Alberta Hansard — 19 March 1984, Afternoon sitting (14:30) (Legislature 20, Session 2)

19840319

Alberta — Debates (Hansard)

March 19, 1984 ALBERTA HANSARD 25 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA Title: Monday, March 19, 1984 2:30 p.m. [The House met at 2:30 p.m.] PRAYERS [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] head: INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS MR. HORSMAN: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce to you, and through you to members of the Assembly, a very distinguished guest seated in your gallery, in the person of His Excellency The Lord Moran, British High Commissioner to Canada, who is paying a farewell visit to Alberta.

Lord Moran has visited our province on other occasions during his tenure as the British High Commissioner, most recently in connection with the visit to Canada of the Rt. Hon. Margaret Thatcher, Prime Minister of [the United Kingdom]. I might say that before that, in June last year, he represented his government at the l00th anniversary of the founding of the city of Medicine Hat. His Excellency has been a good friend of our province, and we bid him a fond farewell as he goes back to the United Kingdom and into retirement, where he assures me he will be taking an active part as a Member of the House of Lords.

Will you please extend to our distinguished guest the usual welcome of the Assembly. head: INTRODUCTION OF BILLS Bill 12 Co-operative Marketing Associations and Rural Utilities Guarantee Amendment Act, 1984 MR. BOGLE: Mr. Speaker, I request leave to introduce Bill No. 12, the Co-operative Marketing Associations and Rural Utilities Guarantee Amendment Act, 1984. This being a money Bill, His Honour the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor, having been informed of the contents of this Bill, recommends the same to the Assembly.

The purpose of the Bill is to transfer provisions of the Finan cial Administration Act which allow Treasury to buy out defaulted rural utility lien notes and, secondly, to make the existing provisions for the discontinuance of gas supply to persons in default on lien note payments apply to member- owned rural gas co-operatives. [Leave granted; Bill 12 read a first time] Bill 16 Stray Animals Amendment Act, 1984 MR. BATIUK: Mr. Speaker, I request leave to introduce Bill No. 16, the Stray Animals Amendment Act, 1984. [Leave granted; Bill 16 read a first time] Bill 10 Fur Farms Amendment Act, 1984 MR. HYLAND: Mr.

Speaker, I beg leave to introduce Bill No. 10, the Fur Farms Amendment Act, nineteen eighty-fur. [laughter] I wish that had been on purpose; it was just a slip. The purpose of this Act is to make some regulations regarding inspection, definition, and certificates of health. [Leave granted; Bill 10 read a first time] Bill 204

An Act to Amend the Alberta Income Tax Act DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce Bill 204, an amendment to the Alberta Income Tax Act. Its effect is to assist all Albertans, particularly the retail sector, by decreasing the personal income tax rate to the 1983 level. In effect, Mr. Speaker, it abolishes the 13 percent per sonal income tax brought into effect on January 1, 1984. [Leave granted; Bill 204 read a first time] Bill 9 Senior Citizens Housing Amendment Act, 1984 MR. ALGER: Mr. Speaker, I request leave to introduce a Bill, being the Senior Citizens Housing Amendment Act, 1984.

The purpose of the amendment is to allow senior citizen lodge foundations to levy an interest penalty on any requisitions which are not paid within 90 days after notice of the amount of the requisition is given to the municipality by the foundation. [Leave granted; Bill 9 read a first time] Bill 3 Emblems of Alberta Amendment Act, 1984 MR. TOPOLNISKY: Mr. Speaker, I request leave to introduce Bill No. 3, Emblems of Alberta Amendment Act, 1984. The purpose of the Bill is twofold: firstly, to name a pro vincial tree and, secondly, to clarify the provincial colours. DR.

BUCK: Call it Tory deadwood, George. [Leave granted; Bill 3 read a first time] Bill 6 Pre-judgment Interest Act MR. STILES: Mr. Speaker, I request leave to introduce a Bill, being the Pre-judgment Interest Act. This Bill provides for the payment of interest on sums awarded as judgments of the court for the period during which the matter is pending resolution in the courts. [Leave granted; Bill 6 read a first time] Bill 4 Municipal Land Loans Repeal Act MR. FISCHER: Mr. Speaker, I request leave to introduce Bill No. 4, the Municipal Land Loans Repeal Act. This Bill will repeal

an Act which allows municipalities to secure loans for the acquisition of land directly funded from the General Revenue Fund. No loans have been made under this Act since 1979. For the past four years, all loans to muni cipalities have been made by the Alberta Municipal Financing

26 ALBERTA HANSARD March 19, 1984 Corporation. The purpose of this Bill is to get rid of the law which is no longer used, so as to cut red tape and regulation. [Leave granted; Bill 4 read a first time] Bill 11 Municipal Financing Statutes Amendment Act, 1984 MR. MUSGROVE: Mr. Speaker, I request leave to introduce Bill No. 11, Municipal Financing Statutes Amendment Act, 1984. This will require changes in three Acts: the Local Authorities Board Act, the Municipal Government Act, and the Municipal Taxation Act.

The debenture approval process review com mittee has recommended these changes. [Leave granted; Bill 11 read a first time] MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, I move that Bills 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 11, and 16 be placed on the Order Paper under Government Bills and Orders. [Motion carried] Bill 207 Remembrance Day Act MR. GOGO: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce Bill 207, the Remembrance Day Act. The principle of this Bill is to impress upon young Albertans the very high price paid for our freedoms by veterans of two world wars.

The mechanism would be to arrange that a cere mony take place in each school in the province of Alberta, with particular emphasis on a two-minute period of silence. Mr. Speaker, I regret I wasn't able to get in before the hon. House leader moved adoption of government Bills. [laughter] [Leave granted; Bill 207 read a first time] Bill 201

An Act to Amend the Hospitals Act MR. WOO: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce Bill No. 201,

An Act to Amend the Hospitals Act. Notwithstanding current legislation, the purpose of this Bill is to permit an approved hospital to specifically request the establishment of a palliative care unit to be operated in con nection with the approved hospital. [Leave granted: Bill 201 read a first time] head: TABLING RETURNS AND REPORTS MR. KOZIAK: Mr. Speaker, I'm filing the report of the Min ister's Advisory Committee on the Debenture Approval Pro cess, which forms the basis for the amendments found in Bill No. 11, introduced in the Assembly today. MR.

SPEAKER: I'm tabling a copy of the 1983 annual report of the Legislature Library. Copies will be going to all members. MR. ZAOZIRNY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to file a response to Motion for a Return No. 219, which was accepted late in the 1983 fall session. DR. WEBBER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to file sessional papers 90 and 91, pursuant to statute. MR. SHABEN: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the annual report of the Department of Housing for the year ended March 31, 1983. MRS. LeMESSURlER: Mr.

Speaker, I wish to table the annual reports of the Department of Culture and of Glenbow for the year ended March 31, 1983. head: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS MR. WOO: Mr. Speaker, I take great pleasure this afternoon in introducing to you, and through you to members of the Assembly, 85 grade 6 students from the Glen Allan elementary school in Sherwood Park. They're accompanied this afternoon by their group leader Mrs. Jeanne Sargent, teachers Dr. Darrell Souster, Mr. Wayne Malkewich, and Mrs. Marilynne Clarke, and parents Mr. Bernhardt and Mrs. Alice Gunderson.

They're seated in the public gallery, and I request that they now rise and receive the very warm welcome of this Assembly. MRS. LeMESSURlER: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to introduce to you, and through you to members of this Assembly, 12 students from the Alberta Vocational Centre. They are studying English as a Second Language. Accompanied today by their teacher and leader, Mrs. Anne-Marie LaBrie, they are seated in the members gallery. I ask that they please rise and receive the warm welcome of this Assembly. MR. YOUNG: Mr.

Speaker, I'm pleased to introduce to you and to Members of the Legislative Assembly 24 grade 6 stu dents from Glendale elementary school. They are accompanied by their principal, Mr. Rider, and by teacher Mr. Hudson. They have indicated to me, Mr. Speaker, that they expect to find this afternoon as refreshing and entertaining as they would their ordinary school afternoon. I ask that they rise and be recognized by the Legislature. head: MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Department of Manpower MR. ISLEY: Mr.

Speaker, I am pleased to announce to mem bers of the Legislature that the government of Alberta will recommend the allocation of $20 million for the 1984 summer temporary employment program. This is an increase of almost $8 million more than was allocated for the program last year, a 66 percent increase in funding this year over a year ago. The government of Alberta recognizes that young Albertans, those between the ages of 15 and 24, experience the lowest employment levels.

While there are indications the economy is gaining in strength, young people with little or no work experience will continue for some time to have difficulty in securing employment. The significant increase in the funds allocated for this year's summer temporary employment program will greatly enhance the employment opportunities for our young people during a period when competition in the job market is at a peak. The program will run from April 30 until September 1 and is expected to provide approximately 9,000 positions. Employment is provided through four program elements.

Under the provincial government department element, approx

March 19, 1984 ALBERTA HANSARD 27 imately 2,400 young Albertans will find jobs designed to emphasize individual career development with the 27 government departments. Summer temporary employment pro gram employees will be paid $5.50 per hour. Community employment will provide approximately 4,600 young Albertans with work experience. Eligible sponsors include municipalities, school boards, agricultural societies, and nonprofit organizations. The government will reimburse these employers the minimum wage; however, employers have the option, and are encouraged, to pay additional wages.

Summer farm employment will provide an estimated 1,600 jobs for Alberta's youth. Participating farmers will receive up to $300 per month for each position. Under the career opportunity component, some 400 young people will receive career-related work experience in four areas: recreation, veterinary, law enforcement, and fish and wildlife. Recreation and veterinary positions will be cost shared equally, with the government reimbursing employers up to $500 per month. Employees in law enforcement and fish and wildlife positions will receive $5.50 per hour.

In addition, postsecond ary institutions are eligible to participate and will receive $5.50 per hour for each employee. Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that although the summer temporary employment program is directed primarily at young people, it is also open to other unemployed Albertans. On a further point, application forms and information will be available by early April. In closing, I would state that the summer temporary employ ment program is one of nine specific employment initiatives of the government this year. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. NOTLEY: Mr.

Speaker, in rising to respond to the min isterial announcement, a copy of which I have not received at the moment, I would like to say that while the minister was quick to point out an increase from $12 million to $20 million and used a percentage increase of 66 percent, and everybody pounded their desks, the fact of the matter is that that $20 million has to be examined in the context of a total provincial budget of approximately $10 billion. Put another way, it rep resents about two-fifths of 1 percent of the provincial budget. Mr.

Speaker, given the fact that we have 150,000 people out of work in this province and given the fact that the minister is right that the highest incidence of unemployment is among younger people, at this time I would say to the members of the Assembly that while the $20 million is a step in the right direction, it is still a very modest step. Before members of the government spend too much time patting themselves on the back, in their individual constituencies they will have to ask the question, are we doing enough for the many thousands of young people who will still be lining up?

Because while it will be a step, this program is not by any means going to be the solution. head: ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Justice System MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct the first question to the hon. Attorney General. It's with respect to public asser tions made by that hon. gentleman, flowing from the questions I asked on Friday concerning Luscar Sterco. Is the Attorney General in a position to advise the Assembly whether it is the policy of the government of Alberta that with respect to enforce ment, certain types of laws take precedence over others? MR. CRAWFORD: Mr.

Speaker, I think most of our citizens would readily understand that the criminal law is a unique institution throughout history, and in the lives of everybody, to the extent that it is there in order to maintain public order and deter crime. All the characteristics of the criminal law are that the representatives of the people, in the form of the Par liament of Canada, have chosen by definition to say what is and what is not a crime.

When they do that, it is then their reflection, presumably of all of us, that this is conduct deserving of censure and, indeed, in appropriate circumstances, of pun ishment before the courts. To say that other laws, whatever they may be, that are in the form of municipal bylaws, provincial statutes, and federal statutes, which have totally different objectives than the crim inal justice system — to try to draw a comparison and say that they are in any significant respect directed at the same purpose or are there to achieve similar results, is simply not so. Mr.

Speaker, I don't wish to go on too long, but simply want to add that the regulatory and supervisory aspect of non criminal law is of the essence of that type of statute. With criminal law, it's well known that the objectives and the char acter are entirely different. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. I'll have an opportunity to debate the minister's approach in a few minutes' time, and that certainly will be forthcoming. However, I would ask the hon. minister whether it is the view of the government of Alberta that the Fisheries Act,

Section 71 of which states that it's

an Act "binding upon Her Majesty in right of . . . a province and any agent thereof", is merely a regulatory law? MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, I think environmental stat utes, along with numbers of other statutes that attempt to govern the way in which people, in the corporate or individual sense, govern their business affairs, would be typical of legislation which is meant to provide for guidelines being set for education of the industry and the people involved with it, and a general supervisory and leadership type of function in declaring that certain standards should, in the public interest, be maintained.

But to say that the breach of such a regulatory provision should bring with it the sanctions of something equivalent to the crim inal law is a misapprehension of the way in which the admin istration of justice should function. On the question of the Crown being bound in regulatory and supervisory legislation of this type — something that sets stan dards for water and air, the sort of thing we're talking about in that type of legislation — that sort of thing being typical, as it is in a regulatory or supervisory thing, binds the Crown when the Crown is in the business.

In other words, if you say that a particular coal mining company or pulp mill must comply with discharge requirements into a river, then if the Crown were in the same sort of business, as it may well be in some provinces — mining uranium or the like — it is bound. That's what it means when a statute like that says that it's bound. There is no attempt to suggest that in the application of reg ulations an administrator, be he the minister or one of his officials, does not retain discretion in respect of how those regulations are enforced. MR.

NOTLEY: Well, that certainly was an invitation to debate, and we'll have an opportunity to do that. Mr. Speaker, in his discussions with federal officials, has the minister been advised that a statute of Parliament which carries with it a maximum line of $50,000 for breach of that statute is in fact merely a piece of educational material or a

28 ALBERTA HANSARD March 19, 1984 dictum as to what people should do, all things being equal, as opposed to what they must do with respect to a law formally passed by the Parliament of Canada and to be enforced by the province of Alberta? MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, little is served by quoting the amount of the maximum fine under any legislation. Nor mally, nothing approaching the maximum fine is assessed by the courts.

As the hon. leader is placing it before us now, it perhaps would tend to lead one to the conclusion that a fine of that order might be levied in a case like the one my hon. colleague the Associate Minister of Public Lands and Wildlife can surely elaborate upon, and that is . . . MR. SPEAKER: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. minister, but it was my understanding that the question was directed toward eliciting information with regard to possible discussions between the hon. minister or the government of Alberta on the one hand and the government in Ottawa on the other. MR. NOTLEY: Agreed. That's the question.

I think the answer is no. MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, as to discussions on the enforcement of regulatory statutes, I don't ever remember being approached by a representative of the federal government on such a subject. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Could the hon. Associate Minister of Public Lands and Wildlife advise the Assembly what communication took place between the department and the president of Luscar Sterco, as indicated in my question last week? MR. SPARROW: Mr. Speaker, since Friday I've been informed that my deputy minister, Mr. McDougall, had com munications with the president.

Shortly thereafter, all government departments interested in the project met with the management of Luscar and came up with a very comprehensive plan to solve the problem. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Is the minister in a position to give the Assembly the approximate date of this meeting? MR. SPARROW: Mr. Speaker, if I may. I would like to bring you up to date and answer the question that was posed to me on Friday. It may be very lengthy. I think there are several interested members who would like the facts of the case, so I would like to attack it on that base.

There is a lengthy discussion that could take place. MR. SPEAKER: I don't know what the hon. minister's concept of lengthy is. I must say that I have an unusually long list of members who have not yet had an opportunity to ask their first questions. Perhaps we could find out what the hon. minister's concept of lengthy is. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. SPARROW: Mr. Speaker, on Friday a question was raised concerning the enforcement of the Fisheries Act at the Coal Valley mine operations of Luscar.

The problem at the Luscar mine site was that the mine site water management system did not adequately deal with the water flows, which from time to time had uncontrolled releases of silt and coal into the Lovett River. Actions have taken place, with very positive results being achieved. One aspect of the question asked by the leader on Friday was the implied comparison of procedures used in the enforce ment of the Fisheries Act and those used in the administration of criminal justice.

The Fisheries Act contains a very broad regulatory group of provisions which must be applied with discretion, and I think it would very wrong to try to say that such a comparison with criminal justice could properly be made. It's been standard government policy here in Alberta and in other jurisdictions to work under prosecution under the Fisheries Act as an enforcement option, with environmental and fishery departments free to accept or reject, under specific cases, the advice given by the lawyers in the Attorney General's department.

In this case, we are dealing with sections 31 and 33 of the Fisheries Act, which deal with the pollution of fish-bearing waters and damage to fish habitat. Concern that some regula tions might have been breached resulted in a series of meetings last summer with all the concerned government departments, and with Luscar in September, to come up with a complete and comprehensive plan for the improvement to the mine water control system.

On October 12, an agreed management plan was completed and, after consultation with senior staff of the department, the Deputy Minister of Public Lands and Wildlife advised me that he had decided that no further consideration would be given to legal proceedings under the Fisheries Act unless the company failed to carry out its agreed program. On November 1, construction of permanent improvements to the mine water control system commenced at the mine site, at a cost of some $500,000 to Luscar. Had the government opted for the legal process, these positive results would not have been so quickly achieved.

Significant legal costs and a major staff effort would have been required. By the approach taken, the most useful results were achieved by departmental and company staff working together to solve that problem. Mr. Speaker, we feel that with the co-operation of all those government departments, along with industry in this case, jus tice has been given to the citizens of Alberta by maintaining work for our citizens and promptly securing a high level of environmental protection for all Albertans. MR.

SPEAKER: With great respect to the hon. minister, it would seem to me that he was clearly embarking on a debate on the merits of the topic rather than just |answering| questions. Under the circumstances, there is no way that I could deny the Leader of the Opposition the same latitude. MR. NOTLEY: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I will have an oppor tunity in a few minutes' time, and I certainly intend to deal with the minister's invitation to debate.

On a point of order, might I just suggest that if we're going to have answers which in fact are ministerial statements, they should be made in the form of ministerial statements so that both I as Leader of the Opposition and the hon. Member for Little Bow as leader of the Independents would have the ability to reply. What we had a few moments ago was certainly the government's opinion, but that's all it was — the government's opinion. The minister gives us such a glowing picture, Mr. Speaker.

However, I'd like to ask him why, when the first directive went out on August 5, 1982, and recommendations for prosecution came in on July 28, 1983 — that is just a week short of a year — the minister's department apparently did nothing to deal with the repeated infractions of departmental instructions to that company during that period of time? What was the depart ment doing?

March 19, 1984 ALBERTA HANSARD 29 MR. SPARROW: Mr. Speaker, the file on this case is about four inches deep. During that time frame, numerous efforts with the Department of the Environment and Luscar were taking — several visits to the site, temporary improvements were made, and a great deal of work was done with the Department of the Environment and our staff during that year. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. MR. SPEAKER: Might this be the last supplementary on this topic. MR.

NOTLEY: What is the policy of this department when an infraction has occurred repeatedly, after efforts — and I have the chronology here of the meetings, the many meetings. But after each meeting, more infractions. What is the policy of this department with respect to prosecution, or will it ever occur? Are we forever going to take a John Howard approach to dealing with industrial polluters? MR. SPARROW: My colleague the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources may want to [supplement] this, but our pol icy with reference to using the legal process to achieve a goal is very hard to determine.

Success is never certain in legal proceedings. In this particular case there was a strong possibility that the charges would not be successful, and if so, it might be that the time frame to get a successful legal solution would be very time consuming. MR. ZAOZIRNY: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might be allowed an opportunity to both supplement the answer given by my colleague the associate minister and respond. Number one. I have some knowledge of the circumstances of this matter. Relatedly, there have been some very serious allegations raised by the hon.

Leader of the Opposition, both within and without the House, and I'd like to offer information in response to the questions that have been raised in respect of the Luscar royalty relief matter. If I could ask for the indulgence . . . MR. SPEAKER: The hon. minister might deal briefly with the matter further, in the framework of the question that was asked. MR. NOTLEY: And a ministerial statement tomorrow, John. MR. ZAOZIRNY: Mr. Speaker, let me simply respond by saying that in asking questions about handling pollution mat ters, the hon.

Leader of the Opposition has characterized the matter, or sought to characterize it, as a question of the admin istration of justice. I can advise the Assembly that back in 1983, when the application for royalty relief was brought to this government, the matter which was before this government was not in fact a question of the administration of justice but a question about jobs for our coal industry and a matter of a clean environment in this province. Mr.

Speaker, this government was informed by the Luscar Sterco operation that their financial circumstances were such that in the absence of the royalty relief requested, there would be a likely layoff of some 120 workers. We took a very long look at this application for royalty relief — the precedent being the Grande Cache mine operation — and came to the judgment that this was a very valid application brought before us. At about the time this matter was being resolved, advice of some pollution concerns related to the operation came from the asso ciate minister.

The judgment was made that in granting the royalty relief, clearly it would be important to provide as a requirement that this pollution matter be resolved. So rather than a matter of any miscarriage of administration of justice, Mr.

Speaker, what we have seen here is the granting of royalty relief and the cleanup of the environment, with three results: number one, 120 coal workers have jobs who might not otherwise have jobs; number two, the environment has been cleaned up, $500,000 has been spent, and the Lovett River is clear; and number three, the public of Alberta has been spared a very costly legal proceeding, the only losers being the law yers, and that's not such a bad thing. Mr. Speaker, this was a very solid and proper judgment on the part of the government. MR. NOTLEY: Once again, another ministerial announcement.

In light of the minister's answer, I'd like to ask one supple mentary question of either the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources or the associate minister. Is the minister of energy telling the House that he was not aware of the complaints and the investigations that had started in August 1982 until the date in 1983 when he discussed the question of royalty relief with the company? MR. ZAOZIRNY: Mr.

Speaker, I have no particular recollec tion of any specific possible court proceedings being brought to my attention until the latter part of the decision-making process with respect to the royalty relief application. I can check my records further and refresh my memory on it, but that is my recollection. It was brought to our attention through the associate minister, and subsequently by other documentation through the department. But from our standpoint in Energy and Natural Resources, clearly there was an application for royalty relief which was adjudicated based upon its own merits. MR. NOTLEY: Mr.

Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister. MR. SPEAKER: Might this be the final supplementary on the supplementary answer. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'm not talking about the proposal on July 28 that prosecution occur; I am talking about the repeated infractions of the Fisheries Act over a period of at least one year. At what point did the minister of energy become knowledgeable that these infractions had in fact occurred? MR. ZAOZIRNY: Mr. Speaker, I think it's very much an open question as to whether or not there were infractions of the Fisheries Act.

That is a matter that would have been adjudicated upon in a court. MR. NOTLEY: [Inaudible] the prosecutor. MR. ZAOZIRNY: I should add — the hon. member suggests this is a matter that's determined by the prosecutor, and that's patently incorrect. All a prosecutor does is provide a legal opinion. It's nice to have an encouraging legal opinion, but the final resolution of whether or not there is an infraction is by a judge in the court. In terms of the specific question that was raised, I think my hon. colleague has responded to that. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, again we'll have an opportunity to debate the issue. MR.

MARTIN: Their memories will be refreshed.

30 ALBERTA HANSARD March 19, 1984 MR. NOTLEY: Yes, their memories will be refreshed by that point in time. McDougall School Renovation MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct the second question to the hon. Premier. In view of the 22 percent vacancy rate in the city of Calgary, is the Premier in a position to advise the Assembly what consideration led to the expenditure of funds for the renovation of the new Premier's and Lieutenant Governor's offices in McDougall school? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, I refer the question to the Minister of Public Works, Supply and Services. MR. CHAMBERS: Mr.

Speaker, I think it's probably useful to point out a bit of background. Almost four years ago, the then school board of the city of Calgary came to us and pointed out that they were looking at closing McDougall school. They were considering options, one of which would be removal of the school and redevelopment of the land. They recognized, however, that it was an historic resource. In fact, the building was designed by Mr. Jeffers, who was the architect who designed the Legislature Building.

They felt that because the building had heritage value, they would like to see it retained for the people of Calgary and the people of Alberta. We looked at it, evaluated it, and found that the building was in excellent basic condition. It required electrical and mechanical work and upgrading to meet current building codes and safety standards but was basically sound. So the price that was agreed upon for the purchase of the land and the building, the property, was some $20 million, which was far less than the market value of the property if they had chosen to proceed with redevelopment.

Also the building — I could go into great detail with regard to the merits of the building, but I think I probably shouldn't in the question period. The plasterwork and woodwork are very fine indeed. It became apparent that the building would make an excellent centre for government purposes. DR. BUCK: For 31, it should. MR. CHAMBERS: We therefore concluded a three-way deal with the school board, through purchase of the property, and the city of Calgary, who wish to develop a parkade. As I think members are probably aware, a 600-car parkade is well advanced in construction.

The province's role will be to com plete a park over the parkade. The city is building a structural slab, which will contain the park, on the top. A park will be built over the top of the parkade and on the west side and around the building, and then the province will renovate the building. We propose to use the main floor space for departments which require really constant, ongoing, street-front usage. I'm talking here of Public Affairs, Vital Statistics, and Travel Alberta. These are departments which, statistically, people visit often and which require a central location.

We also thought it appropriate to develop space in a central location for our Lieu tenant Governor, Premier, southern Alberta MLAs, and visiting cabinet ministers to meet with the public — the people of Calgary and southern Alberta. This space will occupy the upper floor, the second floor. Mr. Speaker, I think the space will indeed be well utilized and the building and the park around it well accepted and utilized by the people of Calgary and of southern Alberta. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. To preface my question I must say how flattered I am.

It's not every day that one can get three ministerial announcements in oral question period. Given this government's so-called commitment to privati zation, why was emphasis not given to the fact that there's a 22 percent vacancy rate in office buildings in Calgary, as opposed to the renovations to this particular project? MR. CHAMBERS: Mr. Speaker, I always give consideration to space requirements and availability in Alberta.

I would point out that the space presently being utilized for the government purposes I referred to, in the Bowlen Building, is required for the juvenile court system and the family court system; therefore, we're required to move from there. The overall impact in terms of space is not large. The departments I referred to, that will be utilizing the main floor space, are scattered in the city now, and I think will be able to serve the public much better in that central location. MR. NOTLEY: A supplementary question.

In these lean, dif ficult times, with a 22 percent vacancy rate in office buildings, has the minister's department any comparative costs of the $11 million needed to renovate the McDougall school, the square footage involved, compared to the going lease rates in Calgary? Do we have any figures at all that the minister can table in the Assembly? MR. CHAMBERS: Mr. Speaker, lease rates at any given time are of course a fluid thing. Lease rates today would perhaps vary appreciably from lease rates a few years from now. This building will be for the utilization of the people of Alberta for many, many years to come.

The cost of construction today is optimal, and the job will employ approximately 100 people through the construction phase over the next two years. I con sider the construction to be very cost effective. MR. R. SPEAKER: A supplementary question. Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the Minister of Manpower could indicate to the Assembly whether he was involved in the discussion of the $31 million for Government House south. How can the minister reconcile $20 million for the student temporary employment program, versus a $31 million expenditure on Government House south? [interjections] MR.

SPEAKER: This is something we might deal with in the debate on the motion for the address in reply to His Honour's speech. It seems to me that we've been having some debating questions and answers thus far. Perhaps this one goes a little farther than some of the others. Under the circumstances, the minister might answer briefly. I am very much concerned. We're certainly not going to reach all the members today who wish to ask a first question. MR. ISLEY: Mr. Speaker, very briefly.

I would just point out that this project is part of the capital projects carried out by this government that in the past year have generated over 37,000 man-years of work. You can't ask us to spend capital dollars on one hand, and then be critical every time there is a project carried out. MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary by the hon. Member for Calgary Buffalo, followed by a final supplementary by the hon. Member for Calgary Egmont. DR. BUCK: The house that Peter built.

March 19, 1984 ALBERTA HANSARD 31 MR. LEE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister of public works indicate if there were any offers from the private sector to construct or pay for this major new public park located on-site, in view of the fact that there are only three small parks in all of downtown Calgary? MR. SPEAKER: I wonder if we shouldn't call off the question period and get into the throne speech debate right away. DR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, to narrow the focus with respect to the McDougall school site, to the Minister of Public Works, Supply and Services.

In terms of the cost analysis what portion is going to be picked up by the city of Calgary? And how many jobs are going to be created in terms of the whole project? MR. CHAMBERS: Mr. Speaker, it's my understanding that the cost to construct the city's 600-car parkade is in the order of $9 million. As I mentioned earlier, the jobs appear to be in the vicinity of 100 over the next two years in an ongoing way.

With regard to the province's cost, I would point out that when the school board came to us, they pointed out that they had a need for schools in outlying and new areas of the city and that they wished to use the $20 million paid for the land for the construction of new schools. The actual cost of reno vation and the park would be something in the order of $11 million. DR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, to the minister. Could we be absolutely crystal clear on the access to the facility when it is completed?

It is also going to be a place where other members of the Legislature who are not members of the government can have access. MR. SPEAKER: Are we having a supplementary ministerial statement? DR. CARTER: I'm not that kind of minister. [laughter] MR. SZWENDER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. In view of the minister's answer on the expenditures for the renovations to McDougall school, could the minister indicate why the old Transportation Building here in Edmonton is being demolished rather than renovated? MR. CHAMBERS: Mr.

Speaker, I would point out that the old Transportation Building was constructed as a temporary building in the early '50s. It was never meant to be a long- lasting building. We did an evaluation on that building during the last year, and it was apparent that it would require very extensive funds to renovate the building. The fact that it was a lightly built building, built really as a temporary building, and had used its useful life cycle, made it apparent that it was not cost effective to renovate that building.

Since the space wasn't required, I concluded that the most cost-effective solu tion was to remove the building and put in grass for the benefit of the people of Alberta. MR. SPEAKER: I must confess that that one got by the Chair. I have a little difficulty finding a transportation building in Edmonton as some sort of supplement or adjunct to one in Calgary. Agricultural Loans MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr.

Speaker, my question to the Minister of Agriculture is with regard to any changes in government policy under the Agricultural Development Corporation, with regard to either bankruptcy of some farmers or the lack of operating funds they are facing coming into the spring term. MR. FJORDBOTTEN: Mr. Speaker, there is no basic change to the program. As usual, the Agricultural Development Cor poration is working with accounts that are in some difficulty or where there are cash-flow problems, to try to assist them in some way to operate for the coming year.

In addition, there is also assistance available from the Department of Agriculture, through the regional specialists and others, in financial coun selling to help them work through any difficult financial prob lems they may be in. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the Minister of Tourism and Small Business, responsible for the Alberta Opportunity Company. Is any change being con sidered in terms of agribusiness in the province? Are the number of agribusinesses financed through AOC under some duress at the present time? What is the present situation? MR. ADAIR: Mr.

Speaker, any businesses that are funded under the Alberta Opportunity Company are in the same area as before; in other words, the program has not changed to any degree. The one area I should point out where there is not what you might call duplicate funding — in other words, the opportunity for a business, if it happens to be in the agricultural area, to go to the AOC for a loan, and then to go to the ADC for a loan. We watch that very closely and assist each other between the two corporations, in the sense of working to the best advantage of the businessman. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary.

Is the minister considering any change of policy that will assist some of the agribusinesses that are now in some financial difficulty? MR. ADAIR: No requests have been made in that sense, and we aren't considering any particular changes to the method of operations of the Alberta Opportunity Company at this time. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Has the Minister of Agriculture had any discussions with the banking institutions of the province with regard to credit sit uations at the present time, particularly with regard to operating loans that are due as we go into the spring season? MR.

FJORDBOTTEN: Yes. Mr. Speaker. I have had ongoing discussions with a number of banks. As well, the chairman of the Ag. Development Corporation has been involved in those discussions. At this time the banks are being very sincere and dedicated in their efforts to try to assist those who are in dif ficulty. There are now some 22 agrologists on staff at the banks in the province, and they are working with any accounts that may be in some difficulty now, trying to work with them before the difficulty arises. If they can see some opportunity for a difficulty on the horizon, they try to get to them quickly.

In addition to that, through the Agricultural Development Corporation we are also working with those who may be in some difficulty with operating capital. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a final supplementary to the Minister of Agriculture. Is any consideration being given to a

32 ALBERTA HANSARD March 19, 1984 change in policy under the Agricultural Development Corpo ration whereby the debt of the farmer could be loaded onto the end of his loan? In other words, the loan term would be extended, and that would reduce the current payments of the farmer, allowing the farmer to have greater access to operating funds at various banking institutions. MR. FJORDBOTTEN: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that is yes. There is that flexibility in each account, if there needs to be. Through the Ag.

Development Corporation, in each individual situation we are prepared to determine if something can be done in refinancing arrears. That's one area you raised that we are certainly involved in. Postponement of payments is another one, and total refinancing in other cases. So there is that flex ibility. We must also be sure that the repayment ability on each of those refinanced loans is there. PWA Operations MR. LEE: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transportation.

Could the minister advise what action is being taken to prevent the government's remaining investment in PWA in view of the deterioration in service between Calgary and Edmonton since the recent sale? There's also been a decrease in revenue, I understand, because of the decrease in service. MR. M. MOORE: First of all, Mr. Speaker, since the Legis lature adjourned in the fall, we have been successful in selling a significant portion of the government of Alberta's ownership in Pacific Western Airlines. In fact, I believe we currently hold less than 15 percent of the shares in Pacific Western Airlines.

As I said last fall, at some point in time it is our intention to reduce our share ownership to 4 percent or below, which is consistent with the provisions of the legislation as they would apply to other governments. In that context, as a minority shareholder in Pacific Western Airlines, it is no longer our intention to involve ourselves in any aspects of the day-to-day operations of the company or in any aspects the hon. member mentioned.

In that regard, the hon. member would be advised to direct his comments directly to the management and board of directors of Pacific Western Airlines or to the regulatory authorities that control the oper ation of that airline. With regard to the ongoing ownership of shares by the government of Alberta, Mr. Speaker, I can only say that our view is that the balance sheet of the company, as it has been provided to the public in recent weeks and days, speaks well for the operation of the company.

In due course we expect to dispose of additional shares at a value that's consistent with those values that have been talked about in recent weeks as far as PWA shares are concerned. MR. SPEAKER: Might this be the last supplementary on this topic. MR. LEE: Mr. Speaker, in view of the impending hearings on airline deregulation by the Canadian Transport Commission, is it the intention of this minister to make a submission to encour age competition on the Calgary/Edmonton airbus route? MR. M. MOORE: Mr.

Speaker, my information is that the Minister of Economic Development and/or his department staff will be making a submission to the CTC hearings into domestic and transborder airfares on March 23. I'm sure the hon. Min ister of Economic Development would be pleased to provide the member with a copy of the comments made by this government at that time. Hospital Services MR. MARTIN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct my question to the Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care. Being the helpful person I am, I'd like to assist the minister whose riding contains the Holy Cross hospital.

Can the minister confirm that it is the intention of this government to transform the Holy Cross active treatment hospital into an auxiliary facility? MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, there has been a great deal of speculation over the weekend about plans that may or may not proceed, depending on what's contained in my colleague's budget. I can only say that I think people may be reassured at such time as statements are made following the submission of the budget. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I understand plans were in place for major expansion and ren ovation at the Holy Cross.

Does the minister have any ballpark estimate of the cost of this expansion compared to construction of a new hospital, say, in northeast Calgary? MR. RUSSELL: The cost of renovations for the Holy Cross is estimated at $162 million and the cost of a new hospital at $141 million. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question to the minister. What priority has the government established for the four pro posed new hospitals, two in Edmonton and two in Calgary. In other words, which ones will be built first? MR. RUSSELL: Mr.

Speaker, members will recall that when that program was announced, it was in an effort to provide metropolitan hospital facilities at a high standard in an era of very rapid growth. They were proposed to be built not only to catch up with population growth that had occurred during the late '70s but to anticipate growth to take place during the decade of the '80s. We know now that those projections have changed, and our financial ability to proceed in the original manner was revised. We're on record as saying that when part of that pro gram could proceed, it would.

I believe I'm on record as saying that in my view the highest priority lay with the Calgary north east hospital. Insofar as the city of Edmonton is concerned, of course, the new Mill Woods hospital was proposed by my predecessor. So those are long-standing commitments and, at the appropriate time, will be commenced. MR. MARTIN: A supplementary question dealing with the Holy Cross hospital, Mr. Speaker. A call from a person in Calgary indicated that he had recently waited nine hours in the Holy Cross emergency ward before a bed could be found, and that bed turned out to be on the surgery floor.

My question is: what immediate plans does the government have to resolve what appears to be a crisis situation at the Holy Cross? I might point out that when the gentleman talked to us, Mr. Speaker, he indicated he was a member of the Conservative Party. MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, I believe the political beliefs of patients showing up at hospital emergency rooms don't make any difference; at least I hope that's the case. So I can assure the hon. member that if he shows up — and I suggest some

March 19, 1984 ALBERTA HANSARD 33 repair work might be in order — he'd get just as good service as I've been getting. [laughter] In any event, the member is dealing with a broader issue. We know that during that period from '75 to '80, Calgary and Edmonton were the two fastest growing cities in Canada. There was a great rush on in a period of high inflation, particularly in the construction industry, to respond and keep important community facilities building at the pace they should be. The different hospital boards have been asked to submit their long-term plans for expansion and renovations.

Those are in addition to plans we may have for additional facilities. In any event, finally someone has to work out a plan that is econom ically feasible and combines rehabilitation with expansion. At the appropriate time, those answers will be forthcoming. MR. COOK: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the minister could indicate how many beds per . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. We have run through the allot ted time for the question period.

There is such a long list of members who haven't been able to ask their first questions yet that I don't think any slight remedial work I might undertake in that regard would be significant. I would respectfully suggest that any further questions might be left for tomorrow's question period. HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. ORDERS OF THE DAY head: CONSIDERATION OF HIS HONOUR THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR'S SPEECH Moved by Mr.

McPherson: That an humble address be presented to His Honour the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor of Alberta as follows: To His Honour the Honourable Frank Lynch-Staunton, Lieutenant Governor of the province of Alberta: We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly, now assembled, beg leave to thank Your Honour for the gracious speech Your Honour has been pleased to address to us at the opening of the present session. [Adjourned debate March 16: Mr. Notley] MR. NOTLEY: Mr.

Speaker, before dealing with the bulk of my speech, I want to take a few moments and deal with some matters of particular concern to the people in the Spirit River- Fairview constituency, Albertans I have the honour to represent in the Legislative Assembly. Perhaps right off the top I might itemize an issue that I think is important; that is, the work the Department of Culture is doing with respect to the Dunvegan project.

This is an excellent project, which will eventually cost somewhere around $15 mil lion or $16 million but will lead to the reconstruction of one of the earliest forts in the province of Alberta. For any of you who have had the opportunity of travelling in the north, you'll know that Dunvegan is a particularly scenic area. We now have a campsite. At one time at the turn of the century, Dunvegan city was to be the growth capital of the north.

We still have people — in New York City, I think — who have deeds to parts of the hill, who bought lots during the Dunvegan boom when the railroad moved to both the north and the south and didn't come to Dunvegan. The boom left that particular little community. But the history, which dates back to the time of Mackenzie, is worth preserving. I notice the minister is not in her place at the moment, but this is one project that I not only commend the minister for but, in a speech which in the main will not be flattering, commend the government.

I'm also pleased that we had the opening the other day of the Mackenzie planning commission; a very ecumenical ses sion, with the Member for Peace River, the Minister of Munic ipal Affairs, the hon. Minister of Culture, and I all getting on quite well actually — much to the surprise of some people — on a day when we saw the opening of a beautiful new building in the town of Berwyn. It's unfortunate that the hospital won't be there. The new Berwyn hospital is in the process of being finished in Grimshaw, Mr. Speaker — way over budget. I might add.

Nevertheless it was a nice day, and we did have the opening of the Mackenzie planning commission building in Berwyn. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to see the minister of highways get on with some major highway priorities in the north. I would underline two that I think deserve a good deal of attention. One is Highway 64 west of Fairview to the B.C. border, and the other is secondary road 733 south of Wanham. Both are major arteries which, in my judgment, should be given priority by this government, the sooner the better. Mr. Speaker, today I'd like to deal with two principal issues.

The first will be the management of the Alberta economy and the choices one has to make in a time of recession. The second will be the question of the administration of justice. When you look at the economy of this province in 1984, you don't see the boom, the prosperity, and the optimism which characterized the 1970s. As a matter of fact, when I look at the indicators compiled by the Conference Board of Canada, there are some really remarkable statistics. Government mem bers don't like our citing the Conference Board of Canada very much, Mr. Speaker, because they'd like to forget the Confer ence Board.

Of course they also like to forget the fact that when the Tory government sought re-election in 1982, the Premier went from one part of this province to the other citing the Conference Board of Canada as a reason that things were looking up. When the news changes, the government very quickly discards any harbinger of unpleasant news. Anything that gets in the way of the official propaganda of this regime is set aside.

But because the Conference Board of Canada was used as the basis of the appeal to the people of Alberta by the Premier, whose coattail brought in most of the backbenchers in this Legislature — let's face those facts — the fact of the matter is that it's appropriate in the spring of 1984 to review the Conference Board of Canada quarterly report. When one looks at it, one finds first of all, dealing with unemployment, that according to the Conference Board, Alberta will be the only province in Canada to see an increase in unemployment this year.

The Minister of Manpower and some of the front-benchers can pound their desks as much as they like and say that the signs of recovery are present every where in Alberta, Mr. Speaker, but as I travel around the province, I don't hear that from Albertans. Nor do these objec tive forecasts I read, which the Tories thought objective enough to take to the people of Alberta in 1984, indicate that things are going to change dramatically.

When one looks at the unem ployment rate, one finds that according to the Conference Board there will be a reduction in Newfoundland, P.E.I., Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario, and Manitoba. Saskatche wan will stay even, but Saskatchewan has a much lower unem ployment rate than we have in Alberta. B.C. will see a drop

34 ALBERTA HANSARD March 19, 1984 in their unemployment rate. The only province that is going to experience an increase in unemployment is the province of Alberta. Mr. Speaker, with that in mind, it really isn't good enough for this government to bring in the complacent Speech from the Throne, the agenda for action that we saw introduced last week, that is going to be the basis for legislative work in 1984. Let's take a look at other indicators from the Conference Board. If one analyzes gross domestic product, where does Alberta stand? Every other province is going to grow more quickly than Alberta.

I have to say the prognosis is that there will be marginal growth, but we rank 10th among the 10 prov inces in the increase in gross domestic product. Real domestic product: again, 10th among the 10 provinces. On Friday when I raised questions about the rate of consumer spending, our friend the Provincial Treasurer told us that we had the highest per capita consumer spending. That may be, Mr. Speaker, but with higher indebtedness on the part of Alber tans, with rising unemployment, the last thing we should be complacent about is our retail sales increase compared to other parts of the country.

If we look at the Conference Board sta tistics and examine the increase in retail sales, we find that the outlook for Alberta is bleak. Again, we will rank 10th among the 10 provinces in terms of increase in retail sales. That is something which simply confirms the concern that both oppo sition groups raised in the Legislature last fall. When you have lagging retail sales to begin with, when you have all kinds of evidence of a slowdown in the economy, why do you then increase personal income tax and take more purchasing power away from the average citizen in this province?

What we see in 1984, in my submission, is a sluggish econ omy that is showing no sign at all of recovery. Recovery is now a word which is acceptable in other parts of Canada but, as you travel around this province, you do not hear business people talking about recovery; you do not hear farmers talking about recovery; you don't hear the unemployed talking about recovery. Eighteen months into this government's term, the economy has slowed to a screeching halt. Instead of action to improve that situation, to bring in some kind of economic recovery program, we have this complacent document. Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to deal with the obvious impacts of the current Tory recession in Alberta. The first is the 150,000 people who are out of work. This government is going to spend $20 million on the temporary student program this year. We have government members pounding their desks, but the very day we are talking about a STEP program of $20 million, we have the Minister of Public Works, Supply and Services jus tifying a $31 million expenditure on renovating an old school in Calgary to turn into a Premier's office.

Whether the Leader of the Opposition, the Member for Little Bow, or the Member for Edmonton Norwood could go down and hold meetings there is quite beside the point. I think we have the priorities of this government very clearly delineated here: $20 million for the young people who are out of work, $31 million to renovate McDougall school.

Another way of looking at it is to note that in the city of Calgary, we have something in the neighborhood of 20 schools that are being closed down now because this government isn't properly financing education, yet we're spending $31 million to renovate a structure so we have a nice, fancy new office for the Premier. I think that raises in a very clear way not only the question of the scale of importance of providing jobs for young people against the Cadillac Tory set in Calgary but the issue of government priorities. Mr.

Speaker, we have the concerns of the unemployed and, later on in this debate, my colleague the Member for Edmonton Norwood will be outlining to the members of this Assembly some of the social and emotional problems that face families where one or both breadwinners have lost their jobs. Not only do we see the impact on the unemployed, we see the impact on the business sector of this province; not the big companies, not Luscar Sterco, the firm that is 25 percent owned by the Alberta Energy Company, not the high rollers but the small businessmen who are closing down their businesses as bank ruptcy overtakes them.

Mr. Speaker, the government can say that they have all kinds of programs, but let me itemize just a couple of cases of Spirit River-Fairview constituents that came to my attention in the last few weeks that illustrate what a terrible job this government is doing. The first is a gentleman on the north side of the river who opened up a farm, expanded his operation, did all the things the Minister of Agriculture suggested he do, and made sure he had a big operation. But he operated a business on the side, which was the kind of thing that allowed him to supple ment his farm income.

When the bank began to change its tune and wanted its money back, what happened? He went to the Agricultural Development Corporation to borrow some money to consolidate his debts. He walked in the door, sat down with them, and they looked at him and said: we can't loan you any money, because you've got a business. So out the door he went. He then went to the Alberta Opportunity Company. They said: you can't come to us, because you operate a farm. This particular gentleman has fallen through the cracks of government programs.

I'm sorry to say that I suspect he will be on the street — or on the road in that particular part of the province, and not a paved road either, I might add — because we don't have programs which make it possible for someone who has both farming input as well as a business role to con solidate his debts and go to these so-called lenders of last resort. Another example is a gentleman who came from British Columbia and, again, went to the local Department of Agri culture, made sure everything he did was correct, at least according to the government experts.

He came to this province with about a quarter of a million dollars, and he got into a good-sized farming operation. But as people who know rural Alberta will quickly understand, from time to time you can have bad years, and the bad years have now caused the bank to decide: okay, we want our money back. And they're selling him out. Mr. Speaker, they will get their money back — no question about that — but in the process of getting their money back, that man will not have a single bit of equity that he brought from British Columbia.

I might just add that in British Columbia he was not a supporter of the party I represent, but with the kind of situation he's facing in Alberta, he will cer tainly not be a supporter of this government either. We had him see the local credit people and appeal it. But the problem is that the programs really aren't filling the cracks, at least in my judgment, and you've got a number of people who are falling through.

As I've had occasion to attend farm meetings — Unifarm conventions, stockgrowers and other meetings, not only in the Peace but throughout the province — I've had a number of farmers especially come to me and say: what are we going to do about farm credit; we're caught with interest rates that we can't pay; we've got higher input costs; at best, our products are staying stagnant and, in some cases, dropping. You've got a large number of people who are headed for bankruptcy, espe cially young people who bought land two or three years ago when land was much higher than it is today.

If they do find that they have to leave, that they're foreclosed upon, then what will happen is that for the most part the financial institutions will get their money back but the individuals in question will lose everything. That is something which, in my submission,

March 19, 1984 ALBERTA HANSARD 35 should be addressed, and I see not one bit of evidence that this government is seriously prepared to tackle it. Mr. Speaker, it's not just a case of businessmen and farmers and unemployed who are paying the costs for this government's mismanagement of the economy; we have some communities that are in pretty rough shape too.

All one has to do is listen to the people in Grand Centre who talk about how they got into a municipal project which involved the purchase of land and a decision which has awarded the owners of that land some $4 million — they're apparently prepared to negotiate for $3.6 million — a level which is going to completely break the community of Grand Centre. How did that happen? It happened because in the 1970s this government was telling everybody that we were going to go ahead with a major project in north eastern Alberta.

However, it was this government that brought the Cold Lake project to a halt in 1980 when it decided, with members of the government applauding very enthusiastically, that the Alsands and Cold Lake projects would be put on hold as a result of the Premier's then war with Ottawa. Who's paying the price now for all these wars between fed eral and provincial politicians? Some of the people who are going to be paying the price, Mr.

Speaker, are the citizens of a little community like Grand Centre, who are faced with the staggering cost of a $3.6 million to $4 million load that they were encouraged to undertake in order to prepare themselves for the boom. The little community that I live in — we had the Premier standing in his place in 1980 saying: we're going to go ahead with the building of a dam at Dunvegan, and we're going to get the Caterpillars in there almost any day. Unfor tunately for some of the business people in the Peace River country, they listened to this government and made business investments on that basis.

I tried to suggest to them: just wait before you invest a dime; make sure that in fact those trucks are down at Dunvegan, that the Caterpillars are there, and that the work is under way; don't start investing on the basis of a promise made by this government. There are going to be some people who lose a lot of money because they believed in what this government was doing. What really disturbs me is that the Tories, who are so quick to take credit for everything that goes well in this province, are somehow not able to accept any of the responsibility when things don't go well.

As you read the Speech from the Throne, Mr. Speaker, what do you find? You find one example after another of: it's some body else's fault. It's Ottawa's fault, it's the United States' fault, or it's the fault of international conditions. But nowhere is it the fault of this government. When things were going well, it wasn't because of the OPEC nations, it wasn't because of international circumstances; it was because this government was such a shrewd group of managers. But when responsibility comes for the recession, as it turns out that recession is indeed an orphan.

This government is not prepared to admit paternity at all. Like the travelling salesman of old, the farmer's daughter is left, as the Tory party marches on to yet another — not victory. God help us; if this is victory, I would hate to see what defeat is. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to deal with a couple of other aspects of this government's approach to the economy. We have heard that the new theme is going to be privatization.

Of course it's a little bit inconsistent for a government that is talking about privatization to spend another $11 million renovating a school in Calgary with 22 percent of the office space vacant. One would think that we might see the symbolic value of using empty office space and getting a good price for the taxpayer. What I didn't notice in this Speech from the Throne was any commitment to a white paper. You may recall white papers, Mr. Speaker.

When this government came into office in 1971, they were going to make big announcements in the form of white papers so we'd have an opportunity to review them care fully. One would think that if we are now going to embark upon privatization of almost everything, we would have prom ised a white paper as to how we're going to do it. Are we going to put these opportunities for privatization up to public bid? How are we going to handle it? Are we going to have the highways in such and such an area farmed out? How are we going to deal with that? There's got to be some sort of strategy involved.

Or is it going to be the approach we've seen with hiring certain people in the top echelons of the public service — the George de Rappard approach, the cronies approach? Are we going to have free enterprise or crony enterprise in Alberta? Albertans want to know that, and a lot of people who may be very conservative minded want to know it too. If you're going to privatize something, why has there been no white paper setting out the ground rules for privatization? And no com mitment.

You would think if you were going to write a Speech from the Throne, it wouldn't really take much to stick in a little line — I mean there are so many lines here that are completely meaningless anyway. You could put in a meaningful line saying that this government is going to present a white paper on pri vatization to ensure that it be fair and equitable, and not just a code word for more Tories at the public trough. Mr.

Speaker, I don't know whether members in this House want to hear this, but I want to tell you that as I travel around the province — and I'm sure other members of the opposition will concur — wherever I go there are concerns about cronyism, about patronage. Is privatization just going to be the new Tory approach to patronage? If this government had wanted to bring in a policy with some promise of success, they would have at least made it clear that they were going to set out the ground rules carefully and not just simply give us rhetoric over and over again without coming forward with some specifics. Mr.

Speaker, I think there is no doubt that in any recovery program there has to be tremendous emphasis placed on the private sector, particularly small independent business. But I am not sure that taking elements of government expenditure now and farming them out holus-bolus to private enterprise is the way to go about that. I really suggest that perhaps the best approach would be to undertake not a different division of today's pie but policies which would be aimed at enlarging the pie. It's one of the reasons we have to talk about priorities.

I think it's a complete and total waste of money to spend $11 million on the renovation of McDougall school, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't consider public projects. Because some public projects this government has undertaken are demonstr ably foolish doesn't mean that all public projects are foolish. As a matter of fact, as one has a chance to meet with people around the province, there are demands — quite proper demands — by local governments that if we're going to get better value for our dollars, now is the time to get road programs under way, for example.

I notice the Minister of Agriculture isn't here, but he men tioned that they're going to be studying the Crow rale and the impact on the economy of rural Alberta of the federal decision to remove the Crow rate. You don't need a number of high- priced consultants. If members of the government had read the submissions from the farm organizations, they would know perfectly well that the impact of removing the Crow rate is going to be extremely adverse, especially on the farmers in northern Alberta. One of the things we should be looking at — I've said this before, but I'll say it again.

Now is the time we absolutely must have rail links with British Columbia, or the promise of

36 ALBERTA HANSARD March 19, 1984 expanding agriculture in northern Alberta will be just empty rhetoric and nothing more. Mind you, at the rate the lands department is proceeding, the expansion of agricultural land is so slow — if we'd had the same approach to homesteading in western Canada, we certainly wouldn't have had a Riel rebel lion, because Lord Selkirk would still be at the boat waiting to come to Fort Garry. The fact is, though, that if we're concerned about looking after the economic future of this province, agriculture has to play an important role.

If it's to play an important role, agri culture must have access to markets. Access to markets is always important, but when you shift your transportation sys tem from one where there was a subsidy to ship grain at a very low price to a user-pay concept, if you don't make those rail links a high priority of government, you are foreclosing the opportunity of developing further northern agriculture and you are signing an economic death warrant to many of the 7,000 permit holders who are operating today in the Peace River country.

That's the sort of thing we could be looking at that would allow us to expand business opportunities. But I say to members of the Assembly, we're not seeing that being proposed in this Speech from the Throne. Instead, we're being asked to take the existing pie and carve it up in a little different way as far as the private sector is concerned. Mr. Speaker, I want to give the members of the House this warning. I'm sure no one will pay a great deal of attention to it today, because we always think for the present in Alberta. When times were booming, everybody had a boom mentality.

They couldn't visualize that there could be a recession. I want to tell you quite frankly that if you privatize in 1984, with the sluggish Alberta economy, you will probably be able to get very competitive prices. I'm not sure it will be any lower, that the taxpayers will save any money by doing it, but very com petitive prices — I'd be willing to admit that. But when the economy begins to recover, a provincial government that has privatized important public services must realize what happens when the boom begins.

How many rural members in this House can stand in their places during the debate in reply to the Speech from the Throne and not cast their memory back to '78, '79, '80, '81, when we had the boom and the problems we had getting any road construction in this province because of the impact of the boom on contract prices? The more you privatize, the more vulnerable you are to whatever impact will occur four or live years down the road if there is some economic recovery. And we all hope there will be, although I must say that this government is doing precious little to contribute to it.

But this is a strong and vibrant province, and in spite of the government, we may have some recovery. If we have that recovery taking place, several major projects under way, and we have privatized all these services, I just want to say to the members of this House that at that point we will find that the taxpayers will either have to accept inferior quality service or much higher costs.

Some of my teacher friends in Fairview say — it's very interesting, because when the boom was on and the private sector was doing so well, some of the real estate people said to some first-rate teachers: why don't you give up teaching and sell real estate; you could make more money. That was true. They made far more money, because there was a boom and they could make that kind of money. But you know, Mr. Speaker, the more we privatize our public service, we are vulnerable to economic recovery, and the taxpayer in fact becomes the person who must bear that added cost.

I say to members of the Assembly, for a year or two you can make tub-thumping speeches before your right-wing friends, and people like Peter Pocklington and so on will think it's just great. But you will be borrowing from the future in order to do something that is politically expedient today. That doesn't mean there shouldn't be review of the role of the public service, consolidation of departments where consolidation should take place, consolidation of agencies where consoli dation should take place. That's an ongoing thing that any government should be undertaking.

When I see that we're going to be looking at the operation of the aids to daily living program, it's about time. The former premier of Saskatchewan and I had a discussion about the two programs in Alberta and Saskatch ewan. Because the Saskatchewan government didn't have the kind of money that we in Alberta have to throw at problems, they brought in a much more cautious program — just as workable but a program that emphasizes recycling of appli ances. Mr.

Speaker, the question of determining priorities, which is the responsibility of government, is why people out there today are asking: what are this government's priorities? Pri vatization, but no idea as to how it's going to be done fairly; no serious economic recovery package; frills, continuation of frills. Whether it's the first-class travel expenditures whenever ministers travel, whether it's legislative committees that are going hither and thither around the world, regardless, the public senses — and I think correctly so — that we have a government which really has some muddled priorities.

Some members may say: oh, this is unfair; the costs the opposition cite — the Kananaskis sand, the Senate committee's proposed expendi tures, the little session the public works ministers had in Banff, or the fact that cabinet ministers always travel first-class — are just a drop in the bucket; you shouldn't be picky. Except that symbolism is important: if you're going to be saying to people in Alberta that we have to set priorities, then you've got to set priorities at the top as well.

If you're saying to the average working person that they have to hunker down, tighten their belts, and all the rest of this Churchillian rhetoric that we occasionally get from Conservative backbenchers before serv ice clubs, then I think you have to show that you, Mr. Speaker, and members of the government are prepared to exercise some leadership. As I've mentioned, people out there are questioning the frills. What they're talking about is a government which is going to get back to some bread-and-butter issues such as, number one, education.

But not the kind of approach we're getting from the Minister of Education. The Minister of Education doesn't want to spend any money on schools or wants to avoid the thorny issue of financing education. So when we had the Kratzmann report, we had the Minister of Education standing up time after time in question period and saying: oh, the Kratzmann report, we don't agree with it; we've got this special committee, the minister's advisory committee on financing education.

It was going to be the most learned group of people imaginable, and it gave the minister a beautiful excuse to do nothing for several years while this committee studied education. The first recommendation to the minister in the committee's report is that 85 percent of the costs of education be met by the province and that we get away from this business of nudging all the costs over on local property tax payers — a very sound recommendation. When the issue was raised last year, the min ister's excuse was that he needed to read the committee report and to think about it.

Instead of coming through with action on the recommendations in the committee report, what do we have today? We're going to have the greatest study imaginable. We're going to have thousands and thousands of Albertans filling out these questionnaires, and we're going to be thinking about secondary education and junior high. Isn't it going to be great? We're going to be studying and studying and restudying

March 19, 1984 ALBERTA HANSARD 37 education, but there still isn't going to be any money in the budget to provide the school boards with the funds they need to undertake the job. So, Mr. Speaker, people are saying: we want less studies from the Minister of Education and more action in terms of dealing with his friend the Provincial Treas urer so that we can properly fund education. Then we have our friend the Minister of Hospitals and Med ical Care.

If there's any sort of honesty in the Tory caucus, surely some of the backbenchers have to take the Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care aside and say: look here my friend, you've got us into an awful mess. Here we're bringing in user fees. The hospital boards don't like it; public opinion is against it; our federal Tory friends don't like it either. They're prepared to support Madam Bégin's new national health Act in order to deal with the right-wing policies of this minister. I wonder where these backbenchers are, unless in fact they support this kind of policy. In which case, Mr.

Speaker, we will certainly want to have that clearly understood as we get ready for the next election. As we get closer to the election, I suspect that these people who are so buoyant and enthusiastic whenever a minister stands up and berates the opposition — I have a hunch as we get closer to the election provincial Tories will be a little bit like federal Tories, and they will waffle on user fees and say: oh well, that's the minister's policy, but basically I don't think it's a good idea.

I suspect that we're going to see a minister — if I could use this term in a gentle way — politically abandoned by his colleagues as we get closer to the election. But if he needs counselling, there will certainly be room in the new Berwyn hospital in the town of Grimshaw. Mr. Speaker, another area we've focussed on is the need for highway and capital construction, areas where there can be agreement. It would appear that at this stage, instead of moving forward, we're going to see retrenchment in that particular area. I want to say one other thing before turning to the admin istration of justice.

We hear that there is to be this great eco nomic strategy paper. I find that a little strange. We've had a government in office for 13 years now. In 1974 the Premier told us that we had one decade left to diversify. Here we are 10 years later. After 10 years of becoming more dependent than ever before on our nonrenewable resources, we now hear there's to be this paper on diversification, on economic strategy for the province of Alberta. I gather that the hon. Minister of Advanced Education and the Minister of Housing have been working on it.

This information isn't quite ready yet but pre sumably will be ready at some point during the session. Well, Mr. Speaker, Albertans faced with record bankruptcies, record foreclosures, 150,000 out of work, simply ask the question: why 10 years for an economic strategy for this province? This is the government that, when they were the official opposition, berated the former administration for not having a clear and coherent economic policy and promised to bring one in if they were elected. Thirteen years into their government, and 10 years after the Premier's speech in Calgary, we still have to await some action.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to move to the administration of justice, but I do want to say one additional thing. The way in which our government deals with difficult issues always amuses me. You may recall that back in antiquity, sometime between Adam and Eve and the flood, we in the opposition asked for a motion for a return to be tabled in the House on the cost overruns in the heritage trust fund. I should say that it had been duly accepted before the 1982 election. What should happen but that it wasn't tabled until the last day of the fall session.

I would certainly not want to imply that the timing was delib erate. AN HON. MEMBER: Not this government. MR. NOTLEY: Not this government, of course not. No, open government . . . But I found it rather interesting, Mr. Speaker, because it does reveal that there has been a remarkable overrun in these capital projects. If anything leads me to say that the comments I made about getting locked into private-sector expenditures in administration should give us a warning bell, it's this report on trust fund overruns.

But I thought that just for a second or two I might advise members who may not have had an opportunity to know just how this money was handled. We have the grazing reserves development — a very worthy project, strongly supported on this side. But the estimate was $26 million; the current cost estimate is $40 million. So we're about 70 percent over there. However. Mr. Speaker, I think what is useful in looking at this subject is to read the way in which the Tories explain it.

As the programs progressed, detailed estimates were developed for individual reserves and the total project cost has been refined accordingly. "Refined" — what a nice way of saying an overrun. We have the irrigation system estimated at $110 million; current cost estimate, $342 million. Then we have the Paddle River project. I always enjoy the Paddle River project; its our only sort of moving dam in the province. I think the hon. Member for Barrhead should be able to set up a ticket selling agency there; like the leaning tower of Pisa, we're going to have a moving dam on the Paddle River.

Estimated at $18,800; current estimate, $38 million — 100 per cent out. Again we look at the explanation, Mr. Speaker, and apparently these figures also had to be "refined". I could go on. The Hospitals and Medical Care commitment to the Walter C. Mackenzie project: $135 million; current estimate, $432 million. Kanan askis: $40 million — and we were all told that we had this project right in hand — current estimate, $218 million. Mr. Speaker, I just cite as evidence that we had better watch the move to privatization.

One reads over and over again that the justification for these phenomenal price increases has been the impact caused by inflation — inflation greater in Alberta because of the boom. I just say to members of the House that if this occurred in capital construction in the '70s — and we all know it did — it will occur in the operation of our depart ments too. And it is a word of warning. I know that members won't agree with me today, but I want it in Hansard as word of warning so that in the years ahead we can perhaps reflect upon it. Now, Mr.

Speaker, I want to deal with what is as important an issue as the economy: that is, the administration of justice. I suppose that in any democratic society there are several giv ens. One is that we are all equal before the law. It doesn't make any difference who you are. Whether you're a person with a lot of money and a lot of station in life or whether you're a drunk with a bottle of wine down on 97th Street, we're all equal before the law. I think another thing that is given in a democratic society is that you are innocent until proven guilty. I don't think there's any question about that.

And the third thing is that in a democratic society we must make our laws in the open, through our elected representatives. If we are to be equal before the law in terms of developing our laws, the process must be done in the open. Having made those observations, Mr. Speaker, I want to deal with the events of the last few months. Let me say at the outset that at least part of the problem this government faces is something that can be related to all Albertans. In our system you cannot make a government function well, over time, in the absence of a balance in the Legislature.

There has to be the give and take of political options.

38 ALBERTA HANSARD March 19, 1984 In the last election, those of us in opposition attempted to make that point. It was our view that restoring democracy to the Alberta Legislature was, in my judgment anyway, the most important thing Albertans could have done in 1982. They chose not to do that, and the four of us who remain in opposition have to carry on a fairly large responsibility. But I don't think anyone can objectively argue that democracy in Alberta would not be better served by having 30 or 35 people on this side and 40 or 45 on the other side. That's how our system works.

There may be other types of governments in the world that can work outside of that adversarial competition of ideas approach that is basic to the parliamentary system. But when you have over whelming majorities, one of the problems is that there seeps into the leadership of any government the feeling that they can do no wrong. While that assumption must be challenged, in the name of accuracy it must be admitted that it will occur unless the people themselves take their responsibilities clearly. I think I mentioned this once before in the House, Mr. Speaker, but it bears repeating.

One of the people that I respect, probably more than anyone else in Canadian public life, is T.C. Douglas, who was leader of the Saskatchewan CCF government between 1944 and 1961. For several of those legislatures, the CCF enjoyed the same relative position in the Saskatchewan Legislature that this government has in the Alberta Legislature. It practically decimated the opposition. For several of those Legislatures, it was a pretty close contest between the Liberals and the CCF. With the experience and, I think, the wisdom of someone who has gone through leadership and looks back, Mr.

Douglas is the first to say that the best governments Saskatchewan had under his leadership were those occasions when it was close between the government and the opposition. The most difficult times he had to face as leader of government were the occasions when the CCF had virtually every seat. I regret to say that kind of sage political advice from someone who has been in politics a long time has not been taken very seriously by Albertans.

Notwithstanding the fact that we as citizens have been at least partly responsible for what I honestly believe is an unacceptable level of behaviour in terms of the administration of justice by this government, it must neverthe less be pointed out that the maintenance of a democratic society comes right back to citizen responsibility. Mr. Speaker, in talking about the administration of justice, I want to begin by saying that I don't accept the rationalization of this government that there must be a smoking gun in order to hold a proper judicial inquiry.

We are not dealing with a situation that involves imminent or even probable criminal charges. We are not talking about the system having the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty. If we are talking about individuals, yes. The individual has the right to be con sidered innocent until proven guilty. But when you look at a system, then we have to ask ourselves, does that system deserve the right to be presumed innocent until some smoking gun proves it guilty? Let me use the example of the United States. No position in the world had greater respect than the presidency of the United States.

In 1973, before the tapes and before the final revelation that led to the resignation of Richard Nixon, the American people had to look very carefully at what their entire democratic system was about. Allegations had been made that perhaps people in the executive had acted improperly. There was no evidence at that time that the President had acted improperly. There was certainly no smoking gun at all. But when the Senate of the United States chose to embark upon the Ervin hearings, they did so because there was sufficient concern that the Senate of the United States decided there should be a clearing of the air.

Mr. Speaker, as I look at the reasoning for a public inquiry in this province, the reasoning is not that we have absolute proof that somebody has meddled in the administration of jus tice. The reasoning is that if there is concern, then that concern must be properly evaluated and laid to rest. My purpose today is to relay to my colleagues in the House the concern that I believe exists in Alberta. There is really no absolute proof. If that were the basis for inquiries, we would not have had the Cavanagh Board of Review. We would not have seen the Ombudsman's report on the Metis raids. So, Mr.

Speaker, I want to set the record straight. The question is whether there is concern. Bearing that in mind, let's look at several examples.

First of all, the firing of one John Faulkner, a Crown prosecutor, a man who apparently was well regarded by his peers, well enough regarded that he received whatever bonuses one obtains for doing first-class work — dismissed, we are told, because he revealed to the media that there was an investigation of a particular individual, and that that somehow was so wrong, that speculation was so wrong, that the only way to deal with the question was not to reprimand or to suggest that it not happen again, but we had to have a dismissal. Mr.

Speaker, the thing that disturbs me about that is when I look at the request, the application for a search warrant, dated May 12, 1983. Virtually everything — and I would say "every thing" if one reads it carefully — that Mr. Faulkner is reputed to have told the The Calgary Herald is contained in the search warrant, which is a public document. I think it may in fact be reasonable for the law officer of the government to say that any revelation of information which is not in the public domain is so serious that the strongest kind of action should be taken. But, Mr.

Speaker, when I read this information, as I see it everything that was confirmed was already in the public domain if a person cared to look. Why, then, that extreme form of censure, the firing a person who apparently, by all standards, had been doing a good job? In this debate, I think it's encumbent upon the Attorney General to outline why that firing took place, why a different course of action wouldn't have been preferable.

We all know that there have been comments made by the Attorney General himself about cases, and I would be less than honest if I didn't say that on occasion I've even raised issues in the House. But here we have the firing of a person. If we presume that a person is innocent until proven guilty. I ask members of the House whether or not this government took that kind of position with respect to Mr. Faulkner. Mr. Speaker, the discussion of Dial has to be limited, because certain aspects of the case are before the courts.

One aspect that isn't before the courts is the question of how the person who had been the chief executive officer of that company was chosen deputy minister of cabinet, apparently during a time that the company he was administering was under criminal investigation. Last summer Mr. Trudeau chose a member of the cabinet, a member from Newfoundland. A few days later he requested and received the resignation of that member. In between, apparently, he discovered that that particular indi vidual was under investigation for income tax evasion.

The question I put to members of the House is how could we as a government consider the appointment to what is in many ways the most important civil service position in this province of a person who was executive officer of a company during the time the RCMP had obtained a search warrant to investigate a very serious criminal offence? We're not here to argue that the final decision of the prosecutors was right or to suggest that Mr. de Rappard was guilty of anything, because he has a right to be presumed innocent just as Mr. Faulkner or

March 19, 1984 ALBERTA HANSARD 39 anyone else does. My question is: notwithstanding that right to be presumed innocent, why would a government in its right mind undertake an appointment during that time? When the issue was cleared, fine; proceed with the appointment. But why at that time? Mr. Speaker, we have the so-called Paisley memo, sent by the Deputy Attorney General, dealing with the investigation of public people. The (

a) section of the memo is straightforward enough: In cases where an offence is alleged to have been com mitted by an employee of the Government of Alberta who was not on duty at the time and the alleged offence is not in respect to his employment, notification is not required prior to the commencement of the investigation. That's fair enough. I think that should be read into the record.

However: Such notification shall not be required in relation to minor, routine Provincial statute offences unless having regard to the circumstances overall, the matter is perceived to be sensitive in nature and/or one which may attract media attention or generate public controversy. What does that mean, Mr. Speaker, in terms of equality before the law?

If there was equality before the law, surely the question of whether or not an investigation occurs is on the basis of the evidence, not whether the evidence may be such that The Calgary Herald wants to print a story about it or The Edmonton Journal may cover it or CBC television carries it. But the (

b) section disturbs me a great deal: In cases where an offence is alleged to have been com mitted by an employee of the Government of Alberta while on duty or in respect to his employment, notification is required prior to the commencement of any investigation. Such notification shall not be required in relation to minor, routine Provincial statute offences unless having regard to the circumstances overall, the matter is perceived to be sensitive in nature and/or one which may attract media attention or generate public controversy.

We're not only talking about notification if there has been an investigation; this memo makes it clear that there must be notification before the commencement of any investigation. Mr. Speaker, I raise the issue that other people have brought to my attention. I am not trained in the law. I don't pretend to know the law, sir, that you or the hon. Attorney General does.

But in talking to people whose judgment I do respect and whose experience and understanding of the law is, may I generously say, at least the equal of some of our esteemed legal friends in this House, they have raised serious concerns about the impact of this particular provision. I ask members of the House how it could happen that we have this kind of memo sent out. What is the reasoning behind this kind of memo? Oh, a little later on it says that this will allow the Attorney General's department to help with the investigation.

But what's the impact going to be on an enforcement agency that gets this kind of memo? The implication will be — especially in a province where the government enjoys a huge majority — to play it safe, and the implication is very dangerous for the equal admin istration of the law. Mr. Speaker, we got into the debate over the Luscar Sterco incident.

One of the things I was amazed at in Luscar Sterco was the memo which apparently went out indicating that since there could be investigations of companies, the government wanted this information as well, particularly in light of any adverse publicity, anything that would generate media interest. What have we got? We have the Attorney General's depart ment saying to police forces: let us know before you begin investigating an employee of the government, particularly if it's going to get into the newspapers.

We have the Department of Energy and Natural Resources saying: let us know, partic ularly if it's going to get in the newspapers. Mr. Speaker, I believe that really is wrong. I want to deal just a little more with the Luscar Sterco issue, and attempt to comment on two aspects of the case.

The first is the suggestion by the minister of energy, in what was bas ically a ministerial announcement as opposed to an answer, in question period that somehow the government did the only thing possible and that as a result of the negotiation over royalty relief they kept the jobs, cleaned up the river, and that every thing is fine. For someone who scans the surface, that may seem like a reasonable argument. But there are just a few problems with that argument. Problem number one is that the complaints came to the department a year and a half before.

Problem number two is that the fish and wildlife people investigated offences or what they considered to be violations. Problem number three is that after uncovering those violations, they went to the com pany. Problem number four is that the company, after the department had contacted them repeatedly, continued an unac ceptable level of behaviour. Problem number five is that the department went back to see them again. We had a meeting a year after the concerns were first expressed, and a decision was made. But in the months following, one violation after another could be cited.

I won't bore people with all the details, but for anyone who wishes it I think the chronology is now available. Step by step by step, over a year and a half, we had a company which had been warned, lectured, and directed, and didn't follow the directives. So finally, on July 28, we have evidence that two Crown prosecutors recommended that the company be prosecuted under the federal Fisheries Act. The minister of energy attempted to sort of sidetrack the entire issue today by sug gesting that had the prosecution occurred, somehow everybody would have been laid off. That's absolute nonsense.

The pros ecution of Great Canadian Oil Sands took place. The net result, it seems to me, is that they probably cleaned up their act somewhat. The issue was not a closure order. The issue was whether or not the evidence of failing to comply with a federal statute should be proceeded with. Here we have, a year and a half later, after repeated infractions, the government working out a little deal. The Attorney General can stand and say: oh, this is just an environmental piece of legislation; it's there to encourage people to do the right thing; it's not the same as the criminal law.

If a democratic society is to have any meaning, the law is the law. If you're driving down the road at 90 miles an hour, Mr. Speaker, and a policeman comes up and says "I think the hon. Member for Edmonton Meadowlark is speeding", you cannot turn to him and say, but that's just a provincial law, that's a regulatory law; it's not the same as the Criminal Code, so get lost. You wouldn't do that, Mr. Speaker, but neither would any constable allow himself to get lost. He would very quickly write out a big ticket, and properly so. What about the little business people who have to obey all kinds of regulatory laws?

The Attorney General's department frequently prosecutes them. To suggest that somehow we can turn and say, well, shucks, the federal Fisheries Act,

an Act of Parliament — a $50,000 fine, a year and a half of breaking the law. They were told about it, warned about it, directed not to do it. Then we have Crown prosecutors saying that there's evidence to prosecute. We don't prosecute. The minister of energy makes a nice little arrangement, and then tells us it's really keeping jobs in place when that's not the issue at all, the issue of equality before the law.

40 ALBERTA HANSARD March 19, 1984 I tell you, Mr. Speaker, next time some little business man in the minister of energy's constituency in east Calgary finds himself behind the eight ball, faced with prosecution for some of the various regulatory rules and laws we've passed in this Legislature, he will be very interested in the minister of ener gy's response, and he may want the same sort of treatment. We continually talk about environmental legislation. If this government wants to change, let the law be the federal government's and say we think the Fisheries Act is too strin gent.

If they don't want to enforce the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act, let them change those Acts so that certain things which now are illegal are legal. That's what we mean by doing the public business in public. But let's not pass on this absolute nonsense that somehow private little deals are a substitute for equal administration of the law. Mr. Speaker, I think we have a matter that needs to be dealt with. For that reason, I would like to move the following amendment to the Speech from the Throne.

That the motion for an humble address to be presented to his Honour the Hon ourable the Lieutenant Governor of Alberta on today's Order Paper be amended as follows: by adding at the end of it: "but regret that the Executive Council has not thus far seen fit to request Your Honour to cause an enquiry to be made into the administration of justice in the Province of Alberta." MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, I shall shortly have a look at the amendment the hon. leader has just presented, but I did get the gist of it from his remarks.

I think I can be generous enough to say that there are perhaps several things the hon. leader said which are worthy of some comment or reflection. In the course of dealing with an issue as broadly stated as a reference to the administration of justice, I think most of the things the hon. leader spoke of in his general remarks are also suitable for the amendment. One of the most basic qualities that we as a people have inherited over the centuries has been the value and the quality of a justice system which, in comparison with most other parts of the world over the centuries, has shown itself to be superior.

It is not something that should ever be free from comment or criticism, but it is something that when we choose to do that. I think we should have in mind the principles which have been so meaningful over the years and be as sure as we can that in our positions as legislators and leaders, we do no unnecessary offence to the prestige of the law and the prestige of the admin istration of justice system, merely for the desire to perhaps gain some brief political advantage. Mr.

Speaker, there isn't anyone in the Assembly who dis agrees with the main principles described by the Leader of the Opposition as being some of the cornerstones of our system. Equality before the law: of course every hon. member imme diately declares his and her strong belief in the necessity of there being not only a full understanding but a full application of that principle. That applies, of course, to all who have any responsibilities whatever in respect of the administration of justice.

The hon. leader also referred to the well-known maxim, which I think all of our population is so well acquainted with, that a person is innocent until proven guilty, and made further reference to the need to make laws in the open. That is, of course, the legislative process. Mr. Speaker, I think it's important to have regard to what the real issues are in the present days in Alberta in respect of whatever question about the administration of justice there might be in the minds of any person at all, and any concerns that citizen may have as he perceives some of what is occurring.

If we are to deal with the real issues, I have no difficulty in coming before hon. members, as I have come before other Albertans, and saying: surely there are matters that must be reviewed, and surely we will find, as a result of that process, that changes are probably required. I believe that will be the case. I think it is a timely review that is taking place at the present time and that it will be valuable to the people of Alberta when that current review has been concluded.

I say again that it's my intention that insofar as things like administrative directives and so on are concerned, they should surely be reviewed, surely be debated, and no doubt in a number of instances changed. But I wouldn't want hon. members to believe that the existence or not of administrative directives by itself is anything that goes to the core of the administration of justice issue.

I don't know how hon. members would perceive that a large organization involving over 100 Crown prosecutors tries to bring that equality before the law, to people throughout the courtrooms in the dozens of communities in the province where trials are held — how that could possibly be done without some indication, as a matter of policy, from the senior law officers to those in the field as to how they should conduct particular types of cases. What the issue became was that the independence of Crown prosecutors, which is historic and acknowledged, should be maintained.

It is therefore a question of balance between admin istrative necessity and the historic tradition of independence in the judgment exercised in individual cases by Crown counsel. I think that balance does deserve to be reviewed from time to time, a proper balance can be struck, and probably the process improved as a result. But to say that the circumstances that make a timely review necessary show some deepseated defi ciency in the administration of the justice system would simply be an irresponsible statement incapable of support by any facts. The desire I have then, Mr.

Speaker, is to deal with what the real issues are. I have begun to do that by saying that so far as they relate to administrative matters, that is in hand and I expect to see improvements in the result. Very briefly, I want to put on record some items on a specific, if I might, because I don't think the amendment would have been moved at all without some reference to a former employee, so to speak, of the Department of the Attorney General. Mr. Faulkner was indeed an able legal counsel, and no doubt still is. The employment of him, though, was by way of contract.

I don't think anything was done in respect of the termination of his contract that any employer would not feel free to do, and nothing was done — and this is vastly more important — in respect of the termination of his contract that any client wouldn't feel free to do. Mr. Faulkner's client was at all times Her Majesty. The work that a Crown counsel does is not dis cussed except in the presence of the client, the other law officers of the Crown and, obviously, in the presence of investigators and potential witnesses.

To say that before any decision is taken in respect of an individual case as to whether any charge should ever be laid — to say that that is a matter which can be discussed publicly in any way is such a grave breach of the code of professional conduct of lawyers that it probably deserves little more by way of comment, other than to say that that profes sional ethic was breached in this case. In those circumstances, any client would be entitled to say to his or her legal counsel: I terminate your services. The false statement has been made that Mr.

Faulkner did no more than confirm existing information that was already public. In that respect, Mr. Speaker, I believe it would be a breach of professional ethics even to lend the name and the weight of a Crown attorney to confirming information which was published in some form, information that is part of a document or is

March 19, 1984 ALBERTA HANSARD 41 published in a newspaper, and then to have that available for people to see. That's one thing. But to go beyond that and say, I as Crown counsel confirm that, you're at that point discussing in public the affairs of the client and matters that relate to the absolute entitlement a citizen has to be presumed not to be involved in any offence or any investigation until such time as sufficient evidence has been produced in order to consider the laying of a charge and, in fact, have the charge laid. Mr.

Speaker, perhaps it's worth remarking that the termi nation of this particular contract was really quite generously done. The contract was a three-year contract, of which over two years had expired. There was a clause for termination for cause, which was not exercised. There was a further clause which allowed either party, Mr. Faulkner or the Crown, to end that contract upon giving six months' notice. In this case, it was the Crown that gave the six months' notice. The contract, to which Mr.

Faulkner agreed when he entered into his employ ment by contract with the Crown, has the provision that when that is done in that way, no reasons need be given. I'm sure hon. members will be gratified to know that when I made that decision, although it was very offensive to have had a situation where one of the Crown counsel would publicly discuss a case, I thought it would serve both Mr. Faulkner and his employer quite well to use the six-month clause. In his case, it would provide him with half a year's salary, and in the Crown's case of course it would avoid controversy.

The other thing that should be said, though, is — I've said that the confirmation by itself of something that might be in existence in some document or newspaper article, when it's done by the person who is handling that particular client's affairs, goes too far. But of course what has been published in several respects about the suggestion that in the particular case of Mr. de Rappard, it was known because of the information in support of the search warrant that he was under investigation — when that statement is made, that statement is false.

The information in support of the search warrant is a doc ument of some 47 paragraphs in length. In two of those par agraphs, reference to Mr. de Rappard was made. In both cases, it made statements which were well known to be public. Those statements were that, in one instance, he had been the chief executive officer of Dial Mortgage Corporation; the other state ment made in respect of him, which was also well known, was that he had been a signatory to a prospectus. Nothing else was mentioned.

The important part of that document — and I never understand why it isn't emphasized from this point of view — is where the person swearing it. Corporal Morse in this case, gives his opinion as to what all of that means, and says that he needs the search warrant in order that he can consider charges under a certain area of the Criminal Code, and then he names the persons against whom he believes the charge might be laid if evidence from the search is forthcoming. That's the important part of that document. That is the part where three names were mentioned, and not the name of Mr. de Rappard.

It's not my business to further publish the names of those who were referred to in that. Mr. de Rappard's name never appeared in that part of that document. Mr. Speaker, I spend just that much time on it in order that it can be amply demonstrated that whoever says that by the reading of that document it would be known that de Rappard was under investigation, would now know that a further looking at that document will find that his name does not appear in that essential portion of the document.

Therefore when it's said it would be known that he would be under suspicion because of that document, that statement is false. I just hope the time comes when people who comment upon this matter, either in the Assembly or elsewhere, will put it in that light instead of some other light. Mr. Speaker, I don't know that I am able to deal in any detail with one of the other issues that came up. I think the remarks I've just made in respect of that particular document answer to a large extent the question the hon.

Leader of the Opposition posed when he said, how could this person be chosen to serve in a senior position in government at a time when he was under criminal investigation. If what I have already said in respect of the published documents docs not fully answer that, I can also say that it has been my respon sibility as Attorney General to receive briefings on cases from police on a periodic basis. This is done in a structured way, and in a typical case there would be 20 or 25 cases referred to by way of a brief overview. That would constitute the briefing.

For a period covering almost the past two years the name Dial has occasionally come up, but not on every occasion. On all of those occasions where any name other than the name of the company itself was mentioned, I can assure hon. members — this is absolutely true, in my personal recollection of those meetings — that although from time to time names of some other individuals came up because of some degree of suspicion, the name of Mr. de Rappard was never mentioned. As a matter of fact, the possibility that he was under investigation in respect of a criminal matter came to my attention as a result of the

article that appeared in The Calgary Herald following Mr. Faulkner's conversation with one of the reporters from that newspaper — and, I say again, not in any briefing. I'm now speaking of matters which normally are entirely confidential, and I speak of it only because it's necessary in order to make the point and to answer that particular question.

I have agreed that the memorandum, which is an adminis trative memorandum, that deals with how certain types of inves tigations should be handled under direction by Crown counsel, which is a role that they play in a vast variety of complex cases — in fact the Crown counsel assists in the investigation in quite a direct way by being involved with the police investigators after a certain stage has been reached. That is entirely normal. One of the types of cases in which the administrative directive suggested that that should be done is in cases involving public servants. If there's any unfairness there, Mr.

Speaker. I've already indicated that this is the viewpoint I will be looking for from the committee of lawyers which is studying these issues on behalf of the Canadian Bar Association. But that unfairness, if there is any, is simply this. People would say to me: you're an employer; you have the particular ability as an investigator to find out if one of your employees is in breach of the law. That means that if somebody in one of the govemment agencies is taking kickbacks or embezzling, you want to know about it right away.

You want the police to be telling you about that, and you want to guide that particular investigation. I say that's surely a sensible enough thing to do. If someone is thought to be stealing public moneys and we employ them, surely it would be careless if we did not act as soon as possible when information of that type became avail able. So what's the unfairness? The unfairness is: well, these things happen in banks and trust companies too; people steal money.

But the manager of the bank doesn't have a special arrangement by which he can, as an employer also, be informed according to some special structure and some special administrative pro cedure. So I say that if there is an unfairness or an inequality there, it's directed at the fact that the Crown may have available to it, as an employer, certain information which is also available to it as an investigator. That would be for the purpose of enabling timely steps to be taken to look into the employer/ employee side of it.

And I admit that the banks and other employers across the country don't have that particular advan

42 ALBERTA HANSARD March 19, 1984 tage. Perhaps that's unfair. I don't think there's any way, sub ject to the time when a charge would surely be laid — and of course, then people do get to know about these things in a situation of a private employer just as well as they do in the situation of a public employer. But it just may be that at the beginning or in the early stages of the investigation, the Crown, having an advantage that others do not have, should give up that advantage. If that's what it takes to be fair, then that could be contemplated.

But I don't know that it is entirely clear that that is the real way to serve the people and to protect the situation where the employee being looked at would be in a position where the crime with which he was going to be charged would be one against the Crown itself. So whatever the merits and the arguments in the debate may be, there is a reason for this type of approach. If it's wrong, we will find out in due course. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to perhaps conclude by making some reference to the rem

Document details

Collection	Alberta — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	19840319
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	L20 S2 19840319 1430 01 han.pdf
Language	en
Format	json
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	6dddede03c9564eb6bebf527e5828fb3482fad4c

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