safety regulation. The authority will also allow for the development of new mine safety regulation and revised industrial explosive safety regula tion under this Act. In considering these amendments, Mr. Speaker, it should be mentioned that the proposed regulations are based upon existing legislation. They will not go beyond the general intention of the current legislation. We are confident that the proposed regulations will be a signifi cant improvement over the current legislation.

Much of this improvement will be obtained through extensive use of performance standards and the codes of practice. During the current comprehensive review of the regula tions, the occupational health and safety division has attempted to identify and clearly document in legal terms the fundamental principles of industrial injury and acci dent prevention. The division has attempted

Document details

Collection	Alberta — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	19830530
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	L20 S1 19830530 1430 01 han.pdf
Language	en
Format	json
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	6d35a7a7248f8b0eefd91656c9a54648bb60272d

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