October 20, 1977 ALBERTA HANSARD 1569 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA Title: Thursday, October 20, 1977 2:30 p.m. [The House met at 2:30 p.m.] PRAYERS [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] head: INTRODUCTION OF BILLS Bill 248

An Act to Amend The Alberta Labour Act, 1973 MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce Bill 248, being

An Act to Amend The Alberta Labour Act. The purpose of Bill 248 is to set out clearly that whenever a firm goes bankrupt, the wages of em­ ployees of that firm come first, before secured credit­ ors, trust companies, or what have you. [Leave granted; Bill 248 read a first time] Bill 251

An Act to Amend The Child Welfare Act MR. KUSHNER: Mr. Speaker, I request leave to intro­ duce Bill 251,

An Act to Amend The Child Welfare Act. The purpose of this bill is to provide a curfew from 10 p.m. to 5 a.m. for children under the age of 16. This would apply to any child found in a public place without a legitimate purpose. The parents of the child breaking the curfew the second time could be prosecuted under the act as having contributed to a child becoming a neglected child. [Leave granted; Bill 251 read a first time] head: TABLING RETURNS AND REPORTS DR. WARRACK: Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure today to table an important document.

It's the result of work by a hard-working committee on REAs under the chairmanship of the Member for Whitecourt and including the Member for Vegreville and the Member for Athabasca. This is the report of the REA caucus committee by that group. head: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS MR. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to introduce a very special visitor who is seated in your gallery — special, I might mention, not only to me as Minister of Agriculture but to my hon. colleague the Minister of Social Services and Community Health, who has known this young lady and her family for many years.

Miss Noreen Onofryszyn is this year's recipient of the Premier's award, and was chosen from the 11,000 members in the 4-H program throughout Alberta. Noreen comes from a farm in the Eckville area, where her parents farm one

section of grain and raise 100 head of cattle. She is presently living in Red Deer and attending the Red Deer College in her first year of commerce. Noreen won this award while a member of the Gilby 4-H Club, and was active in both beef and light horse projects. Noreen and her family will be meeting with the Premier later this afternoon. She is accompanied today by her young sister Karen and her parents. I would ask that they rise and be recognized by the Assembly. MR. SCHMIDT: Mr.

Speaker, it's indeed a pleasure for me this afternoon to introduce to you, and through you to the members of this Legislature, some 60 junior high school students. They are accompanied by their teacher Mrs. Goudreau, from the town of Leduc in my constituency. They are seated in the members gallery. I would ask them to rise and receive the welcome of this House. MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, I take great pleasure in introducing to you and to the members of the House two classes of students from the constituency of Edmonton Parkallen.

I might just say that these two schools have provided, I think, as many visitors to the Chamber with as much frequency as any group from the Edmonton area. I'm going to ask both groups to stand in a moment at the same time. The first group, some 30 grade 6 students, is from McKernan school, accompanied by their teacher Mr. Beggs. The more grown-up ones come second. They're grade 7 students from Mount Carmel school, some 21 in number, accompanied by their teacher Mr. Marc Poirier. I would ask both groups in the public gallery to stand now. head: ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Government House South MR. CLARK: Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to direct the first question to the Premier and ask if he could indicate whether it's the intention of the Alberta government to make the old Alberta courthouse in Calgary into a building which will be called Government House South? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, yes, I intend to make an announcement of that nature tomorrow and pro­ vide the advice to the, I'm sure, delighted citizens of southern Alberta. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, we're always pleased to make an announcement on behalf of the government.

Having regard for the fact that the Premier will be in Calgary and not in the Assembly tomorrow morning, I wonder if we could ask the Premier: what are the projected costs of the renovations needed to develop Government House South? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, I'm sure the Minister of Housing and Public Works will be delighted to respond to that question tomorrow in the Legislative Assembly.

1570 ALBERTA HANSARD October 20, 1977 MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, thirdly, would either the Premier or the Minister of Housing and Public Works care to indicate to the Assembly today who the interior design consultants will be, and have they already been selected? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, I'm sure those deci­ sions will be part of the announcement, which I'm sure will be greeted with great pleasure by the citi­ zens of southern Alberta, in terms of what we pro­ pose for the citizens. MR. CLARK: Mr.

Speaker, I can appreciate the Pre­ mier's sensitivity in having the announcement made for him here in the Legislature today. DR. BUCK: A leak in the cabinet. MR. CLARK: But, Mr. Speaker, the question to either the Premier or the Minister of Housing and Public Works: will the building to be known as Government House South be more available for the use of the public than Government House in Edmonton is? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, I'd be delighted to respond to that question.

The hon. leader fails to understand the joy I am having, because I get an opportunity now to describe three times what we're going to be doing. Let me say that what is intended DR. BUCK: We're flattered you're doing it here first. MR. LOUGHEED: Oh, that's good. I'm sure the people in southern Alberta will be flattered to hear too that I'm prepared to go south and make a trip to the city of Calgary and express it there, and I'll do that. MR. CLARK: We're glad to help you here. MR.

LOUGHEED: The view we have is that it will be a structure that will be a focal point for the people of southern Alberta, an historic site. Certainly when we look at the question of the utilization of Government House here, I've had nothing but very positive responses by the citizens to the tours we arrange, that are being arranged every Sunday. I just want to reiterate that as far as Government House in Edmonton is concerned, if any of the Members of the Legislative Assembly wish to take groups to see it, we certainly would welcome them to do that and to arrange those tours.

They are very well received, and most people are delighted that we have taken the historic structure there and made it the centre it is. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, we're pleased we finally got some comments. Forensic Unit Report MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct the second question to the Minister of Social Services and Community Health. It flows from the report tabled in the Assembly yesterday afternoon, the Earp report, with regard to Alberta Hospital. First, is the minister considering any action to make it easier to get staff to work in the forensic unit?

I think a reference was made to page 58 where certain senior staff positions had been vacant for more than one year. MISS HUNLEY: Mr. Speaker, there is a continuous recruitment procedure referring particularly to foren­ sic psychiatrists, who are not only very rare birds but difficult to recruit. We've been successful in recruit­ ing one psychiatrist, which helped considerably in lightening the load. Of course we are crowded. We know we are, and we have taken some bold steps to have that corrected with the announcement in the budget speech this year of the construction of the forensic unit.

When that unit is built we will require more staff. We will have more space in which to work. But in the meantime, we must be embarking, and we are, on a recruitment program so we'll have adequate staff when that unit is opened. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister, and perhaps I might rephrase the initial question. Is the minister going to take any steps additional to those taken supposedly during the last year so the vacancies referred to in Dr. Earp's report can in fact be filled as soon as possible? MISS HUNLEY: Absolutely.

They're doing everything possible to fill the existing vacancies, Mr. Speaker. It has never been our intention not to have those filled. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, a follow-up question to the minister. What action does the minister intend to take to deal with the sense of isolation which senior members of the forensic unit feel? Again I allude to page 58 of the report. MISS HUNLEY: Mr. Speaker, there are two things that can probably be done in the analysis of the report, which we have found very useful. One is that the forensic unit could be developed as a separate unit because it deals with specific problems.

Or there can be closer liaison, and I think that has already been undertaken, working with the heads of the various departments and units out there, and with the director of the Alberta Hospital, Edmonton. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, a further question to the minister. What steps have been taken by the minister or the minister's department with regard to the con­ cern raised by Dr. Earp in the report where weekly case conferences have been cancelled very frequently?

MISS HUNLEY: That's another very valuable purpose that the report served, because it stressed to the staff the importance of the weekly conferences, and those will be proceeded with. Actually, Mr. Speaker, we received an interim report, which is alluded to in the report I tabled yesterday. That provided a very good working document, and we were able to start imple­ menting those as we received them from Dr. Earp. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, to the minister.

Dealing with the portion of the report that indicates no basic criteria have been established for diagnosis and treatment of patients — I think it was on page 80 of Dr. Earp's report that he made this very straightfor­ ward statement — will the minister require that basic

October 20, 1977 ALBERTA HANSARD 1571 criteria be established for diagnosis and treatment of patients? MISS HUNLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to refer to that specific quotation because when it's taken out of context it can be misconstrued. So I would like to have the opportunity to look at it and perhaps respond later on. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, to the minister, I believe it's page 80. Mr. Speaker, a further supplementary question to the minister. It deals with that portion of the report where Dr. Earp indicated it was extremely difficult to identify patients who would possibly be dangerous.

Is the minister considering changes to the Alberta Mental Health Act, in view of Dr. Earp's conclusions that dangerousness cannot be predicted and that for years and years we've had really no improvements in this area as far as predictability is concerned. Having regard for the fact that this is premised on the Alberta Mental Health Act today, what changes does the minister anticipate, and will these changes be intro­ duced at this fall session? MISS HUNLEY: I'm not sure the hon. Leader of the Opposition clearly understands the report that he may have read. MR.

CLARK: We're just trying to find out if the minister does. MISS HUNLEY: They do talk about the fact that the prediction of violence is, at the very least, a primitive science. That doesn't mean only in mental hospitals; it means on the streets, in the Legislature [laughter] — anywhere. I think it would be irresponsible for any professional to indicate and reassure the public that there is some way you could foretell whether any person would become violent. I think we have to accept that, in relation to this report but also just as a fact of life.

Violence occurs on the streets, it occurs in the homes, and they have not yet found this. I'm happy to say, and I've known for some time that we're doing some extensive research right at Alberta Hospital, Edmonton, as well as in other areas. They are hopeful that they may find some method that this can be done. But that calls for additional research, and I'm sure it will continue to go on. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, one last supplementary question to the minister. Is it the intention of the government to introduce any legislation at this fall session as a result of the findings of Dr.

Earp and his investigation at the Alberta Hospital? MISS HUNLEY: My review of the report, and a review from my officials, does not indicate that legislation is required. He deals basically with administrative pro­ cedures. We've been working on implementation of those, and they are very useful and very valid. As I recall from my review of the report, I don't see that amendments to The Mental Health Act, as relates to this report, are required. Later on in the Assembly there will be some minor amendments to The Mental Health Act, so I wouldn't want to advise the hon. member that the act will not be open.

It will, but not as a result of this report. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, just one post-final supple­ mentary question to the minister. Would the minister be prepared, then, to table with the Assembly a listing of the administrative changes that have taken place, or that the government plans to have in place let's say, by the end of this calendar year? Would the minister give this undertaking? MISS HUNLEY: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I feel sure we can advise the House of the administrative steps that have been taken.

If the hon. leader would like to go through the recommendations, probably most of those are occurring or have already occurred. But I would be pleased to provide a statement showing where we are, a status report. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. Minister of Social Services and Commu­ nity Health. In light of the concern expressed in Dr. Earp's report about the forensic unit and the com­ mitment in the budget, I believe, to construct a new one, is the minister in a position to give us a report as to where things stand on the planning of the new forensic unit?

MISS HUNLEY: The money has been voted; planning is well advanced. I believe the estimated time of construction is two years, although my colleague the hon. Minister of Housing and Public Works, under whose jurisdiction this comes, would be more the appropriate [one] to answer this question. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question then to the hon. Minister of Housing and Public Works: with respect to the planning process, a target date; also whether or not the planning process has taken into consideration Dr.

Earp's recommendation that the whole planning process has to recognize there will be a greater demand. MR. YURKO: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Public Works runs a large number of projects throughout the province. The detailed planning process is quite complex, and indeed is reviewed on a periodic basis. If the hon. member would like to get a report from me on the actual progress of this project, there are ways he can obtain that information in more detailed form. So besides answering in that way, I'll be prepared to bring the planning sheets and submit them to the hon. member if he wishes to see them. MR.

NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. Minister of Social Services and Commu­ nity Health. Is the government considering at this time any specific programs to follow up the recom­ mendation made by Dr. Earp with respect to post- discharge care or the whole concept of a halfway house? MISS HUNLEY: Yes, we have been doing work on that, even prior to Dr. Earp's report. It is not one of our easier problems to solve. It's one we must con­ tinue to work towards. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. minister.

Is the minister in a position to outline for the Legislature what specific steps have been taken to develop a program, in view of the fact

1572 ALBERTA HANSARD October 20, 1977 that I understand the John Howard Society, for example, is not particularly able to participate in this sort of project? MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. minister is of the opinion that the answer to that question is going to be lengthy, since it appears to call for a series of steps, perhaps it could be put on the Order Paper. We've already had, I believe, nine supplementaries on this topic. I think there should be a limit. Education Goals MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Education.

It relates to a commitment of the government in the throne speech of 1977 and the priority to education assigned by the Premier in 1976. Will we as Albertans be able to see concrete results come from the Curriculum Policies Board statement on goals of basic education, or will it just be followed by a bit of rhetoric and discussion? MR. KOZIAK: Mr.

Speaker, I would hope the hon. member would have the opportunity if he hasn't al­ ready spoken on the debate — which I think is item No. 2 on our Order Paper — to express his views on the Curriculum Policies Board recommendations, before those or any other recommendations are adopted as being the goals of education for this province. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, being a little more specific: can the minister specify how the basic goals of education are going to be translated into classroom specifics?

Maybe to clarify that a little more, does the minister see that these objectives of the Curriculum Policies Board will be followed by an established cur­ riculum that will be announced, or what will happen? MR. KOZIAK: Mr. Speaker, once the goals have been adopted, of course whatever curriculum changes are necessary will flow to ensure that our objectives are reached. Learning Disabilities MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a final supplementary to the minister. As background information, approxi­ mately 10 per cent of the children in regular class­ rooms suffer from some type of learning disability.

Apart from the allocation of $48,000 to the learning disabilities association, what steps has the minister taken to guarantee that these children will have the full opportunity to overcome their disadvantage and participate fully and productively in their communities? MR. KOZIAK: Mr. Speaker, I'm surprised that the hon. member refers to only a portion of the grant we provide to the Alberta Association for Children with Learning Disabilities as being our only contribution.

Surely the hon. member must be aware of our learn­ ing disabilities fund, and of the number of special education teaching positions which we fund to pro­ vide assistance for children with learning disabilities and children with other handicaps. As a matter of fact, in this particular area the growth since 1971 has been tremendous. The num­ ber of special education teaching positions recognized and funded by our government, for children with handicaps, has grown 500 to 600 times. Beef Industry MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture.

My question is: has the minister received the report from the senate committee on beef imports? MR. MOORE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, last Friday afternoon I received the report of the standing Senate commit­ tee on beef imports and have had some opportunity to review it. MR. BUTLER: One supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Does the Alberta government agree with this Senate report? MR. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, the standing Senate committee looked into all phases of the marketing of beef insofar as imports to Canada are concerned.

They made a number of recommendations and it would be difficult, without going to some length, to suggest that we are in favor or opposed to all of those recommendations. I would say, however, in general the spirit and intent of the Senate report to the government of Canada is one that we can agree with.

It can proba­ bly be best summed up by a statement made at the beginning of the recommendations in the Senate report, to the effect that the Senate committee had examined the effects of Canada's trade laws on the achievement of stability in the beef industry and found that the laws were inadequate and, in many respects, counterproductive. If I could quote a sentence from their report, the Senate committee says: Yet the trade policy pursued by the Canadian government has drained away the resources of beef producers and caused considerable instabili­ ty in both supply and price.

The Senate committee goes on to say: The Committee has concluded that this policy and the laws which implement it must be changed. Mr. Speaker, I would have to say that in general the context of the presentations made by this government to the Senate committee, which are quoted extensively throughout the report, are in fact in concert with what we think needs to be done in the beef industry, par­ ticularly for Alberta producers. Foreign Land Ownership MR. MANDEVILLE: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the hon. Associate Minister of Energy and Natural Resources in charge of Crown leases.

Could the minister indicate what progress has been made with regard to setting up the foreign land ownership ad­ ministration which the minister announced last June? MR. SCHMIDT: Mr. Speaker, the foreign ownership of land was established and in operation within weeks of the passing of the bill early this spring, in April, operating under the temporary regulations which were presented to this Legislature. To date it has

October 20, 1977 ALBERTA HANSARD 1573 been operating well, and we feel that during the period of operation we have had the opportunity to ask for comments from those individuals involved in land transfers throughout the province, to give us the basic comments and background so that we may come up with more permanent regulations, as the temporary ones will be finished by the end of Decem­ ber this year. MR. MANDEVILLE: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will this office be releasing regular reports on foreign ownership purchases? MR. SCHMIDT: Mr.

Speaker, under the temporary regulations, of course, those monitorings that are done at the present time, and I guess so-called releases, are [for] individuals who apply for an exemp­ tion under the regulations. They are made available, and are public knowledge as they are passed by orders in council. At the present time and on an ongoing basis, the purchase of urban land will be monitored as a matter of interest, to keep track and give us an indication as to the amount of land that's being transferred from an urban point of view.

Of course hopefully under the new regulations there will no longer be a monitoring of the transfer of rural land, because it will be covered under the regulations. Language Rights MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct this ques­ tion to the hon. Premier. In view of widespread concern expressed across the country about the dis­ criminatory features of Bill 101 passed by the Legisla­ ture of the province of Quebec, has the government of Alberta made representation to the federal gov­ ernment and to the province of Quebec with respect to Bill 101 and its discriminatory features? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr.

Speaker, I think that would be an ill-advised course that the member is suggesting. Certainly, I know how we'd feel about comments by other provincial governments about legislation we might pass in this province. Even though we are concerned with the nature of that legislation, it is really a matter for that provincial Legislature to determine in terms of its capacity as a legislature. If people within the province of Quebec feel that the legislation is not within either the jurisdiction or the spirit of the Canadian Bill of Rights, they of course have remedies.

It would seem to me that if any response is to be taken in a matter of this nature, it should be a response by the federal government. In the course of the ongoing debate on national unity, I'm sure there will be appropriate times for the province of Alberta to take a position. I would think that we in this case would be well advised to consider the response made by the Prime Minister on this matter. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. Premier.

In light of this issue and discus­ sion that has flowed as a consequence of it, concern­ ing a possible constitutional amendment that would set out minority language rights across the country, has the government of Alberta given any considera­ tion to whether or not this province would in fact support a constitutional amendment? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, it depends to a degree upon a number of events: the precise nature of the constitutional amendment that some suggest, the way in which it fits within any new federalism men­ tioned in the Speech from the Throne in the House of Commons a few days ago.

We have to keep in mind that, as I mentioned in my remarks over a week ago, we have a province which is of a multicultural nature. I think we have an atti­ tude here that if people want to improve the educa­ tion in the province, in sufficient numbers take their instruction in the French language, we should provide taxpayers' support for that, and we're doing it. I think we're doing it very well in Alberta. There's always room for improvement.

But when you look at a prov­ ince where, as I mentioned, only 2.4 per cent is French speaking, and we have 2 per cent within the province in the school system who are taking their education under French language instruction, I think that's generally a good performance record. We can always improve on it and will seek to try to do so. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. Premier.

In view of the Premier's comments on Wednesday last concerning a possible third option in developing Canadian federalism, what is the position of the government of Alberta with respect to the proposition by the Premier of Quebec; namely, that bilateral agreements between provinces with respect to the minority language issue would be proposed by that province? Is it the view of the government of Alberta that that proposition is totally inconsistent with our position on federalism? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, I thought I dealt with that matter, but perhaps I did not.

Our view is that we take the strong position that the people of the province of Quebec should not anticipate that in the event they make the tragic decision of separating from Canada, they could work out an economic asso­ ciation with the rest of Canada. It's important that the people of Quebec understand that.

If we entered a series of bilateral agreements between the provinces and the government of the province of Quebec, and completely by-passed the federal government in this area, I think we would literally be playing into the hands of those who might be able to argue that an economic association really would be possible for the people of Quebec. So we expressed — and I'm not now speaking just for myself, but for all other nine premiers — the view in St.

Andrews, New Brunswick, in August that we just could not see it was in the best interests of Canada to enter the agreements suggested in the hon. mem­ ber's question. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to either the hon. Premier or the hon. Minister of Education. In view of the conference at St. Andrews and the agreement, as I understand it, that there would be a review of minority language education in the provinces, including the province of Alberta, is there going to be a specific study or consultant engaged to undertake that review? If so, has that study been launched?

1574 ALBERTA HANSARD October 20, 1977 MR. KOZIAK: The Council of Ministers of Education, Canada, met in Edmonton a couple of weeks ago, Mr. Speaker, to consider the resolution which the pre­ miers had passed at St. Andrews-by-the-sea in New Brunswick and, in doing so, had agreed to complete the study in the method required of them by the premiers. Each province will be providing information along a standard basis to the council secretariat. The council secretariat will then be collating the results provided by each province, and submitting this in one study to the premiers of Canada. MR.

NOTLEY: Supplementary question to the minis­ ter. Has the study formally got under way? MR. KOZIAK: Mr. Speaker, yes it has, with the deci­ sion by the Council of Ministers to proceed, indicating that the study should be completed, I believe, by the month of January 1978 so it could be considered at the next meeting of the council prior to delivery to the premiers at their February meeting. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, supplementary . . . MR. SPEAKER: Might this be the final supplementary on this topic. MR. NOTLEY: Supplementary to the hon. Premier.

Will this study be a working document for the pre­ miers and ministers of education? Or is it the inten­ tion of the government, or has there been discussion among the premiers at the meeting at St. Andrews, that this study in fact would be made public and tabled in the respective legislatures? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, we didn't deal precise­ ly with that matter. I don't think a decision has been made. Certainly no agreement has been reached between the premiers. I believe that when the docu­ ment is received from the Council of Ministers of Education, we'll have to face up to that particular question.

But I can't give the hon. member an answer to it now. Public Service Pay Differential DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask a question. The Provincial Treasurer has had a little snooze, and I think it's time to wake him up a little. Mr. Speaker, it's a follow-up question to the hon. minister in that, as was mentioned this week, there was a difference of $3,500 last year between men's and women's starting salaries, and it's gone up to $4,500. I may have missed something, Mr. Speaker, and I'd like to ask the Treasurer again . . . MR. LEITCH: You were asleep. DR.

BUCK: No I wasn't sleeping; I was listening, but I might have missed that. What specific efforts are being made by the minister's department to actively recruit women in the higher paying jobs so this dif­ ferential will shrink? MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out during the spring session when the estimates were going through the House — incidentally, it was an estimate the opposition moved be deleted from the budget — we had a career counselling and planning unit in the personnel administration office.

One of the functions of that unit would be to endeavor to increase the number of female applicants for the higher paying positions in government. That unit is now in place and is working on that. It will be some time before we know how successful we are. But we certainly want to see an increase in the number of woman applicants in the more senior, or high-paying, posi­ tions in government. Propane Prices MR. PURDY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask a question of the Minister of Utilities and Telephones.

In view of the fact that propane prices will no longer come under the purview of the Public Utilities Board hear­ ings, will the government consider placing propane under The Natural Gas Rebates Act, thus allowing propane customers the benefit of the act? DR. WARRACK: Mr. Speaker, I think the second part of the question depends heavily on the first. There is a bit of a misunderstanding in the statement with respect to the first part.

It is not that propane no longer comes under the Public Utilities Board, but that in a decision by the Public Utilities Board on propane prices, they indicated that as far as the dis­ tribution of propane is concerned the price regulation could come off immediately; come off at the end of, I believe, March 1978 insofar as producer prices of propane are concerned; but that in both cases, in the event it was necessary to do so, the Public Utilities Board would retain the right to bring pricing back under their purview for setting the prices. MR. PURDY: Supplementary question to the minister.

I understood what the minister outlined to the House just now, but is any consideration being given to allowing propane consumers the benefit of The Natural Gas Rebates Act, in view of the fact that the distribution price of propane has increased? DR. WARRACK: Mr. Speaker, I was indicating that in the event this was done, it would be flying in the face of the judgments of the Public Utilities Board. But in any case, the answer is, not at the present time. Liquor Outlet Closures DR. WALKER: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the hon. Solicitor General.

I wonder if the minister could explain why some government liquor stores were open yesterday on municipal election day while others in other towns were closed? MR. FARRAN: Mr. Speaker, generally speaking, the rule is that licensed outlets for liquor close on days of federal and provincial elections, but for municipal elections, by the option of the local government. I understand that the local government of Lac La Biche was the only one that closed the stores in its area of jurisdiction.

However, if some of the government liquor vendors were inadvertently closed, without the local option being taken by the municipal council, I'd be grateful if the hon. member would let me know about it.

October 20, 1977 ALBERTA HANSARD 1575 DR. WALKER: Supplementary to the minister. Would the minister consider making regulations that would make this practice a little more uniform across the whole province on municipal election days? MR. FARRAN: Mr. Speaker, this is a question of respecting local autonomy. It is a provision in The Liquor Control Act, and it would require both a change of philosophy and a change in the legislation to take away such a local option. I believe that most members would agree that the local option is really the right route for municipal elections. Education Goals (continued) MR.

KOZIAK: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question put by the hon. Member for Little Bow, I believe at the very end of my response I said 500 or 600 times. That should have read 500 or 600 per cent. Mobile Home Park — Airdrie MR. KIDD: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the hon. Minister of Housing and Public Works. I wonder if the minister would inform the Assembly as to the status of the modular home development in Airdrie. MR. YURKO: Mr. Speaker, very briefly, there has been some delay in connection with the fact that part of this summer was rather wet at one point, but pro­ gress has been quite good.

Lots are being sold, the overpass is being constructed, and I believe the on- sites of phase one are pretty well in place. I might say that the Housing Corporation provides a monthly progress report to the board of directors on all the major projects. These monthly reports are available if the hon. member wishes to get one. Rapid Transit — Calgary MR. MUSGREAVE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to address my question to the Minister of the Environment.

As light rapid transit development in the city of Calgary was decided upon behind closed doors, without bene­ fit of a public hearing, resulting in environmental concerns not being considered by affected citizens DR. BUCK: Sounds like the cabinet, Eric. MR. MUSGREAVE: . . . I would like to know if the minister can advise if he will request the city to prepare environmental impact statements before any construction commences. MR. RUSSELL: Well, Mr. Speaker, that's the kind of study that is now becoming a routine part of these projects, and I would expect the city administration would take care of that.

If they don't, I would remind them of the desirability of carrying one out. MR. MUSGREAVE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. DR. BUCK: Tokenism, Dave. MR. MUSGREAVE: If the city did not carry out these studies, would the minister recommend to the Minis­ ter of Transportation that the capital grants for the city be withheld until such studies were conducted? MR. RUSSELL: Well, I don't think we could pursue that particular course, Mr. Speaker, because the grants are given each year unconditionally for what­ ever expenditure they want.

But certainly within the design parameters and the implementation of the program we could make that suggestion. Grant MacEwan College MR. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minis­ ter of Advanced Education and Manpower concerns the Grant MacEwan campus. In view of the exchange of sites between Grant MacEwan and the Edmonton Public School Board — the Assumption campus for the Jasper Place campus — I wonder if the minister could advise the status of planning for the construction and/or upgrading of facilities at the Jasper Place site. DR. HOHOL: Mr.

Speaker, the plans for the exchange of the two facilities have been approved. The two agents, the Edmonton Public School Board and the board of governors of Grant MacEwan College, are working on the technical aspects of the exchange. Any developments in the capital area are matters of budget, and will proceed in the normal course of events during developments in that area. MR. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary. Is the situation now such that the Grant MacEwan board has funds for planning for the type of construc­ tion it requires? DR.

HOHOL: It's the kind of detail I'd have to look at in the Grant MacEwan file. But my understanding is that they are in a position to make the initial plans that can be made without the phase one type of planning, which is a factor of the capital budget of the department. That

part is not in their capability at the present time. MR. YOUNG: An additional supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Before construction planning can proceed, I wonder whether a review of the program mandate and the delivery system of the college is required. If so, at what process is that procedure at the present time? DR. HOHOL: That is correct, Mr. Speaker. The college has presented to us a longer term capital works program based on the programs and services, and on the review with the department officials.

The mand­ ate the college had when it was initially put in place is on the basis of that kind of planning; that the building — which is completely hypothetical at this time, though not in terms of a replacement for the old structure, which is at Jasper Place — will have to be replaced, quite apart from the long-term plan. Any additional building or campus will of course depend on the capacity of government and the college to negotiate and agree on a long-term educational plan and service for that particular college. MR. YOUNG: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

I wonder if the minister could indicate when it is antic­

1576 ALBERTA HANSARD October 20, 1977 ipated that the review of the program mandate will be completed by the department. DR. HOHOL: Mr. Speaker, the procedure for review is somewhat like negotiation. It's not just a matter of our completing our own review, but having done that, to go back and meet with the college any number of times until we find agreement between the depart­ ment and the college; and thereafter my capacity to sell that agreement and to convince my colleagues that this is the direction and the programs and serv­ ices the college should proceed with in the years to come. MR.

YOUNG: For clarification of the last response, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister could indicate when the department would have completed its con­ cept of what it sees as the mandate of Grant MacEwan College. DR. HOHOL: Yes, certainly, that's partly what I was trying to avoid. [laughter] Seriously, though . . . I was trying seriously. Without being able to indicate a specific date, because that has obvious risks — and I'm sure the hon. member appreciates this — sometime early this fall, at the end of November or the beginning of December. Juvenile Crime MR. KUSHNER: Mr.

Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the general. I wonder if the Solicitor General could inform this Assembly [laughter] if he is preparing any legislation with regard to curbing juvenile crime. As well, could the minister could in­ form this Assembly if in fact juvenile crime is declin­ ing this year compared with last year's figures? MR. FARRAN: Mr. Speaker, insofar as legislation is concerned, this would come under the jurisdiction of my colleague the hon. Minister of Social Services and Community Health, who is responsible for juveniles under the technical age of majority of 16.

However, the government is now contributing in excess of $17 million a year in law enforcement grants to urban police forces. A large portion of this money has gone toward crime prevention, particularly in the juvenile offence area. For instance, in the city of Calgary they have a number of crime prevention officers actually stationed in high schools. Next year, to support municipal police forces, we will be developing a crime prevention package on the subject of vandalism and arson in schools.

The legis­ lation was changed recently, so that effective October 1 a judge of the juvenile court can sentence a juvenile delinquent to a short term of imprisonment. MR. KUSHNER: A supplementary to the Solicitor General . . . MR. SPEAKER: If this is going to be a very short supplementary and a very short answer, we'll have time for it. MR. KUSHNER: Mr. Speaker, I did ask the question, but I think maybe the minister has forgotten it or tried to avoid it. I don't know. MR. KUSHNER: Mr. Speaker, to the minister.

Can the minister inform this Assembly if juvenile crime in fact is declining this year, compared to last year's figures? MR. CLARK: He would sooner not answer that question. MR. FARRAN: Mr. Speaker, not that I really have too much faith in statistics of this sort, there are indica­ tions from some of the police forces that there has been some small drop in juvenile crime rates. The RCMP report a drop in Sherwood Park since they instituted a crime prevention program with encour­ agement and financing from this government. The city of Calgary reports a small drop in the rate of juvenile crime.

Whether it's a flash in the pan or not, I don't know. ORDERS OF THE DAY head: MOTIONS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT MOTIONS 1. Moved by Mr. Clark:

Be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly urge the government of Alberta to maintain the present inde­ pendence of the Environment Conservation Authority, and Be it further resolved that the Legislative Assembly urge the government of Alberta to introduce legislation which would allow the Environment Conservation Authority, upon its own initiative, to inquire into any matter pertaining to environment conservation. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, in the course of my remarks this afternoon which, because of the nature of the rules of the House, will have to be quite short, I would like to cover three areas.

First of all, I'd like to discuss the purpose to preserve the ECA from gov­ ernment interference in its inner administration, and thereby preserve the autonomy of the ECA. Secondly, I'd like to make some comments with regard to expanding the ability of the ECA to call hearings on its own initiative, as it could prior to 1972, when this government took that authority away from it.

Thirdly, I'd like to make some comments about the govern­ ment's decision to build a dam at Site 6 on the Red Deer River, a decision contrary to the recommenda­ tions of the ECA and decisive in the government's apparent decision to kill the ECA. Mr. Speaker, this resolution is really an eleventh- hour attempt to get the government to reconsider its decision, announced earlier, that it's going to make major changes in the ECA which in our judgment will make whatever is put in its place a mere shadow, a mere figment of what the Environment Conservation Authority was when it was established.

In 1970, when it was established, it was an environmental ombudsman. And in 1971, Mr. Speaker, the concept of an environmental ombudsman had the support of individuals who are now very key and central figures in this government. Mr. Speaker, let's look for a moment at this ques­ tion of the value of the ECA. It has provided a forum for public participation in government decision­ making in this province. It's provided an impartial

October 20, 1977 ALBERTA HANSARD 1577 environmental ombudsman which the public can trust and, I think, certainly respects. I think many members in this Assembly who have to make a deci­ sion on this question may have the feeling that the only important work the ECA has done was its work as far as the Red Deer River is concerned. Mr. Speaker, the ECA has been involved in a large number of very important projects in this province. It dealt with the matter of restoring water levels in Cooking Lake and Hastings Lake. It was involved in the question of impact on surface mining in Alberta.

It was involved in the question, and held hearings on, conservation of historical and archaeological resources in Alberta. The government took the basis of its recommendations there and enacted them.

The ECA was involved in the question of operation of sulphuric extraction gas plants in Alberta; on land use and resource development in the eastern slopes; on the restoration of water levels in the Peace/ Athabasca delta; on the use of pesticides and herbi­ cides in Alberta; on water management and flood control in the Paddle River basin; on the effects of residential development in the Leduc/lnternational Airport area; yes, on flow regulation of the Red Deer River; and on erosion of land in northwestern Alberta. I point these areas out, Mr.

Speaker, to refresh the memories of the members of this Assembly that this resolution is asking the government to make the deci­ sion to retain this agency, to give it back the kind of ability it once had to look at any environmental mat­ ters it felt were appropriate, to really let this agency once again be Alberta's environmental ombudsman, and not to strip it of virtually everything it has. Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to read from the first annual report of the ECA on this question of public participation: Any instrument or device used to bring about public participation should itself be generally nonpartisan, without vested interests in the issues under discussion, and at arm's length from the Government itself. The Authority takes itself to be such an instrument. I think that's a fair assessment of the view that at least many people in this province have come to regard appropriate for the ECA until the government's recent decision.

I doubt whether anything which replaces the ECA can be considered such an instru­ ment. Certainly I look at the legislation that has been introduced, and it would not fit those guidelines in any way, shape, or form. I myself have made three presentations to the ECA: twice on the question of the Red Deer dam at the first hearings, and at the second hearings. Prior to that I took

part in the hearings on the eastern slopes. In all three cases the matters being discussed affected my constituents and my constituency very directly. Very candidly, Mr. Speaker, I cannot get enthused about going before what is being suggested to take the place of the ECA. In good conscience, in light of what this government has said to date, I could not encourage my constituents or other people to go before this council that's being talked about to take the place of the ECA.

I think it's going to be extreme­ ly difficult for people across this province to have confidence in this environment council the govern­ ment is talking about. The recommendations of the ECA frequently com­ promised, and on some occasions contradicted, the plans developed by this government and by industry. As a result, it appears the cabinet has now undertak­ en a systematic erosion of the effectiveness and influence of the ECA. I mentioned earlier today that in 1972 The Envi­ ronment Conservation Act was amended by the for­ mer minister, the hon. Mr.

Yurko, so that the ECA could only investigate those areas the minister would give it approval to investigate. Now we were quite fortunate with the kinds of people who made up the ECA board, because they took their responsibility as an environmental ombudsman's group very, very seriously. They were not easily put off, and I'm sure some cabinet ministers have found that. The people in the Dodds-Round Hill area, when they could get satisfaction virtually nowhere else, went to the ECA, because they saw that as the logical place for them to lodge their concerns.

That was even after the government had said the ECA could not become involved in discussions or hearings unless the government approved them. But even with that impediment that had been put in their place, groups like the Dodds-Round Hill people found the ECA a place to go to. I think we're fortunate the ECA didn't completely turn their back on them. They at least were interested; they attempted to do some work there. I'd like to think they had some quiet impact on the decision the government made. During the past few months the Minister of the Environment has suspended the permanent four-man board of the ECA.

The same minister has caused a great deal of dissatisfaction among staff members in his ill-conceived decision to flood valuable farmland along the Red Deer River, and has appointed a deputy minister of his department to the Authority as a voting member. Mr. Speaker, we have to ask ourselves here today: will there be protection for the people of our cities and our farmlands in this province if the government decides to strip the ECA, to wipe it out completely?

Where are people going to lodge their environmental concerns when a decision is made to allow strip mining for coal on some farmland in Alberta, or when the government decides to build another dam without public consideration of the alternatives available? I don't think there's any indication of any agency that's really going to be available. Mr.

Speaker, unless the Assembly gathered here this afternoon is prepared to go to bat for the ECA, in a short time this Assembly is going to witness the end of an era, an era in which the people of Alberta were assured that their natural heritage and the her­ itage of their children was protected from those who would sell the soul of this province for petrochemical dollars. In its crudest, most direct, bluntest form that's what happened in central Alberta. The gov­ ernment chose to opt for petrochemical dollars rather than farmland.

Almost 2,000 people attended the public hearings and the later hearings in central Alberta in 1975. There were over 340 submissions. I remind the members of this Assembly that some 23 or 25 farm­ ers are directly involved. There are people who would like us in this Assembly to believe that only those who were actually going to lose land were concerned. I would say to the members of this House, you would do well to look at the election results in Red Deer last night and find out that the mayor of Red Deer — who

1578 ALBERTA HANSARD October 20, 1977 was one of the greatest supporters of this project, and who exerted every possible ounce of influence he could on the Red Deer Regional Planning Commission to encourage them to take a stand against the advice of their own experts — got his just deserts.

The hon. member of city council in Red Deer, the only person in city council who had the directness to stand up with the members of the government who were at the protest meeting in Red Deer — the MLAs who were there along with the minister were the only people to stand up against registering unanimous disapproval of the government decision — that alderman in Red Deer was defeated last night also. Members in this Assembly, regardless of where they come from, should look seriously at what we're talking about, should recognize that we're looking at the Red Deer situation.

But very recently the gov­ ernment announced there are to be a number of one-year studies as far as the Oldman is concerned. My colleague the Member for Little Bow, represent­ ing his own constituents, has indicated he feels a dam should be built on the Oldman. Certainly, Mr. Speaker, large sums of money have to be spent on the Oldman basin to increase water storage for irriga­ tion agriculture in the Oldman basin. But now the government has told the people down there that there's going to be one year of study. They're saying to the people, come and give us your public input for one year.

If we can use the way this government listened to the people in central Alberta in Red Deer . . . AN HON. MEMBER: Why bother. MR. CLARK: . . . why get involved? Why do it? Because we were told no decisions were made as far as central Alberta was concerned. The government really wanted to listen to central Alberta, and many people, not only on this side of the House, believed that.

We're really going to get one year of studies and the government will make up its mind on a decision it has already made; one year to tell the people we're going to listen to their views, then an announcement of a decision they've already made. Mr. Speaker, that kind of approach is totally dis­ honest. It seems to me that people don't understand a government that implies that local communities will decide if a dam is to be built at Site 6, and then doesn't listen to them.

They don't understand a gov­ ernment which encourages them to participate in public hearings and then doesn't heed the results, not once but twice; a government that stated time and again that no irreversible decision had been made, and then went ahead and made the announcement that virtually everyone in central Alberta had argued against. They don't understand this kind of govern­ ment, Mr. Speaker. This isn't the kind of government the people of this province thought they elected in 1971. This isn't the kind of government the people of Alberta thought they elected in 1975 either.

When a decision was announced as far as the Red Deer dam was con­ cerned, initially people were shocked; they were out­ raged, and later, perhaps most important, they were profoundly saddened. They realized that the govern­ ment they trusted had really turned their backs on them. They hadn't listened to them at all. Farming is a way of life to these people who are directly affected. In some cases in the area that's to be flooded, generations upon generations of people have lived on the same land.

It's difficult for someone from an urban background like the Premier or the Minister of the Environment to understand the kind of kinship and stewardship a farmer feels for his land, or his father's land, or where his own children have been born, land that's passed from father to son for generations. Mr. Speaker, I've brought some of this land with me today, and I want to table it in the Assembly.

Perhaps the Premier and other members of this government will look at this land, taken from the Red Deer River valley at Site 6, and gain some insight into what farmland means to people in central Alberta, farm­ land that's going to be flooded at Site 6. Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude my remarks so that other members can have the opportunity to take

part in the debate. Really what we're asking the members of the Assembly to do this afternoon is urge the government to maintain the present independence of the Environment Conservation Authority, despite the fact that in 1972 that independence was cut back. We're asking the members of this Assembly to fur­ ther resolve that the Assembly urge the government to introduce legislation which would allow the ECA, upon its own initiative, to inquire into any matter pertaining to environmental conservation. I'll just make this last plea.

It's likely past the eleventh hour as far as this issue is concerned; this is the first opportunity we've had to bring it up in the Assembly. The organization mentioned was an envi­ ronmental ombudsman. It's regarded very highly internationally and nationally. As Alberta moves more in the direction of industrialization, we're just taking away one more agency that had the ability to listen to the people and the intestinal fortitude to tell the government the way the people really see it, because this agency and the people in some areas of Alberta haven't agreed with this government and the way they see it.

Unless we pass this resolution this afternoon, we're going to see the demise of the ECA and the end of an era. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, in rising to comment on the resolution before the Assembly today, I took some time during my remarks on the general state of the province to assess some of the implications I felt government changes in the ECA will bring. Without repeating those, I do want to recall a statement made by Mr. Henderson in 1970.

As members may recall, it was during the debate in the Legislature I had mentioned when the Tory caucus in the House at that time was attempting to strengthen the Environment Conservation Authority, and had argued during the course of the debate that the legislation was not sufficiently strong — even though it's far stronger as it's been set up than it will be after this session of the Legislature, I regret to say. But Mr. Henderson made a point that I think Mayor McGregor might well want to recall.

He made the point during the debate that any government or any politician that dismisses the recommendations of the ECA will do so at its peril. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that notwithstanding the fact there are 69 members of the government in the House, I know of no issue in my years of politics in Alberta that has had a greater impact on undermining public respect for this government than the whole

October 20, 1977 ALBERTA HANSARD 1579 question of their handling of the Environment Con­ servation Authority and the Site 6 issue. Mr. Speaker, when one looks at the issues, it seems to me a number of points should be made. I listened to the Minister of the Environment at a meeting attended by 300, 400, or 500 people — I don't recall how many attended — in Red Deer in the middle of the summer shortly after the decision was made.

The argument that both the minister and other spokesmen for the government attempted to put for­ ward was, well we had to make a tough decision on Site 6, but then you've got to balance that off by the very courageous decision we made on Dodds-Round Hill, where we decided to keep farmland in produc­ tion. So here's a sort of quid pro quo: we saved 40,000 acres around Camrose, so we lose 4,400 acres in Red Deer — that kind of trade-off. Mr. Speaker, that's a false argument to begin with, because we have to look at each issue separately.

But the other thing I think has to be underscored is: I wonder whether it was concern for the land that led the government to make the admittedly right decision on Dodds-Round Hill. I say I wonder, Mr. Speaker, because if one looks at the report of the Energy Resources Conservation Board that reviewed all the major power projects in the province — Dunvegan, Mountain Rapids, Sheerness, Ardley, Genesee, Battle River, Fox Creek, Bow City, Dodds-Round Hill — we find a very interesting set of statistics. We find it is about 10 per cent cheaper to produce power at Sheerness than it is at Dodds-Round Hill. Now, Mr.

Speaker, the government is saying, the decision made last year was because we wanted to save the farm­ land. When I read the Energy Resources Conserva­ tion Board report and see, in black and white, statis­ tics on kilowatt-hour costs that show Sheerness is a cheaper proposition, then I wonder whether it wasn't raw economics that determined Sheerness, even though that happened to be the right decision, rather than the concern for the farmland in the Dodds- Round Hill area. Mr.

Speaker, when the government gets up and says, give us a checkmark for doing the right thing for the right reasons in Dodds-Round Hill, I say, until you can convince me that was the reason you did it, as opposed to economic grounds, I'm not sure I'm pre­ pared to give the government that checkmark. Mr. Speaker, we had the hearings of the Environ­ ment Conservation Authority into Site 6. No ques­ tion, as the hon. Leader of the Opposition pointed out, hundreds of people participated, 156 briefs were pre­ sented. The vast majority of the submissions pre­ sented to the ECA said, no dam at Site 6.

Then we have the recommendations of the ECA which, in my view, are pretty hard to refute — recommendations which simply say, look, we've analysed the needs for water along the Red Deer River basin and we find it impossible to justify Site 6. They argue that off- stream storage can meet the needs.

Without getting into a detailed statistical analysis of how many cubic feet per second — although that information is con­ tained in this report, and members should be aware of it because hopefully they've read the report — the fact is that even if you look at the one petrochemical plant we have, the projected needs we know of at this time, there is no reason for a dam. The ECA goes on and says, if at some juncture there is a need for a dam, why not consider building a dam at the Sundre site. At Red Deer the minister got up and said, land claims are a problem. Mr.

Speaker, I would respect that argument if it came from any­ body but a member of this government after the way we handled the land claims issue in Bill 29 last spring. AN HON. MEMBER: Agreed. MR. NOTLEY: We had the Attorney General standing up in the Legislature yesterday when we asked him about at least withdrawing the retroactive features of that bill and he said, no, no, we've made our decision, that's it, door closed, book closed. DR. BUCK: What's new? MR. NOTLEY: So when the minister tells us that the land claim question has a bearing on this government making a judgment, who does he think he's kidding?

He obviously wasn't kidding the 500 farmers in Red Deer who universally booed him when he attempted to pass that argument on. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that the arguments contained in the ECA make a very solid case against the dam unless — and the only unless is this: unless the government has plans for develop­ ment of the Red Deer River basin that they haven't told us about, massive plans far greater than anything the ECA understood. If that's what we have in store for the Red Deer River valley, if we're going to turn it into the Ruhr valley of Canada, then it may well be, Mr.

Speaker, that we need this dam. But we haven't been told that. The people of central Alberta haven't been told that. They made their submissions and worked very hard presenting them to the Authority on the basis of the information they had. The Authority, taking all the reasonable projections without looking at what the government has up its sleeve for the future, made projections and concluded that off- stream storage would be a suitable alternative. Mr. Speaker, there's no question about the concern of people in central Alberta about preserving farm­ land.

Might I just say — and I'm not differing with the Leader of the Opposition — I know that's a concern of people in central Alberta. I was born and raised on a farm west of Olds. But I know that's a concern of rural people all over this country. There is a kinship with the land that maybe makes rural people next- year country types. When you get frozen out and hailed out and snowed out, you're there because it's next-year country. You develop a relationship with the land that is more than an economic equation. But, Mr.

Speaker, how can we value, from using simple economic arguments, 4,400 acres of land to produce food in a hungry world? How do we value that: $300 or $400 an acre, given 1977 figures; perhaps $500 an acre; $1,000 an acre? Do we value it on the basis of what it will grow with proper husbandry in 10 years, in 100 years, in 1,000 years? It's that sort of fundamental difference in philosophy between those who are fast-buck, get-rich-quick types and those who recognize the fundamental value of land as our most precious resource that, in my judgment, sets the lines of debate.

That may be rather cruel to some of the proponents to the dam. I don't know. But they have yet to come up with reasonable arguments.

1580 ALBERTA HANSARD October 20, 1977 I listened at that meeting in Red Deer, thinking, gee whiz, if the minister's going to speak before 500 people he's going to have to have some plausible reasons. We're told that 72 per cent of the water that's going to be taken will be [for] coal-related industries of one kind or another. What does that mean? Does it mean three or four plants such as Sheerness? Does it mean massive gasification of coal? Does it mean ripping up thousands of addition­ al acres of farmland for major coal development? Mr. Speaker, the people of central Alberta are asking.

And when they don't get answers, they do the kind of thing they did last night in the city of Red Deer. In talking to county council members I found a very real concern, even among some of those who at first thought, well, maybe we should go ahead with it. My father was one of the first people to go to the old school of agriculture. They had a meeting of the alumni at the end of the summer. People came from all over central Alberta.

My father is not a terribly aggressive, partisan person, but he received repre­ sentation and comments in talking to people, many of them — and I say this very bluntly — who have long-standing credentials in the Tory party. The almost universal opinion was that the minister and the government had blown it with their decision on Site 6. No, Mr. Speaker, this government is going to have to do an awful lot of talking to convince rural Alberta that a dam at Site 6 is necessary and that what they are doing to the Environment Conservation Authority is justifiable. Mr.

Speaker, I want to talk more about the ECA and the changes in the ECA tonight. I gather we're get­ ting into a debate on the bill tonight. I would take it the strategy of the government is to try to capsulize all the bad publicity in one shot and get it over with. No doubt we'll be sitting until all hours of the night to finish this bill, but so be it. If it means sitting until 2 o'clock in the morning, that's fine. But as far as I'm concerned, instead of getting into the debate on many features of the change, which I disagree with, there's one final point I want to make on this particular resolution.

This is repeating something I said in my original comment. Mr. Speaker, surely the government was not in so big a rush that they couldn't have held a debate in this Legislative Assembly before the decision was made. Why in heaven's name go through the process of having hearings for that period of time, having all these people involved, have recommendations as carefully thought out as those contained in the ECA report, and then make the decision on the dam the very day you release the report, and no debate in the Legislature? As I mentioned in my speech, Mr.

Clark quite rightly said to the federal government, look, before you get us committed to that pipeline, we want to have a special debate in the House of Commons. If the Rt. Hon. John Diefenbaker were a member of this Assembly in any government that pulled a stunt like that, even a government of his own stripe, even if he was sitting as a backbencher, I'll tell you we would be sitting until 6 o'clock in the morning. Mr. Diefenbak­ er would be filibustering on every occasion, because he would consider that an outrage to Parliament or the Legislature.

But the government won't have to worry about reporting to the Legislature after what they propose to do tonight. Mr. Speaker, we can put it any way we like, but the fact of the matter is that what is at stake is the continuation of an authority that has established a reputation without par anywhere in Canada. Wherever you go people respect the work of the Environment Conservation Authority. We all realize, as members of this Assembly, that there were admin­ istrative problems.

But you don't solve administrative problems by destroying or emasculating the agency, by changing the basis on which the agency is estab­ lished. You make the necessary personnel changes, but you don't completely alter the basic philosophy of the agency. I would conclude by simply asking particularly those back-bench members representing rural Alber­ ta . . .

I know this government is not one to foster independence of mind on the part of backbenchers in the House, but I would say that what is at stake here is fundamentally important as we look at the major developments that are on the horizon of this province, whether it be the pipeline, a third or fourth oil sands plant, a heavy oil sands plant, massive petrochemical expansion, gasification of coal. Even the power requirements of the province require massive invest­ ments if we are to maintain our present growth. All those reasons are proof positive in my view, Mr.

Speaker, that we need a strong, vital, and independ­ ent watchdog, an environmental ombudsman that is the ECA. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that it would be a disservice to the people of Alberta if this Legislature in any way, shape, or form emasculates the effective­ ness of that agency. DR. BACKUS: Mr. Speaker, during this sunny weath­ er the farmers in our province seem to have been following the axiom of making hay while the sun shines.

It seems to me the opposition feels that all the little suns are shining in the press gallery at this time, in that they're out doing some straight combin­ ing in designating a motion on a matter which is already due before the House under Bill 74. Howev­ er, I feel this is certainly a topic that can be debated either now or later on, probably on both occasions. First, I would like to agree with, I think, most people in this House. The ECA has done a tremendous job in the past.

I don't think any of us would be critical of the work they've done, the ability they've shown to reach out and receive public views on environmental matters, and to review and revise the various written work on environmental matters and then to come out with a report with recommendations which I think are pretty good, pretty unique in this province. As has already been said, their function and work has been recognized throughout the world for its efforts in the environmental field. However, Mr.

Speaker, I don't feel that necessarily this Legislature should adopt the point of view that, as far as environmental matters are concerned, the ECA should govern. I still think that government under a democratic process should be in the hands of the elected members. And in spite of the statements the Member for Spirit River-Fairview is so ready to make, that we're all muzzled in our thought, I think we're just as capable of independent thought as he is.

He is perfectly welcome to his views, and I accept that he can make his little speeches and innuendoes suggesting that the motives by which the government has governed are in some way underhand or under the table, and that the real reason they supported

October 20, 1977 ALBERTA HANSARD 1581 farmers in the Dodds-Round Hill area was simply for economic reasons. I think most members of the government on this side of the House recognize the real motives that were there, and they weren't just economic. I think this side of the House has proved frequently the government is in support of the farmer, is ready to help the farmer at every opportunity, recognizes the family farm . . . AN HON. MEMBER: Close the hospitals. AN HON. MEMBER: Don't care about the hospitals. DR. BACKUS: Comments about closing hospitals I could take up.

As usual our hon. member from a bar that was named after, I think, somebody who did a fair amount of panning in his time . . . DR. BUCK: Everybody will miss that. AN HON. MEMBER: Pretty good. DR. BACKUS: To come back to the ECA . . . AN HON. MEMBER: Come back to rural Alberta. DR. BACKUS: . . . I think what was put forward by the hon. Leader of the Opposition was that really not only should the ECA have complete independence, but when it comes through with recommendations, these should be automatically accepted by government, and whatever its recommendations may be the govern­ ment should carry them out. MR.

CLARK: Just read them before you make the decisions . . . DR. BACKUS: We do read them. AN HON. MEMBER: The minister didn't. DR. BACKUS: We do study them, we do weigh them. And I think on many occasions they are good, they are worth while, they are valuable, and we have acted on them. But that an independent Crown agency should govern this province I think is some­ thing very few of the people of this province would agree to. The independence of the ECA has in the past been by virtue of it being a Crown agency. It is still going to remain a Crown agency. It had appointed mem­ bers.

It is still going to have appointed members. It could investigate and seek out public opinion on envi­ ronmental matters. It is still going to be able to seek out and consider public opinion on environmental matters. The fact that we will be possibly changing the membership from time to time I think is a very reasonable position to take, because there is certainly considerable variation in the problems presented to the ECA and it's quite reasonable that some people in this province might well have more competence than others in dealing with some of these problems,

whereas there will be others who will be better at dealing with different problems. Therefore I don't think this is at all an unreasonable move. That it should require the approval of the minister or the Lieutenant Governor in Council has been a fact of the ECA in recent years, therefore this is not really a change in its make-up. Although this control, if you like, by the minister was brought in in 1972, since that date the ECA has continued to do the excellent work it was doing even prior to that date, and a great deal more of it.

Therefore I think if we do praise the work of the ECA during this period of time, I do not see its freedom has been restricted in any way, or will be restricted in any way under the new bill. The change of name is perhaps significant, and it certainly brings up the matter we discussed the other day: that calling an advisory body an authority seems to me to be a misnomer. I therefore think that cer­ tainly a change in name will lead to a better under­ standing of its function. We have often heard the suggestion that the ECA is an ombudsman in envi­ ronmental matters.

I don't see why it can't continue to some extent in that function in exactly the same way as it has done before. However, I think anybody who has read The Ombudsman Act will see consider­ able difference between that act and The Environ­ ment Conservation Act. The difference lies primarily in the ECA being an advisory body, and it's certainly going to continue in this function. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, as I said at the beginning, I feel that the opposition effort in bringing this forward and standing up and getting very emotional about it, as if we were destroying something valuable . . . SOME HON.

MEMBERS: Oh, oh. DR. BACKUS: . . . is really just an effort on their part to try to reap a little of the media harvest that seems to be ripe for the picking at the moment. DR. BUCK: That's what he thinks of you. DR. BACKUS: Mr. Speaker, before I sit down there is one little point that I can't pass by. The hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview was highly critical of what this government did to land claims by virtue of its recent bill. I really don't believe the hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview is so stupid that he can't under­ stand that bill did not deny anybody the right to land claims.

I can only think that his obvious misunder­ standing of it is part of his political approach to the general subject: again, an effort to reap a few more grains of corn. MR. THOMPSON: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to talk a little on this subject. I pretty well agree with the first paragraph in the resolution. I think the ECA is rend­ ering a real service to the province of Alberta, and will continue to do so. It has made many recommen­ dations that the government has acted on. I feel that our government will at all times consider these rec­ ommendations, and has in every case as far as I'm concerned.

The thing I don't agree with is the second para­ graph. This gives the ECA a blank cheque. As a farmer, I do think — and there is no group of people in the province that I feel is more involved in the environment, is more concerned about the environ­ ment, and has more effect on the environment than the farmers. So I have a real problem with the public advisory committee. It's made up of 108 members. It has a co-ordinating committee of 13 members. If you have 108 members, I can understand why you would need

1582 ALBERTA HANSARD October 20, 1977 a co-ordinating committee. I would like to read from the 1976 annual report of the public advisory commit­ tee the names of the people on this co-ordinating committee: Mrs. Buckmaster, from the Calgary Local Council of Women; Mrs. Dickson, from the Calgary Eco-Centre Society; Mr. A. C. Dunkley, National and Provincial Parks Association; Mr. T. Ferguson, Alberta Fish & Game Association; Dr. Griffiths, National and Provincial Parks Association; Dr. Hodgson, University of Calgary; Mr. Kostiuk, Alberta Federation of Labour; Mr. Lembicz, city of Red Deer; Mr.

Reimer, Alberta Federation of Labour; Dr. Schultz, University of Alber­ ta; Mr. Rytz, Alberta Forest Products Association; Mr. Thirnbeck, Mount Royal College; Dr. V. Wood, Research Council of Alberta. Now in this group on the co-ordinating committee there is not one farm organization represented. Two members are from the Alberta Federation of Labour, two from the National and Provincial Parks Associa­ tion. As a farmer — and I think I can talk for many farmers — we are very suspicious of people who want to control the environment.

Everyone knows that when you get into the effects of fertilizer, pesti­ cides, wind erosion, and water erosion, there has to be some control of the environment. But we are very reluctant to put the fate of our livelihood in the hands of some of these organizations. I'd like to say a little bit about Site 6. I would like to go on record that I approve construction of the Red Deer dam at Site 6. It's hard for me to understand a group that's interested in the environment not realiz­ ing that the flow of our rivers coming off the eastern slopes of the mountains needs to be controlled.

Any of us who live close to one of these rivers — the people who live in Lethbridge and Macleod and, I suppose, all along the eastern slopes — every 10 years or so see one of these floods come down the eastern slopes. If you could see the damage these floods do, how they change the direction of the river and erode the land — I think flow regulation is almost essential in our part of the province. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. TRYNCHY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask a question. How much time do we have on this? MR. SPEAKER: The time runs until 4:23. MR. TRYNCHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That possi­ bly will give me enough time to say what I want to say. I'm pleased to enter this debate. I agree with the first part of the resolution: "Be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly urge the government of Alberta to maintain the present independence . . . ." I'd like to stop there, because I think members on the other side should wait until tonight, until Bill 74 is presented, and see what it has. MR. NOTLEY: We read it. MR. TRYNCHY: And I'm sure they will. As to the second part of the resolution, that's the one that disturbs me somewhat.

It says: ". . . would allow the Environment Conservation Authority, upon its own initiative, to inquire into any matter pertaining to environment conservation." DR. PAPROSKI: Can you imagine? MR. TRYNCHY: Well, let's just look at that for a second. Really what do they want? I wonder if the hon. Leader of the Opposition really knows what he is asking for? This Authority could, with its three members, go on to anything they wanted to, any­ where. So they go to Montana.

They want to study the wind and dust control in southern Alberta, because it's bad for the environment, it's bad for the farmers, it's bad for the cities. DR. PAPROSKI: Taxpayers. MR. TRYNCHY: So then we have something we want them to work on, as a government, but they can't come back because they're involved in hearings in Montana or wherever they are. MR. CLARK: Who approves the budget each year? MR. TRYNCHY: Mr. Speaker, what they're asking for is a blank cheque, on its own initiative, into any affair. DR. PAPROSKI: No way. MR.

TRYNCHY: When that says "any", that means it would have an open-ended budget with no controls, nothing. That's the way they operated, and I guess that's the way they want to see it again. That reminds me of what I said yesterday. Under this resolution they want government by commission, government by authority, or whatever they want to call it. They want to shirk their duties — hide behind a commission, hide behind an authority — because they're afraid to take the flak they should as elected members. DR. PAPROSKI: Shame. MR. TRYNCHY: Well that's not what I want to do. We were elected to make decisions.

Authorities, coun­ cils, whoever they are, should make recommenda­ tions only, and they should be screened by the elected people. The decision should be made here, not in a little blue book . . . DR. PAPROSKI: Agreed. DR. BUCK: Now was that a caucus decision on that dam site? Tell me . . . MR. TRYNCHY: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. Member for Clover Bar wishes to speak, if he wants to get up — I guess we don't have too much time — I'll even sit down and let him get up. He's always pointing at everybody . . . DR. BUCK: We're waiting for the executioner. MR.

TRYNCHY: If you could just sit there and quit cackling, we'd get on with this. DR. BUCK: We're waiting for the executioner. MR. TRYNCHY: Mr. Speaker, we go through this procedure of hearings, and we should have hearings. And that commission, the authority, has real good

October 20, 1977 ALBERTA HANSARD 1583 members. But are they right? Are they the only three people in Alberta or in Canada who have the wisdom of everybody when they make a decision, and who do they listen to? MR. CLARK: What about the 2,000 people who took part? MR. TRYNCHY: Well what about the 2,000 people who didn't speak, or the 10,000? There's more to it than that. But are they always right? Are they right? I know, I've been to these hearings. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR.

TRYNCHY: You know, I'm really surprised at the hon. members . . . [interjections] Now if they would just keep quiet, I'd like to get on with this. MR. CLARK: We are waiting for you to say something. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The hon. member is entitled to be heard, as other hon. members have. And while a certain amount of, shall we say, give and take across the floor may be in order, if it stops the debate it goes too far. MR. TRYNCHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Maybe we can get on with this. Mr. Speaker, as I have said, are these members right?

We should search our minds and really study that, because there are only three people on that commission, on that authority, whatever you want to call it. They hear the people, and they only make decisions on what they hear. So are they right? They can and do make a report, and they do it to the best of their ability. But they don't really have to answer to anybody. If their political views are of one nature or another — and I don't say they are, but if they are — or if they lean toward being a conservationist or somebody else, that's the way they write the report. So who do they answer to? Actually nobody.

We have to answer to the people, and that's why the decision should be made here and not by any authori­ ty or council. Government by commission is not my way of representing the people. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, as we go through these hearings, if the true meaning was really known, if all the people who were affected, and if that dam — we'll use the one at Red Deer — affects 12,000 people . . . Let's say it does, because in time it probably will — for water at Red Deer and downs­ tream. If all those people were allowed a vote, how would it go? Will we have 10,000 in favor and 2,000 against? Nobody looks at that.

But that's one of the decisions you have to make, because the ones who do all the talking are the ones who are affected; and rightfully so, they should. But when you make deci­ sions you have to make them not just for one group of people, a small or a large group; you have to make them for the betterment of all Albertans. Mr. Speaker, as these decisions are made, be it by a commission, an authority or government, no deci­ sion — and I say no decision — satisfies everybody, because there are some who agree with it and some who don't.

The good Lord himself couldn't satisfy all the people, and I don't see how a commission or anybody else will. With this new bill coming up, the hearings in Alberta will continue. Mr. Speaker, I notice that you're edging to the edge of your chair, and I beg leave to adjourn debate. head: PUBLIC BILLS AND ORDERS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT BILLS AND ORDERS (Second Reading) Bill 224

An Act Respecting the Right of the Public to Information Concerning the Public Business DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, carrying on with the same train of thought we've just been engaged in, I would like to say if there was ever a need for a sunshine bill in the history of this province, that time is now. Because, Mr. Speaker, the decisions that seem to be made by governments, not only this government which is probably more dictatorial than any govern­ ment in the history of Canada right now . . . SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear. DR.

BUCK: I would say that it is very, very timely and people are very concerned about decisions that are being made behind closed doors. In this matter, of course, we have the support of a very, very prominent Conservative, the Member of Parliament for Peace River, the hon. Ged Baldwin, who has been a champ­ ion for many years in this fight to give the public the information to which they are entitled, the informa­ tion upon which government bases its decisions.

A little bit of progress is being made, and in fairness to the Prime Minister of Canada, the House of Commons is recognizing that the public is entitled to this type of information. Because if there is anything that makes the public suspicious, it's when politicians — people in positions of power — make decisions behind closed doors and that information is not made available to the public. Politicians immediately become suspect that they're trying to hide something. So, Mr. Speaker, as I started in my

preamble, there is great public interest in the bill before us. Some bills have been introduced in the federal House, and similar legislation has been introduced in this provin­ cial House and in the legislative bodies of the United States, our neighbors. So in recent years, Mr. Speak­ er, a great deal of public interest has been displayed in legislation which would ensure that information which is used in the determination of public policies should be readily available to the public, the public we serve.

This is an opinion, as I stated, shown by prominent figures such as the Member of Parliament I men­ tioned, the hon. Mr. Ged Baldwin, a former federal Conservative House Leader, and it's a very important, timely issue. Mr. Baldwin first introduced legislation almost identical to this bill in the House of Commons in 1969, and has reintroduced it at each session since that time. It was quite interesting, Mr. Speaker, to have read an editorial in one of our local prominent newspapers saying it would be a great challenge for that hon.

Member of Parliament from Peace River to come down here and do a little brainwashing on the members of his own family, mainly the members of

1584 ALBERTA HANSARD October 20, 1977 this government, and the back-bench members of this government. As I said, we had legislation introduced in this Legislature in 1974 by the former Calgary Mountain View MLA Albert Ludwig. Mr. Ludwig was very concerned. MR. GHITTER: He's the great Liberal. DR. BUCK: He's the great Liberal, yes. [interjections] I think possibly the Liberals must . . . MR. NOTLEY: They still win Calgary East, Ron. DR.

BUCK: At least the Liberals are showing concern that public information should be public, which is a great distance from what the Conservatives in this province think about public information being made public, hon. Member for Calgary Buffalo. [interjections] I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the important thing about introducing a bill of this nature is the fact that the Alberta government of the day is withholding information which is needed not only for the mem­ bers of the Legislature, but the public generally. It will be very interesting, Mr.

Speaker, when we dis­ cuss the matter of the demise, the lynching, the annihilation, the execution of the Environment Con­ servation Authority, that we find out how government makes some of its decisions. It's always interesting, Mr. Speaker, when we put motions for returns on the Order Paper — and the one I remember so clearly was the motion when the hon. member, now Minister of Energy and Natural Resources, because we didn't have the "i"s dotted properly and "ltds." in the exact position, wouldn't tell us too much about the Walter Levy report.

A promi­ nent newspaper in this town at that time thought, what are they trying to hide? Why is this information not made public? Why is it not made available to the Legislature? It was quite amusing today, and we real­ ly one-upped the Premier when we found that he was going to hand out a few more goodies tomorrow in Calgary. MR. NOTLEY: From the heritage fund too, I bet. DR. BUCK: I presume from the heritage trust fund. We missed that point, asking the hon. Premier where the goodies were going to come from. MR. NOTLEY: A little plum here, a little plum there. DR.

BUCK: Close a few hospital beds here, and cut out a few programs there. We build a few mon­ uments unto ourselves. Mr. Speaker, probably the most notable expenditure or investment of public funds without adequate ac­ countability is the billions resting in the heritage savings trust fund. I would like to say to the hon. government members that the "trust" is rapidly going out of that trust fund, the same as the trust is going out of some of the other things the government does. But that's an aside, Mr. Speaker.

I would never ever under any circumstances accuse the present government of misappropriation, but in­ volvement of a government in business ventures without any apparent right to check on expenditures or investments of public money is wrong in principle. What I am trying to indicate to the hon. members is that the information available to the government in its studies paid by public funds should be available to this Legislature, should be available to the public. AN HON. MEMBER: The Ag. Development Corporation. DR. BUCK: The Agricultural Development Corpora­ tion, of course, is a public agency.

It is public only to the extent that there is a figure available to this Legislature that tells you really nothing. It tells you nothing. But I can appreciate that the former Minis­ ter of Agriculture would, in his usual well-organized way of handling affairs, say, this area gets a loan, that area doesn't get a loan — I would never want that down on paper. But that information, Mr. Speaker, should be available so the public can decide, so this Legislature can decide, if government deci­ sions can stand the public scrutiny of this House and of the people of this province.

The example of the after-the-fact scrutiny is of course the committee that sits on the heritage sav­ ings trust fund. That is almost as futile as sitting in this Legislature and having any words of wisdom that may come from this side of the House fall on deaf ears. I don't think, Mr. Speaker, that I, in all con­ science, could sit on that committee. I don't think I could. We have examples of what monitoring the govern­ ment does have of the Alberta Energy Company, in which we, the taxpayers of this province, have $75 million invested. The hon. Mr.

Getty, Minister of Energy and Natural Resources, says, it's a private company, it's a unique private company. MR. NOTLEY: It's unique all right. DR. BUCK: It's unique all right. How unique can you get when you get $75 million of the taxpayers' money and you don't have to tell anybody what you're going to do with it? That is unique. That certainly is unique. That type of information should be tabled in this Legislature. If need be it can be brought to a committee of this Legislature, then let the public decide. Mr.

Speaker, this bill does not in any way, nor is it intended in any way, to infringe on the rights of individual privacy. It merely ensures that all informa­ tion which goes into public decision-making is readily available to the public. It's a challenge to this Tory government to prove its claim to open government. I guess we have just forgotten what we talked about in 1970 and 1971 about open government. As a matter of record, the Tories' first guidepost of policy, approved 10 years ago, states the public has a right to know. What has happened to that philoso­ phy? Hon.

Member for Calgary Buffalo, what has happened to that philosophy, those supposedly sacred guideposts of the public right to know? Has it been forgotten in 10 years? Mr. Speaker, I don't really know what has caused this government, and the Premier in particular, to shy away from that policy principle, but I can assure you that that is exactly what has happened. And the people are aware that that is what has happened. Let's briefly take a look at why public access to

October 20, 1977 ALBERTA HANSARD 1585 government information is an important issue now. The Canadian Bar Association leaves no doubt that it stands firmly behind such legislation. The associa­ tion has urged the Parliament of Canada and all provincial legislatures to create a statutory right of citizens to obtain access to information held by all governments, or their agencies, subject only to a limited list of narrowly defined exceptions. The Canadian Bar Association endorses this principle on the grounds that openness of government is essential for participatory democracy. AN HON.

MEMBER: That's a pretty good word. DR. BUCK: That's if we really mean what we say, that access to information is a prerequisite to the exercise of fundamental rights and freedoms, and that at pre­ sent citizens of this country have little or no right at all to government information. This participatory democracy would be a lesson that possibly the hon. Member for St. Albert might learn. The hon. member seems to feel it is fine to participate in local affairs, but don't tell anybody else about what's going on in your government. That might be too much of an opening.

I would echo the sentiments of The Canadian Bar Association president, Mr. Ferris, who said, the atti­ tude of many bureaucrats on this question can be summed up as what the people don't know, can't hurt the minister. It's an unhealthy attitude for a demo­ cratic nation, Mr. Speaker.

In the United States some 11 years ago, Senator Edward Kennedy said: If the people of a democratic country do not know what decisions their government is making, do not know the basis on which those decisions are being made, then their rights as a free people may slowly slip away, silently stolen from them when decisions which affect their lives are made under cover of secrecy. Let's put the argument on these terms — and I'm sure that the champion of individual rights and the freedom of information, the hon. Member for Calgary Buffalo, will be right into this debate. Because I'm sure the hon.

Member for Calgary Buffalo believes in open government, he believes in the right to public information and the right to know in public decisions made that affect that public. If a government can find out almost everything it wants to know about what the people are up to but the people cannot find out what the government is up to, then the government is not being a servant of the people, but rather their master. That's a wrong principle for a government to oper­ ate under. I submit, nevertheless, this government is operating under exactly that principle.

If this gov­ ernment wants the people to know something, if it's to the government's advantage, it spares no effort or money to tell about it. You know, our little social tours around the prov­ ince are a good example of that. Cabinet tours have been going on in this province for years, but the government with its fine propaganda machine makes the people of this province think it's new and unique. Well what's new and unique about it is that in the old days we used to use cars. Now we use $80-an-hour helicopters and airplanes. That's really about the only difference. And there is a large difference. MR.

KIDD: You're still in the horse age. DR. BUCK: There is a larger difference. The cabinet goes around the province, and goes through the motions of listening, and then many times that's all that happens unless we happen to have a goody to drop into this particular area that we visited. If it's apropos for the Premier — some members may be getting into a little trouble because we haven't dropped one into this constituency lately, one of the government members is getting a little shaky that the people in that constituency are starting to find out that not too much has been happening from their member.

Or maybe the opinion poll is starting to change a little — it's time to drop a goody in that area. But other than that, we don't have too much feedback or too much reaction to what people in the local area said. However, Mr. Speaker, if the government doesn't want the people to know something, it will resort to every excuse in the book to keep the information secret. I think this government is a leader in that. How often have we heard this timeworn phrase, we don't feel it's in the public interest to divulge this information at this time?

How often have the hon. members of this Assembly heard that explanation given? I think it's wrong for the government to be given the power to decide what it will or will not make public. That power should be vested in legisla­ tion which indicates clearly what information shall not be made public, and the reasons why. Hon. members will no doubt find some fault with certain clauses of this bill, but I trust they will not argue with the principle of the bill, which will go a long way toward restoring public confidence in gov­ ernment. And this government needs some restora­ tion.

Perhaps this government, with its overwhelm­ ing majority, feels it has no cause to worry about public confidence. I would caution you not to become too complacent. You can be replaced — even you, Mr. Speaker. DR. HORNER: What do you mean . . . DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker . . . DR. HORNER: Mr. Speaker, surely the hon. member would be willing to identify the document he's reading. DR. BUCK: Well the hon. . . . just came in . . . MR. SPEAKER: I've had some difficulty determining whether the hon. member is reading. He's obviously referring to some notes or some document.

He inter­ jects remarks of his own once in a while and I'm not just sure . . . [interjections] MR. KING: Which remarks are his own? MR. SPEAKER: The principle behind the bill against reading speeches as hon. members know is that the Assembly sits here to hear the members and not to hear anonymous or other persons who might write speeches for members. DR. BUCK: If you were to stick to that, Mr. Speaker, you'd completely destroy the government, especially

1586 ALBERTA HANSARD October 20, 1977 some of the backbenchers who have to have the stuff written for them otherwise they would never be able to express an opinion of their own. MR. TRYNCHY: Name them, name them. MR. HORSMAN: Are those your own remarks? DR. BUCK: I'm just telling the hon. members that's the feedback we get from their constituencies. They say, we have some nice fellows up there, but what do they do? Do they do anything? We say yes. MR. TRYNCHY: They sit and listen to you. DR. BUCK: We say yes, when the hon. Deputy Pre­ mier says stand, they stand.

When the Premier nods his head to sit down, they sit down, the way good puppets should. [interjections] So, Mr. Speaker, what I'm trying to say to the hon. members is that this government needs some direction. This government is in real need of laying the cards on the table, of letting the people — the people we all serve — in on why some of these decisions are being made, and on what basis and information. I challenge the Deputy Premier to have a public hearing in a committee of this Legislature on three items. Number one, the Environment Conservation Authority. Let's have a public hearing. DR.

HORNER: What did you get elected for? DR. BUCK: Easy there, Mr. Deputy Premier. Easy, Mr. Deputy Premier. Let's go back to the Bighorn debate. DR. HORNER: I recall that debate. DR. BUCK: Right. The hon. Deputy Premier recalls it. What has changed? MR. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. Could we go back to Bill 224? DR. BUCK: Would you like to sit down, Young. AN HON. MEMBER: Touchy. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, the public right to know is a very sacred principle. [interjection] Let's have a de­ bate in this Legislature . . . MR. HORSMAN: We're having it. DR.

BUCK: Let's have a debate in this Legislature by the Committee of the Whole so we can ask people to come into this Legislature. That's what participatory democracy is all about, hon. Member for St. Albert. It's not imposing your views upon other people. It's giving them the opportunity to express their views. So, Mr. Speaker, I say it's very timely, it's more than timely that the hon. members support a bill that will bring some open government back into this Legislature. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. ASHTON: Mr. Speaker, I'm not rising to move adjournment. I learned my lesson on that a couple of days ago.

I do have some comments. I hope the hon. members of the Legislature realize that during the last 21 minutes and 30 seconds we've heard the main thrust of the opposition attack on the government during this session. I'm sure all the other hon. members, other than me, witnessed the various TV presentations of the Leader of the Opposi­ tion, the various press releases, and so on, which indicated that the main thrust of their attack during this fall session was going to be the right to know, and it was going to centre around the bill being presented by the hon. Member for Clover Bar today. DR.

HORNER: Just the unwritten speech. MR. ASHTON: Let's say what we've heard today sort of indicates the roaring of a pregnant lion which is giving birth to a mouse. I wish to compliment the hon. Member for Clover Bar after hearing him today. He has certainly acquired a rather impressive capaci­ ty to huff and puff himself into a state of righteous indignation almost deserving of an Academy Award. It's rather interesting to see the history of this bill. As hon. members recall, it was first introduced by the hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview in '75. It was introduced again in 1976 by the hon.

Member for Spirit River-Fairview. It's now being introduced by the hon. Member for Clover Bar in almost identical form. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh shame, shame. AN HON. MEMBER: Birds of a feather . . . MR. MILLER: Birds of a feather is right. MR. ASHTON: Some might suggest this is a rather unholy alliance between the opposition parties, but it's not really too unusual when one considers that this government has so successfully occupied that large middle ground where the concensus can be obtained for all Albertans to identify with. Out on the far left you see the hon. Member for Spirit River- Fairview dancing around.

Then you find the Social Credit Party trying to occupy positions on both the extreme right and extreme left, so they're bound to coincide with the NDP at one time or another. DR. BUCK: Bought any air lines these days, John? Any more air lines? MR. ASHTON. This bill being presented today cul­ minates a rather vicious attack on the independence and supremacy of this Legislature. It is a very impor­ tant bill in that respect, and I hope that all hon. members fully appreciate the importance of the con­ cept being presented to us today.

As I say, it's the final thrust in a four-pronged attack on the suprema­ cy and independence of this Legislature. First of all we had, two days ago, the hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview suggesting that our labor laws should be made in Geneva. Then yesterday we found the hon. members suggesting that we should be running this government by commission. Just before this debate we find they are suggesting we should have the Environment Conservation Authority in its present form, which would be completely inde­ pendent, and that we would be bound by its deci­ sions. Now, today, they are suggesting that rather

October 20, 1977 ALBERTA HANSARD 1587 than the members of this Assembly making decisions on very important issues, we will refer matters to the judiciary.

Section 4 is probably the key

section of the bill. Without going into a clause-by-clause examination, I think if the hon. members will reflect back on the many times motions for returns or questions have been presented to the Assembly, it was only on a very small percentage of occasions that those motions or questions were not accepted. On those few occa­ sions valid reasons were always given. If the hon. members will look through

Section 4, I venture to suggest that every one of the reasons given in Sec­ tion 4 are the same as may be used on different occasions by the government in rejecting a motion. For example,

Section 4[g], "where the information on record is private in that it relates to the private affairs of any person . . ." Members can recall occasions on which motions submitted by the opposition have been rejected for that reason. But we have a very good record of disclosing infor­ mation in this province. I acknowledge the reference the hon. member made to the federal Member for Peace River. I'm sure we agree that we both hold the hon. Member for Peace River in very high regard. But again we must consider the atmosphere in which he operates in Ottawa, as distinguished from this Legis­ lature.

Opposition members in Ottawa may have needs that opposition members here don't. If it ever came to a situation where this Legislature was reject­ ing motions or questions for invalid reasons, I could entertain a concept such as that presented by the hon. Member for Clover Bar today. But we have not seen any examples of that. And if we ever do see any examples, I and my colleagues on this side of the House — and that side of the House — must answer to the electorate for it. But the key question here is: is this Legislature going to make the decision or are we going to hide behind somebody else?

I suppose when one looks at things in isolation, they don't get one too upset. If the various items the opposition has raised in the last few days had been separated by a few days or even weeks, they probably wouldn't have had the impact they have today. But when we go through those four examples which the opposition is presenting to weaken the authority of this Legislature, it really becomes quite serious. I acknowledge that there is some criticism. There has been some call for such a bill. I would suggest to the hon.

Member for Clover Bar that although he referred in his remarks to editorials in what he calls prominent newspapers, instead of basing his policy decisions and arriving at what he considers to be the main thrust of his attack on the government from reading newspaper editorials, he should go out and talk to the people. They used an example earlier today of the recent municipal election. Just a few days ago I remember reading an editorial in a very prominent newspaper in this province recommending Ivor Dent as the best person for mayor of Edmonton. You can see what the people thought of that opinion.

So I suggest you go and get the opinions of the people on this very important issue. Thank you. DR. BUCK: We knew this would be sufficiently intel­ lectual for your abilities, David. MR. KING: Thank you very much. Mr. Speaker, I rise with feelings of mixed emotion. I suppose for the edification of my hon. colleague from Clover Bar I should begin by saying that I support the principle of the bill. I endorse the right of the public . . . DR. BUCK: When Joe gets to be Prime Minister, make sure you do something in Ottawa. MR. KING: When Joe gets to be Prime Minister, which will be very shortly, the hon.

Member for Peace River will change it. I endorse the right of the public to have access to matters of fact which are gathered by and are under the control of the public service, provided that a cer­ tain number of exclusions are granted.

They could be matters which damage relations with another prov­ ince; matters that impinge on an individual's right to privacy, for example, medical records, possibly credit records; matters which are the basis of a statistical series; matters which are specifically exempted by statute; matters that concern trade secrets; commer­ cial or financial matters of a privileged nature obtained from private sources. These are some respects in which I think my list is the same as that provided by my hon. colleague. In some respects the two lists differ.

That serves only to illustrate the fact that I think everyone acknowledges the need for some exemptions to such legislation. While I accept and endorse the right of the public to have access to matters of fact, I reject the right of the public to have access to expressions of opinion that are made by individual policymakers during the course of formulating, modifying, or rescinding policy. Privy Council is a body of people whose title derives in part from the French word prive, private.

The Queen's Privy Council, or the cabinet in Alberta, must be able to discuss widely, without anyone being afraid of being revealed as foolish, immoral, ignorant, arrogant, or misjudged in a particular case. There's a theory of collective responsibility involved when we discuss our Executive Council that is, that individuals do not make decisions, but rather contrib­ ute to a collective decision for which all members of cabinet accept responsibility.

In such cases, then, the individual is not going to be compromised during his participation in the policy-making process by the fear, or the knowledge, that any previous advice he has ever given within the confines of that group is going to be exposed. The question, Mr. Speaker, is whether or not legis­ lation such as Bill 224 is the appropriate vehicle with which to address a very complex and serious problem that I think everyone in this Assembly acknowledges.

The caution of this government and of other govern­ ments reflects the legitimate awareness that the rela­ tionship between judgment and factual information was created under vastly different circumstances a century ago, and is becoming untenable under the circumstances in which government operates today. The relationship between judgment, that is the Exec­ utive Council, and factual information, that is the public service, was formed 120 and 150 years ago under circumstances very different from today. That relationship formed at that time is becoming unten­ able today.

It is the nature of the untenable relation­ ship that has to be addressed, as much as the simp­ listic question whether or not a single member of the

1588 ALBERTA HANSARD October 20, 1977 public can come up to a government wicket and ask for information. The principle of access to informa­ tion should be considered as part of a whole package. The proponents of public access to information pir­ ate their concepts and their legislation from other jurisdictions. The appropriateness of the application of legislation depends upon whether or not our socie­ ty and our government are similar in critical features to society and government in other jurisdictions. Sweden is a good example.

They've had this kind of legislation, as proponents will often cite, for more than 200 years. Sweden also has something else which is never discussed in the context of this ques­ tion. They have a hierarchy of access to information. They have an ombudsman, a chancellor of justice, and a supreme administrative court. Their whole theory of the public's access to information operates in a social context unlike the social context in Alberta and Canada. To cite only one example, the people of Sweden believe that, as a matter of right, anyone should be able to see the income tax return of his neighbor.

That's accepted in Swedish society. The nature of their legislation, if transposed to the Alberta situation, would require a radically different apprecia­ tion on the part of each of us about what of our lives is private from our neighbor. The United States has recently enacted legislation, and that legislation is cited as a precedent, as to some degree it is. But again, as in the Swedish experience, it cannot be transposed holus-bolus to our situation. The United States does not have a parliamentary form of government. In the philosophi­ cal sense, the American government is not a 'respon­ sible' government.

The introduction of that legisla­ tion in the United States was based upon the consti­ tutional truth that the legislative branch of their gov­ ernment does not have access to the executive branch in the way that — theoretically at least — all of us as legislators have access to the Executive Council. The mechanics of a bill such as 224 introduce a relationship between the two branches of govern­ ment in Canada or in Alberta, which is a natural part of the American system and is completely foreign to the Canadian system. The point of my concern, Mr.

Speaker, if I may make it once again, is that all of us, irrespective of the side of the House on which we sit, are concerned about the right of our citizens to be informed in their judgments on matters of politics or administration in this province. None of us on this side any less than on that side is concerned about that principle. The question is how best to achieve it, not only for the citizens of the province, but for each of us as legislators as well. While I endorse the principle of the bill, Mr.

Speak­ er, I have very serious reservations about the conse­ quences of believing that you can deal in a compre­ hensive manner with the problem, when it is approached without any regard for integrally related and equally important questions. The people who consider Bill No. 224 should also consider the stand­ ing orders of the Assembly. They should also consid­ er their own role as individual members of this Assembly. The difference, Mr. Speaker, between the hon. Member for Clover Bar and the hon. Member for Peace River is that the hon.

Member for Peace River is as well known across this country for his concern over Parliament, the standing orders of Parliament, and the role of the member, as he is about the question of the public's access to information. In my view, Mr. Speaker, while it is unfortunate, it is also true that the hon. Member for Clover Bar, in the bill and in his contribution to the debate, did not express the same balanced concern for attacking the whole problem rather than simply part of it. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. DR. PAPROSKI: Mr. Speaker, as I rise to speak on Bill 224,

An Act Respecting the Right of the Public to Information Concerning the Public Business, I'd like to indicate from the outset that the bill, certainly as indicated by the hon. member who has just spoken, is laudable on one point at least, and that is the title. The title is The Right of the Public to Information, which I feel without any doubt all members of the Assembly believe in and uphold, but I think it's unnecessary for practical purposes. Such informa­ tion, I suggest to the Legislative Assembly, is availa­ ble to all members. Before I proceed with further discussion on that item, Mr.

Speaker, I would like to indicate that the hon. Member for Clover Bar indicated this is a sun­ shine bill. I'm suggesting that it's not more than just a sparkle. He indicated to the House that this Legisla­ ture or this government acts and makes decisions behind closed doors. I'd like to raise a number of points here. Is he referring to the heritage savings trust fund, when in 1975 a provincial election was held on that issue where all members of the public voted on it in an overwhelming way, after two years of exposure of this fund to the citizens of Alberta? I suggest, Mr.

Speaker, [from] the members here and their respective positions, it's quite well known how the public felt at that time. DR. BUCK: You won't be there next time. DR. PAPROSKI: Mr. Speaker, I suggest the hon. member better review his own position first.

When the hon. member speaks of not exposing information regarding the heritage savings trust fund, is he refer­ ring to the annual report that is going to be tabled and reviewed by a special select committee of this Legis­ lature, made up of government and opposition mem­ bers, who I understand are now reviewing this, and will be tabling their recommendations as a very open type of government? How about The Appropriation Act dealing with the heritage savings trust fund, Mr.

Speaker, which this whole Legislature will have an opportunity to vote on and approve or disallow — turn the tap off and cancel out the fund if we wish — based on the information that will be provided? If the hon. member opposite is really concerned about the special committee which deals with the other aspects of the heritage savings trust fund, I suggest maybe he should bring in a resolution in the Assembly, and we can act on that resolution rather than that of the special committee that deals with the Alberta division and the Canada division. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, will the hon. member permit a question? DR.

PAPROSKI: Not at this juncture, Mr. Speaker. Not until I'm finished. I go on and talk about this so-called sunshine bill.

October 20, 1977 ALBERTA HANSARD 1589 He's worrying about closed doors. Is he referring to the expenditures of the government in total, when we have a yearly budget that is voted on not only by all members of the Legislature, but is discussed in more precise form in subcommittees? DR. BUCK: Which is a sham. Look at the orders in council. Look at the special warrants . . . DR. PAPROSKI: Well, if the hon. member doesn't attend these subcommittees or the budget debate, I suggest it's very sad. DR. BUCK: Two years ago . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Order please.

Would the hon. member please refrain from continuing de­ bate after his turn to debate has passed. DR. PAPROSKI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the hon. member opposite who introduced this bill is referring to motions for returns alluded to by other members on the government side, which are worded so badly from time to time that they are difficult to decipher. If the government makes that interpreta­ tion on their behalf, it gives improper information, then they scream that the information is not in fact provided. Finally, just to give you another example, Mr.

Speaker, is he referring to Public Accounts where MLAs, again from both sides of the House, have an opportunity to examine, cross-examine any depart­ ment and minister for clarity, for detailed information, and criticize, as they have, and properly so? As a matter of fact, some of the government members have done that too, and properly