Alberta Hansard — 9 December 1975, Afternoon sitting (14:30) (Legislature 18, Session 1)

19751209

Alberta — Debates (Hansard)

December 9, 1975 ALBERTA HANSARD 1479 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA Title: Tuesday, December 9, 1975 2:30 p.m. [The House met at 2:30 p.m.] PRAYERS [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] head: INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take this opportunity, on behalf of myself and the hon. Member for Edmonton Ottewell, Mr. Ashton, to introduce 55 Grade 9 students from the Clover Bar Junior High School. They are accompanied by their teachers, Mrs. Chmelyk and Mrs. Mann. They are seated in the public gallery. I would ask them to rise and be recognized by the Legislature. MR. COOKSON: Mr.

Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce to you, and through you to the Assembly, a group of students from the Canadian Union College at Lacombe. They are accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Brendel, and Mr. Weis. They are in the members gallery. I would ask that they rise and be recognized by the Assembly. head: ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Cow-calf Industry MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct the first question to the Minister of Agriculture and ask if he was in a position to announce to the Unifarm convention this morning some assistance to the cow-calf operators in Alberta. MR. MOORE: Mr.

Speaker, my comments this morning at the annual meeting of Unifarm were about 20 to 25 minutes in length. I would deal very briefly with them by saying that I did announce to the Unifarm convention that the Government of Alberta would be taking a new initiative in Ottawa on December 17 by way of suggesting to the Government of Canada and other provincial governments that we would be interested in talks which would lead to cost-sharing, between provinces and the federal government, of a cow-calf stabilization program on a national basis. That would be c o n d itional , Mr.

Speaker, upon other provinces moving out of their so-called insurance programs now in place. MR. CLARK: A supplementary question to the minister. Has the minister had an opportunity to discuss with his counterparts, the Ministers of Agriculture in Saskatchewan and Manitoba — especially Manitoba — the concept of their pulling out of the program they have? I wouldn't include B.C. in there, because we're hopeful of a change before the 18th. MR. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, I have not had an opportunity to talk directly to the Minister of Agriculture in Manitoba in that regard.

I have talked with the Minister of Agriculture in Saskatchewan with regard to the beef cattle industry. I think it's important, however, for members to know that all ministers of agriculture from the provinces across Canada will be in attendance at a meeting with the federal minister on December 17 and 18 in Ottawa. It's at that point, Mr. Speaker, that we want to put forward our proposal. MR. MANDEVILLE: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. minister. Could he briefly outline the program announced this morning at the Unifarm meeting in regard to the disaster insurance plan? MR. MOORE: Yes, Mr.

Speaker, I had

1480 ALBERTA HANSARD December 9, 1975 intended later today or tomorrow to issue a news release in that regard. Basically it's this. Three years ago the Government of Alberta put into place a compensation plan, called the disaster indemnity fund, for farmers who lost animals in disasters. While that has worked fairly well to serve the needs of people who have been in difficult circumstances because of disas t e r s , we wanted to put it on a better basis.

The challenge to come up with a workable package of insurance to assist the livestock industry in the event of disaster was put forward to the private insurance industry in Alberta by my predecessor, Dr. Horner, some months ago. I’m pleased to say that the industry has co-operated well and has brought forward a comprehensive all-risk program that covers a variety of things, such as unknown diseases for which there is no cure, and other disasters that may affect beef cattle operators in particular. We expect, early in 1976, to be a n n o u n c i n g the full details of the insurance package.

We expect, as well, that it will be on sale by private insurance agents throughout Alberta at that time. I might note, Mr. Speaker, that the premium has been reduced to 50 cents per $100 by way of a stop-loss feature provided by the government. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. Minister of Agriculture relating to the first question dealing with cost-shared programs which was posed by the Leader of the Opposition. In the government's proposal, has any consideration been given as yet to the extent of cost-sharing?

Is the proposal going to be 50-50 between the federal government and the provinces, or has any consideration been given yet by the province as to what, in fact, cost-sharing will mean in dollar terms? MR. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, we have not given any consideration to that. You must ap p r e c i a t e that agreement would have to be reached by all provinces which are beef producers as well as the federal government. I thought it better to put the idea across, then have some discussion with the other provincial ministers and the federal minister as to what degree of cost-sharing we might get involved in. MR. CLARK: Mr.

Speaker, a supplementary. Has the minister had the opportunity to discuss with the federal minister this concept of federal-provincial cost-sharing as it affects the cow-calf operator? MR. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, I expect to be having that opportunity on December 17. I would say, however, that I did discuss that and a number of other matters at 7 o'clock this morning at a breakfast meeting with the federal Deputy Minister of Agriculture. MR. MANDEVILLE: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, going back to the insurance program and the disaster fund.

What part will the government be playing in the disaster insurance plan? MR. MOORE: Really, Mr. Speaker, the situation was one where the industry was able to get the premiums down to a level of 90 cents per $100 for that very comprehensive coverage which is provided. It was our feeling that was not a low enough premium rate to attract a large segment of the industry into buying that kind of insurance.

Really what we're involved in is a stop-loss feature which provides that the Government of Alberta will pay for any losses the underwriters incur above 115 per cent of the premium to a maximum of 150 per cent of the premium collected. Thereafter the losses will again revert to payment by the underwriters. MR. MANDEVILLE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. What will be the final date for taking applications on the present disaster fund? MR. MOORE: Well, Mr.

Speaker, until we've finalized the actual date on which the sale of the insurance will begin, and have some idea of the manner in which producers are accepting that insurance package across the province, it's not possible to set an exact date as to when we will be phasing out the disaster indemnity program presently in operation. MR. TAYLOR: A supplementary to the hon. minister. Does the present fund cover any claim that could have been insured? MR. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, that's been one of the very great difficulties in administering the present livestock disaster indemnity program.

There is a line between what could readily be insured and what isn't insurable. There is a line, as well, between losses which resulted from improper management and losses which were unavoidable. In every case a judgment decision has to be made as to which side of the line you fall on. That was one of the reasons for wanting to get an insurance type of package in place, so that we wouldn't be faced with that difficulty. Unifarm Contract MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the minister with regard to his remarks this morning.

I understand he outlined terms of reference for a $50,000 contract with Unifarm. My question is: what type of services will Unifarm provide the government for those dollars? MR. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, although I do not have it with me, I'd be only too pleased to provide a copy of the contract we have signed with Unifarm. Basically, it's one of providing information to us through their various locals and through their staff here in Edmonton with regard to a variety of things which might help us in

December 9, 1975 ALBERTA HANSARD 1481 making policy decisions with respect to agricultural programs, agricultural s t a b i l i z a t i o n , and a variety of other ongoing discussions which we are involved in from time to time. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the minister. Are other organizations in the province — such as dairy organizations, hog organizations, NFU — eligible for the same type of contract? MR. MOORE: Well, Mr.

Speaker, hon. m e m b e r s would know Unifarm is the type of organization which has as members, in addition to its direct membership of farmers across the province, a good number of commodity groups. With respect to many of those commodity groups like the Western Stock Growers’ Association and so on, it was our feeling that Unifarm would use them as some of the resource base for the kind of information which they are indeed g a t h e r i n g for us. So I wouldn't expect we'd be involved in signing any agreements of that nature with other commodity organizations in Alberta. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr.

Speaker, a supplementary to the minister. Will the grant be made available to Unifarm in one contract? Would the $50,000 be made available to Unifarm in one lump sum? Or will it be provided to them on the basis of work performed ? MR. MOORE: First of all, Mr. Speaker, it is not a grant. It is a payment which we've arranged to Unifarm to provide c e r t a i n t h i n g s to us.

My recollection of the contract is that the payment will be made over a period of time: an initial sum at the beginning of the contract, a final sum on completion of the contract, when it has provided us with the kind of information which the consulting contract actually requires. MR. R. SPEAKER: A supplementary to the minister. MR. SPEAKER: Followed by a final supplementary by the hon. Member for Drumheller. This is undoubtedly an important topic, but we've covered it more fully than others. We may come back if there's time. MR. R.

SPEAKER: Will the funds which are made available be issued by special w a r r a n t , or will they be taken from some other expenditure in the Department of Agriculture? MR. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, I'm told the budget of the Department of Agriculture is of sufficient nature that we have funds for such worth-while objectives as getting Unifarm to carry out this work for us. DR. BUCK: Which appropriation? MR. NOTLEY: Three million dollars [inaudible]. MR. TAYLOR: A supplementary to the hon. minister. Does Unifarm have members in all rural constituencies in the province? MR. MOORE: Mr.

Speaker, I really can't answer that directly, but it's my information their membership is generally spread quite well throughout the Province of Alberta. Highway Accidents Report MR. LITTLE: Mr. Speaker, I would address my question to the hon. Minister of T r a n s p o r t a t i o n . Would he inform the Legislature what plans he has for this document, the MacKenzie report, otherwise known as the report of the Task Force on Highway A c c i d e n t s , which was commissioned by the Hon. Helen Hunley? DR. HORNER: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Because the report does involve several departments, we have set up, under the chairmanship of one of my senior people, an interdepartmental group or task force to assess and evaluate it and hopefully to report early in the new year in regard to recommendations which might be taken early in the traffic safety area. Camrose Area Expansion MR. STROMBERG: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources. Is the minister p r e p a r e d to grant the city of Camrose permission to go ahead and develop 710 residential lots? MR. GETTY: No, Mr. Speaker. MR.

STROMBERG: Oh. [laughter] A supplementary to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Because the city of Camrose must have permission immediately to start development of these 710 lots, would the minister be prepared to overrule the present policy of the ERCB in regard to development situated near or on sour gas fields? MR. JOHNSTON: No, Mr. Speaker. MR. STROMBERG: Mr. Speaker, I'll direct my question tomorrow and see if I can get more help from the Premier. Dodds-Round Hill Project MR.

CLARK: A supplementary question to the Minister of Environment, the Minister of Transportation, the Minister of Energy, or the Premier. It deals with the application before the ERCB with regard to the development at Dodds-Round Hill. Has the government taken a position yet on that portion of the proposal that would

1482 ALBERTA HANSARD December 9, 1975 make it essential that a number of the employees in the Dodds-Round Hill project, if and when it goes ahead, will commute to Edmonton by bus rather than live in the Ryley or Camrose area, which is a part of the proposal as it stands now? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, I think the question's clearly hypothetical. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. It certainly isn't hypothetical to Ryley or Camrose. Beef Marketing Inquiry MR. TESOLIN: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of comments by Dr.

Hu Harries, a member of the commission of inquiry into the marketing of beef and veal, criticizing the cattle market system in a statement that the fellow without supplementary m a r k e t information and without a strong b a r g a i n i n g position is going to end up taking the low end of the price, what steps might your department take to better the bargaining position of the small cow-calf producer, and might we look forward to legislation to remedy such possible inequalities? MR. MOORE: Mr.

Speaker, we haven't yet had the benefit of the final report by the federal beef inquiry and recommendations that might be contained therein. But there certainly is a recognition that marketing information among producers differs very, very considerably. Through the department, in close co-operation with the Alberta Cattle Commission and others, we have been trying to develop a more effective means of providing market information to farmers and cattlemen throughout Alberta. We will c o n t i n u e that. I don't look toward a situation where we would be introducing legislation to correct the situation.

I think it's more in the line of a better information and educational service with respect to livestock marketing. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Is the minister in a position to advise the Assembly when he expects the report of the federal commission looking into beef marketing in Canada? MR. MOORE: No, I'm not, Mr. Speaker, except from the talks we've had with Dr. Harries when he indicated the report could be expected early in 1976. Deerhome Institution MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct my question to the hon. Minister of Social Services and Community Health.

It concerns the controversy over the question of contracting out certain services at Deerhome Institution in Red Deer. Mr. Speaker, is it the government's intention, or is it considering contracting out certain services, such as food and laundry, at Deerhome in Red Deer? MISS HUNLEY: Mr. Speaker, we've asked for proposals so that we might consider whether economies can be practised in delivery of service in that particular institution. At the present time, no decision has been reached. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a further s u p p l e m e n t a r y question to the hon. minister.

Has the government received any proposals from the private sector at this point in time? MISS HUNLEY: Yes, we have, Mr. Speaker. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a further s u p p l e m e n t a r y question to the hon. minister. Is it the government's intention to discuss the matter with the CSA, and have meetings either taken place or been scheduled? MISS HUNLEY: The CSA has been involved in -- of course, the employees at the ASH Deerhome were involved in providing i n f o r m a t i o n in order that proposals could be developed. An interesting side effect of this also, Mr.

Speaker, has been that the employees themselves have suggested that perhaps they might indeed be able to submit a proposal whereby they could improve the delivery of service. This interests me a great deal, because I think it's a very important development. They will be given the same opportunity to make a presentation. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a further s u p p l e m e n t a r y question. Can the minister advise when the government will in fact be making a decision? Has any deadline for presenting the proposals to the department been given both to the employees who presently work there and to the private sector?

MISS HUNLEY: Yes, I will be advising m e m b e r s of the CSA of a deadline which I would like them to meet. I expect to be doing that this afternoon. Bingo MR. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the hon. the Attorney General. On November 26 the minister advised that he was trying to keep the peace among applicants for bingo sponsorship and was also trying to accommodate the groups that would like to be engaged in bingo sponsorship.

From persistent telephone calls I'm able to gauge the ability to keep the peace, but I'm wondering about the ability to arrive at an accommodation of the would-be s p o n s o r s , Mr. Minister. MR. FOSTER: Mr. Speaker, I think it's fair to say that it's a little difficult to keep the peace in the bingo community. However, I've been endeavoring to do so, and I think it has met with some success, judging from a recent meeting I had with the Edmonton

December 9, 1975 ALBERTA HANSARD 1483 Federation of Community Leagues. My intention, very briefly, Mr. Speaker, is that probably we should not approve any more large bingo halls in Edmonton, that we should endeavor to keep bingo as a community activity. However, we recognize that we are not in a position to shut down existing bingo halls. Our objective will be to allow as many groups as possible, who otherwise qualify, to participate in bingo activity and to earn some funds to support their community associations.

A number of community organizations and others in Edmonton at the moment are on the outside of the situation and would like very much to have access to bingo-playing opportunity. We are attempting to restructure our licensing program in order that we can allow some of these new organizations to come in and to have some of the action, if you'll pardon the expression. At the same time, implicit in that assumption is the assumption that some of the organizations which are currently major players in the bingo scene will not have as high a degree of participation in bingo activity in the future.

Now there's a danger there, and that is that some of these organizations currently very involved in bingo are fully dependent on bingo to support major capital projects. So if we intend to scale down their level of p a r t i c i p a t i o n and therefore profit-making, we must do so over a staged interval of time. It's complicated, Mr. Speaker, but I'll try to be brief.

I anticipate that we will design and develop a new licensing system that will stage the reduction of the major players in the bingo business in Edmonton, and stage in, over a period of time, the opportunity for the new organizations to become involved in bingos. MR. YOUNG: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Pursuant to that response, could the minister advise what kind of consultative p r o c e s s or mechanism may be in place now, or is contemplated, to gain the co-operation of all who have been involved and all who wish to be involved? MR. FOSTER: Mr.

Speaker, there are many different groups and organizations involved in bingo activity. My comments generally relate to the city of Edmonton. The c i r c u m s t a n c e I'm describing doesn't really exist elsewhere in the province. Probably the largest organization is the community leagues, and I think the single body representing the community leagues is the Federation of Community Leagues, who I have met and made this proposal to. I think I have their very substantial agreement on the objective we have in mind.

I have asked the federation and the community leagues if they will empower the federation to be the main point of contact between this department and the community leagues. I have the general feeling that the federation is willing to perform that function, to be the liaison with us; in fact, that the federation is willing to do some aspect of regulation itself to ensure that the participation by interested community leagues is fair and reasonable in a highly competitive circumstance. There are other organizations, like religious organizations, to which we do not have any formal links.

However, the Edmonton Council of Churches has been meeting with us. Mr. John Lee of the department has been and continues to carry on discussions with many organizations in the hope we can establish some kind of council we can relate to on an ongoing basis, to establish consistent policy. MR. YOUNG: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Will all those agencies or sponsors who either had commitments or felt that they had commitments from the department to go ahead with bingos, and have undertaken longer term financial obligations in consequence, be contacted and involved in this process? MR. FOSTER: Mr.

Speaker, there are some organizations which feel they have a c o m m i t m e n t . I want to be very clear on this. I don't want to suggest that those who feel they have a commitment, have a commitment, as I think the hon. member said. There are some people who feel they have a commitment. For example, I think the North Side Bingo [Association] felt it had a commitment. That is not so. At this time we have no intention of approving the North Side proposal. Colebi perhaps thought it had a commitment.

I think that has s u b s e q u e n t l y been clarified by meetings between myself, others, and the Colebi organization. I cannot operate on the basis of those who think they have a commitment. If there is a commitment, it will be clear, will be in writing, and will be well understood by both parties. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, supplementary to the Attorney General with regard to the licensing of games of chance.

Approximately two years ago, the former Attorney General indicated there was going to be a review of the $5 per game licence charged for games of chance at casino nights held by the Lions clubs, Kinsmen, and various groups. Has the Attorney General reviewed that fee? If so, what is the new fee at the present time? MR. FOSTER: Mr. Speaker, in the time I've been in this office we have not to my knowledge changed any fees in this gaming or lottery area. I have a most comprehensive brief from the RCMP.

I've been d i s c u s s i n g that, and will be discussing that with them in some detail, and have been working with the department. One of the suggestions is that the gaming and lottery

section should be self- sufficient and, in view of the fact there is something like a gross take of some $22 million in this

section generally in the province, that we should substantially increase our licensing fees in order that the return to the province from the fee would reasonably pay for the cost of the service. If we're going to get involved in a much more highly regulated gaming and

1484 ALBERTA HANSARD December 9, 1975 lottery area of government, involving more people and greater activity by the police in checking situations, it seems reasonable to me that we would consider increasing the fees. I have no specific recommendation to make at this time, however, but will be looking at it on an ongoing basis. MR. TAYLOR: Supplementary to the hon. M i n i s t e r . Why is it necessary to control the fun-loving game of bingo? Is somebody complaining about it? Nobody has to go. MR. FOSTER: Mr.

Speaker, I have said on more than one occasion and will say now, there are times I wish I had little or absolutely no jurisdiction in the matter of bingo. Bingo is not a major law enforcement problem or major criminal activity. It could become so, but I'm not suggesting it is at the moment. The Criminal Code of Canada, however, vests certain jurisdiction in the Lieutenant-Governor. The Lieutenant- Governor has assigned that jurisdiction to the Attorney General, and I'm obliged to carry out the law. DR. PAPROSKI: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary on that topic.

Would the Attorney General indicate when he anticipates new regulations regarding bingo to come into force, especially regarding the larger bingo groups which want to rent large facilities? MR. FOSTER: A very important question, Mr. Speaker, and I think I should be as clear as I can on that point. I hope the organizations which are awaiting some final policy document and a series of r e g u l a t i o n s , and anticipating that they will arrive on January 1, 1976, are not d i s a p p o i n t e d . But I'm afraid they must be.

It is simply impossible to totally review and restructure the lottery and gaming activity in the province and the regulating capacity of government with respect to that activity. I don't anticipate significant changes in the short run. I said earlier in my remarks that it will be necessary to modify part of our licensing procedure to phase down the level of activity by some organizations, and phase in activity by other organizations. But I do not expect a comprehensive or detailed policy or regulation in this area for many, many months. That is more true of casino activity than it is of bingos.

Urban Transportation Research Program DR. WEBBER: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct this question to the hon. Minister of Transportation and/or the hon. Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs. What is the current status of talks, which began some time ago, between the Governments of Ontario and Alberta re joint funding of an urban transportation research program? DR. HORNER: Mr. Speaker, further developments since that time by the federal g o v e r n m e n t have meant that, in fact, there has been a cessation of talks between the two groups with regard to any financial commitment. MR.

SPEAKER: While we don't ordinarily interrupt the question period to revert, there does appear to be a little scheduling problem here. Would the hon. members allow the hon. Member for Edmonton Beverly to revert to Introduction of Visitors? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. head: INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS (revers ion) MR. DIACHUK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to introduce to you today, and to members of the Assembly, a gentleman seated in your gallery who is known in many parts of Alberta.

Formerly a fisherman, a cowboy, a gold prospector, a miner, a carpenter, he was employed by the provincial government from 1926 to 1949 with the then Department of Public Works as a carpenter supervisor. He came to Alberta via Montana from Nova Scotia, originally from England: Mr. W i l l i a m Elliott, celebrating his 100th birthday today. Mr. Elliott and your family, would you please rise. head: ORAL QUESTION PERIOD (contin ued) Christmas Assistance MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the hon. Minister of Social Services and Community Health. A very short explanation is necessary first.

Because of the postal strike, a number of organizations which gather funds to help the needy at Christmas are finding themselves short of funds. Has any application been made to the provincial government for special grants to help these organizations provide cheer for the needy this Christmas? MISS HUNLEY: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker. Cow-calf Industry (continued) DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the hon. Premier, and it's not the new Draft Lougheed movement. I would like to know if the government has now definitely decided not to directly help the cow-calf operator on an emergency basis?

December 9, 1975 ALBERTA HANSARD 1485 MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, as I've said before, it is a matter which has been dealt with by the Minister of Agriculture. I will refer the answer to him. MR. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, there never was — and I've said that a number of times in this Legislature, Mr. Speaker — any d e c ision by this government not to help the cow-calf operator.

I would refer the hon. member to my remarks in Hansard of Thursday last and to the extensive remarks I've made in question period during the course of the last two or three weeks about the kind of initiatives which have been taken by the Government of Alberta to assist the cow- calf producers. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. Minister of Agriculture. Has the government set any target date as a result of the proposal the minister is going to put to the federal- provincial meeting of ministers of agriculture on, I believe, December 17 and 18?

Has the government established a target yet for a federal plan until some kind of unilateral action is taken by the province? MR. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, I think it's d i f f i c u l t from the point of view of an i n d i v i d u a l province to establish some kind of target date on which you might conclude matters of this importance that are federal-provincial in nature and involve no less than 10 governments.

I would prefer rather to put the proposal forward first to other ministers of agriculture and see, after the meeting of December 17 and 18, what time frame we might be looking at in order to conclude some arrangements. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. If the minister is not able to convince the federal minister and his p r o v i n c i a l colleagues of this new initiative as of today, does the Alberta government itself have a contingency plan it can put into effect by January 1, 1976? AN HON. MEMBER: Order. MR.

SPEAKER: With respect, the hon. l e a d e r ' s q u e s t i o n is baldly hypothetical. He perhaps could phrase it in an acceptable way. MR. CLARK: Then a second try at it. Has the government a contingency plan if the minister is not successful in getting an agreement from the federal government? AN HON. MEMBER: Order. MR. CLARK: The answer is no. MR. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, I recall having said in September and October that we did not want to move with regard to provincial assistance to the cow-calf operators because we felt a national stabilization program was forthcoming from Ottawa.

In- deed, because that was not forthcoming, in late October we announced the r e - e s t a b l i s h m e n t of the cow-calf advance p r o g r a m for the 1975-76 year. Some three weeks ago I said in this Legislature, and I reiterated this morning, that the Alberta Agricultural Development Corporation would be assisting individuals on an individual basis, in terms of refinancing, extending loans and interest rates, and that kind of thing. This morning, Mr.

Speaker, I took the third initiative from an Alberta point of view that's been taken during the last last two months, because of a lack of action from Ottawa, by suggesting to Ottawa and other provincial governments that we would be interested in entering into discussions that would lead to cost-sharing of a national beef stabilization program between governments. I don't know of any government, Mr. Speaker, which during the course of the last two months has taken as many initiatives and as many steps as we have to try to bring about a national stabilization program for beef producers. MR. NOTLEY: Mr.

Speaker, a supplementary question. Has the minister asked the task force on agriculture to consider options for alternatives in the event that the federal government does not agree to a national stabilization plan for the cow- calf industry? MR. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, I don't know what task force the hon. member is referring to. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, the task force of government MLAs set up to deal with a g r i c u l t u r e and rural life. MR. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, hon. members should be aware that the establishment, after the March 26 election, was of a caucus committee on agriculture of which the hon.

Member for Lloydminster is chairman. Indeed the caucus committee and I on numerous occasions have discussed matters of concern with regard to the livestock industry, and will continue to do so. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a further s u p p l e m e n t a r y question to the hon. minister, specifically dealing with options. Has the caucus committee been asked to analyse various alternatives and contingency plans, in the event that Ottawa does not move? MR. MOORE: The answer is the same, Mr. Speaker.

I have discussed matters of c o n c e r n with regard to the cow-calf industry with the caucus committee, on numerous occasions. Federal Housing Grant MR. MUSGREAVE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address this question to the Minister of Housing and Public Works. It's my u n d e r s t a n d i n g that the federal government is going to give a levy of $1,000 for building medium-priced housing, I would like to know if it includes

1486 ALBERTA HANSARD December 9, 1975 apartments, or does it just apply to row housing? MR. YURKO: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier, this program of supplying to the municipality through the province a $1,000 grant for each modest home would be done by way of agreement, and all the conditions of the various agreements I anticipate will be signed have not been worked out as yet. However, from discussing this matter with the minister in Ottawa recently, my u n d e r s t a n d i n g s u g g e s t s that it will apply to rental accommodation as well as accomodation intended for home ownership. MR.

MUSGREAVE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Could the hon. minister advise if those cities anticipating putting on extra levies of $500 for redevelopment would have the $500 deducted from the $1,000? MR. YURKO: Mr. Speaker, I don't remember any such condition being discussed with respect to the program.

However, it would suggest that those large municipalities that have been discussing the levying of a $500 charge towards new accommodation, be it either rental or ownership accomodation, might give some reconsideration to their thoughts in light of the fact that they will be receiving $1,000 from the federal government with respect to this new program. Northland School Division MR. SHABEN: My question, Mr. Speaker, is to the Minister of Education. It concerns the study known as the Report of the Northland School Division, also known as the Worth report.

I'd like to know if the minister intends to implement any or all of the recommendations contained in that report. MR. KOZIAK: Mr. Speaker, many recommendations are contained in that report, some of which are directed to the Department of Education and some of which are directed to the Northland School Division. Of course those directed at the Northland School Division would have to be looked at by the school division, and it would have to determine the efficacy of implementation.

Many of the recommendations directed to the Department of Education are now being looked at, some have been acted upon, and some are being studied. Perhaps one of the most important recommendations in terms of the life of the teachers in the Northland School Division is the one dealing with housing conditions and isolation bonuses. The Department of Education has initiated a study of isolation bonuses under the a u s p i c e s of Dr. Gunnar Wahlstrom. Housing is also being studied.

One of the recommendations of the report, with respect to the nomination to the board of Northland School Division by the Department of Education, has been implemented with the nomination of Dr. Marrinier to that board. Many will be looked at as time progresses. MR. SHABEN: A supplementary. Will the p r o v i n c i a l government's 11 per cent guidelines affect implementation of some of the r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s contained in the report? MR. KOZIAK: Well, Mr. Speaker, that's a budgetary item, and the budgetary process has not yet taken place.

I think we'd probably have to wait until the budget is brought down in the spring session to determine if that in fact will be the case. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. minister. Is he in a position to report to the House on the sections of the report that deal with transfer to other school divisions of schools presently in the Northland School Division? I refer specifically to Menno Simons school, but my question relates to all of them. MR. KOZIAK: Mr. Speaker, no, at this time I' m not. Anti-inflation Programs MR. CLARK: Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to direct my question to the Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs. It flows from the comments made yesterday by the federal Minister of Finance that in fact the federal government would be prepared to enter into an agreement with a province which was committed to the anti-inflation program for a period of 18 months. Is the minister now in a position to indicate how close we are to an agreement? Does this remove the major obstacle to an agreement? MR. HYNDMAN: Mr.

Speaker, I think it would be more appropriate if that subject were dealt with by me and the hon. opposition leader either in debate at second reading of the bill this afternoon or in committee study tonight. I'd be happy to elaborate on it at that time. NFU Convention MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct this question to the hon. Solicitor General. Is it true that the Government of Alberta hired or engaged several city p o l i c e m e n to cover the National Farmers Union convention ? MR. FARRAN: I have no knowledge of that, Mr. Speaker. MR. NOTLEY: Mr.

Speaker, a further s u p p l e m e n t a r y question. Would the hon. minister look into it and report back to the L e g i s l a t u r e tomorrow? MR. FARRAN: Well, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would explain the circumstances in a little more detail, perhaps I'll understand.

December 9, 1975 ALBERTA HANSARD 1487 MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, to explain and to pose the question again, in the light of reports that, in fact, two city policemen have been engaged by the Government of Alberta to cover the National Farmers Union convention in the Plaza Hotel. My question really is: will the government ascertain whether that is a correct report? SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order. MR. FARRAN: I now understand the question. No, it's not true, so there's no point in wasting time in investigating it. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a further s u p p l e m e n t a r y question.

Was there any discussion with the city police authorities concerning covering the National Farmers Union convention? SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order. MR. FARRAN: Not by my department. MR. BATIUK: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the minister. Is it a possibility that maybe the hotel had asked the police to supervise? DR. BUCK: [Inaudible] call in the Mounties, John. ORDERS OF THE DAY head: WRITTEN QUESTIONS 216. Mr. Notley asked the government the following question: 1. What arrangement does the Alberta government currently have concerning self-insurance of government vehicles? 2.

What is "stop loss" level, beyond which the government has purchased motor vehicle insurance? 3. What is the total amount paid by the government for motor vehicle insurance: (

a) during the 1971-72 fiscal year, (

b) during the 1972-73 fiscal year, (

c) during the 1973-74 fiscal year, (

d) during the 1974-75 fiscal year, (

e) projected for the 1975-76 fiscal year? MR. LEITCH: We accept the question, Mr. Speaker. head: MOTIONS FOR RETURNS 212. Mr. Notley proposed the following motion to the Assembly: That an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing: A copy of all studies dealing with the development of new and existing townsites in the coal branch area south-west of Edson, particularly regarding the viability of the present Cadomin townsite. MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to address my attention to the order requested by the hon. member for Spirit River- Fairview.

The government will take a position against that motion, Mr. Speaker, for the following reasons. When the government has acted, then I believe we have a public responsibility to account in many ways. One of those would be the filing of data or studies from which policy may have evolved. However, in this case, with respect to the coal branch town studies, we are now developing our policy and guidelines, and have not taken any position. Therefore, the request of the hon. member for Spirit River-Fairview must be denied. MR. SPEAKER: Could the hon. member close the debate? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. NOTLEY: Mr.

Speaker, perhaps I could just close the debate by asking a question of the minister and, with the concurrence of the House, perhaps he could answer. I understand the point he was making. However, if government policy is developed and finalized, presumably then the government would be prepared to issue this information. AN HON. MEMBER: Not necessarily. MR. NOTLEY: I take it, Mr. Speaker, from the minister's remarks that the answer would be, yes. But I'd like him to answer if he could. MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, that will depend, of course, on the type of information and circumstances at that point.

I certainly can't predict what will happen in the future. [Motion lost] 215. Mr. Notley proposed the following motion to the Assembly: That an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing:

(1) A copy of all studies done by the Department of Manpower and Labour and/or the Department of Advanced Education and Manpower on the use or potential for use in Alberta of temporary imported labor under an 11-42 category of visa or similar arrangement

1488 ALBERTA HANSARD December 9, 1975 since January 1, 1972; (2) a copy of all studies relating to the flow of immigrants into the province in terms of the demand for immigrant labor, the effect on wages in Alberta, and the supply of immigrant labor in relation to demand since January 1, 1972. DR. HOHOL: Mr. Speaker, I'll have to ask for this motion for a return to continue to stand. MR. SPEAKER: Having heard the request by the hon. minister, does the Assembly agree? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. SPEAKER: The motion will stand over to the next Order Paper. 217. Mr.

Notley proposed the following motion to the Assembly: That an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing: A copy of an Energy Resources C o n s e r v a t i o n Board report entitled "Alberta's Requirements of Energy & Energy Resources, 1975-2004" dated December, 1974. [Motion carried] 218. Mr. Notley proposed the following motion to the Assembly: That an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing:

(1) An itemized statement of costs, for each member of the Executive Council listed separately, of remodelling, renovating, r e d e c o r a t i n g and/or refurnishing the office (

s) occupied by that member of Executive Council, during the period August 31, 1971 through March 26, 1975; (2) an itemized statement of costs, for each member of the Executive Council listed separately, of remodelling, renovating, r e d e c o r a t i n g and/or refurnishing the office(

s) occupied by that member of Executive Council, during the period March 27, 1975 through November 30, 1975. MR. SCHMID: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the motion stand. MR. SPEAKER: Does the Assembly agree to the request by the hon. Minister of Government Services and Culture? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. SPEAKER: The motion will stand. 219. Mr.

Notley proposed the following motion to the Assembly: That an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing: A copy of all assessments, interim or otherwise, done by any official of the Department of Energy and Natural Resources and/or of the Energy Resources Conservation Board or any individual or agency working on their behalf, of the effect of the Alberta Exploration Plan of December 1974 on the level of oil and gas exploration in Alberta. MR. GETTY: Mr.

Speaker, with regard to this motion, which as members can see asks for an assessment, "interim or otherwise," regarding the ALPEP program, as it's framed in the Order Paper, at this time I'd have to advise the House not to accept it. The reasons really are, the plan has only been in effect for less than a year now. In some respects, it was tied to oil and gas price negotiations; it was also tied in some respects to federal budgets.

With the lead factor necessary in oil and gas exploration decisions, I believe there really hasn't been any adequate period of time that would provide the House with any meaningful information if we were to carry out an assessment. I think we'd certainly want to make sure when we do carry out the assessment, it will be something that can provide useful information, and not be merely an expenditure of funds.

It is true that over the course of past months during 1975, we have had discussions within the department, discussions with industry and industry associations such as CPA, IPAC, and individual members of industry, which give us some general reading as to their enthusiasm and level of activity. We also keep an eye on bonus payments for Crown sales, drilling activity, et cetera. These give us some helpful readings as to the usefulness of the plan. Still, in my mind, it would be far too premature now to attempt a detailed m e a n i n g f u l assessment of the results of the plan.

When saying that, though, I would say it certainly would be appropriate in the future, with the intent of having the information and the assessment provided to all members of the Legislature, to conduct an assessment of the ALPEP program. I'd certainly be pleased to do that, and will do it. However, I think it should be done when it will provide meaningful information to members. MR. SPEAKER: May the hon. member conclude the debate? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. NOTLEY: Mr.

Speaker, very briefly in concluding the debate, I can assure the hon. minister that this particular motion for return will be on the Order Paper during the spring session as well. I would have hoped that in the course of his remarks he would have given us some indication as to when the government feels it would be possible to conduct an in-depth assessment of the success of the ALPEP plan. Mr. Speaker, I think it's a year tomorrow that the ALPEP plan was announced by the Premier of this province. Under those circumstances, I find it a little

December 9, 1975 ALBERTA HANSARD 1489 difficult to understand why it is that we are not at least in a position to have an interim report on the success or failure of the scheme. Mr. Speaker, I say that because there is a lot of public money at stake in the operation of the ALPEP plan. Therefore, the monitoring of the success or failure of that plan is something which I would have thought, Mr. Speaker, the g o v e r n m e n t would have given high priority to through the last 12 months. Therefore, I find it difficult to accept the reasoning of the minister in rejecting this motion for return.

What we are doing through the ALPEP plan, Mr. Speaker, is providing very generous incentives to the oil industry. It is not unreasonable under those c i r c u m s t a n c e s , Mr. Speaker, that the people of Alberta should have a review as to whether those incentives are worth the cost in lost revenue to the public treasury. Obviously, the government's majority will defeat this motion for a return. I simply reinterate what I said when I began: it will be introduced again at the next session of the Legislature. [Motion lost] 220. Mr.

Notley proposed the following motion to the Assembly: That an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing:

(1) A copy of a study by Bill Meneley and Earl Christiansan on groundwater flows in the Athabasca oil sands; (2) a copy of all environmental s t u d i e s on the Athabasca oil sands by Arleigh Laycock of the U n i v e r s i t y of Alberta. MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, we'd ask that that stand. MR. SPEAKER: Does the Assembly agree to the request by the hon. minister? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. SPEAKER: The motion will stand. 221. Mr.

Clark proposed the following motion to the Assembly: That an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing: A copy of the reports done by Foster Economic Consultants for the Government of Alberta or its agencies on the problems faced by small Alberta- based oil companies. MR. DOWLING: Mr. Speaker, regarding Motion 221, we do not have a report by Foster Economics at this time; the motion is rather premature. However, when the document is placed in the hands of the minister responsible, I'm certain it will be used to make a decision regarding the matter under discussion.

Until such time as the d e c ision is made, the report, if and when it comes, will have to remain confidential. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, may I close the debate? MR. SPEAKER: May the hon. Leader of the Opposition close the debate? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, in closing the debate on the report by Foster Economic Consultants, which apparently hasn't been reported to the government, I would refer the hon. Minister of Business Development and Tourism to questions earlier this s e s s i o n . Perhaps I should go back and check Hansard.

I was just so sure the government would be tickled to death to make this report available, I don't have the Hansard with me. But if my memory serves me correctly, I believe the minister indicated that the report was in the hands of o f f i c i a l s in the department and was being reviewed there. The minister shakes his head. I'm sure he will be pleased to straighten the record following my remarks, or on some other occasion. I would just remind the House that despite the fact the minister is saying the report isn't finished, the Assembly's had great difficulty finding out about this report at all.

In fact, at the spring session last year, we finally found out from the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources that a report had been commissioned by the government. Rather belatedly the Minister of Business Development and Tourism acknowledged that. Now we get the proposition put to us today that the report isn't finished. I wonder if the minister could indicate when the report will be finished? Why has the government taken the position that when the report is finished it will remain confidential — when the minister doesn't even know what's in the report? What's the minister afraid of? MR.

SPEAKER: Does the Assembly accept Motion No. 221? SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. SPEAKER: The motion is lost. MR. CLARK: How did you come to that ruling, sir? MR. SPEAKER: I have to confess that I did it informally and the decision was somewhat instinctive. I'll put it formally. [Motion lost] 222. Mr.

Notley proposed the following motion to the Assembly: That an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing: A list of the name and address of all companies who have or have had c o n t r a c t s with the Alberta Housing C o r p o r a t i o n to complete work on any aspect of the subdivision and servicing of land in Fort McMurray since January 1, 1972, showing in each case the parcel of land involved, the goods and services rendered, and the

1490 ALBERTA HANSARD December 9, 1975 amount paid or projected to be paid for such goods and services. MR. YURKO: Mr. Speaker, the department shall endeavor to provide the information requested to satisfy the hon. member's curiosity and appetite for data. However, it should be recognized that it may take a while to get the information together. [Motion carried] head: GOVERNMENT BILLS AND ORDERS (Second Reading) Bill 81 The Temporary Anti-Inflation Measures Act MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill No. 81, The Temporary Anti-Inflation Measures Act.

Before o u t l i n i n g the principles of the bill at the second reading stage, I'd like very briefly to give some background which I hope will be useful to the Assembly. Certainly inflation, as a problem, is not new to Alberta or Canada. It's been with us for many months, and particularly I think in 1975 the fear of inflation, the psychology of inflation, has been particularly difficult for Canada and for this province. The 10 premiers of Canada, at both their 15th and 16th annual meetings, i n d i c a t e d concern about rising inflation.

We all knew of efforts made in May of 1975 by the former Minister of Finance, Mr. Turner, with regard to voluntary compliance. That procedure really got nowhere. This year, on September 17, the Provincial Treasurer set forth the initiative which the Government of Alberta was prepared to take with regard to the restraint or c o n t a i n m e n t of inflation. At that time, we indicated that we agreed someone had to start somewhere. We said one area in which the provincial government can help to reduce inflationary pressures is its own spending.

We proposed a decrease in the rate of growth of the Alberta provincial budget and the budgets of the agencies funded by the government and the Legislature. We agree with those who say governments must provide leadership in assisting in the reduction of what must only be considered alarming rates of inflation over the past months. We believe that the provincial Government of Alberta could provide this leadership in part by controlling its own public expenditures, and we stated at that time we would ask municipalities, hospital boards, universities, colleges, and school boards to do the same.

Shortly thereafter, on October 13, 1975, it became apparent that the federal government felt that without restraining measures of some kind there would be very severe problems. The federal government indicated that in its view there would be increasingly slow growth and increasingly high unemployment figures in Canada. I think there was a realization of the increasing danger of Canada's becoming uncompetitive in the crucial international trade market. Mr. Speaker, to attempt to simplify what is admittedly a complex topic, I'd like to outline the federal program and our program as set forth in Bill No. 81.

The federal program is outlined in its essence in the white paper entitled Attack on Inflation. The federal program has these key characteristics: it sets wage and price guidelines in the private sector, and it sets wage and price guidelines in the federal public sector. By the federal bill, which I understand is now in the Senate, and by the federal regulations which we hope will be forthcoming before Christmas, the guidelines are legislated. The provincial governments, under the terms of the white paper, have been asked to enter into agreements to extend these guidelines to the provincial public sector.

The provinces have also been asked to establish a system of rent regulation. We have indicated our commitment to that, which will be evidenced by a bill in the House very, very shortly. The provinces were also asked to give general support, as 10 Canadian provinces acting as a team, for a program that would control the rate of inflation in Canada. Mr. Speaker, Bill No. 81 is not something which should be or can be considered purely in isolation as only a bill. It must be considered with and in light of certain other facts.

It must be considered with the September 1975 guidelines of 11 per cent on this government's expenditure, which have already been stated, and which the government is now and will be following. Bill 81 must be considered in light of the rent regulation bill which will be coming before the Assembly shortly. Bill 81 must be considered in light of the fact that the federal government is covering the private sector in its procedures, and Bill 81 must be considered with the understanding that the federal guidelines apply to professional fees. Bill 81 before the Assembly today, Mr.

Speaker, has essentially four basic parts. First, there is

PART 1, which gives the provincial government, through the Executive Council, the capacity to enter into an agreement or agreements with the federal government. That part of the bill comes into effect on assent.

PART 2 sets forth the situation if no agreement is possible between the Province of Alberta and the federal government. In that event, a provincial board can be energized, the Alberta temporary anti- inflation board, which would handle compensation in the public sector of Alberta. That part of the bill, as members know, would come into effect on proclamation. The third part of the act deals with appeal mechanisms, routes of appeal available to persons in respect of whom decisions are made by the Alberta board. The fourth part of the act sets forth a

December 9, 1975 ALBERTA HANSARD 1491 specific termination date of March 31, 1977, underlining the fact that this bill, unlike most of the others passed in this House, is a temporary bill that will die on that day unless there is a previous resolution of the Assembly. I think it is very important for the House to note, Mr. Speaker, that if the provincial board is activated under the

PART 2 provisions, the federal guidelines in their essence would still apply. This means there can be some assurance of the national character of the program carrying on in substance, even if the provincial board is activated. Mr. Speaker, there are certain s u b j e c t s which this bill does not include. I think for greater clarification it would be important to underline those at this time. First, there is no reference in Bill 81 to the private sector, for the very simple and obvious reason that that is covered in the federal bill.

Secondly, there is no reference to professional fees, because those are covered within the federal g u i d e l i n e s . Thirdly, Bill 81 excludes mention of any pricing in the Alberta public s e c t o r , for the very important reason that we already have the 11 per cent guidelines to which I've referred. They relate to b u d g e t i n g , and the use of those guidelines is being carried forward right now and in statements made in the past weeks with regard to grants, payments made by the provincial government to hospitals, school boards, and municipalities.

Pricing is also excluded for the reason that, in our view, fees and charges of the provincial government are within the ambit of the provincial budget. They are under the control of, and decisions are made by, the Treasury Board, by the cabinet, by the government, so there is no need to include those in the bill. With regard to those entities which come under the Public Utilities Board, that board of course has been regulating for many years. It will continue to regulate and to take into consideration the guidelines with regard to anti-inflation.

In respect to the pricing aspects of activities of municipalities, cities, towns, counties, and school boards, there is no mention of that in Bill 81, for the very important reason that decisions with regard to prices charged by those entities are made by elected officials in those j u r i s d i c t i o n s . We have confidence in those elected officials that they, being o f f i c i a l s , reeves, mayors, aldermen, elected by the public in those areas, will certainly want to follow in substance the anti- inflationary guidelines. So in conclusion, in respect to what the bill does not include, Mr.

Speaker, in our view it certainly would be superfluous to include public sector pricing. It is already covered in these other entities I've mentioned. Mr. Speaker, I might repeat one item that is very important for everyone to remember: the bill does not cover the private sector, because that is covered by the federal bill. What this means then, Mr.

Speaker, is that through policies of provincial fiscal restraint — the 11 per cent policy already announced, through the rent regulation bill which is forthcoming very shortly, and through Bill 81 — the Government of Alberta is making a major effort to curtail and contain inflation in this province and in Canada. A word about powers of the board: in reading the bill, I'm sure members will see that many of the powers are very, very similar to those exercised by the federal board, but there is one important d i f f e r e n c e .

In the federal bill, members will note that there is an administrator; there are very, very complex, very elaborate enforcement mechanisms, and some might say, very substantial powers of search and s e i z u r e vested in the federal administrator. We're not following that course of action. We think the elaborate enforcement mechanisms can be simplified, and members will see that is the case in Bill 81. We have deleted the very wide powers of search and seizure contained in the federal bill. Mr.

Speaker, to summarize at the second reading stage, I believe this bill shows an attitude of co-operation by the Province of Alberta in attempting to solve a national problem under specific conditions and with regard to certain safety valves which the province insists upon. Secondly, the bill is part of a package, in terms of anti-inflation measures, which also involves the rent regulation bill, the 11 per cent expenditure guidelines, and the federal coverage of pricing and compensation in the private sector. Lastly, the bill again is temporary in nature.

It ends on March 31, 1977, unless it is renewed by a resolution of the Assembly. I look forward, Mr. Speaker, to c o m m e n t s and suggestions by members of the Assembly during this second reading debate. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might ask a question of the Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs. It relates to the one I asked in question period today. Is the minister in a position to give some indication as to what the province's situation is now, in light of Mr.

Macdonald's statement yesterday that in fact an 18 month opting-in of the program would, I think, be acceptable to the federal government? Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister if he would respond to that question now, before we become involved in the debate on second reading. MR. HYNDMAN: In response to the question, Mr. Speaker, I'm aware of the remarks made by the honorable federal minister. C e r t a i n l y , as I think I mentioned on a p r e v i o u s occasion, the question of duration was one about which we were very concerned.

The bill which is before the Assembly is [for] slightly less than 18 months, so the statement by the federal minister is c e r t a i n l y of interest to us, and in our view would assist in moving towards an agreement. I might say that there are other m a t t e r s which we would want to have covered

1492 ALBERTA HANSARD December 9, 1975 with regard to the finalization of any agreement, but I would see it as a positive move by the federal minister in making that statement. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, in rising in my place to take

part in second reading of Bill 81, The Temporary Anti-Inflation M e a sures Act, might I say at the outset, just commenting on the minister's comments, I would hope that either in second reading or in committee, but preferably in the conclusion of the minister's remarks in second reading, he would spend some time in dealing with this question of "other matters". This is a rather unique piece of legislation we're looking at; unique from many aspects, but unique especially from the standpoint that Sections 1 and 2 will have implications for Alberta if we work out an agreement with the federal government. On the other hand, from

Section 3 to the end of the act becomes very, very vital if in fact we're not able to work out an agreement. I think it becomes rather important to members of the Assembly, wherever they may sit, that we recognize what the government considers to be the "other matters" to be worked out in addition to the 18 months. I would hope by the time the debate is finished on this bill we would have a pretty good idea whether an agreement will be able to be worked out with the federal government, or at least where the danger signs are going to be.

Hon. members should be aware that, in fact, there is tremendous latitude in this particular piece of legislation we're dealing with today. On one hand, if an agreement is worked out with the federal government, Sections 3 to 41 aren't as important because in fact, as I understand the a r r a n g e m e n t , they won't be proclaimed. On the other hand, if we're not able to work out an agreement with the federal government, then 3 to 41 become vital. Members should look at those sections and the powers involved in them extremely carefully.

In his remarks, the minister indicated the powers aren't as wide as some of the federal powers. That's indeed good in some respects. But the powers in this bill and the power left to the Executive Council are very great indeed. So I would hope we do have a considerable enlargement on the term "other matters" at the conclusion of second reading of the bill. May I say I'd like to divide my remarks basically into two areas. I'd rather start with what I'd refer to as the breathing space that the Alberta government has. In our case, in light of this legislation it's a breathing space of 18 months.

In the second portion of my remarks I'd like to deal with priorities, perhaps a lack of clearly established priorities as far as Alberta is concerned. I hope it's fair on my part to say the economy in Alberta is booming, to say the least. I'm sure it depends on where you sit and what you do, as to who receives credit for that. Despite our particular political points of view, naturally the government can look with more than a c e r t a i n amount of satisfaction upon the economic circumstances in the province at this time. We're in the enviable position of having the lowest rate of unemployment in Canada.

That speaks well for all Alber t a n s , regardless of where we may sit in this Assembly or of the opportunities available to us in the province. Lest we think that Alberta is rather a Utopia in Canada, it would be good for members of the Assembly to familiarize themselves with some of the problems in other areas in Canada. We are extremely fortunate in this province, extremely f o r t u n a t e when you look at the economic c i r c u m s t a n c e s in some of our sister provinces in this country. AN HON. MEMBER: B.C. MR. CLARK: I would point out to hon. m e m b e r s that according to Mrs.

Plumptre's committee, the Food Prices Review Board, if you look at the average personal income increase over the past 2.5 years in Canada, you'll find there's been something like a 53 per cent increase in the average income increase in Canada between January 1, 1973 and January 30, 1975. In the same period of time there has been a 7 per cent increase in our productivity as a nation.

I go back and make the point again that we in Alberta are very, very fortunate; but when we're looking at 2.5 years of an increase of 7 per cent in productivity and the kind of increases in wages there have been across the country, unless we're able to bring these two factors together, get them heading in the right direction, we're in for more difficult times than many of us in Alberta imagine right now. I say to my colleagues in the Assembly that we in this province are very fortunate.

But the disastrous effects, if that's what's going to happen, are going to hit dear old central Canada first and much harder than they're going to hit Alberta. Politics being what it is, the effects in central Canada are going to dictate what the federal government does. With that kind of reasoning in mind, when the federal government announced its program I think we were rather quick to say, in principle we support the program. As I've said before in this Assembly, there are several aspects of the program I'm not wildly enthusiastic about. Neither are my colleagues.

But I think it is important, as members of the Assembly who are supposed to give leadership to Alberta, that we are a vital part of this attempt to try to break the back of this inflation psychology across Canada. We plan to support the legislation the government has before the House. We support rather strongly the portion that deals with the retention of provincial jurisdiction. We think that's a wise move on behalf of the government. As far as the 18-month provision is concerned, I think that's a reasonable approach.

It brings it back to the L e g i s l a t u r e , so we have the opportunity to have the assessment here, which naturally satisfies us a great deal. On numerous o c c a s i o n s ,

December 9, 1975 ALBERTA HANSARD 1493 we've made a point of trying to have more of the action here in the Legislature. So naturally we're pleased with that p a r t i c u l a r aspect of the bill. We look f o r w a r d to that kind of reassessment. I would hope that before the government makes the decision, we have that discussion right here in the Legislature, and that this could be a very worth-while discussion in perhaps less than 18 months. I'd like to urge members to look at the bill itself and put themselves in the position of the average small businessman in Alberta who receives a copy of this bill.

In fact, over the weekend we made numerous copies of this bill available to a number of people. I would be pleased to inform members that not all of them were associated with the particular party we're involved with. With only one exception the comment came back, what are we really dealing with? I think there's a feeling among many people in the business sector that this whole bill will apply to them. In this Assembly we recognize that isn't the case. But I would say to the government, I think we could strengthen this bill in some areas to make it much more plausible to Albertans.

If it isn't a matter of strengthening this bill, then it is to become rather active in letting Albertans know exactly what this bill is all about. Frankly, it was very surprising to me to get the response that we did from people in the business community who, in fact, see this

section dealing with the public sector aiming right at them. As some would say, it may only be an argument about terminology. But I point out to hon. members that who this bill is going to apply to isn’t going to hinge upon what the Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs has said here today. If this portion of the bill is implemented, Sections (

L) and (

M) on page 3 leave the determination of who the bill is going to apply to in the hands of Executive Council. That's why it's so very important we recognize what these "other matters" are, so we get a feel whether an agreement will be set out. Also, when we look at the bill I would urge the government to bring in an amendment that would spell out rather clearly in the bill that we are committed to the concept of protection of agricultural farm gate prices, and to put this right in that portion of the bill that's going to be proclaimed.

I'd also urge the government to place its commitment as to energy prices right in that portion of the bill that's going to be proclaimed — so it isn't a matter of someone who wants to know what the situation in Alberta is, [having] to pull together a variety of statements made by the federal government, the minister here, the Premier, and others — but that we have those commitments on agricultural farm gate prices and energy prices right here in the bill, and, as I say, in that portion of the bill that is going to be proclaimed immediately.

If we were in a situation of a strong likelihood of Sections 3 to 41 being proclaimed, I think it would be reasonable to ask the government who they have in mind as far as chairman of the board is concerned. Perhaps I won't go any further than that. I frankly hope, and I think it's the government's hope — I hope it's the g o v e r n m e n t ' s hope -- that the last portion of this legislation may not have to be p r o c l a i m e d . But I would frankly be interested in knowing if the government has given some thought in that particular area as to the chairmanship.

One other portion of the bill I think members should look at carefully is an area I've mentioned earlier. That's the question of excessive regulations. I recognize that may be the case because the federal regulations aren't out yet. Once again, we see a drift here toward a great many more regulations, and in fact, cabinet having the power to overrule the board itself. Mr. Speaker, I'd now like to move on to the second portion of my remarks. This is the question of the kind of provincial leadership we've had in Alberta as far as this program is concerned.

Today the Government House Leader i n d i c a t e d that it was in the middle of September that the Provincial Treasurer indicated the 11 per cent spending guidelines for Alberta, and I think we welcomed those.

I suppose while we're both building up political brownie points, I might say it was my colleague, the Member for Clover Bar — for Clover Bar, I want to emphasize that when he led off the budget debate on June 2 last year, who made it very clear to Albertans and to the government that, first, inflation was a problem, and secondly, if we were going to come to grips with the problem within Alberta, the government had to give leadership in this particular area. I have indicated in the House earlier my feelings with regard to the Premier's belt-tightening speech in Vancouver and then the trip to Europe.

I make the point once again that I think the timing was awful, regardless of the results. I think the timing was even worse to have said to municipalities, hospitals, school boards, and universities that we're going to live with the 11 per cent spending guideline, and then we go out and buy a $1 million airplane to fight forest fires. Once in a while, when I look at the extras on that plane, I'm not so sure it's going to fight forest fires. It may be political fires. But I say the $1 million expenditure isn't important from the standpoint of what's going to happen to the provincial budget.

It's important from the standpoint of the public psychology. I would remind hon. members that Alberta Government Telephones has received internal approval from the Board of Public Utilities commissioners for a 20 per cent rate increase. AGT is quick to say it hasn't had a rate increase for years. It can be justified from some standpoints, but I say to the members of the Assembly once again that as soon as the government increases the AGT rates, in fact it chips away at the voluntary support for the provincial and federal program. It chips

1494 ALBERTA HANSARD December 9, 1975 away at the confidence the public has in that kind of program. We look at Bill 68 — I don't argue with the desire that some professions have the same tax advantages as other p r o f e s s i o n s , but I'd have to say this is the world's worst time to be moving on this kind of legislation, when we're talking about tightening our belts as a province, asking Canadians to be involved in a public live-within-your-means approach, and then we make rather sizable tax advantages available to some professions. I commented yesterday on the MLA pension plan.

I won't repeat that other than to say that I still don't think that was the appropriate thing to do at this time. I think it's likely fair to say that I look at the support the province has given the federal program to date as what you'd call, perhaps, grudging acceptance. We've had something like 50 to 55 days since the Prime Minister made his announcement, and we really have seen little from the provincial government that indicates they really feel we, as Albertans, should be serious about the program.

We're being asked to look at this legislation today, and the Government House Leader has said we should look at it in context of the rent control legislation, which we haven't seen yet. But we understand it's coming. I would hope it will be introduced today, or c e r t a i n l y tomorrow. So, in concluding my remarks in this area, I'd have to say in 55 days we haven't seen this government give leadership to Albertans to really be part of the federal program. I caution members once again that we are extremely fortunate in Alberta, lest we think that the rest of Canada is as fortunate as we are.

Because if the situation is going to get worse, it will hit central Canada first. We've already had the comments by the Prime Minister that if this program doesn't work, there will be a great deal more government intrusion into all our lives. None of us wants that. That's why I think it's so important that this Assembly not only give approval to Bill 81, but be seen to be enthusiastically involved in trying to break the back of inflation. We have a number of areas where we don't agree with the Feds, so be it.

But in the long term it will be in the interests of all of us, Alberta and Canada, that we be able to come to grips with the problem of the psychology of inflation to come to grips with that problem as a result of this program, and not have to have the federal government become involved in a much more centralized program down the road. Now I'd like to look at this question of priorities for a moment.

I suppose if I were to look at this session in retrospect, one of the expectations I had rather hoped to see realized during this session was a statement either by the Provincial Treasurer or by the Premier or someone, to set out clearly what we can expect to be the provincial spending priorities for the next 18 months. We've had several examples in the Assembly during this session when I think we could have had a clear indication of what the government's priorities are.

It isn't realistic to expect various cabinet ministers to come along themselves and say, well, we only want 7 per cent, or 11 per cent, or 6 per cent, or 4 per cent, or 15 per cent in our own department. There is a need for either the Treasurer or the Premier to say very frankly to the Legislature and to Albertans, during the next 18 months these are going to be our priorities as a government. We haven't heard that yet. I hope we'll hear that in the course of this debate.

We may argue about the priorities, and that's the way it should be, but it is essential that we know what the government's priorities are, from a spending standpoint, for the next 18. If we were to set forward what we think our priorities are, it seems to me they'd be very simple. They'd be based on the idea of doing what we can to make it possible for Albertans to have equal o p p o r t u n i t y , and they'd be very basic in the areas of shelter, health, and education. Those would really be our priorities for the next 18 months.

I recognize they are very simple, but at a time like this it is important that this Legislature and Albertans r e c o g n i z e what the government's spending priorities are going to be for the next 18 months. When we talk about no priorities having really been set forward yet, I think two or three examples — and I hope they're not unfair -- of a lack of priorities by the government [include] the hon. Minister of Energy and Natural Resources being on-again off-again in favor of a covered stadium in Edmonton.

You know, it's pretty hard to convince Edmontonians and Albertans that we're really concerned about Bill 81 when we've got one of the most senior, and I'm quick to add one of the most respected, cabinet ministers saying, there's a lot to be said for a covered stadium in Edmonton. We all know that if Edmonton gets a covered stadium it won't be two days before Calgary is here, asking for the same kind of treatment. AN HON. MEMBER: How about Lethbridge? AN HON. MEMBER: And Olds. MR. CLARK: No, Olds won't be here. We have enough trouble living with our own problems now.

We had the situation of the Member for Lacombe the other day asking the Minister of Utilities and Telephones about AGT advertising, which is a pretty reasonable question at a time when AGT is asking for a 20 per cent rate increase. We got a rather wishy-washy, albeit short, answer from the minister saying that it would be a good thing to look at as far as next year is concerned. But this is now. It seems to me that the AGT situation — and one could pick out several others -- would have been an area where the government itself could have bit the bullet within its own operations.

Then, just yesterday, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs was asked if

December 9, 1975 ALBERTA HANSARD 1495 he was going to be monitoring the price of Christmas trees. He was going to check and see if that's happening, and so on. It seems to me that's just an indication of no priorities there either. Far better we know what in the world’s happening in the rent business and in prices, and that we come out and say very frankly, look, our priorities in the department are this and this. So I ask the question once again, and hopefully we can get to it in the course of this debate: what are our spending priorities in the next 18 months?

I'd like to think I'm prepared to be convinced that the government does have some clearly laid out priorities. Perhaps we're just waiting for the opportunity to set them before the Assembly. This afternoon would be just an excellent opportunity to do that. I would like to make perhaps two other comments. One would be to the Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs.

In the course of the negotiations you are going to hold in the future with the federal government, I would urge Alberta, in addition to some other areas, but three areas that we've already mentioned — one was the question of some sort of sitting on interest rates. I would draw the attention of the government to the, I think, rather fine comments made not long ago by the former president of the Chartered A c c o u n t a n t s ' Association of British Columbia when he cited the sizable influence that interest rates have on the rather inflationary psychology of our time.

Secondly, I make the point once again on credit buying. If we're really serious, here's another of the areas the federal government can do something about, if it really wants to. I've spent considerable time here this afternoon belaboring the provincial government for not having priorities. The same thing could be said, only more strongly, of the federal government. It has clearly not set out any spending priorities as far as the next three years are concerned — well, next year, let alone three years.

So I say to the Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs, in the course of your meetings down there, I would hope you'd lay it on the line to the federal government and say to them — for lack of a better way of saying it in the House — what the heck are your own priorities for the next three years, spendingwise? And how do they square with the priorities of shelter, health, and education? Then I would also hope the minister would say to the federal government, it's essential it enforce most vigorously the existing anti-combines legislation.

I think many of us have been concerned as to how vigilant that group has been at the best of times. But certainly during the next three years it's just all that much more important that the anti-combines l e g i s l a t i o n be, in fact, used. Because it's vital that those people who are the wage earners in Alberta and Canada recognize they're not the only ones who are having the lid put on them. Perhaps I might just spend a moment on this question of rent control. We haven't seen the legislation yet, but in principle my colleagues and I can live with rent control for a short period of time.

If the people who are going to be living in those rented accommodations are going to have their own wages frozen, then, in fact, they have to have some protection when it comes to the price they're going to pay for shelter. I emphasize I'm not wildly e n t h u s i a s t i c , by any stretch of the imagination, about rent controls. You can get about as many assessments from B.C. as you want, as to the pros and cons of the program which has gone on there. I think both sides of the fence have been rather flagrant in the violation of trying to see what the heck has really happened in British Columbia.

But we can live with reasonable rent controls if, in fact, that's what they're going to be for a period of time. But, at the same time, I say to the Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs that it will be a very appropriate time to go back to the federal government and say, when we changed the income tax legislation we made a very, very basic mistake.

Frankly, in my judgment, for what it's worth, one of the reasons we're having the problem of city folks buying up large chunks of agricultural land today and of the price going up for young farmers, is that pro f e s s i o n a l people see it as much better to invest in agricultural land than, in fact, to invest in residential accommodations in the cities. The Alberta government could make a real contribution, if it could help the federal government to see the light in this particular area.

I'd like to ask the Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs if, in the course of concluding the debate, he'd be in a position to outline to the Assembly what kinds of consideration the Alberta government will give in 18 months to making the decision [on] whether we extend the l e g i s l a t i o n . Is the government in a position to say now — in general terms, I appreciate — what the conditions will be, or must be? What are you looking at for 18 months, as to whether we continue the program? In conclusion, I think there are p e r h a p s four or five points to be made.

We may not like many points of the federal program, but we have to work to improve the federal program, because the stakes are high for Albertans. The stakes are high for Canada. As far as the province is concerned, I think we've had 55 days since the federal government made its announcement, and there's been precious little provincial leadership during that period of time as to setting up provincial priorities over the next 18 months.

Thirdly, I would hope the province, in its negotiations with the federal government, would come down hard on interest rates, a ceiling on credit buying, and, certainly, enforcement of anti-combines legislation. I'll just make this one last point to the members of the Assembly here this afternoon, in concluding my remarks. I think Alberta, in its unique situation of being the energy province for Canada, can give leadership to Canada as far as the

1496 ALBERTA HANSARD December 9, 1975 federal government's anti-inflation program is concerned. Alberta's economy is good today. But we're not an island unto o u r s e l v e s . We can't avoid, as a province or as individuals, carrying our part of the responsibility hopefully to make this f e d e r a l program work. If it works in the long run, Alberta will benefit more than any other province. If the whole program fails in the long run, we in this province perhaps have more to lose than any other Canadians. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr.

Speaker, in making comments with regard to The Temporary Anti- Inflation Measures Act, I'd like to direct my comments to the matter of inflation and the suggested remedy, wage and price c o n t r o l s . Throughout Alberta and our nation of Canada are some conditions — I'd say some very serious conditions — which demand an immediate and, certainly, a pos i t i v e response.

Inflation at better than 10 Per cent per annum has precipitated the talk of different things: wage and price controls, consideration of rent controls, and an increased discussion with regard to greater involvement in the presence of social, political, and economic life in our land of Canada. [ Dr. McCrimmon in the Chair] Inflation and the proposed remedy are really a nation-divider — at worst a nation-destroyer. Inflation is no mystery or stranger to history, though throughout this land there is seemingly a great m y s t e r y about the circumstances which have led to inflation.

It is argued by some that ours is a cost-push inflation. Increasing the cost of the factors of production is the guilty agent which encourages the g e n e r a l price level to increase. Others have argued that it is a demand-pull, and others argue that inflation is internationally imported. Mr.

Speaker, though there may be some truth to each one of these aforementioned points, I submit that our leaders must recognize that the primary and dominant cause of inflation is that governments are constantly promising programs and initiatives which exceed the tax revenue p o t e n t i a l i t i e s of their administrations. Then ultimately what occurs from each level is that the federal administration will s t e a d i l y and without justification increase the supply of money in our land. We can look at the experience in Canada over the last few years. We can recognize a steady increase in the money supply.

For example, in 1970, there was a 10.97 per cent increase; 1971, 14.9 per cent increase; 1972, 15.8 per cent increase; and in 1973, an 18.3 per cent increase. We can see this if we review the Bank of Canada statistical information summaries. Mr. Speaker, I repeat to this Assembly that inflation and wage and price controls are certainly not new. History is rife with country after country which have gone through this cycle of inflation. And c e r t a i n l y , in the ultimate goal, was the implementation of wage and price controls. I would suggest, Mr.

Speaker, inflation and wage and price controls are not new to history, because this reckless and foolish behaviour of increasing the money supply in unwarranted amounts is certainly not new in itself. The governments of the western world speak so much now of cutting back, lessening the damaging effects of inflation. They all speak of an attitude which is one of pitiful resignation to the alleged fact that inflation is here to stay. So they say, let's lessen its ultimately devastating effects. Mr.

Speaker, this brings my remarks to a more detailed consideration of the s p e c i f i c program of wage and price controls. Wage and price control is clearly a p r e d i c t a b l e and inevitable action which always follows in the wake of a totally irresponsible monetary and spending policy of governments. The question is: will wage and price controls work at this point in Alberta and in Canada? By work do we mean that they will end inflation, as do some who believe inflation is only the result of labor attempting to gouge the market for more and more wages?

By work do we mean that they will end inflation, as do some who believe inflation is only the result of businessmen charging prices for their products that will result in inordinate amounts of profit? By work do we mean that they will end inflation, as do some who argue inflation is imported from goods derived in international markets? Will they work? That is to say, if and when the cause of inflation is still operating when wage and price controls are inactive, what can we expect under those circumstances? In Alberta we are taking that step at this particular time. Mr.

Speaker, I have argued that there are strong reasons to believe that the cause of inflation is the government's printing of too much money. Distinguished financial analysts, professional economists, investment consultants, economic columnists, are fully supportive of the position I have put forth. Even such notable experts in this field as the c e n t r a l bank's governor, Gerald Bouey, and the vice-chairman of the anti-inflation board, Beryl Plumptre, have repeatedly affirmed this view.

Vice-chairman Plumptre stated that "governments have been causing extraordinary increases in the supply of money to finance its own deficits." This has "been playing a pre-eminent role in fueling the pace of inflation." Bank g o v e r n o r Bouey stated that "by permitting excessive monetary expansion this inevitably leads in due course to higher rates of inflation." Mr. Speaker, if this is the case — and I certainly believe it is — then wage and price controls are not the answer, because they do not get at the basic cause of inflation either at this point in time or historically.

They are of cosmetic value, and only cosmetic value. For example, Mr. Speaker, what would we think of a doctor who, when confronted by a sick child with red spots covering his face, gave the following prescription to that particular child: apply this face cream twice a day to cover up the red

December 9, 1975 ALBERTA HANSARD 1497 spots. Does the face cream really do any good? Does it help solve the child's illness, or counteract the causes of the child's illness? Certainly people who see the child with the face cream applied may not be able to tell the child is ill. The cream makes the child's face look better. That is all, Mr. Speaker. The child certainly will not feel any better with the face cream on his face.

In fact, the face cream may do some harm by covering up the symptoms of the disease, or the face cream may cause the parents to delay taking effective action to counteract the causes of the disease. Mr. Speaker, how much confidence would we have in governments of this land if they had the same competence as that particular doctor? How much confidence would we have in government's management of the economy if this doctor became the Minister of Finance? Wage and price controls, Mr. Speaker, cure inflation in the same fashion as the face cream cures the measles. My main point, Mr.

Speaker, is that a wage and price control program attacks the symptoms of inflation, but it does absolutely nothing about the basic cause of inflation. I have identified what I believe is the primary cause of inflation in Canada in my view of the effectiveness of the wage and price control program. I could go on and enumerate what the results have been h i s t o r i c a l l y of the imposition of wage and price control programs.

We could discuss how wage and price controls inevitably cause supply dislocations in the economy, black markets for some important goods, restrictions on new investment capital, and the range of measures available to workers and businessmen alike to circumvent and defeat the intent of that particular p r o g r a m . This would be valuable discussion, but my intent is not to take time to dwell on those particular negatives. The s h o r t c o m i n g s and the ultimate failure of such a wage and price control program could be determined by those things. Mr.

Speaker, my objectives are to move to a positive response, and to what I feel are specific policies that should be considered to a l l e v i a t e this terrible and inequitable burden from the backs of all Albertans and c e r t a i n l y Canadians. Mr. Speaker, in my judgment Albertans and most Canadians are calling at this time for responsible action in monetary policy and in spending policy. They are calling for men and women in government to be willing to say no to most interest groups, lobbying groups, and other groups that motivate reckless spending from the public purse.

These spenders, I feel at this time, would rather see our country spent into fiscal chaos and into a galloping monetary inflation. It is at this time we, as legislators, must take a stand. I stand here and state we need some positive responses in this critical stage in the development of our province, Alberta, and in our nation. I urge the Alberta Government to do the following as some positive responses and as responsible actions at this moment of a potential economic crisis. First, immediately institute a program of fiscal and budgetary responsibility.

I viewed with favor, in September of 1975, the announcement by this government to cut down on expenditures. But Albertans, Mr. Speaker, certainly expect more. Not more money, giveaways, grants, programs, bureaucrats, bureaucracies, and the like. Albertans expect more budgetary responsibility. Albertans are not demanding more programs, more money. Albertans, Mr.

Speaker, are beginning to sense that a continuation down the present road of spending like drunken sailors at all levels of government, federal, provincial, and municipal, can only lead to a future many comprehend, but I must say very few desire, at this point in our history. Secondly, Mr. Speaker, the provincial government must act to make clear and definite statements to the federal government of this country to make the difficult decisions which are absolutely necessary and are long, long overdue with regard to monetary and fiscal policy. Mr.

Speaker, let us have this government take the lead in making these presentations to the Canadian federal government. Let us lead, not as foolish and simple men of empty words and a shopping bag full of promises of one new government program after another, but as aware and concerned Canadians and Albertans who recognize what will surely come to pass in this nation unless a positive response and responsible actions are taken now. Mr. Speaker, Albertans do not want pap and promises from the members of the Legislature.

Albertans want an Alberta and a confederation that will make the d e c i s i o n s , take some risks — political risks and say what needs to be said to ensure a free and economically stable future for ourselves and our children. Mr. Speaker, my third point: I am convinced that most Albertans, at this point in our history, are believers in the market system of economic organization. I believe throughout our province Albertans recognize that the era of free and willing exchange extends roughly over the past 175 years. In no other period of our history have so many people raised themselves from poverty.

The question we've got to ask is, who can really argue with that kind of success? Mr. Speaker, those who would argue for greater government involvement and participation in the market place have proclaimed themselves the champions of the poor. They have fastened onto the poverty banner and placed themselves in the vanguard of the downtrodden.

They have gained a considerable following because one, many people who wish to believe in these easy promises made by those who argue for ever-increasing government spending find it easy to follow, and two, the exponents of freedom of a market system of the allocation of goods in our society have failed to make their own case. Mr. Speaker, my concern lies in that particular situation. In Alberta and Canada today, there are many who would concur in the popular view that the free market practices generally favor those of affluence and generally neglect the interest of the poor. This

1498 ALBERTA HANSARD December 9, 1975 notion, held by many affluent as well as the poor, to my mind is superficial and certainly false. When the exponents of the free market recognize and correct this erroneous concept, they will have found the key to explain how the market private property system serves the interest of all, especially the poor. Mr. Speaker, not until that is done can the poor be expected to look to a free market for their material well-being. Mr.

Speaker, the reason the free m a r k e t , private property, limited government philosophy is sometimes regarded as an apology for the affluent rather than r i g h t f u l l y a boon for all, especially the poor, is that the practice and spoils of this philosophy have made such affluence possible. Mr. Speaker, I have cited some of the accomplishments of the free market, private property, limited government p h i l o s o p h y . However, we must agree that its genesis is succinctly and clearly liberty and the defined proper role of government. I'd like to come to my third point.

I believe my third point is a positive response and a responsible action. It is to stress the importance of this Legislature speaking boldly and forthrightly for the free market system of economic o r g a n i z a t i o n , and to enjoin us once again of the importance each member of the Legislature to understand that the poor's needs are not ultimately met by one government program after another. They are met by a dominant market system of economic organization, in which governments recognize their role of monetary, fiscal and budgetary responsibility. Mr.

Speaker, I would conclude on this point: inflation is tearing and will c o n t i n u e to tear this country apart. This is totally irrespective of the cosmetic cures such as wage and price controls that we are talking about today. Mr. Speaker, in responding to the second reading of the government's anti- inflation measures, I have advocated three specific points which I feel are positive responses, and certainly responsible action. Mr.

Speaker, I believe Albertans expect their provincial government to make the case to the federal government to pursue responsible monetary policies that end this monetization of the debt, and stop the monetary inflation in our country today. Albertans expect their provincial g o v e r n m e n t to get more serious about fiscal and budgetary restraint in government spending. Holding government spending to the 11 per cent guideline doesn't solve the problem. We can recognize that at that rate, in just seven short years the budget in this province will double. I don't think Albertans want that to happen. Mr.

Speaker, they expect restraint. That means saying no to wasteful bureaucrats and people who want to continue to enlarge our government in Alberta. Mr. Speaker, Albertans want and expect their provincial government again to evaluate the overwhelming and convincing e v i d e n c e that it is a free market with less government programs, regulations, and laws that will get our province and our nation back on the road to increasing prosperity for all.

In this critical stage of c o n f e d e r a t i o n , we must not be so naive as to believe that imposing wage and price c o n t r o l s , without attending to the real cause, will meet the needs of this crisis that faces us in Canada today. Let us recognize the real problem. It is not cloaked in mystery. It is not covered by an enigma. It is clear, u n d e r s t a n d a b l e , and certainly worthy of an i m m e d i a t e response from us in this Legislature, and certainly from other leaders in Canada today. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to take

part in the discussion of Bill 81. Mr. Speaker, there is really little doubt that Canadians, whether they live in Alberta, Newfoundland, B.C., the Yukon, or wherever it may be, desperately want g o v e r n m e n t to undertake some kind of action to deal with the ever-increasing problem of inflation. We saw evidence of very s u b s t a n t i a l support for that kind of action last night on the national CBC Newsmagazine. But, Mr.

Speaker, I would caution members of this Legislature not to confuse desire for action on the part of Canadians with any real support for the proposals of the federal government as the details unfold. Mr. Speaker, our responsibility as members of the Legislature is first of all to analyse the federal proposals to see whether they are reasonable, and then to consider their application to the Province of Alberta. Mr. Speaker, I would suggest there are some very real problems with the so-called "Trudeau package".

What we have in fact — and I'm going to go into this in a somewhat more detailed way in a moment — is a system of real wage controls on one hand, but rather hypothetical price controls on the other. Mr. Speaker, we also see evidence and I want to go into that a little bit further — of continued use of tight money as a method of combatting inflation. I can only say to the members of this Assembly that these two major defects in the "Trudeau package" are going to make it extremely difficult for either federal or provincial politicians to sell it to the people of Canada over the long term.

Wage earners in this country are p r e p a r e d to accept wage restraint, providing they have a reasonable assurance that prices are going to be kept in check. But if they see double standards applied, if they see price controls which are, in fact, unworkable, then, Mr. Speaker, we will very quickly find the initial response, which is positive to federal action at this stage, will change. People will become embittered, and rather than being a solution to the problem, the plan will just increase the divisions and engender bitterness within our society. Mr.

Speaker, that's why it's important we evaluate the assumptions on which the plan is based and consider carefully what

December 9, 1975 ALBERTA HANSARD 1499 we are getting into. Host of the p r o p o n e n t s of the present wage and price control scheme — when one sets aside the window-dressing of their remarks — really suggest that the principal reason for inflation is the expectations, the so- called inflationary psychology, caused in the main by excessive wage demands. Well, Mr. Speaker, in listening to the hon. Premier when the Legislature opened on the 12th and in reading his comments, I noticed this appeared to be, at least in part, his view as well.

I quote from Hansard, November 12, 1975: We are also aware in this p r o vince that in 1975 there were [very] significant wage settlements by way of increases. . . . They wouldn't be j u s t ified, in our view, in 1976 in terms of catch-up, except in very exceptional circumstances On page 1022 of Hansard, the Premier referred to the current phase of inflation as being caused on a "wage cost-push basis". Mr. Speaker, in taking

part in the debate, the hon. Premier supplied statistics for July '74 to July 1975 which showed an increase in the industrial composite index of 13.4 per cent compared to a price index increase of only 11 per cent. I suppose, Mr. Speaker, if one stopped at the analysis of the statistics using just one year, one could easily reach the c o n c l u s i o n that wages in fact are a real problem and the major cause of inflation. But, Mr. Speaker, if we look over the last three years, we find that the industrial composite index has gone up 36.4 per cent, the consumer price index up by 33 per cent. That means, Mr.

Speaker, that the real increase in wages and salaries during those three-year periods, when one considers the increase in the cost of living, is only 1 per cent annually. Now, Mr. Speaker, in a province as wealthy as Alberta, with the tremendous potential of this province, it seems to me not unreasonable to say that an increase, in real terms, of 1 per cent annually for the wage and salary earners of this p r o v i n c e is, as I say, not an unreasonable proposition. Mr.

Speaker, when one looks at the aggregate of the Province of Alberta, we see that some very interesting things have occurred in the last four years. Between 1971 and 1974, profits and investment i n c o m e , as a percentage of Alberta's gross provincial product, have risen from 15.6 per cent to 23.8 per cent, or an increase of 8.2 per cent. On the other hand, the total aggregate amount of wages and salaries and supplementary labor income has declined from 51.2 per cent to 46.4 per cent, or a 4.8 per cent decline. Mr.

Speaker, I suggest to those people who argue that wages are the reason for our present difficulties, the evidence is that, while wages may be a part of the present inflationary psychology and the difficulties we face as a province, to jump to the conclusion that they are the major reason, or even a main reason, is not backed up by the evidence at hand. Mr. Speaker, I want to take a look for a moment at this question of government spending.

As the Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs said, when he introduced debate of this issue, in early fall the government announced a ceiling of 11 per cent for increases in government expenditures. Mr. Speaker, there's no doubt that government expenditures, the same as any other expenditures, contribute to inflation. But let us not be so naive [as] to assume that government expenditures contribute to inflation, while private e x p e n d i t u r e s do not.

The fact of the matter is that an overheated economy can be overheated because of excessive government expenditures, excessive investment decisions, or a combination of both. As a matter of fact, one of the warnings that was issued in the memorandum prepared for the government on oil sands development was that too rapid development of the oil sands would contribute to an overheated economy, which would create a spiral of inflation that would be impossible to control, regardless of what the government did. As a matter of fact, Mr.

Speaker, as I look at the figures for the Province of Alberta, I see that between 1974 and 1975, in the period of one year, there was a very substantial increase in the amount that Albertans have to pay for fossil fuels in this province: $527 million in 1974, an estimated $812 million in 1975; a very substantial increase. Now, Mr. Speaker, the point I want to make is simply this: if we are going to deal with spending, we have to analyse our position, not just from the perspective of government spending but also from the v i e w p o i n t of investment decisions and spending in the private sector as well.

Let me just illustrate what I mean by that. I don't really believe, for example, that assistance to the cow-calf operators, where you have a very depressed industry with low prices, is going to contribute to inflation. On the other hand, the Leader of the Opposition cited the example of covering the stadium, hardly a major issue in itself, but extra investment in an area of the economy, the already booming c o n s t r u c t i o n industry, which is going to push up the cost and contribute, Mr. Speaker, to additional inflation.

So when we look at spending, let's not just analyse government spending, but a c c e p t the responsibility of an overall i n c o m e program which in fact acknowledges the need for at least some kind of control over investment decisions. In the Province of Newfoundland, I hardly think the major problem is inflation, with 19 or 20 per cent presently unemployed. Their major problem is lack of investment, and depression or recession.

So what we need in this country is a program which not only looks at government spending, but accepts the overall need to make sure there is a sufficient supply of capital, so we can provide full employment for Canadians in some areas, and perhaps

1500 ALBERTA HANSARD December 9, 1975 phasing, slowing down, or pacing the d e v e l o p m e n t in areas that are overheated. That's going to require federal-provincial co-operation, Mr. Speaker, but if we are going to lick this problem and have an economy which is not totally in balance, but at least within semblance of being balanced, that kind of co-operation has to be undertaken. Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to deal with the question of tight money.

I always laugh when I hear bank presidents tell us about the need to cut back on certain expenditures, why it is that governments should balance their budgets, and of course why it is that interest rates should go up. As a matter of fact, if I look at the prime lending interest rates, Mr. Speaker, in January 1972, the banks' prime lending rates in this province — Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, January 1972 was 6 per cent. By January 1974, that had risen to 9.5 per cent. It rose even higher, fell slightly — 9 per cent in July 1975 — now it's 9.75 per cent. Mr.

Speaker, the impact of these s u b s t a n t i a l l y higher interest rates is the inevitable contribution to inflation. But, as well, it contributes rather substantially to the banks. As a matter of fact, in this time of inflation, the banks are making a killing. The December 2, 1975, Globe and Mail reported that for the 3 months ending October 31, 1975, the after-tax profits of the 10 chartered banks were up 87.5 per cent. So, Mr.

Speaker, while the bankers of this country are saying to working people, to low-income Canadians, and to the rest of us for that matter, tighten your belt, the monetary policy followed by the federal government has been contributing to massive increases in the profits of the chartered banks. Mr. Speaker, it might be a legitimate argument at a time when you had totally free competition, 50 or 75 years ago, that increasing the interest rate would dampen demand and effectively combat inflation.

But, unfortunately, with so many of the prices in our economy today being administered prices, when the company or firm has to pay 9.75 per cent to borrow money, instead of 6 per cent, that increase is simply passed on to the ultimate consumer. If we're going to mean business about dealing with inflation, we have to mean business about controlling interest rates. The decision of the Parliament of Canada in 1966 to take off the ceiling from interest rates was, in my view, a terrible mistake, and since that time we haven't had interest rates in balance.

I would hope, when the Bank Act is reviewed, that once again the federal parliament will continue the policy which existed for years in this country, of an effective ceiling on the interest rates which can be charged by the chartered banks. Mr. Speaker, I want to go into the question of the price control features of the federal plan. I'm going to do that because today, in introducing the bill, the minister made it quite clear that the provincial legislation is not going to cover prices. Why is it not going to cover prices?

Because the assumption is that this is already adequately covered by the federal legislation. Well, Mr. Speaker, I would say first of all, as far as most of the private sector is concerned, that really isn't totally accurate because the f e d e r a l program applies to companies of 500 employees or more. So there is a large amount of the private sector which is not covered by the federal plan and, as a consequence of this legislation, is not covered by any provincial scheme either. Mr.

Speaker, the method that the f e d e r a l government has outlined in its white paper to control prices is, to put it mildly, cumbersome. If you are going to compute the per unit profits after the fact, after a price increase — if you consider all the prices in this country — you know, from one end of it to the other there are just thousands and thousands of prices, and the combinations and permutations of these prices — and we have that pathetic little group of 40 people in Ottawa entrusted with supervising the i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the per unit profits of the companies in this country.

To suggest somehow that we're going to have effective price control is, in my judgment, wildly optimistic, to put it mildly. Mr. Speaker, I have to stand in my place at this time and say that even the personnel of the federal board trouble me. When Mme. Plumptre and Mr. Pepin held their first news conference several days after they were appointed — the Prime Minister in making the announcement s p e c ifically stated there would be no controls over the farm gate price of agricultural products. Well, with that in mind, one would have expected Mme. Plumptre and Mr.

Pepin to concentrate their fire on other than agricultural matters. Did they go after the banks? Did they look at the profits of the oil industry? Did they look at the profits of many of the companies in this country which are doing well? Did they look at some of the unreasonable wage settlements? And I'm willing to recognize that there have been wage settlements in this country that are unreasonable. No, they didn't. They zeroed in, Mr. Speaker, on farm marketing boards. Mrs. Plumptre has had a . . . MR. COOKSON: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have a little trouble relating that to this particular bill.

There may be some relationship, but I have trouble i d e n t i f y i n g it. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Lacombe would have trouble identifying in any event. But the fact of the matter is that we are dealing with a provincial bill, and the price control features of that provincial bill are, in all likelihood, going to be left up to the federal board. As a consequence, discussion of whether or not the federal board is effective, the guidelines operative, is very vital to this debate. Now proceeding, Mr.

Speaker, with the debate: it seems to me rather strange that when we have the first news conference with

December 9, 1975 ALBERTA HANSARD 1501 the two people in question, they attack the whole concept of orderly marketing. I notice Mrs. Plumptre has gained a victory. As a result of her efforts, the price of eggs to producers, I understand, is going to be dropped by 1 cent a dozen, totally in contradiction to the Prime Minister's a n n o u n c e d objective that farm gate prices would not be covered by this legislation. So, Mr. Speaker, I really don't have confidence in a federal anti-inflation board which, when it has its first opportunity to talk to the people of Canada, zeros in on controlling farm gate prices.

Mr. Speaker, during the question period we've already discussed some of the loopholes that exist in the federal plan. When the rather complicated device is f o l l o w e d through the per unit costs, there are certain ways in which companies can evade their responsibility to roll back prices. If there's been an increase in productivity, fine. But there's another one: an unanticipated cost reduction. Now what does that mean, Mr. Speaker? It means that if they are able to buy their products for less, then that unanticipated cost reduction will not necessarily be followed through to the ultimate consumer.

Today in the question period we had, as usual, a discussion of the whole business of beef marketing. Let me just follow this one through. God forbid that this would happen, but if the price of cattle were to go down even further — choice steers drop 10 cents a pound — a large concern, such as Safeway, buying its meat from a packing company would not have to reduce the price in the store, because they could claim an unanticipated cost reduction, if as a result of the market situation the price to the farmer dropped. Now, that sort of thing could very well happen under the present guidelines. So, Mr.

Speaker, I say to you that we have to analyse carefully what the federal government is doing in this regard. Mr. Speaker, I could talk for some time about the whole issue of cutting back on provincial spending and the impact that's going to have on low-income people in this province. When I had an opportunity to speak in the debate in reply to the Premier's address, I emphasized the problems we had last time the federal government embarked upon a war against inflation. That was a year after the Economic Council report on poverty. As a result, many useful programs were dropped and abandoned.

Now we see at this stage useful programs which should be proceeding, obviously the victim of the new crusade against inflation. It was clear beyond any shadow of doubt that the federal government planned to introduce a cow-calf stabilization scheme until the Prime Minister's announcement in October. No question about that. It is equally obvious today, Mr. Speaker, that they have decided not to proceed with that scheme as a result of the October announcement. So often the argument is made that we have to bring in wage and price controls to protect the poor. But you know the poor are unorganized.

They're not able to take advantage of whatever loopholes may exist in programs. They usually aren't protected by unions to negotiate for them. Their only protection is to have an economy where wage rates elsewhere are rising, so they can go across the street and get another job that is paying more. So the problem with wage controls is that over the long run you inevitably reduce the options of lower-income people to find other unskilled jobs which are paying more. So, Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt in my mind that this scheme, while it is disguised

Document details

Collection	Alberta — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	19751209
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	L18 S1 19751209 1430 01 han.pdf
Language	en
Format	json
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	7d3b65d74475fcb9062c301384295a665abd2613

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