Alberta Hansard — 13 November 1975, Afternoon sitting (14:30) (Legislature 18, Session 1)

19751113

Alberta — Debates (Hansard)

November 13, 1975 ALBERTA HANSARD 1027 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA Title: Thursday, November 13, 1975 2:30 p.m. [The House met at 2:30 p.m.] PRAYERS [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] head: INTRODUCTION OF BILLS Bill 52 The Natural Gas Pricing Agreement Act MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to introduce three bills today. The first bill I beg leave to introduce is Bill 52, The Natural Gas Pricing Agreement Act. This b eing a money bill, His Honour the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor has been informed of the contents of this bill, and recommends the same to the Assembly. Mr.

Speaker, The Natural Gas Pricing Agreement Act provides the legislative f r a m e w o r k for our understanding with the f e d e r a l government on gas pricing, and p r o v i d e s for the flowback of export differential moneys to Alberta producers and Alberta people as royalty holders. [Leave granted; Bill 52 introduced and read a first time] Bill 48 The Coal Conservation Amendment Act, 1975 MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to introduce Bill No. 48, The Coal Conservation Amendment Act, 1975. The purpose of this act, Mr.

Speaker, is to provide a s t r e n g t h e n i n g of protection for Alberta requirements, and to introduce the industrial development permit concept in the development of coal. [Leave granted; Bill 48 introduced and read a first time] Bill 60 The Alberta Energy Company Amendment Act, 1975 MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce Bill No. 60, The Alberta Energy Comp any Amendment Act, 1975.

This bill provides that all Members of the Legislative Assembly may hold shares of the Alberta Energy Company, and participate in debates and votes in the House. [Leave granted; Bill 60 introduced and read a first time] Bill 39 The Alberta Opportunity Fund Amendment Act, 1975 MR. DOWLING: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce two bills, the first being Bill No. 39, The Alberta Opportunity Fund Amendment Act.

This bill provides for the facility to reorganize the various branches of government in order that they will pr ovide better service to the people of A lberta. [Leave granted; Bill 39 introduced and r ead a first time] Bill 44 The Northern Alberta Development Council Amendment Act, 1975 MR. DOWLING: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce a second bill, being Bill 44, The Northern Alberta Development Council Amendment Act, 1975. The purpose of this bill, Mr.

Speaker, is to better reflect the new role of the Northern Alberta Development C ouncil and to provide an expanded membership in the council in order to provide a broader base for it to operate from. [Leave granted; Bill 44 introduced and read a first time] Bill 37 The Teachers' Retirement Fund Amendment Act, 1975 MRS. CHICHAK: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce Bill 37, The Teachers' Retirement Fu nd Amendment Act, 1975.

The purpose of this bill is to permit teachers in private schools, as defined in this bill, to enter under the Teachers' Retirement Pension Fund, and to allow for some flexibility with respect to repayment of funds. [Leave granted; Bill 37 introduced and read a first time] Bill 38 The Hospital Services Commission Amendment Act, 1975 MR. MINIELY: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce Bill 38, The Hospital Services Comm ission Amendment Act, 1975. The p u r p o s e of this bill, Mr.

Speaker, is to allow for the provision of the appointment of a member of this Legislative Assembly to the Hospital Services Commission. [Leave granted; Bill 38 introduced and read a first time]

1028 ALBERTA HANSARD November 13, 1975 Bill 40 The Alberta Environmental Research Trust Amendment Act, 1975 MR. BRADLEY: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce a bill, being The Alberta Environmental Research Trust Amendment Act, 1975. The purpose of this bill is to restructure the board of trustees of The Alberta Environmental Research Trust to better facilitate greater public participation in the trust. [Leave granted; Bill 40 introduced and read a first time] Bill 41 The Licensing of Trades and Businesses Amendment Act, 1975 MR. HARLE: Mr.

Speaker, I beg leave to introduce Bill 41, The Licensing of Trades and Businesses Amendment Act, 1975. The purpose is to regulate bedding, upholstered and stuffed articles, and to transfer this jurisdiction to the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. [Leave granted; Bill 41 introduced and read a first time] Bill 50 The Alberta Insurance Amendment Act, 1975 MR. HARLE: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce a bill, being The Alberta Insurance Amendment Act, 1975.

The purpose is to amend several sections of the act relating to insurance companies and to provide for priority of payment for medical and accidental benefits. [Leave granted; Bill 50 introduced and read a first time] Bill 42 The Universities Amendment Act, 1975 DR. HOHOL: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce a bill, being Bill 42, The Universities Amendment Act, 1975. The p u r p o s e of this bill is to expand the defini- tion of ownership with respect to the universities in the province. [Leave granted; Bill 42 introduced and read a first time] Bill 43 The School Amendment Act, 1975 MR. KOZIAK: Mr.

Speaker, I beg leave to introduce Bill 43, The School Amendment Act, 1975. The amendments provided for in this bill, among other things, will provide for the current needs of school boards and will clarify the position with respect to the annual Farmers' Day holiday. [Leave granted; Bill 43 introduced and read a first time] Bill 45 The Cooperative Associations Amendment Act, 1975 MR. COOKSON: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce Bill 45, The Cooperative Associations Amendment Act.

It's basically designed to clarify the definition of d i r e c t o r , to permit provincial co-operatives to combine with federal co-operatives, and to permit extra-provincial associations. [Leave granted; Bill 45 introduced and read a first time] Bill 46 The Criminal Injuries Compensation Amendment Act, 1975 MR. LITTLE: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce Bill 46, The Criminal Injuries Compensation Amendment Act, 1975.

The p u r p o s e of this bill is to update the administration of the act and to expand its jurisdiction. [Leave granted; Bill 46 introduced and read a first time] Bill 47 The Department of The Environment Amendment Act, 1975 MR. KIDD: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce Bill 47, The Department of The Environment Amendment Act, 1975.

The p u r p o s e of this bill is to streamline some administrative details, to more clearly define the manner in which the minister may make grants, and to make some changes with regard to restricted development areas, including enabling the filing of restricted development area regulations against the land title by more effective caveat. [Leave granted; Bill 47 introduced and read a first time] Bill 51 The Marriage Amendment Act, 1975 MR. HYLAND: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce Bill 51, The Marriage Amendment Act, 1975.

The principle of this bill is to allow the people of the Bahai faith to solemnize their marriage vows in accordance with the rights and usage of their faith, and to enable mentally incapacitated people the right to enter into the contract of marriage upon receipt of a certificate of capacity from a qualified medical p r a c t i t i o n e r , thus taking the onus off the l i c e n c e

November 13, 1975 ALBERTA HANSARD 1029 issuer and the commissioner performing the ceremony. [Leave granted; Bill 51 introduced and read a first time] Bill 53 The Pharmaceutical Association Amendment Act, 1975 MR. MUSGREAVE: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce Bill 53, The Pharmaceutical Association Amendment Act, 1975.

The p u r p o s e of this bill is to modernize The Pharmaceutical Association Act so as to incorporate changes resulting from federal legislation, and to provide for ongoing education of practising pharmacists. [Leave granted; Bill 53 introduced and read a first time] Bill 54 The Social Services and Community Health Statutes Amendment Act, 1975 MR. PLANCHE: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleague, Mr. Les Young, the hon. Member for Edmonton Jasper Place, I beg leave to introduce a bill, being Bill 54, The Social Services and Community Health Statutes Amendment Act, 1975.

This bill, amending departmental legislation, affects The Child Welfare Act, The Maintenance and Recovery Act, The Welfare Homes Act, and The Nursing Service Act. The main purpose of these changes is to provide more comprehensive service to the recipients covered by this act. [Leave granted; Bill 54 introduced and read a first time] Bill 56 The Public Utilities Board Amendment Act, 1975 MR. DIACHUK: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce a bill, being The Public Utilities Board Amendment Act, 1975.

The p u r p o s e of this bill is to increase the membership of the board from five to nine, and to be able to exempt certain companies from the operation of The Public Utilities Board Act because of the broad definition of public utilities. [Leave granted; Bill 56 introduced and read a first time] MR. HYNDMAN: Mr.

Speaker, I move that the following bills be placed on the Order Paper under Government Bills and Orders: No. 37, The Teachers' Retirement Fund Amendment Act; No. 40, The Alberta Environmental Research Trust Amendment Act; No. 45, The Cooperative Associations Amendment Act; No. 46, The Criminal Injuries Compensation Amendment Act; No. 47, The Department of The Environment Amendment Act; No. 51, The Marriage Amendment Act; No. 53, The Pharamaceutical Association Amendment Act; No. 54, The Social Services and Community Health S t a t u t e s Amendment Act; and No. 56, The Public Utilities Board Amendment Act. [Motion carried] head: INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS MR.

STROMBERG: Mr. Speaker, may I take this opportunity to introduce to you and to the members of this Assembly, 12 special guests from the 'Rose' constituency. These 12 special guests are from the Rosalind High School. They are accompanied by their teacher and one of the parents, and are currently attending Grade 12. They came a great distance, and I would ask them to stand and be recognized by this Assembly. head: TABLING RETURNS AND REPORTS DR. HORNER: Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to file with the House two copies of our submission to the Hall Commission, and to notify hon. members they will all be receiving a copy of it. MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to table the answers to Motions for Returns No. 124 and 157. While I'm on my feet, Mr. Speaker, continuing our campaign to keep members of the House well informed, I'd like to table a series of reports. There are 11 dealing with the Capital City Recreation Park in Edmonton. I won't read all the titles.

There are also 2 copies of a report by the Environment Conservation Authority: Review of Interaction between Migratory Birds and Athabasca Oil Sands Tailing Ponds; another report dealing with the land-use study in the Suffield block; and another series of reports dealing with Athabasca River power developments, more specifically, the Crooked Rapids Dam Feasibility Study. MR. SPEAKER: I would like to mention to hon. members that I am tabling two copies of the report of the Indemnities Committee, which was previously circulated to all hon. members. head: MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Department of Agriculture MR.

MOORE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to announce today that agreement has recently been reached for the largest single sale

1030 ALBERTA HANSARD November 13, 1975 ever of Alberta pork to an export market. Co-operative efforts of the Alberta Hog Producers' Marketing Board, meat packing companies, the Alberta Export Agency, and the marketing division of Alberta Agriculture have resulted in a major sale of Alberta pork to Japan. Mr. Speaker, in 1972, my colleague and then Minister of Agriculture, Dr. Horner, visualized such developments with the f o r m a t i o n of the Alberta Export Agency and the marketing division of Alberta Agriculture.

The challenges put forward at that time to the marketing division and the Export Agency were twofold. Primary effort was directed at working with farmers, processors, distributors, and marketing boards to improve Alberta's share of Canada's domestic food market. The second thrust, and one of equal importance, was the development of export markets outside Canada for the wide variety of agricultural products produced in this province.

Soon after these groups began work, it was recognized that the most desirable and successful method of export marketing was that of long-term sales contracts tied to the cost of production. Such contracts guaranteed the producer an adequate return, and guaranteed the purchaser a stable supply of high-quality products. A qreat deal of credit, Mr. Speaker, must be given to hog producers themselves, for showing confidence in their marketing board and for working with the meat-packing industry to show leadership in developing long-term contracts.

Hopefully, their efforts will provide encouragement to other sectors of Alberta's agricultural industry. In 1973, Mr. Speaker, a small initial contract was signed with the Japanese. In May of 1974, Dr. Horner announced in this Legislature a second and larger pork c o n t r a c t with Japan. These two preliminary contracts provided the experience and testing ground for this present sale. In August of this year, a special project team was created of representatives of the Alberta Hog Producers' Marketing Board, the Alberta Export Agency, and the Department of Agriculture.

Several weeks of negotiations resulted in a system of coded b i d d i n g , which provided for the tendering of bids for the sale and purchase of pork. Seven bids were received and considered. Mr. Speaker, the successful contracts were awarded by the Alberta Hog Producers' Marketing Board to Gainers Ltd. for 360, 000 hogs over 36 months, and to Swift Canadian for 48,000 hogs over 24 months. The total value to Alberta farmers, Mr. Speaker, of this particular sale will be approximately $41 million. In addition, Mr.

Speaker, we expect other contracts will be developed over the coming months as negotiations with potential Japanese p u r c h a s e r s are continuing. Mr. Speaker, we believe that this is the largest long-term contract ever n e g o t i a t e d for the export sale of hogs [to] Japan and are certain that it will establish Alberta as the major North American supplier of pork to Japan. head: ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Rent Regulation MR. CLARK: Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to direct the first question to the Premier, or perhaps to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs -- several questions flowing out of the announcement the Premier made yesterday regarding rent controls. I'd like to ask the Premier or the minister: is it the government's intention that the rent controls will apply during the 12 to 18 months the Premier outlined would be the length of the anti-inflation program in Alberta? Are we looking at rent controls for a period of 12 to 18 months? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, yes.

The intention at the moment is to have the rent regulation legislation cover the approximate same period as the temporary anti- inflation measures act. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, a further s u p p l e m e n t a r y question. Will the proposed rent control program or companion legislation ensure that tenants will not be evicted without just cause, that there may be some sort of tenant security clause in the legislation, primarily getting at the problem of tenants who complain about increases and then, in a few cases perhaps, would be harshly dealt with by the landlord? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr.

Speaker, I believe I answered that question in part by saying that our rent regulation would be tied to the unit rather than the tenant. Any further details with regard to that will have to await the introduction of the legislation. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, a further s u p p l e m e n t a r y question. Is the Premier in a position to indicate to the Assembly for what period of time new apartments would be exempt from the rent controls? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr.

Speaker, I believe I said yesterday -- if I did not, I intended to -- that the intention was the legislation would entirely exclude new apartments and new accommodation. MR. CLARK: A further supplementary q u e s t i o n , Mr. Speaker. Will there be a municipal tax push-through provision in the legislation so that if municipal taxes go up, that will be pushed on through to the tenant? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, that is, of course, one of the items under consideration in the review of details of the legislation and again, I think on that point, would have to await the introduction of the bill. MR. CLARK: Mr.

Speaker, one last question in this particular area. Will the Premier be in a position to indicate to the Assembly

November 13, 1975 ALBERTA HANSARD 1031 whether it is the intention of the government to establish an administrative mechanism in Alberta to look after the rent control program? Or will that be delegated to the federal Anti-Inflation Board? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, no. In the area of rent control, the proposal the federal government made to all provinces is that that would be the jurisdictional and administrative responsibility of the p r o v i n c e s . Therefore, it would be our intention that our legislation would be administered on a provincial basis. MR. TAYLOR: Supplementary to the hon. P r e m i e r .

Will the legislation make some p r o v i s i o n for the tenants who vandalize property? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, that’s part and parcel of the details of the legislation that I’m just not in a position to respond to today, but certainly one that will be under consideration. It may be that the actual legislation we're referring to doesn't cover that area, and that perhaps amendments to The Landlord and Tenant Act may. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. Premier.

Has the government determined yet what the annual rate of increase will be, or will the announcement be deferred until the legislation is introduced? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, that would be deferred until the legislation is introduced. MR. NOTLEY: One further supplementary q u e stion for clarification, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. Premier. In dealing with the definition of a new building, will the five-year ground rule applied by federal officials in their white paper be used in Alberta? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, that's the p r e s e n t intention, although the drafting may alter it somewhat. MR.

TAYLOR: One further supplementary to the hon. Premier. Is there any attempt to secure uniform legislation among the p r o v i n c e s ? I notice Ontario has already i n t r o d u c e d a bill, and I think it would be wise if, as a country, we could have some uniformity in this matter. MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, there's a great deal to be said for what the hon. member proposes. But there are different c o n d itions of development and progress within the various provinces, some in a much more expansionary nature than others, some lending themselves to different types of a c c o m o d a t i o n .

But it will be the intention of the government in considering the drafting of the legislation to do an evaluation of the legislation in the other jurisdictions, to recognize the premise upon which the hon. member based his question. Land Ownership MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, the second question I would like to ask the Premier deals with the conference held in St. John's on the question of foreign ownership of a g r i c u l t u r a l land in Canada.

Has the Premier received correspondence from the Prime M i n i s t e r in which the Prime Minister indicated that the federal government was prepared to pass on power to the province to prevent non-Canadians from acquiring land in that particular province? MR. LOUGHEED: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and that correspondence, including ours related to that fact, together with an explanation of some verbal conversations I've had with the Prime Minister, I would prefer to defer to the nature of a ministerial statement, perhaps next week. MR. CLARK: Mr.

Speaker, a supplementary question to the Premier or perhaps to the Minister of Agriculture. Is it the governm e n t ' s intention, despite the Premier's intention to give a ministerial statement next week, to bring legislation forward in this session which would impinge at all upon the question of just Albertans in Alberta being able to acquire agricultural land? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, that comes very closely within the ambit of the remarks I hope to make with regard to the ministerial statement, and I will try to deal with it at that time. MR. CLARK: Mr.

Speaker, a further s u p p l e m e n t a r y q u e s t i o n . I raise this to ask if, in fact, the Premier or the Minister of Agriculture is aware of a deal pending in the Ponoka area where, I believe, German and Italian interests have an option at this time on 6,000 acres of land. The price involved is in the vicinity of $1,000 an acre, which is about 3 times the going rate for agricultural land in the area. It's my understanding that the option is close to running out, and the deal may be very close to being finalized. MR. MOORE: Mr.

Speaker, I'm aware of a number of situations which have not been confirmed as far as I'm concerned, where foreign companies are proposing to purchase agricultural land in Alberta. I'm not particularly aware, Mr. Speaker, of the one to which the hon. member refers, in terms of having any knowledge of when the option might expire.

However, I would say with respect to some offers to purchase very large tracts of agricultural land in Alberta, we have recently been encouraged by the fact that the Foreign Investment Review Act, and the provisions thereunder which are federal in nature, may well apply to some of those very large purchases. MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture. I wonder if the minister would give a commitment

1032 ALBERTA HANSARD November 13, 1975 to the House that he would check out the question of options on a very immediate pending land transaction with the [Ferrybank] Hutterite colony in the Ponoka area and Canada Trust, and report to the Assembly. I understand there is considerable urgency in it. MR. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, I really don't have any particular capacity within the Department of Agriculture to check out the nature of private contracts which might be entered into by way of option.

On the other hand, if the hon. member does have knowledge and is acquainted with the p e r s o n s involved, I would be only too happy to receive the information as to who is involved in the contract and whatever details you might have. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the Premier. In the ministerial statement the Premier is planning to make in the coming week, will there be a report with regard to foreign land acquisition relative to the statistics and the information we're collecting in the Land Titles Office at the present time? That's part of the question.

Secondly, has an up-to-date report been submitted to the Premier that may be available to the members of the Legislature? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, the general report we've received is that the matter, at the moment, is not significant in terms of acquisition of land. Our concern is pretty essentially with what we see as the attractiveness of Alberta, as a province, as a hedge against inflation for the future. In the course of my remarks in the ministerial statement, I will attempt to ascertain an answer to the point the hon. member raises. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. Premier.

Does the government at this time possess any statistics as to the number of corporations or syndicates that have sought exclusion under The Land Titles Amendment Act passed in 1974? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, I don't, but I'd have to check that information. MR. NOTLEY: A further supplementary q u e s t i o n , Mr. Speaker, to the hon. Premier . . . MR. SPEAKER: Might this be the last s u p p l e m e n t a r y on this topic. MR. NOTLEY: . . . in the light of his p r o p o s e d ministerial statement. Can the P r e m i e r advise the House when the government anticipates the final report of the Land Use Forum? MR.

LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is -- and I'm not sure of final report, but I presume we could deal with it as a major report of the Land Use Forum, would be received by the government in January or February 1976. AEC Shares Sale MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the hon. Minister of Energy and Natural Resources. With reference to Bill No. 60, introduced today, would members of the Legislature have any conflict of interest if they buy bonds now, before the bill becomes law? MR. GETTY: It's my understanding, Mr.

Speaker, that applications for the Alberta Energy Company shares would not be a problem for members of the House right now. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct this question to the hon. Minister of Energy and Natural Resources and ask him to tell the House whether it's true that top officials of the Alberta Energy Company are entitled to borrow, interest-free, c o m p a n y funds in order to acquire shares in the Alberta Energy Company. MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, that would be a matter for the management and board of directors of the Alberta Energy Company. I am not familiar with that information. MR.

NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a further s u p p l e m e n t a r y question to the hon. minister. In light of the fact that the money now in the hands of the AEC has been appropriated by the Alberta Legislature, does the minister not feel that any options such as this should come under the purview of public discussion in the Legislature? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member is asking a question which could clearly lead to d e b a t e , but perhaps, because of the open- ended implication in it, the hon. minister ought to be allowed to answer it. MR. GETTY: Mr.

Speaker, companies operating within Alberta and Canada are able to devise a variety of means of executive compensation which will allow them to obtain and hold the best people possible to do the job that's necessary to be done. I think the qualified, capable Albertans we have on the board of directors and in management of the Alberta Energy Company should be able to do just that. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. minister. I wonder if the hon. minister could just clarify the first answer he gave.

Has he received any information, or have there been any discussions at all between your office and the AEC, concerning this matter? MR. GETTY: There have been no discussions on the matter, Mr. Speaker. I should point out to the hon. member that he has access to the prospectus presently being passed throughout Alberta, and that prospectus should have within it matters such as this for the information of any Albertans who are considering participating in the shares of the company.

November 13, 1975 ALBERTA HANSARD 1033 DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary, just to the previous statement the minister made in relation to private companies. Can the hon. minister indicate to the House how many other private companies have had $75 million of taxpayers’ money infused into them? MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR. TAYLOR: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. minister. [Not recorded] employees of AEC not be entitled to the cost of the bond less the commission, as is done in any ordinary business? MR. GETTY: I'm not sure of that matter, Mr.

Speaker, but I am sure the Alberta Energy Company would try to operate as much as possible like any ordinary business. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a final s u p p l e m e n t a r y question to the hon. minister. Can he advise the House of the status of the pay roll deduction feature of the Alberta Energy Company? Does the company plan to go ahead with that, as discussed several years ago when we originally dealt with the legislation? MR. GETTY: Mr.

Speaker, the hon. member is referring to the means of distribution of the shares whereby an Albertan might be able to purchase shares, or make a commitment to purchase shares, and have the funds to pay for them deducted from his or her pay roll, presumably through the employer’s facilities. The company was unable, as I understand it, to develop that kind of method of payment for the shares, and that is not part of the present distribution system. Doctors' Fees MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Hospitals.

I wonder if he could indicate the present status of negotiations between the government and the Alberta Medical Association with regard to doctors' fees. MR. MINIELY: Mr. Speaker, I really can't say more than the fact that it is under negotiation. We're back having d i s c u s s i o n s . When those discussions result in any conclusion, I'll be in a position, Mr. Speaker, to report to the Assembly. AEC Shares Sale (continued) MR. GHITTER: Mr.

Speaker, a number of my questions have already been answered, but I would ask like to ask the minister responsible for the Alberta Energy Company whether he could advise the House as to the exact number of shares the Alberta Energy Company intends to sell, as set out in their prospectus. MR. GETTY: It's difficult for me to give an exact amount now, Mr. Speaker, because I understand the Alberta Energy Company board of directors intends to assess the response of Albertans to the share issue and determine then how many total shares, up to a limit, though, of 7.5 million.

In other words, it may be possible they will not end up distributing 7.5 million, but they will not distribute more than that. MR. GHITTER: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I'm wondering if the hon. minister could advise the House as to what work was rendered by the dealer-managers to entitle them to 10 cents per share over and above the 32 cents commission a broker would receive. MR. GETTY: As I understand it, Mr.

Speaker, this is an arrangement companies enter into with a managing investment advisory group to develop the prospectus, to develop the distribution scheme, and to build up both a selling force, advertising, and a subsequent ability to protect the investment in the after-market. All these things are part of the services the investment advisory group is able to provide to a company. MR. GHITTER: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Is there then an obligation upon the dealer-managers to respond to the after- market, or is it just a good-faith u n d e r t a k i n g on their part? MR. GETTY: It would depend, Mr.

Speaker, on the individual arrangement between a company and its advisory group. I have not been a part of the negotiations between the Alberta Energy Company and its advisory group. MR. TAYLOR: A supplementary to the hon. minister. Are the shares going like hot cakes? MR. GETTY: It's my understanding Albertans are showing a high degree of interest in the shares, Mr. Speaker. I certainly trust that is maintained over the period of Alberta preference.

I certainly think it would be just great if Albertans took all the shares available, and those outside Alberta who might want to participate would then be forced to participate through the after-market. MR. TAYLOR: One further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Is there any intention of extending the time frame beyond a week from tomorrow, or is that a definite closure for Albertans? MR. GETTY: Mr. Speaker, I have not had any discussion with the Energy Company with regard to that matter.

Because it does relate to policy of the government that preference be given to Albertans, I would check that matter with the company and advise the hon. member. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. minister, dealing

1034 ALBERTA HANSARD November 13, 1975 with the question of the fees for the dealer-managers. In addition to the 32 cents and the 10 cents the hon. Member for Calgary Buffalo raised, will any additional costs, expenses, or payments from the c o m p a n y go to the dealer-managers? MR. GETTY: None that I could imagine at this stage, Mr. Speaker, but I trust the hon. member will avail himself of ownership of the shares and be able to ask those questions directly to the management and directors. Regional Air Service MR. MANDEVILLE: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the hon. Minister of Transportation.

Could the minister report to the House what consideration has been given to providing air line service to our smaller centres? DR. HORNER: That's under active review at the moment, Mr. Speaker, in relation to the expansion of our third-level carriers. But preliminary discussions have to be held with the federal Ministry of Transport in regard to the necessary airport qualifications before we can expand the third-level carriers. MR. MANDEVILLE: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister been in contact with any of the commercial air lines providing service such as this to our smaller centres? DR.

HORNER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we've had discussions with the third-line carriers now operating in Alberta. They've certainly shown some interest in looking at new routes which would include a number of the growing communities in Alberta. At the same time, in my department we've been looking at those airports to get them to the stage where in fact they could m e c h a n i c a l l y handle third-line carriers. MR. MANDEVILLE: One final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.

Has the minister had any discussion regarding third-level carriers with the federal Minister of T r a n s p o r t since the shuffle of the last cabinet? DR. HORNER: No, Mr. Speaker. I've had no opportunity to have a discussion with Mr. Lang as yet in regard to transportation matters, but I did have some discussions with the former federal minister, and i n d e e d with the air committee of the Canadian Transport Commission. Highway Accidents Report MR. LITTLE: Mr. Speaker, I would address this question to the Minister of Social Services and Community Health.

Is it the intention of the minister to file in this Assembly the report of the Task Force on Highway Accidents, chaired by Dr. MacKenzie? MISS HUNLEY: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I'm sorry if I've omitted to do that already. I was under the impression it had already been mailed to all members of the Legislature, but I will check that out. [interjections] Yes, it's possible, Mr. Speaker, it's in the mail. Municipal Affairs Legislation DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to address my question to the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs, seeing he did such a great job of going round and round the mulberry bush yesterday.

I would like to ask the hon. minister if he can answer this q u e s t i o n : will he be bringing in the new planning act at this fall sitting? MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, the legislative plan is not to introduce the new planning act at the fall sitting. Special Warrants MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a follow-up to my question yesterday to the Premier. Could the Premier indicate today whether the Legislature will have a special o p p o r t u n i t y , in committee or otherwise, to d i s c u s s special warrants? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr.

Speaker, I haven't had an opportunity to take the matter raised by the hon. member into consideration. I would try to do so over the course of the next few days and discuss it with my colleagues. Anti-inflation Program MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct this question to the hon. Premier. It concerns the statement he made yesterday about provincial involvement in the federal wage and price restraint policy. Mr.

Speaker, the first question is whether the Government of Alberta is satisfied with the price control features of the federal plan, and whether representation either has been made or is planned to strengthen the features of it? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, I think the only fair judgment of the intention of the federal government with regard to that area, which is strictly under its jurisdiction insofar as the present position is concerned, subject to any complementary legislation we may have, would be to give it a fair opportunity to see if it can work out effectively. MR. NOTLEY: Mr.

Speaker, a supplementary question to the hon. Premier. Has the

November 13, 1975 ALBERTA HANSARD 1035 government set any deadline as yet, as to what he means by a fair opportunity for the plan to work -- three months, six months -- before an evaluation or assessment is made on the workability of the price features of the plan? MR. LOUGHEED: No, Mr. Speaker, we haven't. It would be a matter of ongoing review and assessment, and certainly, because of the nature of it, one that really is on a national basis. I think it would be a matter of general national consensus. MR. NOTLEY: Mr.

Speaker, a further s u p p l e m e n t a r y q u e s t i o n , this time dealing with the wage side of the equation. Has the government given any consideration yet as to the impact of the provincial guidelines on catch-up salary provisions? Now, just as an example, hospital workers had a fairly substantial raise last year. Will they be subject to the 10 per cent, 12 per cent, or 8 per cent provision of the federal guidelines? Has the government concluded how it is going to deal with the impact of the federal guidelines on catch-up salaries? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr.

Speaker, it would be a matter under the proposal I outlined, and as our legislation will, I think, develop. But that matter would be referred for

interpretation to the federal Anti- Inflation Board, to ascertain what the position would be under the precise g u i d elines which would be identical to the federal guidelines. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, a further s u p p l e m e n t a r y q u e s t i o n to the hon. Premier. Has the government had an opportunity yet to assess the impact on what you might call wage anomalies. An illustration in point would be the fact that a social worker who works for the Department of [Social Ser v i c e s and Community Health] receives less than a social worker employed by a hospital.

Has there been any consideration on the wage anomalies for people doing the same type of work? MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, that is usually a matter taken into consideration in the normal bargaining process, and I hope would continue to do so. But again, it would be subject to

interpretation as to whether or not it fits within the wage guidelines established. Municipal Affairs Legislation (continued) DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to address another question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I'd like to know if he is contemplating introducing any legislation this fall relating to an industrial tax- sharing system right across the province. MR. JOHNSTON: No, Mr. Speaker. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask a supplementary. Is the hon. minister c o n t e m p l a t i n g introducing any legislation r e l a t i n g to municipal affairs?

I'm not being facetious, I want to know if he is going to. MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, we will have some very comprehensive legislation f o r t h c o m i n g in due course. Family Planning Clinics MR. MUSGREAVE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to address this question to the Minister of Social Services and Community Health. it is my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that family planning clinics are presently being funded in several cities of the province, but a proposed family planning clinic for Calgary has not received preventive social service funding and is presently limping along on federal funds and volunteer effort.

I would like the minister to advise if the government is considering examining all preventive social service programs to ensure that only those programs serving a great need are continued, that new programs are evaluated in terms of present programs, and whether you will be recommending e l i m i n a t i o n of programs of questionable value. MISS HUNLEY: Mr. Speaker, I hope I might have authorization of the Chair to make a major speech, because I think that is what it would require to answer all those q u e s t i o n s . I'll try to be brief, though, Mr. Speaker.

To begin with, I think it is important the members of this Legislature keep in mind that programs initiate locally, at the municipal level. They must be approved there under the preventive aspect g u i d e l i n e s . They must also receive not less than 20 per cent funding municipally. Therefore, the local people will determine what the important programs are and where their priorities lie. At least this is my anticipation.

The limitations we will have will be our budgetary restraint and in some instances — the hon. member has referred to a specific problem in Calgary of a program that was ongoing under federal funding, and it was not possible to extend the PSS funding available in my budget this year to accommodate that. This may occur from time to time, and under the 11 per cent guidelines I would anticipate it may happen fairly frequently.

Therefore, it's important that the municipalities determine their own priorities, and we will do our best to accommodate them within the PSS budget allocated to this department by the Legislature. Meeting with Beef Producers MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Agriculture and ask whether he intends to

1036 ALBERTA HANSARD November 13, 1975 meet with farmers in the Wandering River area tonight to discuss the cow-calf problem. MR. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated yesterday, I was in that area on October 22 and met with a number of people who were interested in the problems of beef producers. Late yesterday afternoon, I advised Mr. Dascavich of the National Farmers Union, who was purported to be leading the group there, that our meeting scheduled for 3:30 p.m. Friday of this week was still scheduled so far as I was concerned.

I suggested to him at that time that it might be well that he would bring with him to my office tomorrow representatives of those people who are interested in discussing the matter. Subsequent to that, I received early this afternoon a telegram from Mr. Dascavich suggesting to me they were not, p e r h a p s , willing to meet in my office tomorrow, and that they wanted me to come to Wandering River tonight at 9 o’clock. I advised them by telegram that I had other obligations and would not be able to attend tonight. Indeed, I'm going to be listening to the hon. Leader of the Opposition’s speech in the Legislature.

So at this point, Mr. Speaker, I'm looking forward to meeting with that group tomorrow afternoon, here in Edmonton. ORDERS OF THE DAY MR. LOUGHEED: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order with regard to the Hansard preliminary, unofficial report of my remarks yesterday, I'd like to make a correction of the information I stated regarding the core housing incentive p r o g r a m . I stated it provides provincial funds at 8 per cent for apartment construction, b ut 50 per cent of the units must be rent-regulated for families with $6,000 to $12,000 gross annual income.

Apparently, yesterday I said in error $8,000 to $12, 000. I would appreciate it if Hansard would make the appropriate correction. head: MOTION FOR A RETURN 186. Mr. Clark proposed the following motion to the Assembly: That an order of the Assembly do issue for a return showing: The total cost of preparing the report on the Olds Government Centre Programme. [Motion carried] head: MOTIONS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT MOTIONS 1. Moved by Mr. Horsman:

Be it resolved that the Government of Alberta consider the introduction of legislation which would: (

a) empower courts in all matrimonial causes to divide the property of the spouses between them. (

b) require courts in arriving at such division of property to consider the contribution in dollars and effort made by spouses; and (

c) remove by amendment such inequities as may exist in Alberta laws relative to matrimonial property rights. [Adjourned debate: Mr. Horsman] MR. HORSMAN: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to conclude my remarks on the subject of matrimonial property reform in the Province of Alberta. Towards the c o n c l u s i o n of the spring session of the L e g i s l a t u r e , I had spoken very briefly in i n t r o d u c i n g my concern regarding the question of matrimonial property in this province.

Since the conclusion of my remarks at that stage, we have had a major report issued by the Institute of Law Research and Reform in this province, in August of this year. All members, no doubt, have received it, and I trust have taken the opportunity of observing the recommendations that have been made in that report. I think that most people would agree, Mr. Speaker, there is a real necessity for reform and change in the law respecting matrimonial property in this province, and indeed throughout the other provinces of Canada, and Canada itself.

I think it's appropriate this year in particular, which has been designated as International Women's Year, that we should be discussing and debating this matter in this Legislature. I am particularly pleased to see in the gallery today the co-ordinator for Alberta of the International Women's Year, Miss Donna Fraser. I am sure many members will welcome her here today, listening to the remarks which will be made concerning this matter of great concern. I say great concern, because it applies to all Albertans who are married and have property. There are, of course, other Albertans who are not married as yet.

Some members of this House fall into that c a t e g o r y ; nevertheless I'm sure they are still concerned about what is happening in this field. I say there is a real necessity for reform in this area. It's not just because of the most recent decision in the Murdoch case, with which many members are familiar. I know many women in particular have e x p r e s s e d a great deal of concern about the decision which has been reached in that area. I think one of the things members should be cognizant of is that, at the present time, it is possible to obtain judicial relief and judicial action with

November 13, 1975 ALBERTA HANSARD 1037 regard to matrimonial property. But to do so, it may be necessary in some cases to launch as many as three different legal actions. Of course, those legal actions could consist of such things as, first of all, judicial separation action in the provincial jurisdiction, a divorce action under the federal jurisdiction, and in case of jointly-held property, action under The Partition Act, which dates back many years in English law. Of course, that type of legal action only results in a great deal of additional legal expense to both parties in the divorce.

While I am quite in favor of lawyers earning legal fees of an appropriate nature, I’m certainly not in favor of seeing a great deal of extra legal expense "trundled", if I may use the expression from the Minister of Environment yesterday trundled onto the backs of the people who are seeking redress in the courts of this province. I say it is important that we have reform and change as well, Mr. Speaker, because I think there is an increasing expectation and an increasing awareness on the part of our citizens of the inequities which exist in the law in this province.

This concern has been demonstrated throughout Canada by the fact that many provinces have already instituted law research and reform commissions, and many of them have already reported their findings to the various legislative bodies in Canada. I've had the opportunity of reading some of these reports -- in particular our own, of course, in Alberta, the Canadian working paper on matrimonial property, and the British Columbia report. I've also had an opportunity of reviewing, although briefly, the Saskatchewan report.

Now I think we must look at the laws that exist today and agree -- and I hope we will agree -- that reform is necessary in this very important field. There are really, I think, four options open to this Legislature, Mr. Speaker. The first is to make some minor changes in the law, but basically leave the law as it exists today in Alberta. This of course was considered by our commission in Alberta. In fact, one of the members, although the member doesn't appear to be identified in the report, indicated that would be his choice -- one out of eight. We could then go to the second option, which I suggest, Mr.

Speaker, is to go into community of property, in which all property acquired by the parties to a marriage, following the marriage, becomes community of property, and it will be divided in an appropriate manner. In that regard, Mr. Speaker, I might add that the British Columbia royal commission of family and children's law report is available in the Legislature library. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, it is a very well-written d o c u m e n t . Mr. Justice Berger, who is known to many of our members, was one of the primary authors of this report.

It's interesting to note that this particular report had five commission members, and they were unanimous in their agreement that there should be a law of community of property in the Province of British Columbia. I would urge members who are really concerned with this problem to obtain a copy of this report and read it.

As a matter of fact, I particularly wish to refer to the introduction to this report which sets out, as clearly and succinctly as I've ever had the opportunity of reading, the nature of property law between spouses, and how the law has changed over the years since English law originally had the property belonging e n t i r e l y to the husband, and in fact, the wife was a belonging. That of course has changed, not significantly in the minds of some people, unfortunately, but that's a n o t h e r matter. The law has changed.

I would urge that members at least read the introductory remarks to this report which is only five pages long but, as I say, sets out, in very clear form, the transition of the law to its present state. In British Columbia, as I said, Mr. Speaker, the commission recommended a c o m m u n i t y of property. In Alberta, that c o n c e p t was rejected unanimously by our i n s t i t u t e . Instead, they discussed the two remaining alternatives, one of which is known as deferred sharing and the other, for simplicity, as judicial discretion.

The concept of deferred sharing was approved by four of the eight members of the Alberta commission. The concept of judicial discretion was approved by three of the eight members. Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, I was disappointed there was such a marked degree of uncertainty. In fact, I would like to refer the members to page 24 of the report where the matter is analysed. It's a real concern to me that there was not a degree of unanimity on the part of our c o m m i s s i o n e r s in this province regarding the method of dealing with this problem. There is a considerable difference in the two methods discussed.

So we are in a difficult position as legislators in this province, because we do not have a clear-cut recommendation from our own commission. Nevertheless, I would like to discuss the merits of the two proposals as I see them as a member of this Legislature. I think I would certainly like to make it quite clear at the beginning that I am in favor of the minority report. I've been in the minority before, and I'm not sorry in this particular case to be in that same position.

The deferred sharing concept which, as I say, was approved by half the membership of the commission, is an extremely complex, new method of dealing with matrimonial property. It provides a fixed formula and in the report takes pages 34 to 118 to explain. I think it would have some very serious defects, in that it would turn our judiciary in determining the question of matrimonial property distribution into mathematicians more than judges. I also think it could be either a divorce lawyer's dream or a divorce lawyer's nightmare, depending on how the courts interpreted the law as proposed. Mr.

Speaker, I would also like to point out one particular recommendation of

1038 ALBERTA HANSARD November 13, 1975 this report with which I take very serious issue. That is the concept, espoused by the proponents of the first recommendation, that the law would not apply to any m a r r i a g e s which existed prior to the law coming into effect. I suggest we must reject that proposal out of hand. What it would be doing, in effect, is creating two different classes of married people in this province. In a way, Mr. Speaker, it would also put the position somewhat like this, if I can perhaps paraphrase a famous p o l i t i c i a n on the federal scene of years ago in Canada.

It comes out something like this: retroactivity if necessary, but not n e c e s s a r i l y retroactivity. That would really be a very unfortunate situation for the people of Alberta. [interjections] I didn't quite get the remark from the hon. Member for Edmonton Highlands; he didn't speak with his usual clarity. The other recommendation deals with judicial discretion. This is the particular recommendation I would like to urge upon members of the Assembly. It really does fit within the terms of the motion I introduced during the spring session.

In fact, I would like to quote from the report on page 26 very briefly, if I may, as follows -- and I am quoting: The three members of our Board who favour judicial discretion find two great merits in it in comparison with deferred sharing. The first is that a discretionary system could be expressed and a p p l i e d more simply than deferred sharing, which they consider u n n e c e s s a r i l y complex and cumbersome and which they think will, because of its complexity, lead to m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g and to litigation.

The second is that a discretionary system would allow the courts to make a decision based upon the individual merits of the particular case rather than upon the rules prescribed by a deferred sharing regime, which they considered r i g i d , unlikely to be as suitable to the particular c i r c u m s t a n c e s as a discretionary order, and unlikely to distinguish s a t i s f a c t o r i l y between the deserving and the undeserving. I heartily endorse that concern and the approach of judicial discretion. Therefore, judicial discretion has two things which I think are important. One is simplicity.

I think the courts of this country, in dealing with the question of matrimonial break-up, should in one legal action be able to determine what will happen with respect to the marriage itself, to the property, to the children and the custody of the children, and the m a i n t e n a n c e and support. It should not be necessary to launch a series of applications in the courts, as I said at the beginning of my remarks.

In addition, this report recommends that the family home be included, either as deferred sharing or in the judicial discretion alternative, and that is important because it does add to the simplicity of dealing with this very difficult question. Also, the individual merits of the case can be dealt with by the courts. Here I'd like just to comment briefly, Mr. Speaker, on what has happened in Alberta.

We have had, in this province, the Supreme Court and district courts now involved in dealing with matrimonial relief, and these courts have been dealing fairly and in a d i s c r e t i o n a r y manner under the laws that exist. In particular I would refer the members to what happens with regard to The Family Relief Act. The same type of discretion exercised under that act, can be exercised fairly for the benefit of those concerned. The following items must be taken into consideration by the courts in dealing with this very serious question. They are found on page 121 of the report.

The considerations the court must look at in arriving at a final decision would be the contribution. Now, this is a very thorny question, and contribution can mean a great deal. But the report makes it clear, and my motion makes it clear, Mr. Speaker, that it's not just contribution in dollars. It is c o n t r i b u t i o n in effort by both members of the family toward running the home and raising the family. That is an essential i n g r e d i e n t , and that is one of the ingredients lacking in the law at the time the Supreme Court of Canada was called upon to make the decision in the Murdoch case.

Secondly, we must deal with the economic circumstances of both parties and be able to determine, from those economic circumstances, how best to order the distribution. The duration of the marriage is a third matter which must be considered. I think all members will agree that the length of time put into a marriage by the parties is a very important ingredient. Under the deferred sharing system, or under community property, that does not receive the same amount of attention.

I suggest it is very important, particularly in the case of second marriages, which often happen, when it is perhaps the intention of both p a r t i e s , if they have children from prior marriages, to pass on to their children the benefits of the first marriage, to some degree at any rate. This is very important for the courts to consider. The conduct of the parties is also a matter the courts should consider. Time and the manner of acquisition of the property is another matter.

The wrongful d i s p o s a l of property by one of the spouses in anticipation of a dissolution is also a factor the courts must consider. If, in fact, one of the parties has tried to divest himself of property in order to avoid the other spouse obtaining a rightful share upon dissolution of the marriage, there should be a consideration of that by the judge. The final things which must be considered are previous agreements, dispositions, and legal systems. I would hate to see, Mr.

Speaker, the development of a marriage contract system in this province, so that each young couple setting out on the m a r r i a g e trail would have to go into a legal

November 13, 1975 ALBERTA HANSARD 1039 contract. I think it would be very u n f o r t u n a t e to see that development in this province. Yet I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the first system being espoused would lead to that development, and I suggest we should reject that. Now there has been -- and other s p e a k e r s may very well develop upon this -- a concern for the method of distribution and division and payment.

That is set out on page 128 of the report and would require the court, in the order, to deal with the distribution in a number of ways: either payment over a period of time, with or without interest; one spouse to give security for all or part of the judgment; to charge the property itself with payment of all or part of the judgment; or in the last resort, I suggest, to order that property be sold and the proceeds be divided between the spouses in such proportions as the court may direct.

I appreciate, without any question, the very real and valid concern held by many agriculturalists, who do not wish to see the family farm, the economic farm unit, forced into sale. I would suggest that this judicial discretion is absolutely necessary in determining how the award is to be paid, so we don’t find people ending up one with a quarter

section of land, the other with another quarter, and neither of them being able to make a real and viable living from that land itself. Mr. Speaker, I know there are many other members who wish to contribute to this debate, and I will conclude with this remark. I urge all the members of this Legislature to seriously consider this problem: to recognize the real necessity for a change in the law as it exists today in this province, and to join with me in endorsing the motion which is before the House and which, in effect, is an endorsation of the minority report of the Alberta law research and reform commission.

MR. MUSGREAVE: Mr. Speaker, in this I n t e r n a t i o n a l Women’s Year I think it's most significant that a new government member for Medicine Hat-Redcliff should be the one responsible for bringing this motion before us. I think I would like to hope that, as a new member of the Legislature the same as myself, perhaps we are breathing some new light, some new concepts, and new ideas into this House for a problem that has been with us for a long time. You will note, Mr. Speaker, that the motion refers specifically to the division of property between spouses.

All of us are concerned with the treatment of women in our province, particularly in the cases of marriage breakdown. I thought it was unfortunate that the hon. Member for M e d i c i n e Hat-Redcliff mentioned the Murdoch case. It has given our province a lot of notoriety, and putting on my male c h a u v i n i s t hat for a minute, I would suggest that perhaps the male in this particular case has not had a fair hearing through the news media. However, the problem is a severe one, and it epitomizes the kind of situation we've got ourselves into by not addressing ourselves to the problem. But, Mr.

Speaker, I think it's most important we recognize there is much in the way that has to be done in this Legislature, not just in the concerns of m a t r i m o n i a l property but to make sure women are treated as human beings, as persons, as individuals with rights and concerns. We know that in the past some provinces have classed women as non-persons. They were in the same category as insane people. They were in the same category as minority children who couldn't look after their own rights. They were unable to manage property. They were unable to enter the p r o f essions, except under great duress.

They couldn't vote. They were kept out of business. They were kept out of trades. In effect, they were kept out of e v e r y t h i n g . They could bear children. They could clean offices. They could nurse in hospitals after Florence Nightingale launched her program. But otherwise they were to be seen and generally not heard. Mr. Speaker, I trust and pray that the members of this Legislature will bring our province into the forefront of legislation in Canada. We don't enjoy that position today.

In many ways, many jurisdictions in our country are ahead of us in this regard, and I would hope that by the time this session of the Legislature is complete, we would have changed this significantly; not only in the division of property, which we are debating today, but in the field of enforcement of discrimination under legislation. Our Individual's Rights Protection Act may be valuable to say, a government agency that wants to launch an action against a private company that discriminates because of race, creed, or color.

But can you imagine a secretary, or a stenographer, or a waitress launching a suit against an international hotel chain or an international oil company, because they are paying a male more than a female who is doing the same job. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, we should be looking at what I understand is the new legislation in the Province of Ontario, whereby the Department of Labour is charged with the responsibility of enforcing the human rights act in that province.

So if there are cases of discrimination we don't leave it up to the person, who is quite often in the lower socio-economic sphere of activity in our country, to launch any necessary legal action, which is her right under our existing legislation. I would suggest that unless the members of this Legislature address themselves to this problem -- and regrettably there are too many of us of the same sex here. [interjections] I notice Miss Hunley agreed too, Mr. Farran. I think it behooves all of us to consider what the future of many of you here may be. I would like to quote from Mrs.

Nellie McClung, who was here many, many years ago, and she said: Women have cleaned up things since time began; and if women ever got into politics, there would be a cleaning-out of pigeon-holes and forgotten

1040 ALBERTA HANSARD November 13, 1975 corners, on which the dust of years has fallen, and the sound of the political carpet-beater will be heard in the land. That’s Mrs. Nellie McClung probably 50 or more years ago. I think it’s most significant that a member of this House raised that so many years ago, but I think it's regrettable it has taken us so many years and our progress has been so limited. Now I appreciate the changes we are debating today in this motion are very complex and of a very difficult legal nature. When I listen to the hon.

Member for Medicine Hat-Redcliff, I kind of get the feeling the legal profession would generally like to leave things the way they are. They are prepared to do a little bit of dressing up here, and a little bit of dressing up there. I'm saying the hon. Member for Medicine Hat-Redcliff would probably be an exception in his profession in that he wants to grasp the nettle as it is, and do something.

But I get the feeling that members of the legal profession in our province and throughout our land are saying, you know it's complex, it's difficult, it's tough to deal with, there's going to be a lot of litigation there's always lots of litigation whenever there's new legislation written -- but I think we'd be doing a disservice to half the constituents of this province if we didn't try to change the laws relating to the holding of property.

I appreciate that, particularly in the case of sharing of small farms and the sharing of small businesses -- how long do you keep them going or how do you eventually dispose of the properties. But I think we should consider, too, that in the past if a woman has primarily looked after the home, has left the business world many years ago or perhaps was never part of it, if the marriage breaks down and there is a dissolution and she has little or no i n c o m e , q u i t e possibly she could end up on welfare. I think this would be a most regrettable situation. So, Mr.

Speaker, I think I would urge all the members here, as did the hon. Member for Medicine Hat-Redcliff, to c o n c e r n themselves with this legislation and to support this motion. I feel it is opening the door, Mr. Speaker, that's all it's doing, opening the door and hopefully castinq some light, and hopefully getting the male members of the community to r e c o g n i z e that the female members -- and I hate to make this discrimination -- but getting the legislators who are primarily men to recognize the very difficult problems faced by women in our community.

As I mentioned earlier, they are human beings, they are persons, and we should start to treat them as such, Mr. Speaker. MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, while I don't know much about marriage, I think that bachelors and spinsters in this House should really speak on this debate, because they can look at it more objectively than our married colleagues. I am going to support the resolution, but there's one

section I want to deal with briefly and that's (

a) where it says, "empower courts in all matrimonial causes to divide the property of the spouses between them". That leads to some cause for concern for me, because you can divide it with 10 per cent going to one and 90 per cent going to the other. It's certainly a division. I would like to see the word "equally" somewhere in there in regard to the amount of the estate that has been obtained or has been gathered since the date of marriage and to the date of the dissolution of the marriage. I believe that should be set out and defined very, very carefully.

If that is not done, if we're simply going to divide the assets at the time of the dissolution of the marriage, then it could be just as unfair as I believe the Murdoch case was, with the husband retaining, as the papers said, $200,000 of the assets which were obtained since the beginning of the m a r r i a g e and the wife getting $200 and a black eye. It certainly was a division, but in my view, it was not a fair division.

I would hope that any legislation we bring in will make it very, very clear we want an equal division of the assets obtained or gathered through the efforts of both, or by either singly, from the date of marriage until the dissolution of marriage. Now I think there has to be some common sense applied to a rule like that. C e r t a i n l y the wife wouldn't want her share of the man's trousers, or her share of the man's coats and jackets, and I don't s u p p o s e the husband would want his share of the spouse's dresses or hosiery, et cetera.

There has to be some common sense in dividing the property, but with regard to the cash assets that have been obtained, I can't see any difficulty there. I do see some difficulties in dividing the effort, but I was most concerned in the Murdoch case where it appeared that the lady was considered to be just doing the ordinary duties of a wife in cooking, sewing and doing all the other menial tasks of the household, even though some evidence indicated she was out on the plough and feeding cattle too.

But even had she only remained in the home and done the work of the woman of that house, surely that was making a contribution and the assets obtained during that period should, in my view, be equally divided. I can't follow the argument that because the man is out working and the woman is in the house, he should have a greater share of the assets when they have already joined together as a team and become a married couple. As Longfellow said, "It's not thine and mine, it's ours after marriage", and that's probably one of the reasons I'm still single.

Some people say marriages are made in heaven; I personally don't believe that. I believe marriages are legal contracts, made on earth. If it is a legal contract, then certainly it should be applied equally to both parties, the party of the first part and the party of the second part. If that is done I think there would be very little difficulty. Now when we introduce other things, such as discretion as to what amount should

November 13, 1975 ALBERTA HANSARD 1041 go to the woman and what part should go to the man, I think we're asking for some difficulties and some injustices. Because while that discretion is supported, as far as I'm concerned, in regard to assets like the woman's dresses and apparel and to the man's apparel, I can't follow that in regard to the effort which has been made and the assets that have been obtained together from the date of the marriage. Certainly there should be no discretion there. If they have a value of $50, then it should be divided.

If they have a value of $100,000, then it should be divided as equally as possible between the two, if that unfortunate time comes when they are goinq to separate. The matter of discretion, however, in regard to the standard of income to which each is accustomed, gives me some concern. Surely a man and wife are accustomed to somewhat similar standards of living during the period of their marriage. I suppose it's feasible to think that the wife stays home and eats hamburger and the husband might go out and dine at the Chateau Lacombe every night, but I don't think this is a real thing.

I think most of the standards of living of married couples are very much in line, and if they are, then surely the standard of living to which each is accustomed should not be a factor in the division of the estate. Whether one is poor or one is rich -- the word welfare is mentioned for some -- if this is going to be the case five months after marriage, that maybe one of them had to go on welfare, then I don't think it would be a fair disposition, or fair at all. I think the division has to be based on the period between the date of marriage and the date of dissolution.

Whatever those assets are at that time and during that period, then those are the things that should be divided. I think we simply complicate this whole thing and muddy the waters by bringing in what's going to happen before they were married or after they are divorced. I don't think that has anything to do with it. Take the case of a 42 year old man, who is a pauper, who marries a 70 year old woman who is wealthy. Should he have a share of her wealth that she worked for, with hard work and efforts, for perhaps 70 years, simply because he marries her? I don't think so.

There's probably a dower right, but I don't think he has any legal right to any share of that estate which she made on her own if he marries her and they are divorced 6 months, or 1 year, or 2 years later, and vice versa, where a poor woman marries a wealthy man. Surely we're not going to encourage that type of thing, that people simply marry to get their fingers or hands into the cookie jar of the other person because the other person happens to have lots of cookies in the jar. I don't think that's the type of thing we want in this country at all, and it shouldn't be encouraged by law.

But if you take the assets obtained from the date of marriage to the date of dissolution, then I think all those types of things are avoided and I think it's fair. I don't support the claim that there should be a division of assets made after the dissolution or before the actual date of marriage. In connection with that I do support the resolution with those q u a l i f i c a t i o n s . Possibly those will really be what the mover of the resolution means, although it doesn't say "equally” and that is possibly because he didn't want to divide the clothes, et cetera, but equal assets I think should be divided.

One of the other things that bothers me a little bit about this, too, is when this will be applicable. I have had some r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s from women in my constituency who are very much concerned about the fact there's some suggestion that legislation would be effective only for marriages after the act is passed. I don’t think that would be satisfactory at all, personally. I think if this is not retroactive, it will probably do some good in the future.

But it certainly wouldn't give much consolation to hundreds of women today who are worried about this, not because they're contemplating divorce or separation, but because they feel an unfair thing has happened in our country. They think any people who are legally separated or divorced should have a better deal than what we have seen given to one or two women in this country. So, Mr. Speaker, I'm supporting the resolution, and I'd just like to qualify once again the three items I'm concerned about. There's one item I forgot to m e n t i o n .

I don't agree at all with this opting out of marriage, making a contract before you marry that you're not going to have an equal share. If the legislation is passed, I think it should be applicable to all who marry. They should know that before they marry, and accept it as a condition of the marriage, that whatever assets they make together during the term of that marriage, be it long or short, are going to be as equally divided as possible, if they should come to the unfortunate event of separation. I don't think providing opting-out clauses in marriages is going to do the country any good.

I don't think it's going to encourage the thing this type of legislation is trying to encourage: a fair division of assets made together through a husband and wife, through their joint efforts, living as man and wife, and working together. The whole matter of the children in this regard creates other problems, of course. But I think this resolution is dealing with the simple facts of a man and wife at this period; the children, however, would have to be very, very definitely dealt with in any legislation, in order that children coming from that marriage would be dealt with fairly.

If the children are under the care of one of the spouses, and they're minors, I can see that an equal share to that spouse would look after the problem. If they are no longer minors, possibly there is some reason to think they should be out on their own and should not secure a share of the estate, unless, of course, they too had a very definite hand in building a part of that

1042 ALBERTA HANSARD November 13, 1975 estate. I think we have to take a very careful look at any suggestion that we're going to have contracts prior to a marriage that permit opting-out, or contracts that will deny the right of law to the parties in case there is a dissolution or a separation. So I'm generally supporting the resolution, and I'm looking forward to seeing the legislation brought in by the government in this regard. MR. COOKSON: Mr. Speaker, I don't know if I can speak with the same authority as the Member for Drumheller.

Obviously, he's done some pretty fair research, even though he may lack some experience in the area of marriage. I was rather interested in the resolution -- not that I'm contemplating divorce, although my wife may be on occasion. But I think it affects a very large number of people, in particular property owners, because that's what it basically deals with. Secondly, I always think that laws are too important to be left totally to lawyers. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. COOKSON: The report on matrimonial property, which is an excellent report, I think bears some close scrutiny by other than the law profession.

That includes the report by The Institute of Law Research and Reform, which is also an excellent document. I think the Member for Stettler initiated this resolution several years ago, and that's when I became quite i n t e r e s t e d , in particular in the Murdoch vs. Murdoch case, which was certainly well publicised. Perhaps the whole story was never really told, but it did initiate directions towards some form of law reform in this particular area. Now I think before we try to establish some way of correcting the inequities, we have to assume certain things, and the Member for Calgary touched on these briefly.

First, that all persons are equal, and I think this has been basically established through this government's passing the Bill of Rights; secondly, that marriage is b a s i c a l l y a partnership; and thirdly, that the economic provider and the homemaker are basically equal: that is to say, it really shouldn't matter who is earning the income in the home. When you're partners, you really should share directly in any ben e f i t s that derive from this. Now the Murdoch vs.

Murdoch case didn't come to this conclusion, basically because we didn't have any kind of statutes at the time, I suppose, and still don't, to deal with a particular situation. We have certain statutes that protect our spouses from inequities to some degree. The Dower Act, for example, I think was touched on, which gives some protection -- at least the quarter

section on which the home is located, to the spouse. Many breakdowns in marriage are dealt with through the divorce act. In many cases, this results in a lump-sum payment to the spouse in order to provide some form of income. Then there's the law of separate party, which, u n f o rtunately, doesn't take a woman's contribution into consideration. The report by the Institute of Law Research and Reform touched on a number of areas. But I was really interested in the report on matrimonial property, published in British Columbia.

It operates on the basic premises which I've suggested, but offers a number of alternatives to settle this kind of a dilemma, which unfortunately, by the way, happens more and more frequently in our society. In their submission they have suggested three alternatives. One is the traditional method, traditional property, where the husband generally assumes management of all the property, deals with any transactions, and most of the property is in the h u s b a n d ' s name. This is really close to the traditional thing as we know it today. They also suggested in their submission a full and immediate community.

What that basically means is that once the vows are given and accepted, both parties are then party to a common contract which entitles them to share equally in the accumulation of assets once that point is reached. That goes on unless, unfortunately, there's a dissolving of marriage. The other one suggested by this particular report on matrimonial property was the deferred community concept. I think the Member for Medicine Hat-Redcliff touched on this. That, in effect I suppose, is a compromise between the other two.

It s u g g e s t s that once the marriage is consummated, accumulation and administration of property is still in the hands, generally speaking, of the man of the family. However, if there is a breakdown in marriage, both parties share equally in the assets. Any of these three alternatives has basic problems, but the one I wanted to touch on just briefly was, I suppose, the area which I'm most concerned with and that is the business of accumulating large sums of assets, which happens on farms and in business enterprises.

Generally speaking, most people who go into the agriculture business live poorly but they die rich. I see that around me in my constituency, where they go short of many, many things through a long period of fairly hard work, and then they accumulate assets with the intention of retiring and being independent of any kind of financial assistance.

So when you start talking about a marriage breakdown and the problems that are forthcoming in a situation like that, you deal with a number of situations that I think would have to be resolved before it would be totally acceptable, certainly, to the agricultural sector, and I'm sure the business community. For example, one suggestion was made that we should be required to get approval of the spouse before spending sums of $2,000 or more. Now I can assure you that those kinds of transactions go on in the auction marts and the machine shops pretty nearly every day in every operation on every farm.

And if we had to go through

November 13, 1975 ALBERTA HANSARD 1043 the dilemna of getting our wives’ permission, I think we would certainly slow down the economy of the province. Then there is the problem of separating property, where you end up with separate titles and separate subdivisions. Maybe this is the motive behind the whole p r o c e s s . It’s getting more and more difficult in my area to obtain subdivisions, and this might be conceivably used as a method of splitting land. Well, as soon as you split property, you destroy the economic o p e r a t i o n . It's as simple as that.

I use this example: if a divorce came about and the woman of the house received the bull worth $10,000, and the man of the house received 10 cows [each] worth $100, neither of those assets would be of much value to either one. It's something like the biblical story about splitting the baby. So I think this has to be given very careful consideration before anyone attempts to split an economic unit, whether it's in the business sector or in the area of agriculture. Any of these recommendations tend to ignore the cause of breakdown, and maybe that's important.

One says that he became an alcoholic because his wife was running around, and she said she began to run around because her husband was an alcoholic. I don't know which comes first, but it probably is a combination of factors. The one thing I would like to assure the legal profession is that they do their very utmost to make whatever system is acceptable to the people of Alberta as simple as possible. Certainly the report on law research and reform wasn't a simple report. I understand that they have to go into all the ramifications of this sort of settling of property.

But it must be made simple and easy, because if it isn't, the one thing I worry about is the possibility that most young people before they marry will enter into some kind of marriage contract. The vows will become second nature to a marriage as such. They'll simply enter into a contract which will be applicable after marriage. MR. NOTLEY: Mr. Speaker, in rising to make a few brief comments about the resolution we are discussing today, I'd like to join the other members in saying how impressed I was with the report of the Institute of Law Research and Reform.

Clearly, the commission has done an excellent job in reviewing a rather -- at least in the last several years -- controversial question, although I think it's fair to say, Mr. Speaker, that in the last several years there has been a growinq consensus that we need to make changes as far as the division of m a t r i m o n i a l property is concerned. So what was a very controversial matter at the time of the Murdoch case has perhaps changed s o m e what as people recognize the importance of changes in the law. Mr.

Speaker, in reading the report, I see that the majority proposal talks about judicial discretion for existing couples, and deferred sharing for those who form couples after the new legislation is enacted. I'd like to comment just briefly, Mr. Speaker, about the whole question of j u d i c i a l discretion. I can appreciate the arguments made in the commission report for existing couples, but it seems to me there are problems with judicial discretion. The first problem is that it does not really specify equality. Recognizing the contribution of the spouses can mean virtually anything.

It can mean an equal division, or it can mean almost nothing at all. Judicial discretion also brings in a certain element of uncertainty, Mr. Speaker, which, of course, is inevitable to a certain extent, but it obviously will involve a delay too in the final division of the assets or the property of a m a r r i a g e . I don't raise this as a major point, because we are now talking about the changes in the judicial system, but I really question whether we are not wasting the court's time to a large extent with a large number of divorce cases dealing with the division of matrimonial property. Again I say, Mr.

Speaker, I rather find the deferred sharing concept more attractive. Now, the deferred sharing p r o p o s a l the commission suggests for those couples who now get together after this becomes law, I think has a number of important features. It recognizes the c o n t r i b u t i o n of both spouses as equal with respect to the acquisition of property. I think -- and other members have made this point too, Mr. Speaker -- that any a c q u i s i t i o n of property or valuables during the course of the marriage is not just a result of the work of the wage earner or the salary earner.

The other spouse can make just as important a contribution to that couple's overall economic well-being. I often think, Mr. Speaker, of many of the wives who work to send their husbands to university. The husband gets a B.A., Master of Arts, a Ph.D. or what have you, suddenly has an earning power which is very, very substantial once these degrees have been accumulated. But the degrees could never have been obtained had it not been for the fact that the spouse was prepared to sacrifice pretty substantially.

I think it’s rather arbitrary and unfair to suggest, then, that if a break-up occurs, the spouse is to be left high and dry. As a matter of fact, I often think that the spouse has almost a claim on the earning power of the individual, because of the sacrifices that have often been made during the education process itself. Having made these remarks, Mr. Speaker, I think the proposal we have before us in the form of a resolution is a timely one, because it does give us an opportunity to debate this important report. I feel that the report offers the basis for some realistic changes in this whole area.

It's a report that should be acted upon quickly by the government, and I fully support its implementation. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, in making some remarks with regard to the resolution, I'd like first of all to say I certainly appreciated the report that has come in, the comprehensive coverage by the committee, and the very straightforward manner in which the recommendations were presented

1044 ALBERTA HANSARD November 13, 1975 for our consideration. I, too, would like to voice support and encouragement for the resolution before us. But certainly I would like to say at the beginning that I place my priority more on the majority recommendation than the minority recommendation. I feel at this point in time and in our history, the division of property, the sharing of h u s b a n d and wife, is certainly a more equitable thing in the family unit. I feel that in building a farming operation, a business operation, the man and wife share in a more equitable manner.

There's equity of responsibility, equity of decision making. I think these are factors to be taken into consideration. We have to recognize that the education and experience level of both husband and wife in the family unit at this point in time are greater than ever before. I think those two factors in the family unit reflect better understanding, better c o m m u n i c a t i o n and certainly a partnership in the decision-making process What we are discussing here is a m a r r i a g e getting to a point where there is breakdown.

I think at that point in time we have to assess the fact that a contribution has been made by both partners, a contribution to some type of entity or economic unit. At that point in time, I feel that present procedures, through the judicial system, really haven't brought about equity and fairness. I can think of examples, just as other members have o u t l i n e d in this Assembly, relative to f a r m l a n d . The wife was in a situation where she couldn't tolerate the circumstances of living in that particular environment on the farm, or with the husband, and felt her only alternative was to leave.

But if we look at it historically, she may have spent 10 or 15 years building the farm unit. But when she walks away, she has access to nothing in legal procedures at present to protect her, and is in no way rewarded or compensated for the part of her life she has given. I feel in light of that, legislation certainly needs to be brought into the House of that protects some of these rights of either partner in the marriage when a marriage breakdown occurs.

Certainly, we support a position, as I said the majority recommendation, where husband and wife share the economic gains made together during the compatible time of their m a r r i a g e . Certainly we feel we can support deferred sharing and balancing of payments. There may be some difficulty in coming up with final result in that particular manner. But we have to recognize that in the judicial process, it's the same thing. A judge must make that particular decision.

I feel if some formula is established, some precedent, when a situation like this occurs, the court can refer to that, and make a decision very quickly. We also support, along with that, that the courts should be given power to reduce or cancel the share of a spouse where they find the contribution of that particular spouse has not been equitable, or has not been as reasonably expected, as the report points out. We feel that appeal procedures should certainly be there, so an out is there, because there are going to be situations that do occur in that manner. But, Mr. Speaker, we appreciate the report.

We certainly hope legislation is forthcoming, and that changes are made to update this particular procedure in our society. MRS. CHICHAK: Mr. Speaker, having regard for the day of the week and the time on the clock, I move to adjourn debate on this motion. [Motion carried] head: PUBLIC BILLS AND ORDERS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT ORDERS (Second Reading) Bill 207 The Auditor General Act MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to have the opportunity to rise in my place and move second reading of Bill No. 207, The Auditor General Act.

I think it's fair to say that a number of things have taken place since last spring when this piece of legislation was first introduced in the Assembly. They are, to say the least, encouraging as far as the concepts involved in this piece of legislation becoming a reality here in the Province of Alberta. I want to say at the outset, Mr. Speaker, that none of the comments that I, or I'm sure other hon. members, make today would in any way want to detract from the very excellent service given to this province by the present provincial auditor, and the former provincial auditor, Mr. Keith Huckvale.

I think it should be stated clearly at the outset that the decision, as far as the official opposition was concerned, to move in the direction of proposing an auditor general's piece of legislation in the A s s e m b l y , is no reflection upon the present or former provincial auditor in this p r o v i n c e . Moreover, Mr. Speaker, we see it as being perhaps a late move, perhaps one that should have been made somewhat earlier one could even go so far as to say perhaps by the former administration -- to move in the direction of the concept of a full attained auditor general. I would be remiss, Mr.

Speaker, if I didn't say to the members of the Assembly that we on this side of the House are certainly not mindful -- I believe the present Government House Leader, when he sat on this side of the House, moved a similar piece of legislation in 1970 or 1971. I would say also that when we look at this piece of legislation -- we're mindful also, I think it was on September 18 this year -- that the present Provincial Treasurer, when speaking to a group in the city of Calgary -- if my memory serves me correctly, I believe it was the Calgary-

November 13, 1975 ALBERTA HANSARD 1045 Egmont Constituency Association -- indicated to . . . MR. CRAWFORD: What party? MR. CLARK: What party? Well, I don't believe my colleague Mr. Notley, or Mr. Taylor, or I would ask the present Provincial Treasurer to come to any of our meetings. The last time [interjections] I spoke to the leader of the Liberal party in Alberta, he didn't indicate he was going to have the Provincial Treasurer at any of his meetings, so I just assumed members would assume it was at a Tory annual meeting.

Now, if I left any doubt on that, I want to make it very clear that it was, I believe, a Calgary Egmont Tory constituency meeting. That took place in Calgary, I might add. But I'd be less than fair if I didn't say to the Provincial Treasurer that we were indeed pleased with the announcement, at least the general principle, he outlined on that particular occasion. We do have, frankly, Mr.

Speaker, a couple of concerns from the announcement the Treasurer made at his meeting in C a l g a r y : f irst of all, that legislation may not be able to be in place for some time yet; secondly, that this move by the g o v e r n m e n t would make a change as far as the pre-audit function is concerned, that in fact the pre-audit function would be taken over by the provincial controller in the Treasurer's department. I'll have some comments in that particular area later in the course of my remarks.

But I want to say now that we see a real danger, if in fact the provincial controller -- and we have a provincial controller in the legislation that we are debating now -- becomes an employee of the Provincial Treasurer's department, or any other government department. In our j u d g m e n t , the provincial controller, who would serve many of the functions of the provincial auditor today, should remain independent and accountable to the Legislature, and certainly not to a particular minister of the Crown.

I would urge hon. members to spend the next period of time in this debate looking at the bill from the standpoint of the basic principles involved. We believe the basic principles involved in the bill are good. Being very candid with the members, in light of some discussions we've held since the bill has been produced, and also in light of a federal report which came out on the review of the Independent Review Committee of the office of the Auditor General of Canada.

I think there are some worthwhile suggestions in that particular report that may very well, in due course, find their way at least into considerations here in Alberta. But generally, I would like to ask members to look at the bill from the standpoint of the principles involved, and perhaps we might be able to avoid getting involved in some of the particular sections that may cause some concern. Now, in looking at the basic question of the reason for a provincial auditor and The Auditor General Act, I think it's rather straightforward. We've seen tremendous growth in the budget for the province . . .

In 1971, if my memory serves me correctly, the budget for the province was under $1 billion. Yet in 1975 we're looking at a budget in excess of $2.5 billion. All members of the Assembly have now been through at least one session of the e s t i m a t e s , and some members have had the experience of sitting on the Public Accounts committee. When we think in terms of the way in which the Public Accounts committee has functioned over a period of many years, in fact as long as I've been here, it really leaves some questions about how effective that particular committee is.

A second area that raises concern, and I think points out the need for an auditor general, centres around the question of the growth of the public service, and the large number of consultants that has been taken on during the last four years. I think it should also be pointed out to hon. m e m b e r s , as perhaps a third reason why we should be looking at an auditor general, that at this particular time there are something like 62 Crown corporations, boards, commissions, agencies, and trusts which the present provincial auditor looks at and reports on yearly.

But I would encourage the hon. members to look at, I believe, volume 2 of the public accounts and then at the kinds of comments that were made. If my memory serves me correctly, in the last public accounts, in only 5 of the 62 agencies were there any comments under the auditor's report, and in regard to 18 of the agencies were there comments on the way in which the agency had in fact done its auditing or kept its books. I'm not suggesting, Mr. Speaker, on this particular occasion anyway, that the 62 Crown corporations, boards, commissions, agencies, and trusts are in fact hiding anything. But I am suggesting, Mr.

Speaker, that with the way the Legislature operates, it is virtually impossible for us to have the kind of scrutiny there should be as far as those agencies are concerned. I do think that a provincial auditor, with the terms of reference outlined in this bill, could provide a real service, not just to the Legislature, not just to the government, but in fact to the people of this particular province. I would like to go on, Mr.

Speaker, and make the point once again that Public Accounts, as we know it today, meets for a very few hours each session -- perhaps 3 hours on 8 or 10 occasions, something like 30 hours when select members of the L e g i s l a t u r e go over the public accounts from the previous year. I would hope that in addition to some consideration on the auditor general's bill, before long we would look at some way of strengthening the public accounts mechanism we have right now. I think it goes without saying, Mr.

Speaker, that with the kind of growth we've seen in government, it's now impossible for cabinet ministers to really realize what kinds of activities are taking place in their own particular departments. We have some examples in those particular areas that we could become involved in if it

1046 ALBERTA HANSARD November 13, 1975 appeared necessary. I think it's also rather obvious, Mr. Speaker, that regardless of who the government is or who the ministers are, it's no longer -- if ever at all, but certainly not now -- humanly impossible for ministers to really determine whether we're receiving value obtained in the public dollars spent. That's one of the areas I would hope the provincial auditor could become very actively involved in.

Basically, what we're suggesting in the legislation before the House today is that because of the growth of the budget and the growth of the public service, because of the ineffectiveness of the present mechanism as far as public accounts are concerned, and, Mr.

Speaker, because we've had develop in this province a kind of new public-government mix vehicle, we've seen today in the Legislature -- when the Member for Spirit River-Fairview asked one of the cabinet ministers a question regarding the $75 million that the government has put into the Alberta Energy Company -- that in fact we get into a situation in this Assembly where the government maintains it is not accountable for that $75 million. Now that's not the only example we have of this kind of public-private mix in Alberta.

We have the Syncrude venture, where in fact the people of Alberta, through the government, have invested and will continue to invest very large sums of money in Syncrude operations. Yet we really have no accountability in this Legislature. Thirdly, we have the acquisition of Pacific Western Airlines, and $35 or $36 million of public funds into that particular venture. Once again, we don't have in this Assembly a feeling that the government is accountable for the expenditure of that money.

Somehow we have this rather mystical feeling in the Assembly, and throughout Alberta right noW, that we're not accountable for that $75 m illion in the Alberta Energy Company, the $35 or $36 million in PWA, and the money that’s going into Syncrude. I suggest to the members of the Assembly that we are accountable for that, whether we like it or not. No member of the Legislature can really dispatch his responsibilities without having some c o n c e r n in those particular areas, some a c c o u n t a b i l i t y for them.

For us to be told in the Assembly that that's a private company and that's their own business -- as was said by my colleague from Clover Bar today, I know of no other private company that ever received $75 million, and then went from there. So we have developed in this province a new type of animal -- perhaps that isn't the right word -- but some new type of public vehicle, which is a government and private enterprise mix. As long as this Legislature is going to pour money into those kinds of ventures, we're accountable for that money.

In the course of the last few months, we've had the situation of grants in the Department of Culture, that venture now being before the courts. So it seems that this is a pretty reasonable time for us to be looking at an auditor general. What we're really suggesting in the bill, Mr. Speaker, is that when we set up the office of an auditor general, he would have the power to become involved in i n v e s t i g a t i n g a variety of areas. He could be requested by the Executive Council, the Premier, a minister, or the Public Accounts committee to investigate a variety of areas. We're also saying in

Section 7 of this legislation that in fact the auditor should report annually to the Assembly the results of his examinations, and shall call attention to every case in which he observes that there is any significant degree of a number of, shall we call them malfunctions, where: an officer or employee willfully or negligently omits to collect or receive money; any public money is not duly accounted for; any appropriation was in excess or applied to the purpose or in the manner not authorized by the Legislative Assembly; expenditure was not authorized or not properly vouched or certified for; there had been excess deficiencies or loss through fraud, default, or mistakes of any person; a special warrant has authorized payment of any money; or reasonable value of money has not been obtained in the expenditure of public funds.

I'd like to stop at that particular area for just a moment, Mr. Speaker, and say that as I understand the auditor general and the auditing situation across Canada and North America today, as far as government auditing is concerned, this is some sort of departure, some sort of new c o n c e p t . We certainly don't claim any o r i g i n a l i t y for the concept of reasonable value for the money spent, or performance auditing, as it is sometimes referred to. I would refer hon. members to the report of the Independent Review Committee of the office of the Auditor General of Canada.

In fact one of the recommendations in their report that struck me as being most valid was that the federal Auditor General for Canada might become actively involved in this area of endeavor, of performance auditing, of saying to the government, the Legislature, and the people affected that in fact, in our best j u d g m e n t , this money was not well spent. I can see how members on the government side could contrive this being an area that oppositions and people who want to be critical of the government would jump upon on every occasion.

Far more, I would rather challenge the members of the government side to say pretty frankly, the size of opposition we have in the Assembly at this time -- likely it isn't your fault but the fact is, it is impossible for the opposition to cover the whole water front. The situation of my colleagues is: each of them tries to monitor six or seven various government departments, receiving c o m p l a i n t s from people across the province in those areas, trying to have policy alternatives, in addition to his responsibilities to the Legislature.

Perhaps a government will never have a better time in Alberta when it's applying the concept of an auditor general to commit

November 13, 1975 ALBERTA HANSARD 1047 itself to the concept of performance auditing, and the concept of value received for expenditure of funds, than when it has a very large majority like it has now. An opposition of six people on this side, regardless of how hard it tries, certainly wouldn't be in a position to turf out the government in the middle of a term as a result of anything that might come out of this type of area. So I would urge the government and the members of the Assembly to resist the easy temptation of saying, we won't buy the concept of performance auditing.

I would urge them to think seriously in that particular area. There is provision in the legislation, Mr. Speaker, for the auditor general, in addition to reporting to the Assembly once a year, to report to the Assembly more often than that if, in his judgment, extreme circumstances develop. One other

section of the legislation I would like to deal with for a moment, Mr. Speaker, deals with the auditor general being dismissed. The suggestion that we've incorporated in the legislation here is an almost exact replica of the legislation in Nova Scotia where, in fact, if the auditor is to be dismissed, [there is] a procedure of the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition almost working in tandem as it were, and then this has to come before the full Legislative Assembly within 30 days.

That is a portion of the Nova Scotia legislation, and the last time I spoke to people in Nova Scotia it appeared to be working well. So I would commend to the members of the Legislative Assembly the principles outlined in this bill. I would commend to them the idea that perhaps, if this piece doesn't receive approval, we would be looking at some of this kind of legislation from the government side, hopefully in the spring session this year.

So that by a year from now we'd be in a position perhaps where all members of this Assembly could be rightfully proud of the fact that we've moved on the concept of an auditor general, that we've moved in a direction with d i s p a t c h , and that, yes, in Alberta we have indeed cut some new ground once again. That would be a commitment to the concept of performance auditing. MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a word or two on The Auditor General Act.

I'll start by saying that I opposed the principle of the auditor general when I was on the government side, as did the hon. member who just spoke, and I still oppose the principle. I can see no reason for it, and I can see several reasons against it. I want to outline those at this time. In the first place, the bill sets up a huge bureaucracy. An auditor general is appointed at a very high salary, probably at least as much as a provincial auditor, so there's $37,000 or $40,000. Then he's given a staff that's going to redo e v e r ything the auditor has already done.

He may station in any department any person e m p l o y e d in his office to enable him to more effectively carry out his duties. That means he could station somebody in every department of government to keep an eye on the minister on everything that's going on. In other words, he could set up, if he chose, a huge bureaucracy of spies to fish for something that might be wrong. Are we assuming things are so bad that we have to hire fishermen, place them in every department, and hope that one of them might catch a fish, or one that's bad? I can't see that principle.

I think responsible government doesn't require that type of thing. On the cost alone of this bureaucracy we are setting up, I could not support it. It's inflationary. It's c o n t r a r y to the principles that have been set out to try to stop inflation. It's setting up a bureaucracy. What they are going to do other than fish for something that's wrong, I, frankly don't know. I don't think there's any purpose in that type of thing in a Legislature in any province in Canada.

When I look at the Canadian government and find out what the Auditor General has done, and try to ask myself how much better is Canada, or how much better is its administration, because they spend several hundred thousands of dollars on a p o s t a u d i t for an auditor general, I can't see where we're better off at all. We would be a lot better off if he wasn't even there, in my view. I certainly don't want to have a similar set-up in the Province of Alberta. I don't believe in a post-audit. A post-audit can do nothing except tell you what has already gone on.

We already have the set-up in our legislation to do that if we want to do that type of thing. If there's something wrong with our ability to audit the accounts of this province, and there is some need to go into this -- which I failed to gather in the arguments advanced by the mover of the bill -- then there might be some merit in considering the appointment of an auditor general. But frankly, I can see no use, and I can see a lot of things that aren't useful at all. For instance, the hon. mover of the resolution mentioned Syncrude.

He said the government was not accountable -- at least he felt they were accountable but somehow or other, how he figured it out I don't know, they are not accountable for moneys invested in Syncrude, or moneys spent for PWA. I've never heard a minister of this government say they are not accountable for those sums of money. As a matter of fact, the Premier and several ministers have spent a lot of time showing how they are accountable for those moneys. More than that, the whole thing was placed above the table at the last provincial election.

The people had a complete view of the money being spent on Syncrude and PWA. It was done before the election and not after. The government could have been kicked out of office if the people of the province were not happy with the investments or the judgment of the government with regard to Syncrude and PWA. There are people in almost every c o n s t i t u e n c y who outlined what they thought was wrong about this, but the people still sent back a majority, supporting the

1048 ALBERTA HANSARD November 13, 1975 government who invested the money in Syncrude and PWA. How anybody comes to the conclusion that the government is not accountable for these large sums of money is beyond me; it escapes me. I can't see why anyone could properly say to any audience in this province that the government is assuming it's not accountable for those moneys. It is accountable for those moneys. It has assumed the accountability, and it must continue to assume the accountability. I have seen no effort on the part of the government to deny that or to get away from that accountability.

Assuming that the government was not accountable, assuming that the government said, we invest this money and it's none of your business, we'll do what we like with it, what would an auditor general do about it? What would he do about it? The money's invested. Can he get it back? Can he stop the transaction? No, not at all. All he can do is tell the general public that the government invested money that he thought was done in poor judgment. That's his opinion. But what more could he do?

So we're going to pay a huge sum of money for somebody to come and tell us what the government's already told the people and told the Legislature; that they've invested the money. There's nothing secret about it. The PWA account was done in accordance with legislation. I, frankly, think it was a good investment. I would have been happy, too, if the government could have taken over the CPR at the same time. We would have had a lot better transportation system in this country if something had been done about that. PWA was purchased, out in the open, with public money.

A full accounting was done in this House by the present Minister of Energy and Natural Resources. All the papers were laid. I went through them; I could find nothing wrong. Other members went through them and could apparently find nothing wrong. But if something is wrong, we have the availability to raise that matter in Public Accounts. The Public Accounts is there. They can spend the entire time on PWA if Public Accounts wishes or chooses to do so. It can't be hid.

The beginning of the difficulties with the former chairman of Alberta Housing could have been pursued in Public Accounts and could have avoided the public inquiry had Public Accounts decided to do so. It was started, but it was not followed. It was followed to a point where a public inquiry later took place. Had that public inquiry not taken place, Public Accounts could have -- if members still thought there was something wrong, and apparently there was something wrong according to the court cases -- pursued that to the point where court cases could have commenced.

But Public Accounts has the authority now to delve into any item of public expenditure, whether it's done by order in council, special warrant, or by appropriation made by the Legislature. So I can see no reason to set up another whole mass of machinery to go over the auditing that a very capable auditor has already done. The hon, mover of the resolution paid tribute to the former auditor and the present auditor, and I'd like to do so too. The former auditor gave the Public Accounts committee every help you wanted.

It didn't matter what any member raised; he was there to get you the details, the actual papers, and so on. The present auditor has already told us he's prepared to do the same thing. If we think there's something wrong with some of the papers, with some of the transactions, let's ask the auditor to produce them or the floor of the House for the Public Accounts c o m m i t t e e , and we can delve into them. We don't need to spend another $200,000, which would probably be a minimum of what an auditor general would cost the people of this province, to find out if there's something wrong. We have the set-up here.

Now, in our Financial Administration Act, there are definite responsibilities given to the auditor today. He's required, for instance to "maintain a system of pre-audit of all expenditures" -- not a post-audit, but a pre-audit before the expenditure is made. And that's when s o m e t h i n g can be done about it. I remember at one time when I was in Highways, the auditor sending an item back. He said, there's no money left in the vote, you can't go ahead with this expenditure. It was a pre-audit. Now, an auditor general, what would he have done in that case?

He would never have known it had happened unless the auditor told him, or unless he found out afterwards, but nothing could have h a p p e n e d . When I found out there was no money left in that particular vote, we simply cancelled that item. It was never carried out, because a pre-audit prevented that, and the auditor had every right to do that under the legislation; The Auditor shall maintain a system of pre-audit of all e x p e n d i t u r e s from the General Revenue Fund and shall from time to time and not less than once each year audit the revenues of the several departments.

Every appropriation account shall be examined by the auditor on behalf of, not the government, on behalf of the Legislative Assembly. That's his responsibility. In the examination of an a p p r o p r i a t i o n account, the auditor shall ascertain (

a) whether it is supported by proper documents or proofs of services having been rendered . . . (

b) whether the money being expended is being applied for the purposes for which the appropriation was intended. There is another section, if we go back to

Part 4 of Public Accounts, to make sure that that money was appropriated by the Legislature, because the government is responsible to the Legislature. The g o v e r n m e n t has no right to spend money unless it's appropriated by the Legislature, except in certain conditions, and they are

November 13, 1975 ALBERTA HANSARD 1049 set out by the Legislature in this Act, the conditions under which they may spend money which has not been appropriated by the Legislature. It's set out in detail. I'm not going to take the time to run through all the accounts, unless the hon. members want that done. But in my view, what I'm trying to prove at this point is that the present system of pre-audit is doing the job in this province. It is making sure that public money is spent properly, as a p p r o p r i a t e d by the Legislature.

If the j u d g e m e n t of some minister, which may happen in any government at times, is not as good as it should be, and money that has been appropriated has been spent in a way that the members of the Legislature are concerned about, then we have the real chance to explore further, to go into the details of that in the Public Accounts committee. In my view, that does give the people of this province protection in regard to the money of this province, to see that the money is properly spent.

Of course, at every election we have, there is an accounting of the government to the people of the province for the expenditures they have made. Supporters of the government are required to show to the general public that they have secured value for money expended. If they can't, the people know what they can do: they can vote for somebody else in whom they have greater confidence, or they can elect somebody else who is not supporting the government. We have those things in this country.

If we were in Moscow, where there's one party, and where there's no pre-audit and no post-audit, and no accounting to the people of moneys expended, then there might be some purpose in an auditor general over and above the present auditor as set out. So, Mr. Speaker, the other argument advanced by the hon. Leader of the Opposition was that the size of the opposition is a reason for the appointment of an auditor general. I have difficulty following that. The opposition is this size because the people of the province wanted it this size. It's just as simple as that. They didn't elect any other opposition.

If the people of the province want it that way, surely the people are supreme. They have spoken. It places, in my view, a greater responsibility on the government than if the House was approximately equal. It places a greater responsibility on each supporter of the government, the backbenchers, because they, too, now have a greater responsibility to make sure that money is expended properly, properly appropriated, a

Document details

Collection	Alberta — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	19751113
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	L18 S1 19751113 1430 01 han.pdf
Language	en
Format	json
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	7d918ff6380fb782dd14740ffee52ad3f237f348

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