Alberta Hansard — 5 November 1981, Afternoon sitting (14:30) (Legislature 19, Session 3)

19811105

Alberta — Debates (Hansard)

November 5, 1981 ALBERTA HANSARD 1471 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA Title: Thursday, November 5, 1981 2:30 p.m. [The House met at 2:30 p.m.] PRAYERS [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to say that I think today is a great day for Canada. At this time, I'd like to offer my congratulations to the Prime Minister and all the premiers in reaching an agreement on our constitution. This consensus of nine premiers and our Prime Minister certainly enhances the unity of Canada and increases the confidence we can have in our economic future in this country of Canada.

It is important that our leaders have agreed. Compro mise and negotiation have had a victory in our Canadian Confederation. Hopefully, as I say this in this Legislature, Premier Levesque on behalf of his people in Quebec are able to reach an agreement, where they can join the accord established by the other leaders in Canada today. MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, we have always appre ciated the support which has been extended by the official opposition on this important matter. I would mention that I talked to the Premier just recently. He will be returning to Alberta tonight by commercial aircraft.

He wished me to advise the Assembly that tomorrow morn ing he will be making a ministerial statement in this Assembly under that heading in the Order Paper. Follow ing that ministerial statement, bearing in mind the very important issue that has been decided today, we as a government would be prepared, if there's interest on all sides of the House, to extend the question period.

If there is continued and further interest in having a motion put on the Order Paper for debate next week, for perhaps an evening session, we would be prepared to closely consider that option. head: INTRODUCTION OF BILLS Bill 90 Land Titles Amendment Act, 1981 MR. KNAAK: Mr. Speaker, I request leave to introduce Bill No. 90, the Land Titles Amendment Act, 1981.

The Bill, which is primarily what one might refer to as a housekeeping Bill, updates The Land Titles Act — nevertheless very important amendments, and will streamline some of the systems in the Land Titles Office. [Leave granted; Bill 90 read a first time] MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill No. 90, the Land Titles Amendment Act, 1981, be placed on the Order Paper under Government Bills and Orders. [Motion carried] head: TABLING RETURNS AND REPORTS MR. SCHMIDT: Mr.

Speaker, I beg leave to table the annual report for the Department of Agriculture and, contained in that report, the annual report of the Wheat Board money trust account for the year ended March 31, 1981. head: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I have no need to intro duce to you, sir, but through you I'd like to introduce to members of the Assembly a group of 60 grade 6 students from the Thorncliff school, which is in Mr. Speaker's constituency, Edmonton Meadowlark. The students are accompanied by their teacher Mrs. Kofin and, in addi tion, some other individuals: Mrs. Luck, Mrs.

Smith, Mrs. Hollohan, and Miss Laurel Usher. I believe they are in the government gallery. I'd ask them to rise and receive recognition from members of the Assembly. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, I have great pleasure this afternoon in introducing to you, and through you to the members of the Assembly, 36 senior citizens from my constituency. Some of these people are from the town of Fort Saskatchewan and area, and others from the Bru- derheim area. They are accompanied by their group lead er Mr. Young. These citizens have been instrumental in the development of our community and our province.

They are seated in the public gallery. I'd ask them to rise and receive the welcome of the Legislature. head: ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Dental Care MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Social Services and Community Health. It's with regard to a potential denticare program in the province of Alberta. I wonder if the minister could out line the options being discussed by the joint task force that was set up in the spring of 1979. Has the minister made any decision with regard to those options? MR. BOGLE: Mr. Speaker, no decision has been made yet.

A number of considerations are under review by government at this time. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary ques tion to the minister. Has the government received any input from the professional health associations? Is this input, if any, being considered and having effect on, hopefully, the final output? MR. BOGLE: Mr. Speaker, the answer to both questions is yes. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, could the minister indicate at this time whether representations have been made by the Alberta Dental Association and whether they're supportive of a program, universal or selective, in the province? MR.

BOGLE: Mr. Speaker, I believe if we checked through Hansard, we'd find some discussion on this matter at earlier times. We've been working very closely

1472 ALBERTA HANSARD November 5, 1981 with the Alberta Dental Association, first on the forma tion of the task force itself, and certainly on ensuring that we're receiving adequate input not only from the execu tive but from the broad membership of the association across this province. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary ques tion. Could the minister indicate what the timetable is at the present time? Will there be an announcement in 1981 with regard to a dental care program for the province of Alberta, or is there a later target date? MR. BOGLE: Mr.

Speaker, it's unlikely that any an nouncement will be made in the remaining months of 1981. DR. BUCK: That's when the election is, Bob? MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, could the minister indicate what problems, other than the timing of an elec tion, are delaying a decision with regard to a denticare program in the province of Alberta? MR. BOGLE: Mr. Speaker, the issues which are being discussed are varied.

Obviously one of the concerns which has been addressed by the association, by the task force, and with input from this free-enterprise government, is to ensure that we have a dental plan in place that works with the dentists as professionals within our province, that meets the needs in ensuring that extraordinary costs, currently borne by Albertans, would be covered. There are a number of other ramifications. The deliberations are very serious.

Rather than move into a plan where there are still some matters which have not been fully debated and resolved, it's our intention to conclude the development of the plan and introduce what will be the best plan in this country. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary ques tion. Will the minister consider putting a proposal before the Legislature before the government has made a final decision as to what the denticare plan will be in Alberta — a plan that may be presented in the Legislature by resolution or other means? MR. BOGLE: That's one option we'll certainly consider, Mr. Speaker. MR. GOGO: Mr.

Speaker, a supplementary question to the Minister of Social Services and Community Health. The community of Lethbridge now has a very active preventive dental program through the health unit. Can the minister assure the House that the government plan is to continue that program in the next fiscal year? MR. BOGLE: Mr. Speaker, the plan the hon. member refers to is a preventive dental plan administered through the 25 health units and two boards of health which operate in this province.

It is aimed at children, and ranges from basic work such as cleaning and assessment by hygienists and dental assistants up to, in some cases, actual preventive dental work being done by a dentist, who works either on a contract basis or for one of the local health authorities. The broader plan, which the hon. . Leader of the Opposition asked his questions to, is quite different in scope from the basic preventive plan which has been implemented through the health units. MRS. FYFE: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.

It's my understanding that one of the greatest problems in delivery of dental services is acquiring dentists in rural areas. Can the minister advise the Assembly whether the mobile units his department is purchasing are now in place and encouraging equal care throughout the province? MR. BOGLE: Mr. Speaker, currently there are 10 mobile units. Three of those units are trailers — I believe 12 by 60 feet in length — and allow graduated dentists to operate in underserviced areas. Two of those three trailers are now in place.

The one that opened most recently is in the town of Spirit River, and another in southern Alberta in Milk River. A third is to be placed in central Alberta and the location has not yet been deemed. MR. SPEAKER: With great respect to the hon. minister, I was having difficulty with the preceding question, which asked whether a program would be continued and then outlined the program in great detail. Now we have a question regarding the availability of dentists and it seems to me we've gotten into trailers. MR. BOGLE: Mr.

Speaker, as I understood it, the ques tion was with regard to assisting dental services in rural areas. We've done that by the provision of dental trailers. In addition to the three trailers I mentioned, seven others operate primarily in smaller isolated rural communities in northern Alberta and provide service ranging from a minimum of two weeks during the summer months to a maximum of several months. One exception is the town of McLennan, where a trailer located on the hospital site has been in service for just over a year now. Chemical Fire — Lethbridge MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr.

Speaker, my second question is to the Minister of Environment. During the summer there was a fire in a warehouse in Lethbridge. There were toxic chemicals in there. The chemicals spilled and mixed with the water being used to put out the fire. Mr. Speaker, the concern I have is that the number of gallons, 73,000 litres in fact, were collected and sprayed on pastures in the Taber area. I wonder if the minister could indicate whether that matter has been reviewed and whether the toxic chemical could be transferred into the beef that may pasture on that land. MR. COOKSON: Mr.

Speaker, I had an opportunity to review the procedure in the area the Leader of the Opposition is referring to. The material in question con tained very minor amounts of materials, primarily of the nature of a herbicide normally used by farm operators for control of weeds. The judgment was that the dilution factor was so great that the impact would be very minimal, if at all, and that there would be very little, if any, carryover in the soil. So to answer the second question, our department was satisfied that there was not an environmental problem of any nature. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, to the minister.

I understand there were 48 different chemicals involved in the spill in the mixture with the water. Did the depart ment check each one of these chemicals and its potential effect on the animals that may graze the land and, in turn, the effect on the meat that would be sold commercially?

November 5, 1981 ALBERTA HANSARD 1473 MR. COOKSON: Mr. Speaker, sometimes one has to read the media to find out what in fact doesn't happen. [interjections] That's right. I appreciate that. One of the problems with the opposition is that they keep reading the paper. That's a folly they shouldn't . . . [interjections] I understand it was great too. I just want to reaffirm the statement I made to the earlier question. We found very little, if any, trace of any material that would have any detrimental effects on the environment.

The primary concern was the possibility of the fire creating a material known as dioxin because of the high temperatures. We found very little significance in this regard. Dioxin is a material that has a carcinogenic quality and has been banned generally throughout Cana da. Earlier it was contained in most ester formulations; 2,4-D subsequently has been removed from the market. No evidence of that particular material was detected. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary ques tion to the hon. minister.

There are some people who like to read the newspaper and then there are others who like to watch the Merv and Peter show. The newspaper seems to be more our speed and understanding. AN HON. MEMBER: Agreed. MR. R. SPEAKER: I'll tell you, the Merv and Peter show is so elementary that even that was below our level. [interjections] Am I doing a great job there, Fred? Bob, how am I doing today? MR. R. CLARK: You're doing good. You're doing a good job for Albertans. MR. R. SPEAKER: Do you like the way I ask questions, Fred? [laughter] Mr. Speaker, we'd better cut off this TV program.

We're a little short of funds on this side of the House. Mr. Speaker, to the hon. minister. Could the minister indicate, in terms of the warehouse itself, whether ade quate precautions are taken to prohibit the contamina tion or injury of any citizens in Lethbridge? If they came in contact with remaining chemicals, is the warehouse well enclosed so that no one is endangered? Secondly, in terms of the pasture, to take all precautions, has the minister given a directive that cattle should not graze on the land for a certain period of time until the toxic wastes have deteriorated? MR.

COOKSON: Answering the second question first, Mr. Speaker, we made arrangements with the property owner concerned, and no doubt the factor of grazing was taken into consideration. Insofar as cleanup at the site, we had our people on site during supervision of the cleanup, as well as people from the particular company concerned, their own experts. I'm satisfied that all proper precautions were taken, that it is not a danger to the environment or to the human problem within the area. Highway Safety DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, my question to the hon.

Minister of Transportation has to do with uncontrolled railroad crossing deaths. With the indulgence of the House, I would just like to say very briefly, so the minister can understand the question I'm asking, that this morning I was at the funeral of a young man who died when he drove under a parked railroad tanker — a black car on a black highway, and oncoming lights. The young man thought the highway was unrestricted and drove right under the train. Mr.

Speaker, is the minister in a position to indicate when the study the minister's department is doing now as to deaths at uncontrolled crossings, especially the one that related to the Airdrie area death, will be available to the public? MR. KROEGER: No, I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker. I don't know when it will be completed. I will get the information. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Is the minister in a position to indicate what directives or studies have been going on in the department to try to control deaths at these uncontrolled crossings? MR. KROEGER: Mr. Speaker, it is not a new concern we have.

We also are aware of a number of uncontrolled crossings, and certainly have made municipalities aware of what the procedure is, when they've asked, to get these uncontrolled crossings marked or controlled in a different way. It's pretty clear what the procedure is. Keeping in mind that we have something in excess of 4,000 uncon trolled crossings, it wouldn't be possible to go to them all, for many reasons. But if there is a crossing that requires special attention, the procedure on how that is done is pretty clear. We've offered any assistance we can give.

Essentially, the procedure is that application is made for that crossing to be assessed. The funding formula is very clear and doesn't really work a hardship on a municipality. So we invite comment identifying crossings that we should be dealing with. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Has the minister had any discussion with his counterpart in Ottawa, or representatives of transportation groups, as to the use of fluorescent flashes on black railroad cars espe cially?

Has there been any discussion with the minister, his counterpart, or the companies as to the use of this, plus the use of brakemen when they are doing switching in a local area? MR. KROEGER: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not been involved in that sort of thing. The suggestion will be taken under consideration. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, a further supplementary, which has to relate to this situation. Can the minister indicate how many years behind the Department of Transportation is in the chipping of newly completed highways, so that light refraction would be increased by putting chips on the black highways? MR.

KROEGER: Mr. Speaker, I would not be able to give a clear indication of how many years — if it is years — we are behind. The stages of this kind of treatment aren't the same on every road. For example, on 36 South this year, where there was a paving contract, half of it was treated with chip and the other half was being experimented with in another way. So in a case of that kind, it wouldn't necessarily indicate we're behind. It's a planned approach to it. But again, there's no way I could convert into miles or kilometres how many unchipped sections of pavement we have.

1474 ALBERTA HANSARD November 5, 1981 DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary ques tion is to the hon. Attorney General, the Government House Leader. Has the Government House Leader or the caucus given any consideration to setting up a legislative committee to look at highway safety, as was done in 1968, I believe? At that time, a legislative committee was set up to look at highway safety and highway construc tion. Has the government given any consideration to that, in light of the large number of accidents and deaths we are having in this province at this time? MR. CRAWFORD: Mr.

Speaker, up until the present time no consideration has been given to setting up such a committee. I suggest to the hon. member that the real question is the most effective way of dealing with the serious problem of highway and other traffic deaths. I would say that if a case could be made that that is the way to address the problem in an effective way and bring about a change in the mounting figures of injury and death in respect to highway accidents, then obviously every consideration would be given to it.

The sole reser vation is that if there are other ways in which government and the Legislature can occupy themselves to achieve that result, those are the routes that should be chosen. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary ques tion to the Minister of Transportation. In terms of safety at railroad crossings, one of the alternatives is to place a bump on the highway, which gives a warning that a railroad crossing is coming and the driver should be aware. I was wondering if any consideration is being given to that type of device. MR. KROEGER: Mr. Speaker, first I'll be facetious, and then I'll be serious.

Our problem has been to get the bumps out. But on the second part, it's an idea that might be worth following up. Eastern Slopes Development MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct this ques tion to the hon. Associate Minister of Public Lands and Wildlife. On November 3, the minister indicated enthusi astic support for the Odyssey project. I quote: I believe the project is very, very positive for the people of Alberta. The Eastern Slopes policy of July 1975 indicates: The government agrees that an integrated and closely managed land use policy is essential.

Is it the position of the government of Alberta that before any major development proceeds, there must be a man agement plan in place? MR. MILLER: Mr. Speaker, the Odyssey project con forms to the zoning as has been laid down under the Eastern Slopes policy. In reply to the answer I gave to the questions on November 3, in regard to the environmental report, I might further add that I had stated it was available in the Rocky Mountain House area.

In fact, it's available in the local improvement district, ID 10, the Red Deer planning commission, the Rocky Mountain House liaison committee, the public libraries at Red Deer and Rocky Mountain House, the Edmonton Public Li brary, and the Department of Environment library. So this report has been widely distributed. We do agree with the project, as the hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview mentioned. However, the plan is subject to conditions of water supply, as has been directed by the Department of Environment. I should also point out that the plans and specifications are subject to ID 10 approval. MR.

NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. I'm not talking about the environment impact assessment — perhaps we could come back to that — but rather, the integrated management plan which must be in place, which is part of the government's east slopes policy. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister why there has been no further action on the Rocky-North Saskatche wan subregional integrated plan. This is the plan that would in fact cover the area of the Cline River Odyssey project, as well as the proposed David Thompson coun try.

One of the people who has been given part of the responsibility of doing this has indicated that there have been no meetings, and no action has taken place. When are are going to have this integrated management plan, or is the government going to proceed with projects willy- nilly and in fact abandon the Eastern Slopes policy? MR. MILLER: Mr. Speaker, we are not proceeding willy-nilly. The plan is being developed. There has been a lot of work done on it, and I take exception to the Member for Spirit River-Fairview regarding the plan as willy-nilly. MR. NOTLEY: Mr.

Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. minister. I would simply advise the minister that the progress the committee has made so far is not overwhelming, to put it mildly. In other places they have at least undertaken the initiation of a plan. My question to the minister is: in view of the fact that he has already told us he favors the Odyssey project, when are we going to get an integrated management plan which is called for in the Eastern Slopes policy?

When are we going to get the integrated management plan which must be a precon dition to any development if the Eastern Slopes policy is to be meaningful at all? MR. MILLER: Mr. Speaker, as I've stated, the Odyssey project does fit the Eastern Slopes policy requirements and, as such, we did give approval for it to go forward. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. minister. The Eastern Slopes requirement necessitates an integrated management plan. One has not been completed; that is very clear.

When does the gov ernment propose to complete the integrated management plan for the Rocky-North Saskatchewan subregion? MR. MILLER: Mr. Speaker, I will endeavor to get information on what stage the plan is in right now and when we can hope to have it fully completed. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. minister.

In view of the fact the minister is not able to supply the Legislature with the date this plan will be completed, and obviously the plan is going to have some bearing on the project, how is he able to tell the Legislature he favors the project if the plan, which is a precondition, isn't even completed? MR. MILLER: Mr. Speaker, many of these plans are ongoing. There is no time frame to them. The resource evaluation and planning committee is endeavoring to in corporate all the concerns of all interested groups of all departments to make an assessment of what's best for the

November 5, 1981 ALBERTA HANSARD 1475 area. The Odyssey project was approved, and it has been approved because it conforms with the Eastern Slopes policy. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, the minister says these management plans are ongoing. Some are more going than others. This hasn't gotten started yet. My question, very directly to the minister: the Eastern Slopes policy says there must be an integrated management plan — that's what it says. The minister has told us he favors the Odyssey project. We have a working paper on the David MR. SPEAKER: Order please.

Has the hon. member a question which he has not already asked? MR. NOTLEY: Is the minister in a position at this stage to give us some time frame as to when this Legislature can expect further information and at least a preliminary integrated management plan? MR. MILLER: Mr. Speaker, I believe I answered that question. Provincial Parks Development MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. Minister of Recreation and Parks.

Further to the management plans in the Eastern Slopes area, is the minister in a position to advise the Assembly what addi tional working papers have been completed on David Thompson country? And is any time frame being consid ered by the government for introduction in this Legisla ture of a policy paper clearly outlining the options for David Thompson country as well as several other alterna tives the minister alluded to outside the House: Kakwa country and Lakeland country? MR. TRYNCHY: Mr. Speaker, I saw the document for the first time yesterday, thanks to the hon. member.

It's just that, working papers, and we don't respond to working papers. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'll make the minister a deal. We'll present our working papers which we get from your department to you, if the government will present its policy papers to the Legislature before the election date is announced. [laughter] MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Might this be the last supplementary on this topic. MR.

NOTLEY: I would ask either the Minister of Recre ation and Parks or the Associate Minister of Public Lands and Wildlife whether the government is in a posi tion to clearly state at this time, before a commitment is made to any major country, whether it's Kakwa country, Lakeland country, or David Thompson country, that there will be formalized public hearings as requested by the Alberta Fish & Game Association. MR. TRYNCHY: Mr. Speaker, we have not decided to go in any direction, and if the hon. member wants to get that information he might get it the same place he got this. [laughter] Fertilizer Prices MRS.

CRIPPS: Mr Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Agriculture. Has the minister been able to ascertain if the major differences in the export price of fertilizer, f.o.b. the plants and the Alberta distributors, are in fact correct? MR. SCHMIDT: No, Mr. Speaker. MRS. CRIPPS: No help. [laughter] Thank you, Mr. Minister. Since the replies I've received are that these prices were a long time ago, but the invoices are dated as late as September 16 and shipments have been made in October and one already in November, is the minister still following up on that problem? MR. SCHMIDT: Mr.

Speaker, the total problem of ferti lizer pricing as it pertains to both the province of Alberta and the United States has generated some interest mainly in the Alberta manufacture of fertilizer that goes south across the line, and the indication that there's a differen tial pricewise. Of course, the concerns on behalf of the department are also on behalf of the producers in the province.

First of all, we are doing some work to check the basic prices on the material that has been sent to us and also check the fertilizer price across the province to try to get some semblance of comparison between similar fertilizers for similar amounts of Alberta-produced ferti lizer in both the United States and Canada. That infor mation is not available to us yet. MR. NOTLEY: A supplementary question to the hon. minister. This matter was raised some years before.

The minister's predecessor indicated at that time that there would be a procedure in place to monitor the difference between fertilizer prices in Canada and in the United States. Is the minister telling us that in fact that has not been done and that commitment of some years ago has not been followed through? MR. SCHMIDT: Mr. Speaker, we have always had a comparative figure in regard to fertilizer from an input cost for producers within this province compared to the input costs for producers just across the line to us.

The information my colleague from Drayton Valley is asking for is a specific request for a review of fertilizer prices tied to specific invoices of fertilizer manufactured in the prov ince of Alberta that was transported to the United States and the figures that appeared on that documentation. It's those figures that we're following up, and of course at the same time we will also have the opportunity to bring forth the varied pricing of fertilizer across the province, recognizing the differential that would exist because of transportation costs. MR. NOTLEY: Mr.

Speaker, a supplementary to the minister so there is no misunderstanding. We don't want to get into the situation we did in '74, I believe, when we were bootlegging fertilizer. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Followed by a supple mentary by the hon. Member for Drayton Valley. MR. NOTLEY: Is the minister in a position to assure the members of the Assembly that fertilizer prices in the United States in fact are higher than prices of fertilizer

1476 ALBERTA HANSARD November 5, 1981 produced in Alberta, considering the transportation costs? MR SCHMIDT: Mr. Speaker, taking into consideration the manufacture of fertilizer within the province and the availability of identical fertilizers to the Alberta producer, and to that product that has been going across the line, recognizing the figures are based on the same tonnage, rather than tonnes, and in Canadian dollars, have shown there is a close resemblance pricewise. The differential is recognized in the increased transportation costs.

The fig ures that have been submitted to us show some dif ferences in that area. That is why we were doing the total review. MRS. CRIPPS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Utilities and Telephones. Can the minister inform the Assembly if the feedstock price of natural gas to Alberta fertilizer manufacturers is the border price or something less than that? MR. SHABEN: Mr. Speaker, I think that's a question that more appropriately should be put to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources.

The only involvement of the Department of Utilities and Telephones would be with respect to price protection. All industries that utilize natural gas in Alberta up to the prescribed limits in the legislation are eligible for price protection, depending of course upon the price they pay. But I think the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources would probably com ment on that question. MR. LEITCH: Mr. Speaker, I can add that in Alberta the price of natural gas is not controlled.

The price paid by a petrochemical plant or a fertilizer plant in Alberta for its natural gas feedstock is the price it's able to negotiate with the producer, which in some cases would be lower than the Alberta border price. MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Bow Valley fol lowed by . . . MR. PLANCHE: Mr. Speaker, if I may, to also supple ment the answer of the Minister of Agriculture. We work with the Department of Agriculture frequently, and while I can't respond to a specific fertilizer, we do check them. The fact is that the export papers indicate a price that isn't the price the farmer in the U.S. pays.

For am monium nitrate particularly, they're paying about an 18 per cent premium for a comparable product in the U.S. over zone pricing in Alberta. Parole System MR. MANDEVILLE: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the hon. Solicitor General. Several weeks ago, the Solici tor General indicated there was a possibility of setting up a provincial parole board in Alberta. Could the minister indicate what steps he has taken to date toward setting up a provincial parole board? MR. HARLE: Mr. Speaker, that matter is still under consideration. MR. MANDEVILLE: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.

Could the minister indicate the reason for set ting up a provincial parole board? Is it because the temporary absence program is not working satisfactorily? MR. HARLE: No, Mr. Speaker, that's not the reason. The officials who handle the temporary absence program believe there might be a possibility to improve the situa tion as far as inmates are concerned. I might say that the negative side the federal parole system has had makes it very difficult to do too much in that area for the present time. MR. MANDEVILLE: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.

Has the minister met with other provinces that have provincial parole boards set up to see how they're working and how effective they are? MR. HARLE: Mr. Speaker, that is part of the review of this whole area that has been given, and will be given, depending on how far we go with the idea. Education Planning for Stakeholders' Meeting MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Education. I note the minister has returned from the Alberta school trustees' convention relatively unscathed.

I would ask the minister if he would outline to the Assembly the purpose of the stakeholders' forum on education which is being held November 12 to 14. Who will be attending from the government? MR. KING: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that there's never a question of escaping unscathed when you spend four days among friends, as I have just finished doing. MR. R. CLARK: You weren't talking to the same friends I was. MR. KING: The Department of Education is going to host a meeting on November 12, 13, and 14, the meeting to which the hon. member alludes.

We have invited three to five representatives of all the major provincewide organizations that have an interest in education: the Alberta Teachers' Association, the Alberta School Trus tees' Association, the Conference of Alberta School Su perintendents, the Home and School Association, the Chamber of Commerce, the Federation of Labour, and others.

The purpose of that meeting is first to describe to them in general terms the plans of the Department of Educa tion for the next three to five years; second, to describe in more detail our plans for the upcoming year; third, to benefit from their input with respect to the development of those plans, so that we can agree on issues the development of which we might share. One of the things we are very concerned to achieve is a greater degree of co-operation among the groups involved in education. That's what we hope to deal with at that meeting. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister.

If in fact the desire of the minister and the department is to have that kind of co-operation the minister refers to, what was the minister's thinking in the department deciding what its plans were initially and then the minister outlining those in the first few hours at the session, as opposed to having the stakeholders together first and then the department developing its plans after it's had the input? Why not the input before the plans, rather than after?

November 5, 1981 ALBERTA HANSARD 1477 MR. KING: In a sense, that's what we have in mind. The plans we are discussing are always subject to change because we're in a fluid situation. The agenda, if you will, and the presentation of that agenda by the Department of Education is the result of requests made to us by the various interest groups. They asked that we organize it this way. MR. R. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, to the minister.

Would the minister indicate to the Assembly if on the second day — when the plans for one year, five years, and a longer period of time have been discussed — the minister will be making the results of what I believe to be a rather secret ballot known first of all to the shareholders and to the people of the province? MR. KING: We could certainly do both those things, Mr. Speaker. I would arrange to do that at the meeting of the stakeholders at Westridge. I might say that I am very, very appreciative of the interest being taken in the devel opment of plans for education in the province. MR. R. CLARK: Mr.

Speaker, I'm not so sure I should say thanks to the minister. But I would pose this one last question. Having regard for the function of the forum the minister indicated, why are representatives of students who are either in grade 12 or immediate graduates of the system, who on one hand would be able to reflect upon the system most closely and, secondly, are the individuals the system is designed for, not playing an important

part in this stakeholders' forum on education? MR. KING: I suppose, Mr. Speaker, because we are in the process of learning. There is no provincewide organi zation of students. The decision was made that atten dance at this meeting would be from provincewide or ganizations. The hon. member has made an entirely appropriate submission on behalf of the students. If there were a practical way of selecting students who would be thought to be representative of the student body general ly, I'd be more than happy to have them there. We'll take it under consideration. MR. R. CLARK: Mr.

Speaker, while the minister is in such a receptive mood, might I pose a supplementary question. Would the minister seriously consider the pro position of having the presidents of the students' unions at perhaps one or two of Alberta's universities, one or two of the colleges, and one of the presidents of NAIT and SAIT? On one hand, those are responsible students in this province, and they would be able to reflect very, very closely on their experience in the system we're supposed to be designing for students. MR. KING: Without making a commitment to the pro position, I'd certainly be willing to consider it.

A.Y. Jackson Painting MRS. EMBURY: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the minister responsible for culture. It has come to my atten tion that there was a report earlier this week that an A.Y. Jackson painting was missing from the Alberta Art Foundation. If this matter has been brought to the atten tion of the minister, could the minister please tell the Assembly which painting is missing? DR. BUCK: If you read the paper, Sheila, it's not missing. MRS. LeMESSURlER: Mr. Speaker, the A.Y. Jackson painting is not missing and has never been missing. AN HON. MEMBER: Who started the rumor, Walt? DR.

BUCK: Is the $60 million a rumor, too. MRS. EMBURY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. Could the minister please indicate if there is a formal process set up by which an inventory of paintings is taken on a regular basis by the Alberta Art Foundation? MRS. LeMESSURlER: Mr. Speaker, there is a registrar hired by the Alberta Art Foundation as well as the visual arts. Each year the Auditor General reviews the papers by the department. MRS. EMBURY: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the minister would care to elaborate on where the painting is. MRS. LeMESSURlER: Mr.

Speaker, the painting is in the office of the hon. Mr. McCrae, on the first floor, and has been there since June 1980. MR. SPEAKER: May I respectfully say to the hon. minister that that is not such a serious matter that the hon. minister who has the painting needs to be named. I believe the hon. Minister of Public Lands and Wild life would like to supplement some information previous ly dealt with. Abandoned Rail Lines MR. MILLER: Mr. Speaker, during my absence yester day, two questions asked by the hon. Member for Bow Valley were taken by the Minister of Economic Devel opment.

He referred them to me when I got back. The first was the question regarding the number of miles of abandoned railways we had in the province during the last two years. Mr. Speaker, I have the number of miles of railway for the past six years. In 1975, there were 140.1 miles abandoned; in 1976, there were none; in 1977, 162.7; in 1978, 109.2; in 1979, 31; in 1980, 36.4; in 1981, 91.9: for a total of 571.33 miles ordered abandoned. Of this total, we have received title to only 41 miles.

The remaining are ordered to be abandoned and are still titled, either to the rail company or to the federal government; we haven't received transfer yet. His second question, Mr. Speaker, concerned the guidelines used on these abandoned railway corridors. Our intention is to retain the use of these abandoned railway rights of way for utility and transportation corri dors. If they are not to be used immediately for transpor tation or utilities, in most cases they will be leased to adjoining landowners along the rights of way. MR. SPEAKER: The hon.

Minister for Tourism and Small Business also wishes to deal further with a topic previously raised. VIA Rail Service MR. ADAIR: Mr. Speaker, in response to a question raised yesterday by the hon. Member for Clover Bar. The

1478 ALBERTA HANSARD November 5, 1981 question was: can the minister indicate what is the loss to the taxpayer of Canada for the operation of the line between Winnipeg and Edmonton? I said I would attempt to get that figure. We have had one figure provided to us. I have asked for some comparative figures relative not only to losses of rail service but to operation of any services that may in fact be provided to the public; i.e., operations of interna tional airports, services along that line.

But the one we have is that the revenue generated by the transcontinental west was somewhere around $61,094,000, the expenses, $189,788,699, with a net loss of approximately $128,694,699, a revenue to cost ratio of 32 cents. One of the main concerns we have had, however, which is within the province of Alberta, Mr. Speaker, is that there is a major loss to the community of Jasper, particu larly from a tourism point of view. The town of Jasper has indicated that that loss may be as high as $6 million. Some of the information we have says it is anywhere between $5.25 million and $6 million.

That would be approximately 10 per cent of the total retail and trade service in the community. Mr. Speaker, the other question was in relation to a breakdown of how many Canadian passengers as well as tourists that line moves from Winnipeg to Vancouver. We haven't determined whether they were Canadian, North American, or tourists. But the figures we have, provided to us from VIA Rail's western office in Winnipeg, are: 110,000 passengers departed and arrived in Winnipeg in 1980, 125,000 departed and arrived in Edmonton, and 95,000 departed and arrived in Jasper.

Also, in the summer months the peak load is approximately 370 pas sengers per day disembarking in Jasper; and in the wint er, on what might be considered an off-season day, that would be approximately 75 to 80 passengers per day. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary, just to fol low up the question I asked the Minister of Small Busi ness and Tourism. Can the minister indicate at this time if the Alberta government is looking at some type of stop gap or contingency program to move the people — say if they fly into Edmonton — out to Jasper to take up the slack of the loss of the rail transportation? MR.

ADAIR: Mr. Speaker, I think we have identified that obviously a number of routes can be used. One is the service I mentioned yesterday, the newly approved service by Time Air of Alberta from Jasper to Vancouver, and also the bus schedules that are in operation. From the standpoint of a train, no, we haven't looked at an alterna tive on the track. Our ambition, I guess, and our purpose is to assist, to support to the fullest extent, those communities in the province of Alberta making a claim to keep the rail running. ORDERS OF THE DAY head: MOTIONS FOR RETURNS MR.

CRAWFORD: I move that Motion for a Return 140 stand. [Motion carried] head: MOTIONS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT MOTIONS 221. Moved by Mr. Mandeville:

Be it resolved that the Assembly urge the government to take immediate steps to assist home-owners renegotiating mortgages at substantially increased rates and tenants fac ing rapidly increasing rents. MR. MANDEVILLE: Mr. Speaker, I put this motion on the Order Paper, and I hope it gets good consideration. I appreciate that we have many programs in this province under Housing that take care of a lot of the ills in our housing situation. However, we don't have any program in place for renewing mortgages coming up, and this is one of the suggestions we are making.

Another area we're concerned about is the high rent our renters are facing throughout the province, appreciat ing that at present we do have a renters' assistance program but we would like this supplemented to a certain degree to help some of our renters who are facing problems. So many of our politicians try to tell us that inflation is causing the problems we're facing in the economy today. But I certainly don't think it's inflation; I think it's the high interest rates that are causing the problems we're facing in the province such as in the housing industry.

I see our economy is slowing down as a result of these high interest rates. This is only the tip of the iceberg. At the present rate they are at, these interest rates are hard to cope with for some of our home-owners. What's going to happen when the car manufacturers . . . I listened to TV last night, and General Motors is having a really serious problem as far as marketing its product is concerned. What are they going to have to do with the slowdown of the economy? They're going to have to lay off some of their employees. How about the lumber industry across Canada? They're going to have to lay off.

What's going to happen when we lay off these people who are renegotiating mortgages? They're having a hard time making their payments when they have jobs. What's going to happen when they're laid off? It's going to be serious when they're facing double the mortgage payments that they're paying today. What is the federal government saying? We have to have interest rates up there to bolster our Canadian dollar. To me, this is certainly not the right way to straighten out the economy or bolster our dollar.

If we're going to bolster our Canadian dollar, I think they made a great move today: the premiers and the Prime Minister coming to terms on the constitution. That's certainly a step in the right direction to stabilize our economy and, hopefully, we'll be able to bring our interest rates down to where they belong. We've been fighting the energy policy and the constitution. Our governments, especially the federal government, are spending all this money. If they want to bolster the Canadian dollar, I say bring interest rates down, bring them in line with the inflation factor. Then we can cope with it.

But don't use interest rates to bolster the Canadian dollar, because that certainly won't solve our problem. I'm very hopeful that we won't get into any more confrontations. The economy in this nation is serious, and it's going to get bad all across the nation. I hope we don't get into another confrontation when our budget comes down on November 11. I hope it's acceptable to all Canadians and we can go about straightening out the economy and helping some of the home-owners in this

November 5, 1981 ALBERTA HANSARD 1479 province who are going to be losing their homes. When we get out of this Legislature, away from the politicians, and go to the people on the street, their concern is not the constitution, the energy pricing, or the budget. Their concern is the bread and butter deals in this province. I'm certainly not going to be the first one to say that I'm not blaming the Minister of Housing and Public Works for the situation we have, because programs are in place that are beneficial. One problem we're facing as far as Alberta is con cerned is that we have an overheated economy.

We have a lot of people coming to Alberta, coming to the land of honey and money. They're finding that it's just not that attractive when they get to Alberta. I think we have to quit bragging about our heritage trust fund and start spending it on diversifying the province of Alberta and helping Albertans, such as I'm suggesting in this motion today. I think we have to quit advertising our heritage trust fund so we don't get too many people coming to Alberta and finding that there are no opportunities for them in this province, especially as far as our vacancy rate in rental housing is concerned.

In Calgary, they have less than 1 per cent; I think it's 0.7 per cent vacancy rate. This is a bad situation as far as vacancy rates are concerned, because it certainly puts our rentals in a posi tion where they're very unacceptable to some of our renters. I think what we have to do in the province and the nation is be more concerned with food, clothing, shelter, and the economy of our country. That's what we're doing, Mr. Speaker. We're discussing shelter: mortgage renewals and relief on high rents. Let's take a look at the problem we're facing today.

The Minister of Housing and Public Works told this House on October 21, 1981, that the number of owners renewing a mortgage in 1981 is estimated to be 35,000. About 14,250 are renewing high- ratio, single, detached homes. Of these, the number of owners paying over 30 per cent of their income is estimat ed to be 7,200. If over 35 per cent of gross income is being spent on shelter, it is normally considered that a definite hardship exists. The minister himself estimated that 4,000 to 5,000 people would fit into this category.

As I said, we have lots of programs, but we don't have any program to help the home-owners who are renewing their mortgages at the present time. I'm hopeful that in the federal budget, we'll have some relief in this area. But I think we should be taking a good look at it in the province of Alberta. What should we do about it? We've come up with a policy that we think is satisfactory and good. Number one is our program for renewing mortgages.

The Alberta Social Credit Party program will see the provincial government directing the Alberta Home Mort gage Corporation and the Alberta treasury branch to renew mortgages at 15 per cent. Other lending institutions will be encouraged through a strong exertion of moral persuasion to comply also. This is a stop-loss program. We think it should commence on October 31, 1981, and be in effect for the next 12 months.

We're suggesting the treasury branches and the Home Mortgage Corporation implement a program that's similar to the program al ready in force or put into operation by the Royal Bank of Canada, the Bank of Montreal, and the Calgary real estate board. This is not a give-away program. We think it should be a program just like they've set up at the other chartered banks and the Calgary real estate board. When they pay 15 per cent, it's going to reduce their payments now but it should be added on in the end, so it just extends their program. Several social benefits of this program are worth not ing.

It will enable our home-owners to retain their homes. If nothing is done, I'm sure many of our home-owners are going to lose their homes, especially if our economy slows down much further. It allows the home-owner to decide what he wants to do, and forces banks and lending insti tutions to compete. As I said, it's workable because the Royal Bank of Canada and the Calgary real estate board have already put it into effect. Mr. Speaker, what I like about it is that it's not an inflationary program. It's just going to help some of our home-owners retain their homes and keep them under shelter.

I think we should be looking at long-term pro grams in this Legislature. We have to look at our plan ning process. It's so cumbersome now and takes so long to get this land on stream that it's certainly costly, espe cially when our interest rates are as high as they are now, with all the red tape we have to go through. I can give you an example of a subdivision plan I was working on in the Brooks area, and I've been working on it for a long time. It was just an ordinary, little, simple subdivision plan for construction, and it took months and months. First we had hearings in Brooks.

Then we had hearings at the planning commission in Medicine Hat. Then we had hearings with the planning board in Edmon ton. Mr. Speaker, if we could get through some of these steps and streamline our planning process here — and I'm sure hopeful our minister will bring in some amendments to the municipal Act so we can streamline some of the subdivision problems we're facing in the province today. Our other suggestion is to assist our renters. I certainly think they're facing problems. Many renters are faced with increased rents and are not able to cope with them.

In Calgary, for example, some of the CMHC statistics: in 1977, a two-bedroom apartment rented for $300; today, that same apartment is $640. That's over 100 per cent increase in rent in a short period of time, Mr. Speaker. We certainly can't lay the blame exclusively on landlords, because they're facing problems as well. Interest rates are going up, they're renewing mortgages, their costs are going up, and they have problems facing them as well.

The Minister of Housing and Public Works said there are [237,000] mortgage-holders in Alberta, and 5,000 are in serious trouble: 2.1 per cent of the people renewing mortgages are in trouble. Figures indicate that we have 150,000 renters in the province of Alberta. If we use the same 2.1 per cent we've used for home-owners for renters, 3,000 renters in Alberta would be in serious trouble. So I think we have an acute problem there, and we have to face it. We've had a drop of 52 per cent in rental accommoda tion construction in the province. The only program we have in place . . . [Mr. R.

Clark in the Chair] I don't know how to address the Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I know you'll do a good job. [interjections] We have CHIP in place. I think that's a good program, but we should supplement it. We've slowed down CHIP considerably. We don't have the funds in there that our builders or developers need to continue with the program. I think we should add more money to it. We should also streamline it, because at present the minimum number of apartment buildings you can build under CHIP is 24 units. We should reduce that to 15 units so some of our smaller developers could take advantage of it. We also

1480 ALBERTA HANSARD November 5, 1981 have the federal capital allowance program, which has been reduced from 10 per cent to 5 per cent. This is certainly creating more problems as far as rental accom modations are concerned. We have to be careful of put ting in too large a subsidy, because we could distort the markets as well. I want to give an example of how our program would work. We feel that the renter is the same as the home-owner. If he is paying more than 35 per cent of his income on rent, we think that's a hardship. We feel it's a hardship if a home-owner is paying more than 35 per cent on his home.

If someone were employed and, for easy figuring, was getting $1,000 and paying rent of $450, 35 per cent of $1,000 would be $350. He should be paying $350. We're saying that we should subsidize that renter to the tune of $100. He should be paying 35 per cent of his gross income on rental accommodation. Here again, we feel that this program should be in place for only 12 months, more or less on a temporary basis. As I said, this situation is going to get much more severe in a very short period of time. We're going to have vacant homes, apartment renters who can't pay their rents, and no place to go.

What are we going to do? Mr. Speaker, our program is moderate and not inflationary. We just want to have in place a program for the people renewing mortgages, also renters' assistance. I appreciate that we now have in place a program for renters' assist ance, but I think we should supplement that and help some of our renters, so they're paying 35 per cent of their gross wages for rent. Before closing and sitting down, I would like to make a recommendation to the minister with regard to housing and with regard to increasing his interest rates.

I would like to see the minister, whenever he increases his interest rates . . . For example, just a short while ago, when interest rates went from 18.5 to 19.5 per cent, it went out to the loans officers by phone. They had applications coming in, and the applicants thought their applications were in. They were very disappointed when they found out that their application number was such and such and, after that number, the interest rates went up to 19.5 per cent.

So I would like to suggest that when the minister increases interest rates and makes any changes in the program, he give the loans officers a short period of time to let their applicants know what is happening. On the other hand, I wouldn't make the suggestion that when he reduces the interest rates — and interest rates have been coming down; they've come down two points. I didn't hear what happened to them today, but I suspect they went down a certain amount. When the minister starts decreasing his interest rates, he can do that by phone. MR. COOK: Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to speak to the resolu tion the hon. member has presented. I don't think it's so much the view of the hon. Member for Bow Valley as of the Social Credit Party. I say that because I really like and respect the Member for Bow Valley, but I find a great deal of difficulty with this motion. I think it is as bankrupt a motion as the heritage fund would be after he finished spending it. I have some difficulty asking myself why the hon. member would sponsor this resolution.

If we look at this resolution in the context of the one presented earlier this year, when he suggested that we bail out not only home-owners but the farm and business sector, it's really part and parcel of the same sort of approach. It's a bail-out. This resolution is really an attempt to provide a massive bail-out for all sectors of the economy and an attempt to shift the blame for high interest rates to the province and not the federal government.

Again, that is reflected in the earlier resolution moved by the hon. member, when he said that the government should accept the responsibility to provide additional protection for Albertans. This resolution is exactly the same as the earli er one. The variance is simply that it targets the support to home-owners. I think it's political opportunism at its worst, Mr. Speaker. It ignores the economic realities of the western industrialized world and is morally and intel lectually bankrupt. It's morally bankrupt because it offers something that is unrealistic.

It's like providing candy to a child, knowing full well you're not going to be able to give it to that child. It's a nice thing to be able to do in a short term, but when the consequences are realized, it's a very, very sad gesture. I'd like to look at some of the problems involved in taking this kind of course. I don't think the hon. member recognizes the role of the federal government in banking and interest rates. Of course, that's a traditional problem with the Social Credit Party. They had some difficulties in the 1930s with their banking and finance programs.

I think that was the subject of some court cases before the Supreme Court. The hon. Member for Bow Valley and his party do not seem to have recognized the lessons inherent in that, and they're still trying to have the provincial government involved in setting interest rates and bailing out the economy. They haven't learned the lessons of 45 years ago, Mr. Speaker. I don't think it recognizes the emerging economic order in the world either, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member has only to listen to the hon. minister of international trade who talks of the rapid economic development in other parts of the world.

You should talk to the minister of the increasing industrial activity in Brazil, Singapore, the Phi lippines, and know full well that those economic actors are going to be competing with us. There's a massive shift of capital and economic activity going to the OPEC countries and countries like Japan, Korea, Brazil; all of whom are going to be significant competition for us. So I don't think he really appreciates what's going on in the world. The Cancun conference in Mexico is a good example of the shift of economic resources, the shift of economic capital, that's happening in third world countries.

Canada's problem is going to be one of the politics of scarcity. A number of authors have written on this topic. Richard Barnet authored a book called The Lean Years: Politics in the Age of Scarcity. It's a pretty good explana tion of the kinds of problems we're going to be facing as an industrial world faced with a shortage of a lot of raw products, capital, and energy. This motion simply is a wishful gesture, a wishful idea, that we can return to the past, that we can bail people out and everything will be wonderful.

I'd like to ask the hon. member what would be required to make a significant contribution to the 700,000 house holds in this province. Mr. Speaker, I understand there are 700,000 households in the province: people who rent or own houses. Would $1,000 a year be enough to save all these people from the hardship the hon. Member for Bow Valley and the Social Credit Party talks about, the dire straits? Mr. Speaker, $1,000 over 700,000 households is almost $1 billion.

I think we have to recognize that if we bail out this sector of the economy, we're going to be under very severe pressure to bail out other sectors of the economy. So we can't just do this in isolation. We also

November 5, 1981 ALBERTA HANSARD 1481 have to recognize that a $1 billion contribution to the housing sector this year would also require us to make considerable efforts to bail out the industrial sector, the farming sector, and the builders themselves. We probably would be looking at another $2 billion there, just to bail out the industrial, construction, and farming sectors of the economy. Mr. Speaker, that's only a 5 per cent boost in income, if you look on a household basis. The average income in this province is approaching $20,000. A thousand dollars is peanuts.

Five per cent is not going to make a huge difference in the purchasing power or in the ability of a home-owner to compete. Mr. Speaker, 5 per cent just isn't enough to make an appreciable difference, but that's a $3 billion outlay. What we're probably looking at to make a significant impact on home ownership costs or the costs of running an industrial plant, a construction company, or a farm is probably something approaching the order of 10 to 15 per cent of their gross purchasing power. In this year alone, that would require using up all the resources of the heritage fund in one year.

But it should be disturbing to the Member for Bow Valley, his Socred friends, and all members of the Assembly to think that economists are predicting that the problems we're in in 1981 are going to be with us in 1982, and probably in 1983 if our economics are as bad as they seem to be. After we've used up the heritage fund and we've bailed out the home-owners and the industrial and farming sec tors, as was envisioned in the earlier motion presented by this member — I'm not creating a proposal that doesn't reflect what was proposed by the hon. Member for Bow Valley in Motion 217, the stepchild of Motion 221.

We've spent our heritage fund and we've bankrupted the prov ince, and to what end? We won't be able to provide any assistance in 1982 or fiscal year '83. We're right back to where we started. Mr. Speaker, before we embark on such a foolish program, surely we should ask ourselves: is it necessary? How many foreclosures have there been in this province? How serious is the problem? How many business failures have been reported? How many farms have been lost to banks? On that basis, Mr. Speaker, we should look at developing programs. We should also ask ourselves what the role of government is.

Is the role of government to protect people from everything? I'm probably one of the people in my caucus who is a red Tory. I argue for assistance for people in need. But I don't think we've reached that stage. As the hon. Minister of Housing and Public Works has pointed out, there has not been an appreciable number of foreclosures in this province. This motion rings hollow as the efforts of the Socred Party in bringing hardship cases to the attention of the minister, because they haven't done it, Mr. Speak er. They haven't taken hardship cases to the Minister of Housing and Public Works.

That suggests to me either they're not doing their job . . . DR. BUCK: I gave out the telephone numbers so they could call him directly. MR. COOK: Walt, that's a facile gesture, and you're used to that. It's not a sincere effort, Mr. Speaker. The actions of that party are as hollow and as unimaginative as the party has been since they've been out of office. Mr. Speaker, we're a compassionate government; we do want to help people who are in need. Shouldn't we be helping people like the handicapped, senior citizens, peo ple on low incomes?

Wouldn't that be the real test of a compassionate government, directing its energies to help ing people who really need assistance? Mr. Speaker, are we doing that? I think the easy answer obviously is yes. In the fiscal year '80-81, we spent $1.7 billion. Surely that is a compliment to the Minister of Housing and Public Works to convince his colleagues to develop programs like that, and also suggests that this government is al ready doing what the hon. Member for Bow Valley is asking us to do, which is to help home-owners, but it's being targeted at the people who need it most. Mr.

Speaker, the hon. minister recently asked for another $200 million. That assistance has added almost 3,000 new units to CHIP. That's incredible. Alberta Report this week notes that construction housing permits have gone up from roughly 19,000 issued last year to 26,000 issued this year. This is in a period of dire straits, that the hon. Member for Bow Valley and the Prime Minister of Canada referred to.

But quite clearly, the Department of Housing and Public Works is targeting its resources and is providing the assistance necessary for Albertans, particularly those who need it most: those on low incomes, the handicapped, and the elderly. The re cord of senior citizen lodge construction — for example, the Sir Douglas Badar Towers for the handicapped here in Edmonton — and the financing for new homes for low-income Albertans are a real credit. So, Mr. Speaker, the government is doing its best to shelter Albertans from the effects of high interest rates where it's needed most. I'd like to ask another question.

Again, I can't believe the intellectual bankruptcy of this party. Who is hit hardest by interest rates? Is it the person who is 40, 50, or 60 years old and is in the final years of paying out his mortgage? Or is it the person who is in his 20s or 30s and trying to buy a house? Yes, Mr. Speaker, the person who is paying out his mortgage is facing some immediate hardship. Yes, it's going to be a little tough. But I think you have to recognize that home ownership is two things. It's both putting a roof over your head and a shelter against interest rates. It's an investment.

It's as much an investment as going to the bank and buying stocks or bonds. Land has been speculated upon, and I don't think it bears any reflection at all to the true value of what it was a few years ago. If you look at the costs of housing as a relationship to income, then quite clearly housing costs have risen two and three times what they were a few years ago, as a ratio of income to housing prices. Why is that? It's because we've had a market that has put money into the housing industry and we've used housing as a shelter against inflation.

It's been a shelter against inflation just as much as it's been a shelter from the elements. For the person who is 40 or 50 years old, who has gambled and speculated — and probably done well — this kind of initiative by the hon. Member for Bow Valley will be very, very helpful. But what you're doing, Mr. Speaker, is setting up two classes of citizens. You're set ting up two orders of individuals in Alberta, because you have to remember that 50 per cent of the people own homes and 50 per cent rent. The 50 per cent who rent are much like I am. They're probably young and just starting out.

The 50 per cent who own homes are the people who are already established. This program would enrich them by providing more capital to put into their homes. It would provide more capital for them to increase the equity in their homes. It would enrich the rich and impoverish the poor, because the money being used is my money. It's my share of the energy dollars. It's my share of the taxation that comes out of this province. My money is going to be put into his home, and I can't afford

1482 ALBERTA HANSARD November 5, 1981 to buy a home yet. So with the Social Credit housing policy, Mr. Speaker, we have set up two classes of citizen. We've set up the class of citizen who already owns a home but is in some difficulty, but he'll be bailed out. And we're going to provide a little bit of assistance for renters so they can still rent. Mr. Speaker, that's not good enough. But I guess that's good enough for a person who has come out of the '30s and for a person whose roots are pretty deep in the past and who has a view of history and that's all; no view of the future. I'm sorry, Mr.

Speaker, but this party just doesn't have any vision. This party just doesn't appreciate what the real problem of someone who is in their 20s or 30s trying to buy that house is going to be. I'd suggest that if we adopt this proposal, this request, we will create a landed, older aristocracy, thanks to the Socreds. We will create another group of people who are impoverished, poor, young, and transient, doomed never to own a home. Perhaps that's an MLA's assessment. Is that really the member's objective? I hope not. I'm sure it's not.

I think it's just the misguided view of an opportunistic party scrambling, trying to claw at a few straws, in an attempt to get power. It reminds me of the funny-money ap proach to politics of 1935, when they thought they would buy Albertans' support with a little bit of cash. Have they changed since 1935? Not really. Mr. Speaker, I think this sad little motion that the hon. member and his Socred friends have put before the House really reflects a callous view of politics. It's just a buy-off. It's Tammany Hall politics at its worst.

Tam many Hall was the home of some corrupt politicians in New York City in the late 1800s who used to adopt the approach that you could buy votes. They would provide Christmas hampers and, occasionally, a turkey at Thank sgiving: all this in exchange for a vote. I think this cheap style of buying votes is evident here in the House today. We have a Social Credit party that is still approaching politics the way it did in 1935. It hasn't learned any lessons since 1971. In fact, it's getting older and more sedentary in its ways. I'd like to wrap up by asking a couple of questions.

We obviously can't do what the Socreds are doing. I think we're doing largely what we have to do as a government. But there are some other questions that I think have to be asked. What can Canadians and Albertans do to protect themselves against high interest rates? A couple of sugges tions have been made, and I would like to add to them. The first is that we have to create a society that's more efficient in its use of resources, because we're into an era of scarce resources, energy and food shortages. Yes, we have lots of those things in abundance here in this province. We're fortunate and we're blessed.

But that won't always be so. In housing, we should be clearly adopting a different kind of lifestyle. We should be trying to return to the smaller lots and homes my parents knew, that are charac teristic of the older neighborhoods in the cities of Edmon ton and Calgary. You don't have the large, sprawling ranch houses that people built in the '50s and '60s. You have the compact, little bungalow on a small lot that companies like Nu-West are now marketing as smart homes. They're compact and everything a person really needs. That's what we should be returning to.

We should recognize that there are limits to our growth. We don't need those large, sprawling, inefficient homes. We should also be looking at trying to increase the density of our housing. We should be trying to do that so it reduces our cost of servicing houses — servicing in the initial con struction phase and in the period after the home is built. We should be taking a second approach, Mr. Speaker, and doing what the Premier suggested we do. That is, this country should be increasing its productivity.

We should be trying to export our products like natural gas on the world market and get more foreign exchange into this country. We're not doing that. Our transportation diffi culties are eliminating our ability to deliver grain. Our National Energy Board is restricting our ability to deliver gas. Those are just two products that are of interest to Albertans. I'd like to add just one more. That is, as a province and a country, we should be investing in technology and services that will provide us with new and unique prod ucts to sell on the world market.

Again, I would like to refer to the fine efforts of the Minister of State for Economic Development — International Trade, who has been selling our products. That's exactly what we should be doing. We should be selling our technology, our skills, and our manufactured products to the world. In order to do a better job of that, it seems to me that we should be investing in research and development. This government has really got to step up the pace there and provide new, unique products and services for the world market. Finally, Mr.

Speaker, I think Canadians have to be come a little more realistic in their level of expectations. I think the Social Credit party should do this as well. Maybe if they would listen instead of laughing among themselves — because I don't think they are listening, Mr. Speaker. The Socreds should become a little more realistic and realize that even in a rich province like Alberta, we can't afford to buck the world economic system. We can't afford to bail out everybody who has some difficulty. But the Socreds don't realize that.

The Socreds are continuing their same cheap approach to politics, which is to offer money: the same sort of approach they offered in 1935. The hon. member is completely unrealistic in his world view. He's attempting to fight economic reality. Mr. Speaker, as I explained earlier, there isn't enough money in the heritage fund to do that for more than about one year. After that, he would bankrupt us. What would we do in fiscal year '82 or '83 when we won't have any money left, and we won't have a heritage fund left either.

His ideas and his Socred friends are as bankrupt as the heritage fund would be after they finished with it. I'd like to reiterate the points I made earlier. Their approach would create two classes of citizen: a rich landed aristocracy who already own homes, and a poor impoverished youth who could not afford homes but would be doomed to be tenants. I think the resources he wants to use to bail out the provincial economy would far better be used in trying to create new products and and trying to redesign our economy so we are more efficient and better able to withstand the storms that are about to break around us.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to suggest to all hon. members that this resolution deserves no support whatso ever. It's a sad, sad example of bankrupt Tammany Hall politics. It's a cheap, shoddy attempt to buy votes. MR. MANDEVILLE: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question? MR. COOK: I have two more minutes of my allotted time. Sure.

November 5, 1981 ALBERTA HANSARD 1483 MR. MANDEVILLE: Mr. Speaker, I'm not very imagi native, so I took my plan from one drawn up by one of the biggest corporations in Canada, the Royal Bank of Canada, and the Calgary real estate board and the Bank of Montreal. All my suggestion was, was that the Minis ter of Housing and Public Works, under the Alberta Home Mortgage Corporation and the treasury branches, make the same concessions as the Bank of Montreal, the Royal Bank of Canada, and the real estate board in Calgary. As I said, I'm not very imaginative, so my plan came from one already in effect with the banks.

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the hon. member what he has against the Home Mortgage Corporation and the Alberta treasury branch coming up with the same pro gram. I'm not asking for any money; I'm asking to extend it. Is he disagreeing with the concept the Bank of Canada, the Bank of Montreal, and the real estate board have come up with? MR. COOK: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is being too modest. He also suggested in his speech that there be a $100 a month pay-out to tenants, and that an equivalent amount be given to home-owners who are facing renewals.

That's what I took objection to, and that's what I added up: 700,000 households is close to $1 billion. I'm against a $1 billion pay-out. MR. MANDEVILLE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I just want to correct the hon. member on the $100 pay-out. I never made any indication I was going to make any. What I said is that we have a renters' assistance program, and possibly in some cases we should supple ment the renters' assistance and it should be paid out to all of them. I said supplement the renters' assistance. DR. BUCK: Mr. Acting Speaker, the hon. Member for Olds-Didsbury, may I ask the hon.

Member for Edmon ton Glengarry a question? MR. ACTING SPEAKER: A short question. [laughter] DR. BUCK: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I have to ask the hon. member's indulgence. Will the hon. member permit a question? MR. COOK: Mr. Speaker, my time has been exhausted. I've spoken for 30 minutes, and I think that questions and my answer would . . . AN HON. MEMBER: Coward. MR. COOK: . . . go into others. [interjections] But with unanimous consent of the House, certainly I'd welcome trying to instruct and enlighten the hon. Member for Clover Bar. DR. BUCK: Is that the same as saying he will permit a question, Mr.

Speaker? [interjections] Is the hon. Mem ber for Edmonton Glengarry in a position to indicate who the Heritage Savings Trust Fund belongs to? Is it the people of Alberta, to be used for the benefit of the people of Alberta? Or is the hon. member on the government side indicating that the money belongs to the government, or the Tory party? MR. COOK: Mr. Speaker, I think the Heritage Savings Trust Fund is exactly that: a savings trust fund for this generation and future generations, not just for the benefit of the hon.

Member for Clover Bar, although he would like to use that and sell Albertans on the idea he can just offer a little cash and buy their votes. But how is he going to buy the votes of kids yet unborn, who are going to be here in 20 or 30 years? That's what I object to, Mr. Speaker: a callous approach that seeks to reward the present generation in a narcissistic way and not consider the responsibility of future generations. That's the shal low approach that he seems to adopt regularly. [interjections] DR. BUCK: I heard the comment from the hon. Attor ney General when he said that's a stupid question. Mr.

Speaker, after listening to a stupid speech, I had to ask a stupid question. AN HON. MEMBER: On a point of order by a stupid member, Mr. Speaker, I apologize, I couldn't quite un derstand that remark, sir. DR. BUCK: The hon. member didn't understand the remark, Mr. Speaker. For the hon. member from . . . AN HON. MEMBER: If you want to speak, speak. Give us a speech, Walt. MR. BRADLEY: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If the hon. Member for Clover Bar wants to give us a speech and his thoughts and ideas on this question, the House would be pleased to hear from him. DR.

BUCK: I'm pleased to listen to the $18,000 a year man, Mr. Speaker, the Member for Pincher Creek-Crowsnest. MR. ACTING SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Ed monton Mill Woods has the floor. MR. PAHL: Thank you very much, Mr. Acting Speaker. I appreciate the very fine, non-partisan way that you provided me with the floor. I must compliment the Acting Speaker and our full-time Speaker on their activi ties in the constitutional conference. Obviously, the ac cord that was reached today was not that far away from the Alberta position so capably represented by the Acting Speaker and other members of our House.

I would like to acknowledge their contribution. [applause] In speaking to Motion 221:

Be it resolved that the Assembly urge the govern ment to take immediate steps to assist home-owners renegotiating mortgages at substantially increased rates and tenants facing rapidly increasing rents. Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure that we as a government should assist home-owners in renegotiating mortgages at substantially increased rates. I wouldn't encourage them to take any higher rates than they possibly can avoid. But I would like to compliment the hon. Member for Bow Valley on bringing forward this motion. Obviously he is doing it out of a concern for the broader population.

I know that in his constituency, homes are far between, and there are probably not that many renters. Obviously when he put this motion, he certainly did have in mind the interests of Albertans who live in urban areas also. As that's where my constituency is located, I compliment him on his initiative. However, just to set the record straight and to put the debate in proper perspective — and I know the hon. member did acknowledge there was some modest con

1484 ALBERTA HANSARD November 5, 1981 tribution by the Department of Housing and Public Works — I think it might be worth while, of interest to this Assembly, and of assistance in the debate, to briefly outline some of the highlights of where the Alberta Home Mortgage Corporation, the Alberta Housing Corpora tion, and the budget of the Department of Housing of approximately $1.7 billion is being directed in budget year 1981-1982. First: senior citizens.

I think it's important to empha size our concern for senior citizens, for certainly the pressure of an increased shelter cost on people who are on fixed incomes has to be very disconcerting and one that we would all be concerned about. There is $148 million directed to senior citizens' self-contained lodges, nursing homes, and grants. In terms of rental accommo dation, which the hon. member's motion addressed, there is the core housing incentive program, with $328 million directed to it which will provide an estimated 6,350 units.

In addition, there's the modest apartment program, and I don't think we're indulging when we undertake programs like this in what you might call give-away housing, as was referred to by some of the members of their party. I just don't think that's what you might call give-away housing. The modest apartment program has dedicated $74 million and will produce an estimated 1,600 rental accommoda tions. In addition, there are 500 units in mobile-home parks, for $7.5 million. Municipal non-profit housing and community housing together will provide an estimated 2,170 units, for a total budget of about $130 million.

In terms of home ownership, I realize this is a program — although I don't think criticized by the hon. Member for Bow Valley — that seems to find a fair amount of disfavor in his party policy. They're against these give away housing programs that are really putting pressure on things in Alberta. If that's a problem, I just wonder why the criticism isn't directed, in terms of this motion, at putting people into housing in the first place. Surely, Mr. Speaker, that's where the problem is. It's trying to help people build for the future. When these mortgages come up for renewal, then we have a problem.

I think you have to be consistent. When you put the criticism that way, I think it also has to be indirectly directed at the Alberta family home purchase program, the farm home lending program, the rural and native housing programs, the rural home assist ance programs, and the rural mobile-home programs, for an estimated 10,000-plus units and a budget cost of $609 million in fiscal 1981-82. Assistance is also directed at keeping down the cost of housing in terms of land assembly and development.

These numerous programs, such as the revolving trunk servicing program and the land banking and development program, would amount to just about $200 million in fiscal 1981-82. Similarly, in order to keep our pioneer citizens in their own homes, we have the Alberta pioneer repair program, spending some $28 million; handicapped housing grants, emergency re pairs, and home conversion programs. All address the primary program of supply of housing. Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member who proposed the motion is certainly, should I say, a student of the market place.

I know he knows that whether you're talk ing about housing or pork bellies, supply keeps the price down. When it comes right down to it, interest rates are really the cost of money. So if the supply in terms of housing is kept down, then the cost of the commodity similarly will be kept down. I would just like to digress for a moment and indicate some of the problems we're having with rental accommo dation and some of the observations by the housing industry, where the high and volatile interest rates were a major reason in the decline of housing starts in 1980, for example.

With respect to rental construction, the combi nation of high interest rates, inadequate rents, and the elimination of the MURB incentive by the federal gov ernment — which was reinstated — led to a decline in apartment starts from 17,300 in 1978 to only 8,400 units in 1980, even though in 1980 the rental apartment vacan cy rates in both Edmonton and Calgary were less than 3 per cent. Those rental starts would have been even lower, says the housing industry, if it hadn't been for the incen tive programs offered by the Alberta government. I've already outlined those.

Just to sum up the incentive programs I've mentioned: the Alberta rental investment program, the Alberta mu nicipal housing incentive program, the innovative re search incentive program, the neighborhood improve ment and community services program, and others. All amounted to some $39 million. Again, we also had housing affordability, subsidy and operating costs, and they projected at right around $97 million. I think it's important to address that supply side of the concern, Mr. Speaker.

In fairness, I think the hon. member has directed at a program that would fix — he suggested 15 per cent for Alberta Home Mortgage Corporation loans and, say, the treasury branch. He used the word "stop-loss". Unless you were pretty rigorous about adding on the money that was paid in subsidy, in effect, in terms of capital, I suppose it would be a bit of a start-loss program. It concerns me a little that this program, if totally underwritten by the government, would have the effect of somebody else paying the subsidy for people who ad mittedly are in difficult conditions.

The people who would be paying the subsidy would be those who already own their homes and people whose mortgages didn't happen to come up for renewal within the period of time the hon. member mentioned in his motion. People who already own their own homes, probably our elder citi zens, would be absorbing that subsidy. Like the hon. member who proposed the motion, I would be hopeful that the federal budget would address this problem, and we would have the solution directed and found in the area where the problem belongs. [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] Mr.

Speaker, in conclusion I have to say that I certain ly commend the hon. member for his initiatives, because I know the problem is not so severe in his constituency. It's certainly severe in the urban areas. I think I would have to point out to the hon. member, though, that the private sector is responding in the way he indicated. A consider able number of budget dollars are going into housing. Finally, I would have to again reinforce his point that the problem started with the federal government's insis tence on high interest rates. High interest rates are infla tionary because that's that high cost of money.

I hope he will not feel too badly when I say that although I commend his initiatives, I think we should be true to that market place that the hon. member and I both think has the answer to the solution, and continue to direct our efforts at convincing the federal government to change its wrong-ended fiscal policies. Thank you.

November 5, 1981 ALBERTA HANSARD 1485 DR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, with respect to Motion 221, I commend the Member for Bow Valley for bringing it forward. As he stated, I am hopeful there won't be other confrontations between various levels of govern ment, especially with a view that the federal government will be able to deal with some of its own housekeeping matters, especially with regard to an issue as important as this. I must confess that with respect to my colleague from Edmonton Glengarry, I have great admiration for his energy and a fair amount of admiration for his intellect.

I think he has great potential. I really was interested in some personal opinions he offered this afternoon, but I would prefer to disassociate myself from some of them. I realize there is not too much time for me to continue to speak with respect to this motion. I have been quite interested in the amount of material I'd been able to engender on such a topic.

But I have been concerned that in various communiques between the premiers and the federal government, from time to time, especially over the last number of months, they have been consistently ap pealing to the federal government to convene a confer ence with respect to the whole matter of the economic situation in Canada. This day of course is an historic occasion, we trust, with respect to the history of this great country of Canada. I think one of the great offshoots of it should be the fact that the federal government can now get down to dealing with the economic situation which confronts this country.

With respect to this province, I know there are a tremendous number of programs in place. With regard to '81-82, I note with great interest that we have on board 24,655 additional units coming into the stream of hous ing, with a budget of well over $1 billion. In a recent letter, the Alberta Council of HUDAC commended the provincial government for the amount of input to the economy it has been doing in the whole area of housing. But they also realize that that extended mass of subsidies cannot be supported or assumed on a long- term basis.

They put out a number of other problems which must be addressed with respect to delivery of mortgage support, land planning practices, taxation, transportation, and manpower shortages. Again, I commend the member on bringing the motion forward. He certainly has brought to our attention an ongoing concern that all of us have with respect to the renewal of mortgages and the rental difficulties. I'm cer tain that come next spring, the pressure will be even much more manifest for all of us to deal with, no matter to which level of government your motion is directed. Mr.

Speaker, in view of the hour, I move adjournment. head: PUBLIC BILLS AND ORDERS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT BILLS AND ORDERS (Second Reading) Bill 222

An Act to Amend The Alberta Evidence Act MR. GOGO: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 222,

An Act to Amend The Alberta Evidence Act. The purpose of the Bill is to provide that, with regard to communication from constituents, members of the Legislative Assembly be in a privileged position. Specifi cally, the Bill calls for an addition to

Section 35 of The Alberta Evidence Act,

Section 35(1): Where a person is called as a witness he shall not be required to give evidence as to the existence or sub ject matter of any communication whether oral, writ ten or otherwise between him [or her] and a member of the Legislative Assembly, if the subject matter of the communication related [directly] to the role of the member . . . of the Legislative Assembly. Conversely, no member of the Assembly could be called to give evidence on the same basis. Mr.

Speaker, in my view, the whole purpose of this is to recognize the fact that members in this Assembly today are in a somewhat unique position when it comes to dealing with their constituents. I believe there are many constituents who become engaged in conversations with members of the Assembly, sometimes say things under the belief that what they're saying is information that is indeed privileged, not being aware that both they and the member could be called upon to testify in a subsequent court action. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, this Bill affects every member of this Assembly.

Currently, only three groups of people are not affected by questions of privilege in the province of Alberta. One would be under

Section 35 of The Alberta Evidence Act, members of Executive Council of the Legislature, where for very good reasons they are not required to reveal either documents or the source of documents on the basis that it would be detrimental to the public interest. Secondly — and one that all members are familiar with — is the situation involving a lawyer and client relation ship.

Indeed, it would be somewhat naive to expect a lawyer representing his client in court, his mouthpiece as it were, to be compelled by a judge to divulge information given to him in confidence by his client which would automatically lead to a conviction. The third area — and one that's not generally known — is in the province of Alberta. I believe Alberta was about the first of Canada's provinces to institute The Ombudsman Act.

Section 23 of The Ombudsman Act states that the Ombudsman does not have to disclose anything to any court of law in terms of information he or his staff may have learned as a result of a resident of Alberta, again regarding — and this applies to the totality of the Bill — only those matters which are under the jurisdiction of this Legislature; in other words, civil litiga tion as opposed to the Criminal Code of Canada.

In view of the comments made by the Member for Calgary Millican today — indeed an historic day in Canada with the agreements between most of Canada's provinces and the government of Canada — it's interest ing to read a document on privileges and immunities. I quote from it: the Canadian federation was not yet two years old — I assume that was 1869 — when there was a very strong disagreement between the dominion of Cana da and the provinces concerning the question of privileges and immunities of members of local — which, I assume, would now read provincial — legislative assemblies.

The government of Canada today objected very strong ly to the provinces having any such privileges accorded upon the members of the House of Commons or the Senate of Canada which were taken directly from the British House of Commons. They were very concerned that the provinces of Canada would have the audacity to expect to adopt anything in the way of privileges that were then in existence for the House of Commons. How we've grown since 1869. Today, as all members know, certain privileges are accorded to members of this As

1486 ALBERTA HANSARD November 5, 1981 sembly, again dealing only with matters of jurisdiction of the province of Alberta; that is, civil litigation. As members are aware, they can do or say most anything, I guess, in this House and be privileged to the extent that they cannot be held accountable. Mr. Speaker, it would be interesting to quote just what parliamentary privilege is.

It's defined generally as the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collec tively as a constituent part of the high court of Parlia ment and by members of each House individually, with out which they could not discharge their functions and which exceed those possessed of other bodies or of indi viduals. Thus privilege, though part of the law of the land, is to a certain extent an exemption from the or dinary law. I say that because we all know that if people were to go out on Jasper Avenue and say certain things, they could certainly be held liable. Mr.

Speaker, in many cases in their daily lives, I think members of this Assembly are told things by people that even members deem to be privileged. Little do they know that indeed they can't be. As a matter of fact, the record indicates that several years ago, in the '75-79 period, several of the members of the Assembly were contacted by certain people in Alberta regarding a religious organi zation. If recollection serves me correctly, some members were asked to appear in court as witnesses and produce such letters. Until that time, most people thought it was a privileged communication.

As I'm sure other members are aware, privilege does not exist even between physicians and their patients. In certain jurisdictions in Canada now, mainly Newfound land and Quebec, privileges are afforded between mem bers of the clergy and their parishioners. The statutes in British Columbia make provision for marriage counsel lors and their clients. It's also interesting to look at the basis on which this Bill could be considered; in other words, what criteria should be involved to afford a member of the Assembly a privileged communication.

I think it would have to go without saying that the matter we would be considering would be a constituent/member relationship. Undoubted ly, that would be hard to enforce in this day of mobility, when people move so rapidly. However, I suppose in the final analysis, it wouldn't be that difficult to prove. Just one or two other criteria. The first would be that communications — whether written, oral, or otherwise — must originate in confidence and understood that they would not be disclosed.

The element of confidentiality would have to be essential to the full satisfactory main tenance of the relation between the two parties. So it would have to be understood that both the person who was giving the confidence and the member taking it would have to have clearly that understanding. The rela tion must be one in which the opinion of the community ought to be diligently fostered. For this to work, I don't think for one moment that we could have members of the Assembly not adhering to the criteria. Too often, members of this Assembly are viewed sim ply as people who make laws.

I think the job goes far beyond that. Most people recognize that MLAs, by their very nature and daily lives, are ombudsmen in effect, dealing between concerns that citizens generally have with their government and the government. I'm sure I speak for all members of the House when I say that a daily part of our lives is dealing on a one to one basis between the constituent who has a problem and the department of government he's involved with. At times like that, things are said and certain statements are made in confidence.

Should they come to civil action, I don't think in any way the member should have to disclose either the content or who it was with. Mr. Speaker, when one considers the name of The Alberta Evidence Act, one automatically perceives that we're dealing with something that's of a criminal nature. It has to be clearly understood that we're only dealing with the province of Alberta and the jurisdiction of the province. I would think there are members in this Assem bly who rather than reveal a source would indeed be found in contempt and go to court.

Just three or four years ago in Ontario, there was a case members may be aware of where a member spent several weeks in court because he refused to testify or disclose the source of his information. I would think it's probably an unfair situa tion to not amend The Alberta Evidence Act to provide some type of privilege to the member to withhold that information. I realize there are those people in the province who would feel slighted if we were to pass this amendment — certainly lawyers. Lawyers are the only people who now have that privilege. I suppose it's a privileged privilege for those people.

Frankly, I don't understand why they would object to it, on the grounds that members of the Assembly are uniquely different from them. Surely they have the best interests of their client at heart. The con stituent of the member indeed may well be no different from the client of that lawyer. I anticipate a strong interest in this Bill because it affects each member of the Assembly. I certainly en courage all those in the Assembly to support it. Thank you very much. MRS. FYFE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to congratulate the member for bringing forward this very important issue.

As I went through some background material related to the Bill itself, I found that it indeed is a very complex subject but one that is of extreme interest. Privilege itself is a very complex aspect of Canadian law, and I think it takes some doing to understand pre cisely what privilege means to the individual member. The Bill itself deals specifically with information, com munication, that is provided to a member and restricting the member's use of that or holding that information in confidence.

In order to sort of set out parameters, I'd like to broaden the context just a bit beyond what the Bill has set out, only for the purpose of trying to explain what privilege can mean to members of the Legislature or the House of Commons. The case I would like to refer to is one that has very fundamental significance for parliamen tary democracy, which is enjoyed by at least 1 billion people throughout the world. I'd like to review the events leading up to a situation that happened in the British Columbia Legislature, where a wiretap had been placed on a member's telephone.

It began in June 1980, when a special committee on privileges was appointed by the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. This committee reported to the House that an unauthorized interception of communication of a member of the Legislature had amounted to a breach of privilege and contempt of the House. This was preceded by a wiretap, an investigative measure which is frequently used and is covered under the Criminal Code. In fact, rather stringent procedures must be complied with in order to have a wiretap in place. It has become rather commonplace. During the conversations between two persons in Brit

November 5, 1981 ALBERTA HANSARD 1487 ish Columbia who were suspected of criminal activity — the investigation being carried out by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police — a member's name was mentioned on a number of occasions. Evidence given in the Supreme Court of British Columbia disclosed that the persons involved in the conversations had in fact been conspiring to bribe the member for the purpose of personal gain.

At this point in time, someone in the investigative team must have concluded in the interests of justice that it would be necessary to seek court permission in order to intercept the communications of the member. After numerous committee hearings in the Legislature, the decision would eventually show that police powers do have limits in a democratic state and that they must strive to protect the privilege and confidentiality of communica tions between constituents and their elected representa tives. After having gone through the process of getting permission, permission was granted.

In fact, it was re newed on several occasions. Fifty-three thousand conver sations were intercepted by the police. The police ob tained authority to tap the conversations at the [mem ber's] home, in his Legislature office, and in his constitu ency office. On March 3, 1980, the matter was raised in the Legisla tive Assembly by the member, and the Speaker was asked to take the matter under advisement. Several days later, the Speaker allowed the usual motion to be moved on the basis that a prima facie case of breach of privilege and/or contempt had in fact been made.

From this point, a special committee of privileges was struck. This commit tee was instructed to ascertain and carry out certain preliminary investigative work. Accordingly, they had discussions with the RCMP who had carried out the investigations, with Crown counsel, and a number of dif ferent persons who had been involved. The committee sat on a fair number of occasions, heard several dissertations, and reviewed material and reports from other jurisdic tions dealing with this very old law of privilege. The issue in fact was an emotional one, and still is.

On one hand, the police took the position that they had legally sought and obtained the permission to put an interceptor, or wiretap, on the member's phone lines. On the other hand, the committee emphasized that the members of the public have the undoubted right to communicate with their member, whether it's a member of the Legislature or of Parliament, unless — and this is very important — there is any direct implication with crime on the part of the member. The public should have the right to feel free to communicate as a constituent without the shadow of anyone listening in or intercepting that call.

The committee felt that the heart of the matter was that the mere mention of a member's name and the disclosure of plans by certain persons suspected of criminal activity were not in themselves reasonable grounds to allow the wiretap to take place and interception of private conver sations between that member and his constituents. In the strongest possible terms, the committee emphasized that the Members of the Legislative Assembly have no im munity from law, so there is no attempt in the recom mendations or deliberations of the committee to insinuate that the member can be immune in any way from law.

It would have been easy in some situations for the lay person to misinterpret that aspect, so that point was certainly emphasized very heavily. The principle clearly discounts the notion that any special privilege resides for the member himself, but in effect the privilege is for the constituents. The question of a possible breach of privilege or contempt did not appear to have been reviewed by the the investigating persons in the first place, the RCMP. Ap parently they had not considered this possible aspect, feel ing they are totally within their rights and jurisdictions to place this tap.

During its deliberations, the committee was unable to find a single precedent in any jurisdiction where a breach of privilege or contempt had occurred. The case, as submitted, was adopted by the House on August 22, 1980.

The recommendations from that select committee included recommendations that after extensive evidence and consideration, it was the unanimous opinion of members of the committee that the described actions of the RCMP constituted a breach of privilege and contempt of the House, and that this relates to the inter ception of the member's communication from the legisla tive office and from the constituency office while the member was in session. They did not include the calls that had been intercepted when the House was not sitting and calls that had been intercepted from the member's home; only from the two areas.

A further recommendation of the committee was that no action be taken against the RCMP as there was no available evidence upon which the persons involved could have been aware that such actions in fact were breach of privilege or contempt of the Legislature. The committee made no specific findings relating to interception of the communications that involved his home when the House was not sitting. Further, the committee was unanimous in its opinion that fear of intercept, such as this one, ob structs the member in his or her performance of duties.

Also they emphasized there could be no immunity where there is evidence the member may in any way be impli cated in the commission of a crime. In this situation, there was no evidence of any criminal activity on the part of the member in any way, shape, or form. The committee concluded that the benefit of privilege was to the constituent and to the public at large, not to the member himself. The member has no special status, but holds his privilege in trust for the electorate, and privilege only extends to the extent of the role as a legislator.

I use this example not as it applies directly to the Bill itself, Mr. Speaker, but I do feel it is one that has to be considered as part of the total picture in considering privilege and the rights the electorate has in being able to communicate with the person who really is acting as mediator on their behalf. Perhaps in this province, where we have an ombudsman who is active and works on behalf of individuals, there are certain areas where it is not necessary.

On the other hand, there are many constit uents who may wish to call their member on issues that are extremely sensitive, and issues which would not apply to the direct jurisdiction of the provincial government and would not have direct course to the ombudsman. So I think there's a whole area in which constituents would be well served by the inclusion of this clause in The Alberta Evidence Act.

I support the member's Bill on the basis that communication between MLAs and their con stituents would be fostered and that the democratic pro cess would be enhanced if communication were free and were allowed to remain confidential. I hope other mem bers will support this bill. MR. COOK: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to rise and support the Bill presented by the hon. member . . .

1488 ALBERTA HANSARD November 5, 1981 MR. SPEAKER: Order please. I wonder if the hon. Member for Edmonton Glengarry and the Assembly would agree that the hon. Leader of the Opposition might revert to Introduction of Visitors. HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. head: INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to intro duce three friends and guests in this Legislature at this time. First of all, I'd like to introduce a former Premier of the province, the Hon. Harry Strom — I'd like him to stand — Mrs. Ethel Wilson, a former minister of the government, and Mr.

Orvis Kennedy, executive director of the Socred Party. head: PUBLIC BILLS AND ORDERS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT BILLS AND ORDERS (Second Reading) Bill 222

An Act to Amend The Alberta Evidence Act (continued) MR. COOK: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to rise and support the Bill the hon. Member for Lethbridge West proposed to the House today. It seems particularly ap propriate on a day when we have some former illustrious parliamentarians in our gallery that the hon. member has had the opportunity to have this Bill presented, because it does reflect a keen interest and sense of parliament, an interest in the traditions and history of parliament, and a desire to make the Legislature and parliamentary tradi tions grow. They are a dynamic force in Canadian poli tics.

I'm interested because obviously the member has a concern for the privileges of individual members of the House, and he wants to strengthen members in their role as servants of the public. Mr. Speaker, I know that in my own case, often the kind of information I receive from a constituent in a particular case is not the kind of information that would be well served if it were made public in a court of law if the government didn't appreciate a particular point of view or didn't support a case and wanted that informa tion turned over.

I think this is really an attempt to strengthen the role of the individual members of the Legislature and their service of the public, either the constituent or the general public as a whole, in public policy matters. I'm thinking of cases where a constituent has a pension problem, or we had a case recently with the Church of Scientology in this province where some member's correspondence was requested by a court of law to be produced as evidence. I don't think the individuals there or constituents were well served in having that correspondence made public.

I know some activities are planned for the next few minutes. I would like to close my remarks by saying I think the member has done the House a service by bringing forward this concept and idea. I think it bears further scrutiny. I certainly give it my wholehearted support and look forward to its eventual passage. With that, Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to adjourn debate. MR. SPEAKER: Does the Assembly agree? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, I know you will be able to overview very briefly for hon. members what is now proposed.

In a moment, I will move that it be called 5:30 and that the House be adjourned until 8. Maybe I can deal with that first, and indicate that the House will sit this evening. We propose second reading of Bills on the Order Paper, with the exception of Bill No. 69 and Bill No. 80; otherwise, in order as they appear on the Order Paper. Mr. Speaker, we now look forward to the procedures which will take place in the Assembly after the Assembly adjourns for the afternoon, and to welcoming certain people on the floor of the Assembly. I would leave the addressing further of that matter to you, Mr.

Speaker, and move that we call it 5:30. [The House recessed at 5 p.m. and resumed at 8 p.m.] head: GOVERNMENT BILLS AND ORDERS (Second Reading) Bill 77 Judicature Amendment Act, 1981 MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill No. 77, the Judicature Amendment Act, 1981. Basically two principles are involved in this Bill. One assures consistency in the question of legal representation on behalf of boards, agencies, and any emanations of the provincial Crown. It assures that insofar as a case in volves a constitutional matter, the representation will be that of the Attorney General or his designate.

Perhaps the other point, Mr. Speaker, is really only a variation of the existing law, which already requires that notice be given to the Attorney General in any case in which it is proposed that a constitutional issue be raised.

I might mention that from time to time our experience was that notice was sort of scattered, intermittent, or uncertain, and that sometimes our counsel were appear ing after notice had been given of the fact that a constitu tional point was to be argued; probably notice strictly speaking within the terms of the existing legislation, in that they did in fact have notice but very often inadequate notice.

Considering the apparently increasing number of constitutional cases that were coming forward, up until the present time at least, we thought it would be good if a simple and reasonable requirement for 14 days' notice to the Attorney General was put in. The Act also applies to notice that must be given to the Attorney General of Canada in cases in which a statute of Parliament rather than a statute of the province might be argued in the constitutional sense. Mr. Speaker, those are the principles, and I recom mend that members support Bill No. 77. [Motion carried; Bill 77 read a second time]

November 5, 1981 ALBERTA HANSARD 1489 Bill 85 Labour Relations Amendment Act, 1981 MR. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure this evening to move second reading of Bill 85. By way of explanation, Mr. Speaker, several amend ments to The Labour Relations Act are included in Bill 85. The first really is a matter of clarification. The amendments result in the ability of officers of the Labour Relations Board to question an employee during regular working hours without his employer being present. They also enable officers of the Labour Relations Board to question the employee during a hearing of the board.

But under our regular statutes, of course, the employee is not bound to respond if the response would be incriminating to the employee. One of the more substantive matters contained in Bill 85 has to do with making sure that employees involved in trying to obtain representation by a trade union via the petition route are protected in terms of the employer's knowledge of who has actually signed the petition.

When we passed The Labour Relations Act, the protection now afforded to employees who become members of a trade union by signature of a membership card and payment of a union fee — in which case there is a prohibition on the Labour Relations Board from indicating to the employer who has signed — was inadvertently not afforded to employees who signed petitions. The second amendment contained herein will afford that protection to petitioners. The third amendment contained in the legislation is perhaps the most substantive. Again, it relates to an attempt to correct an oversight in the existing Labour Relations Act.

The amendment we're addressing this evening relates only to the instance of a newly organized or certified trade union or bargaining unit. In that in stance, the process is that the employer cannot change working conditions from the date of application for certi fication until the Labour Relations Board determines that a majority of the employees in normal circumstances favor union certification.

Once a decision is rendered, if the decision is positive — that is, if the union is certified — there is an automatic 30-day freeze on any changes in the relationship between the employer and employees, unless it is by mutual consent. The proposed amendment continues that 30-day freeze, post the date of certification, and permits that if either party — the union or the employer — within that 30 days, serves notice to bargain collectively, on the day of the service of notice is commenced a period of 60 days in which a work stoppage is not possible, either by reason of lockout or strike.

If a collective agreement is not in place at the end of that time frame, the parties are free to proceed in the normal course in the event of a dispute. The reason for the provision is to assure that if the parties desire to bargain collectively, they will be in a situation where that honest desire has time to mature: time to understand what collective bargaining is, time to appreciate the individuals they're dealing with on each side of the table, time to go through the bargaining process, hopefully without any spontaneous or inadvert ent error and work stoppage.

It is believed that if in 60 days the parties cannot come to a collective agreement and do not mutually wish to continue making that effort, then they should be in a position to go to the next stage, which is a level of economic warfare, if you wish. It could be work stoppage. The 60 days identified here are selected because in the normal course of renewal of a collective agreement, there is a provision in the statute that the collective agreement may be open not more than 90 days before completion of the agreement and not less than 30 days. Sixty days is obviously the average of 30 plus 90.

It was felt that that, combined with the provision of the 30-day freeze, would provide both parties sufficient opportunity to negotiate should they choose to do so. I should point out that if neither party served notice to commence collective bar gaining during the 30-day freeze, which is automatic after certification, they obviously could move directly into a work stoppage at the end of the 30 days if that would be their will. I should mention that this point is sensitive to some small degree. The consultation we have had has provided two sets of advice from the trade unions.

As you will appreciate, the nature of trade unionism in Alberta today has presented us with

Document details

Collection	Alberta — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	19811105
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	L19 S3 19811105 1430 01 han.pdf
Language	en
Format	json
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	7b8dd1396801cf70d515b88a9d247accf9b10e54

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